easyCBM
Phoneme Segmentation

Summary

easyCBM is a web-based assessment system that includes both benchmarking and progress monitoring assessments combined with a comprehensive array of reports. The assessments in easyCBM are curriculum-based general outcome measures, or CBMs, which are standardized measures that sample from a year's worth of curriculum to assess the degree to which students have mastered the skills and knowledge deemed critical at each grade level. In Grades K-8, easyCBM provides three forms of a screening measure to be used locally for establishing benchmarks and multiple forms (generally 17 in reading) to be used to monitor progress. All measures have been developed with reference to specific content in reading (National Reading Panel) and developed using Item Response Theory (IRT).

Where to Obtain:
Behavioral Research and Teaching, Dept. of Education, U. of Oregon / Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
For Districts: easyCBM@hmhco.com. For Teachers: support@easycbm.com
For Districts: HMH, Attention Customer Experience Support—Assessments, 255 38th Avenue, Suite L, St. Charles, IL 60174. For Teachers: BRT, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403
For Districts: 800.323.9540. For Teachers: 541.346.3535
For Districts: http://www.hmhco.com/hmh-assessments/response-to-intervention/easycbm. For Teachers: easyCBM.com .
Initial Cost:
$5.00 per student
Replacement Cost:
$5.00 per student per year
Included in Cost:
easyCBM is available through HMH on an annual subscription license for districts. Price is $5/student/year. The price includes manuals and use of the assessments. In Year 1, there are three training webinars; one is provided at no charge and two cost $200 each. easyCBM is also available directly through the University of Oregon for individual classroom teacher use (limited to one teacher per building, maximum of 200 students). This teacher subscription includes the online training that is part of the system.
Teachers have unlimited access to the system and reports. For Phoneme Segmentation, students respond to the teacher, and teacher monitor/track their errors. Training is available within the system.
Training Requirements:
Less than one hour of training. There are three training webinars; one is provided at no cost and the other two are provided at $200 each.
Qualified Administrators:
Paraprofessionals or professionals
Access to Technical Support:
Help desk via email and phone
Assessment Format:
  • Individual
  • Small group
  • Large group
Scoring Time:
  • Scoring is automatic OR
  • 0 minutes per student
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
Administration Time:
  • 1 minutes per student
Scoring Method:
  • Manually (by hand)
  • Automatically (computer-scored)
Technology Requirements:
  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection

Tool Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:
easyCBM is a web-based assessment system that includes both benchmarking and progress monitoring assessments combined with a comprehensive array of reports. The assessments in easyCBM are curriculum-based general outcome measures, or CBMs, which are standardized measures that sample from a year's worth of curriculum to assess the degree to which students have mastered the skills and knowledge deemed critical at each grade level. In Grades K-8, easyCBM provides three forms of a screening measure to be used locally for establishing benchmarks and multiple forms (generally 17 in reading) to be used to monitor progress. All measures have been developed with reference to specific content in reading (National Reading Panel) and developed using Item Response Theory (IRT).
Is your tool designed to measure progress towards an end-of-year goal (e.g., oral reading fluency) or progress towards a short-term skill (e.g., letter naming fluency)?
selected
not selected
The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).
not selected Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
not selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
not selected Fourth grade
not selected Fifth grade
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelfth grade

The tool is intended for use with the following age(s).
not selected 0-4 years old
selected 5 years old
selected 6 years old
not selected 7 years old
not selected 8 years old
not selected 9 years old
not selected 10 years old
not selected 11 years old
not selected 12 years old
not selected 13 years old
not selected 14 years old
not selected 15 years old
not selected 16 years old
not selected 17 years old
not selected 18 years old

The tool is intended for use with the following student populations.
selected Students in general education
selected Students with disabilities
selected English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What dimensions does the tool assess?

Reading
not selected Global Indicator of Reading Competence
not selected Listening Comprehension
not selected Vocabulary
selected Phonemic Awareness
not selected Decoding
not selected Passage Reading
not selected Word Identification
not selected Comprehension

Spelling & Written Expression
not selected Global Indicator of Spelling Competence
not selected Global Indicator of Writting Expression Competence

Mathematics
not selected Global Indicator of Mathematics Comprehension
not selected Early Numeracy
not selected Mathematics Concepts
not selected Mathematics Computation
not selected Mathematics Application
not selected Fractions
not selected Algebra

Other
Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:


BEHAVIOR ONLY: Please identify which broad domain(s)/construct(s) are measured by your tool and define each sub-domain or sub-construct.
BEHAVIOR ONLY: Which category of behaviors does your tool target?

Acquisition and Cost Information

Where to obtain:
Email Address
For Districts: easyCBM@hmhco.com. For Teachers: support@easycbm.com
Address
For Districts: HMH, Attention Customer Experience Support—Assessments, 255 38th Avenue, Suite L, St. Charles, IL 60174. For Teachers: BRT, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403
Phone Number
For Districts: 800.323.9540. For Teachers: 541.346.3535
Website
For Districts: http://www.hmhco.com/hmh-assessments/response-to-intervention/easycbm. For Teachers: easyCBM.com .
Initial cost for implementing program:
Cost
$5.00
Unit of cost
student
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
$5.00
Unit of cost
student
Duration of license
year
Additional cost information:
Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the tool. Provide information on what is included in the published tool, as well as what is not included but required for implementation.
easyCBM is available through HMH on an annual subscription license for districts. Price is $5/student/year. The price includes manuals and use of the assessments. In Year 1, there are three training webinars; one is provided at no charge and two cost $200 each. easyCBM is also available directly through the University of Oregon for individual classroom teacher use (limited to one teacher per building, maximum of 200 students). This teacher subscription includes the online training that is part of the system.
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.
Teachers have unlimited access to the system and reports. For Phoneme Segmentation, students respond to the teacher, and teacher monitor/track their errors. Training is available within the system.

Administration

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What type of administrator is your tool designed for?
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration format?
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration setting?
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

Does the program require technology?

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program? (Select all that apply)
selected
selected
not selected

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

What is the administration context?
selected
selected    If small group, n=
selected    If large group, n=
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

What is the administration time?
Time in minutes
1
per (student/group/other unit)
student

Additional scoring time:
Time in minutes
0
per (student/group/other unit)
student

How many alternate forms are available, if applicable?
Number of alternate forms
20
per (grade/level/unit)
grade

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?
selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Can multiple students be rated concurrently by one administrator?
If yes, how many students can be rated concurrently?

Training & Scoring

Training

Is training for the administrator required?
Yes
Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:
Less than one hour of training. There are three training webinars; one is provided at no cost and the other two are provided at $200 each.
Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
Paraprofessionals or professionals
not selected No minimum qualifications
Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials field-tested?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?
Yes
If No, please describe training costs:
Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes
If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:
Help desk via email and phone

Scoring

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What types of scores result from the administration of the assessment?
Score
Observation Behavior Rating
not selected Frequency
not selected Duration
not selected Interval
not selected Latency
not selected Raw score
Conversion
Observation Behavior Rating
not selected Rate
not selected Percent
not selected Standard score
not selected Subscale/ Subtest
not selected Composite
not selected Stanine
not selected Percentile ranks
not selected Normal curve equivalents
not selected IRT based scores
Interpretation
Observation Behavior Rating
not selected Error analysis
not selected Peer comparison
not selected Rate of change
not selected Dev. benchmarks
not selected Age-Grade equivalent
How are scores calculated?
selected Manually (by hand)
selected Automatically (computer-scored)
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Do you provide basis for calculating performance level scores?
Yes

What is the basis for calculating performance level and percentile scores?
not selected Age norms
selected Grade norms
not selected Classwide norms
not selected Schoolwide norms
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents

What types of performance level scores are available?
selected Raw score
not selected Standard score
selected Percentile score
not selected Grade equivalents
not selected IRT-based score
not selected Age equivalents
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents
not selected Developmental benchmarks
not selected Developmental cut points
not selected Equated
not selected Probability
not selected Lexile score
not selected Error analysis
not selected Composite scores
not selected Subscale/subtest scores
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the scoring structure. Provide relevant details such as the scoring format, the number of items overall, the number of items per subscale, what the cluster/composite score comprises, and how raw scores are calculated.
Each subtest has its own score; these individual scores are not converted to a total composite score. The subtest total score is simply the total of all items correct. Because the Phoneme Segmentation measure is a time fluency-based measure, the score is expressed as a rate correct per minute.
Do you provide basis for calculating slope (e.g., amount of improvement per unit in time)?
Yes
ACADEMIC ONLY: Do you provide benchmarks for the slopes?
No
ACADEMIC ONLY: Do you provide percentile ranks for the slopes?
No
What is the basis for calculating slope and percentile scores?
not selected Age norms
selected Grade norms
not selected Classwide norms
not selected Schoolwide norms
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents

Describe the tool’s approach to progress monitoring, behavior samples, test format, and/or scoring practices, including steps taken to ensure that it is appropriate for use with culturally and linguistically diverse populations and students with disabilities.
The authors have approached progress monitoring from two perspectives with respect to (a) goal level sampling from nationally framed standards and (b) scaling. Test format focuses on principles of universal design with individually administered tasks. Scoring practices emphasize objectivity with diagnostic information for teachers and immediate feedback for students. The authors used the report of the National Reading Panel (NRP) to develop a full complement of tasks across the grade levels. easyCBM reading measures includes phonemic awareness (letter names, letter sounds, and phoneme segmentation), phonics (word reading fluency), fluency (passage fluency), vocabulary (word meaning synonyms), and comprehension (narrative stories that have associated multiple-choice questions addressing literal, inferential, and evaluative understanding). From a scaling perspective, the authors designed alternate forms for most measures so they are comparable using Item Response Theory (IRT) Rasch modeling. A common-person item equating design was used to scale all items. Within specific skill areas (e.g. letter names, letter sounds, words in a list for word reading fluency, vocabulary and comprehension), approximately 250 students responded to multiple sets, and each test form contained items common across forms. The equated item scale scores and model fit statistics were used to (a) identify items of similar difficulty, (b) estimate student equated scores, and (c) remove/revise items of poor psychometric quality. The authors then placed the items into final alternate forms for progress monitoring so that each form included items with similar levels of difficulty. The authors generally placed easier items and interspersed common items near the beginning of the form, as many measure are timed and students would then be assured of a sensitive measure for estimating their ability. N.B. IRT was used to equate the forms but not to make the scales; rather, all outcomes based on raw scores. A Technical Report detailing this process is available from the Center upon request.

Rates of Improvement and End of Year Benchmarks

Is minimum acceptable growth (slope of improvement or average weekly increase in score by grade level) specified in your manual or published materials?
No
If yes, specify the growth standards:
Are benchmarks for minimum acceptable end-of-year performance specified in your manual or published materials?
Yes
If yes, specify the end-of-year performance standards:
Spring Norms based on representative national sample.
What is the basis for specifying minimum acceptable growth and end of year benchmarks?
selected
not selected
not selected Other
If other, please specify:
False

If norm-referenced, describe the normative profile.

National representation (check all that apply):
Northeast:
selected New England
selected Middle Atlantic
Midwest:
selected East North Central
selected West North Central
South:
selected South Atlantic
selected East South Central
selected West South Central
West:
selected Mountain
selected Pacific

Local representation (please describe, including number of states)
Note: The authors also developed a set of norms using a stratified random sample of students by gender and ethnicity-race (white female, white male, non-white female, non-white male). Race and ethnicity were aggregated, as the count of students with complete data for both categories was insufficient for disaggregation. In this process, Hispanic students were counted as “non-white” even when lacking a race designation other than “white.”
Date
2012-2013
Size
2000
Gender (Percent)
Male
50
Female
50
Unknown
SES indicators (Percent)
Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
Other SES Indicators
Race/Ethnicity (Percent)
White, Non-Hispanic
50
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
Unknown
Disability classification (Please describe)


First language (Please describe)


Language proficiency status (Please describe)
Do you provide, in your user’s manual, norms which are disaggregated by race or ethnicity? If so, for which race/ethnicity?
selected White, Non-Hispanic
not selected Black, Non-Hispanic
not selected Hispanic
not selected American Indian/Alaska Native
not selected Asian/Pacific Islander
selected Other
not selected Unknown

If criterion-referenced, describe procedure for specifying criterion for adequate growth and benchmarks for end-of-year performance levels.

Describe any other procedures for specifying adequate growth and minimum acceptable end of year performance.

Performance Level

Reliability

Grade Kindergarten
Grade 1
Rating Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.
The authors evaluated test-retest reliability to analyze the stability of the scores when administered over a short timeframe. They evaluated alternate form reliability because of the importance of having forms of comparable difficulty when using measures to screen students at different time points in the school year.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.
Data for these analyses were gathered in the spring of 2011 from a convenience sample of students in a mid-sized school district in the Pacific Northwest. Data were gathered on two separate occasions, one week apart. Each day, students were administered a series of alternate forms of grade-appropriate easyCBM assessments in one-on-one settings.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.
The authors used bivariate correlations to calculate the test-retest and alternate form reliability of the measures included in the study.

*In the table(s) below, report the results of the reliability analyses described above (e.g., model-based evidence, internal consistency or inter-rater reliability coefficients). Include detail about the type of reliability data, statistic generated, and sample size and demographic information.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Additional reliability data is available from the Center upon request.
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Anderson, D., Park, B. J., Lai, C., F., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2012). An examination of test- retest, alternate form reliability, and generalizability theory study of the easyCBM reading assessments: Grade 1 (technical report 1216). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Wray, K., Lai, C., F., Saez, L., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2014). easyCBM Beginning Reading Measures: Grades K-1 Alternate Form Reliability and Criterion Validity With the SAT-10 (Technical Report No. 1403). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
Do you have reliability data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
No

If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated reliability data.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Validity

Grade Kindergarten
Grade 1
Rating Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.
The DIBELS are standardized and individually administered one-minute measures that assess reading fluency rates and accuracy. The measures represent the essential early literacy domains discussed in the National Reading Panel's Report to assess student development of phonological awareness, alphabetic understanding, and automaticity and fluency with code. The Initial Sound Fluency sub-test of DIBELS was used as a criterion measure in the first study. This sub-test was selected due to its technical adequacy and popularity in the field. The Comprehensive Tet of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) for ages 7-24 includes six core measures (Elision, Blending Words, Memory for Digits, Rapid Digit Naming, Nonword Repetition, and Rapid Letter Naming), all designed to be individually administered. The Elision measure was selected because it appeared to measure a similar construct as the easyCBM measure administered in the study. This measure was used, in addition to the DIBELS measure, as a criterion measure in Study 1. Two sub-tests of the SAT-10 measures were used as criterion measures in the second study: Sounds and Words and Word Reading. Both these sub-tests are administered orally and assess the same skills as the corresponding easyCBM measure. They were selected due to their technical adequacy and popularity in the field.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
In the first study, data came from a convenience sample of students recruited from three elementary schools in one district in Oregon. The district uses easyCBM reading measures as part of their Response to Intervention (RTI) model. In all, 214 Kindergarten students and 227 Grade 1 students participated in the study. For the second study, data were collected during three weeks in February of 2013. Students came from a convenience sample of three (K–5) schools within the same Pacific Northwest Semi-rural district, comprising six kindergarten and eight grade 1 classrooms.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
The relationship between easyCBM Letter Sounds and DIBELS was examined using the Spearman's rank correlation. The relationship between easyCBM Letter Sounds and sub-tests on the SAT-10 were examined using the standard multiple regression.

*In the table below, report the results of the validity analyses described above (e.g., concurrent or predictive validity, 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 Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:
Additional validity data is available from the Center upon request.
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Data From: Lai, C. F., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2013). easyCBM reading criterion related validity evidence: Grades k-1 (technical report 1309). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Wray, K., Lai, C., F., Saez, L., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2014). easyCBM Beginning Reading Measures: Grades K-1 Alternate Form Reliability and Criterion Validity With the SAT-10 (Technical Report No. 1403). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.
The data suggests that easyCBM predicts performance on other measure assessing similar constructs, with known technical adequacy and widespread use in the field.
Do you have validity data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
No

If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated validity data.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Bias Analysis

Grade Kindergarten
Grade 1
Rating No No
Have you conducted additional analyses related to the extent to which your tool is or is not biased against subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)? Examples might include Differential Item Functioning (DIF) or invariance testing in multiple-group confirmatory factor models.
No
If yes,
a. Describe the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias:
b. Describe the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted:
c. Describe the results of the bias analyses conducted, including data and interpretative statements. Include magnitude of effect (if available) if bias has been identified.

Growth Standards

Sensitivity: Reliability of Slope

Grade Kindergarten Grade 1
Rating Unconvincing evidence Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
Describe the sample, including size and characteristics. Please provide documentation showing that the sample was composed of students in need of intensive intervention. A sample of students with intensive needs should satisfy one of the following criteria: (1) all students scored below the 30th percentile on a local or national norm, or the sample mean on a local or national test fell below the 25th percentile; (2) students had an IEP with goals consistent with the construct measured by the tool; or (3) students were non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction. Evidence based on an unknown sample, or a sample that does not meet these specifications, may not be considered.
Describe the frequency of measurement (for each student in the sample, report how often data were collected and over what span of time).
Describe the analysis procedures.

In the table below, report reliability of the slope (e.g., ratio of true slope variance to total slope variance) by grade level (if relevant).

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Do you have reliability of the slope data that is disaggregated by subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)?
No

If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated reliability of the slope data.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Sensitivity: Validity of Slope

Grade Kindergarten Grade 1
Rating Unconvincing evidence Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.
Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics. Please provide documentation showing that the sample was composed of students in need of intensive intervention. A sample of students with intensive needs should satisfy one of the following criteria: (1) all students scored below the 30th percentile on a local or national norm, or the sample mean on a local or national test fell below the 25th percentile; (2) students had an IEP with goals consistent with the construct measured by the tool; or (3) students were non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction. Evidence based on an unknown sample, or a sample that does not meet these specifications, may not be considered.
Describe the frequency of measurement (for each student in the sample, report how often data were collected and over what span of time).
Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.

In the table below, report predictive validity of the slope (correlation between the slope and achievement outcome) by grade level (if relevant).
NOTE: The TRC suggests controlling for initial level when the correlation for slope without such control is not adequate.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published validity studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.
Do you have validity of the slope data that is disaggregated by subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)?
No

If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated validity of the slope data.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published validity studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Alternate Forms

Grade Kindergarten Grade 1
Rating Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
Describe the sample for these analyses, including size and characteristics:
Initially, items were piloted using a common person/common item design to create an item bank with known item parameters (measure, mean square outfit, standard error, etc.). Using this data, items were then distributed across the multiple forms (3 screening forms to be administered in the fall, winter, and spring and 17 progress monitoring) to have approximately equal item measure estimates and comparable ranges. The comparability of each of the alternate forms was tested with grade-level students, using repeated measures ANOVA to test for form differences. Results of these studies are reported in the technical reports documenting the development of the measures: Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2007). Examining the technical adequacy of early literacy measures in a progress monitoring assessment system: Letter names, letter sounds, and phoneme segmenting (Technical Report No. 39). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2009). Alternate form and test-retest reliability of easyCBM® reading measures (Technical Report No. 0906). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. The first technical report describes the process of initial instrument development, where we used a 1-PL Rasch model to estimate item difficulty for each word, divided up into its constituent phonemes, then used this information to construct 20 alternate forms of comparable difficulty for use in Kindergarten and Grade 1. In the second technical report, evidence is presented that the process we used in measurement development did, in fact, result in alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty. In a study of the alternate form reliability of the Phoneme Segmenting measures, we found correlations ranged from .86 to .91.
What is the number of alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty?
There are 20 alternate forms available; 3 for benchmarks and 17 for progress monitoring.
If IRT based, provide evidence of item or ability invariance
The technical reports cited throughout this submission document provide evidence of item invariance, along with a variety of other information.
If computer administered, how many items are in the item bank for each grade level?
If your tool is computer administered, please note how the test forms are derived instead of providing alternate forms:

Decision Rules: Setting & Revising Goals

Grade Kindergarten Grade 1
Rating Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
In your manual or published materials, do you specify validated decision rules for how to set and revise goals?
No
If yes, specify the decision rules:
What is the evidentiary basis for these decision rules?
NOTE: The TRC expects evidence for this standard to include an empirical study that compares a treatment group to a control and evaluates whether student outcomes increase when decision rules are in place.

Decision Rules: Changing Instruction

Grade Kindergarten Grade 1
Rating Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
In your manual or published materials, do you specify validated decision rules for when changes to instruction need to be made?
No
If yes, specify the decision rules:
What is the evidentiary basis for these decision rules?
NOTE: The TRC expects evidence for this standard to include an empirical study that compares a treatment group to a control and evaluates whether student outcomes increase when decision rules are in place.

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.