Istation's Indicators of Progress (ISIP)
Advanced Reading

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

ISIP Advanced Reading (ISIP AR) is an engaging computer adaptive assessment of reading ability that automatically adjusts the difficulty of items delivered to limit the amount of frustration or boredom often associated with traditional assessments. ISIP AR includes comprehensive reporting of teachers and parents, as well as downloadable teacher-directed lesson and resources for differentiated instruction. ISIP AR is intended to be used with students in grades 4-8, and can be administered simultaneously to an entire classroom in approximately 30 minutes.

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)?

End-year goal
Short-term skill

The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).

Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
Kindergarten
First grade
Second grade
Third grade
Fourth grade
Fifth grade
Sixth grade
Seventh grade
Eighth grade
Ninth grade
Tenth grade
Eleventh grade
Twelfth grade

The tool is intended for use with the following age(s).

0-4 years old
5 years old
6 years old
7 years old
8 years old
9 years old
10 years old
11 years old
12 years old
13 years old
14 years old
15 years old
16 years old
17 years old
18 years old

The tool is intended for use with the following student populations.

Students in general education
Students with disabilities
English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What dimensions does the tool assess?

Reading

Global Indicator of Reading Competence
Listening Comprehension
Vocabulary
Phonemic Awareness
Decoding
Passage Reading
Word Identification
Comprehension

Spelling & Written Expression

Global Indicator of Spelling Competence
Global Indicator of Writting Expression Competence

Mathematics

Global Indicator of Mathematics Comprehension
Early Numeracy
Mathematics Concepts
Mathematics Computation
Mathematics Application
Fractions
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

Administration

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What type of administrator is your tool designed for?

General education teacher
Special education teacher
Parent
Child
External observer
Other

If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration format?

Direct observation
Rating scale
Checklist
Performance measure
Other

If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration setting?

General education classroom
Special education classroom
School office
Recess
Lunchroom
Home
Other

If other, please specify:

Does the program require technology?

Yes

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program? (Select all that apply)

Computer or tablet
Internet connection
Other technology (please specify)

What is the administration context?

Individual

Small group   If small group, n=

Large group   If large group, n=

Computer-administered
Other

If other, please specify:

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?

No discontinue rules provided
Basals
Ceilings
Other

If other, please specify:

Adaptive test stopping criteria based on minimized standard of measurement.

Training & Scoring

Training

Is training for the administrator required?

Yes

Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:

1 - 4 hours of training.

Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.

Paraprofessional or professional

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:

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

Scoring

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What types of scores result from the administration of the assessment?

Score

Observation	Behavior Rating
Frequency Duration Interval Latency	Raw score

Conversion

Observation	Behavior Rating
Rate Percent	Standard score Subscale/ Subtest Composite Stanine Percentile ranks Normal curve equivalents IRT based scores

Interpretation

Observation	Behavior Rating
Error analysis Peer comparison Rate of change	Dev. benchmarks Age-Grade equivalent

How are scores calculated?

Manually (by hand)
Automatically (computer-scored)
Other

If other, please specify:

What is the basis for calculating performance level and percentile scores?

Age norms
Grade norms
Classwide norms
Schoolwide norms
Stanines
Normal curve equivalents

What types of performance level scores are available?

Raw score
Standard score
Percentile score
Grade equivalents
IRT-based score
Age equivalents
Stanines
Normal curve equivalents
Developmental benchmarks
Developmental cut points
Equated
Probability
Lexile score
Error analysis
Composite scores
Subscale/subtest scores
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.

Ability scores are estimated using Bayesian EAP with an informative prior under a 2 PL unidimensional IRT model. Reported scale scores are generated through a linear transformation of the raw IRT-based ability scores. Abilities for each of the subskills (phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, alphabetic decoding, spelling, vocabulary, and comprehension) are estimated separately based on examinee response patterns to the items adaptively administered. An overall ability is estimated after all of the appropriate subtests are given based on the responses from all items.

Do you provide basis for calculating slope (e.g., amount of improvement per unit in time)?

No

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?

Age norms
Grade norms
Classwide norms
Schoolwide norms
Stanines
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.

Ability scale scores are compared to cut-points determined from nationally representative norming sample to classify students into one of three instructional tiers. The data used for the calibration was based on an ethnically diverse regional sample, including urban and suburban students of varied ability and backgrounds. Annual reviews of item parameters, scoring scaling, and the setting of cut-points is practiced for ISIP.

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?

Yes

If yes, specify the growth standards:

National norms for ISIP Advanced Reading enable teachers, parents, and students to know how their students’ scores compare with a nationally representative sample of children in their particular grade. Norming samples are obtained as part of istation's ongoing research in assessing reading ability. The samples were drawn from enrolled ISIP users during the 2014-2015 school year. Considerable attention was given to ensure the sample was nationally representative of students in 4th through 8th grade with respect to the demographic variables of age, race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, Special education services, and English language proficiency. Norming establishes the Instructional Tier Goals used to determine Instructional Tiers for each month. Consistent with other reading assessments, istation has defined a three-tier normative grouping based on indices associated with the 20th and 40th percentiles. Students with an index on or above the 40th percentile for their grade are placed into Tier 1. Students with an index below the 20th percentile are placed into Tier 3. These tiers are used to guide educators in determining the level of instruction for each student.

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:

Istation establishes Instruction Tier Goals to determine Instructional Tiers for each month of the year. The monthly goals for May or June (determined by each customer) are used as the end-of-year performance goal.

What is the basis for specifying minimum acceptable growth and end of year benchmarks?

Norm-referenced
Criterion-referenced
Other

If other, please specify:

False

National representation (check all that apply):

Northeast:

New England

Middle Atlantic

Midwest:

East North Central

West North Central

South:

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

West:

Mountain

Pacific

Local representation (please describe, including number of states)

Local representation (please describe, including number of states): Nationwide sample including 29 states

Date

Data collected from 14-15 school year

Size

322835

Gender (Percent)

Male

51.5

Female

48.5

Unknown

SES indicators (Percent)

Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

Other SES Indicators

Race/Ethnicity (Percent)

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

American Indian/Alaska Native

Asian/Pacific Islander

Other

Unknown

Disability classification (Please describe)

7% of the sample was classified as receiving Special Ed services.

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?

White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
Unknown

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

N/A

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

N/A

Reliability

Grade	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

*Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.

Cronbach’s (1951) coefficient alpha is typically used as an indicator of reliability across test items within a testing instance. However, Cronboch’s Alpha is not appropriate for any IRT based measure because alpha assumes that all students in the testing instance respond to a common set of items. Due to its very nature, students taking a CAT-based assessment, such as ISIP Advanced Reading, will receive a custom set of items based on their initial estimates of ability and response patterns. Thus, students do not respond to a common set of items. The IRT analogue to classical internal consistency is marginal reliability (Bock & Mislevy, 1982) and thus applied to ISIP Advanced Reading. Marginal reliability is a method of combining the variability in estimating abilities at different points on the ability scale into a single index. Like Cronbach’s alpha, marginal reliability is a unitless measure bounded by 0 and 1, and it can be used with Cronbach’s alpha to directly compare the internal consistencies of classical test data to IRT-based test data. ISIP Advanced Reading has a stopping criteria based on minimizing the standard error of the ability estimate. As such, the lower limit of the marginal reliability of the data for any testing instance of ISIP Advanced Reading will always be approximately 0.90.

*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.

Sample derived from the total population of students using the ISIP assessment throughout the 2014-2015 school year. Large sample size ranges from 83,621 to 226,558 students across the United States.

*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.

Istation derived IRT-based reliability from Classical Test Theory standpoint to Item Response Theory as shown below. X=T+E σ_X^2= σ_T^2+ σ_E^2 ρ_(xx`)= (σ_T^2)/(σ_X^2 )= (σ_X^2- σ_E^2 )/(σ_X^2 )=1- (σ_E^2)/(σ_X^2 ) If X (i.e., in IRT) is standardized, ρ_(XX`)=1- σ_E^2. Since, σ_E^2=SE(〖θ)〗^2 in IRT ρ_(xx`)=1-SE(〖θ)〗^2 is how iStation computed reliabilities.

*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.

Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

Yes

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Mathes, P. (2016). Istation’s Indicators of Progress (ISIP) Advanced Reading: Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www.istation.com/Content/downloads/studies/ar_technical_report.pdf

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.

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	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data 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 State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) is the testing program for students in Texas public schools. STAAR Reading is the assessment used to determine whether students are successful in meeting the reading standards of their current grade and able to make academic progress from year to year. ISIP AR was developed to measure the skills that are most predictive of students’ reading success. Since STAAR Reading is a measure of reading ability and determines students’ grade level success, it is important to understand the predictive validity of ISIP AR; used as a screener, when compared to STAAR Reading.

*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.

Sample is derived from urban school districts in the northeast area of the state of Texas. Sample size ranges from 2,647 to 3,877.

*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.

Pearson Product-Moment correlation analysis, multiple linear regression, and multiple logistic regression were applied for each grade data by using SPSS software. The predictive validity study was conducted to determine how well ISIP measures predicted students' performance on other reading tests. The data were collected from one district in the State of Texas in 2012-2013 school year. Each student had both ISIP reading ability scores and STAAR scores. SPSS software was used to conduct the analyses. Pearson Product-Moment correlation analysis, multiple linear regression, and multiple logistic regression were applied for each grade data by using SPSS software.

*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.

Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

Yes

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Mathes, P. (2016). Istation’s Indicators of Progress (ISIP) Advanced Reading: Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www.istation.com/Content/downloads/studies/ar_technical_report.pdf

Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.

The results of this study suggest very strong relationships between ISIP AR and STAAR Reading. Our findings also add to the evidence that ISIP Reading measures are predictive of STAAR Reading across grades. The ISIP tests can be used as a prediction of how a student will score on STAAR.

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.

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

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.

Yes

If yes,

a. Describe the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias:

Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis was conducted by grade level (4-8) using logistic regression DIF detection analysis by difR package in R software

b. Describe the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted:

Four DIF factors were investigated: socioeconomic status, gender, race/ethnicity, and special education students.

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.

Using Zumbo & Thomas (ZT) DIF criterion, results showed 97% displayed as A item (negligible or non-significant DIF effect), 2% displayed as B item (slightly to moderate DIF effect), and only 1% displayed as C item (moderate to large DIF effect).

Sensitivity: Reliability of Slope

Grade	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data 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.

Only ISIP AR Tier 3 (students performing seriously lebow grade level and in need of intensive intervention) students are included. Sample size ranges from 2,280 to 4,242 across the United States.

Describe the frequency of measurement (for each student in the sample, report how often data were collected and over what span of time).

The data were collected monthly from August 2016 (Period 0) to May (Period 9) 2017. Each student had all 10 data points.

Describe the analysis procedures.

A structural equation modeling (SEM) framework was applied to estimate the reliability of slope. A growth model with two parallel growth processes is used. To be more specific, two linear growth models were simultaneously modeled. The two parallel growth processes were established by splitting the available time segments into two groups. One group of time segments (Periods 0,2,4,6, and 8) was used to form one linear growth process, and another group of time segments (Periods 1,3,5,7, and 9) was used to form another linear growth process. For each linear growth process, the individual slopes of growth were estimated as factor scores of the latent slope factor. Then, the correlation between individual slopes from the two parallel growth processes was computed as an estimate of the reliability of the growth slope. Mplus software was used. The Spearman-Brown formula was then used to correct the correlation coefficient because each process had only half the available time represented.

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).

Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

Yes

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Mathes, P. (2016). Istation’s Indicators of Progress (ISIP) Advanced Reading: Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www.istation.com/Content/downloads/studies/ar_technical_report.pdf

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.

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	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data 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.

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.

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	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

Describe the sample for these analyses, including size and characteristics:

What is the number of alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty?

If IRT based, provide evidence of item or ability invariance

All items are calibrated by 2PL Unidimensional IRT. Item difficulties range from -3.0 to 3.0 and item discriminations range from 0.2 to 2.5. Items that did not meet these criterions are removed. Mathes, P. (2016). Istation’s Indicators of Progress (ISIP) Advanced Reading: Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www.istation.com/Content/downloads/studies/ar_technical_report.pdf

If computer administered, how many items are in the item bank for each grade level?

ISIP Early Reading’s CAT design allows items for all grades to be pulled from the same item pool by subtest. The amount of items per subtest are in the chart below. Comprehension 182 Spelling 899 Text Fluency 60 Vocabulary 581

If your tool is computer administered, please note how the test forms are derived instead of providing alternate forms:

Because the ISIP assessment is computer adaptive, the test forms are built at the item level with each student response. The CAT system assigns an initial ability estimate to a student based on their grade to deliver the first item. With each student response to an item the system then selects an item that fits best based on student’s ability estimate using both item discrimination and item difficulty under Unidimensional 2PL IRT model. This continues with each student response to an item. Once the stopping criteria is met (reaching maximum item per subtest, the standard errors of student's ability drops below a preset threshold, or when 4 consecutive items have each reduced the standard error by less than a preset amount), the assessment stops, and a student ability score is reported for each subtest and an overall reading composite score.

Decision Rules: Setting & Revising Goals

Grade	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data 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	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data 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.