Istation’s Indicators of Progress (ISIP)

Math

Cost

Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs

Service and Support

Purpose and Other Implementation Information

Usage and Reporting

Initial Cost:

$5.95 per student

 

Replacement Cost:

$5.95 per student per year.


Annual license renewal fee subject to change.

 

Included in Cost:

ISIP Math is purchased as a yearly subscription. ISIP Math assessment packages includes online assessment, data hosting, reporting, teacher resources, online training center, user and manuals. In-person training conducted by a professional development specialist is available at additional cost ($2800 per specialist per day). Computers and/or tablets are needed to implement this assessment, as well as internet access. ISIP Math can be used on many different technology platforms including desktops, laptops, and tablets.

 

Technology Requirements:

  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection

 

Training Requirements:

  • 1-4 hours of training

 

Qualified Administrators:

  • Paraprofessionals
  • Professionals

 

Accommodations:

Appropriate accommodations are provided during ISIP assessments for students who are receiving support services, including those who have an Individual Education or 504 Plan, or who qualify as English Language learners. These accommodations support students’ access to the content of the assessment by reducing or eliminating the effects of the disability or limitation but do not change the content of the assessment. ISIP assessments provide people with disabilities access that is comparable to access for non-impaired people — with the exception of a totally blind or totally deaf disabled person. Administrators with manager accounts can assign accommodations to students in the Istation report and Management Portal.

 

ISIP supports or is compatible with the following types of accommodations:

  • Scribe
  • Touch screen overlay
  • ZoomText software
  • Extended time (Untimed Assessment feature)
  • Adjustable volume and/or headphones for students with hearing difficulties

Where to Obtain:

Website: www.istation.com

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

Phone number: (866) 883-READ

Email: info@istation.com

 

Access to Technical Support:

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

 

ISIP Math is a web-based computer adaptive formative assessment intended for students in grades 2-8. The assessment is intended to provide teachers and administrators with student test results to answer two questions: (a) whether students are at risk of failure, and (b) the degree of intensity of instructional support students need to be successful. ISIP Math can be administered individually or in group settings. The assessment is administered in English. The assessment is untimed; however, most students complete the assessment within 30 minutes. There is no additional scoring time required for the assessment. Teachers can be trained on ISIP Math through either a webinar or an in-person training session. Training takes between 1 and 4 hours. All training materials are online and are created by Istation. Reports are available for both individual and groups of students indicating single administration results and comparisons of results over time. All reports include student scaled scores and tier levels based on student percentiles.

Assessment Format:

  • Performance measure
  • Direct: Computerized
  • One-to-one

 

Administration Time:

  • 20-30 minutes per student
  • 20-30 minutes per group

 

Scoring Time:

  • Scoring is automatic

 

Scoring Method:

  • Calculated automatically

 

Scores Generated:

  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
  • IRT-based score
  • Composite scores
  • MetaMetrics Quantile Score

 

Classification Accuracy

Grade2345678
Criterion 1 FallEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble
Criterion 1 WinterEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble
Criterion 1 SpringEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble
Criterion 2 FalldashEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble
Criterion 2 WinterdashEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble
Criterion 2 SpringdashEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

Primary Sample

 

Criterion 1, Fall

Grade

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

TEMA

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

 

588

 

599

 

627

 

638

 

651

 

659

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

 

1756

 

1705

 

1778

 

1764

 

1766

 

1824

 

1829

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

 

0.19

 

0.15

 

0.12

 

0.07

 

0.21

 

0.11

 

0.02

False Positive Rate

0.64

0.48

0.6

0.17

0.88

0.83

1.00

False Negative Rate

0.04

0.05

0.1

0.3

0.01

0.02

0.08

Sensitivity

0.96

0.95

0.9

0.7

0.99

0.98

0.92

Specificity

0.36

0.52

0.4

0.83

0.12

0.17

0.00

Positive Predictive Power

 

0.86

0.92

0.92

0.98

0.81

0.78

0.98

Negative Predictive Power

0.67

0.62

0.35

0.18

0.71

0.75

0.00

Overall Classification Rate

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.67

0.74

0.65

0.76

0.56

0.57

0.46

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.59

0.64

0.52

0.67

0.50

0.45

0.44

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

 

0.75

 

0.83

 

0.78

 

0.86

 

0.61

 

0.62

 

0.49

 

Criterion 1, Winter

Grade

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

TEMA

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

 

588

 

599

 

627

 

638

 

651

 

659

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

 

1809

 

1759

 

1803

 

1778

 

1777

 

1823

 

1843

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

False Positive Rate

0.50

0.57

0.31

0.38

0.81

0.78

0.80

False Negative Rate

0.07

0.06

0.07

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.05

Sensitivity

0.94

0.94

0.93

0.97

0.97

0.98

0.95

Specificity

0.5

0.43

0.69

0.62

0.19

0.22

0.2

Positive Predictive Power

0.88

0.91

0.96

0.97

0.82

0.79

0.97

Negative Predictive Power

0.65

0.54

0.58

0.62

0.67

0.80

0.12

Overall Classification Rate

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.74

0.69

0.81

0.79

0.58

0.49

0.57

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

 

0.65

 

0.59

 

0.69

 

0.69

 

0.52

 

0.48

 

0.38

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

 

0.84

 

0.78

 

0.93

 

0.90

 

0.64

 

0.50

 

0.77

 

Criterion 1, Spring

Grade

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

TEMA

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

 

588

 

599

 

627

 

638

 

651

 

659

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

 

1860

 

1822

 

1853

 

1816

 

1807

 

1847

 

1843

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

False Positive Rate

0.23

0.32

0.18

0.32

0.48

0.58

0.75

False Negative Rate

0.08

0.05

0.12

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Sensitivity

0.92

0.95

0.88

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95

Specificity

0.77

0.68

0.82

0.68

0.52

0.42

0.25

Positive Predictive Power

0.94

0.95

0.97

0.97

0.89

0.85

0.98

Negative Predictive Power

0.70

0.70

0.50

0.75

0.81

0.74

0.11

Overall Classification Rate

0.89

0.91

0.87

0.95

0.88

0.84

0.93

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.84

0.82

0.85

0.83

0.75

0.69

0.60

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

 

0.77

 

0.73

 

0.75

 

0.73

 

0.67

 

0.60

 

0.35

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

 

0.91

 

0.91

 

0.95

 

0.93

 

0.83

 

0.78

 

0.84

 

Criterion 2, Fall

Grade

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

Not Provided

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

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

Not Provided

 

1705

 

1778

 

1764

 

1766

 

1824

 

1829

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

False Positive Rate

Not Provided

0.48

0.57

0.08

0.93

0.75

0.83

False Negative Rate

Not Provided

0.05

0.06

0.29

0.03

0.01

0.12

Sensitivity

Not Provided

0.95

0.94

0.71

0.97

0.99

0.88

Specificity

Not Provided

0.52

0.43

0.92

0.07

0.25

0.17

Positive Predictive Power

Not Provided

0.94

0.88

0.99

0.89

0.99

0.96

Negative Predictive Power

Not Provided

0.57

0.63

0.16

0.25

0.33

0.06

Overall Classification Rate

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

Not Provided

0.75

0.71

0.76

0.53

0.60

0.51

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

Not Provided

 

0.64

 

0.60

 

0.71

 

0.47

 

0.40

 

0.42

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

Not Provided

 

0.86

 

0.82

 

0.89

 

0.59

 

0.79

 

0.59

 

Criterion 2, Winter

Grade

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

Not Provided

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

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

Not Provided

 

1759

 

1803

 

1778

 

1777

 

1823

 

1843

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

False Positive Rate

Not Provided

0.54

0.52

0.27

0.75

1.00

0.67

False Negative Rate

Not Provided

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.01

0.08

Sensitivity

Not Provided

0.94

0.95

0.96

0.97

0.99

0.92

Specificity

Not Provided

0.46

0.48

0.73

0.25

0.00

0.33

Positive Predictive Power

Not Provided

0.93

0.88

0.98

0.89

0.98

0.97

Negative Predictive Power

Not Provided

0.52

0.71

0.55

0.57

0.00

0.15

Overall Classification Rate

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

Not Provided

0.70

0.74

0.83

0.64

0.50

0.59

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

Not Provided

 

0.60

 

0.63

 

0.72

 

0.55

 

0.49

 

0.48

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

Not Provided

 

0.82

 

0.84

 

0.93

 

0.73

 

0.50

 

0.70

 

Criterion 2, Spring

Grade

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

Not Provided

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

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

Not Provided

 

1822

 

1853

 

1816

 

1807

 

1847

 

1843

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

False Positive Rate

Not Provided

0.21

0.31

0.12

0.53

0.50

0.80

False Negative Rate

Not Provided

0.02

0.09

0.02

0.07

0.02

0.06

Sensitivity

Not Provided

0.98

0.91

0.98

0.93

0.98

0.94

Specificity

Not Provided

0.79

0.69

0.88

0.47

0.50

0.20

Positive Predictive Power

Not Provided

0.97

0.92

0.99

0.92

0.98

0.97

Negative Predictive Power

Not Provided

0.83

0.67

0.74

0.48

0.50

0.11

Overall Classification Rate

Not Provided

0.95

0.87

0.97

0.87

0.97

0.91

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

Not Provided

0.88

0.81

0.84

0.71

0.74

0.55

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

Not Provided

 

0.79

 

0.71

 

0.74

 

0.61

 

0.52

 

0.44

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

Not Provided

 

0.96

 

0.90

 

0.94

 

0.81

 

0.96

 

0.65

 

Additional Classification Accuracy

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

 

Cross-Validation Sample

 

Criterion 1, Fall

Grade

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

TEMA

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

 

588

 

599

 

627

 

638

 

651

 

659

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

 

1756

 

1705

 

1778

 

1764

 

1766

 

1824

 

1829

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

 

0.19

 

0.15

 

0.12

 

0.07

 

0.21

 

0.11

 

0.02

False Positive Rate

0.64

0.48

0.6

0.17

0.88

0.83

1.00

False Negative Rate

0.04

0.05

0.1

0.3

0.01

0.02

0.08

Sensitivity

0.96

0.95

0.9

0.7

0.99

0.98

0.92

Specificity

0.36

0.52

0.4

0.83

0.12

0.17

0.00

Positive Predictive Power

 

0.86

0.92

0.92

0.98

0.81

0.78

0.98

Negative Predictive Power

0.67

0.62

0.35

0.18

0.71

0.75

0.00

Overall Classification Rate

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.67

0.74

0.65

0.76

0.56

0.57

0.46

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.59

0.64

0.52

0.67

0.50

0.45

0.44

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

 

0.75

 

0.83

 

0.78

 

0.86

 

0.61

 

0.62

 

0.49

 

Criterion 1, Winter

Grade

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

TEMA

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

 

588

 

599

 

627

 

638

 

651

 

659

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

 

1809

 

1759

 

1803

 

1778

 

1777

 

1823

 

1843

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

False Positive Rate

0.50

0.57

0.31

0.38

0.81

0.78

0.80

False Negative Rate

0.07

0.06

0.07

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.05

Sensitivity

0.94

0.94

0.93

0.97

0.97

0.98

0.95

Specificity

0.5

0.43

0.69

0.62

0.19

0.22

0.2

Positive Predictive Power

0.88

0.91

0.96

0.97

0.82

0.79

0.97

Negative Predictive Power

0.65

0.54

0.58

0.62

0.67

0.80

0.12

Overall Classification Rate

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.74

0.69

0.81

0.79

0.58

0.49

0.57

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

 

0.65

 

0.59

 

0.69

 

0.69

 

0.52

 

0.48

 

0.38

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

 

0.84

 

0.78

 

0.93

 

0.90

 

0.64

 

0.50

 

0.77

 

Criterion 1, Spring

Grade

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

TEMA

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

SAT10

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

 

588

 

599

 

627

 

638

 

651

 

659

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

 

1860

 

1822

 

1853

 

1816

 

1807

 

1847

 

1843

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

False Positive Rate

0.23

0.32

0.18

0.32

0.48

0.58

0.75

False Negative Rate

0.08

0.05

0.12

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Sensitivity

0.92

0.95

0.88

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95

Specificity

0.77

0.68

0.82

0.68

0.52

0.42

0.25

Positive Predictive Power

0.94

0.95

0.97

0.97

0.89

0.85

0.98

Negative Predictive Power

0.70

0.70

0.50

0.75

0.81

0.74

0.11

Overall Classification Rate

0.89

0.91

0.87

0.95

0.88

0.84

0.93

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.84

0.82

0.85

0.83

0.75

0.69

0.60

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

 

0.77

 

0.73

 

0.75

 

0.73

 

0.67

 

0.60

 

0.35

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

 

0.91

 

0.91

 

0.95

 

0.93

 

0.83

 

0.78

 

0.84

 

Criterion 2, Fall

Grade

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

Not Provided

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

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

Not Provided

 

1705

 

1778

 

1764

 

1766

 

1824

 

1829

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

False Positive Rate

Not Provided

0.48

0.57

0.08

0.93

0.75

0.83

False Negative Rate

Not Provided

0.05

0.06

0.29

0.03

0.01

0.12

Sensitivity

Not Provided

0.95

0.94

0.71

0.97

0.99

0.88

Specificity

Not Provided

0.52

0.43

0.92

0.07

0.25

0.17

Positive Predictive Power

Not Provided

0.94

0.88

0.99

0.89

0.99

0.96

Negative Predictive Power

Not Provided

0.57

0.63

0.16

0.25

0.33

0.06

Overall Classification Rate

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

Not Provided

0.75

0.71

0.76

0.53

0.60

0.51

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

Not Provided

 

0.64

 

0.60

 

0.71

 

0.47

 

0.40

 

0.42

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

Not Provided

 

0.86

 

0.82

 

0.89

 

0.59

 

0.79

 

0.59

 

Criterion 2, Winter

Grade

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

Not Provided

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

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

Not Provided

 

1759

 

1803

 

1778

 

1777

 

1823

 

1843

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

False Positive Rate

Not Provided

0.54

0.52

0.27

0.75

1.00

0.67

False Negative Rate

Not Provided

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.01

0.08

Sensitivity

Not Provided

0.94

0.95

0.96

0.97

0.99

0.92

Specificity

Not Provided

0.46

0.48

0.73

0.25

0.00

0.33

Positive Predictive Power

Not Provided

0.93

0.88

0.98

0.89

0.98

0.97

Negative Predictive Power

Not Provided

0.52

0.71

0.55

0.57

0.00

0.15

Overall Classification Rate

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

Not Provided

0.70

0.74

0.83

0.64

0.50

0.59

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

Not Provided

 

0.60

 

0.63

 

0.72

 

0.55

 

0.49

 

0.48

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

Not Provided

 

0.82

 

0.84

 

0.93

 

0.73

 

0.50

 

0.70

 

Criterion 2, Spring

Grade

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Criterion

Not Provided

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

STAAR

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

 

20th

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

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

Not Provided

 

1822

 

1853

 

1816

 

1807

 

1847

 

1843

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

False Positive Rate

Not Provided

0.21

0.31

0.12

0.53

0.50

0.80

False Negative Rate

Not Provided

0.02

0.09

0.02

0.07

0.02

0.06

Sensitivity

Not Provided

0.98

0.91

0.98

0.93

0.98

0.94

Specificity

Not Provided

0.79

0.69

0.88

0.47

0.50

0.20

Positive Predictive Power

Not Provided

0.97

0.92

0.99

0.92

0.98

0.97

Negative Predictive Power

Not Provided

0.83

0.67

0.74

0.48

0.50

0.11

Overall Classification Rate

Not Provided

0.95

0.87

0.97

0.87

0.97

0.91

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

Not Provided

0.88

0.81

0.84

0.71

0.74

0.55

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

Not Provided

 

0.79

 

0.71

 

0.74

 

0.61

 

0.52

 

0.44

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

Not Provided

 

0.96

 

0.90

 

0.94

 

0.81

 

0.96

 

0.65

 

Reliability

Grade2345678
RatingFull bubbledFull bubbledFull bubbledFull bubbledFull bubbledFull bubbledFull bubbled
  1. Justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool: Cronbach’s (1951) coefficient alpha is typically used as an indicator of reliability across test items within a testing instance. However, Cronboch’s Alpha is not appropriate for any IRT based measure because alpha assumes that all students in the testing instance respond to a common set of items. Due to its very nature, students taking a CAT-based assessment, such as ISIP Math, will receive a custom set of items based on their initial estimates of ability and response patterns. Thus, students do not respond to a common set of items. The IRT analogue to classical internal consistency is marginal reliability (Bock & Mislevy, 1982) and thus applied to ISIP Math.

 

  1. Description of the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted: Samples were obtained from three school districts in Texas during the 2015-2016 school year. There were 217 second graders for beginning of the year assessment (BOY/Fall), 211 second graders for middle of the year assessment (MOY/Winter), 207 second graders for end of the year assessment (EOY/Spring), 208 third graders for BOY, 204 third graders for MOY, 198 third graders for EOY, 133 fourth graders for BOY, 134 fourth graders for MOY, 133 fourth graders for EOY, 248 fifth graders for BOY, 251 fifth graders for MOY, 252 fifth graders for EOY, 247 sixth graders for BOY, 260 sixth graders for MOY, 250 sixth graders for EOY, 268 seventh graders for BOY, 250 seventh graders for MOY, 237 seventh graders for EOY, 289 eighth graders for BOY, 196 eighth graders for MOY, and 201 eighth graders for EOY.

 

  1. Description of the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability: IRT based reliability is derived from Classical Test Theory to Item Response Theory. IRT based reliability is computed at each administration. 

 

  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

IRT-based reliability

2

217

0.90

0.87

0.92

IRT-based reliability

2

211

0.92

0.89

0.93

IRT-based reliability

2

207

0.93

0.90

0.94

IRT-based reliability

3

208

0.90

0.87

0.92

IRT-based reliability

3

204

0.88

0.84

0.90

IRT-based reliability

3

198

0.94

0.92

0.95

IRT-based reliability

4

133

0.85

0.79

0.89

IRT-based reliability

4

134

0.88

0.83

0.91

IRT-based reliability

4

133

0.93

0.90

0.95

IRT-based reliability

5

248

0.92

0.89

0.93

IRT-based reliability

5

251

0.87

0.83

0.89

IRT-based reliability

5

252

0.92

0.89

0.93

IRT-based reliability

6

247

0.81

0.76

0.84

IRT-based reliability

6

260

0.85

0.81

0.88

IRT-based reliability

6

250

0.92

0.89

0.93

IRT-based reliability

7

268

0.85

0.81

0.88

IRT-based reliability

7

250

0.88

0.84

0.90

IRT-based reliability

7

237

0.93

0.91

0.94

IRT-based reliability

8

289

0.83

0.79

0.86

IRT-based reliability

8

196

0.88

0.84

0.90

IRT-based reliability

8

201

0.91

0.88

0.93

 

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

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

2

105

0.90

0.86

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

2

112

0.90

0.86

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

2

21

0.86

0.68

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

2

70

0.91

0.86

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

2

109

0.90

0.86

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

2

102

0.89

0.84

0.92

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

2

115

0.91

0.87

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

2

105

0.92

0.88

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

2

106

0.92

0.88

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

2

21

0.94

0.86

0.98

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

2

69

0.91

0.86

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

2

104

0.92

0.88

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

2

100

0.92

0.88

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

2

111

0.92

0.89

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

2

102

0.93

0.90

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

2

105

0.93

0.90

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

2

21

0.91

0.79

0.96

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

2

68

0.93

0.89

0.96

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

2

102

0.94

0.91

0.96

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

2

98

0.93

0.90

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

2

109

0.93

0.90

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

3

101

0.91

0.87

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

3

107

0.89

0.84

0.92

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

3

19

0.83

0.60

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

3

69

0.92

0.87

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

3

105

0.90

0.86

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

3

102

0.89

0.84

0.92

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

3

106

0.91

0.87

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

3

99

0.87

0.81

0.91

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

3

105

0.88

0.83

0.92

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

3

19

0.88

0.71

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

3

69

0.90

0.84

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

3

101

0.86

0.80

0.90

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

3

101

0.85

0.78

0.90

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

3

103

0.89

0.84

0.92

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

3

96

0.94

0.91

0.96

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

3

102

0.94

0.91

0.96

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

3

18

0.95

0.87

0.98

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

3

65

0.95

0.92

0.97

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

3

100

0.94

0.91

0.96

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

3

99

0.94

0.91

0.96

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

3

99

0.95

0.93

0.97

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

4

70

0.83

0.74

0.89

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

4

63

0.88

0.81

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

4

8

0.89

0.50

0.98

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

4

41

0.78

0.62

0.88

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

4

79

0.85

0.77

0.90

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

4

79

0.84

0.76

0.89

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

4

54

0.85

0.75

0.91

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

4

71

0.85

0.77

0.90

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

4

62

0.90

0.84

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

4

8

0.91

0.57

0.98

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

4

43

0.85

0.74

0.92

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

4

77

0.86

0.79

0.91

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

4

78

0.86

0.79

0.91

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

4

55

0.88

0.80

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

4

72

0.92

0.87

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

4

60

0.95

0.92

0.97

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

4

7

0.93

0.59

0.99

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

4

42

0.91

0.84

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

4

78

0.93

0.89

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

4

79

0.91

0.86

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

4

53

0.95

0.91

0.97

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

5

119

0.91

0.87

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

5

129

0.92

0.89

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

5

31

0.91

0.82

0.96

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

5

83

0.91

0.86

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

5

123

0.91

0.87

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

5

138

0.91

0.88

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

5

110

0.91

0.87

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

5

120

0.87

0.82

0.91

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

5

130

0.88

0.83

0.91

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

5

32

0.87

0.75

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

5

84

0.88

0.82

0.92

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

5

123

0.84

0.78

0.89

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

5

137

0.82

0.76

0.87

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

5

113

0.90

0.86

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

5

121

0.92

0.89

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

5

130

0.91

0.87

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

5

32

0.88

0.77

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

5

85

0.92

0.88

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

5

123

0.90

0.86

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

5

136

0.88

0.84

0.91

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

5

115

0.93

0.90

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

6

131

0.80

0.73

0.85

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

6

116

0.81

0.74

0.86

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

6

27

0.85

0.69

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

6

95

0.82

0.74

0.88

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

6

100

0.76

0.66

0.83

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

6

143

0.77

0.69

0.83

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

6

104

0.83

0.76

0.88

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

6

132

0.83

0.77

0.88

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

6

126

0.87

0.82

0.91

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

6

33

0.86

0.73

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

6

97

0.84

0.77

0.89

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

6

101

0.80

0.72

0.86

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

6

150

0.83

0.77

0.87

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

6

108

0.87

0.82

0.91

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

6

127

0.91

0.87

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

6

122

0.92

0.89

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

6

29

0.91

0.82

0.96

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

6

93

0.91

0.87

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

6

101

0.90

0.85

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

6

143

0.92

0.89

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

6

106

0.90

0.86

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

7

149

0.84

0.79

0.88

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

7

118

0.85

0.79

0.89

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

7

27

0.89

0.77

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

7

86

0.88

0.82

0.92

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

7

132

0.72

0.63

0.79

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

7

188

0.83

0.78

0.87

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

7

79

0.85

0.77

0.90

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

7

138

0.88

0.84

0.91

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

7

111

0.87

0.82

0.91

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

7

24

0.93

0.84

0.97

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

7

75

0.90

0.85

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

7

127

0.81

0.74

0.86

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

7

176

0.86

0.82

0.89

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

7

73

0.89

0.83

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

7

135

0.92

0.89

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

7

102

0.94

0.91

0.96

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

7

22

0.93

0.84

0.97

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

7

77

0.94

0.91

0.96

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

7

115

0.88

0.83

0.92

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

7

165

0.91

0.88

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

7

72

0.93

0.89

0.96

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

8

99

0.82

0.74

0.88

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

8

86

0.84

0.76

0.89

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

8

27

0.84

0.68

0.92

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

8

59

0.82

0.71

0.89

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

8

84

0.82

0.73

0.88

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

8

106

0.85

0.79

0.90

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

8

79

0.80

0.70

0.87

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

8

111

0.88

0.83

0.92

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

8

82

0.89

0.83

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

8

27

0.85

0.69

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

8

65

0.89

0.83

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

8

85

0.88

0.82

0.92

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

8

105

0.89

0.84

0.92

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

8

88

0.86

0.79

0.91

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Male

8

111

0.90

0.86

0.93

IRT-based reliability

Gender: Female

8

88

0.93

0.89

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Race: Black

8

27

0.92

0.83

0.96

IRT-based reliability

Race: Hispanic

8

67

0.91

0.86

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Race: White

8

86

0.92

0.88

0.95

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: No

8

119

0.92

0.89

0.94

IRT-based reliability

Eco-Dis: Yes

8

80

0.90

0.85

0.93

 

Validity

Grade2345678
RatingHalf-filled bubbledHalf-filled bubbledFull bubbledFull bubbledFull bubbledEmpty bubbledEmpty bubbled
  1. Description of each criterion measure used and explanation as to why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool: Predictive validity examines the relation between performance on the screener and a criterion of similar content that is administered at some time in the future. On the other hand, Concurrent validity examines the relation between performance on the screener and a criterion of similar content that is administered at the same point in time.

Renaissance Learning’s STAR Math is a computerized adaptive test intended for students in Grades 1 through 8. STAR Math is designed to provide teachers and administrators with data that can be used for multiple purposes such as screening, placement, planning instruction, benchmarking, and outcomes measurement. It also provides educators with estimates of students’ instructional math levels relative to national norms. Because STAR Math assesses a similar construct and has a similar use, STAR Math was used to provide validity property for ISIP Math.

The Test of Early Mathematics Ability –Third Edition (TEMA-3) was selected to provide validity property for ISIP Math because it assesses a similar construct. TEMA-3 is intended to identify children who are significantly behind or ahead of their peers in the development of mathematical thinking. The TEMA-3 is intended to be administered at the beginning of the school year as an early indicator of students’ abilities, but can also be administered later in the school year to assess student progress. Mathematical concepts and skills assessed in the TEMA-3 include relative magnitude, counting, calculation, convention, number facts, base 10 concepts, non-verbal production, non-verbal addition and subtraction, part whole concepts, equal partitioning, symbolic additive commutativity, number comparisons, and mental addition and subtraction.

The SAT10 was selected to provide validity property for ISIP Math because it assesses a similar construct. The SAT10 online math assessment is a web-based multiple-choice assessment. The assessment is composed of two subtests, Mathematics Problem Solving (PS) and Mathematics Procedures (P), and contain 30 items and 20 items, respectively (Pearson, 2003). The assessment is proctored by a trained test administrator or data collector in a group setting. The assessment is untimed, but students are required to complete the assessment within 24 hours of starting.

State of Texas Assessments for Academic Readiness (STAAR) is the current state sponsored testing program in Texas. It was also selected to provide validity property for ISIP Math. The mathematics STAAR is a mandatory state assessment administered at the end of each school year between the months of March and May to students in Grades 3–8. The assessment can be administered online or on paper. Students who take the mathematics STAAR receive a score for each of the four subdomains, a raw score, a scaled score, and one of three categories of proficiency (i.e., Advanced Academic Performance, Satisfactory Academic Performance, Unsatisfactory). STAAR is designed to measure the extent to which students are able to apply the knowledge and skills defined in the state curriculum standards.

 

  1. Description of the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted: Samples are derived from urban school districts in the northeast area of the state of Texas approximately 200 students per each assessment point.

 

  1. Description of the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity: Data for this study was obtained from three school districts in Texas during the 2015-2016 school year. Participants included eight schools and 108 teachers. There were 218 second graders, 210 third graders, 137 fourth grader, 254 fifth graders, 279 sixth graders, 292 seventh graders, and 231 eighth graders. The validity was calculated by determining the correlation between the scaled scores of the ISIP Math and the scaled scores of the TEMA-3, STAR Math, SAT10, SAT10 Procedures, SAT10 Problem Solving, and the STAAR, individually, by grade level.

 

  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

Grade

Criterion

n

Coefficient

95% Confidence Interval*: Lower Bound

95% Confidence Interval*: Upper Bound

Concurrent Validity

2

TEMA-3

195

0.69

0.61

0.76

Concurrent Validity

2

STAR Math

185

0.76

0.69

0.81

Concurrent Validity

2

STAR Math

183

0.81

0.75

0.85

Concurrent Validity

2

STAR Math

181

0.75

0.68

0.81

Concurrent Validity

3

STAR Math

170

0.71

0.63

0.78

Concurrent Validity

3

STAR Math

169

0.75

0.68

0.81

Concurrent Validity

3

STAR Math

167

0.74

0.66

0.80

Concurrent Validity

4

STAR Math

81

0.64

0.49

0.75

Concurrent Validity

4

STAR Math

69

0.67

0.51

0.78

Concurrent Validity

4

STAR Math

81

0.78

0.68

0.85

Concurrent Validity

5

STAR Math

224

0.55

0.45

0.64

Concurrent Validity

5

STAR Math

198

0.71

0.63

0.77

Concurrent Validity

5

STAR Math

235

0.76

0.70

0.81

Concurrent Validity

6

STAR Math

174

0.74

0.66

0.80

Concurrent Validity

6

STAR Math

173

0.77

0.70

0.82

Concurrent Validity

6

STAR Math

162

0.80

0.74

0.85

Concurrent Validity

7

STAR Math

222

0.61

0.52

0.69

Concurrent Validity

7

STAR Math

199

0.60

0.50

0.68

Concurrent Validity

7

STAR Math

211

0.76

0.70

0.81

Concurrent Validity

8

STAR Math

165

0.61

0.50

0.70

Concurrent Validity

8

STAR Math

167

0.59

0.48

0.68

Concurrent Validity

8

STAR Math

145

0.61

0.50

0.70

Concurrent Validity

3

SAT10

196

0.82

0.77

0.86

Concurrent Validity

4

SAT10

131

0.82

0.75

0.87

Concurrent Validity

5

SAT10

250

0.82

0.77

0.86

Concurrent Validity

6

SAT10

197

0.83

0.78

0.87

Concurrent Validity

7

SAT10

146

0.56

0.44

0.66

Concurrent Validity

8

SAT10

152

0.67

0.57

0.75

Concurrent Validity

3

SAT10 Procedures

196

0.68

0.60

0.75

Concurrent Validity

4

SAT10 Procedures

131

0.71

0.61

0.79

Concurrent Validity

5

SAT10 Procedures

250

0.77

0.71

0.82

Concurrent Validity

6

SAT10 Procedures

197

0.74

0.67

0.80

Concurrent Validity

7

SAT10 Procedures

146

0.57

0.45

0.67

Concurrent Validity

8

SAT10 Procedures

152

0.54

0.42

0.64

Concurrent Validity

3

SAT10 Problem Solving

196

0.82

0.77

0.86

Concurrent Validity

4

SAT10 Problem Solving

131

0.82

0.75

0.87

Concurrent Validity

5

SAT10 Problem Solving

250

0.75

0.69

0.80

Concurrent Validity

6

SAT10 Problem Solving

197

0.83

0.78

0.87

Concurrent Validity

7

SAT10 Problem Solving

146

0.45

0.31

0.57

Concurrent Validity

8

SAT10 Problem Solving

152

0.65

0.55

0.73

Concurrent Validity

3

STAAR

190

0.81

0.75

0.85

Concurrent Validity

4

STAAR

129

0.79

0.71

0.85

Concurrent Validity

5

STAAR

241

0.81

0.76

0.85

Concurrent Validity

6

STAAR

234

0.85

0.81

0.88

Concurrent Validity

7

STAAR

192

0.70

0.62

0.77

Concurrent Validity

8

STAAR

130

0.68

0.58

0.76

Predictive Validity

2

TEMA-3

195

0.60

0.50

0.68

Predictive Validity

2

TEMA-3

193

0.70

0.62

0.77

Predictive Validity

3

SAT10

200

0.73

0.66

0.79

Predictive Validity

4

SAT10

127

0.71

0.61

0.79

Predictive Validity

5

SAT10

244

0.57

0.48

0.65

Predictive Validity

6

SAT10

196

0.72

0.64

0.78

Predictive Validity

7

SAT10

146

0.43

0.29

0.55

Predictive Validity

8

SAT10

134

0.62

0.50

0.71

Predictive Validity

3

SAT10 Procedures

200

0.60

0.50

0.68

Predictive Validity

4

SAT10 Procedures

127

0.58

0.45

0.69

Predictive Validity

5

SAT10 Procedures

244

0.48

0.38

0.57

Predictive Validity

6

SAT10 Procedures

196

0.63

0.54

0.71

Predictive Validity

7

SAT10 Procedures

146

0.48

0.34

0.60

Predictive Validity

8

SAT10 Procedures

134

0.50

0.36

0.62

Predictive Validity

3

SAT10 Problem Solving

200

0.75

0.68

0.80

Predictive Validity

4

SAT10 Problem Solving

127

0.72

0.62

0.79

Predictive Validity

5

SAT10 Problem Solving

244

0.58

0.49

0.66

Predictive Validity

6

SAT10 Problem Solving

196

0.72

0.64

0.78

Predictive Validity

7

SAT10 Problem Solving

146

0.31

0.16

0.45

Predictive Validity

8

SAT10 Problem Solving

134

0.62

0.50

0.71

Predictive Validity

3

SAT10

198

0.71

0.63

0.77

Predictive Validity

4

SAT10

129

0.76

0.68

0.82

Predictive Validity

5

SAT10

247

0.75

0.69

0.80

Predictive Validity

6

SAT10

197

0.72

0.65

0.78

Predictive Validity

7

SAT10

138

0.51

0.37

0.62

Predictive Validity

8

SAT10

139

0.67

0.57

0.75

Predictive Validity

3

SAT10 Procedures

198

0.58

0.48

0.67

Predictive Validity

4

SAT10 Procedures

129

0.65

0.54

0.74

Predictive Validity

5

SAT10 Procedures

247

0.67

0.59

0.73

Predictive Validity

6

SAT10 Procedures

197

0.63

0.54

0.71

Predictive Validity

7

SAT10 Procedures

138

0.48

0.34

0.60

Predictive Validity

8

SAT10 Procedures

139

0.54

0.41

0.65

Predictive Validity

3

SAT10 Problem Solving

198

0.73

0.41

0.65

Predictive Validity

4

SAT10 Problem Solving

129

0.75

0.66

0.79

Predictive Validity

5

SAT10 Problem Solving

247

0.72

0.66

0.82

Predictive Validity

6

SAT10 Problem Solving

197

0.73

0.65

0.78

Predictive Validity

7

SAT10 Problem Solving

138

0.43

0.66

0.79

Predictive Validity

8

SAT10 Problem Solving

139

0.64

0.28

0.56

Predictive Validity

3

STAAR

195

0.65

0.53

0.73

Predictive Validity

4

STAAR

125

0.70

0.56

0.72

Predictive Validity

5

STAAR

235

0.54

0.60

0.78

Predictive Validity

6

STAAR

230

0.72

0.44

0.62

Predictive Validity

7

STAAR

212

0.69

0.65

0.78

Predictive Validity

8

STAAR

139

0.57

0.61

0.75

Predictive Validity

3

STAAR

194

0.68

0.45

0.67

Predictive Validity

4

STAAR

127

0.77

0.60

0.75

Predictive Validity

5

STAAR

238

0.74

0.69

0.83

Predictive Validity

6

STAAR

239

0.79

0.68

0.79

Predictive Validity

7

STAAR

205

0.66

0.74

0.83

Predictive Validity

8

STAAR

140

0.65

0.57

0.73

 

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

 

  1. Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool: The results suggest moderate to strong relationships between ISIP Math and STAR Math, TEMA-3, SAT10, SAT10 Procedures, SAT10 Problem Solving, and STAAR. Our findings also show very convincing evidence across all 3 data points (Fall: beginning of the year (BOY), Winter: middle of the year (MOY), and Spring: end of the year (EOY) across grades 2-8.

 

Disaggregated Validity

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

Type of Validity

Subgroup

Grade

Criterion

n

Coefficient

95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound

95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound

Concurrent

Gender: Male

2

STAR Math

112

0.77

0.68

0.84

Concurrent

Gender: Female

2

STAR Math

105

0.73

0.63

0.81

Concurrent

Race: Black

2

STAR Math

21

0.82

0.60

0.92

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

2

STAR Math

70

0.76

0.64

0.84

Concurrent

Race: White

2

STAR Math

109

0.74

0.64

0.81

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

2

STAR Math

102

0.81

0.73

0.87

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

2

STAR Math

115

0.72

0.62

0.80

Concurrent

Gender: Male

3

STAR Math

107

0.77

0.68

0.84

Concurrent

Gender: Female

3

STAR Math

101

0.63

0.50

0.73

Concurrent

Race: Black

3

STAR Math

19

0.61

0.22

0.83

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

3

STAR Math

69

0.80

0.69

0.87

Concurrent

Race: White

3

STAR Math

105

0.67

0.55

0.76

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

3

STAR Math

102

0.64

0.51

0.74

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

3

STAR Math

106

0.76

0.67

0.83

Concurrent

Gender: Male

4

STAR Math

63

0.57

0.38

0.72

Concurrent

Gender: Female

4

STAR Math

70

0.70

0.56

0.80

Concurrent

Race: Black

4

STAR Math

8

0.57

-0.23

0.91

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

4

STAR Math

41

0.78

0.62

0.88

Concurrent

Race: White

4

STAR Math

79

0.63

0.48

0.75

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

4

STAR Math

79

0.51

0.33

0.66

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

4

STAR Math

54

0.77

0.63

0.86

Concurrent

Gender: Male

5

STAR Math

129

0.55

0.42

0.66

Concurrent

Gender: Female

5

STAR Math

119

0.54

0.40

0.66

Concurrent

Race: Black

5

STAR Math

31

0.36

0.01

0.63

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

5

STAR Math

83

0.49

0.31

0.64

Concurrent

Race: White

5

STAR Math

123

0.57

0.44

0.68

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

5

STAR Math

138

0.55

0.42

0.66

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

5

STAR Math

110

0.50

0.35

0.63

Concurrent

Gender: Male

6

STAR Math

116

0.80

0.72

0.86

Concurrent

Gender: Female

6

STAR Math

131

0.65

0.54

0.74

Concurrent

Race: Black

6

STAR Math

27

0.82

0.64

0.91

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

6

STAR Math

95

0.74

0.63

0.82

Concurrent

Race: White

6

STAR Math

100

0.65

0.52

0.75

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

6

STAR Math

143

0.70

0.61

0.78

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

6

STAR Math

104

0.76

0.66

0.83

Concurrent

Gender: Male

7

STAR Math

118

0.65

0.53

0.74

Concurrent

Gender: Female

7

STAR Math

149

0.57

0.45

0.67

Concurrent

Race: Black

7

STAR Math

27

0.26

-0.13

0.58

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

7

STAR Math

86

0.52

0.35

0.66

Concurrent

Race: White

7

STAR Math

132

0.66

0.55

0.75

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

7

STAR Math

188

0.60

0.50

0.68

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

7

STAR Math

79

0.55

0.37

0.69

Concurrent

Gender: Male

8

STAR Math

86

0.60

0.44

0.72

Concurrent

Gender: Female

8

STAR Math

99

0.62

0.48

0.73

Concurrent

Race: Black

8

STAR Math

27

0.70

0.44

0.85

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

8

STAR Math

59

0.55

0.34

0.71

Concurrent

Race: White

8

STAR Math

84

0.55

0.38

0.68

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

8

STAR Math

106

0.63

0.50

0.73

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

8

STAR Math

79

0.57

0.40

0.70

Concurrent

Gender: Male

2

STAR Math

106

0.81

0.73

0.87

Concurrent

Gender: Female

2

STAR Math

105

0.81

0.73

0.87

Concurrent

Race: Black

2

STAR Math

21

0.85

0.66

0.94

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

2

STAR Math

69

0.79

0.68

0.86

Concurrent

Race: White

2

STAR Math

104

0.84

0.77

0.89

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

2

STAR Math

100

0.82

0.74

0.88

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

2

STAR Math

111

0.80

0.72

0.86

Concurrent

Gender: Male

3

STAR Math

105

0.78

0.69

0.85

Concurrent

Gender: Female

3

STAR Math

99

0.69

0.57

0.78

Concurrent

Race: Black

3

STAR Math

19

0.93

0.82

0.97

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

3

STAR Math

69

0.78

0.67

0.86

Concurrent

Race: White

3

STAR Math

101

0.71

0.60

0.80

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

3

STAR Math

101

0.73

0.62

0.81

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

3

STAR Math

103

0.76

0.66

0.83

Concurrent

Gender: Male

4

STAR Math

62

0.68

0.52

0.79

Concurrent

Gender: Female

4

STAR Math

71

0.69

0.54

0.80

Concurrent

Race: Black

4

STAR Math

8

0.10

-0.65

0.75

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

4

STAR Math

43

0.73

0.55

0.85

Concurrent

Race: White

4

STAR Math

77

0.67

0.52

0.78

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

4

STAR Math

78

0.64

0.49

0.76

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

4

STAR Math

55

0.75

0.61

0.85

Concurrent

Gender: Male

5

STAR Math

130

0.71

0.61

0.79

Concurrent

Gender: Female

5

STAR Math

120

0.71

0.61

0.79

Concurrent

Race: Black

5

STAR Math

32

0.81

0.64

0.90

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

5

STAR Math

84

0.63

0.48

0.74

Concurrent

Race: White

5

STAR Math

123

0.68

0.57

0.76

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

5

STAR Math

137

0.64

0.53

0.73

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

5

STAR Math

113

0.75

0.66

0.82

Concurrent

Gender: Male

6

STAR Math

126

0.78

0.70

0.84

Concurrent

Gender: Female

6

STAR Math

132

0.75

0.66

0.82

Concurrent

Race: Black

6

STAR Math

33

0.70

0.47

0.84

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

6

STAR Math

97

0.77

0.67

0.84

Concurrent

Race: White

6

STAR Math

101

0.70

0.58

0.79

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

6

STAR Math

150

0.80

0.73

0.85

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

6

STAR Math

108

0.70

0.59

0.79

Concurrent

Gender: Male

7

STAR Math

111

0.55

0.41

0.67

Concurrent

Gender: Female

7

STAR Math

138

0.64

0.53

0.73

Concurrent

Race: Black

7

STAR Math

24

0.81

0.60

0.91

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

7

STAR Math

75

0.66

0.51

0.77

Concurrent

Race: White

7

STAR Math

127

0.35

0.19

0.49

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

7

STAR Math

176

0.46

0.33

0.57

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

7

STAR Math

73

0.77

0.66

0.85

Concurrent

Gender: Male

8

STAR Math

82

0.60

0.44

0.72

Concurrent

Gender: Female

8

STAR Math

111

0.59

0.45

0.70

Concurrent

Race: Black

8

STAR Math

27

0.47

0.11

0.72

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

8

STAR Math

65

0.64

0.47

0.76

Concurrent

Race: White

8

STAR Math

85

0.59

0.43

0.71

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

8

STAR Math

105

0.61

0.47

0.72

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

8

STAR Math

88

0.59

0.43

0.71

Concurrent

Gender: Male

2

STAR Math

105

0.80

0.72

0.86

Concurrent

Gender: Female

2

STAR Math

102

0.71

0.60

0.79

Concurrent

Race: Black

2

STAR Math

21

0.63

0.27

0.83

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

2

STAR Math

68

0.80

0.69

0.87

Concurrent

Race: White

2

STAR Math

102

0.78

0.69

0.85

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

2

STAR Math

98

0.76

0.66

0.83

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

2

STAR Math

109

0.76

0.67

0.83

Concurrent

Gender: Male

3

STAR Math

102

0.80

0.72

0.86

Concurrent

Gender: Female

3

STAR Math

96

0.65

0.52

0.75

Concurrent

Race: Black

3

STAR Math

18

0.71

0.36

0.88

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

3

STAR Math

65

0.81

0.71

0.88

Concurrent

Race: White

3

STAR Math

100

0.70

0.58

0.79

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

3

STAR Math

99

0.76

0.66

0.83

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

3

STAR Math

99

0.72

0.61

0.80

Concurrent

Gender: Male

4

STAR Math

60

0.79

0.67

0.87

Concurrent

Gender: Female

4

STAR Math

72

0.77

0.66

0.85

Concurrent

Race: Black

4

STAR Math

7

0.99

0.93

1.00

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

4

STAR Math

42

0.81

0.67

0.89

Concurrent

Race: White

4

STAR Math

78

0.78

0.67

0.85

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

4

STAR Math

79

0.67

0.53

0.78

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

4

STAR Math

53

0.86

0.77

0.92

Concurrent

Gender: Male

5

STAR Math

130

0.76

0.68

0.82

Concurrent

Gender: Female

5

STAR Math

121

0.77

0.69

0.83

Concurrent

Race: Black

5

STAR Math

32

0.68

0.43

0.83

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

5

STAR Math

85

0.79

0.69

0.86

Concurrent

Race: White

5

STAR Math

123

0.71

0.61

0.79

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

5

STAR Math

136

0.64

0.53

0.73

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

5

STAR Math

115

0.80

0.72

0.86

Concurrent

Gender: Male

6

STAR Math

122

0.80

0.73

0.86

Concurrent

Gender: Female

6

STAR Math

127

0.80

0.73

0.86

Concurrent

Race: Black

6

STAR Math

29

0.67

0.40

0.83

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

6

STAR Math

93

0.83

0.75

0.88

Concurrent

Race: White

6

STAR Math

101

0.76

0.66

0.83

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

6

STAR Math

143

0.76

0.68

0.82

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

6

STAR Math

106

0.84

0.77

0.89

Concurrent

Gender: Male

7

STAR Math

102

0.78

0.69

0.85

Concurrent

Gender: Female

7

STAR Math

135

0.74

0.65

0.81

Concurrent

Race: Black

7

STAR Math

22

0.84

0.65

0.93

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

7

STAR Math

77

0.74

0.62

0.83

Concurrent

Race: White

7

STAR Math

115

0.58

0.44

0.69

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

7

STAR Math

165

0.71

0.63

0.78

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

7

STAR Math

72

0.78

0.67

0.86

Concurrent

Gender: Male

8

STAR Math

88

0.71

0.59

0.80

Concurrent

Gender: Female

8

STAR Math

111

0.53

0.38

0.65

Concurrent

Race: Black

8

STAR Math

27

0.55

0.21

0.77

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

8

STAR Math

67

0.71

0.57

0.81

Concurrent

Race: White

8

STAR Math

86

0.60

0.44

0.72

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

8

STAR Math

119

0.62

0.50

0.72

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

8

STAR Math

80

0.60

0.44

0.72

Predictive

Gender: Male

2

Tema-3

105

0.72

0.61

0.80

Predictive

Gender: Female

2

Tema-3

102

0.65

0.52

0.75

Predictive

Race: Black

2

Tema-3

21

0.75

0.47

0.89

Predictive

Race: Hispanic

2

Tema-3

68

0.68

0.53

0.79

Predictive

Race: White

2

Tema-3

102

0.69

0.57

0.78

Predictive

Eco-Dis: No

2

Tema-3

98

0.74

0.63

0.82

Predictive

Eco-Dis: Yes

2

Tema-3

109

0.62

0.49

0.72

Predictive

Gender: Male

3

STAAR

107

0.62

0.49

0.72

Predictive

Gender: Female

3

STAAR

101

0.68

0.56

0.77

Predictive

Race: Black

3

STAAR

19

0.54

0.11

0.80

Predictive

Race: Hispanic

3

STAAR

69

0.74

0.61

0.83

Predictive

Race: White

3

STAAR

105

0.66

0.54

0.76

Predictive

Eco-Dis: No

3

STAAR

102

0.62

0.48

0.73

Predictive

Eco-Dis: Yes

3

STAAR

106

0.68

0.56

0.77

Predictive

Gender: Male

4

STAAR

63

0.67

0.51

0.79

Predictive

Gender: Female

4

STAAR

70

0.76

0.64

0.84

Predictive

Race: Black

4

STAAR

8

0.90

0.53

0.98

Predictive

Race: Hispanic

4

STAAR

41

0.66

0.44

0.80

Predictive

Race: White

4

STAAR

79

0.66

0.51

0.77

Predictive

Eco-Dis: No

4

STAAR

79

0.58

0.41

0.71

Predictive

Eco-Dis: Yes

4

STAAR

54

0.82

0.71

0.89

Predictive

Gender: Male

5

STAAR

129

0.53

0.39

0.64

Predictive

Gender: Female

5

STAAR

119

0.55

0.41

0.66

Predictive

Race: Black

5

STAAR

31

0.51

0.19

0.73

Predictive

Race: Hispanic

5

STAAR

83

0.52

0.34

0.66

Predictive

Race: White

5

STAAR

123

0.47

0.32

0.60

Predictive

Eco-Dis: No

5

STAAR

138

0.53

0.40

0.64

Predictive

Eco-Dis: Yes

5

STAAR

110

0.51

0.36

0.64

Predictive

Gender: Male

6

STAAR

116

0.74

0.64

0.81

Predictive

Gender: Female

6

STAAR

131

0.70

0.60

0.78

Predictive

Race: Black

6

STAAR

27

0.81

0.62

0.91

Predictive

Race: Hispanic

6

STAAR

95

0.69

0.57

0.78

Predictive

Race: White

6

STAAR

100

0.72

0.61

0.80

Predictive

Eco-Dis: No

6

STAAR

143

0.73

0.64

0.80

Predictive

Eco-Dis: Yes

6

STAAR

104

0.72

0.61

0.80

Predictive

Gender: Male

7

STAAR

118

0.66

0.54

0.75

Predictive

Gender: Female

7

STAAR

149

0.70

0.61

0.77

Predictive

Race: Black

7

STAAR

27

0.67

0.39

0.84

Predictive

Race: Hispanic

7

STAAR

86

0.68

0.55

0.78

Predictive

Race: White

7

STAAR

132

0.61

0.49

0.71

Predictive

Eco-Dis: No

7

STAAR

188

0.64

0.55

0.72

Predictive

Eco-Dis: Yes

7

STAAR

79

0.72

0.59

0.81

Predictive

Gender: Male

8

STAAR

86

0.55

0.38

0.68

Predictive

Gender: Female

8

STAAR

99

0.58

0.43

0.70

Predictive

Race: Black

8

STAAR

27

0.46

0.10

0.72

Predictive

Race: Hispanic

8

STAAR

59

0.47

0.24

0.65

Predictive

Race: White

8

STAAR

84

0.61

0.46

0.73

Predictive

Eco-Dis: No

8

STAAR

106

0.64

0.51

0.74

Predictive

Eco-Dis: Yes

8

STAAR

79

0.40

0.20

0.57

Predictive

Gender: Male

3

STAAR

105

0.64

0.51

0.74

Predictive

Gender: Female

3

STAAR

99

0.73

0.62

0.81

Predictive

Race: Black

3

STAAR

19

0.68

0.33

0.87

Predictive

Race: Hispanic

3

STAAR

69

0.77

0.65

0.85

Predictive

Race: White

3

STAAR

101

0.63

0.50

0.73

Predictive

Eco-Dis: No

3

STAAR

101

0.65

0.52

0.75

Predictive

Eco-Dis: Yes

3

STAAR

103

0.71

0.60

0.79

Predictive

Gender: Male

4

STAAR

62

0.79

0.67

0.87

Predictive

Gender: Female

4

STAAR

71

0.78

0.67

0.86

Predictive

Race: Black

4

STAAR

8

0.84

0.33

0.97

Predictive

Race: Hispanic

4

STAAR

43

0.79

0.64

0.88

Predictive

Race: White

4

STAAR

77

0.72

0.59

0.81

Predictive

Eco-Dis: No

4

STAAR

78

0.68

0.54

0.78

Predictive

Eco-Dis: Yes

4

STAAR

55

0.83

0.72

0.90

Predictive

Gender: Male

5

STAAR

130

0.74

0.65

0.81

Predictive

Gender: Female

5

STAAR

120

0.75

0.66

0.82

Predictive

Race: Black

5

STAAR

32

0.66

0.40

0.82

Predictive

Race: Hispanic

5

STAAR

84

0.76

0.65

0.84

Predictive

Race: White

5

STAAR

123

0.69

0.58

0.77

Predictive

Eco-Dis: No

5

STAAR

137

0.65

0.54

0.74

Predictive

Eco-Dis: Yes

5

STAAR

113

0.79

0.71

0.85

Predictive

Gender: Male

6

STAAR

126

0.81

0.74

0.86

Predictive

Gender: Female

6

STAAR

132

0.77

0.69

0.83

Predictive

Race: Black

6

STAAR

33

0.80

0.63

0.90

Predictive

Race: Hispanic

6

STAAR

97

0.74

0.63

0.82

Predictive

Race: White

6

STAAR

101

0.75

0.65

0.82

Predictive

Eco-Dis: No

6

STAAR

150

0.78

0.71

0.84

Predictive

Eco-Dis: Yes

6

STAAR

108

0.81

0.73

0.87

Predictive

Gender: Male

7

STAAR

111

0.68

0.57

0.77

Predictive

Gender: Female

7

STAAR

138

0.67

0.57

0.75

Predictive

Race: Black

7

STAAR

24

0.88

0.74

0.95

Predictive

Race: Hispanic

7

STAAR

75

0.74

0.62

0.83

Predictive

Race: White

7

STAAR

127

0.55

0.42

0.66

Predictive

Eco-Dis: No

7

STAAR

176

0.61

0.51

0.70

Predictive

Eco-Dis: Yes

7

STAAR

73

0.73

0.60

0.82

Predictive

Gender: Male

8

STAAR

82

0.61

0.45

0.73

Predictive

Gender: Female

8

STAAR

111

0.68

0.57

0.77

Predictive

Race: Black

8

STAAR

27

0.36

-0.02

0.65

Predictive

Race: Hispanic

8

STAAR

65

0.61

0.43

0.74

Predictive

Race: White

8

STAAR

85

0.66

0.52

0.77

Predictive

Eco-Dis: No

8

STAAR

105

0.67

0.55

0.76

Predictive

Eco-Dis: Yes

8

STAAR

88

0.59

0.43

0.71

Concurrent

Gender: Male

3

STAAR

102

0.82

0.74

0.87

Concurrent

Gender: Female

3

STAAR

96

0.79

0.70

0.86

Concurrent

Race: Black

3

STAAR

18

0.87

0.68

0.95

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

3

STAAR

65

0.87

0.79

0.92

Concurrent

Race: White

3

STAAR

100

0.75

0.65

0.82

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

3

STAAR

99

0.79

0.70

0.85

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

3

STAAR

99

0.81

0.73

0.87

Concurrent

Gender: Male

4

STAAR

60

0.81

0.70

0.88

Concurrent

Gender: Female

4

STAAR

72

0.80

0.70

0.87

Concurrent

Race: Black

4

STAAR

7

0.90

0.46

0.99

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

4

STAAR

42

0.83

0.70

0.91

Concurrent

Race: White

4

STAAR

78

0.73

0.61

0.82

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

4

STAAR

79

0.68

0.54

0.78

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

4

STAAR

53

0.87

0.78

0.92

Concurrent

Gender: Male

5

STAAR

130

0.77

0.69

0.83

Concurrent

Gender: Female

5

STAAR

121

0.84

0.78

0.89

Concurrent

Race: Black

5

STAAR

32

0.74

0.53

0.87

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

5

STAAR

85

0.80

0.71

0.87

Concurrent

Race: White

5

STAAR

123

0.78

0.70

0.84

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

5

STAAR

136

0.74

0.65

0.81

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

5

STAAR

115

0.83

0.76

0.88

Concurrent

Gender: Male

6

STAAR

122

0.85

0.79

0.89

Concurrent

Gender: Female

6

STAAR

127

0.85

0.79

0.89

Concurrent

Race: Black

6

STAAR

29

0.82

0.65

0.91

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

6

STAAR

93

0.81

0.73

0.87

Concurrent

Race: White

6

STAAR

101

0.85

0.78

0.90

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

6

STAAR

143

0.85

0.80

0.89

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

6

STAAR

106

0.83

0.76

0.88

Concurrent

Gender: Male

7

STAAR

102

0.70

0.59

0.79

Concurrent

Gender: Female

7

STAAR

135

0.71

0.61

0.78

Concurrent

Race: Black

7

STAAR

22

0.68

0.36

0.86

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

7

STAAR

77

0.78

0.67

0.85

Concurrent

Race: White

7

STAAR

115

0.54

0.40

0.66

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

7

STAAR

165

0.62

0.52

0.71

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

7

STAAR

72

0.74

0.61

0.83

Concurrent

Gender: Male

8

STAAR

88

0.61

0.46

0.73

Concurrent

Gender: Female

8

STAAR

111

0.73

0.63

0.81

Concurrent

Race: Black

8

STAAR

27

0.39

0.01

0.67

Concurrent

Race: Hispanic

8

STAAR

67

0.73

0.59

0.83

Concurrent

Race: White

8

STAAR

86

0.68

0.55

0.78

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: No

8

STAAR

119

0.69

0.58

0.77

Concurrent

Eco-Dis: Yes

8

STAAR

80

0.64

0.49

0.75

 

 

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

 

Sample Representativeness

Grade2345678
Data
  • Local with Cross-Validation
  • Local with Cross-Validation
  • Local with Cross-Validation
  • Local with Cross-Validation
  • Local with Cross-Validation
  • Local with Cross-Validation
  • Local with Cross-Validation
  • Primary Classification Accuracy Sample

    Criterion 1, Fall

    Grade

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    Criterion

    TEMA

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    National/Local Representation

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    Date

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sample Size

    217

    208

    133

    248

    247

    268

    189

    Male

    112

    107

    63

    129

    116

    118

    86

    Female

    105

    101

    70

    119

    131

    149

    99

    Gender Unknown

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    4

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    115

    106

    54

    110

    104

    79

    79

    White, Non-Hispanic

    109

    105

    79

    123

    100

    132

    84

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    21

    19

    8

    31

    27

    27

    27

    Hispanic

    70

    69

    41

    83

    95

    86

    59

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Other

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    17

    15

    5

    11

    25

    23

    19

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    First Language

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

     

    Criterion 1, Winter

    Grade

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    Criterion

    TEMA

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    National/Local Representation

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    Date

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Sample Size

    211

    204

    134

    251

    260

    250

    196

    Male

    106

    105

    62

    130

    126

    111

    82

    Female

    105

    99

    71

    120

    132

    138

    111

    Gender Unknown

    0

    0

    1

    1

    2

    1

    3

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    111

    103

    55

    113

    108

    73

    88

    White, Non-Hispanic

    104

    101

    77

    123

    101

    127

    85

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    21

    19

    8

    32

    33

    24

    27

    Hispanic

    69

    69

    43

    84

    97

    75

    65

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Other

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    17

    15

    6

    12

    29

    24

    19

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    First Language

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

     

    Criterion 1, Spring

    Grade

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    Criterion

    TEMA

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    National/Local Representation

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    Date

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    Sample Size

    207

    198

    133

    252

    250

    237

    201

    Male

    105

    102

    60

    130

    122

    102

    88

    Female

    102

    96

    72

    121

    127

    135

    111

    Gender Unknown

    0

    0

    1

    1

    1

    0

    2

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    109

    99

    53

    115

    106

    72

    80

    White, Non-Hispanic

    102

    100

    78

    123

    101

    115

    86

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    21

    18

    7

    32

    29

    22

    27

    Hispanic

    68

    65

    42

    85

    93

    77

    67

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Other

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    16

    15

    6

    12

    27

    23

    21

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    First Language

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

     

    Criterion 2, Fall

    Grade

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    Criterion

    Not Provided

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    National/Local Representation

    Not Provided

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    Date

    Not Provided

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sample Size

    Not Provided

    196

    128

    240

    253

    231

    148

    Male

    Not Provided

    100

    60

    125

    120

    103

    60

    Female

    Not Provided

    96

    68

    115

    133

    126

    85

    Gender Unknown

    Not Provided

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    3

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    Not Provided

    99

    52

    105

    107

    61

    65

    White, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    103

    75

    21

    99

    30

    82

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    18

    7

    30

    30

    11

    19

    Hispanic

    Not Provided

    65

    41

    79

    95

    66

    35

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Other

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    Not Provided

    10

    5

    10

    9

    22

    9

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    First Language

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

     

    Criterion 2, Winter

    Grade

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    Criterion

    Not Provided

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    National/Local Representation

    Not Provided

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    Date

    Not Provided

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Sample Size

    Not Provided

    196

    128

    240

    253

    231

    148

    Male

    Not Provided

    100

    60

    125

    120

    103

    60

    Female

    Not Provided

    96

    68

    115

    133

    126

    85

    Gender Unknown

    Not Provided

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    3

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    Not Provided

    99

    52

    105

    107

    61

    65

    White, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    103

    75

    21

    99

    30

    82

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    18

    7

    30

    30

    11

    19

    Hispanic

    Not Provided

    65

    41

    79

    95

    66

    35

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Other

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    Not Provided

    10

    5

    10

    9

    22

    9

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    First Language

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

     

    Criterion 2, Spring

    Grade

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    Criterion

    Not Provided

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    National/Local Representation

    Not Provided

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    Date

    Not Provided

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    Sample Size

    Not Provided

    196

    128

    240

    253

    231

    148

    Male

    Not Provided

    100

    60

    125

    120

    103

    60

    Female

    Not Provided

    96

    68

    115

    133

    126

    85

    Gender Unknown

    Not Provided

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    3

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    Not Provided

    99

    52

    105

    107

    61

    65

    White, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    103

    75

    21

    99

    30

    82

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    18

    7

    30

    30

    11

    19

    Hispanic

    Not Provided

    65

    41

    79

    95

    66

    35

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Other

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    Not Provided

    10

    5

    10

    9

    22

    9

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    First Language

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

     

    Cross Validation Sample

    Criterion 1, Fall

    Grade

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    Criterion

    TEMA

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    National/Local Representation

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    Date

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sample Size

    217

    208

    133

    248

    247

    268

    189

    Male

    112

    107

    63

    129

    116

    118

    86

    Female

    105

    101

    70

    119

    131

    149

    99

    Gender Unknown

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    4

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    115

    106

    54

    110

    104

    79

    79

    White, Non-Hispanic

    109

    105

    79

    123

    100

    132

    84

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    21

    19

    8

    31

    27

    27

    27

    Hispanic

    70

    69

    41

    83

    95

    86

    59

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Other

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    17

    15

    5

    11

    25

    23

    19

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    First Language

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

     

    Criterion 1, Winter

    Grade

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    Criterion

    TEMA

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    National/Local Representation

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    Date

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Sample Size

    211

    204

    134

    251

    260

    250

    196

    Male

    106

    105

    62

    130

    126

    111

    82

    Female

    105

    99

    71

    120

    132

    138

    111

    Gender Unknown

    0

    0

    1

    1

    2

    1

    3

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    111

    103

    55

    113

    108

    73

    88

    White, Non-Hispanic

    104

    101

    77

    123

    101

    127

    85

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    21

    19

    8

    32

    33

    24

    27

    Hispanic

    69

    69

    43

    84

    97

    75

    65

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Other

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    17

    15

    6

    12

    29

    24

    19

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    First Language

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

     

    Criterion 1, Spring

    Grade

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    Criterion

    TEMA

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    SAT10

    National/Local Representation

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    Date

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    Sample Size

    207

    198

    133

    252

    250

    237

    201

    Male

    105

    102

    60

    130

    122

    102

    88

    Female

    102

    96

    72

    121

    127

    135

    111

    Gender Unknown

    0

    0

    1

    1

    1

    0

    2

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    109

    99

    53

    115

    106

    72

    80

    White, Non-Hispanic

    102

    100

    78

    123

    101

    115

    86

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    21

    18

    7

    32

    29

    22

    27

    Hispanic

    68

    65

    42

    85

    93

    77

    67

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Other

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    16

    15

    6

    12

    27

    23

    21

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    First Language

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

     

    Criterion 2, Fall

    Grade

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    Criterion

    Not Provided

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    National/Local Representation

    Not Provided

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    Date

    Not Provided

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sep–Oct 2015

    Sample Size

    Not Provided

    196

    128

    240

    253

    231

    148

    Male

    Not Provided

    100

    60

    125

    120

    103

    60

    Female

    Not Provided

    96

    68

    115

    133

    126

    85

    Gender Unknown

    Not Provided

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    3

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    Not Provided

    99

    52

    105

    107

    61

    65

    White, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    103

    75

    21

    99

    30

    82

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    18

    7

    30

    30

    11

    19

    Hispanic

    Not Provided

    65

    41

    79

    95

    66

    35

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Other

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    Not Provided

    10

    5

    10

    9

    22

    9

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    First Language

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

     

    Criterion 2, Winter

    Grade

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    Criterion

    Not Provided

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    National/Local Representation

    Not Provided

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    Date

    Not Provided

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Jan–Feb 2016

    Sample Size

    Not Provided

    196

    128

    240

    253

    231

    148

    Male

    Not Provided

    100

    60

    125

    120

    103

    60

    Female

    Not Provided

    96

    68

    115

    133

    126

    85

    Gender Unknown

    Not Provided

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    3

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    Not Provided

    99

    52

    105

    107

    61

    65

    White, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    103

    75

    21

    99

    30

    82

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    18

    7

    30

    30

    11

    19

    Hispanic

    Not Provided

    65

    41

    79

    95

    66

    35

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Other

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    Not Provided

    10

    5

    10

    9

    22

    9

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    First Language

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

     

    Criterion 2, Spring

    Grade

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    Criterion

    Not Provided

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    STAAR

    National/Local Representation

    Not Provided

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    All samples were from Texas

    Date

    Not Provided

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    May–Jun 2016

    Sample Size

    Not Provided

    196

    128

    240

    253

    231

    148

    Male

    Not Provided

    100

    60

    125

    120

    103

    60

    Female

    Not Provided

    96

    68

    115

    133

    126

    85

    Gender Unknown

    Not Provided

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    3

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    Not Provided

    99

    52

    105

    107

    61

    65

    White, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    103

    75

    21

    99

    30

    82

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    18

    7

    30

    30

    11

    19

    Hispanic

    Not Provided

    65

    41

    79

    95

    66

    35

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Other

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    Not Provided

    10

    5

    10

    9

    22

    9

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    First Language

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

     

    Bias Analysis Conducted

    Grade2345678
    RatingYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
    1. Description of the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias: Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis was conducted by grade level (2 - 8) using logistic regression DIF detection analysis by difR package in R software.

     

    1. Description of the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted: Four DIF factors were investigated: socioeconomic status, gender, race/ethnicity, and special education students.

     

    1. Description of the results of the bias analyses conducted, including data and interpretative statements: Using Zumbo & Thomas (ZT) DIF criterion, results showed 96% displayed as A item (negligible or non-significant DIF effect), 3% displayed as B item (slightly to moderate DIF effect), and only 1% displayed as C item (moderate to large DIF effect) across these four DIF factors.

     

    Administration Format

    Grade2345678
    Data
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Administration & Scoring Time

    Grade2345678
    Data
  • 20-30 minutes
  • 20-30 minutes
  • 20-30 minutes
  • 20-30 minutes
  • 20-30 minutes
  • 20-30 minutes
  • 20-30 minutes
  • Scoring Format

    Grade2345678
    Data
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Types of Decision Rules

    Grade2345678
    Data
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • Evidence Available for Multiple Decision Rules

    Grade2345678
    Data
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No