FAST CBMReading
Reading English

Summary

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.

Where to Obtain:
Theodore J. Christ & Colleagues, LLC
sales@fastbridge.org
520 Nicollet Mall, Suite 910, Minneapolis, MN 55402
612-254-2534
www.fastbridge.org
Initial Cost:
$7.00 per student
Replacement Cost:
$7.00 per student per year
Included in Cost:
FAST™ assessments are accessed through an annual subscription offered by FastBridge Learning, priced on a “per student assessed” model. The subscription rate for school year 2018–19 is $7.00 per student. There are no additional fixed costs. FAST subscriptions are all inclusive providing access to: all FAST reading and math assessments for universal screening, progress monitoring and diagnostic purposes including Computer Adaptive Testing and Curriculum-Based Measurement; Behavior and Developmental Milestones assessment tools; the FAST data management and reporting system; embedded online system training for staff; and basic implementation and user support. In addition to the online training modules embedded within the FAST application, FastBridge Learning offers onsite training options. One, two, and three day packages are available. Packages are determined by implementation size and which FAST assessments (e.g., reading, math, and/or behavior) a district intends to use: 1-day package: $3,000.00; 2-day package: $5,750.00; 3-day package: $8,500.00. Any onsite training purchase also includes a complimentary online Admin/Manager training session (2 hours) for users who will be designated as District Managers and/or School Managers in FAST. Additionally, FastBridge offers web-based consultation and training delivered by certified FAST trainers. The web-based consultation and training rate is $175.00/hour.
The FAST™ application is a fully cloud-based system, and therefore computer and Internet access are required for full use of the application. Teachers will require less than one hour of training on the administration of the assessment. A paraprofessional can administer the assessment as a Group Proctor in the FAST application. The application allows for the following accommodations to support accessibility for culturally and linguistically diverse populations: o Enlarged and printed paper materials are available upon request. o Extra breaks as needed. o Preferential seating and use of quiet space. o Proxy responses. o Use of scratch paper. As part of item development, all items were reviewed for bias and fairness.
Training Requirements:
Less than one hour of training.
Qualified Administrators:
Access to Technical Support:
Users have access to ongoing technical support.
Assessment Format:
  • Individual
  • Computer-administered
  • Other: There is also an option for paper and pencil forms.
Scoring Time:
  • Scoring is automatic OR
  • 1 minutes per student
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
  • Developmental benchmarks
  • Error analysis
  • Other : Words read correct per minute.
Administration Time:
  • 3 minutes per student
Scoring Method:
  • Automatically (computer-scored)
Technology Requirements:
  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection

Tool Information

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)?
selected
not selected
The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).
not selected Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
not selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
selected Sixth grade
selected Seventh grade
selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelfth grade

The tool is intended for use with the following age(s).
not selected 0-4 years old
not selected 5 years old
selected 6 years old
selected 7 years old
selected 8 years old
selected 9 years old
selected 10 years old
selected 11 years old
selected 12 years old
selected 13 years old
not selected 14 years old
not selected 15 years old
not selected 16 years old
not selected 17 years old
not selected 18 years old

The tool is intended for use with the following student populations.
selected Students in general education
not selected Students with disabilities
not selected English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What dimensions does the tool assess?

Reading
not selected Global Indicator of Reading Competence
not selected Listening Comprehension
not selected Vocabulary
selected Phonemic Awareness
selected Decoding
selected Passage Reading
selected Word Identification
not selected Comprehension

Spelling & Written Expression
not selected Global Indicator of Spelling Competence
not selected Global Indicator of Writting Expression Competence

Mathematics
not selected Global Indicator of Mathematics Comprehension
not selected Early Numeracy
not selected Mathematics Concepts
not selected Mathematics Computation
not selected Mathematics Application
not selected Fractions
not selected 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

Where to obtain:
Email Address
sales@fastbridge.org
Address
520 Nicollet Mall, Suite 910, Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone Number
612-254-2534
Website
www.fastbridge.org
Initial cost for implementing program:
Cost
$7.00
Unit of cost
student
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
$7.00
Unit of cost
student
Duration of license
year
Additional cost information:
Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the tool. Provide information on what is included in the published tool, as well as what is not included but required for implementation.
FAST™ assessments are accessed through an annual subscription offered by FastBridge Learning, priced on a “per student assessed” model. The subscription rate for school year 2018–19 is $7.00 per student. There are no additional fixed costs. FAST subscriptions are all inclusive providing access to: all FAST reading and math assessments for universal screening, progress monitoring and diagnostic purposes including Computer Adaptive Testing and Curriculum-Based Measurement; Behavior and Developmental Milestones assessment tools; the FAST data management and reporting system; embedded online system training for staff; and basic implementation and user support. In addition to the online training modules embedded within the FAST application, FastBridge Learning offers onsite training options. One, two, and three day packages are available. Packages are determined by implementation size and which FAST assessments (e.g., reading, math, and/or behavior) a district intends to use: 1-day package: $3,000.00; 2-day package: $5,750.00; 3-day package: $8,500.00. Any onsite training purchase also includes a complimentary online Admin/Manager training session (2 hours) for users who will be designated as District Managers and/or School Managers in FAST. Additionally, FastBridge offers web-based consultation and training delivered by certified FAST trainers. The web-based consultation and training rate is $175.00/hour.
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.
The FAST™ application is a fully cloud-based system, and therefore computer and Internet access are required for full use of the application. Teachers will require less than one hour of training on the administration of the assessment. A paraprofessional can administer the assessment as a Group Proctor in the FAST application. The application allows for the following accommodations to support accessibility for culturally and linguistically diverse populations: o Enlarged and printed paper materials are available upon request. o Extra breaks as needed. o Preferential seating and use of quiet space. o Proxy responses. o Use of scratch paper. As part of item development, all items were reviewed for bias and fairness.

Administration

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What type of administrator is your tool designed for?
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration format?
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration setting?
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

Does the program require technology?

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program? (Select all that apply)
selected
selected
not selected

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

What is the administration context?
selected
not selected    If small group, n=
not selected    If large group, n=
selected
selected
If other, please specify:
There is also an option for paper and pencil forms.

What is the administration time?
Time in minutes
3
per (student/group/other unit)
student

Additional scoring time:
Time in minutes
1
per (student/group/other unit)
student

How many alternate forms are available, if applicable?
Number of alternate forms
39 - 60
per (grade/level/unit)
level. Forms are passages and correspond to student-ability level rather than grade. All passages are divided into Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 which correspond to 1st grade, 2nd and 3rd grade, 4th to 6th, and 7th to 8th grade reading levels, respectively. There are 39 Level 1 passages, and 60 passages in Levels 2-4 each.

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?
not selected
not selected
not selected
selected
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.

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Can multiple students be rated concurrently by one administrator?
If yes, how many students can be rated concurrently?

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.
not selected 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
not selected Frequency
not selected Duration
not selected Interval
not selected Latency
not selected Raw score
Conversion
Observation Behavior Rating
not selected Rate
not selected Percent
not selected Standard score
not selected Subscale/ Subtest
not selected Composite
not selected Stanine
not selected Percentile ranks
not selected Normal curve equivalents
not selected IRT based scores
Interpretation
Observation Behavior Rating
not selected Error analysis
not selected Peer comparison
not selected Rate of change
not selected Dev. benchmarks
not selected Age-Grade equivalent
How are scores calculated?
not selected Manually (by hand)
selected Automatically (computer-scored)
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Do you provide basis for calculating performance level scores?
Yes

What is the basis for calculating performance level and percentile scores?
not selected Age norms
selected Grade norms
not selected Classwide norms
not selected Schoolwide norms
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents

What types of performance level scores are available?
selected Raw score
not selected Standard score
selected Percentile score
not selected Grade equivalents
not selected IRT-based score
not selected Age equivalents
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents
selected Developmental benchmarks
not selected Developmental cut points
not selected Equated
not selected Probability
not selected Lexile score
selected Error analysis
not selected Composite scores
not selected Subscale/subtest scores
selected 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?
not selected Age norms
selected Grade norms
not selected Classwide norms
not selected Schoolwide norms
not selected Stanines
not selected 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?
not selected
selected
not selected Other
If other, please specify:
False

If norm-referenced, describe the normative profile.

National representation (check all that apply):
Northeast:
not selected New England
not selected Middle Atlantic
Midwest:
not selected East North Central
not selected West North Central
South:
not selected South Atlantic
not selected East South Central
not selected West South Central
West:
not selected Mountain
not selected 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?
selected White, Non-Hispanic
selected Black, Non-Hispanic
selected Hispanic
selected American Indian/Alaska Native
selected Asian/Pacific Islander
not selected Other
not selected 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.

Performance Level

Reliability

Grade Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Rating Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData 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.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
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.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
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 Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData 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.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
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.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
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

Grade Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Rating No No No No No No
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.

Growth Standards

Sensitivity: Reliability of Slope

Grade Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
Rating Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData 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).

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
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.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
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 Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData 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.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
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.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
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 Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData 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 Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData 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 Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData 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.

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.