Istation's Indicator's of Progress (ISIP)

Early Reading

Cost

Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs

Service and Support

Purpose and Other Implementation Information

Usage and Reporting

Initial Cost:

ISIP ER is priced at $5.95 per student per year.

 

Replacement Cost:

No information provided; contact vendor for details.

 

Included in Cost:

ISIP ER assessment packages includes online assessment, data hosting, reporting, teacher resources, online training center, user and manuals.

 

Technology Requirements:

  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection

 

Training Requirements:

  • 1-4 hours of training

 

Qualified Administrators:

  • Paraprofessionals
  • Professionals

 

Accommodations:

No information provided; contact vendor for details.

 

Where to Obtain:

Website: www.istation.com

Address: 8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 2000, Dallas, TX  75206

Phone number:

(866) 883 -READ

Email address: info@istation.com


Access to Technical Support:

By email and phone (M-F, 7:00 am - 6:30 pm CST)

 

ISIP Early Reading (ISIP ER) is a computer adaptive assessment of reading ability that automatically adjusts the difficulty of items delivered to limit the amount of frustration or boredom often associated with traditional assessments. ISIP ER includes comprehensive reporting for teachers and parents, as well as downloadable teacher-directed lesson and resources for differentiated instruction.  ISIP ER is intended to be used with students in grades K-3, and can be administered simultaneously to an entire classroom in approximately 30 minutes.

 

 

Assessment Format:

  • Direct: Computerized

 

Administration Time:

  • 30 minutes per student
  • 30 minutes per total group

 

Scoring Time:

  • Scoring is automatic

 

Scoring Method:

Ability scores are estimated using Bayesian EAP with an informative prior under a 2 PL unidimensional IRT model.  Reported scale scores are generated through a linear transformation of the raw IRT-based ability scores.  Abilities for each of the subskills (phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, alphabetic decoding, spelling, vocabulary, and comprehension) are estimated separately based on examinee response patterns to the items adaptively administered.  An overall ability is estimated after all of the appropriate subtests are given based on the responses from all items.

 

Scores Generated:

  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
  • IRT-based score       
  • Lexile score
  • Composite scores
  • Subscale/subtest scores

 

Classification Accuracy

Grade3
Criterion 1 FallHalf-filled bubbled
Criterion 1 WinterHalf-filled bubbled
Criterion 1 SpringHalf-filled bubbled
Criterion 2 Falldash
Criterion 2 Winterdash
Criterion 2 Springdash

Primary Sample

 

Criterion 1: ISIP Overall Reading and MAP Reading Scores

Time of Year: Fall

 

Grade 3

Cut points

ISIP - Tier 3: students perform seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention and MAP (LO) cut-points. All students are non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction as evidenced by progress monitoring.

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.36

Base rate in the sample for children considered at-risk, including those with the most intensive needs

0.37

False Positive Rate

0.29

False Negative Rate

0.05

Sensitivity

0.95

Specificity

0.71

Positive Predictive Power

0.29

Negative Predictive Power

0.99

Overall Classification Rate

0.74

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.94

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.93

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.95

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.81

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.90

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.96

 

Criterion 1: ISIP Overall Reading and MAP Reading Scores

Time of Year: Winter

 

Grade 3

Cut points

ISIP Tier 3: students perform seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention and MAP (LO) cut-points are used. All students are non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction as evidenced by progress monitoring.   

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.33

Base rate in the sample for children considered at-risk, including those with the most intensive needs

0.34

False Positive Rate

0.26

False Negative Rate

0.07

Sensitivity

0.93

Specificity

0.74

Positive Predictive Power

0.28

Negative Predictive Power

0.99

Overall Classification Rate

0.76

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.93

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.91

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.94

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.78

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.89

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.94

 

Criterion 1: ISIP Overall Reading and MAP Reading Scores

Time of Year: Spring       

 

Grade 3

Cut points

ISIP Tier 3: students perform seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention and MAP (LO) cut-points are used. All students are non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction as evidenced by progress monitoring.   

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.90

Base rate in the sample for children considered at-risk, including those with the most intensive needs

0.31

False Positive Rate

0.24

False Negative Rate

0.09

Sensitivity

0.91

Specificity

0.76

Positive Predictive Power

0.28

Negative Predictive Power

0.99

Overall Classification Rate

0.77

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.92

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.91

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.94

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.75

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.89

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.94

 

 

Additional Classification Accuracy

The following are provided for context and did not factor into the Classification Accuracy ratings.

 

Disaggregated Data

Criterion 1: ISIP Overall Reading and MAP Reading Scores

Time of Year: Fall

Subgroup: LEP

 

Grade 3

Cut points

ISIP Tier 3: students perform seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention and MAP (LO) cut-points are used. All students are non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction as evidenced by progress monitoring.

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.45

Base rate in the sample for children considered at-risk, including those with the most intensive needs

0.47

False Positive Rate

0.35

False Negative Rate

0.09

Sensitivity

0.91

Specificity

0.65

Positive Predictive Power

0.36

Negative Predictive Power

0.97

Overall Classification Rate

0.69

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.88

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.85

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.91

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.64

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.78

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.85

 

Criterion 1: ISIP Overall Reading and MAP Reading Scores

Time of Year: Winter

Subgroup: LEP

 

Grade 3

Cut points

ISIP Tier 3: students perform seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention and MAP (LO) cut-points are used. All students are non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction as evidenced by progress monitoring.

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.41

Base rate in the sample for children considered at-risk, including those with the most intensive needs

0.42

False Positive Rate

0.32

False Negative Rate

0.08

Sensitivity

0.92

Specificity

0.68

Positive Predictive Power

0.33

Negative Predictive Power

0.98

Overall Classification Rate

0.71

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.90

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.87

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.93

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.69

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.78

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.88

 

Criterion 1: ISIP Overall Reading and MAP Reading Scores

Time of Year: Spring

Subgroup: LEP

 

Grade 3

Cut points

ISIP Tier 3: students perform seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention and MAP (LO) cut-points are used. All students are non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction as evidenced by progress monitoring.

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.36

Base rate in the sample for children considered at-risk, including those with the most intensive needs

0.37

False Positive Rate

0.27

False Negative Rate

0.09

Sensitivity

0.91

Specificity

0.73

Positive Predictive Power

0.36

Negative Predictive Power

0.98

Overall Classification Rate

0.76

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.91

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.89

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.94

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.77

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.84

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.90

 

Cross-Validation Sample

 

Cross-Validation #1

Criterion: ISIP Overall Reading and MAP Reading Scores

Time of Year: Fall

 

Grade 3

Cut points

ISIP Tier 3: students perform seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention and MAP (LO) cut-points are used. All students are non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction as evidenced by progress monitoring.

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.37

Base rate in the sample for children considered at-risk, including those with the most intensive needs

0.47

False Positive Rate

0.30

False Negative Rate

0.06

Sensitivity

0.94

Specificity

0.70

Positive Predictive Power

0.27

Negative Predictive Power

0.99

Overall Classification Rate

0.73

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.92

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.91

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.94

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.74

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.89

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.94

 

Criterion: ISIP Overall Reading and MAP Reading Scores

Time of Year: Winter

 

Grade 3

Cut points

ISIP Tier 3: students perform seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention and MAP (LO) cut-points are used. All students are non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction as evidenced by progress monitoring.

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.33

Base rate in the sample for children considered at-risk, including those with the most intensive needs

0.44

False Positive Rate

0.27

False Negative Rate

0.08

Sensitivity

0.92

Specificity

0.73

Positive Predictive Power

0.27

Negative Predictive Power

0.99

Overall Classification Rate

0.75

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.92

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.91

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.94

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.76

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.88

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.94

 

Criterion: ISIP Overall Reading and MAP Reading Scores

Time of Year: Spring

 

Grade 3

Cut points

ISIP Tier 3: students perform seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention and MAP (LO) cut-points are used. All students are non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction as evidenced by progress monitoring.

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.31

Base rate in the sample for children considered at-risk, including those with the most intensive needs

0.32

False Positive Rate

0.24

False Negative Rate

0.09

Sensitivity

0.91

Specificity

0.76

Positive Predictive Power

0.29

Negative Predictive Power

0.99

Overall Classification Rate

0.77

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.93

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.91

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.94

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.79

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.88

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.93

 

Cross Validation #2

Criterion: ISIP Overall Reading and Scale Score English language arts (SS_ELA) of Georgia Milestones statewide exam

Time of Year: Fall

 

Grade 3

Cut points

ISIP Tier 3: students perform seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention and Scale Score English language arts (SS_ELA) of Georgia Milestones statewide exam Achievement Level 1: Beginning Learner cut-points are used. All students are non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction as evidenced by progress monitoring

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.33

Base rate in the sample for children considered at-risk, including those with the most intensive needs

0.36

False Positive Rate

0.21

False Negative Rate

0.14

Sensitivity

0.86

Specificity

0.79

Positive Predictive Power

0.49

Negative Predictive Power

0.96

Overall Classification Rate

0.80

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.88

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.84

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.92

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.60

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.85

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.90

 

Criterion: ISIP Overall Reading and Scale Score English language arts (SS_ELA) of Georgia Milestones statewide exam

Time of Year: Winter

 

Grade 3

Cut points

ISIP Tier 3: students perform seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention and Scale Score English language arts (SS_ELA) of Georgia Milestones statewide exam Achievement Level 1: Beginning Learner cut-points are used. All students are non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction as evidenced by progress monitoring

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.33

Base rate in the sample for children considered at-risk, including those with the most intensive needs

0.43

False Positive Rate

0.25

False Negative Rate

0.05

Sensitivity

0.95

Specificity

0.75

Positive Predictive Power

0.30

Negative Predictive Power

0.99

Overall Classification Rate

0.77

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.92

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.88

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.96

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.77

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.91

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.97

 

Criterion: ISIP Overall Reading and Scale Score English language arts (SS_ELA) of Georgia Milestones statewide exam

Time of Year: Spring

 

Grade 3

Cut points

ISIP Tier 3: students perform seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention and Scale Score English language arts (SS_ELA) of Georgia Milestones statewide exam Achievement Level 1: Beginning Learner cut-points are used. All students are non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction as evidenced by progress monitoring.

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.34

Base rate in the sample for children considered at-risk, including those with the most intensive needs

0.35

False Positive Rate

0.25

False Negative Rate

0.08

Sensitivity

0.92

Specificity

0.75

Positive Predictive Power

0.35

Negative Predictive Power

0.98

Overall Classification Rate

0.77

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.92

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.88

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.95

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.71

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.89

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.94

 

Cross Validation #3

Criterion: ISIP Overall Reading and Kansas Assessment Program: English Language Arts (KAP-ELA)

Time of Year: Fall

 

Grade 3

Cut points

ISIP Tier 3: students perform seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention and Kansas Assessment Program: English Language Arts (KAP-ELA) Level 2 cut-points are used. All students are non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction as evidenced by progress monitoring

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.44

Base rate in the sample for children considered at-risk, including those with the most intensive needs

0.45

False Positive Rate

0.35

False Negative Rate

0.07

Sensitivity

0.93

Specificity

0.65

Positive Predictive Power

0.31

Negative Predictive Power

0.98

Overall Classification Rate

0.69

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.89

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.87

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.91

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.65

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.83

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.90

 

Criterion: ISIP Overall Reading and Kansas Assessment Program: English Language Arts (KAP-ELA)

Time of Year: Winter

 

Grade 3

Cut points

ISIP Tier 3: students perform seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention and Kansas Assessment Program: English Language Arts (KAP-ELA) Level 2 cut-points are used. All students are non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction as evidenced by progress monitoring

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.45

Base rate in the sample for children considered at-risk, including those with the most intensive needs

0.47

False Positive Rate

0.38

False Negative Rate

0.09

Sensitivity

0.91

Specificity

0.62

Positive Predictive Power

0.27

Negative Predictive Power

0.98

Overall Classification Rate

0.66

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.89

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.87

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.91

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.70

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.83

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.88

 

Criterion: ISIP Overall Reading and Kansas Assessment Program: English Language Arts (KAP-ELA)

Time of Year: Spring

 

Grade 3

Cut points

ISIP Tier 3: students perform seriously below grade level and in need of intensive intervention and Kansas Assessment Program: English Language Arts (KAP-ELA) Level 2 cut-points are used. All students are non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction as evidenced by progress monitoring

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.45

Base rate in the sample for children considered at-risk, including those with the most intensive needs

0.47

False Positive Rate

0.37

False Negative Rate

0.11

Sensitivity

0.89

Specificity

0.63

Positive Predictive Power

0.31

Negative Predictive Power

0.97

Overall Classification Rate

0.67

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.88

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.86

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.91

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.68

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.84

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.88

 

Reliability

Grade3
RatingFull bubble

 1. Justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool:

Cronbach’s (1951) coefficient alpha is typically used as an indicator of reliability across test items within a testing instance. However, Cronbach’s Alpha is not appropriate for any IRT based measure because alpha assumes that all students in the testing instance respond to a common set of items. Due to its very nature, students taking a CAT-based assessment, such as ISIP Early Reading, will receive a custom set of items based on their initial estimates of ability and response patterns. Thus, students do not respond to a common set of items.

The IRT analogue to classical internal consistency is marginal reliability (Bock & Mislevy, 1982) and thus applied to ISIP Early Reading. Marginal reliability is a method of combining the variability in estimating abilities at different points on the ability scale into a single index. Like Cronbach’s alpha, marginal reliability is a unit less measure bounded by 0 and 1, and it can be used with Cronbach’s alpha to directly compare the internal consistencies of classical test data to IRT-based test data. IRT-based reliability is used in this study.

 

  1. Description of the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted:

Sample derived from the total population of students using the ISIP assessment throughout the 2014-2015 school year.  Large sample size ranges from 83,621 to 226,558 students across the United States.

 

  1. Description of the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability:

Istation derived IRT-based reliability from Classical Test Theory standpoint to Item Response Theory

 

  1. Reliability of performance level score (e.g., model-based, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability).

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

IRT-based reliability

K

183,144

0.98

 

IRT-based reliability

1

154,087

0.98

 

IRT-based reliability

2

226,558

0.97

 

IRT-based reliability

3

214,385

0.96

 

TIF/SE plots demonstrating the relative precision of the estimate are available upon request from NCII.

Disaggregated Reliability

The following disaggregated reliability data are provided for context and did not factor into the Reliability rating.

Type of Reliability

Subgroup

Age or Grade

n

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Not Provided

 

 

 

 

 

 

Validity

Grade3
RatingHalf-filled bubble

1.Description of each criterion measure used and explanation as to why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool:

Predictive Validities were conducted using the Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI), the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR)  were used as criterion.

 

TPRI is an assessment used in to measure early reading skills in primary grades.  ITBS is a standardized measure used to assess students’ reading ability success at grade level. STARR is the testing program for students in Texas public schools. STAAR Reading is the assessment used to determine whether students are successful in meeting the reading standards of their current grade and able to make academic progress from year to year.  ISIP ER was developed to measure the skills that are most predictive of students’ future reading success.  Since TPRI, ITBS and STAAR Reading are measures of reading ability and often determine students’ grade level success, it is important to understand the predictive validity of ISIP ER; used as a screener, when compared to these assessments.

 

2.Description of the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted:

Sample is derived from urban school districts in the northeast area of the state of Texas.  Sample size ranges from n=95 to 3,694.

 

3.Description of the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity:

The predictive validity study was conducted to determine how well ISIP measures predicted students' performance on other reading tests. The data were collected from one district in the State of Texas in 2007-2008 & 2012-2013 school years.  Each student had both ISIP reading ability scores and TPRI, ITBS and STAAR scores. SPSS software was used to conduct the analyses. Pearson Product-Moment correlation analysis, multiple linear regression, and multiple logistic regression were applied for each grade data by using SPSS software.

 

4.Validity for the performance level score (e.g., concurrent, predictive, evidence based on response processes, evidence based on internal structure, evidence based on relations to other variables, and/or evidence based on consequences of testing), and the criterion measures.

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Predictive Validity

K

TPRI

122

0.39

0.23, 0.53

Predictive Validity

1

ITBS Reading

103

0.81

0.73, 0.87

Predictive Validity

2

ITBS Reading

95

0.85

0.78, 0.89

Predictive Validity

3

STAAR

3,694

0.72

0.70, 0.74

 

5.Results for other forms of validity (e.g. factor analysis) not conducive to the table format:

Not Provided

 

6.Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool:

The results of these studies suggest moderate to strong relationships between ISIP ER TPRI, ITBS and STAAR Reading. Our findings also add to the evidence that ISIP Reading measures are predictive of students’ reading success across grades. The ISIP tests can be used as a prediction of how a student will score on TPRI, ITBS and STAAR.

 

Disaggregated Validity

The following disaggregated validity data are provided for context and did not factor into the Validity rating.

Type of Validity

Subgroup

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Not Provided

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Results for other forms of disaggregated validity (e.g. factor analysis) not conducive to the table format:

Not Provided

Sample Representativeness

Grade3
RatingFull bubble

Primary Classification Accuracy Sample

Representation

National (West South Central)

Date

June, 2016                                                 

Size

3,177                                                    

Male

53.7%

Female

46.3%

Unknown

0%

Other SES Indicators

83.7%

Free or reduced-price lunch

Not Provided

White, Non-Hispanic

1.5%

Black, Non-Hispanic

1.6%

Hispanic

78.1%

American Indian/Alaska Native

0.2%

Asian/Pacific Islander

18.2%

Other

0.4%

Unknown

0%

Disability classification

Not Provided

First language

Not Provided

Language proficiency status

29.3 students classified as LEP status and 70.7% were not.

 

Cross Validation Sample

Representation

West South Central. Urban school district in the state of Texas

Date

January, 2014                                               

Size

3,694                                                

Male

Not Provided

Female

Not Provided

Unknown

Not Provided

Other SES Indicators

Not Provided

Free or reduced-price lunch

Not Provided

White, Non-Hispanic

Not Provided

Black, Non-Hispanic

Not Provided

Hispanic

Not Provided

American Indian/Alaska Native

Not Provided

Asian/Pacific Islander

Not Provided

Other

Not Provided

Unknown

Not Provided

Disability classification

Not Provided

First language

Not Provided

Language proficiency status

Not Provided

 

Bias Analysis Conducted

Grade3
RatingYes

1.      Description of the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias:

Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis was conducted by grade level (K - 3) using logistic regression DIF detection analysis by difR package in R software.

 

2.      Description of the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted:

Four DIF factors were investigated: socioeconomic status, gender, race/ethnicity, and special education students.

 

3.      Description of the results of the bias analyses conducted, including data and interpretative statements:

Using Zumbo & Thomas (ZT) DIF criterion, results showed 97% displayed as A item (negligible or non-significant DIF effect), 2% displayed as B item (slightly to moderate DIF effect), and only 1% displayed as C item (moderate to large DIF effect).

Administration Format

Grade3
Data
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Administration & Scoring Time

    Grade3
    Data
  • 30 minutes
  • Scoring Format

    Grade3
    Data
  • Automatic
  • Types of Decision Rules

    Grade3
    Data
  • None
  • Evidence Available for Multiple Decision Rules

    Grade3
    Data
  • No