easyCBM
Word 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 assessment combined with a comprehensive array of reports. The assessments in easyCBM are general outcome curriculum-based 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 level. All easyCBM reading measures, in which the Word Reading Fluency measure is included, have been developed with reference to the report of the National Reading Panel and developed using using Item Response Theory (IRT). In Grades K–3, easyCBM provides three Word Reading Fluency screening forms to be used locally for establishing benchmarks and 17 forms in Word Reading Fluency to be used to monitor progress.

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:

For easyCBM Word Reading Fluency, students read words aloud, and teachers monitor/track their errors in the system.

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 one, there are three training webinars; one is provided at no charge and two cost $225 each.

Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.

Administrators are expected to have basic student management skills and be familiar with using websites.

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 Word 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, fluency (passage fluency), vocabulary (word meaning synonyms), and comprehension (narrative stories that have associated multiple-choice questions addressing literal, inferential, and evaluative understanding). Fro, a scaling perspective, the authors designed alternate forms for most measures so they are comparable using Item Response Theory (IRT) Rasch modeling. A common-person, common-item equating design was used to scale all items. Within specific skill areas (e.g., letter names, letter sounds, words in a list for word reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension), approximately 250 students responded to multiple item sets, and each test form contained items common across forms. The equated item scale scores and model fit statistics were used to (a) identify items of similar difficulty, (b) estimate student equated scores, and (c) remove/revise items of poor psychometric quality. The authors then placed the items into final alternate forms for progress monitoring so that each form included items with similar levels of difficulty. The authors generally placed easier items and interspersed common items near the beginning of the form, as many measures are timed and students would then be assured of a sensitive measure for estimating their ability. N.B. IRT was used to equate the forms but not to make the scales; rather, all outcomes are based on raw scores. See the Technical Manual: easyCBM detailing this process (attached).

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 (attached).

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

2012-2013

Size

2000 per grade

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.

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

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.”

Reliability

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
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.

The authors evaluated test-retest reliability to analyze the stability to analyze the stability of the scores when administered over a short timeframe. They evaluated alternate from reliability because of the importance of having forms of comparable difficulty when using measures to screen students at different time points in the school year.

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

Data for these analyses were gathered in the spring of 2011 from a convenience sample of students in a mid-sized school district in the Pacific Northwest. Data were gathered on two separate occasions, one week apart. Each day, students were administered a series of alternate forms of grade-appropriate easyCBM assessments in one-on-one settings.

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

The authors used bivariate correlations to calculate the test-retest and alternate form reliability of the measures included in the study.

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

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

Additional reliability data is available from the Center upon request.

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

Yes

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Anderson, D., Park, B. J., Lai, C., F., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2012). An examination of test- retest, alternate form reliability, and generalizability theory study of the easyCBM reading assessments: Grade 1 (technical report 1216). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. 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. 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.

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
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 Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS) was used as a criterion measure. The OAKS was the Oregon statewide large-scale assessment that was required prior to the state joining the Smarter Balanced consortium. The OAKS was selected because of its technical adequacy and use as a high-stakes accountability assessment in the District where the study was conducted. The OAKS is a computer-administered multiple-choice assessment of reading.

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

Data came from a convenience sample of students from three school districts in Oregon. The districts all use easyCBM reading measures as part of their Response to Intervention (RTI) model. In all, 214 Kindergarten students and 227 Grade 1 students participated in the study.

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

Both bivariate correlations and linear regressions were calculated in this study.

*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 is available from the Center upon request.

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

Yes

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011). easyCBM reading criterion related validity evidence: Oregon state test 2009-2010 (technical report 1103). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

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

The data suggests easyCBM predicts performance on the OAKS, with the Word Reading Fluency accounting for the largest proportion of variance in the model (Passage Reading Fluency, Vocabulary, and Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension were also included in the regression analysis).

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
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
Rating			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.

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)?

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
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

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

Initially, items were piloted using a common person / common item design to create an item bank with known item parameters (measure, mean square outfit, standard error, etc.). Using this data, we then distributed items across the multiple forms (3 screening forms to be administered in the fall, winter, and spring and 17 progress monitoring) to have approximately equal item measure estimates and comparable ranges. The comparability of each of the alternate forms was tested with grade-level students, using repeated measures ANOVA to test for form differences. Results of these studies are reported in the technical reports documenting the development of the measures: Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2007). The development of word and passage reading fluency measures in a progress monitoring assessment system (Technical Report No. 40). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2009). Alternate form and test-retest reliability of easyCBM® reading measures (Technical Report No. 0906). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. The first technical report describes the process of initial instrument development, where we used a 1-PL Rasch model to estimate item difficulty for each word and then used this information to construct 20 alternate forms of comparable difficulty for use in Kindergarten through Grade 3. Across all alternate forms, the mean measure of items in each row is within .02 of the mean measure of items in the same row on every other form. In the second technical report, evidence is presented that the process we used in measurement development did, in fact, result in alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty. In a study of the alternate form reliability of the Word Reading Fluency measure, we found correlations ranged from .95 to .96.

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 technical reports cited throughout this submission document provide evidence of item invariance, along with a variety of other information.

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

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

Decision Rules: Setting & Revising Goals

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
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
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.