easyCBM

Word 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 Word Reading Fluency, students

read words 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:

No information provided; contact vendor for details.

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
  • Group

 

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 Word Reading Fluency measure, thus removing all additional scoring time.

 

Scoring Method:

  • Calculated manually
  • Calculated automatically

 

Scores Generated:

  • Percentile Score
  • Raw Score

 

Reliability

Grade123
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

Justify the appropriateness of each type of reliability reported:

The authors 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.

 

Describe the sample characteristics for each reliability analysis conducted:

Data for these analyses were gathered in the spring of 2011 from a convenience sample of students in a mid-sized school district in the Pacific Northwest. Data were gathered on two separate occasions, one week apart. Each day, students were administered a series of alternate forms of grade-appropriate easyCBM assessments in one-on-one settings.  

 

Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability:

The authors used bivariate correlations to calculate the test-retest and alternate form reliability of the measures included in the study.      

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Test-Retest

Grade 1

20-62

0.87-0.93

 

Alternate Forms

Grade 1

20-62

0.89-0.97

 

Test/Retest

Grade 2

34-50

0.87-0.95

 

Alternate Forms

Grade 2

34-50

0.92-0.95

 

Test-Retest

Grade 3

17-53

0.69-0.92

 

Alternate Forms

Grade 3

17-53

0.72-0.92

 

Alternate Forms

Grade 1

48-52

0.95-0.96

 

Alternate Forms

Grade 3

48

0.87-0.93

 

Test-Retest

Grade 1

48-52

0.94 and 0.95

 

Test-Retest

Grade 3

48

0.92 and 0.94

 

 

Validity

Grade123
RatingEmpty bubbleHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubble

Describe and justify the criterion measures used to demonstrate validity:

The Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS) was used as a criterion measure. The OAKS was the Oregon statewide large-scale assessment that was required prior to the state joining the Smarter Balanced consortium. The OAKS was selected because of its technical adequacy and use as a high-stakes accountability assessment in the District where the study was conducted. The OAKS is a computer-administered multiple-choice assessment of reading.

 

Describe the sample characteristics for each validity analysis conducted:

Data came from a convenience sample of students from three school districts in Oregon. The districts all use easyCBM reading measures as part of their Response to Intervention (RTI) model. In all, 214 Kindergarten students and 227 Grade 1 students participated in the study.

 

Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity:

Both bivariate correlations and linear regressions were calculated in this study.

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

N

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Predictive

Grade 3

 Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS)

775-797

0.62-0.65

 

Concurrent

Grade 3

OAKS

819

0.60

 

Concurrent

Kindergarten

Word Reading Fluency

189

 

 

Concurrent

Grade 2

Word Reading Fluency

205

0.002

 

Concurrent

Grade 3

World Reading Fluency

953

0.28

 

Predictive (Fall)

Grade 1

SAT 10

161

0.45

 

Predictive (Winter)

Grade 1

SAT 10

177

0.48

 

Predictive (Fall)

Grade 2

SAT 10

205

0.02

 

Predictive (Winter)

Grade 2

SAT 10

205

0.02

 

Predictive (Fall)

Grade 3

SAT 10

821

0.34

 

Predictive (Winter)

Grade 3

SAT 10

932

0.37

 

Construct

Kindergarten

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

862 – 1449

0.028-0.047

 

Construct

Grade 1

CFA

412 – 876

0.084-0.136

 

Construct

Grade 2

CFA

1685 – 1973

0.019-0.035

 

Construct

Grade 3

CFA

1830 – 2046

0.023-0.027

 

 

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

The data suggest easyCBM predicts performance on the OAKS, with the Word Reading Fluency accounting for the largest proportion of variance in the model (Passage Reading Fluency, Vocabulary, and Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension were also included in the regression analysis).

Bias Analysis Conducted

Grade123
RatingNoNoNo

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

Grade123
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

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.

Sensitivity: Validity of the Slope

Grade123
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbled

Describe and justify the criterion measures used to demonstrate validity:

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

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

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

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

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Predictive

Grade 1

Word Reading Fluency

636

0.65

 

Predictive

Grade 2

Word Reading Fluency

563

0.23

 

Predictive

Grade 3

World Reading Fluency

218

0.50

 

 

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

No qualifying evidence provided.

 

Disaggregated Validity Data

Type of Validity

Subgroup

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n

Coefficient

Confidence Interval

Predictive

Multi-Ethnic

Grade 3

Word Reading Fluency

3

0.52

 

Predictive

White

Grade 3

Word Reading Fluency

131

0.55

 

Predictive

Hispanic

Grade 3

Word Reading Fluency

52

0.38

 

Predictive

Black

Grade 3

Word Reading Fluency

4

0.99

 

Predictive

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Grade 3

Word Reading Fluency

6

0.16

 

 

Alternate Forms

Grade123
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

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:

Initially, items were piloted using a common person / common item design to create an item bank with known item parameters (measure, mean square outfit, standard error, etc.). Using this data, we then distributed items across the multiple forms (3 screening forms to be administered in the fall, winter, and spring and 17 progress monitoring) to have approximately equal item measure estimates and comparable ranges. The comparability of each of the alternate forms was tested with grade-level students, using repeated measures ANOVA to test for form differences. Results of these studies are reported in the technical reports documenting the development of the measures:

Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2007). The development of word and passage reading fluency measures in a progress monitoring assessment system (Technical Report No. 40). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. 

Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2009). Alternate form and test-retest reliability of easyCBM® reading measures (Technical Report No. 0906). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

The first technical report describes the process of initial instrument development, where we used a 1-PL Rasch model to estimate item difficulty for each word and then used this information to construct 20 alternate forms of comparable difficulty for use in Kindergarten through Grade 3. Across all alternate forms, the mean measure of items in each row is within .02 of the mean measure of items in the same row on every other form. In the second  technical report, evidence is presented that the process we used in measurement development did, in fact, result in alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty. In a study of the alternate form reliability of the Word Reading Fluency measure, we found correlations ranged from .95 to .96.

 

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

Grade123
Ratingdashdashdash

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

Grade123
Ratingdashdashdash

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

Grade123
Data
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Administration & Scoring Time

    Grade123
    Data
  • 2 minutes
  • 2 minutes
  • 2 minutes
  • Scoring Format

    Grade123
    Data
  • Computer-scored
  • Manually-scored
  • Computer-scored
  • Manually-scored
  • Computer-scored
  • Manually-scored
  • ROI & EOY Benchmarks

    Grade123
    Data
  • 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.)