Shin, Jaehyun2017-11-272017-11-272017-09https://hdl.handle.net/11299/191444University of Minnesota Ph.D. dissertation. September 2017. Major: Educational Psychology. Advisor: Kristen McMaster. 1 computer file (PDF); viii, 133 pages.The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of two widely used Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) in reading – oral reading and maze task – in relation to reading comprehension on state tests using a meta-analysis. A total of 61 studies (132 correlations) were identified across Grades 1 to 10. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the average correlations between the two CBMs and reading comprehension on state tests, and to analyze the effects of potential moderating variables (characteristics of study, students, CBM, and state tests). Results revealed that the average correlation for oral reading was significantly larger than that for maze when all grade levels were included together in the analysis. When grade levels were separated, the difference between average correlations was only at the higher grades (Grades 4-10), favoring oral reading. In terms of correlations by grade level, oral reading and maze showed a similar pattern; that is, correlations were comparable across elementary grades, but decreased for secondary grades. In addition to the type of CBM and grade level differences, type of publication, development type of state tests (commercial versus state-developed), and time interval between CBM and state tests were significant sources of variance in correlations. Implications for research and educational practice are discussed highlighting the somewhat different conclusions from previous literature, especially regarding the use of CBM for older students.enCurriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)MazeMeta-analysisOral readingReading comprehensionValidityThesis or Dissertation