Two assessments from AIMSweb®, Reading Curriculum-Based Measurement (R-CBM) and CBM Maze are commonly used as benchmarks to document and measure students' reading performance. The purpose of this study is to determine whether differing Maze scoring formulae (i.e., conventional scores, Maze adjusted accuracy scores, and formula scores) would aid in predicting the performance of students on a state standards reading test. The study included 579 students from 3rd through 5th grades from an intermediate elementary school in the rural Midwest. Students were administered R-CBM and CBM Maze benchmark assessments in the fall, winter, and spring. Additionally, students were administered the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress-Plus (ISTEP+) in the spring. Pearson correlations between scoring formulae for Maze, R-CBM, and ISTEP+ are reported. A stepwise hierarchical regression analysis was used to increase the predictive power by adding the three Maze scoring formulae with R-CBM scores to a regression model to further account for variance in students' ISTEP+ English/Language Arts scores. Finally, a binary logistic regression was used to predict a student's likelihood of obtaining a pass versus no pass score on the ISTEP+ using the three methods of scoring Maze as predictor variables. Results suggested all three Maze scoring formulae is strongly associated with R-CBM and performance on the ISTEP+ for all grade levels and is accurate in predicting students' pass versus no pass scores on the ISTEP+ English Language Arts subtest. Implications, limitations, and future directions are also addressed.