A Comparison of Priors When Using Bayesian Regression to Estimate Oral Reading Fluency Slopes

2021 ◽  
pp. 153450842110402
Author(s):  
Benjamin G. Solomon ◽  
Ole J. Forsberg ◽  
Monelle Thomas ◽  
Brittney Penna ◽  
Katherine M. Weisheit

Bayesian regression has emerged as a viable alternative for the estimation of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) growth slopes. Preliminary findings suggest such methods may yield improved efficiency relative to other linear estimators and can be embedded into data management programs for high-frequency use. However, additional research is needed, as Bayesian estimators require multiple specifications of the prior distributions. The current study evaluates the accuracy of several combinations of prior values, including three distributions of the residuals, two values of the expected growth rate, and three possible values for the precision of slope when using Bayesian simple linear regression to estimate fluency growth slopes for reading CBM. We also included traditional ordinary least squares (OLS) as a baseline contrast. Findings suggest that the prior specification for the residual distribution had, on average, a trivial effect on the accuracy of the slope. However, specifications for growth rate and precision of slope were influential, and virtually all variants of Bayesian regression evaluated were superior to OLS. Converging evidence from both simulated and observed data now suggests Bayesian methods outperform OLS for estimating CBM growth slopes and should be strongly considered in research and practice.

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore J. Christ ◽  
Christopher David Desjardins

Curriculum-Based Measurement of Oral Reading (CBM-R) is often used to monitor student progress and guide educational decisions. Ordinary least squares regression (OLSR) is the most widely used method to estimate the slope, or rate of improvement (ROI), even though published research demonstrates OLSR’s lack of validity and reliability, and imprecision of ROI estimates, especially after brief duration of monitoring (6-10 weeks). This study illustrates and examines the use of Bayesian methods to estimate ROI. Conditions included four progress monitoring durations (6, 8, 10, and 30 weeks), two schedules of data collection (weekly, biweekly), and two ROI growth distributions that broadly corresponded with ROIs for general and special education populations. A Bayesian approach with alternate prior distributions for the ROIs is presented and explored. Results demonstrate that Bayesian estimates of ROI were more precise than OLSR with comparable reliabilities, and Bayesian estimates were consistently within the plausible range of ROIs in contrast to OLSR, which often provided unrealistic estimates. Results also showcase the influence the priors had estimated ROIs and the potential dangers of prior distribution misspecification.


2000 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Hintze ◽  
Steven V. Owen ◽  
Edward S. Shapiro ◽  
Edward J. Daly

2010 ◽  
Vol 102 (3) ◽  
pp. 652-667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young-Suk Kim ◽  
Yaacov Petscher ◽  
Christopher Schatschneider ◽  
Barbara Foorman

2020 ◽  
pp. 153450842093780
Author(s):  
Joseph F. T. Nese ◽  
Akihito Kamata

Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) is widely used across the country as a quick measure of reading proficiency that also serves as a good predictor of comprehension and overall reading achievement, but has several practical and technical inadequacies, including a large standard error of measurement (SEM). Reducing the SEM of CBM-R scores has positive implications for educators using these measures to screen or monitor student growth. The purpose of this study was to compare the SEM of traditional CBM-R words correct per minute (WCPM) fluency scores and the conditional SEM (CSEM) of model-based WCPM estimates, particularly for students with or at risk of poor reading outcomes. We found (a) the average CSEM for the model-based WCPM estimates was substantially smaller than the reported SEMs of traditional CBM-R systems, especially for scores at/below the 25th percentile, and (b) a large proportion (84%) of sample scores, and an even larger proportion of scores at/below the 25th percentile (about 99%) had a smaller CSEM than the reported SEMs of traditional CBM-R systems.


2013 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott P. Ardoin ◽  
Theodore J. Christ ◽  
Laura S. Morena ◽  
Damien C. Cormier ◽  
David A. Klingbeil

1992 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 459-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark R. Shinn ◽  
Nancy Knutson ◽  
Roland H. Good ◽  
W. David Tilly ◽  
Vicki L. Collins

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document