A comparison of two quick methods for identifying low-progress readers: Teacher judgment versus curriculum-based measurement

Abstract

Teacher judgment (TJ) is frequently employed as the basis for selecting students in need of specialist help in reading. Two studies are presented in which TJ is compared with a quick alternative deriving from curriculum-based measurement (CBM) that has been shown to be both highly reliable and valid. In the first study, 32 teachers of year two to year six classes were required to categorise their students into the top 25%, middle 50% and bottom 25% for reading performance. Compared with categorisation based on the more objective CBM measure, the mean accuracy of TJ was 67%, varying between 29% and 100%. In the second study, 24 teachers of year one to year five classes were required to categorise ten randomly selected students from their classes into the top three, middle four and bottom three for reading performance. Similar results were obtained with mean accuracy of TJ at 65%, varying between 20% and 100%. Taken together, the findings of the two studies suggest that reliance on TJ for instructional decision-making may be misplaced and that a more objective, quick alternative based on CBM may be preferable.