i-Ready Literacy Tasks
Passage Reading Fluency

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

The i-Ready Literacy Task for Passage Reading Fluency can help determine a student’s oral reading fluency proficiency, progress, and individual instruction needs. These tasks evaluate students’ oral reading of connected text to determine a student’s passage reading accuracy, rate (Words Correct Per Minute), prosody, and comprehension. Both Benchmark Tasks and Progress Monitoring Tasks are available for students in grades 1–6 (recommended for use in mid- to late-grade 1 through grade 6). Per grade, four Benchmark forms are available for screening in fall, winter, and spring, with one additional form, if needed. Twenty-four progress monitoring forms, per grade, provide educators with a comparable tool to monitor student progress and evaluate instructional interventions.

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:

Guidance provided for educator.

Training & Scoring

Training

Is training for the administrator required?

No

Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:

i-Ready Literacy Tasks were intentionally designed with administration guidance that would make it possible for educators to administer with little or no formal training. Various training options are available to educators interested in using the i-Ready Literacy Tasks. Professional learning specialists can visit a district to provide live trainings, with Literacy Task training lengths varying based on the district’s needs and scope of implementation. In many cases, training on the Literacy Tasks is often folded into training on the computer-adaptive i-Ready Diagnostic assessment and i-Ready Personalized Instruction lessons. These trainings are available at additional cost and can also be provided virtually. In addition to live trainings, i-Ready has an asynchronous learning platform known as the Online Educator Learning System. This system, available at no additional cost, features on-demand courses that can help educators understand how to use the Literacy Tasks. Courses include: 1) Getting Started with i-Ready Literacy Tasks: 10 minutes; 2) i-Ready Literacy Tasks Administration and Scoring: 30 minutes; 3) Using i-Ready Literacy Progress Monitoring Tasks: 90 minutes. Finally, Curriculum Associates has worked extensively to provide educators with the information they need right within the i-Ready system to administer Literacy Tasks with fidelity even with little or no training, although training is always recommended where possible.

Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.

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:

In addition to our no-cost training materials, facilitated professional development is available for an additional cost if districts/schools have not already purchased a professional learning package. If they have purchased a package, Passage Reading Fluency training can be part of that package.

Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?

Yes

If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:

Support is available through dedicated i-Ready Partners (Partner Success Manager, Professional Learning Specialist), unlimited access to in-house technical support during business hours, and self-service resources on i-ReadyCentral.com/LiteracyTasks. Self-service materials are available on i-Ready Central and through our Online Educator Learning platform. Materials include guidance documents, recorded webinars, and administration videos with scoring practice options.

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:

Beginning in November 2024, the Literacy Tasks will also have a digital administration feature in which a teacher can score a student in real time using a computer or iPad (rather than scoring the student on paper and inputting scores into i-Ready), with this new feature being available at no charge during the 2024–2025 school year and may incur an additional fee in later years. When the digital administration feature is used, all scores are calculated automatically based on the inputs from the individual administering the test.

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:

On-grade performance level placements.

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.

Scoring for the progress monitoring passage reading fluency consists of determining the number of words correct per minute (WCPM). To calculate WCPM, determine the number of words read and subtract the number of words skipped or read incorrectly. This score is the WCPM. The WCPM is used to track student performance during progress monitoring. Generally, one passage is administered per progress monitoring task. If two passages are administered then calculate the WCPM for each passage individually and then take the average of the two WCPM scores. In addition to the WCPM, accuracy is calculated as the percent of words read correctly divided by the total number of words read. Accuracy is considered to see how well the student is decoding and recognizing words without their reading rate factored in. Comprehension and Prosody scores are based on four-point rubrics. The Comprehension score should be based on the student’s retelling of the whole passage. The Prosody score should be based on the student’s reading of the whole passage. Prosody and Linguistic Diversity: Students’ expressive speech in English varies based on their geographic regions, their home languages, their familiarity with English, and other aspects of their linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This should be taken into consideration when evaluating a student’s prosody. For some students, the criteria on the Prosody Rubric for phrasing may provide more relevant information about their oral reading fluency than the criteria for intonation. In these instances, the educator may weigh phrasing criteria more heavily in the score selection on the Prosody Rubric. The rubric for the Comprehension score is based on the objective: retells details or provides a summary statement to show an understanding of the text. For a score of 1 (Beginning), for grades 1–2 a student retells only one accurate detail, demonstrating insufficient understanding of the text. For grades 3–4, a student retells only one or two accurate details, demonstrating insufficient understanding of the text. For a score of 2 (Developing) a student retells minimal accurate details that cover a small portion of the passage, demonstrating a partial understanding of the text. For a score of 3 (Proficient) a student retells enough accurate details that cover a significant portion of the passage, or provides an acceptable summary statement, to demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the text. For a score of 4 (Exemplary) a student accurately retells almost all details or provides a comprehensive summary statement that includes supporting details, demonstrating a thorough understanding of the text. The rubric for the Prosody score is based on the objective: Reads with Expression (phrasing and intonation). For a score of 1 (Beginning), a student reads primarily word-by-word, hesitating between words. Reads primarily in a monotone voice. For a score of 2 (Developing) a student frequently reads word-by-word, with occasional long pauses between words. May read with some sentence phrasing. Reads in a monotone voice but may occasionally vary pitch and volume to read expressively. For a score of 3 (Proficient) a student frequently reads with sentence phrasing, with only occasional word-by-word reading. Varies pitch and volume to read expressively but may occasionally read in a monotone voice. For a score of 4 (Exemplary) a student consistently reads with sentence phrasing. Reads primarily in an expressive voice, varying pitch and volume to deliver an engaging interpretation of the text.

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?

Yes

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.

The progress monitoring tool for passage reading fluency graphically tracks student performance across multiple administrations of the progress monitoring forms with respect to a Performance Goal and Typical Rate of Improvement (ROI) Goal. The Performance Goal is reaching and maintaining the 50th percentile for WCPM on the passages being used for progress monitoring for two sessions. The Typical ROI Goal is maintaining a trajectory consistent with the Typical ROI for the passage level being used for progress monitoring. The progress monitoring chart depicts two aim lines to reflect these interim goals. For each aim line, the weekly ROI needed to achieve the end point by the end of the Progress Monitoring period is presented to the right of the chart. In determining a goal to set for a student for the Progress Monitoring period, these two aim lines are provided as guidance on what an ambitious and a typical ROI would be. The Performance Goal Aim Line (e.g., Grade 2 Performance Goal Aim Line) starts at the student’s Baseline WCPM score and ends at the WCPM score that is comparable to 50th percentile for the time of year and grade level of the passages being used for progress monitoring (not to be confused with the student’s chronological grade level, if they are being monitored on passages that are below grade level). The Typical ROI Aim Line shows a growth trajectory starting at the student’s Baseline WCPM score and increasing at an ROI based on typical weekly WCPM gain. For most students receiving intervention and progress monitoring, typical growth is not enough to achieve grade-level goals. The focus typically is on accelerated growth with the Performance Goal Aim Line as the goal, and ultimately, on proficient reading of text that matches the student’s chronological grade level. In addition to the aim lines, the student’s actual progress is tracked by graphically showing the actual WCPM for each of the progress monitoring administrations; thereby, allowing the administrator to view student progress relative to the Performance Goal and the Typical ROI Aim Lines. The student’s most recent WCPM and Mean ROI for the progress monitoring period provide comparison points. Our progress monitoring guidance documents provide detailed information on the monitoring, evaluating, and comparing a student’s progress. Cultural and linguistic responsiveness work involves authentically representing various cultural and linguistic backgrounds, while ensuring that students can draw connections between the content and their own cultural and linguistic identities. Much of the industry’s focus and work to date on embedding cultural and linguistic responsiveness into learning tools has been to support curriculum and instruction, not large-scale assessment. We are working to address this. We believe when students see items that are more engaging, they will perform better. The assessment and research leadership teams are creating a theory of action along with guidelines and criteria for what it means to address cultural and linguistic responsiveness in large-scale assessment. We have increasingly sought to support educators’ pursuit of culturally responsive teaching and to better the cultural and linguistic responsiveness of our products. Through ongoing partnerships with key advisors, we have conducted product reviews, undergone training, and developed guidelines and practices to understand where we are and plan where we need to go. One place where this work and research is evident is in the topics, characters, and settings depicted in the passages that make up the Passage Reading Fluency progress monitoring assessment, which represent a range of cultures and lived experiences. Curriculum Associates is also dedicated to ensuring the Literacy Tasks are accessible to as many students as possible. To help aid educators in using the Literacy Tasks, a detailed FAQ is available that includes considerations for educators to keep in mind about the provision of specific accommodations and/or the use of i-Ready Literacy Tasks for English Learners and students with specific disabilities. While all decisions about appropriateness of tasks must be made by educators who have access to information about students’ IEPs, 504 plans, or other documented needs, the information in this document may be helpful to consider as one factor in the decision-making process. We recommend that educators review this document, as well as each task, and apply what they know about their students to determine whether tasks are appropriate. Specific guidance is provided for untimed accommodations; home language support; accommodations processes for students who are deaf or hard of hearing; accommodations for students who are blind, color blind, or have low vision; considerations for students who are non-verbal, have limited vocalizations, or variances in articulation processes for students who are deaf or hard of hearing; and masking accommodations.

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:

For grades 1–4, the typical rate of improvement by passage grade level and weekly WCPM gain are 2.00 weekly WCPM for grade 1, 1.50 weekly WCPM for grade 2, 1.00 weekly WCPM for grade 3, and 1.00 weekly WCPM for grade 4.

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:

The end-of-year performance standards is the 50th percentile WCPM for the passage grade level and time of year when the progress monitoring period ends. The following bullets provide the WCPM score range for meeting the performance standard by grade level and testing window. The lower bound WCPM score represents the 50th percentile and the end-of-year standard. • Grade 1: Fall: N/A, Winter: 29–59, Spring: 60–91, Percentile: 50–75th • Grade 2: Fall: 50–84, Winter: 84–109, Spring: 100–124, Percentile, 50–75th • Grade 3: Fall: 83–104, Winter: 97–-137, Spring: 112–139, Percentile: 50–75th • Grade 4: Fall: 94–125, Winter: 120–143, Spring: 133–160, Percentile: 50–75th

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

Norm-referenced
Criterion-referenced
Other

If other, please specify:

True

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)

Date

Size

Gender (Percent)

Male

Female

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)

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.

The setting of the performance levels on the Passage Reading Fluency was based on multiple years of research. Standard setting is the process of establishing cut scores on assessments (Cizek & Bunch, 2007) to support the interpretation and use of the assessments. The cut scores are designated on the task score metric and determine the boundary or range of scores associated with each placement level. Guidance documents provide feedback to the educator on next steps for student instruction depending on placement level. In general, the standards setting process consists of three main procedures: content judgements, impact data review, and vertical articulation. For Passage Reading Fluency, the content-based judgements process included the design and grade-level alignment of the passages and alignment of the Below/On cut score to the 50th percentile based on the Hasbrouck and Tindal (2017) oral reading fluency norms. For the design and grade-level alignment of the passages, both quantitative (using the Lexile framework) and qualitative (text structure, knowledge/language demands, layers of meaning) aspects were applied to align each passage to the appropriate grade level. Additionally, for grade 1 and grade 2 passages, the passage specifications aim for about 80% of each passage to include grade-appropriate sound spellings and high-frequency words. This is not necessary for upper grade levels. Grade-level percentile ranges are provided for each placement level based on the range of WCPM. To assist educators in determining the appropriate intervention the Below placement level is separated into three grade-level percentile ranges such as 0–10th percentile, 11–24th percentile, and 25–49th percentile. The impact data was based on convenience samples from the digital interface that captured operational use of the Literacy Tasks in academic year 2022–2023 and prescribed research studies in which i-Ready Literacy Task forms and external measures were administered to a representative sample of students. Curriculum Associates launched the digital interface that allows teachers to enter student scores on literacy tasks into the i-Ready system to track performance and generate results in academic year 2022–2023. After the impact data review for each Literacy Task by grade level and testing window, a vertical articulation process is often implemented to ensure the reasonableness of the cut scores as students progress across testing windows and grade levels. The PRF Tasks do have grade specific forms; as a result, the cut scores increase across seasons within a grade level. Cizek, G. J., & Bunch, M. B. (2007). Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests. Sage Publications Ltd.

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

The ultimate goal of intervention and progress monitoring is to help the student read fluently at grade level. Two important interim goals support progress to grade-level fluency: • Performance Goal: Reaching and maintaining the 50th percentile for WCPM on the passages being used for progress monitoring for at least two sessions. • Typical Rate of Improvement (ROI) Goal: Maintaining a trajectory consistent with the Typical ROI for the passage level being used for progress monitoring.

Reliability

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4
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.

We provide three types of reliability to support the progress monitoring forms. The first method, the pairwise adjacent alternate form reliability, compares the similarity in scores across the individual progress monitoring forms. The purpose of the pairwise adjacent alternate form reliability analysis is to assess the consistency or stability of the student scores obtained from two progress monitoring forms that were administered to the same student in adjacent administration order. This is similar to a test-retest analysis; however, the saliency of the passages precludes the use of the same passage during a second testing period. For this research, reliability of progress monitoring forms is determined through adjacent alternate form reliability. Consistency in scores across adjacent forms is important since the progress monitoring forms are developed to be of similar difficulties so that increases in student scores is attributed to the impact of the intervention and not a particular form. For the 24 PM forms, adjacent administered form pairs for each student were identified. For example, the first PM form and second PM form for each student were identified as an adjacent pair. Selecting forms earlier in the time period limits the impact of the intervention on the reliability analysis. Pearson correlations were calculated for students with common form pairs (e.g., correlations for students administered Form A and Form B compared to correlations for students administered Form A and Form C). The pairwise analysis allows for multiple forms to be evaluated. High correlations indicate the various progress monitoring forms are assessing similar literacy skills of oral reading. The results listed below are the median correlation across the pairwise correlations and the lower and upper 95% confidence interval. The results show strong correlations across PM form pairs for each PM form indicating consistency in scores across PM forms. The second method, coefficient alpha (Cronbach Alpha) reliability analysis assesses internal consistency. This method is often used to demonstrate internal consistency of items in educational tests. For fluency measures, the items represent each word in a passage and the maximum possible score is the total number of words in the passage. The results listed below are the Cronbach Alpha for the first progress monitoring form with sufficient data and the lower and upper 95% confidence interval. For the third type of reliability, we use a hierarchical omega which is an extension of McDonald’s omega (Luo & Kaya, 2019). This model-based reliability of the progress monitoring forms demonstrates that they provide comparable measurements of student performance across administrations. A Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) was used to account for the data's complexity, where each student receives different forms at various points. The model includes both student and form as random effects. The omega indicates the proportion of score variance attributable to stable differences between students, relative to error variance, providing an overall measure of the forms' ability to consistently and comparably capture student performance. A bootstrap procedure with 500 fully converged iterations was conducted to calculate 95% confidence intervals for this reliability estimate. The results listed in the table are the number of students, model-based reliability coefficient and the lower and upper 95% confidence interval. Luo, Y., & Kaya, F. (2019). Estimating reliability in multilevel models using hierarchical omega. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 54(2), 216–231.

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

The samples for the pairwise adjacent alternate form analyses consisted of students testing in fall, winter, and spring during the academic year 2022–2023. This reflected all students taking Passage Reading Fluency in grades 1–4 with benchmark scores and progress monitoring scores being entered by administrators in the digital interface. As such, the data can be considered the population of students. Approximately 8,000 students from public and private schools across 79 districts in 30 states were represented in our sample from grades 1–4 with ten or more progress monitoring sessions. For students in grades 1–4 who also have a benchmark PRF score and placement level, 75% received Below placement level, 17% received On placement level, and 7% received Above placement level. As expected, the PRF score distribution for progress monitoring students skews towards lower performance; hence, the need for progress monitoring. The sample for the coefficient alpha analyses consisted of students testing in fall 2024. This reflected all students taking Passage Reading Fluency in grades 1–4 with benchmark scores and progress monitoring scores being scored through digital administration. As such, the data can be considered the population of students. Approximately 2,400 students from public and private schools across 36 districts in 17 states across all regions were represented in our sample from grades 1–4. For the model-based reliability, progress monitoring students from the 2022–2023 sample were included if the criteria for analysis was met such as student’s needing intensive intervention; this resulted in multiple samples of varying sizes. Analyses were repeated across testing windows with different students if warranted by the analysis and minimum sample sizes were met. The actual sample size is provided in the table along with the analysis result.

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

For both reliability analyses, Pearson Correlations were run for students that had a non-zero score for each form in the analysis. For adjacent alternate form, students reported words correct per minute on each pairwise form. For concurrent reliability, students were included who had a progress monitoring form initial words correct per minute score and a benchmark words correct per minute score.

*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:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

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 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4
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.

Establishing validity for a measurement instrument requires accumulating evidence to support the inferences made from the information provided by the instrument. Thus, validity is not considered a property of an assessment but rather the collection of evidence that supports the uses of its scores (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014). Of the five categories for validity evidence, we provide evidence based on relationships with other variables. The following validity evidence indicates relationships with other variables. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA et al., 2014) describe convergent and divergent types of relationships with other variables (p. 16-17). Convergent validity evidence is that which shows that a measure has moderate to strong positive correlations with other measures that purport to assess the same construct; conversely, divergent validity evidence is that which shows that a measure is not strongly correlated with other measures (i.e., correlations with small absolute values) that purport to measure different constructs. The analyses in this report focus mainly on convergent evidence. Passage reading fluency is the ability to read text accurately, at an appropriate rate, and with suitable expression (prosody). Research shows that students who read text fluently also have better reading comprehension. Fluent readers are better able to focus on constructing meaning from text because they do not need to use their working memory for decoding and word recognition. The i-Ready Diagnostic for reading (referred to as Diagnostic) is a valid and reliable tool aligned to rigorous state standards across the following domains: Phonological Awareness, Phonics, High-Frequency Words, Vocabulary, Comprehension of Informational Text, and Comprehension of Literature. Although both the Diagnostic and the i-Ready Literacy Tasks are provided by Curriculum Associates, the method variance and lack of item overlap are consistent with the TRC requirements for two assessments from the same vendor establishing validity evidence. While both the i-Ready Diagnostic and Passage Reading Fluency tasks are available within the i-Ready platform, they are completely separate assessments. The Diagnostic is a computer adaptive assessment that administers on-grade and off-grade level items targeted to students’ interim proficiency. The Diagnostic scores and placement levels are modeled through item response theory, unlike Passage Reading Fluency which is based on classical test theory. The Diagnostic passages and items are developed to different content development standards compared to the passages for Passage Reading Fluency. There is no overlap between passages or items. Separate samples and criterion established the validity and reliability evidence for the Diagnostic compared to the validity and reliability evidence provided for Passage Reading Fluency. Both assessments are typically administered three times throughout the academic year (fall, winter, and spring) and the progress monitoring passage reading fluency forms are available for weekly or biweekly administration across testing windows depending on the duration of the instructional intervention. Student performance in fall on the Diagnostic provides a baseline for students’ current reading performance and is a good predictor of student performance at the end of the year. The overall score on the Diagnostic is highly correlated with measures of reading comprehension; therefore, this was used as an external measure to demonstrate validity evidence for the passage reading fluency progress monitoring forms. The validity evidence for the progress monitoring forms is based on concurrent analyses and predictive analyses with the external measure i-Ready Diagnostic for reading. (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014 add to the bottom: American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (Eds.). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing.)

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

The samples for the analyses consisted of students testing in fall, winter, and spring during the academic year 2022–2023. This reflected all students taking Passage Reading Fluency in grades 1–4 and scores being entered by administrators in the digital interface. As such, the data can be considered the population of students. Approximately 8,000 students from public and private schools across 79 districts in 30 states were represented in our sample from grades 1–4 with ten or more progress monitoring sessions. For students in grades 1–4 who also have a i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading score and placement level, 30% received Below placement level, 67% received Early placement level, and 3% received a placement level of Mid or above. As expected, the Diagnostic score distribution for progress monitoring students skews towards lower performance; hence, the need for progress monitoring. For progress monitoring students were included in the sample if the criteria for an analysis was met such as student’s needing intensive intervention; this resulted in multiple samples of varying sizes. Analyses were repeated across testing windows with different students if warranted by the analysis and minimum sample sizes were met. The actual sample size is provided in the table along with the analysis result.

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

The validity evidence for the progress monitoring forms is based on concurrent analyses and predictive analyses with the external measure i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading. For the concurrent analyses, students’ WCPM scores on the first progress monitoring form were correlated with students i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading overall scores taken in the same testing window. The Diagnostic score ranges from 100–800. For grade 1 students, the first PRF form is administered in winter; therefore, the first winter PRF form was correlated with students’ scores on the winter i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading overall score. For grades 2–4, the first PRF form is administered in fall; therefore, the first fall PRF form was correlated with students’ scores on the fall i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading overall score. High correlations provide evidence that the progress monitoring forms are measuring reading comprehension. Since the correlations are between two scores that are external to each other, the magnitude of the correlations are expected to be lower than the reliability correlations where two forms of the same task are being analyzed. For the predictive analyses, students’ WCPM scores on the first progress monitoring form were correlated with students’ spring i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading overall scores taken in the spring testing window. For grade 1 students, the first PRF form is administered in winter; therefore, the first winter PRF form was correlated with students’ scores on the spring i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading overall score. For grades 2–4, the first PRF form is administered in fall; therefore, the first fall PRF form was correlated with students’ scores on the spring i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading overall score. Moderate to high correlations provide evidence that the progress monitoring forms are measuring reading comprehension. Since the correlations are between two scores that are external to each other and administered during different times, the magnitude of the correlations are expected to be lower than the reliability correlations where two forms of the same task are being analyzed. The sample size for the concurrent and predictive analyses ranged from approximately 700 to 2,700. The initial form for progress monitoring varied across students; therefore, each concurrent correlation was run by form. The results are summarized in the table below. The concurrent correlations are moderate to high ranging from 0.70–0.79. The predictive correlations are moderate to high ranging from 0.67–0.78. This evidence supports the use of the progress monitoring forms as measures of fluency.

*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:

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 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.

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.

Sensitivity: Reliability of Slope

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4
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.

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).

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

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)?

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:

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Sensitivity: Validity of Slope

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4
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:

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)?

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:

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Alternate Forms

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

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

A subset of students in academic year 2022–2023 from the reliability and validity analyses who all scored below the 30th percentile on the i-Ready Diagnostic for reading were selected to meet the requirements of students needing intensive intervention. This was defined as students with at least 10 forms over a period of at least 20 weeks. The degree to which the forms are similar in difficulty will impact the reliability of the forms. PM forms similar in difficulty allow for a more accurate measurement of the effectiveness of the intervention when comparing student performance across multiple administrations. As a precursor to reliability, the PM forms were evaluated for comparability through an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) comparing mean scores on individual PM forms to the grand mean score on all PM forms with student performance on the i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading overall score as a covariate. The ANCOVA results across the PM forms with sufficient sample size are provided for grades 1–4. For PRF grade 1 with 372 students, the ANCOVA results were p-value 0.667 and Eta Squared 0.0005 (0.05 percent variance). For PRF grade 2 with 1,372 students, the ANCOVA results were p-value 0.0 and Eta Squared 0.0142 (1.42 percent variance). For PRF grade 3 with 1,392 students, the ANCOVA results were p-value 0.0 and Eta Squared 0.0685 (6.85 percent variance). For PRF grade 4 with 684 students, the ANCOVA results were p-value 0.021 and Eta Squared 0.0092 (0.92 percent variance). In general, the results indicate that less than 3% of the variance is attributed to the difference in mean scores across PM forms. For PRF grade 3, the variance accounted for by the forms’ mean scores was 6.85 percent indicating that one or more forms may be slightly more or less difficult than the other forms. This value is on the lower bound of a medium effect size as proposed by Cohen (1992) which indicates that variance explained by form difficulty is relatively low. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 115-159. doi:10.1037/0033.112.1.155

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

There are 24 forms per grade available for grades 1–4. The ANCOVA results across the PM forms with sufficient sample size are provided for grades 1–4. For PRF grade 1 with 372 students, the ANCOVA results were p-value 0.667 and Eta Squared 0.0005 (0.05 percent variance). For PRF grade 2 with 1,372 students, the ANCOVA results were p-value 0.0 and Eta Squared 0.0142 (1.42 percent variance). For PRF grade 3 with 1,392 students, the ANCOVA results were p-value 0.0 and Eta Squared 0.0685 (6.85 percent variance). For PRF grade 4 with 684 students, the ANCOVA results were p-value 0.021 and Eta Squared 0.0092 (0.92 percent variance). In general, the results indicate that less than 3% of the variance is attributed to the difference in mean scores across PM forms. For PRF grade 3, the variance accounted for by the forms’ mean scores was 6.85 percent indicating that one or more forms may be slightly more or less difficult than the other forms. This value is on the lower bound of a medium effect size as proposed by Cohen (1992) which indicates that variance explained by form difficulty is relatively low. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 115-159. doi:10.1037/0033.112.1.155

If IRT based, provide evidence of item or ability invariance

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	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4
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 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4
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.