Abstract:The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the KeyMath Diagnostic Arithmetic Test and the California Arithmetic Test when used with children identified as having specific learning disabilities. The samples consisted of children in grades one through three enrolled in a diagnostic, prescriptive, remedial Resource Roos program for children with specific learning disabilities. These children were from three of the eight schools housing the program. Both tests were administered in late September and early October and again in May. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed for each pair of variables, as were 95% confidence intervals. The validity coefficients and the lover limits of the 95% confidence intervals were significant at least at the 0.05 level. The results suggest that there is a significant positive relationship between the Keydath and the California tests for the learning disabled population under study. (Author/SD) The KeyMath Diagnostic Arithmetic Test: Use with Learning Disabled Students Abstract Tho purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the KeyMith Diagnostic Arithmetic Test and the Cali-Tho purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the KeyMith Diagnostic Arithmetic Test and the California Arithmetic Test when used with children identified as having specific learning disabilities. The samples consisted of children in grades one through three enrolled in a diagnostic/prescriptive/ remedial Resource Room program for children with specific learning disabilities. These children were from three of the eight schools housing the program. Both tests were administered in late September and early October 1972 and again in May 1973. Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficients were computed for each pair of variables, as were 95% confidence intervals. The validity coefficients and the lower limits of the 95% confidence intervals were significant at least at the 0.05 level. The results suggest that there is a significant positive relationship between the KeyMath and the California for the learning disabled population under study. Various authors (Gronlund, 1971; Johnson and Myklebust, 1967; Jones, 1973; Lerner, 1971; Reisman, 1972) agree that diagnosis and evaluation should he available to students and should be used in planning an educational program for each individual. Included in the diagnosis should be both assessment of how the child learns (learning modalities, learning styles) and how much he has achieved in each of the academic areas. Evaluation should be continual so that program plans may be changed as necessary toward achieving whatever educational goals have been set. There is much writing to be found in learning disabilities literature that focuses on perceptual development, language development, and reading, but relatively little available on arithmetic disabilities and their diagnosis. The California Arithmetic Test (CAT) (Tiegs & Clark, 1963) has been widely used as an achievement measure. An advantage of this test has been the "Diagnostic Analysis of Learning Difficulties" which catagorizes the items and thus provides a g.oss approximation of strengths and weaknesses. This and other standardized measures provide questionable results when administered to children in special education programs if normative data on such groups have not been established. Even when data is available on samples of handicapped children, the lack of national agreement on definitive identifiable characteristics and the inconsistency in labeling of groups such as emotionally disturbed, brain injured, learning disabled, dyslexic, etc. make generalization of test data dubious. Although use of criterionreferenced rather than norm-referenced tests has been proposed (Prager & Mann, 1973), the need for norm-referenced data to determine large scale program accountability in the public schools makes the rejection of norm-referenced measures unlikely. There is need for instruments that provide maximum achievement and diagnostic data and that can be administered by regular school personnel with a minimum of training. The KeyMath Diagnostic Arithmetic Test (Connolly, Natchman, & Pritchett, 1971) offers an alternative to the CAT.

Curriculum Based Measurement Maze: A Review

Validating a Reading Assessment Within the Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment Framework: Q-Matrix Construction and Model Comparisons for Different Primary Grades

The use of mazes over time in Spanish heritage speakers in the US

Rodent maze studies: from following simple rules to complex map learning

Measuring academic skill development for students with autism spectrum disorder using curriculum‐based measurement: A scoping review and call for research

Assessing Efficiency in Education: The Imperative of Curriculum-Based Measurements

Early grade curriculum-based reading measures for students with intellectual disability

Comparing Schedules of Progress Monitoring Using Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading: A Replication Study

The Bead Maze Hand Function Test for Children

Lessons in cognition: A review of maze designs and procedures used to measure spatial learning in fish

The Basics of CBM: What BCBAs Need to Know

Constructing and Validating a Q-Matrix for Cognitive Diagnostic Analyses of a Reading Test

Understanding Humans' Strategies in Maze Solving

Renovating the Barnes maze for mouse models of Dementia with STARR FIELD: A 4-day protocol that probes learning rate, retention and cognitive flexibility.

A Comparative Investigation of the Rasch/Guttman Scenario Approach: Measuring Learning Motivation Toward Mathematics in Elementary School

The KeyMath Diagnostic Arithmetic Test: Use with Learning Disabled Students

A computer adaptive measure of reading motivation

Review of computer-based assessment for learning in elementary and secondary education

Diagnosing Primary Students’ Reading Progression: is Cognitive Diagnostic Computerized Adaptive Testing the Way Forward?

Application of a Cognitive Diagnostic Model to a High-Stakes Reading Comprehension Test

Evaluating validity and bias for hand-calculated and automated written expression curriculum-based measurement scores