FAST CBMReading
Reading English

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

FAST™ CBMreading (English) is a version of Curriculum Based Measurement of Oral Reading (CBM-R), which was originally developed to index the level and rate of reading achievement. FAST CBMreading is used to screen and monitor student progress in reading competency in the primary grades (1-8). Students read aloud for one minute from grade-level or instructional-level passages (three passages per assessment). The words read correct per minute functions as a robust indicator of reading and a sensitive indicator of intervention effects.

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:

Oral Reading Fluency

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:

There is also an option for paper and pencil forms.

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?

No discontinue rules provided
Basals
Ceilings
Other

If other, please specify:

If the student gets the first 10 words wrong, discontinue the task by stopping the timer and marking the last word. All are incorrect.

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.

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?

No

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:

Users have access to ongoing technical support.

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:

Words read correct per minute.

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.

Three raw scores are calculated for FAST™ CBMreading: a) total words read, which is defined as the total number of words read, including correct and incorrect responses; b) number of errors, which is defined as the total number of errors the student made during the one minute administration; and c) words read correct per minute, which is calculated as the total number of words read in one minute minus the number of errors made during the one 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?

Yes

ACADEMIC ONLY: Do you provide percentile ranks for the slopes?

Yes

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.

FAST™ CBMreading is an evidence-based assessment used to screen and monitor students’ progress in reading achievement in the primary grades (1-8). Each assessment is designed to be highly efficient and give a broad indication of reading competence. The automated output of each assessment gives information on the accuracy and fluency of passage reading which can be used to determine instructional level to inform intervention. To administer the measure, an examiner listens to the child read a set of short passages aloud (typically three passages). Each passage is comprised of approximately 200 to 300 words, which correspond with grade level text. Level 1 corresponds with use in kindergarten or early first grade, Level 2 with second-third grade, Level 3 with fourth, fifth, or sixth grade, and Level 4 with seventh or eighth grade. Each passage is read aloud for one minute while the examiner uses the software to mark omissions, insertions, substitutions, hesitations, and mispronunciations as errors. The number of words read correctly per min (WRC) is then scored using the online application. The browser-based software provides the teacher with a convenient method to score and record assessment data with efficiency and accuracy. The administration of three passages takes approximately 5 minutes per student. The basic procedure includes a standardized set of directions that prompt a student to read aloud: "This is a story about____(read & point to the title). When I say, “BEGIN,” start reading aloud on the top of the page. READ ACROSS THE PAGE and then go to the next line (point to the first word, across the first line, and to the beginning of the second line). Try to read EACH WORD. If you come to a word that you DON'T KNOW, I'll tell it to you. Be sure to do your BEST READING. Okay?" (pause). In addition to following a strict rubric developed in consultation with educators and content experts to write passages, the researchers analyzed data from three rounds of field testing and edited passages that had linguistic issues based on those analyses and input from educators in the schools. The researchers further consulted with experts to decrease the amount of culturally biased material (e.g. first names of characters in the stories) in the assessment. A word bank containing phonetically regular decodable words was developed. The words included in the word bank were in accordance with the word structure suggested by Hiebert and Fisher (2007) and with the word difficulty developed by Menon and Hiebert (1999). Words that were classified as falling into lower levels of difficulty were considered appropriate to use in passage development while words falling into higher levels of difficulty were not included. High frequency word lists were used to design reading passages for students with lower levels of reading. In addition, the developed rubric prohibited the use of predictable writing (e.g. rhyming, repeated phrases or patterns, alliteration) in order to rely on decodability and sight word knowledge, rather than literary clues and cultural context. The goal for developing FAST™ CBMreading materials was to develop passages that were consistent for students in grades 1-8 and provided few confounds with a student’s background knowledge. Therefore, one type of text (narrative) was selected for use. Narratives were selected as the genre for FAST™ CBMreading passages because the events they typically reflect may be autobiographical and reflect episodes that students have been exposed to throughout their early development (Schank & Ableson, 1977; Trabasso & Stein, 1997).

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:

Grade Norm-Based Weekly ROIs Recomm. PM Levels Recomm. Minimal ROI Recomm. Ambitious ROI Recomm. EOY Levels 1 1.47 < 18 1.5 2 > 70 2 1.22 40 to 59 1.5 2 > 105 3 0.98 60 to 91 1.5 2 > 130 4 0.9 92 to 133 1 1.5 > 150 5 0.91 133 to 141 0.9 1 > 161 6 0.89 141 < 0.9 1 > 171 Note. Normative and criterion standards were used to set the recommendations for ROI. Norms for Fall-to-Spring Screening ROI were derived from large nationally representative samples (range, 6,485 to 44,102) of student performances during the fall-and-spring screening periods. The norms depict average growth in the typically developing population, which includes those cases with a fall score between the 30th and 85th percentiles in this case. Norms for Weekly ROI were derived from modest nationally representative samples of ROIs (range, 640 to 2,982) with 10 to 30 weeks of data from weekly monitoring. These are presented together with the Norms for Fall-to-Spring to illustrate that normative growth in the population is often greater than normative growth among those who receive intervention and weekly monitoring, which is not an acceptable outcome. Recommended for the Monitoring Levels and End of Year Levels correspond with research-based benchmark estimates. Students within the Monitoring Levels are at risk for reading deficits and are likely to perform below the 40th percentile on nationally normed assessments and below proficiency on national standards. Those students should be considered for intervention and monitoring to accelerate their ROI and meet the End of Year benchmarks. Recommended ROI Minimal/Ambitious are benchmark levels for the minimal acceptable ROIs by grade level and Recommended Monitoring Level. The minimal acceptable standards are presented along with recommendation for more ambitious ROIs (Deno et al., 2001; Fuchs et al., 1993). These recommendations are useful to set expectations for ROIs when evidence-based interventions are implemented with adequate intensity (4 days a week for 20 min each day). The goal ROI should be sufficiently ambitious to approximate the End of Year Level, but not so ambitious as to make the goal unattainable.

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:

Words Read Correct per Minute Grade Fall Winter Spring 1 15 (14) 24 (36) 56 2 (40) 56 (59) 78 (70) 95 3 (60) 76 (74) 93 (86) 108 4 (94) 114 (103) 128 (120) 140 5 (108) 123 (113) 131 (117) 140 6 (100) 119 (102) 131 (120) 140 Note: Standards are outside of parentheses. That level of performance indicates that students are 80% likely on track. Students below those standards are less likely to be on track. High risk indicators are in parentheses. Students at or below those levels are less than 20% likely to be on track.

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

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 benchmarks are based on linking studies with DIBELS and AIMSweb. We used psychometric and statistical procedures to link the FAST™ CBMreading score scale to the DIBELS and AIMSweb score scales. The benchmarks for those more widely used assessment systems are then incorporated into FAST CBMreading. This allows users to compare performance on FAST CBMreading to performance on those other passage-sets – and their benchmarks. Linking requires that some component of the data collection design be common across forms. In the FAST CBMreading linking study, this common component was the examinee group. Both FAST CBMreading and DIBELS Next passages were administered to approximately 500 students at each grade level. This is referred to in the educational measurement literature as a single-group linking design.

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
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 first type of reliability evidence we present is inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability is an appropriate measure of reliability for the use of FAST™ CBMreading because teachers listen to students and evaluate their oral reading fluency, including accuracy, so consistency across teachers (raters) is important. The second type of reliability evidence we present is alternate-form reliability. Alternate-form reliability is an appropriate measure of reliability for FAST™ CBMreading as a screening tool because students take alternate forms (actually passages) at each screening time point, so consistency in the rank order of scores over forms (passages) is important. The results presented below are median correlations between students’ scores on multiple passages (39 in first grade, and 60 in the other grades). The maximum amount of time between administration of the passages was two weeks.

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

The first sample comprised approximately 1,900 students in grades 1-6. Students came from three samples, one from Minnesota, one from Georgia, and one from New York. The second sample comprised approximately 150 students in each of grades 1-5. Students came from three samples: one from Minnesota, one from Georgia, and another from New York.

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

Inter-rater reliability coefficients were estimated by calculating the median percent agreement between two teachers scores for each student. Confidence intervals represent 95% confidence intervals Students were tested on multiple passages in two weeks or less. Alternate-form reliability coefficients were estimated by calculating the Pearson product moment correlations between scores for each combination of passages. The coefficients below represent the median of those correlations. Confidence intervals represent 95% confidence intervals.

*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)?

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:

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Validity

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6
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 criterion measure for both types of validity analyzes (concurrent and predictive) is the oral reading fluency measure that is a part of the AIMSWEB system. The measure is an appropriate criterion because is measures a construct hypothesized to be related to FAST™ CBMreading.

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

Concurrent and predictive analyses with AIMSWEB oral reading fluency measure were conducted on a sample of students from Minnesota. There were approximately 220 students in each of grades 1-6.

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

Validity coefficients were calculated by computing Pearson product moment correlations between FAST™ CBMreading and the criterion measure. Confidence intervals represent 95% confidence intervals.

*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)?

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:

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	Grade 5	Grade 6
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.

Participants included students in grades 1-6 from three states (Minnesota, Georgia, and New York). See below for sample sizes by grade level. All students were at or below the 40th percentile based on fall screening.

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

Twenty observations over an entire academic year were collected and included in analyses.

Describe the analysis procedures.

Multilevel models with random intercepts and random slopes were used to estimate the reliability of slope. Analyses were conducted in the HLM7 software.

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:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Do you have reliability of the slope data that is disaggregated by subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)?

No

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

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Sensitivity: Validity of Slope

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.

Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics. Please provide documentation showing that the sample was composed of students in need of intensive intervention. A sample of students with intensive needs should satisfy one of the following criteria: (1) all students scored below the 30th percentile on a local or national norm, or the sample mean on a local or national test fell below the 25th percentile; (2) students had an IEP with goals consistent with the construct measured by the tool; or (3) students were non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction. Evidence based on an unknown sample, or a sample that does not meet these specifications, may not be considered.

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

Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.

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

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

Manual cites other published validity studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

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

Do you have validity of the slope data that is disaggregated by subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)?

No

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

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

Manual cites other published validity studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Alternate Forms

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

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

Student participants were from urban and suburban schools located in the Southeast (40%), the Upper Midwest (40%), and Northeast regions (20%) of the United States. The sample consisted of 1,267 students who were Asian (3%), Black (15%), Hispanic (19%), Native Indian (1%), and White (62%) distributed across the grade range. All students were at or below the 40th percentile based on fall screening.

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

The number of alternate forms is 20. Tests of statistical significance indicate that there are no differences between alternate forms at each grade level (see below). Level 1 – Grade 1 Effect SS df MS F h2 Between-form 14,726 19 775.07 23.73 0.094 Within-form 697,590 4,600 151.65 Interaction (error) 142,739 4,370 32.66 Total 712,316 4,619 Level 2 – Grade 2 Effect SS df MS F h2 Between-form 10,447 19 549.80 7.57 0.015 Within-form 2,851,491 9,740 2292.80 Interaction (error) 671,874 9,253 72.60 Total 2,861,938 9,759 Level 2 – Grade 3 Effect SS df MS F h2 Between-form 34,652 19 1823.80 24.48 0.048 Within-form 2,901,743 9,740 297.90 Interaction (error) 689,412 9,253 74.50 Total 2,936,395 9,759 Level 3 – Grade 4 Effect SS df MS F h2 Between-form 36,169 19 2127.60 19.18 0.036 Within-form 5,857,058 9,216 635.50 Interaction (error) 965,384 8,704 110.90 Total 5,893,227 9,233 Level 3 – Grade 5 Effect SS df MS F h2 Between-form 24,467 19 1439.20 13.81 0.026 Within-form 5,824,431 9,216 632.00 Interaction (error) 907,141 8,704 104.20 Total 5,848,898 9,233 Level 3 – Grade 6 Effect SS df MS F h2 Between-form 20,058 19 1432.70 12.56 0.024 Within-form 5,208,325 9,216 678.20 Interaction (error) 817,872 8,704 114.10 Total 5,228,382 9,233

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	Grade 5	Grade 6
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
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.