Graney, Suzanne BamontoMartinez, Rebecca S.Missall, Kristen N.Aricak, O. Tolga2024-06-122024-06-1220100741-93251538-4756https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932509338371https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14551/23318Two curriculum-based measurement tools are commonly used to assess progress in reading in elementary school: R-CBM and CBM maze. R-CBM is used in practice more frequently than CBM maze is, although CBM maze is more time efficient to administer than R-CBM is. The technical adequacy of each of these measures has been reported in the literature; however, a comparative analysis of their technical adequacy has not been published. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical adequacy of R-CBM and CBM maze to inform their use in a universal screening program of reading in fourth and fifth grades. Results suggest evidence of short-and long-term alternate forms reliability, criterion validity, and predictive validity for both R-CBM and CBM maze, supporting the possibility that the two measures are comparable for use in universal screening at those grade levels.en10.1177/0741932509338371info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessPrereferral Intervention/RTIReading AssessmentCurriculum-Based MeasurementEvidence-Based PracticeElementary SchoolCurriculum-Based MeasurementEnglish LearnersValidityComprehensionProgressFluencyFitArticle315368377Q3WOS:0002817978000072-s2.0-77956623997Q1