This meta-analysis explored how measuring student progress toward long vs. short-term goals affects achievement outcomes. Twenty-one controlled studies were coded in terms of measuring method (toward long- vs. short-term goals) and type of achievement outcome (probe-like vs. global achievement test). Analogues to analysis of variance conducted on weighted unbiased effect sizes (UES) indicated an interaction: when progress was measured toward long-term goals, UESs on global measures were higher than on probe-like outcomes; when progress was measured toward series of short-term goals, the reverse was true. Implications for special education practice are discussed. (Author)