easyCBM
Passage Reading Fluency

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)?

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:

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. In Year 1, there are three training webinars; one is provided at no charge and two cost $200 each.

Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.

Paraprofessionals or professionals.

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
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.

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. Raw scores are simply the total correct. Because the Passage Reading Fluency measure is a timed, fluency-based measure, the score is expressed as 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?

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 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 include phonemic awareness (letter names, letter sounds, and phoneme segmentation), phonics (word reading fluency), fluency (passage fluency), vocabulary (word meaning synonyms), and comprehension (multiple-choice narrative stories that have associated questions addressing literal, inferential, and evaluative understanding). From a scaling perspective, the authors designed alternate forms for Passage Reading Fluency so they are comparable using classical test theory, as no discrete items were available for Rasch modeling Item Response Theory (IRT). Original narrative stories were written and Flesh Kinkaid estimates of ability were calculated for each paragraph; where readability exceeded beyond a half grade level for that grade, words were exchanged from the word list (which had measure estimates for each word) by inserting more difficult words (for passages deemed too easy) or less difficult (for passages deemed too difficult). 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. See easyCBM Norms, 2014 Edition, available from the Center upon request.

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)

Date

2012-13

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

50

Unknown

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.”

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.

N/A

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

Reliability

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	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.

Three studies were conducted to provide technical evidence to support the use of this measure as part of RTI programs. The authors evaluated slope reliability because of the importance of having a reliable estimate of growth for measures being used to measure student learning across the year. They 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. They conducted a G-Theory study and a D-Study to gather additional evidence of comparability of forms and a D-Study to provide information about the number of forms required to arrive at a reliable estimate of student knowledge/skill (results indicated that a single form provides a sufficiently reliable estimate). See the below Technical Reports for further information (available from the Center upon request): Alonzo, J., Lai, C. F., Anderson, D., Park, B. J., & Tindal, G. (2012). An examination of test retest, alternate form reliability, and generalizability theory study of the easyCBM reading assessments: Grade 4 (technical report 1219). 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 0906). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. . Anderson, D., Lai, C. F., Park, B. J., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2012). An examination of test retest, alternate form reliability, and generalizability theory study of the easyCBM reading assessments: Grade 2 (technical report 1217). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. 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. Lai, C. F., Park, B. J., Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2012). An examination of test retest, alternate form reliability, and generalizability theory study of the easyCBM reading assessments: Grade 5 (technical report 1220). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Park, B. J., Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., Lai, C. F., & Tindal, G. (2012). An examination of test retest, alternate form reliability, and generalizability theory study of the easyCBM reading assessments: Grade 3 (technical report 1218). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Patarapichayatham, C., Anderson, D., Irvin, P.S., Kamata, A., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011). easyCBM® Slope Reliability: Letter Names, Word Reading Fluency, and Passage Reading Fluency (technical report 1111). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

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

Slope Reliability - database of users with student scores from 2010-2011 school year for students with at least 3 observed scores. See table for specific sample sizes for each analysis. Test-retest Reliability - Students in mid-sized school district in Pacific Northwest in spring 2011; For Grade 8, students in a mid-sized K-8 school in the Pacific Northwest in 2009. See table for specific sample sizes for each analysis. Alternate Forms Reliability - Students i mid-sized school district in Pacific Northwest in spring 2011; For Grade 8, students in a mid-sized K-8 school in the Pacific Northwest in 2009. See table for specific sample sizes for each analysis. Generalizability - Students in mid-sized school district in Pacific Northwest in spring 2011. See table for specific sample sizes for each analysis.

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

Slope Reliability - This study aimed to estimate the reliability of the slope for three easyCBM measures, Under a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework, a growth model with two parallel growth processes was used. Essentially, 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 was used to form one linear growth process, and another group of time segments 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. The Spearman-Brown formula was then used to correct the correlation coefficient because each process had only half the available time represented. Test-retest Reliability and Alternate Form Reliability- The authors used bivariate correlations to calculate the test-retest and alternate form reliability of the measure included in this study. Generalizability - For the generalizability theory (G-Study), the authors calculated the variances associated persons and two facets: forms and occasions. They then conduced decision studies (D-Studies) to help determine the necessary conditions for reliable measurement.

*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:

Additional reliability data is available from the Center upon request.

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

Yes

Provide citations for additional published studies.

For Grades 1, 3 and 5 test-retest and alternate forms reliabilities: Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2009). Alternate form and test-retest reliability of easyCBM reading measures (technical report 0906). 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.

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	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating			d	d	d	d	d	d

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 reading portion of the Washington state summative test was used for all criterion-related validity evidence. Washington is part of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, and the corresponding state test was used.

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

The sample size for each grade is listed in the tables in item #4 below. Across grades, approximately 40–48% of students were male (7–21% missing data); 8–10% of students received special education services; 23–31% received free or reduced price lunch; and 6–10% received English language services.

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

Scores from each measure were correlated with their corresponding Smarter Balanced Assessment scores. See pages 30-31 in article, "The Relation between easyCBM and Smarter Balanced Reading and Mathematics Assessments," (available from the Center upon request) for plots of the relation.

*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:

Additional validity data (CFI/TLI and RMSEA evidence) are available from the Center upon request.

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

Yes

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Tindal, G., Nese, J. F., & Alonzo, J. (2009). Criterion-related evidence using easyCBM® reading measures and student demographics to predict state test performance in grades 3-8 (technical report 0910). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Jamgochian, E. M., Park, B. J., Nese, J. F. T., Lai, C. F., Sáez, L., Anderson, D., et al. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM grade 2 reading measures (technical report 1004). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Sáez, L., Park, B. J., Nese, J. F. T., Jamgochian, E. M., Lai, C. F., Anderson, D., et al. (2010).Technical adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (Grades 3-7), 2009-2010 version (technical report 1005). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Park, B. J., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011). The development and technical adequacy of seventh-grade reading comprehension measures in a progress monitoring assessment system (Technical Report No. 1102). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Lai, C. F., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2013). easyCBM reading criterion related validity evidence: Grades 2-5 (technical report 1310). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Alonzo, J., Liu, K., & Tindal, G. (2007a). Examining the Technical Adequacy of Reading Comprehension Measures in a Progress Monitoring Assessment System (Technical Report # 41). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.

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

Across grades the concurrent and predictive validity evidence is strong, ranging from 0.54 to 0.68. These values correspond to the easyCBM measures accounting for approximately 29-46% of the total variance in the statewide assessment.

Do you have validity data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?

Yes

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:

Yes

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Jamgochian, E. M., Park, B. J., Nese, J. F. T., Lai, C. F., Sáez, L., Anderson, D., et al. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM grade 2 reading measures (technical report 1004). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Sáez, L., Park, B. J., Nese, J. F. T., Jamgochian, E. M., Lai, C. F., Anderson, D., et al. (2010).Technical adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (Grades 3-7), 2009-2010 version (technical report 1005). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Lai, C. F., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2013). easyCBM reading criterion related validity evidence: Grades 2-5 (technical report 1310). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

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	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating			d	d	d	d	d	d

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:

See attached tables.

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

Yes

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)?

Yes

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	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating			d	d	d	d	d	d

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 reading portion of the Washington summative state test was used for all criterion-related validity evidence. Washington is part of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, and the corresponding state test was used.

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.

The sample size for each grade is described in the table in item #4 below. Across grades, approximately 40–48% of students were male (7–21% missing data), 8–10% of students received special education services, 23–31% received free or reduced price lunch, and 6–10% received English language services.

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

Assessments were collected during the fall, winter, and spring of the academic school year.

Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.

Students were separated into quartiles based on their fall achievement. Separate growth models were then fit for each quartile in each grade, using a two-level multilevel model (measurements nested in students). Students’ slopes during the school year were then correlated with their statewide assessment scores.

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.

Typically, measures of growth correlate far less strongly with criterion measures than do measures of status. When comparing growth estimates within quartiles, and thus to students with similar initial achievement, the correlations were moderate, providing good evidence for the validity of the slope for informing instructional decisions.

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)?

Yes

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 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	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:

No additional evidence is being submitted.

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

There are 20 forms available; 3 for benchmarks and 17 for progress monitoring.

If IRT based, provide evidence of item or ability invariance

The authors designed alternate forms for Passage Reading Fluency so they are comparable using classical test theory, as no discrete items were available for Rasch modeling item response theory,

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	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 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	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.