easyCBM

Passage Reading Fluency

Cost

Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs

Service and Support

Purpose and Other Implementation Information

Usage and Reporting

Initial Cost:

$5 per student per year*

*In Year 1 of subscription, buyers must complete three training webinars. One webinar is provided at no charge and the remaining two cost $200 each.

 

Replacement Cost:

$5 per student per year.

Annual license renewal fee subject to change.

 

Included in Cost:

easyCBM is available through Houghton Mifflin Harcourt on an annual subscription license for districts. The price includes manuals and use of the assessments.

 

easyCBM is also available directly through the University of Oregon for individual classroom teacher use (limited to one teacher per building, maximum of 200 students). This teacher subscription includes the online training that is part of the system.

 

Teachers have unlimited access to the system and reports. For Passage Reading Fluency, students read a passage aloud and teachers monitor/track their errors. Training is available within the system.

 

Technology Requirements:

  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection

 

Training Requirements:

  • Less than 1 hour of training

 

Qualified Administrators:

  • Paraprofessionals
  • Professionals

 

Accommodations:

All measures were developed following Universal Design for Assessment guidelines to reduce the need for accommodations. However, districts are directed to develop their own practices for accommodations as needed.

Where to Obtain:

Contact Information for Districts:

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Website:

http://www.hmhco.com/hmh-assessments/response-to-intervention/easycbm

Address:

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Attention Customer Experience Support—Assessments, 255 38th Avenue, Suite L, St. Charles, IL  60174

Phone Number:

800.323.9540

Email:

easyCBM@hmhco.com


Contact Information for Individual Teachers:

Website:
www.easyCBM.com   

Address:

BRT, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403

Phone Number:
541.346.3535

Email:
support@easycbm.com   


Access to Technical Support:

Help desk via email and phone.

easyCBM® is a web-based assessment system that includes both benchmarking and progress monitoring assessments combined with a comprehensive array of reports. The assessments in easyCBM are curriculum-based general outcome measures, or CBMs, which are standardized measures that sample from a year’s worth of curriculum to assess the degree to which students have mastered the skills and knowledge deemed critical at each grade level.

 

In Grades K–8, easyCBM provides three forms of a screening measure to be used locally for establishing benchmarks and multiple forms (generally 17 in reading) to be used to monitor progress. All measures have been developed with reference to specific content in reading (National Reading Panel) and developed using Item Response Theory (IRT).

 

Assessment Format:

  • Individual

 

Administration Time:

  • 1 minute per student

 

Scoring Time:

  • 1 minute per student*

*Teachers can enter the student responses directly in a computer or tablet while administering the measure to eliminate scoring time.     

 

Scoring Method:

  • Calculated manually
  • Calculated automatically

 

Scores Generated:

  • Percentile Score
  • Raw Score

 

 

Reliability

Grade12345678
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

Justify the appropriateness of each type of reliability reported:

Three studies were conducted to provide technical evidence to support the use of this measure as part of RTI programs. The authors evaluated slope reliability because of the importance of having a reliable estimate of growth for measures being used to measure student learning across the year. They evaluated test-retest reliability to analyze the stability of the scores when administered over a short timeframe. They evaluated alternate form reliability because of the importance of having forms of comparable difficulty when using measures to screen students at different time points in the school year. They conducted a G-Theory study and a D-Study to gather additional evidence of comparability of forms and a D-Study to provide information about the number of forms required to arrive at a reliable estimate of student knowledge/skill (results indicated that a single form provides a sufficiently reliable estimate).

 

Describe the sample characteristics for each reliability analysis conducted:

Slope Reliability – database of users with student scores from 2010–2011 school year for students with at least 3 observed scores. See below for specific sample sizes for each analysis.

Test-retest Reliability – Students in mid-sized school district in Pacific Northwest in spring 2011; For Grade 8, students in a mid-sized K–8 school in the Pacific Northwest in 2009. See below for specific sample sizes for each analysis.

Alternate Forms Reliability – Students in mid-sized school district in Pacific Northwest in spring 2011; For Grade 8, students in a mid-sized K–8 school in the Pacific Northwest in 2009. See below for specific sample sizes for each analysis.

Generalizability – Students in mid-sized school district in Pacific Northwest in spring 2011 See below for specific sample sizes for each analysis.

 

Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability:

Slope Reliability: This study aimed to estimate the reliability of the slope for three easyCBM measures. Under a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework, a growth model with two parallel growth processes was used. Essentially, two linear growth models were simultaneously modeled. The two parallel growth processes were established by splitting the available time segments into two groups. One group of time segments was used to form one linear growth process, and another group of time segments was used to form another linear growth process. For each linear growth process, the individual slopes of growth were estimated as factor scores of the latent slope factor. Then, the correlation between individual slopes from the two parallel growth processes was computed as an estimate of the reliability of the growth slope. The Spearman-Brown formula was then used to correct the correlation coefficient because each process had only half the available time represented.

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

N

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Slope reliability

Grade 1

810

0.711

 

Slope reliability

Grade 2

385

0.865

 

Slope reliability

Grade 3

966

0.805

 

Slope reliability

Grade 4

1,020

0.820

 

Slope reliability

Grade 5

1,146

0.841

 

Slope reliability

Grade 6

411

0.775

 

Slope reliability

Grade 7

393

0.805

 

Slope reliability

Grade 8

287

0.495

 

Test-retest

Grade 1

19-42

0.83-0.98

 

Test-retest

Grade 2

34-50

0.88-0.96

 

Test-retest

Grade 3

17-53

0.84-0.94

 

Test-retest

Grade 4

20-74

0.86-0.96

 

Test-retest

Grade 5

19-87

0.88-0.94

 

Test-retest*

Grade 8

48-598

0.91

 

Alternate Form

Grade 1

19-42

0.93-0.98

 

Alternate Form

Grade 2

34-50

0.91-0.95

 

Alternate Form

Grade 3

17-53

0.92-0.96

 

Alternate Form

Grade 4

20-74

0.83-0.96

 

Alternate Form

Grade 5

19-87

0.85-0.98

 

Alternate Form*

Grade 8

48-59

0.87-0.95

 

Generalizability

Grade 1

19-42

0.91-0.99

 

Generalizability

Grade 2

34-50

0.97-0.98

 

Generalizability

Grade 3

17-53

0.95-0.97

 

Generalizability

Grade 4

20-74

0.94-0.98

 

Generalizability

Grade 5

19-87

0.90-0.97

 

* 2009 study

Validity

Grade12345678
RatingHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubbleFull bubbledFull bubbledFull bubbledHalf-filled bubbledHalf-filled bubbledHalf-filled bubbled

Describe and justify the criterion measures used to demonstrate validity:

The reading portion of the Washington state summative test was used for all criterion-related validity evidence. Washington is part of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, and the corresponding state test was used.

 

Describe the sample characteristics for each validity analysis conducted:

The sample size for each grade is listed in the table below. Across grades, approximately 40–48% of students were male (7–21% missing data); 8–10% of students received special education services; 23–31% received free or reduced price lunch; and 6–10% received English language services.

 

Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity:

Scores from each measure were correlated with their corresponding Smarter Balanced Assessment scores. See pages 30–31 in the article, “The Relation Between easyCBM and Smarter Balanced Reading and Mathematics Assessments,” for plots of the relation.

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

N

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Predictive criterion validity (Fall)

Grade 3

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)

1244

0.65

0.61-0.69

Predictive criterion validity (Winter)

Grade 3

SBAC

1280

0.67

0.63-0.71

Concurrent criterion validity (Spring)

Grade 3

SBAC

1303

0.67

0.63-0.71

Predictive criterion validity (Fall)

Grade 4

SBAC

1445

0.64

0.60-0.68

Predictive criterion validity (Winter)

Grade 4

SBAC

1489

0.63

0.59-0.67

Concurrent criterion validity (Spring)

Grade 4

SBAC

1520

0.64

0.60-0.68

Predictive criterion validity (Fall)

Grade 5

SBAC

1539

0.68

0.64-0.71

Predictive criterion validity (Winter)

Grade 5

SBAC

1575

0.68

0.64-0.71

Concurrent criterion validity (Spring)

Grade 5

SBAC

1593

0.67

0.62-0.70

Predictive criterion validity (Fall)

Grade 6

SBAC

1467

0.61

0.57-0.65

Predictive criterion validity (Winter)

Grade 6

SBAC

1494

0.63

0.59-0.67

Concurrent criterion validity (Spring)

Grade 6

SBAC

1500

0.62

0.58-0.66

Predictive criterion validity (Fall)

Grade 7

SBAC

1415

0.62

0.57-0.66

Predictive criterion validity (Winter)

Grade 7

SBAC

1463

0.63

0.59-0.67

Concurrent criterion validity (Spring)

Grade 7

SBAC

1478

0.62

0.58-0.66

Predictive criterion validity (Fall)

Grade 8

SBAC

1475

0.57

0.53-0.61

Predictive criterion validity (Winter)

Grade 8

SBAC

1535

0.60

0.56-0.64

Concurrent criterion validity (Spring)

Grade 8

 

SBAC

1526

0.62

0.58-0.66

Concurrent

Grade 1

Reading Passage Fluency

180

0.57

 

Concurrent

Grade 2

Reading Passage Fluency

205

0.003

 

Concurrent

Grade 3

Reading Passage Fluency

2146

0.45

 

Concurrent

Grade 4

Reading Passage Fluency

2194

0.43

 

Concurrent

Grade 5

Reading Passage Fluency

2368

0.42

 

Concurrent

Grade 6

Reading Passage Fluency

1154

0.44

 

Concurrent

Grade 7

Reading Passage Fluency

2375

0.48

 

Concurrent

Grade 8

Reading Passage Fluency

2357

0.37

 

Predictive (Fall)

Grade 1

SAT 10

159

0.40

 

Predictive (Winter)

Grade 1

SAT 10

177

0.47

 

Predictive (Fall)

Grade 2

SAT 10

205

0.04

 

Predictive (Winter)

Grade 2

SAT 10

205

0.05

 

Predictive (Fall)

Grade 3

Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS)

2145

0.45

 

Predictive (Winter)

Grade 3

OAKS

2232

0.44

 

Predictive (Fall)

Grade 4

OAKS

2211

0.45

 

Predictive (Winter)

Grade 4

OAKS

2153

0.41

 

Predictive (Fall)

Grade 5

OAKS

2331

0.45

 

Predictive (Winter)

Grade 5

OAKS

2269

0.43

 

Predictive (Fall)

Grade 6

OAKS

1134

0.42

 

Predictive (Winter)

Grade 6

OAKS

1057

0.42

 

Predictive (Fall)

Grade 7

OAKS

2255

0.44

 

Predictive (Winter)

Grade 7

OAKS

2273

0.47

 

Predictive (Fall)

Grade 8

OAKS

2269

0.46

 

Predictive (Winter)

Grade 8

OAKS

2296

0.43

 

Construct

Grade 1

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

412 – 876

0.084 - 0.136

 

Construct

Grade 2

CFA

1685 – 1973

0.019 - 0.035

 

Construct

Grade 3

CFA

1865 – 1839

0.022 - 0.026

 

Construct

Grade 4

CFA

1820 – 2046

0.023 - 0.027

 

Construct

Grade 5

CFA

1962 - 2119

0.023 - 0.025

 

Construct

Grade 6

CFA

2271 - 2366

0.023 - 0.025

 

Construct

Grade 7

CFA

3406 - 3493

0.020 - 0.022

 

Construct

Grade 8

CFA

3548

0.024

 

 

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

Across grades, the concurrent and predictive validity evidence is strong, ranging from 0.54 to 0.68. These values correspond to the easyCBM measures accounting for approximately 29–46% of the total variance in the statewide assessment.

 

Disaggregated Validity Data

Type of Validity

Subgroup

Age or Grade

n

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Concurrent

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 3

35

0.50

 

Concurrent

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 3

79

0.41

 

Concurrent

Black

Grade 3

43

0.45

 

Concurrent

Hispanic

Grade 3

342

0.44

 

Concurrent

White

Grade 3

1552

0.44

 

Concurrent

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 3

57

0.54

 

Concurrent

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 4

45

0.53

 

Concurrent

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 4

75

0.38

 

Concurrent

Black

Grade 4

5

0.35

 

Concurrent

Hispanic

Grade 4

347

0.39

 

Concurrent

White

Grade 4

1547

0.43

 

Concurrent

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 4

95

0.51

 

Concurrent

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 5

49

0.31

 

Concurrent

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 5

97

0.46

 

Concurrent

Black

Grade 5

53

0.54

 

Concurrent

Hispanic

Grade 5

369

0.40

 

Concurrent

White

Grade 5

1662

0.42

 

Concurrent

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 5

90

0.37

 

Concurrent

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 6

36

0.39

 

Concurrent

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 6

30

0.41

 

Concurrent

Black

Grade 6

24

0.32

 

Concurrent

Hispanic

Grade 6

157

0.46

 

Concurrent

White

Grade 6

800

0.44

 

Concurrent

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 6

50

0.57

 

Concurrent

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 7

19

0.50

 

Concurrent

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 7

130

0.50

 

Concurrent

Black

Grade 7

151

0.39

 

Concurrent

Hispanic

Grade 7

614

0.42

 

Concurrent

White

Grade 7

1453

0.48

 

Concurrent

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 7

71

0.49

 

Concurrent

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 8

27

0.44

 

Concurrent

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 8

110

0.51

 

Concurrent

Black

Grade 8

67

0.36

 

Concurrent

Hispanic

Grade 8

629

0.39

 

Concurrent

White

Grade 8

1411

0.45

 

Concurrent

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 8

44

0.38

 

Predictive (Fall)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 3

35

0.39

 

Predictive (Fall)

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 3

80

0.39

 

Predictive (Fall)

Black

Grade 3

40

0.42

 

Predictive (Fall)

Hispanic

Grade 3

339

0.46

 

Predictive (Fall)

White

Grade 3

1550

0.43

 

Predictive (Fall)

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 3

60

0.39

 

Predictive (Fall)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 4

45

0.40

 

Predictive (Fall)

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 4

78

0.39

 

Predictive (Fall)

Black

Grade 4

45

0.33

 

Predictive (Fall)

Hispanic

Grade 4

375

0.44

 

Predictive (Fall)

White

Grade 4

1540

0.45

 

Predictive (Fall)

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 4

94

0.43

 

Predictive (Fall)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 5

48

0.33

 

Predictive (Fall)

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 5

94

0.46

 

Predictive (Fall)

Black

Grade 5

48

0.69

 

Predictive (Fall)

Hispanic

Grade 5

94

0.44

 

Predictive (Fall)

White

Grade 5

49

0.44

 

Predictive (Fall)

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 5

380

0.46

 

Predictive (Fall)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 6

32

0.46

 

Predictive (Fall)

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 6

30

0.38

 

Predictive (Fall)

Black

Grade 6

24

0.46

 

Predictive (Fall)

Hispanic

Grade 6

143

0.45

 

Predictive (Fall)

White

Grade 6

750

0.41

 

Predictive (Fall)

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 6

47

0.40

 

Predictive (Fall)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 7

18

0.51

 

Predictive (Fall)

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 7

121

0.43

 

Predictive (Fall)

Black

Grade 7

47

0.41

 

Predictive (Fall)

Hispanic

Grade 7

583

0.39

 

Predictive (Fall)

White

Grade 7

1384

0.44

 

Predictive (Fall)

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 7

72

0.37

 

Predictive (Fall)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 8

22

0.44

 

Predictive (Fall)

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 8

111

0.44

 

Predictive (Fall)

Black

Grade 8

60

0.48

 

Predictive (Fall)

Hispanic

Grade 8

605

0.40

 

Predictive (Fall)

White

Grade 8

1381

0.44

 

Predictive (Fall)

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 8

43

0.36

 

Predictive (Winter)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 3

36

0.46

 

Predictive (Winter)

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 3

80

0.38

 

Predictive (Winter)

Black

Grade 3

45

0.49

 

Predictive (Winter)

Hispanic

Grade 3

345

0.45

 

Predictive (Winter)

White

Grade 3

1613

0.42

 

Predictive (Winter)

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 3

61

0.45

 

Predictive (Winter)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 4

45

0.42

 

Predictive (Winter)

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 4

76

0.38

 

Predictive (Winter)

Black

Grade 4

47

0.40

 

Predictive (Winter)

Hispanic

Grade 4

334

0.40

 

Predictive (Winter)

White

Grade 4

1529

0.41

 

Predictive (Winter)

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 4

96

0.45

 

Predictive (Winter)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 5

47

0.37

 

Predictive (Winter)

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 5

94

0.40

 

Predictive (Winter)

Black

Grade 5

48

0.62

 

Predictive (Winter)

Hispanic

Grade 5

329

0.40

 

Predictive (Winter)

White

Grade 5

1618

0.42

 

Predictive (Winter)

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 5

90

0.37

 

Predictive (Winter)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 6

31

0.33

 

Predictive (Winter)

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 6

28

0.31

 

Predictive (Winter)

Black

Grade 6

21

0.10

 

Predictive (Winter)

Hispanic

Grade 6

138

0.45

 

Predictive (Winter)

White

Grade 6

739

0.43

 

Predictive (Winter)

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 6

44

0.44

 

Predictive (Winter)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 7

18

0.55

 

Predictive (Winter)

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 7

123

0.51

 

Predictive (Winter)

Black

Grade 7

48

0.38

 

Predictive (Winter)

Hispanic

Grade 7

587

0.41

 

Predictive (Winter)

White

Grade 7

1395

0.44

 

Predictive (Winter)

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 7

69

0.42

 

Predictive (Winter)

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 8

23

0.42

 

Predictive (Winter)

Asian/Pacific Islander

Grade 8

111

0.47

 

Predictive (Winter)

Black

Grade 8

61

0.45

 

Predictive (Winter)

Hispanic

Grade 8

620

0.38

 

Predictive (Winter)

White

Grade 8

1379

0.43

 

Predictive (Winter)

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 8

44

0.34

 

 

Bias Analysis Conducted

Grade12345678
RatingNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo

Have additional analyses been conducted to establish whether the tool is or is not biased against demographic subgroups (e.g., students who vary by race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)?

Bias Analysis Method: No qualifying evidence provided.

Subgroups Included: No qualifying evidence provided.

Bias Analysis Results: No qualifying evidence provided.

Sensitivity: Reliability of the Slope

Grade12345678
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbledEmpty bubbledEmpty bubbledEmpty bubbledEmpty bubbledEmpty bubbled

Describe the sample used for analyses, including size and characteristics:

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

Describe the frequency of measurement:

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

Describe reliability of the slope analyses conducted with a population of students in need of intensive intervention:

No qualifying evidence provided.

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Slope

Grade 1

171

0.93

 

Slope

Grade 2

550

0.75

 

Slope

Grade 3

547

0.36

 

Slope

Grade 4

572

0.33

 

Slope

Grade 5

584

0.19

 

Slope

Grade 6

272

0.45

 

Slope

Grade 7

563

0.32

 

Slope

Grade 8

575

0.03

 

 

Disaggregated Reliability Data

Type of Reliability

Subgroup

Age or Grade

n

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Slope

Multi-ethnic

Grade 3

13

0.17

 

Slope

White

Grade 3

344

0.27

 

Slope

Hispanic

Grade 3

113

0.37

 

Slope

Black

Grade 3

12

0.50

 

Slope

Asian

Grade 3

9

0.31

 

Slope

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 3

12

0.55

 

Slope

Multi-ethnic

Grade 4

26

0.24

 

Slope

White

Grade 4

365

0.33

 

Slope

Hispanic

Grade 4

111

0.42

 

Slope

Black

Grade 4

14

0.22

 

Slope

Asian

Grade 4

6

0.86

 

Slope

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 4

12

0.43

 

Slope

Multi-ethnic

Grade 5

15

0.68

 

Slope

White

Grade 5

364

0.23

 

Slope

Hispanic

Grade 5

113

0.08

 

Slope

Black

Grade 5

24

0.36

 

Slope

Asian

Grade 5

17

0.46

 

Slope

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 5

13

0.60

 

Slope

Multi-ethnic

Grade 6

7

0.30

 

Slope

White

Grade 6

162

0.51

 

Slope

Hispanic

Grade 6

52

0.43

 

Slope

Black

Grade 6

5

0.24

 

Slope

Asian

Grade 6

2

0.41

 

Slope

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 6

16

0.59

 

Slope

Multi-ethnic

Grade 7

27

0.49

 

Slope

White

Grade 7

263

0.38

 

Slope

Hispanic

Grade 7

186

0.25

 

Slope

Black

Grade 7

15

0.43

 

Slope

Asian

Grade 7

25

0.41

 

Slope

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 7

7

0.29

 

Slope

Multi-ethnic

Grade 8

10

0.92

 

Slope

White

Grade 8

271

0.05

 

Slope

Hispanic

Grade 8

232

0.02

 

Slope

Black

Grade 8

16

0.31

 

Slope

Asian

Grade 8

20

0.51

 

Slope

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 8

6

0.21

 

 

Sensitivity: Validity of the Slope

Grade12345678
RatingdashdashEmpty bubbledEmpty bubbledEmpty bubbledEmpty bubbledEmpty bubbledEmpty bubbled

Describe and justify the criterion measures used to demonstrate validity:

The reading portion of the Washington summative state test was used for all criterion-related validity evidence. Washington is part of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, and the corresponding state test was used.

 

Describe the sample used for analyses, including size and characteristics:

Across grades, approximately 40–48% of students were male (7–21% missing data), 8–10% of students received special education services, 23–31% received free or reduced price lunch, and 6–10% received English language services.

 

Describe predictive validity of the slope of improvement analyses conducted with a population of students in need of intensive intervention:

Students were separated into quartiles based on their fall achievement. Separate growth models were then fit for each quartile in each grade, using a two-level multilevel model (measurements nested in students). Students’ slopes during the school year were then correlated with their statewide assessment scores.

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Slope

Grade 3

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)

918

0.26

0.20 - 0.33

Slope

Grade 4

SBAC

1053

0.40

0.34 - 0.45

Slope

Grade 5

SBAC

1147

0.24

0.19 - 0.30

Slope

Grade 6

SBAC

1033

0.13

0.07 - 0.19

Slope

Grade 7

SBAC

1032

0.31

0.26 - 0.38

Slope

Grade 8

SBAC

1091

0.26

0.20 - 0.32

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

Typically, measures of growth correlate far less strongly with criterion measures than do measures of status. When comparing growth estimates within quartiles, and thus to students with similar initial achievement, the correlations were moderate, providing good evidence for the validity of the slope for informing instructional decisions.

 

Disaggregated Validity Data

Type of Validity

Subgroup

Age or Grade

n

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Predictive Validity

Multi-ethnic

Grade 3

13

0.62

 

Predictive Validity

White

Grade 3

344

0.61

 

Predictive Validity

Hispanic

Grade 3

114

0.52

 

Predictive Validity

Black

Grade 3

12

0.63

 

Predictive Validity

Asian

Grade 3

9

0.15

 

Predictive Validity

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 3

12

0.62

 

Predictive Validity

Multi-ethnic

Grade 4

27

0.63

 

Predictive Validity

White

Grade 4

373

0.54

 

Predictive Validity

Hispanic

Grade 4

123

0.54

 

Predictive Validity

Black

Grade 4

15

0.38

 

Predictive Validity

Asian

Grade 4

6

0.84

 

Predictive Validity

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 4

12

0.56

 

Predictive Validity

Multi-ethnic

Grade 5

15

0.45

 

Predictive Validity

White

Grade 5

365

0.48

 

Predictive Validity

Hispanic

Grade 5

124

0.45

 

Predictive Validity

Black

Grade 5

25

-0.05

 

Predictive Validity

Asian

Grade 5

18

-0.07

 

Predictive Validity

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 5

14

0.48

 

Predictive Validity

Multi-ethnic

Grade 6

7

0.86

 

Predictive Validity

White

Grade 6

166

0.54

 

Predictive Validity

Hispanic

Grade 6

52

0.53

 

Predictive Validity

Black

Grade 6

8

0.31

 

Predictive Validity

Asian

Grade 6

2

-1.00

 

Predictive Validity

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 6

16

0.68

 

Predictive Validity

Multi-ethnic

Grade 7

28

0.47

 

Predictive Validity

White

Grade 7

284

0.59

 

Predictive Validity

Hispanic

Grade 7

186

0.54

 

Predictive Validity

Black

Grade 7

15

0.23

 

Predictive Validity

Asian

Grade 7

25

0.63

 

Predictive Validity

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 7

7

0.74

 

Predictive Validity

Multi-ethnic

Grade 8

11

-0.35

 

Predictive Validity

White

Grade 8

276

0.54

 

Predictive Validity

Hispanic

Grade 8

237

0.50

 

Predictive Validity

Black

Grade 8

16

-0.79

 

Predictive Validity

Asian

Grade 8

20

0.49

 

Predictive Validity

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 8

6

-0.97

 

 

Alternate Forms

Grade12345678
Ratingdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdash

Describe the sample for these analyses, including size and characteristics:

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

Evidence that alternate forms are of equal and controlled difficulty or, if IRT based, evidence of item or ability invariance:

The authors designed alternate forms for Passage Reading Fluency, so they are comparable using classical test theory, as no discrete items were available for Rasch modeling item response theory.

 

Number of alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty:

There are 20 forms available; 3 for benchmarks and 17 for progress monitoring.

Decision Rules: Setting and Revising Goals

Grade12345678
Ratingdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdash

Specification of validated decision rules for when goals should be set or revised:

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

Evidentiary basis for these rules:

No qualifying evidence provided.

Decision Rules: Changing Instruction

Grade12345678
Ratingdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdash

Specification of validated decision rules for when changes to instruction should be made:

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

Evidentiary basis for these rules:

No qualifying evidence provided.

Administration Format

Grade12345678
Data
  • Individual
  • Individual
  • Individual
  • Individual
  • Individual
  • Individual
  • Individual
  • Individual
  • Administration & Scoring Time

    Grade12345678
    Data
  • 2 minutes
  • 2 minutes
  • 2 minutes
  • 2 minutes
  • 2 minutes
  • 2 minutes
  • 2 minutes
  • 2 minutes
  • Scoring Format

    Grade12345678
    Data
  • Computer-scored
  • Manually-scored
  • Computer-scored
  • Manually-scoresd
  • Computer-scored
  • Manually-scored
  • Computer-scored
  • Manually-scored
  • Computer-scored
  • Manually-score
  • Computer-scored
  • Manually-scored
  • Computer-scored
  • Manually-scored
  • Computer-scored
  • Manually-scored
  • ROI & EOY Benchmarks

    Grade12345678
    Data
  • EOY Benchmarks Available
  • EOY Benchmarks Available
  • ROI Available
  • EOY Benchmarks Available
  • EOY Benchmarks Available
  • EOY Benchmarks Available
  • EOY Benchmarks Available
  • EOY Benchmarks Available
  • Specify the minimum acceptable rate of growth/improvement:

    No qualifying evidence provided.

     

    Specify the benchmarks for minimum acceptable end-of-year performance:

    Spring norms based on representative national sample (see easyCBM Norms, 2014 Edition, available upon request from the Center.)