The Utility of Curriculum-Based Measurement and Performance Assessment as Alternatives to Traditional Intelligence and Achievement Tests

Stephen N. Elliott, Lynn S. Fuchs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

32 Scopus citations

Abstract

Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and performance assessments (PA) can provide valuable data for making special education eligibility decisions. Both of these alternative assessment methods feature connections among curriculum, instruction, and assessment and offer educators more instructionally sensitive information than traditional intelligence (IQ) tests and achievement measures. In this article, we review applied research on both these assessment approaches and discuss the practical context of treatment validation and decisions about instructional services for students with diverse academic needs. We conclude that CBM is the better developed method and that results from PA should be conceptualized as supplemental to CBM. By combining the use of CBM and PA, practitioners can broaden their assessment focus to include skills acquisition as well as skills application and integration within authentic contexts. Moreover, they can avoid the negative valence frequently associated with IQ tests.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)224-233
Number of pages10
Journal School Psychology Review
Volume26
Issue number2
StatePublished - Dec 1 1997
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The Utility of Curriculum-Based Measurement and Performance Assessment as Alternatives to Traditional Intelligence and Achievement Tests'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this