{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030705394190871368, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033195020746887966, 'mean_word_length': 5.554347826086956, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reliability of Computer-Based CBMs Versus Paper/Pencil Administration for Fact and Complex Operations in Mathematics

Computer-based curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is a relatively common practice, but surprisingly few studies have examined the reliability of computer-based CBM. This study sought to examine the reliability of CBM administered via paper/pencil versus the computer. Twenty-one of 25 students in two third-grade classes ( N = 21) participated in two generalizability studies. The primary facet of interest, format of assessment, was examined for two measures, a fact operation (fact family measure) and a more complex operation (multidigit addition). Researchers administered four alternate forms of each measure under both computer and paper/pencil conditions. Results indicated ideal reliability of measurement within all conditions and results were consistent across assessment formats for the fact operation. However, assessment format explained a large proportion of variance for the more complex skill (multidigit addition). Results indicate a need to consider the reliability of transitioning assessment from paper/pencil to computer-based response on a measure-by-measure basis.