MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245047832 · doi:10.24124/2005/bpgub1289

Norming of CBM reading and writing and DIBELS instruments for School District No. 57 (Prince George)

2005· dissertation· en· W4245047832 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Edward Cook

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluencyCurriculum-based measurementNorm-referenced testPsychologyNorm (philosophy)Mathematics educationCurriculumEquivalence (formal languages)School districtReading (process)MathematicsStatisticsPedagogyLinguisticsCriterion-referenced testStandardized testCurriculum developmentPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the development of a series of local norming Tables for Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) reading and writing measures and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) for use in Grades Kindergarten through 7 of School District 57 (Prince George). A total of 2420 students from 44 elementary schools participated in a total of three testing sessions that took place in the fall, winter and spring of the 2002/2003 school year. The method of sampling and data collection was explained. The quality of the data set was evaluated. Stability and equivalence coefficients were calculated for these measures. Equivalence of the probes used for both reading and writing subtests were assessed using Analyses of Variance procedures. A series of norm tables for Grades 1 to 7 for the fall, winter, and spring testing periods were generated for CBM measures entitled Words Read Correctly, Total Words Written, and Words Spelled Correctly. A series of norm tables for Grades 1 and Kindergarten were generated for DIBELS measures which included Letter Naming Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, Initial Sound Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency and Oral Reading Fluency. These analyses indicate that the CBM and DIBELS measures possess the technical qualities necessary for their use as intended by School District 57. The increases in the CBM norm values over their 1996 values illustrate the wisdom of the completion of this renorming study in 2003 and more generally the need for renorming studies to be done on a regular basis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207