Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS)

PALS for Kindergarten

Cost

Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs

Service and Support

Purpose and Other Implementation Information

Usage and Reporting

Initial Cost:

Free for public school classrooms (preschool through grade 3) in Virginia.

 

Basic: 5.50 per student*

Premier: 7.25 per student*

*Minimum of 20 students

 

Replacement Cost:

Annual license renewal fee subject to change.

 

Included in Cost:

Materials include an Introduction and Overview, an Administration and Scoring Guide, teacher materials, student materials, information regarding interpreting PALS-K results, and a PALS-K Technical Reference. Not included in the quoted cost are one-time shipping fees for student materials/binders.

 

Technology Requirements:

  • No technology is required*

*Access to the online scoring system and online reports would require computer and internet but it is not required to provide the assessment or score it as this can be done manually.

 

Training Requirements:

  • Less than 1 hour of training

 

Qualified Administrators:

  • No minimum qualifications specified

 

Accommodations:

Large Print is available, as is information on using the PALS-K assessment on students with disabilities that require a non-standard approach to administering the assessment.

 

Where to Obtain:

Contact Information for Public Schools in Virginia:

Website: pals.virginia.edu

Address: UVA/PALS PO Box 800785, Charlottesville, VA 22908-8785

Phone number: 888-UVA-PALS

Email: pals@virginia.edu

 

Contact Information for Other Schools:

Website: www.ioeducation.com/pals

Address: IO Education/ Illuminate, ATTN: PALS, 1380 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, Suite 200, Suwanee, GA 30024

Phone number: 866-817-0726 ext. 6

Email: support@palshelp.com


Access to Technical Support:

Options include email and phone technical and literacy support, data analytics, online self-paced literacy courses, monthly topical webinars, personalized PD, online PD modules, and online PD.

 

The Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) is a criterion-referenced screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring tool.  PALS consists of two instruments (PALS-K and PALS 1-3) that measure young children’s knowledge of important literacy fundamentals: phonological awareness, alphabet awareness, letter sound knowledge, spelling, concept of word, word recognition in isolation, and oral passage reading.

 

The major purpose of PALS is to identify students who may be at risk for reading difficulties and who need intensive literacy intervention beyond what is provided to typically developing readers.  The second purpose of PALS is to provide teachers with explicit diagnostic information about what students know and need to know about the fundamental components of literacy that may be used to target instruction to meet students’ needs. The third purpose of PALS is to monitor students’ progress and determine the effectiveness of instruction or intervention.

 

PALS-K measures kindergarten students’ knowledge of phonological awareness and early literacy skills. The phonological awareness component of PALS–K instrument is a measure of a young child’s ability to identify rhyme units and isolate beginning sounds.  The literacy skills component of PALS-K measures a young child’s knowledge of alphabet recognition, letter sounds, phoneme-grapheme correspondences, concept of word, and word recognition.

 

Assessment Format:

  • Direct: Computerized
  • One-to-one

 

Administration Time:

  • 20 minutes per student
  • 5 minutes per group

 

Scoring Time:

  • 5 minutes per student*
  • 5 minutes per group*

*If using the Online Assessment Wizard, scoring is automatic.

 

Scoring Method:

  • Calculated manually*

*If using the Online Assessment Wizard, scoring is automatic.

 

Scores Generated:

  • Developmental benchmarks
  • Developmental cut points
  • Composite scores
  • Subscale/subtest scores
  • Item level responses

 

 

Classification Accuracy

GradeK
Criterion 1 Falldash
Criterion 1 Winterdash
Criterion 1 SpringHalf-filled bubbled
Criterion 2 Falldash
Criterion 2 Winterdash
Criterion 2 Springdash

Primary Sample

 

Criterion 1, Spring

Grade

K

Criterion

MAP for CO students;

iStation Reading Scores for VA students;

MAP scores for WI students

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

MAP CO (RIT): 149

iStation VA: 194.35    

MAP WI: 150

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

90

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.21

False Positive Rate

0.09

False Negative Rate

0.43

Sensitivity

0.57

Specificity

0.91

Positive Predictive Power

0.62

Negative Predictive Power

0.89

Overall Classification Rate

0.84

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.74

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.72

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.76

 

 

Additional Classification Accuracy

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

 

Disaggregated Data

 

Spring

Subgroup: Female

Grade

K

Criterion

MAP for CO students;

iStation Reading Scores for VA students;

MAP scores for WI students

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

MAP CO (RIT): 149

iStation VA: 194.35    

MAP WI: 150

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

90

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.18

False Positive Rate

0.07

False Negative Rate

0.44

Sensitivity

0.56

Specificity

0.93

Positive Predictive Power

0.63

Negative Predictive Power

0.90

Overall Classification Rate

0.86

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.74

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.71

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.78

 

Spring

Subgroup: Male

Grade

K

Criterion

MAP for CO students;

iStation Reading Scores for VA students;

MAP scores for WI students

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

MAP CO (RIT): 149

iStation VA: 194.35    

MAP WI: 150

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

90

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.23

False Positive Rate

0.11

False Negative Rate

0.42

Sensitivity

0.58

Specificity

0.89

Positive Predictive Power

0.61

Negative Predictive Power

0.88

Overall Classification Rate

0.82

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.74

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.70

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.77

 

Spring

Subgroup: Non-White

Grade

K

Criterion

MAP for CO students;

iStation Reading Scores for VA students;

MAP scores for WI students

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

MAP CO (RIT): 149

iStation VA: 194.35    

MAP WI: 150

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

90

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.24

False Positive Rate

0.09

False Negative Rate

0.42

Sensitivity

0.58

Specificity

0.91

Positive Predictive Power

0.67

Negative Predictive Power

0.87

Overall Classification Rate

0.83

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.75

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.72

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.77

 

Spring

Subgroup: White

Grade

K

Criterion

MAP for CO students;

iStation Reading Scores for VA students;

MAP scores for WI students

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

MAP CO (RIT): 149

iStation VA: 194.35    

MAP WI: 150

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

90

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.13

False Positive Rate

0.09

False Negative Rate

0.48

Sensitivity

0.52

Specificity

0.91

Positive Predictive Power

0.47

Negative Predictive Power

0.93

Overall Classification Rate

0.86

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.71

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.66

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.77

Spring

Subgroup: ELL

Grade

K

Criterion

MAP for CO students;

iStation Reading Scores for VA students;

MAP scores for WI students

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

MAP CO (RIT): 149

iStation VA: 194.35    

MAP WI: 150

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

90

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.39

False Positive Rate

0.11

False Negative Rate

0.46

Sensitivity

0.54

Specificity

0.89

Positive Predictive Power

0.76

Negative Predictive Power

0.75

Overall Classification Rate

0.75

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.71

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.65

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.78

 

Spring

Subgroup: Non-ELL

Grade

K

Criterion

MAP for CO students;

iStation Reading Scores for VA students;

MAP scores for WI students

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

MAP CO (RIT): 149

iStation VA: 194.35    

MAP WI: 150

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

90

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.19

False Positive Rate

0.09

False Negative Rate

0.42

Sensitivity

0.58

Specificity

0.91

Positive Predictive Power

0.60

Negative Predictive Power

0.90

Overall Classification Rate

0.85

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.74

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.72

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.77

 

Cross-Validation Sample

 

Spring

Grade

K

Criterion

MAP for CO students;

iStation Reading Scores for VA students;

MAP scores for WI students

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

MAP CO (RIT): 149

iStation VA: 194.35    

MAP WI: 150

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

90

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.23

False Positive Rate

0.10

False Negative Rate

0.49

Sensitivity

0.51

Specificity

0.90

Positive Predictive Power

0.61

Negative Predictive Power

0.86

Overall Classification Rate

0.81

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.71

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.69

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.72

 

Reliability

GradeK
RatingFull bubbled
  1. Justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool: The first reliability estimate is coefficient alpha. It is appropriate because of the use of task scores when making instructional decisions. The confidence interval for coefficient alpha is based on Felt’s derivation of the sampling distribution of coefficient alpha. The second type of reliability estimate is Pearson correlation coefficients between raters’ subtask scores. It is appropriate to determine that two scorers can reach nearly the same score while observing the same child. Test-retest reliability is the correlation between the same child’s scores on the test when administered at different points in time. Test-retest reliability is crucial in determining stability over time.

 

  1. Description of the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted: For PALS-K, the coefficient alphas are based on a sample of 114,686 Kindergarten students in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The percentage of males (52%) and females (48%) was similar. The percentage of white (51% and non-white students (49%) was also similar. About 11% were ESL students. Inter-rater reliabilities were calculated from studies conducted in Fall 1997 and Spring 1999. One person administered the PALS-K subtasks while a second person observed and scored at the same time. Test-retest reliability were calculated from the Fall of 2002 sample of 473 students. Students were tested a second time no more than two weeks from the first administration.

 

  1. Description of the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability: For the coefficient alphas, the analysis procedures involved subsetting the data for each subgroup and computing coefficient alpha and its confidence interval. For inter-rater reliabilities, the scores from the two raters were correlated (Table 14 in the PALS K Technical Manual). Test-retest reliabilities were calculated using the Pearson correlation between the two administrations (Table 11 in the PALS K Technical Manual).

 

  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

Inter-rater

K – Rhyme Awareness Fall

 134

 0.99

 0.99

 0.99

Inter-rater

K – Rhyme Awareness Spring

 154

 0.96

 0.95

 0.97

Inter-rater

K – Beginning Sound Awareness Fall

 122

 0.99

 0.99

 0.99

Inter-rater

K – Beginning Sound Awareness Spring

 154

 0.99

 0.99

 0.99

Inter-rater

K - Alphabet Recognition Fall

 122

 0.99

 0.99

 0.99

Inter-rater

K - Alphabet Recognition Spring

 154

 0.99

 0.99

 0.99

Inter-rater

K – Letter Sounds Fall

 121

 0.99

 0.99

 0.99

Inter-rater

K – Letter Sounds Spring

 154

 0.98

 0.97

 0.99

Inter-rater

K – Spelling Fall

 130

 0.99

 0.99

 0.99

Inter-rater

K – Spelling Spring

 154

 0.99

 0.99

 0.99

Inter-rater

K – Concept of Word Fall

 110

 0.97

 0.96

 0.98

Inter-rater

K – Word Recognition Fall Preprimer

 51

 0.99

 0.98

 0.99

Inter-rater

K – Word Recognition Primer

 52

 0.99

 0.98

 0.99

Inter-rater

K – Word Recognition Fall 1st Grade

 45

 0.99

 0.96

 0.99

Test-retest

K – Group Rhyme Awareness

 467

 0.81

 0.78

 0.84

Test-retest

K – Group Beginning Sound Awareness

 470

 0.78

 0.74

 0.81

Test-retest

K – Alphabet Recognition

 472

 0.92

 0.91

 0.93

Test-retest

K – Letter Sounds

 473

 0.88

 0.86

 0.90

Test-retest

K – Spelling

473

 0.89

 0.87

 0.90

Test-retest

K – Concept of Word

473

 0.92

 0.91

 0.93

Test-retest

K – Summed Score

472

 0.95

 0.94

 0.96

Coefficient Alpha

K – Concept of word

114,686

0.93

0.93

0.93

Coefficient Alpha

K – Group Beginning Sounds

114,686

0.87

0.87

0.88

Coefficient Alpha

K – Group Rhyme

114,685

0.90

0.90

0.90

Coefficient Alpha

K – Lower Case Alphabet

114,686

0.96

0.96

0.96

Coefficient Alpha

K – Letter Sounds

114,686

0.96

0.96

0.96

Coefficient Alpha

K – Phonetic Spelling

114,688

0.96

0.96

0.96

 

Disaggregated Reliability

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

Type of Reliability

Subgroup

Age or Grade

n

Coefficient

95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound

95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound

Coefficient Alpha

Female

K – Concept of Word

55,598

0.93

0.93

0.93

Coefficient Alpha

Female

K – Group Beginning Sounds

55,598

0.87

0.87

0.87

Coefficient Alpha

Female

K – Group Rhyme

55,597

0.89

0.89

0.90

Coefficient Alpha

Female

K – Lower Case Alphabet

55,598

0.96

0.96

0.96

Coefficient Alpha

Female

K – Letter Sounds

55,598

0.96

0.96

0.96

Coefficient Alpha

Female

K – Phonetic Spelling

55,600

0.96

0.96

0.96

Coefficient Alpha

Male

K – Concept of Word

59,088

0.93

0.93

0.93

Coefficient Alpha

Male

K – Group Beginning Sounds

59,088

0.88

0.88

0.88

Coefficient Alpha

Male

K – Group Rhyme

59,088

0.90

0.90

0.90

Coefficient Alpha

Male

K – Lower Case Alphabet

59,088

0.96

0.96

0.96

Coefficient Alpha

Male

K – Letter Sounds

59,088

0.96

0.96

0.97

Coefficient Alpha

Male

K – Phonetic Spelling

59,088

0.96

0.96

0.96

Coefficient Alpha

White

K – Concept of Word

58,784

0.93

0.93

0.93

Coefficient Alpha

White

K – Group Beginning Sounds

58,784

0.87

0.87

0.87

Coefficient Alpha

White

K – Group Rhyme

58,784

0.90

0.90

0.90

Coefficient Alpha

White

K – Lower Case Alphabet

58,784

0.95

0.95

0.95

Coefficient Alpha

White

K – Letter Sounds

58,784

0.96

0.96

0.96

Coefficient Alpha

White

K – Phonetic Spelling

58,784

0.96

0.96

0.96

Coefficient Alpha

Non-white

K – Concept of Word

55,902

0.93

0.93

0.93

Coefficient Alpha

Non-white

K – Group Beginning Sounds

55,902

0.87

0.87

0.88

Coefficient Alpha

Non-white

K – Group Rhyme

55,901

0.90

0.89

0.90

Coefficient Alpha

Non-white

K – Lower Case Alphabet

55,902

0.96

0.96

0.97

Coefficient Alpha

Non-white

K – Letter Sounds

55,902

0.96

0.96

0.97

Coefficient Alpha

Non-white

K – Phonetic Spelling

55,904

0.96

0.96

0.96

Coefficient Alpha

ESL

K – Concept of Word

11,367

0.93

0.92

0.93

Coefficient Alpha

ESL

K – Group Beginning Sounds

11,367

0.88

0.88

0.88

Coefficient Alpha

ESL

K – Group Rhyme

11,367

0.88

0.87

0.88

Coefficient Alpha

ESL

K – Lower Case Alphabet

11,367

0.97

0.97

0.97

Coefficient Alpha

ESL

K – Letter Sounds

11,367

0.97

0.97

0.97

Coefficient Alpha

ESL

K – Phonetic Spelling

11,367

0.97

0.96

0.97

Coefficient Alpha

Non-ESL

K – Concept of Word

92,439

0.93

0.93

0.93

Coefficient Alpha

Non-ESL

K – Group Beginning Sounds

92,439

0.87

0.87

0.87

Coefficient Alpha

Non-ESL

K – Group Rhyme

92,439

0.90

0.90

0.90

Coefficient Alpha

Non-ESL

K – Lower Case Alphabet

92,439

0.96

0.96

0.96

Coefficient Alpha

Non-ESL

K – Letter Sounds

92,439

0.96

0.96

0.96

Coefficient Alpha

Non-ESL

K – Phonetic Spelling

92,441

0.96

0.96

0.96

 

Validity

GradeK
RatingFull 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: Stanford Achievement Test, developed by Pearson, is a set of standardized achievement tests used by school districts in the United States and in American schools abroad for assessing children from kindergarten through high school.

 

2.Description of the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted: The analysis relating PALS-K to the Stanford Achievement Test is based on 78 males and 69 female kindergartners (11.6% Black or African American; 82.3% White; 4.8% Hispanic; 1.4% Other) from two schools in Virginia (1 rural, 1 suburban).  4.1% were ESL students and 6.8% received special education services (Developmental Delay, 2%; Speech & Language, 4.8%)

 

3.Description of the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity: Correlation between Fall PALS-K Summed Score and Stanford-9 Total reading scaled score.

 

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

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n

Coefficient

95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound

95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound

Criterion-related

 K

Stanford Achievement Test

 147

0.70

 0.61

0.77

 

5.Results for other forms of validity (e.g. factor analysis) not conducive to the table format: 1) “Exploratory factor analysis revealed a theoretically defensible measurement structure that was found to replicate in a randomly selected hold-out sample when examined through the lens of confirmatory factor analytic methods.  Multigroup latent variable comparisons between Spanish-speaking English-language learners (ELLS) and non-ELL students largely demonstrated the PALS-K to yield configural and metric invariance with respect to associations between subtests and latent dimensions.”  (Huang & Konold, 2014)

2) Construct Validity - As one piece of evidence in support of the construct validity of PALS-K, we conduct Principal Component Analyses on the tasks that make up the PALS-K Summed Score each year, based on statewide data.  These analyses consistently yield a single factor (eigenvalue greater than 1.0) that accounts for approximately two-thirds of the variance (.65 in Spring 2008) in these data.

3) Content Validity - The content validity is supported by the process of item development (described in the Technical Reference, Section III, pp. 11 – 19).  The guiding principles underlying this process were that (a) tasks and items were a representative sample of tasks from other early literacy screening instruments, (b) items had a history of use in phonological awareness and early literacy research, and (c) items were aligned with Virginia’s Standards of Learning for English (Reading).  Each of these principles was further supported by the process of review by an Advisory Panel of literacy professionals from across Virginia, and by an External Review Panel, which consisted of nationally recognized experts in the field of reading, communication sciences, or psychology.

 

6.Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool: These data suggest that PALS-K has strong relations with the Stanford Achievement Test.   

 

Disaggregated Validity

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

Type of Validity

Subgroup

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n

Coefficient

95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound

95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound

None

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

If your manual cites other published validity studies, provide these citations: 1) Huang, F. L., & Konold, T. R. (2014). A latent variable investigation of the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening-Kindergarten assessment: Construct identification and multigroup comparisons between Spanish-speaking English-language learners (ELLs) and non-ELL students. Language Testing, 31(2), 205-221.

 

2) Invernizzi, M., Robey, R., & Moon, T. (1999). Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) 1997-1998: Description of sample, first-year results, task analyses, and revisions. Technical manual and report prepared for the Virginia Department of Education. Charlottesville, VA: University Printing Services

Sample Representativeness

GradeK
Data
  • National with Cross-Validation
  • Primary Classification Accuracy Sample

     

    Grade

    K

    Criterion

    MAP for CO students; iStation Reading Scores for VA students; MAP scores for WI students

    National/Local Representation

    South Region (VA): 500                                                 West Region (CO): 100                                           Midwest Region (WI): 1500

    Date

    Spring

    Sample Size

    2100

    Male

    51%

    Female

    49%

    Gender Unknown

    0%

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    Not Provided

    White, Non-Hispanic

    29.8%

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    Hispanic

    Not Provided

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Other

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    Not Provided

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    First Language

    91%

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

     

    Cross Validation Sample

    Grade

    K

    Criterion

    MAP for CO students; iStation Reading Scores for VA students; MAP scores for WI students

    National/Local Representation

    South Region (VA): 500                                                 West Region (CO): 100                                           Midwest Region (WI): 1500

    Date

    Spring

    Sample Size

    4742

    Male

    50%

    Female

    50%

    Gender Unknown

    Not Provided

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    Not Provided

    White, Non-Hispanic

    34%

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    Not Provided

    Hispanic

    Not Provided

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    Not Provided

    Other

    Not Provided

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    Not Provided

    Disability Classification

    Not Provided

    First Language

    88%

    Language Proficiency Status

    Not Provided

     

    Bias Analysis Conducted

    GradeK
    RatingYes

    1.      Description of the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias: We used the Mantel-Haenszel procedure to test for differential item functioning (DIF). We combined this hypothesis testing procedures with the common-odds ratio effect size to determine the practical significance of DIF. We followed the ETS classification criteria of A, B, C to indicate no, moderate, and large amount of DIF

     

    2.      Description of the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted: Identified/Not Identified (for intensive intervention); White/Non-White (see table below; ESL/Non-ESL (see table below); Male/Female (see table below).

     

    3.      Description of the results of the bias analyses conducted, including data and interpretative statements:

     

     

     

     

    Percent Classified

    Test

    Task

    Groups

    A

    B

    C

    PALS K

    Concept of Word

    Male/Female

    100

    0

    0

     

     

    White/Nonwhite

    100

    0

    0

     

     

    NonESL/ESL

    90

    10

    0

     

    Group Beginning Sound

    Male/Female

    100

    0

    0

     

     

    White/Nonwhite

    100

    0

    0

     

     

    NonESL/ESL

    100

    0

    0

     

    Group Rhyme

    Male/Female

    100

    0

    0

     

     

    White/Nonwhite

    100

    0

    0

     

     

    NonESL/ESL

    100

    0

    0

     

    Lower Case

    Male/Female

    100

    0

    0

     

     

    White/Nonwhite

    92

    8

    0

     

     

    NonESL/ESL

    85

    8

    8

     

    Letter Sounds

    Male/Female

    100

    0

    0

     

     

    White/Nonwhite

    100

    0

    0

     

     

    NonESL/ESL

    85

    8

    8

     

    Phonetic Spelling

    Male/Female

    100

    0

    0

     

     

    White/Nonwhite

    100

    0

    0

     

     

    NonESL/ESL

    100

    0

    0

     

    ETS classification criteria indicate no bias (classification A) for most of the items across the 6 subtests on PALS-K. Moderate bias (classification B) was found for 8-10% of the items on three subtasks:  Letter Sounds, Lower Case alphabet recognition, and Concept of Word. However, since learning to read in English requires all students to be able to recognize all Lower Case letters and to pronounce all Letter Sounds, there is nothing we can do to improve the classification ratings on Lower Case or Letter Sounds.  The moderate bias found on the Concept of Word task for ESL students is not surprising, though again—all students must achieve a Concept of Word in text in order to learn to read.

     

    In addition, to explore the consistency of responses to PALS items, we examined the responses to PALS-K tasks from groups defined as Identified and Not-identified for intensive literacy intervention, based on their PALS-K Summed Score. Since the purpose
of PALS-K is to identify children in need of intensive literacy intervention, individual items within each task should function differently for Identified and Not-identified groups. For each of three statewide kindergarten samples, this was the case. The PALS-K Technical Reference displays the Mantel-Haenszel statistic (based on item scores) for each PALS-K subtask for Spring 2009, Fall 2009, and Spring 2010. The general association statistic is significant for all six PALS-K tasks for both fall and spring.

    Administration Format

    GradeK
    Data
  • Individual
  • Group
  • Administration & Scoring Time

    GradeK
    Data
  • 20-25 minutes
  • Scoring Format

    GradeK
    Data
  • Manual
  • Automatic
  • Types of Decision Rules

    GradeK
    Data
  • Administration Rules
  • Evidence Available for Multiple Decision Rules

    GradeK
    Data
  • No