Star Math

Math

Cost

Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs

Service and Support

Purpose and Other Implementation Information

Usage and Reporting

Initial Cost:

There is a one-time setup fee along with a per student subscription fee. Total cost will depend on the number of schools and students. Please contact: answers@renaissance.com or (800) 338-4204 for specific details on pricing for your district.

 

Replacement Cost:

No information provided; contact vendor for details.

 

Included in Cost:

Star Math is cloud-based and purchase includes the tool, software/technical manual, installation guide, testing instructions, and remote installation and setup.

 

Technology Requirements:

  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection

 

Training Requirements:

  • Less than 1 hour of training

 

Qualified Administrators:

  • No minimum qualifications

 

Accommodations:

Star Math is a computer-adaptive assessment, and the difficulty of items is adjusted automatically to reflect the skill level of the student. Students can use either the keyboard or the mouse, accommodating students with limited motor skills.  Star Math offers several accommodations for students with disabilities through the accessibility options built into a computer’s operating system. For students with limited vision, the introductory screens of Star Math respond to the “high contrast” accessibility feature within Windows and the “switch to black and white” accessibility feature in MAC OS. Star Math is compatible with Mac’s “zoom in” accessibility feature, which allows users to magnify nearly all Star Math screens. 

 

Where to Obtain:

Website: http://www.renaissance.com

Address: Renaissance Learning, PO Box 8036, Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54495

Phone number: (800) 338-4204     

Email address: answers@renaissance.com


Access to Technical Support:

Renaissance Technical Support Staff

Star Math is a computer-adaptive assessment of general mathematics achievement for students in grades 1 to 12. Star Math provides information on student performance on hundreds of skills within 32 domains. Mathematics computation, mathematic application, and mathematics concepts can be assessed. The difficulty of items is adjusted automatically to reflect the skill level of all students.

Assessment Format:

  • Direct: Computerized
  • Group administered

 

Administration Time:

  • 20 minutes per student
  • 20 minutes per total group

 

Scoring Time:

  • Scoring is automatic

 

Scoring Method:

All scores are calculated automatically by the software. The software calculates a maximum likelihood Rasch ability estimate based on the calibrated difficulty of the items that were administered to the student, and the pattern of the student’s right and wrong responses to those items. Star Math uses a proprietary, Rasch-based, 1-parameter logistic response model to calculate scores. The scaled score is a non-linear, monotonic transformation of the Rasch ability estimate resulting from the adaptive test. From the scaled scores and the student’s current grade placement are derived grade equivalent, percentile, and normal curve equivalent scores. No clusters, composite, or raw scores are reported.

 

Scores Generated:

  • Percentile score
  • Grade equivalents
  • IRT-based score
  • Normal curve equivalents
  • Scale score   
  • Student Growth Percentile 

 

Classification Accuracy

Grade1234567891011
Criterion 1 Falldashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdash
Criterion 1 Winterdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdash
Criterion 1 SpringHalf-filled bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleHalf-filled bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubble
Criterion 2 Falldashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdash
Criterion 2 Winterdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdash
Criterion 2 SpringdashHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleHalf-filled bubbledashdash

Primary Sample

 

Criterion 1 Spring

 

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Criterion

Smarter Balanced Math

Smarter Balanced Math

Smarter Balanced Math

Smarter Balanced Math

Smarter Balanced Math

Smarter Balanced Math

Smarter Balanced Math

Smarter Balanced Math

ACT Math

ACT Math

ACT Math

Cut points

Star PR = 25, SBA PR =20

Star PR = 25, SBA PR =20

Star PR = 25, SBA PR =20

Star PR = 25, SBA PR =20

Star PR = 25, SBA PR =20

Star PR = 25, SBA PR =20

Star PR = 25, SBA PR =20

Star PR = 25, SBA PR =20

Star PR = 25, PARCC PR =20

Star PR = 25, Aspire PR =20

Star PR = 25, ACT PR =20

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.11

0.17

0.17

0.16

0.15

0.15

0.16

0.18

0.18

0.16

0.17

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

0.13

0.21

0.19

0.16

0.20

0.19

0.20

0.22

0.22

0.20

0.21

False Positive Rate

0.06

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.10

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.14

013

0.14

False Negative Rate

0.31

0.26

0.29

0.31

0.24

0.22

0.26

0.29

0.40

0.39

0.40

Sensitivity

0.69

0.74

0.71

0.69

0.76

0.78

0.74

0.71

0.60

0.61

0.60

Specificity

0.94

0.90

0.92

0.94

0.90

0.91

0.90

0.89

0.86

0.87

0.86

Positive Predictive Power

0.57

0.59

0.64

0.71

0.58

0.61

0.60

0.57

0.50

0.47

0.48

Negative Predictive Power

0.96

0.94

0.94

0.94

0.95

0.96

0.95

0.93

0.91

0.92

0.91

Overall Classification Rate

0.91

0.87

0.88

0.90

0.88

0.89

0.88

0.86

0.81

0.83

0.82

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.93

0.92

0.93

0.93

0.93

0.93

0.92

0.89

0.85

0.86

0.85

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.89

0.91

0.92

0.92

0.92

0.93

0.91

0.89

0.80

0.84

0.82

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.96

0.93

0.94

0.93

0.94

0.93

0.92

0.90

0.89

0.89

0.87

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.82

0.79

0.81

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.77

0.72

0.56

0.66

0.59

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.87

0.85

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.89

0.86

0.82

0.71

0.76

0.74

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.93

0.91

0.92

0.93

0.93

0.93

0.92

0.88

0.80

0.83

0.82

 

Criterion 2 Spring

 

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Criterion

Not provided

MAP Math

PARCC Math

PARCC Math

PARCC Math

PARCC Math

PARCC Math

MAP Math

PARCC Algebra I

Not provided

Not provided

Cut points

Not provided

Star PR = 25, MAP PR =20

Star PR = 25, PARCC PR =20

Star PR = 25, PARCC PR =20

Star PR = 25, PARCC PR =20

Star PR = 25, PARCC PR =20

Star PR = 25, PARCC PR =20

Star PR = 25, MAP PR =20

Star PR = 25, Aspire PR =20

Not provided

Not provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

Not provided

0.14

0.31

0.27

0.30

0.34

0.32

0.23

0.26

Not provided

Not provided

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

Not provided

0.21

0.24

0.22

0.25

0.32

0.32

0.27

0.33

Not provided

Not provided

False Positive Rate

Not provided

0.14

0.06

0.07

0.09

0.12

0.14

0.12

0.20

Not provided

Not provided

False Negative Rate

Not provided

0.39

0.38

0.36

0.39

0.28

0.29

0.22

0.30

Not provided

Not provided

Sensitivity

Not provided

0.61

0.62

0.64

0.61

0.72

0.71

0.78

0.70

Not provided

Not provided

Specificity

Not provided

0.86

0.94

0.93

0.91

0.88

0.86

0.88

0.80

Not provided

Not provided

Positive Predictive Power

Not provided

0.41

0.83

0.78

0.74

0.76

0.70

0.66

0.55

Not provided

Not provided

Negative Predictive Power

Not provided

0.93

0.85

0.87

0.84

0.86

0.86

0.93

0.88

Not provided

Not provided

Overall Classification Rate

Not provided

0.82

0.84

0.85

0.82

0.83

0.81

0.86

0.78

Not provided

Not provided

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

Not provided

0.83

0.91

0.91

0.88

0.90

0.88

0.91

0.83

Not provided

Not provided

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

Not provided

0.78

0.90

0.90

0.87

0.89

0.87

0.88

0.79

Not provided

Not provided

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

Not provided

0.88

0.92

0.92

0.89

0.91

0.89

0.95

0.86

Not provided

Not provided

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

Not provided

0.54

0.75

0.76

0.69

0.73

0.69

0.78

0.54

Not provided

Not provided

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

Not provided

0.71

0.84

0.85

0.79

0.83

0.81

0.84

0.72

Not provided

Not provided

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

Not provided

0.79

0.91

0.92

0.86

0.90

0.87

0.90

0.81

Not provided

Not provided

 

 

Additional Classification Accuracy

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

 

Cross-Validation Sample

Criterion 2 Spring

 

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 9

Criterion

PARCC Math

PARCC Math

PARCC Math

PARCC Math

ACT Math

Cut points

Star PR = 25, PARCC PR =20

Star PR = 25, PARCC PR =20

Star PR = 25, PARCC PR =20

Star PR = 25, PARCC PR =20

Star PR = 25, PARCC PR =20

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.08

0.06

0.10

0.12

0.15

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

0.09

0.09

0.12

0.14

0.34

False Positive Rate

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.26

False Negative Rate

0.25

0.24

0.29

0.32

0.20

Sensitivity

0.75

0.76

0.71

0.68

0.80

Specificity

0.96

0.95

0.94

0.93

0.74

Positive Predictive Power

0.62

0.51

0.57

0.59

0.36

Negative Predictive Power

0.98

0.98

0.97

0.95

0.95

Overall Classification Rate

0.95

0.94

0.92

0.90

0.75

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.97

0.96

0.94

0.91

0.85

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower

0.95

0.95

0.92

0.89

0.80

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper

0.98

0.98

0.97

0.95

0.89

At 90% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.91

0.87

0.83

0.75

0.61

At 80% Sensitivity, specificity equals

0.93

1.00

0.89

0.90

0.74

At 70% Sensitivity, specificity equals

1.00

1.00

0.97

0.93

0.79

 

Reliability

Grade1234567891011
RatingFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubble
  1. Justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool:

The internal consistency reliability coefficient estimates the proportion of variability within a single administration of a test that is due to inconsistency among the items that comprise the test.

 

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

For each grade, a large sample (n = 131,103) of students completed Star Math assessments throughout the 2012–2013 and 2013–2014 school year.

 

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

Reliability was defined as the proportion of test score variance that is attributable to true variation in the trait the test measures.

The variance of the test scores was calculated from Scaled Score data. The variance of the errors of measurement was estimated from the conditional standard error of measurement (CSEM) statistics that accompany each of the IRT-based test scores, including the Scaled Scores. The conditional standard error of measurement (CSEM) was calculated along with the IRT ability estimate and Scaled Score. Squaring and summing the CSEM values yielded an estimate of total squared error; dividing by the number of observations yielded an estimate of error variance.

Generic reliability was calculated by subtracting the ratio of error variance to Scaled Score variance from 1.

 

  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

Generic

Grade 1

131,103

0.90

0.90, 0.90

Generic

Grade 2

131,103

0.91

0.91, 0.91

Generic

Grade 3

131,103

0.91

0.91, 0.91

Generic

Grade 4

131,103

0.92

0.92, 0.92

Generic

Grade 5

131,103

0.92

0.92, 0.92

Generic

Grade 6

131,103

0.93

0.93, 0.93

Generic

Grade 7

131,103

0.93

0.93, 0.93

Generic

Grade 8

131,103

0.93

0.93, 0.93

Generic

Grade 9

131,103

0.93

0.93, 0.93

Generic

Grade 10

131,103

0.94

0.94, 0.94

Generic

Grade 11

131,103

0.94

0.94, 0.94

Generic

Grade 12

131,103

0.95

0.95, 0.95

 

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

None

 

 

 

 

 

 

Validity

Grade1234567891011
RatingFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleHalf-filled bubbleFull 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:

All criterion measures were external to the screening tool system and represent widely used assessments of general math ability.

  • CAT-5. The California Achievement Test, is a nationally normed standardized test that measures achievement in mathematics.
  • NWEA MAP. Measures of Academic Progress offers an adaptive computerized test for Mathematics.
  • PARCC. The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers end-of-year assessment covers mathematics and is intended to be used as an indicator of student needs and progress.
  • SBA. Smarter Balanced assessments are summative tests designed to measure student achievement and growth in math to support teaching and learning.
  • ACT. The American College Testing college readiness assessment is a national standardized test for high school achievement and college admissions.
  • IA. Iowa Assessments provide standardized mathematics tests as a service to schools by the College of Education of the University of Iowa.
  • SAT. The SAT Math Test is a standardized test widely used for college admissions in the United States that covers a range of math practices, including problem solving, modeling, using tools strategically, and using algebraic structure.
  • M-CAP. The aimsweb Mathematics Concepts and Applications is a brief, standardized test of problem solving skills and elements included in typical math curriculum.

 

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

Samples included students who had taken both Star Math and the criterion measure. The sample sizes varied across criterion and grades, ranging from 17 to 10,800 students.

 

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

Concurrent and predictive correlations were calculated. A criterion assessment was considered concurrent if it was taken during the same school year as the Star Math assessment. The correlation was considered predictive if the criterion assessment was one school year or more after the Star Math assessment.

 

  1. 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

Concurrent

Grade 1

CAT-5

105

0.74

0.64-0.81

Concurrent

Grade 1

NWEA MAP

230

0.74

0.68-0.79

Concurrent

Grade 2

NWEA MAP

702

0.79

0.76-0.82

Concurrent

Grade 2

IA

279

0.81

0.77-0.85

Concurrent

Grade 3

PARCC

4,103

0.80

0.79-0.81

Concurrent

Grade 3

SBA

10,800

0.84

0.83-0.85

Concurrent

Grade 4

PARCC

4787

0.83

0.82-0.84

Concurrent

Grade 4

SBA

10,582

0.86

0.85-0.86

Concurrent

Grade 5

PARCC

4,266

0.79

0.78-0.80

Concurrent

Grade 5

SBA

9,750

0.86

0.85-0.86

Concurrent

Grade 6

PARCC

5,050

0.80

0.79-0.81

Concurrent

Grade 6

SBA

7,852

0.86

0.85-0.86

Concurrent

Grade 7

PARCC

4,368

0.77

0.85-0.87

Concurrent

Grade 7

SBA

6,344

0.86

0.85-0.86

Concurrent

Grade 8

PARCC

5,424

0.83

0.82-0.84

Concurrent

Grade 8

SBA

4,196

0.75

0.82-0.84

Predictive

Grade 9

SAT grade 11

928

0.76

0.73-0.79

Concurrent

Grade 9

M-CAP

68

0.81

0.71-0.88

Predictive

Grade 10

SBA grade 11

2,262

0.78

0.76-0.80

Predictive

Grade 10

SAT grade 11

17

0.89

0.72-0.96

Concurrent

Grade 11

SBA

3,685

0.72

0.71-0.74

Predictive

Grade 11

ACT

7,246

0.72

0.71-0.73

Predictive

Grade 1

ACT Aspire grade 3

3,000

0.70

0.68-0.72

Predictive

Grade 2

ACT Aspire grade 3

3,713

0.79

0.78-0.8

Predictive

Grade 3

SBA

17,898

0.67

0.66-0.68

Predictive

Grade 4

SBA

8,571

0.88

0.87-0.89

Predictive

Grade 5

SBA

8,595

0.88

0.87-0.89

Predictive

Grade 6

SBA

8,575

0.88

0.87-0.89

Predictive

Grade 7

SBA

4,066

0.80

0.79-0.81

Predictive

Grade 8

SBA

3,748

0.76

0.74-0.77

 

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

None provided

 

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

The provided data indicate that Star Math results correspond to other various respected measures of general mathematics ability.

 

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

None

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Not provided

 

Sample Representativeness

Grade1234567891011
RatingHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleHalf-filled bubbleFull bubbleHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubble

Primary Sample

Criterion 1 Spring

 

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Criterion

Smarter Balanced Math

Smarter Balanced Math

Smarter Balanced Math

Smarter Balanced Math

Smarter Balanced Math

Smarter Balanced Math

Smarter Balanced Math

Smarter Balanced Math

ACT Math

ACT Math

ACT Math

Representation

Pacific. CA, WA

New England, Pacific. CA, CT, OR, WA

New England, Pacific. CA, CT, OR, WA

New England, Pacific. CA, CT, OR, WA

New England, Pacific. CA, CT, OR, WA

New England, Pacific. CA, CT, OR, WA

New England, Pacific. CA, CT, OR, WA

New England, Pacific. CA, CT, OR, WA

East South Central, West South Central. AL, AR

East South Central, West South Central. AL, AR

East South Central, West South Central. AL, AR

Date

2014-2015 school year

2014-2015 school year

2014-2015 school year

2014-2015 school year

2014-2015 school year

2014-2015 school year

2014-2015 school year

2014-2015 school year

2009-2010,

2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2014-2015 school years

2009-2010,

2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2014-2015 school years

2009-2010, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 school years

Size

360

4,583

5,504

8,464

4,869

8,404

8,425

8,662

459

1,022

1,604

Male

47.80%

49.8%

50.90%

51.20%

51.80%

0.509

50.20%

51.40%

50.3%

50.2%

48.70%

Female

52.20%

50.10%

48.90%

48.50%

48.10%

48.90%

49.60%

48.10%

49.7%

49.8%

51.20%

Unknown

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.20%

0.20%

0.20%

0.20%

0.50%

Not Provided

Not provided

0.10%

Other SES Indicators

Unknown

Unknown

Not Provided

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Free or reduced-price lunch

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

White, Non-Hispanic

38.90%

27.70%

26.60%

37.40%

28.40%

38.60%

39.00%

39.80%

94.6%

76.0%

80.80%

Black, Non-Hispanic

1.70%

5.20%

4.90%

5.20%

4.40%

4.70%

5.40%

5.50%

2.0%

1.4%

1.00%

Hispanic

27.50%

39.20%

41.20%

32.60%

38.00%

31.00%

30.40%

29.60%

1.3%

4.2%

0.60%

American Indian/Alaska Native

0.00%

0.20%

0.10%

1.10%

0.40%

1.00%

1.30%

1.00%

1.3%

2.8%

1.80%

Asian/Pacific Islander

19.70%

14.00%

14.30%

13.20%

14.60%

13.60%

12.60%

12.60%

0.2%

1.0%

1.00%

Other

10.80%

3.80%

3.70%

3.60%

4.00%

3.60%

3.90%

3.40%

0.0%

0.0%

0.00%

Unknown

1.40%

9.90%

9.10%

6.90%

10.20%

7.50%

7.50%

8.10%

0.7%

14.6%

14.80%

Disability classification

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

First language

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Language proficiency status

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

 

Criterion 2 Spring

 

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9

Criterion

MAP Math

PARCC Math

PARCC Math

PARCC Math

PARCC Math

PARCC Math

MAP Math

PARCC Algebra I

Representation

Mountain (NM)

New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, West South Central, Mountain (CO, AR, RI, NJ, OH, IL, NM)

New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, West South Central, Mountain (CO, AR, RI, NJ, OH, IL)

 

New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, West South Central, Mountain (CO, AR, RI, NJ, OH, IL, NM)

New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, West South Central, Mountain (CO, AR, RI, NJ, OH, IL, NM)

New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, West South Central, Mountain (CO, AR, RI, NJ, OH, IL)

East North Central, Mountain. (NM, WI)

East North Central, West South Central, Mountain. Colorado, Arkansas, and Ohio

Date

2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 school years

2014-15 school year

2014-15 school year

2014-15 school year

2014-15 school year

2014-15 school year

2011-12 and 2012-13 school years

2014-15 school year

Size

478

3,611

3,986

3,616

4,099

3,988

300

734

Male

48.10%

52.40%

50.40%

50.80%

52.60%

52.80%

35.30%

51.20%

Female

51.50%

47.60%

49.50%

49.20%

47.30%

47.20%

36.30%

48.80%

Unknown

0.40%

0.00%

0.10%

0.00%

0.10%

0.00%

28.30%

0.00%

Other SES Indicators

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Free or reduced-price lunch

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

White, Non-Hispanic

0.20%

5.00%

9.20%

6.80%

6.60%

9.60%

4.70%

3.00%

Black, Non-Hispanic

0.00%

9.80%

13.70%

11.20%

11.80%

12.70%

0.00%

3.30%

Hispanic

47.50%

52.90%

45.80%

50.20%

53.40%

55.70%

25.70%

27.40%

American Indian/Alaska Native

0.00%

0.60%

0.70%

0.40%

0.30%

0.60%

0.00%

0.30%

Asian/Pacific Islander

0.00%

3.30%

2.60%

3.10%

2.70%

3.50%

0.00%

0.30%

Other

0.00%

1.90%

3.10%

2.50%

2.50%

2.10%

0.00%

0.70%

Unknown

52.30%

26.50%

24.90%

25.80%

22.80%

15.80%

69.70%

65.10%

Disability classification

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

First language

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Language proficiency status

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

 

 

Cross-Validation Sample

Criterion 2 Spring

 

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 9

Criterion

PARCC Math

PARCC Math

PARCC Math

PARCC Math

ACT Math

Representation

Middle Atlantic (NJ)

Middle Atlantic (NJ)

Middle Atlantic (NJ)

Middle Atlantic (NJ)

East South Central (AL)

Date

2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 school years

2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 school years

2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 school years

2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 school years

2011-12, 2013-14 school years

Size

733

738

741

689

421

Male

49.7%

51.6%

53.2%

52.7%

45.1%

Female

50.3%

48.4%

46.8%

47.3%

54.9%

Unknown

Not provided

Not provided

Not provided

Not provided

Not provided

Other SES Indicators

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Free or reduced-price lunch

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

White, Non-Hispanic

11.2%

12.6%

11.2%

11.2%

63.9%

Black, Non-Hispanic

6.4%

6.1%

8.1%

9.6%

0.0%

Hispanic

52.0%

512%

52.1%

53.1%

0.0%

American Indian/Alaska Native

0.3%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

4.0%

Asian/Pacific Islander

28.5%

28.2%

26.6%

24.1%

0.7%

Other

1.6%

1.6%

1.9%

2.0%

0.0%

Unknown

Not provided

Not provided

Not provided

Not provided

31.4%

Disability classification

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

First language

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Language proficiency status

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

 

Bias Analysis Conducted

Grade1234567891011
RatingYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
  1. Description of the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias:

Logistic regression analyses conditional on ability, group membership,

and ability by group interaction were conducted to assess the presence of both uniform and non-uniform DIF simultaneously. Additionally, an effect size measure – Nagelkerke R-squared – was computed to quantify the magnitude of DIF where present.

 

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

DIF analyses were conducted for gender (males and females) and race/ethnicity (Caucasian, African American, American Indian, Asian, and Hispanic subpopulations). Due to insufficient samples sizes on English Language Learner (ELLs) and students with disabilities (SWD), DIF analyses for these two subgroups were not possible at the time of the analyses.

 

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

Using a blended criterion that flagged items for uniform/non-uniform DIF if they had a p-value less than 0.01 and Nagelkerke R2 greater than or equal to 0.035, the results indicated that Star Math is sufficiently bias-free. A total of 391 items (4% of the Star Math items) were flagged for DIF. Those flagged items were removed from the item banks for review and recalibration.

 

Administration Format

Grade1234567891011
Data
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Administration & Scoring Time

    Grade1234567891011
    Data
  • 20 minutes
  • 20 minutes
  • 20 minutes
  • 20 minutes
  • 20 minutes
  • 20 minutes
  • 20 minutes
  • 20 minutes
  • 20 minutes
  • 20 minutes
  • 20 minutes
  • Scoring Format

    Grade1234567891011
    Data
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Types of Decision Rules

    Grade1234567891011
    Data
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • Evidence Available for Multiple Decision Rules

    Grade1234567891011
    Data
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No