Lexia RAPID Assessment

Reading

 

Cost

Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs

Service and Support

Purpose and Other Implementation Information

Usage and Reporting

Initial Cost:

$7.20 per student license*

*Or $3,500 per school for unlimited site-based license.

 

Replacement Cost:

Annual license renewal fee subject to change.

 

Included in Cost:

RAPID Assessment is accessed through an annual subscription-based service. Licenses can be purchases at the individual student level or through a school site license model. Pricing rates are subject to volume and duration.

 

Training on all aspects of RAPID is available for free to all customers through a series of asynchronous training-on-demand modules, as well as several guides and training resource manuals. For additional training around RAPID tasks, scores, reports, and instructional materials schools can purchase an Implementation Support Package for $3,500.00. This package provides access to ongoing in person training and remote support throughout the year. Individual trainings can also be purchased in a remote or in person format. Bundle pricing for licenses plus services is available.

 

Technology Requirements:

  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection
  • Headphones (strongly recommended, not required)

 

Training Requirements:

  • Less than 1 hour of training

 

Qualified Administrators:

  • Paraprofessionals
  • Professionals

 

Accommodations:

Designed for ease of use, RAPID promotes students’ access to assessment with computer-adaptive tasks and flexible administration options for timing and setting. These options can be utilized by any student. While RAPID for grades 3-12 is typically administered in a group setting and RAPID for grades K-2 is administered one-on-one, all students can take the untimed RAPID assessment at any time in any setting in school, wherever a stable internet connection is available.

 

Allowable accommodations for RAPID enable students to participate in the assessment by adjusting assessment presentation and student responding. These accommodations will not impact the reliability and validity of the way RAPID measures student reading abilities. A student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP), Section 504 Plan, or other formal documentation will state the student’s eligibility and need for specific accommodations. At the discretion of educators and administrators, allowable accommodations may also be utilized for students with special circumstances.

 

To ensure that students with accommodations have equal access to assessment, it is important that accommodations for RAPID are consistent with those utilized for classroom assessment.  Examples of Allowable Accommodations are visual magnification, use of touch-screen overlays, providing student placeholders and/or scrap paper, assisting with practice questions, student dictation of responses, etc. Additional allowable accommodations can be found in the RAPID Administration and Accommodations Resource – available to all RAPID customers.

Where to Obtain:

Website: www.lexialearning.com

Address: 300 Baker Avenue, Concord, MA 01742

Phone number: 800-435-3942

Email: support@lexialearning.com


Access to Technical Support:

All customers have access to Lexia’s Customer Support team, which is available by phone (800-507-2772) or email Monday – Friday, 8:00am to 6:00pm EST.  For an additional cost, schools can purchase a year-long Implementation Support Package (ISP), which includes assessment planning support as well as in person and remote training. In person or remote a la carte trainings can also be purchased separately.

 

Lexia RAPID™ Assessment™ for Grades K-12 can help teachers and educational leaders make decisions that promote reading success.  This computer-adaptive reading and language screening assessment allows educators to gather predictive, norm-referenced data up to three times a year, with immediate scoring and reports. RAPID for Grades K-2 measures students’ foundational skills in the key reading and language domains of Word Recognition, Academic Language, and Reading Comprehension. RAPID for Grades 3-12 measures complex knowledge, understanding, and application of skills within these domains.

 

Combining the resources and knowledge of two organizations committed to literacy research and innovation, RAPID was developed through an ongoing partnership between Lexia Learning and the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR). Educators can use RAPID to screen K-12 students and identify students who are in need of more support to reach a rigorous end-of-year goal as well as to identify students’ strengths and weaknesses in Word Recognition, Academic Language, and Reading Comprehension. In addition, RAPID provides direct resources to address skill gaps with a suite of instructional materials.

 

Assessment Format:

  • Direct: Computerized

 

Administration Time:

  • K-2: 15-30 minutes per student
  • 3-12: 30-45 minutes per group

 

Scoring Time:

  • Scoring is automatic

 

Scoring Method:

  • Calculated automatically

 

Scores Generated:

  • Percentile score
  • IRT-based score
  • Probability

 

Classification Accuracy

GradeK12345678910
Criterion 1 Falldashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdash
Criterion 1 WinterHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubbleHalf-filled bubble
Criterion 1 SpringdashdashdashdashdashdashHalf-filled bubbleFull bubbleHalf-filled bubbledashdash
Criterion 2 Falldashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdash
Criterion 2 Winterdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdash
Criterion 2 Springdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdashdash

Primary Sample

 

Criterion 1, Winter

Grade

K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Criterion

SESAT

SAT-10

SAT-10

SAT-10

FCAT

SAT-10

SAT-10

FCAT

SAT-10

FCAT

FCAT

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

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

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

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.14

0.11

0.13

0.11

0.13

0.10

0.13

0.16

0.11

0.14

0.10

False Positive Rate

0.13

0.06

0.09

0.12

0.10

0.16

0.10

0.12

0.19

0.18

0.17

False Negative Rate

0.38

0.39

0.52

0.39

0.29

0.30

0.38

0.40

0.36

0.41

0.51

Sensitivity

0.63

0.61

0.48

0.61

0.71

0.70

0.62

0.60

0.65

0.59

0.49

Specificity

0.87

0.94

0.91

0.88

0.90

0.84

0.90

0.88

0.81

0.82

0.83

Positive Predictive Power

0.60

0.68

0.44

0.53

0.63

0.42

0.62

0.63

0.42

0.50

0.42

Negative Predictive Power

0.89

0.92

0.92

0.91

0.93

0.94

0.90

0.86

0.91

0.87

0.86

Overall Classification Rate

0.82

0.88

0.86

0.83

0.87

0.82

0.85

0.81

0.78

0.77

0.76

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.84

0.91

0.83

0.86

0.91

0.88

0.88

0.87

0.83

0.82

0.80

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.77

0.85

0.75

0.83

0.88

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.80

0.79

0.75

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.91

0.96

0.92

0.89

0.94

0.91

0.90

0.90

0.87

0.86

0.83

 

Criterion 2, Spring

Grade

K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Criterion

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

OST ELA

OST ELA

OST ELA

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

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

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.28

0.16

0.15

Not Provided

Not Provided

False Positive Rate

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.18

0.17

.25

Not Provided

Not Provided

False Negative Rate

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.22

0.28

0.07

Not Provided

Not Provided

Sensitivity

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.78

0.72

0.93

Not Provided

Not Provided

Specificity

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.82

0.83

0.75

Not Provided

Not Provided

Positive Predictive Power

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.70

0.55

0.42

Not Provided

Not Provided

Negative Predictive Power

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.87

0.91

0.98

Not Provided

Not Provided

Overall Classification Rate

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.80

0.81

0.78

Not Provided

Not Provided

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.86

0.87

0.89

Not Provided

Not Provided

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.79

0.80

0.85

Not Provided

Not Provided

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.92

0.93

0.94

Not Provided

Not Provided

 

Additional Classification Accuracy

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

 

Cross-Validation Sample

Spring

Grade

K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Criterion

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

OST ELA

OST ELA

OST ELA

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Not Provided

Not Provided

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

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

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.28

0.16

0.15

Not Provided

Not Provided

False Positive Rate

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.18

0.17

0.25

Not Provided

Not Provided

False Negative Rate

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.22

0.28

0.07

Not Provided

Not Provided

Sensitivity

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.78

0.72

0.93

Not Provided

Not Provided

Specificity

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.82

0.83

0.75

Not Provided

Not Provided

Positive Predictive Power

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.70

0.55

0.42

Not Provided

Not Provided

Negative Predictive Power

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.87

0.91

0.98

Not Provided

Not Provided

Overall Classification Rate

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.80

0.81

0.78

Not Provided

Not Provided

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.86

0.87

0.89

Not Provided

Not Provided

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.79

0.80

0.85

Not Provided

Not Provided

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

0.92

0.93

0.94

Not Provided

Not Provided

 

Reliability

GradeK12345678910
RatingFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubble
  1. Justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool: Reliability estimates for RAPID are provided in the forms of marginal reliability and standard error of measurement (SEM). Given that RAPID is a computer-adaptive assessment that does not have a fixed form, traditional reliability estimates such as Cronbach’s alpha are not appropriate when evaluating consistency or inconsistency in student performance.

Marginal Reliability:

The IRT equivalent to traditional reliability is called marginal reliability which is a function of theta scores and the average of the expected error variance.

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM):

The standard error of measurement is an estimate of the amount of variance that might be observed in an individual’s performance given repeated testing. Only through repeated testing would it be possible to define the individual’s true ability, as scores may fluctuate from one particular day of testing to the next. Because it is unreasonable to test a student repeatedly in order to capture his/her true ability, we can construct an interval to observe the extent to which the score may fluctuate.

 

  1. Description of the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted: Marginal reliability and the standard error of measurement are based on a sample of students that participated in RAPIDs calibration and validation studies.

Approximately 9,000 students in kindergarten through second grade participated in these studies. Average demographic information for the sample in grades kindergarten through two was as follows: 40% White, 31% Hispanic, 23% Black, 6% Other; 65% eligible for free/reduced price lunch; 18% limited English proficient. A total of 44,780 students in 3rd-10th grades participated in RAPIDs calibration and validation studies. Average demographic information for the sample in grades three through ten was as follows: 41% White, 30% Hispanic, 23% Black, 6% Other; 60% eligible for Free/Reduced Price lunch (FRL); 8% English language learners (ELL).

 

  1. Description of the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability: Marginal reliability was computed. Marginal reliability is provided as a function of performance on fixed items administered at the winter assessment. The Standard Error of Measurement was calculated.

 

  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

Marginal

K

2100

0.94

0.93

0.94

Marginal

1

2372

0.94

0.93

0.94

Marginal

2

2089

0.88

0.87

0.89

Marginal

3

2723

0.86

0.85

0.87

Marginal

4

2679

0.85

0.84

0.86

Marginal

5

2721

0.83

0.82

0.84

Marginal

6

3835

0.87

0.86

0.88

Marginal

7

3683

0.83

0.82

0.84

Marginal

8

3814

0.85

0.84

0.86

Marginal

9

3964

0.78

0.77

0.79

Marginal

10

3787

0.82

0.81

0.83

 

 

  1. Results for other forms of reliability (e.g. internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, model-based) not conducive to the table format:

Mean Performance Scores and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Grade

Task

Mean

SEM

K

Phonological Awareness

315.86

31.95

1

Word Reading

503.6

25.33

2

Word Reading

614.64

38.57

 

Mean Performance Scores and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) for the Reading Comprehension Task

Grade

N

Mean

SEM

3

325

386.03

28.69

4

322

440.07

32.96

5

302

497.25

36.49

6

431

499.96

37.63

7

426

524.45

39.67

8

461

571.71

48.61

9

703

583.06

39.26

10

626

589.72

44.65

 

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

GradeK12345678910
RatingHalf-filled bubbleFull bubbleHalf-filled bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubble
  1. Description of each criterion measure used and explanation as to why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool: All criterion measures were external to the screening tool system and represent assessments of general reading ability.

In order to collect evidence of predictive validity, The Stanford Early School Achievement Test (SESAT) was used for students in Kindergarten, whereas the Stanford Achievement Test 10 was used for 1st-10th grades. The Stanford Achievement Test Series was chosen as it reflects a global reading outcome that focuses on reading and comprehension.

For the purpose of collecting evidence of convergent validity, the FCAT was used for 3rd-10th grades.

Evidence of concurrent validity was collected in an independent study with the Lexile Reading Scale in cooperation with Meta Metrics.

Validity evidence for RAPID also comes from the degree and stability of the relationship of RAPID performance scores across multiple periods of time. This type of evidence supports the construct validity of RAPID and the underlying stability of the score scale.

 

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

A key consideration in aligning RAPID performance scores to the Stanford 10 was to ensure that the sample data reflected normative performance in the United States at large. Percentile ranks from the Stanford 10 were used to evaluate the distribution of scores in the alignment sample to national norms which allowed for adjustments where needed to bring the observed sample in line with national norms. As such, the sample was stratified to reflect normative reading comprehension risk levels whereby the base rate of reading comprehension risk was 50% (for Kindergarten) and Stanford 10 (1st-10th grades). A total of 1651 students participated in the study in Kindergarten-2nd grade, whereas 5170 students participated in 3rd-10th grades.

Convergent Validity:

Out of 5170 students in the normed sample a total of 5118 students also had taken the FCAT in 3rd-10th grades.

Concurrent Validity:

A total of 832 students participated in the Lexile study in grades 1 and 2 and 2551 students participated in grades 3-10.

Construct Validity:

A total of 2572 students participated in Kindergarten and 1st grade. The samples of students in 3rd – 10th grades ranged from 223 (10th Grade) to 2329 (3rd Grade).

 

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

Predictive validity was evaluated using RAPID tasks to predict later reading comprehension performance on the SESAT and Stanford 10 through a series of linear regressions. The linear regressions were run two ways. First, a correlation analysis (Pearson Product Moment) was used to evaluate the strength of relations between each of the screening tasks’ performance scores with scores on the SESAT/Stanford 10. Second, a multiple regression analysis was run to estimate the total amount of variance that the linear combination of the predictors explained in Stanford 10 reading comprehension performance.

 Convergent Validity:

Convergent validity was evaluated by testing relations (Pearson Product Moment Coefficients) between RAPID and FCAT.

Concurrent Validity:

Evidence is expressed as the degree of relationship to performance on another assessment measuring achievement in the same construct administered close in time. This form of validity was expressed in the form of a Pearson correlation coefficient between the RAPID score and the Lexile score.

Construct Validity:

Construct validity was estimated as the Pearson correlation coefficient between student RAPID scores from the spring administration in 2017 versus RAPID scores from the spring administration in 2018 for Kindergarten and 1st grades, whereas winter administrations were used for 3rd-10th grades

 

  1. Validity for the performance level score (e.g., concurrent, predictive, evidence based on response processes, evidence based on internal structure, evidence based on relations to other variables, and/or evidence based on consequences of testing), and the criterion measures.

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n

Coefficient

95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound

95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound

Predictive

K

SESAT

176

0.62

0.52

0.70

Convergent

K

Vocabulary Pairs-CELF-CFD

176

0.57

0.46

0.66

Convergent

K

Vocabulary Pairs-PPVT

176

0.46

0.33

0.57

Convergent

K

Sentence Comprehension-CELF-SS

176

0.48

0.36

0.59

Convergent

K

Sentence Comprehension-CELF-CFD

176

0.45

0.32

0.56

Convergent

K

Sentence Comprehension-PPVT

176

0.31

0.17

0.44

Construct (Spring)

K

RAPID

645

0.68

0.64

0.72

Predictive

1

SAT10

198

0.75

0.71

0.78

Convergent

1

Vocabulary Pairs-CELF-SS

198

0.45

0.33

0.55

Convergent

1

Vocabulary Pairs-CELF-CFD

198

0.44

0.32

0.55

Convergent

1

Vocabulary Pairs-PPVT

198

0.59

0.49

0.67

Convergent

1

Following Directions-CELF-SS

198

0.41

0.29

0.52

Convergent

1

Following Directions-CELF-CFD

198

0.58

0.48

0.67

Convergent

1

Following Directions-PPVT

198

0.48

0.36

0.58

Construct (Spring)

1

RAPID

1927

0.64

0.61

0.67

Concurrent

1

Lexile

427

0.75

0.71

0.79

Convergent

1

Following Directions-PPVT

198

0.48

0.36

0.58

Predictive

2

SAT10

159

0.53

0.41

0.63

Convergent

2

Vocabulary Pairs-CELF-SS

159

0.31

0.16

0.44

Convergent

2

Vocabulary Pairs-CELF-CFD

159

0.51

0.38

0.62

Convergent

2

Vocabulary Pairs-PPVT

159

0.50

0.37

0.61

Convergent

2

Following Directions-CELF-SS

159

0.40

0.26

0.52

Convergent

2

Following Directions-CELF-CFD

159

0.68

0.59

0.76

Convergent

2

Following Directions-PPVT

159

0.53

0.41

0.63

Concurrent

2

Lexile

405

0.75

0.71

0.79

Predictive

3

SAT10

550

.74

0.70

0.78

Construct (Winter)

3

RAPID

2329

0.67

0.65

0.69

Concurrent

3

Lexile

627

0.70

0.66

0.74

Convergent

3

FCAT

546

0.77

0.73

0.80

Predictive

4

SAT10

500

0.71

0.66

0.75

Construct (Winter)

4

RAPID

2176

0.71

0.69

0.73

Convergent

4

FCAT

495

0.78

0.74

0.81

Predictive

5

SAT10

620

0.74

0.70

0.77

Construct (Winter)

5

RAPID

1818

0.73

0.71

0.75

Concurrent

5

Lexile

600

0.78

0.75

0.81

Convergent

5

FCAT

616

0.81

0.78

0.84

Predictive

6

SAT10

900

0.71

0.68

0.74

Construct (Winter)

6

RAPID

454

0.67

0.62

0.72

Convergent

6

FCAT

893

0.77

0.74

0.80

Predictive

7

SAT10

800

0.66

0.62

0.70

Construct (Winter)

7

RAPID

564

0.75

0.71

0.78

Concurrent

7

Lexile

695

0.81

0.78

0.83

Convergent

7

FCAT

795

0.75

0.72

0.78

Predictive

8

SAT10

700

0.67

0.63

0.71

Construct (Winter)

8

RAPID

183

0.75

0.68

0.81

Convergent

8

FCAT

697

0.76

0.73

0.79

Predictive

9

SAT10

500

0.60

0.54

0.65

Construct (Winter)

9

RAPID

330

0.79

0.75

0.83

Concurrent

9

Lexile

324

0.78

0.73

0.82

Convergent

9

FCAT

486

0.70

0.65

0.74

Predictive

10

SAT10

600

0.57

0.51

0.62

Construct (Winter)

10

RAPID

223

0.81

0.76

0.85

Concurrent

10

Lexile

305

0.78

0.73

0.82

 

  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: For grades K-2, the validity coefficients provide moderate evidence of predictive and construct validity. For grades 3-10, the validity coefficients provide moderate to strong evidence of predictive, concurrent, convergent and construct validity.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Representativeness

GradeK12345678910
Data
  • Local without Cross-Validation
  • Local without Cross-Validation
  • Local without Cross-Validation
  • Local without Cross-Validation
  • Local without Cross-Validation
  • Local without Cross-Validation
  • Local without Cross-Validation
  • Local without Cross-Validation
  • Local without Cross-Validation
  • Local without Cross-Validation
  • Local without Cross-Validation
  • Primary Classification Accuracy Sample

    Criterion 1, Winter

    Grade

    K

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    Criterion

    SESAT

    SAT-10

    SAT-10

    SAT-10

    FCAT

    SAT-10

    SAT-10

    FCAT

    SAT-10

    FCAT

    FCAT

    National/Local Representation

    FL

    FL

    FL

    FL

    FL

    FL

    FL

    FL

    FL

    FL

    FL

    Date

    Jan-Feb 2013

    Jan-Feb 2013

    Jan-Feb 2013

    Jan-Feb 2013

    Jan-Feb 2013

    Jan-Feb 2013

    Jan-Feb 2013

    Jan-Feb 2013

    Jan-Feb 2013

    Jan-Feb 2013

    Jan-Feb 2013

    Sample Size

    174

    156

    216

    550

    495

    620

    900

    795

    700

    486

    590

    Male

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    55%

    52%

    51%

    47%

    46%

    50%

    52%

    55%

    Female

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    45%

    48%

    49%

    53%

    55%

    50%

    48%

    45%

    Gender Unknown

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    81%

    48%

    50%

    66%

    61%

    61%

    61%

    61%

    61%

    60%

    53%

    White, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    33%

    36%

    37%

    36%

    34%

    34%

    35%

    37%

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    16%

    21%

    26%

    19%

    18%

    18%

    16%

    17%

    17%

    25%

    23%

    Hispanic

    17%

    38%

    39%

    42%

    40%

    40%

    43%

    44%

    43%

    34%

    35%

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    3%

    3%

    3%

    3%

    3%

    3%

    2%

    2%

    Other

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    3%

    3%

    5%

    3%

    3%

    3%

    3%

    3%

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    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

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    11% ELL

    18% ELL

    19% ELL

    11% ELL

    10% ELL

    13% ELL

    14% ELL

    13% ELL

    15% ELL

    7% ELL

    10% ELL

     

    Criterion 2, Spring

    Grade

    K

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    Criterion

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    OST ELA

    OST ELA

    OST ELA

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    National/Local Representation

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    OH

    OH

    OH

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Date

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Apr – May 2018

    Apr – May 2018

    Apr – May 2018

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Sample Size

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    152

    146

    164

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Male

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    49%

    52%

    55%

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Female

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    51%

    48%

    45%

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Gender Unknown

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    White, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    89%

    93%

    91%

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    1%

    1%

    3%

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Hispanic

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    1%

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    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

    6%

    6%

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    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

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    6% ELL

    8% ELL

    12% ELL

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

     

    Cross Validation Sample

    Spring

    Grade

    K

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    Criterion

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    OST ELA

    OST ELA

    OST ELA

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    National/Local Representation

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    OH

    OH

    OH

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Date

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    April – May 2018

    April – May 2018

    April – May 2018

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Sample Size

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    152

    146

    164

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Male

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    49%

    52%

    55%

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Female

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    51%

    48%

    45%

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Gender Unknown

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    White, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    89%

    93%

    91%

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    1%

    1%

    3%

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Hispanic

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    1%

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    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

    6%

    6%

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    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

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

    6% ELL

    8% ELL

    12% ELL

    Not Provided

    Not Provided

     

    Bias Analysis Conducted

    GradeK12345678910
    RatingYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
    1. Description of the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias: DIF testing was conducted with a multiple indicator multiple cause (MIMIC) analysis. A series of four standardized and expected score effect size measures were generated using VisualDF software to quantify various technical aspects of score differentiation between the gender groups. First, the signed item difference in the sample (SIDS) index was created, which describes the average unstandardized difference in expected scores between the groups. The second effect size calculated was the unsigned item difference in the sample (UIDS). This index can be utilized as supplementary to the SIDS. Lastly, an expected score standardized difference (ESSD) was generated, and was computed similarly to a Cohen’s (1988) d statistic. As such, it is interpreted as a measure of standard deviation difference between the groups for the expected score response with values of .2 regarded as small, .5 as medium, and .8 as large.

     

    1. Description of the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted: For RAPID, DIF testing was conducted comparing: Black-White students, Hispanic-White students, Black-Hispanic students, students eligible for Free or Reduced Priced Lunch (FRL) with students not receiving FRL, and English language learner (ELL) to non-ELL students. Average demographic information for the sample in grades kindergarten through two was as follows: 40% White, 31% Hispanic, 23% Black, 6% Other; 65% eligible for free/reduced price lunch; 18% limited English proficient. Average demographic information for the sample in grades three through ten was as follows: 41% White, 30% Hispanic, 23% Black, 6% Other; 60% eligible for Free/Reduced Price lunch (FRL); 8% English language learners (ELL).

     

    1. Description of the results of the bias analyses conducted, including data and interpretative statements: Fewer than 10% of items demonstrated DIF with most items <.50. Such items were studied further over time; however, the lack of differential bias in prediction of risk tempers item-level DIF analysis.

     

    Administration Format

    GradeK12345678910
    Data
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Administration & Scoring Time

    GradeK12345678910
    Data
  • 15-45 minutes
  • 15-45 minutes
  • 15-45 minutes
  • 15-45 minutes
  • 15-45 minutes
  • 15-45 minutes
  • 15-45 minutes
  • 15-45 minutes
  • 15-45 minutes
  • 15-45 minutes
  • 15-45 minutes
  • Scoring Format

    GradeK12345678910
    Data
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Automatic
  • Types of Decision Rules

    GradeK12345678910
    Data
  • Instructional Groups
  • Instructional Groups
  • Instructional Groups
  • Instructional Groups
  • Instructional Groups
  • Instructional Groups
  • Instructional Groups
  • Instructional Groups
  • Instructional Groups
  • Instructional Groups
  • Instructional Groups
  • Evidence Available for Multiple Decision Rules

    GradeK12345678910
    Data
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No
  • No