easyCBM in Reading

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:

$5.00 per student*

*Districts purchasing easyCBM will also need to provide $400 for 3 required training webinars.

 

Replacement Cost:

$5.00 per student per year.

 

Annual license renewal fee subject to change.

 

Included in Cost:

easyCBM is available through Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) on an annual subscription license for districts. The price is $5/student/year, which gives teachers access to all measures. The price includes manuals and use of the assessments. In Year 1, there are three training webinars; one is provided at no charge and two cost $200 each.

 

It 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 need internet-connected computers to access materials such as the manual, score reports, and training videos.

Technology Requirements:

  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection
  • Other technology*

*Educators can also use printers to print reports and PDF versions of the measures, if desired.

 

Training Requirements:

  • 1-4 hours of training

 

Qualified Administrators:

  • Paraprofessionals
  • Professionals

 

Accommodations:

All measures were developed following Universal Design for Assessment guidelines to reduce the need for accommodations. Districts are directed to follow their standard practices for providing additional accommodations as needed.

 

Where to Obtain:

Contact Information for Districts:

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

Address: HMH, 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 district 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.

 

easyCBM, available for Grades K–8, 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:

  • One-to-one

 

Administration Time:

  • 1 minute per student

 

Scoring Time:

  • 1 minute per student

 

Scoring Method:

  • Calculated automatically

 

Scores Generated:

  • Raw score
  • Percentile score

 

Classification Accuracy

Grade345678
Criterion 1 FallHalf-filled bubbledHalf-filled bubbledEmpty bubbledEmpty bubbledHalf-filled bubbledEmpty bubbled
Criterion 1 WinterEmpty bubbledHalf-filled bubbledHalf-filled bubbledEmpty bubbledEmpty bubbledEmpty bubbled
Criterion 1 SpringHalf-filled bubbledHalf-filled bubbledHalf-filled bubbledEmpty bubbledHalf-filled bubbledEmpty bubbled
Criterion 2 Falldashdashdashdashdashdash
Criterion 2 Winterdashdashdashdashdashdash
Criterion 2 Springdashdashdashdashdashdash

Primary Sample

 

Criterion 1, Fall

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.11

0.15

0.04

0.09

0.10

0.07

False Positive Rate

0.09

0.14

0.05

0.11

0.12

0.19

False Negative Rate

0.42

0.40

0.45

0.45

0.38

0.37

Sensitivity

0.37

0.41

0.16

0.33

0.37

0.28

Specificity

0.96

0.93

0.99

0.95

0.95

0.95

Positive Predictive Power

0.91

0.86

0.95

0.89

0.88

0.81

Negative Predictive Power

0.58

0.60

0.55

0.55

0.62

0.63

Overall Classification Rate

0.65

0.66

0.59

0.61

0.67

0.66

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.82

0.82

0.83

0.79

0.79

0.76

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.79

0.79

0.81

0.77

0.77

0.74

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.84

0.84

0.85

0.82

0.82

0.79

 

Criterion 1, Winter

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.09

0.11

0.10

0.07

0.08

0.05

False Positive Rate

0.07

0.11

0.08

0.08

0.11

0.12

False Negative Rate

0.43

0.42

0.38

0.48

0.40

0.39

Sensitivity

0.35

0.36

0.37

0.23

0.29

0.24

Specificity

0.97

0.95

0.97

0.98

0.97

0.97

Positive Predictive Power

0.93

0.89

0.92

0.92

0.89

0.88

Negative Predictive Power

0.57

0.58

0.62

0.52

0.60

0.61

Overall Classification Rate

0.64

0.65

0.67

0.58

0.64

0.64

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.82

0.81

0.84

0.81

0.80

0.78

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.80

0.79

0.82

0.78

0.77

0.76

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.84

0.83

0.86

0.83

0.82

0.80

 

Criterion 1, Spring

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.07

0.11

0.05

False Positive Rate

0.07

0.12

0.08

0.06

0.13

0.10

False Negative Rate

0.43

0.41

0.37

0.47

0.40

0.39

Sensitivity

0.35

0.38

0.41

0.25

0.33

0.20

Specificity

0.97

0.94

0.97

0.98

0.95

0.98

Positive Predictive Power

0.93

0.88

0.92

0.94

0.87

0.90

Negative Predictive Power

0.57

0.59

0.63

0.53

0.60

0.61

Overall Classification Rate

0.64

0.65

0.69

0.59

0.65

0.63

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.83

0.82

0.83

0.81

0.79

0.78

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.81

0.79

0.81

0.79

0.77

0.76

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.85

0.84

0.85

0.83

0.81

0.81

 

 

Additional Classification Accuracy

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

 

Disaggregated Data

 

Fall

Subgroup: ELL

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.30

0.33

0.14

0.28

0.24

0.15

False Positive Rate

0.25

0.21

0.05

0.11

0.15

0.20

False Negative Rate

0.37

0.39

0.56

0.56

0.47

0.50

Sensitivity

0.36

0.39

0.14

0.28

0.32

0.23

Specificity

0.90

0.90

0.99

0.94

0.93

0.93

Positive Predictive Power

0.75

0.79

0.95

0.89

0.85

0.80

Negative Predictive Power

0.63

0.61

0.44

0.44

0.53

0.50

Overall Classification Rate

0.66

0.65

0.48

0.53

0.60

0.55

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.74

0.69

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.72

0.73

0.72

0.72

0.71

0.66

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.78

0.78

0.77

0.77

0.76

0.71

 

Winter

Subgroup: ELL

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.27

0.27

0.27

0.19

0.16

0.22

False Positive Rate

0.06

0.04

NA

0.00

NA

0.02

False Negative Rate

0.37

0.46

NA

0.57

NA

0.48

Sensitivity

0.33

0.24

NA

0.22

NA

0.31

Specificity

0.98

0.99

NA

1.00

NA

0.99

Positive Predictive Power

0.94

0.96

NA

1.00

NA

0.98

Negative Predictive Power

0.63

0.54

NA

0.43

NA

0.52

Overall Classification Rate

0.68

0.59

NA

0.51

NA

0.60

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.88

0.86

0.92

0.91

0.93

0.91

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.87

0.84

0.91

0.89

0.92

0.90

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.90

0.87

0.94

0.92

0.94

0.93

 

Spring

Subgroup: ELL

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.26

0.27

0.23

0.25

0.24

0.21

False Positive Rate

0.06

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.04

0.02

False Negative Rate

0.38

0.47

0.49

0.56

0.48

0.46

Sensitivity

0.30

0.21

0.32

0.24

0.27

0.38

Specificity

0.98

0.99

1.00

0.99

0.99

0.99

Positive Predictive Power

0.94

0.97

0.99

0.98

0.96

0.98

Negative Predictive Power

0.62

0.53

0.51

0.44

0.52

0.54

Overall Classification Rate

0.67

0.59

0.60

0.53

0.59

0.64

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.88

0.86

0.90

0.91

0.91

0.92

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.87

0.85

0.88

0.90

0.89

0.90

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.90

0.88

0.91

0.93

0.92

0.93

 

Fall

Subgroup: Free or Reduced-Price Lunch

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.16

0.13

0.05

0.11

0.11

0.07

False Positive Rate

0.18

0.05

0.07

0.04

0.05

0.08

False Negative Rate

0.39

0.43

0.49

0.52

0.46

0.51

Sensitivity

0.25

0.29

0.35

0.36

0.3

0.33

Specificity

0.95

0.98

0.96

0.98

0.98

0.95

Positive Predictive Power

0.82

0.95

0.93

0.96

0.95

0.92

Negative Predictive Power

0.61

0.57

0.51

0.48

0.54

0.49

Overall Classification Rate

0.64

0.63

0.6

0.59

0.61

0.58

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.84

0.87

0.85

0.88

0.89

0.87

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.82

0.85

0.83

0.86

0.87

0.85

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.86

0.89

0.87

0.89

0.91

0.89

 

Winter

Subgroup: Free or Reduced Price Lunch

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.13

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.08

0.07

False Positive Rate

0.06

0.04

NA

0.00

NA

0.02

False Negative Rate

0.37

0.46

NA

0.57

NA

0.48

Sensitivity

0.33

0.24

NA

0.22

NA

0.31

Specificity

0.98

0.99

NA

1.00

NA

0.99

Positive Predictive Power

0.94

0.96

NA

1.00

NA

0.98

Negative Predictive Power

0.63

0.54

NA

0.43

NA

0.52

Overall Classification Rate

0.68

0.59

NA

0.51

NA

0.6

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.88

0.86

0.92

0.91

0.93

0.91

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.87

0.84

0.91

0.89

0.92

0.90

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.90

0.87

0.94

0.92

0.94

0.93

 

Spring

Subgroup: Free or Reduced-Price Lunch

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.14

0.13

0.09

0.14

0.07

0.14

False Positive Rate

0.06

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.04

0.02

False Negative Rate

0.38

0.47

0.49

0.56

0.48

0.46

Sensitivity

0.30

0.21

0.32

0.24

0.27

0.38

Specificity

0.98

0.99

1.00

0.99

0.99

0.99

Positive Predictive Power

0.94

0.97

0.99

0.98

0.96

0.98

Negative Predictive Power

0.62

0.53

0.51

0.44

0.52

0.54

Overall Classification Rate

0.67

0.59

0.60

0.53

0.59

0.64

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.88

0.86

0.90

0.91

0.91

0.92

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.87

0.85

0.88

0.90

0.89

0.90

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.90

0.88

0.91

0.93

0.92

0.93

 

Fall

Subgroup: Hispanic

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.18

0.17

0.07

0.12

0.10

0.05

False Positive Rate

0.18

0.05

0.07

0.04

0.05

0.08

False Negative Rate

0.39

0.43

0.49

0.52

0.46

0.51

Sensitivity

0.25

0.29

0.35

0.36

0.30

0.33

Specificity

0.95

0.98

0.96

0.98

0.98

0.95

Positive Predictive Power

0.82

0.95

0.93

0.96

0.95

0.92

Negative Predictive Power

0.61

0.57

0.51

0.48

0.54

0.49

Overall Classification Rate

0.64

0.63

0.60

0.59

0.61

0.58

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.84

0.87

0.85

0.88

0.89

0.87

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.82

0.85

0.83

0.86

0.87

0.85

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.86

0.89

0.87

0.89

0.91

0.89

 

Fall

Subgroup: Non-Hispanic

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.08

0.09

0.03

0.07

0.07

0.05

False Positive Rate

0.18

0.05

0.07

0.04

0.05

0.08

False Negative Rate

0.39

0.43

0.49

0.52

0.46

0.51

Sensitivity

0.25

0.29

0.35

0.36

0.30

0.33

Specificity

0.95

0.98

0.96

0.98

0.98

0.95

Positive Predictive Power

0.82

0.95

0.93

0.96

0.95

0.92

Negative Predictive Power

0.61

0.57

0.51

0.48

0.54

0.49

Overall Classification Rate

0.64

0.63

0.60

0.59

0.61

0.58

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.84

0.87

0.85

0.88

0.89

0.87

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.82

0.85

0.83

0.86

0.87

0.85

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.86

0.89

0.87

0.89

0.91

0.89

 

Winter

Subgroup: Hispanic

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.15

0.16

0.13

0.07

0.08

0.08

False Positive Rate

0.06

0.04

Not Provided

0.00

Not Provided

0.02

False Negative Rate

0.37

0.46

Not Provided

0.57

Not Provided

0.48

Sensitivity

0.33

0.24

Not Provided

0.22

Not Provided

0.31

Specificity

0.98

0.99

Not Provided

1.00

Not Provided

0.99

Positive Predictive Power

0.94

0.96

Not Provided

1.00

Not Provided

0.98

Negative Predictive Power

0.63

0.54

Not Provided

0.43

Not Provided

0.52

Overall Classification Rate

0.68

0.59

Not Provided

0.51

Not Provided

0.60

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.88

0.86

0.92

0.91

0.93

0.91

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.87

0.84

0.91

0.89

0.92

0.90

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.90

0.87

0.94

0.92

0.94

0.93

 

Winter

Subgroup: Non-Hispanic

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.07

0.08

0.07

0.05

0.06

0.04

False Positive Rate

0.06

0.04

Not Provided

0.00

Not Provided

0.02

False Negative Rate

0.37

0.46

Not Provided

0.57

Not Provided

0.48

Sensitivity

0.33

0.24

Not Provided

0.22

Not Provided

0.31

Specificity

0.98

0.99

Not Provided

1.00

Not Provided

0.99

Positive Predictive Power

0.94

0.96

Not Provided

1.00

Not Provided

0.98

Negative Predictive Power

0.63

0.54

Not Provided

0.43

Not Provided

0.52

Overall Classification Rate

0.68

0.59

Not Provided

0.51

Not Provided

0.60

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.88

0.86

0.92

0.91

0.93

0.91

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.87

0.84

0.91

0.89

0.92

0.90

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.90

0.87

0.94

0.92

0.94

0.93

 

Spring

Subgroup: Hispanic

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.16

0.15

0.13

0.11

0.13

0.07

False Positive Rate

0.06

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.04

0.02

False Negative Rate

0.38

0.47

0.49

0.56

0.48

0.46

Sensitivity

0.30

0.21

0.32

0.24

0.27

0.38

Specificity

0.98

0.99

1.00

0.99

0.99

0.99

Positive Predictive Power

0.94

0.97

0.99

0.98

0.96

0.98

Negative Predictive Power

0.62

0.53

0.51

0.44

0.52

0.54

Overall Classification Rate

0.67

0.59

0.60

0.53

0.59

0.64

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.88

0.86

0.90

0.91

0.91

0.92

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.87

0.85

0.88

0.90

0.89

0.90

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.90

0.88

0.91

0.93

0.92

0.93

 

Spring

Subgroup: Non-Hispanic

Grade

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

SBAS ELA

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.09

0.09

0.08

0.05

0.10

0.04

False Positive Rate

0.06

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.04

0.02

False Negative Rate

0.38

0.47

0.49

0.56

0.48

0.46

Sensitivity

0.30

0.21

0.32

0.24

0.27

0.38

Specificity

0.98

0.99

1.00

0.99

0.99

0.99

Positive Predictive Power

0.94

0.97

0.99

0.98

0.96

0.98

Negative Predictive Power

0.62

0.53

0.51

0.44

0.52

0.54

Overall Classification Rate

0.67

0.59

0.60

0.53

0.59

0.64

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.88

0.86

0.90

0.91

0.91

0.92

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.87

0.85

0.88

0.90

0.89

0.90

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.90

0.88

0.91

0.93

0.92

0.93

 

Reliability

Grade345678
RatingFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbledashdashdash
  1. Justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool: The PRF measures provide an efficient and easy-to-administer assessment of students’ oral reading fluency. For the results to be most interpretable, however, it is important that alternate forms of the measure be of equivalent difficulty/return equivalent results in the absence of changes in students’ underlying oral reading fluency proficiency. Test-retest reliability provides an estimate of the consistency of scores obtained when a single form is administered to students more than once in a short period of time (in this case, with one week in between administrations). Alternate form reliability provides an estimate of the consistency of scores were different test forms to be administered. This type of reliability gives us information about how consistent results might be if the winter measure were used in place of the fall measure. This consistency in performance across testing occasions (test-retest) or forms (alternate form) is important when evaluating the trustworthiness of screening results.  The G-theory studies extend on the test-retest and alternate form reliability analyses, further examining the degree to which variation in score can be attributed to alternate forms and/or alternate testing occasions.

 

  1. Description of the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted: Students from three public elementary schools in the Pacific Northwest participated in test-retest and alternate form reliability studies, with sample size varying by grade. In grade 1, 41 students participated. In grade 2, 48 students participated. In grade 3, 50 students participated. In grade 4, 55 students participated. In grade 5, 50 students participated. A sub-sample of 38 grade 1, 34 grade 2, 38 grade 3, 39 grade 4, and 18 grade 5 students also participated in G-theory studies. No demographic information was collected in this study (see Tables 1a and b for descriptive statistics); however, on average, the participating schools comprised of 53% male students, 2% American Indian/Alaskan, 2% Asian/Pacific Islander, less than 1% of Black, 23% Hispanic, 67% White, and 8% two or more races students. 70% of the students are eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch programs. The district consists of 6% English Language Learners and 17% of students with Individualized Education Program (IEP).

 

  1. Description of the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability: Both alternate form and test-retest reliabilities were analyzed using bivariate correlations. For our generalizability theory study (G-Study) we calculated the variances associated persons and two facets: forms and occasions. We then conducted decision studies (D-Studies) to help determine the necessary conditions for reliable measurement. Data for this study were analyzed in a two-facet fully crossed design (i.e., all students in the analysis were included in both testing occasions and administered the same test forms). The test forms were often administered in a different order on the separate occasions to mitigate order effects. The forms themselves remained constant across occasions in all analyses. For each grade level, we conducted 4 different G-theory analyses for passage reading fluency (PRF) to investigate 8 different test forms. The first facet in the analysis, form, was generally counterbalanced across occasions. The second facet was occasion.

 

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

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n

Coefficient

95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound

95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound

Alternate Form

1

41

0.97

0.94

0.98

Alternate Form

2

48

0.93

0.91

0.95

Alternate Form

3

50

0.95

0.94

0.96

Alternate Form

4

55

0.95

0.93

0.98

Alternate Form

5

50

0.95

0.92

0.97

Test-Retest

1

41

0.96

0.95

0.98

Test-Retest

2

48

0.95

0.93

0.96

Test-Retest

3

50

0.90

0.87

0.94

Test-Retest

4

55

0.95

0.86

0.96

Test-Retest

5

50

0.91

0.90

0.94

 

Results for other forms of reliability not conducive to the table format: The results of the test-retest and alternate-form reliability analyses suggested acceptable form equivalence for subsequent G-Theory analyses. For the Grade 1 Passage Reading Fluency analyses, 95% of the variance was associated with the 38 persons included in the analysis, 0% was associated with forms, and 0% was associated with occasion. The relative error variance was 30.78, while the absolute variance was 45.16. The G-Coefficient was .99, while the phi coefficient was .87. For the Grade 2 Passage Reading Fluency analyses, 90% of the variance was associated with the 34 persons included in the analysis, 0% was associated with forms, and 0% was associated with occasion. The relative error variance was 25.54, while the absolute variance was 37.18. The G-Coefficient was .98, while the phi coefficient was .97. For the Grade 3 Passage Reading Fluency analyses, 82% of the variance was associated with the 28 persons included in the analysis, 0% was associated with forms, and 0% was associated with occasion. The relative error variance was 70.97, while the absolute variance was 97.12. The G-Coefficient was .95, while the phi coefficient was .93. For the Grade 4 Passage Reading Fluency analyses, 88% of the variance was associated with the 39 persons included in the analysis, 0% was associated with forms, and 0% was associated with occasion. The relative error variance was 30.00, while the absolute variance was 64.07. The G-Coefficient was .98, while the phi coefficient was .96. For the Grade 5 Passage Reading Fluency analyses, 89% of the variance was associated with the 18 persons included in the analysis, 0% was associated with forms, and 0% was associated with occasion. The relative error variance was 38.41, while the absolute variance was 58.53. The G-Coefficient was .98, while the phi coefficient was .96.

 

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

95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound

95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound

None

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Validity

Grade345678
RatingFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty 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: For STUDY 1, we used the Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment as our criterion measure. This measure is completely independent from the screening measure. SBAS is a large-scale assessment in wide use across the United States as a state accountability measure. Because it is used by so many states for their accountability measure, school districts are quite interested in the relation between SBAS and easyCBM PRF.

For STUDY 2, we used the DIBELs ORF measure to gather construct-related validity evidence. DIBELs ORF is a well-established measure for estimating students’ oral reading fluency with a long history of published validity evidence. Like SBAS, DIBELs is external to the easyCBM system. Unlike SBAS, however, the DIBELs ORF and the easyCBM PRF are designed to measure the exact same construct: Oral Reading Fluency. Thus, higher correlations between easyCBM and DIBELs ORF than between easyCBM and SBAS ELA provide strong evidence in support of the PRF measuring the intended construct (oral reading fluency).

 

2.Description of the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted: STUDY 1: Data for the study examining the relation between the easyCBM PRF and the Smarter Balanced English Language Arts assessment came from a convenience sample of students provided by two school districts in the Pacific Northwest. All students enrolled in school and present during the three-week easyCBM Benchmark Assessment windows in the fall (September 2014), winter (January 2015) and spring (May 2015) were administered the easyCBM assessments. All enrolled students were likewise administered the Smarter Balanced assessments during the testing window provided by the state in the spring of 2015. The data set provided by the districts included easyCBM CCSS Math, Passage Reading Fluency, Vocabulary, and Multiple-Choice Reading Comprehension (MCRC) as well as Smarter Balanced Math and English Language Arts total scores for students enrolled in grades 3-8. District 1 provided data for Grades 3-8, while District 2 provided data for Grades 4-8. In addition, District 1 provided demographic information, while District 2 (approximately ¼ the size of the first district) did not. Because of the missing demographics from a large proportion of the sample, the percentages for each of the demographic variables are calculated based on the students in the sample whose data included full-resolution demographic information.

During data cleaning, data from students who were administered the Alternate Assessment rather than the General Education assessment were removed from the dataset prior to further analyses. In all, six students each from Grades 4, 6, and 7 and three students from Grade 5 were removed from the dataset in this step.  Data from all additional students were retained.

STUDY 2: For the study examining the relation between the easyCBM PRF and the DIBELs ORF measures, Data came from a convenience sample of students from ten schools in an Oregon school district that uses easyCBM® reading measures as part of its Response to Intervention (RTI) model. This study was conducted in January 2013, with the initial duration of the study extended from one month to 1.5 months, due to an unexpected severe flu season, which caused a high absenteeism rate. At the beginning of the study, a total of 1017 students from grade 2 (n=240), grade 3 (n=311), grade 4 (n=247), and grade 5 (n=219) were recruited. As a result of the high absenteeism rate, the final sample consisted of 204 2nd-grade students, 288 3rd-grade students, 184 4th-grade students, and 206 5th-grade students. No demographic information was collected in this study, however, data came from participating schools with 53% male students, 2% American Indian/Alaskan, 2% Asian/Pacific Islander, less than 1% of Black, 23% Hispanic, 67% White, and 8% two or more races students. 70% of the students are eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch programs. The district consists of 6% English Language Learners and 17% of students with Individualized Education Program (IEP).

 

3.Description of the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity: STUDY 1: We used linear regression to analyze the predictive validity of the easyCBM PRF measures to the Smarter Balanced English Language Arts assessment

STUDY 2: We used bivariate correlations to analyze concurrent validity for easyCBM PRF to DIBELs ORF measures.

 

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

95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound

95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound

Predictive

3

SBAS ELA

1303

0.67

0.63

0.71

Predictive

4

SBAS ELA

1520

0.64

0.60

0.68

Predictive

5

SBAS ELA

1539

0.68

0.64

0.71

Predictive

6

SBAS ELA

1467

0.61

0.57

0.65

Predictive

7

SBAS ELA

1415

0.62

0.58

0.66

Predictive

8

SBAS ELA

1475

0.57

0.53

0.61

Predictive

3

SBAS ELA

1280

0.67

0.63

0.71

Predictive

4

SBAS ELA

1489

0.63

0.59

0.67

Predictive

5

SBAS ELA

1575

0.68

0.64

0.71

Predictive

6

SBAS ELA

1494

0.63

0.59

0.67

Predictive

7

SBAS ELA

1463

0.63

0.59

0.67

Predictive

8

SBAS ELA

1535

0.60

0.56

0.64

Concurrent

3

SBAS ELA

1303

0.67

0.63

0.71

Concurrent

4

SBAS ELA

1520

0.64

0.60

0.68

Concurrent

5

SBAS ELA

1593

0.66

0.62

0.70

Concurrent

6

SBAS ELA

1500

0.62

0.58

0.66

Concurrent

7

SBAS ELA

1478

0.62

0.58

0.66

Concurrent

8

SBAS ELA

1526

0.62

0.58

0.66

Concurrent

2

DIBELs ORF

229

0.95

0.94

0.95

Concurrent

3

DIBELs ORF

290

0.94

0.94

0.96

Concurrent

4

DIBELs ORF

236

0.93

0.91

0.94

Concurrent

5

DIBELs ORF

208

0.88

0.88

0.91

 

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: STUDY 1: The provided data indicate a moderate positive relation between the easyCBM PRF measures and the large-scale Smarter Balanced English Language Arts assessment at all tested grades and seasons. STUDY 2: The provided data indicate a very strong positive relation between the easyCBM PRF measures and the DIBELs ORF measures at all tested grades. These findings, taken in concert with one another, provide strong evidence of the easyCBM PRF measure as an appropriate assessment of students’ oral reading fluency. The correlations between the easyCBM PRF measures and the DIBELs ORF measures suggest they are measuring the same construct (as intended). Because oral reading fluency has consistently been shown to predict other reading outcomes, such as direct measures of comprehension (e.g., the SBAS ELA assessment), coefficients ranging from .57 to .68 support the validity of including the easyCBM PRF measures as part of an assessment battery for screening students at risk for not meeting end-of-year performance expectations. The PRF measures are one of three different measures that together comprise the easyCBM Benchmark Assessments in reading.

 

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

95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound

95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound

None

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Sample Representativeness

Grade345678
Data
  • Regional without Cross-Validation
  • Regional without Cross-Validation
  • Regional without Cross-Validation
  • Regional without Cross-Validation
  • Regional without Cross-Validation
  • Regional without Cross-Validation
  • Primary Classification Accuracy Sample

    Criterion 1

    Grade

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    Criterion

    SBAS ELA

    SBAS ELA

    SBAS ELA

    SBAS ELA

    SBAS ELA

    SBAS ELA

    National/Local Representation

    Pacific Northwest, OR and WA

    Pacific Northwest, OR and WA

    Pacific Northwest, OR and WA

    Pacific Northwest, OR and WA

    Pacific Northwest, OR and WA

    Pacific Northwest, OR and WA

    Date

    SY2014-15

    SY2014-15

    SY2014-15

    SY2014-15

    SY2014-15

    SY2014-15

    Sample Size

    26250

    30567

    30483

    29800

    29267

    34250

    Male

    12667

    12100

    12517

    12117

    11817

    13783

    Female

    11467

    11800

    11667

    11417

    11133

    13317

    Gender Unknown

    2117

    6667

    6300

    6267

    6317

    7150

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    8133

    8233

    7933

    8300

    7433

    7717

    White, Non-Hispanic

    5617

    4883

    5617

    4567

    5283

    7283

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Hispanic

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Other

    20633

    25683

    24867

    25233

    23983

    26967

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Disability Classification

    2683

    2767

    2550

    2567

    2283

    2750

    First Language

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    2700

    2467

    2267

    1783

    1900

    1667

     

    Bias Analysis Conducted

    Grade345678
    RatingNoNoNoNoNoNo
    1. Description of the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias: Not Provided  

     

    1. Description of the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted: Not Provided

     

    1. Description of the results of the bias analyses conducted, including data and interpretative statements: Not Provided

    Administration Format

    Grade345678
    Data
  • Individual
  • Individual
  • Individual
  • Individual
  • Individual
  • Individual
  • Administration & Scoring Time

    Grade345678
    Data
  • 2 minutes
  • 2 minutes
  • 2 minutes
  • 2 minutes
  • 2 minutes
  • 2 minutes
  • Scoring Format

    Grade345678
    Data
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Types of Decision Rules

    Grade345678
    Data
  • Risk Levels
  • Risk Levels
  • Risk Levels
  • Risk Levels
  • Risk Levels
  • Risk Levels
  • Evidence Available for Multiple Decision Rules

    Grade345678
    Data
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No