easyCBM
Reading Comprehension

Summary

easyCBM is a web-based assessment system that includes both benchmarking and progress monitoring assessments combined with a comprehensive array of reports. The assessments in easyCBM are general outcome curriculum-based measures, of CBMs, which are standardized measures that sample from a year's worth of curriculum to assess the degree to which students have mastered the skills and knowledge deemed critical at each grade level. All easyCBM reading measures, in which the Reading Comprehension 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 2–8, easyCBM provides three Reading Comprehension screening forms to be used locally for establishing benchmarks and 17 forms in Reading Comprehension to be used to monitor progress.

Where to Obtain:
Developer: Behavioral Research & Teaching (BRT), Dept. of Ed., Univ. of Oregon | Publisher: Riverside Assessments, LLC
District accounts: orders@riversideinsights.com | Individual classroom teacher use: support@easycbm.com
District accounts: Riverside Insights Customer Service, One Pierce Place, Suite 900W, Itasca, IL 60143 | Individual classroom teacher use: BRT, 175 Lokey Education, 5262 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403
District accounts: 800.323.9540 | Individual classroom teacher use: 541.346.3535
District acounts: www.riversideinsights.com/solutions/easycbm | Individual classroom teacher use: easycbm.com
Initial Cost:
$5.10 per student
Replacement Cost:
$5.10 per student per year
Included in Cost:
easyCBM is available for districts through Riverside Insights on a per-student, annual subscription basis. That price includes use of all assessments and manuals. In Year 1, there are three training webinars; one is provided at no charge and two cost $225 each. easyCBM is also available in two different formats---Teacher Lite and Teacher Deluxe---directly through BRT at the University of Oregon for individual classroom teacher use. The Teacher Lite edition is free of charge. It includes a limited number of progress monitoring measures with no more than nine alternate forms of each measure offered. The Teacher Deluxe edition has an annual licensing fee of $39.99/year for one teacher account with up to 200 students. It grants teachers access to the full array of easyCBM measures and reports. All resources and trainings required for implementation are included with the annual subscription at no additional cost. This includes embedded trainings on test administration and interpretation of results, which are provided through the easycbm website.
All measures were developed following Universal Design for Assessment guidelines to reduce the need for accommodations. The system is designed to allow students to complete the assessments in multiple short testing sessions if needed. Districts are directed to use their established procedures for accommodations as needed.
Training Requirements:
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.
Qualified Administrators:
Administrators are expected to have basic student management skills and be familiar with using websites.
Access to Technical Support:
Help desk via email and phone
Assessment Format:
  • Individual
  • Small group
  • Large group
  • Computer-administered
  • Other: The easyCBM Reading Comprehension measures are optimized for online administration but can also be taken using paper and pencil forms with teachers entering students' responses into the system after the test has been completed. The measures are designed for group administration (with the number of students limited only by the number of available computers/tablets and adults to supervise the testing environment.
Scoring Time:
  • Scoring is automatic OR
  • 0 minutes per student
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
Administration Time:
  • 30 minutes per student
Scoring Method:
  • Manually (by hand)
  • Automatically (computer-scored)
Technology Requirements:
  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection

Tool Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:
easyCBM is a web-based assessment system that includes both benchmarking and progress monitoring assessments combined with a comprehensive array of reports. The assessments in easyCBM are general outcome curriculum-based measures, of CBMs, which are standardized measures that sample from a year's worth of curriculum to assess the degree to which students have mastered the skills and knowledge deemed critical at each grade level. All easyCBM reading measures, in which the Reading Comprehension 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 2–8, easyCBM provides three Reading Comprehension screening forms to be used locally for establishing benchmarks and 17 forms in Reading Comprehension 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)?
selected
not selected
The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).
not selected Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
not selected Kindergarten
not 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
not 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
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
selected Students with disabilities
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
not selected Phonemic Awareness
not selected Decoding
not selected Passage Reading
not selected Word Identification
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:


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
District accounts: orders@riversideinsights.com | Individual classroom teacher use: support@easycbm.com
Address
District accounts: Riverside Insights Customer Service, One Pierce Place, Suite 900W, Itasca, IL 60143 | Individual classroom teacher use: BRT, 175 Lokey Education, 5262 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403
Phone Number
District accounts: 800.323.9540 | Individual classroom teacher use: 541.346.3535
Website
District acounts: www.riversideinsights.com/solutions/easycbm | Individual classroom teacher use: easycbm.com
Initial cost for implementing program:
Cost
$5.10
Unit of cost
student
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
$5.10
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.
easyCBM is available for districts through Riverside Insights on a per-student, annual subscription basis. That price includes use of all assessments and manuals. In Year 1, there are three training webinars; one is provided at no charge and two cost $225 each. easyCBM is also available in two different formats---Teacher Lite and Teacher Deluxe---directly through BRT at the University of Oregon for individual classroom teacher use. The Teacher Lite edition is free of charge. It includes a limited number of progress monitoring measures with no more than nine alternate forms of each measure offered. The Teacher Deluxe edition has an annual licensing fee of $39.99/year for one teacher account with up to 200 students. It grants teachers access to the full array of easyCBM measures and reports. All resources and trainings required for implementation are included with the annual subscription at no additional cost. This includes embedded trainings on test administration and interpretation of results, which are provided through the easycbm website.
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.
All measures were developed following Universal Design for Assessment guidelines to reduce the need for accommodations. The system is designed to allow students to complete the assessments in multiple short testing sessions if needed. Districts are directed to use their established procedures for accommodations as needed.

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
selected    If small group, n=
selected    If large group, n=
selected
selected
If other, please specify:
The easyCBM Reading Comprehension measures are optimized for online administration but can also be taken using paper and pencil forms with teachers entering students' responses into the system after the test has been completed. The measures are designed for group administration (with the number of students limited only by the number of available computers/tablets and adults to supervise the testing environment.

What is the administration time?
Time in minutes
30
per (student/group/other unit)
student

Additional scoring time:
Time in minutes
0
per (student/group/other unit)
student

How many alternate forms are available, if applicable?
Number of alternate forms
17
per (grade/level/unit)
grade

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?
selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

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. 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.
not selected 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
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?
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
not selected Developmental benchmarks
not selected Developmental cut points
not selected Equated
not selected Probability
not selected Lexile score
not selected Error analysis
not selected Composite scores
not selected Subscale/subtest scores
not selected 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.
Do you provide basis for calculating slope (e.g., amount of improvement per unit in time)?
No
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?
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.
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 either individually administered tasks (for early reading skills and fluency) or computer-based testing for group-administered tests in vocabulary, comprehension, and all mathematics tests. Scoring practices emphasize objectivity with diagnostic information for teachers and immediate feedback for students. In reading, the authors used the report from the National Reading Panel (NRP) to develop a full complement of tasks across the grade levels. easyCBM reading measures include phonemic awareness (letter names, letter sounds, and phoneme segmentation), phonics (word reading fluency), fluency (passage fluency), vocabulary (word meaning synonyms), and comprehension (multiple-choice narrative stories that have associated questions addressing literal, inferential, and evaluative understanding). From a scaling perspective, the authors used Item Response Theory (IRT) to design alternate forms for most measures (passage reading fluency is the only exception) so they are comparable. 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 analyses were used to equate the forms but not to make the scales; rather, all outcomes are based on raw scores. A Technical Report detailing this process is available from the Center upon request. Reading tasks are grade level referenced. For all computer-based tests, the student administration is compatible with popular browsers (PC: Chrome, Internet Explorer, and Firefox, Mac: Safari, Chrome, and Firefox). Furthermore, the computer presentation was optimized for a clear presentation of the item, with large-option buttons to facilitate option selection, and ‘next’ buttons to assure easy navigation in moving forward or backward across questions. 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?
selected
not selected
not selected Other
If other, please specify:
False

If norm-referenced, describe the normative profile.

National representation (check all that apply):
Northeast:
selected New England
selected Middle Atlantic
Midwest:
selected East North Central
selected West North Central
South:
selected South Atlantic
selected East South Central
selected West South Central
West:
selected Mountain
selected Pacific

Local representation (please describe, including number of states)
Date
2013-2014
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
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
not selected Black, Non-Hispanic
not selected Hispanic
not selected American Indian/Alaska Native
not selected Asian/Pacific Islander
selected Other
not selected 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.”

Performance Level

Reliability

Grade Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Rating Unconvincing evidence d Unconvincing evidence d Unconvincing evidence d Unconvincing evidence d Unconvincing evidence d Unconvincing evidence d
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.
Internal consistency was investigated using Cronbach's Alpha, perhaps the most common measure of internal consistency. The authors supplemented these indices with split-half reliability estimates using all possible split-half comparisons. The mean of the split-half estimates are reported in the table below.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.
A large sample collected across the country was used for investigation. Measures from each of the fall, winter, and spring test windows were evaluated in Grades 3-8. The proportion of male students across grades varied from 50.8% to 52.4%. Across grades, approximately 3–4% of students identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native; 3–4% identified as Asian; 11–12% identified as Black or African American; 0–1% identified as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 5–10% identified as two or more races; 59–62% identified as White; and 10–16% were unknown or refused to report.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.
Item-level data were extracted from the easyCBM database. Correct responses were coded 1 while incorrect responses were coded 0. The psych package in R was used to calculate both indicators of internal consistency.

*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:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., Lai, C. F., Park, B. J., & Tindal, G. (2012). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM reading comprehension measures: Grade 7 (technical report 1206). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., Park, B. J., Lai, C. F., & Tindal, G. (2012). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM reading comprehension measures: Grade 6 (technical report 1205). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Lai, C. F., Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., Park, B. J., & Tindal, G. (2012). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM reading comprehension measures: Grade 2 (technical report 1201). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Lai, C. F., Irvin, P. S., Park, B. J., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2012). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM reading comprehension measures: Grade 3 (technical report 1202). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Park, B. J., Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., Lai, C. F., & Tindal, G. (2012). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM reading comprehension measures: Grade 4 (technical report 1203). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Park, B. J., Irvin, P. S., Lai, C. F., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2012). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM reading comprehension measures: Grade 5 (technical report 1204). 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)?
Yes

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:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., Lai, C. F., Park, B. J., & Tindal, G. (2012). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM reading comprehension measures: Grade 7 (technical report 1206). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., Park, B. J., Lai, C. F., & Tindal, G. (2012). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM reading comprehension measures: Grade 6 (technical report 1205). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Lai, C. F., Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., Park, B. J., & Tindal, G. (2012). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM reading comprehension measures: Grade 2 (technical report 1201). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Lai, C. F., Irvin, P. S., Park, B. J., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2012). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM reading comprehension measures: Grade 3 (technical report 1202). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Park, B. J., Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., Lai, C. F., & Tindal, G. (2012). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM reading comprehension measures: Grade 4 (technical report 1203). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Park, B. J., Irvin, P. S., Lai, C. F., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2012). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM reading comprehension measures: Grade 5 (technical report 1204). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

Validity

Grade Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Rating Partially convincing evidence d Convincing evidence d Convincing evidence d Partially convincing evidence d Partially convincing evidence d Partially convincing evidence d
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 reading portion of the Washington state summative test was used for all criterion-related validity evidence. Washington is part of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, and the corresponding state test was used.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
The sample size for each grade is listed in the tables in item #4 below. Across grades, approximately 40–48% of students were male (7–21% missing data); 8–10% of students received special education services; 23–31% received free or reduced price lunch; and 6–10% received English language services.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
Scores from each measure were correlated with their corresponding Smarter Balanced assessment scores. See pages 34–35 in the article, “The Relation Between easyCBM and Smarter Balanced Reading and Mathematics Assessments,” (available from the Center upon request) for plots of the relation.

*In the table below, report the results of the validity analyses described above (e.g., concurrent or predictive validity, evidence based on response processes, evidence based on internal structure, evidence based on relations to other variables, and/or evidence based on consequences of testing), and the criterion measures.

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:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Tindal, G., Nese, J. F., & Alonzo, J. (2009). Criterion-related evidence using easyCBM® reading measures and student demographics to predict state test performance in grades 3-8 (technical report 0910). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Jamgochian, E. M., Park, B. J., Nese, J. F. T., Lai, C. F., Sáez, L., Anderson, D., et al. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM grade 2 reading measures (technical report 1004). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Sáez, L., Park, B. J., Nese, J. F. T., Jamgochian, E. M., Lai, C. F., Anderson, D., et al. (2010).Technical adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (Grades 3-7), 2009-2010 version (technical report 1005). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Park, B. J., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011). The development and technical adequacy of seventh-grade reading comprehension measures in a progress monitoring assessment system (Technical Report No. 1102). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Lai, C. F., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2013). easyCBM reading criterion related validity evidence: Grades 2-5 (technical report 1310). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.
Across the grades, the concurrent and predictive validity evidence is strong, ranging from 0.54 to 0.68. These values correspond to the easyCBM measures accounting for approximately 29-46% of the total variance in the statewide assessment.
Do you have validity data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
Yes

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

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:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Jamgochian, E.M., Park, B.J., Nese, J.F.T, Lai, C.F., Anderson, D. Alonzo, J. & TINFAL, G. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM grade 2 reading measures, 2009-2010 version. (Technical Report #1004). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching. Sáez, L., Park, B.J., Nese, J.F.T, Jamgochian, E.M., Lai, C.F., Anderson. D. Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2010) Techincal Adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (Grades 3-8), 2009-2010 Version. (Technical Report #1005). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.

Bias Analysis

Grade Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Rating Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
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.
Yes
If yes,
a. Describe the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias:
To investigate Differential Item Functioning (DIF) of the easyCBM reading measures, the Mantel-Haenszel test using a purification process was conducted (Holland & Thayer, 1988; Kamata & Vaughn, 2004) with the R software using the difR package (Magis et al., 2013). When using the Mantel-Haenszel test to investigate DIF, contingency tables are constructed, and the resulting odds for the focal group answering the item correctly are compared to the odds for the reference group. The contingency table summarizes correct and incorrect responses to each item by respondents’ total raw score by subgroup (Kamata & Vaughn, 2004). If there is no difference in performance for the two groups, the odds ratio of the focal group performance to reference group performance will equal one. An odds ratio greater than one means the focal group is performing better than the reference group, with the opposite being true for odds ratios less than one. The difR package contains a built in algorithm to conduct purification automatically. We used criteria outlined by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) for DIF Classification (Holland & Thayer, 1988) to determine whether or not items exhibited DIF, as the difR package reports delta values by default, defined as: ∆_MH=2.35*ln⁡(a_mh) where ln⁡(a_mh )= β_MH.The Holland and Thayer criteria for ∆_MH is as follows: |∆_MH |<1.0="A\" items,1 ≤ " |"∆" _"MH" |"<1.5=\"" B" items,and |∆_MH | ≥2.5="C" items The Holland and Thayer criteria were used for all Mantel-Haenszel analyses. It was determined a priori that any items that were flagged as “B” level items would be reviewed by the item development team for potential biases and possible removal. All items flagged as “C” level items would be removed from the operational pool. All operational items from 2016-17 were included in the analyses.
b. Describe the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted:
The easyCBM MCRC DIF analyses compared Male/Female, White/Non-White, and Non-Hispanic-Latino/Hispanic-Latino subgroups. Male, White, and Non-Hispanic-Latino were the reference groups, respectively. Sample sizes ranged from 23,000–35,000 students. Full sample statistics are published in the technical report, which is available from the Center upon request.
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.
Overall, easyCBM reading items are functioning in a manner that appears not to exhibit bias based on the demographic characteristics reviewed. Across all MCRC grade levels, no items were assigned to the “C” level, denoting large effect size differences between subgroups. In the Male/Female comparisons, 98% of items were assigned to the “A” level DIF category (352/360). In the White/Non-White comparisons, 99% of items were assigned to the “A” level DIF category (358/360). In the Non-Hispanic-Latino/ Hispanic-Latino comparisons, 100% of items were assigned to the “A” level DIF category (360/360). The “A” level categorizations are labeled as negligible DIF by the ETS delta criteria.

Growth Standards

Sensitivity: Reliability of Slope

Grade Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Rating Data unavailable d Data unavailable d Data unavailable d Data unavailable d Data unavailable d Data unavailable d
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.
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).

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:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Jamgochian, E.M., Park, B.J., Nese, J.F.T., Lai, C.F., Sáez, L., Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2010) Technical adequacy of the easyCBM grade 2 reading measures, 2009-2010 version. (Technical Report #1004). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching. Sáez, L , Park, B.J., Nese, J.F.T, Jamgochian, E.M., Lai, C.F., Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2010) Technical adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (Grades 3-8), 2009-2010 Version. (Technical Report #1005). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching
Do you have reliability of the slope data that is disaggregated by subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)?
Yes

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

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:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Jamgochian, E.M., Park, B.J., Nese, J.F.T., Lai, C.F., Sáez, L., Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2010) Technical adequacy of the easyCBM grade 2 reading measures, 2009-2010 version. (Technical Report #1004). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching. Sáez, L , Park, B.J., Nese, J.F.T, Jamgochian, E.M., Lai, C.F., Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2010) Technical adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (Grades 3-8), 2009-2010 Version. (Technical Report #1005). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.

Sensitivity: Validity of Slope

Grade Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Rating Unconvincing evidence d Convincing evidence d Convincing evidence d Convincing evidence d Convincing evidence d 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 reading portion of the Washington summative state test was used for all criterion-related validity evidence. Washington is part of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, and the corresponding state test was used.
Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics. Please provide documentation showing that the sample was composed of students in need of intensive intervention. A sample of students with intensive needs should satisfy one of the following criteria: (1) all students scored below the 30th percentile on a local or national norm, or the sample mean on a local or national test fell below the 25th percentile; (2) students had an IEP with goals consistent with the construct measured by the tool; or (3) students were non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction. Evidence based on an unknown sample, or a sample that does not meet these specifications, may not be considered.
The sample size for each grade is described in the table in item #4 below. Across grades, approximately 40–48% of students were male (7–21% missing data); 8–10% of students received special education services; 23–31% received free or reduced price lunch; and 6–10% received English language services.
Describe the frequency of measurement (for each student in the sample, report how often data were collected and over what span of time).
Assessments were collected during the fall, winter, and spring of the academic school year.
Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
Data were split into quartiles of normative achievement based on students’ fall benchmark. A two-level growth model was then fit to the data for each quartile within each grade, with measurement occasions nested in students. The random effect estimates for the students’ slope were then extracted and correlated with their corresponding Smarter Balanced Assessment scores. We conducted analyses separately by quartile to ensure students’ growth was referenced to students with similar initial achievement.

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:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Jamgochian, E.M., Park, B.J., Nese, J.F.T., Lai, C.F., Sáez, L., Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2010) Technical adequacy of the easyCBM grade 2 reading measures, 2009-2010 version. (Technical Report #1004). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching. Sáez, L , Park, B.J., Nese, J.F.T, Jamgochian, E.M., Lai, C.F., Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2010) Technical adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (Grades 3-8), 2009-2010 Version. (Technical Report #1005). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.
Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.
Typically, measures of growth correlate far less strongly with criterion measures than do measures of status. When comparing growth estimates within quartiles, and thus to students with similar initial achievement, the correlations were moderate, providing good evidence for the validity of the slope for informing instructional decisions.
Do you have validity of the slope data that is disaggregated by subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)?

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:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Jamgochian, E.M., Park, B.J., Nese, J.F.T., Lai, C.F., Sáez, L., Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2010) Technical adequacy of the easyCBM grade 2 reading measures, 2009-2010 version. (Technical Report #1004). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching. Sáez, L , Park, B.J., Nese, J.F.T, Jamgochian, E.M., Lai, C.F., Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2010) Technical adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (Grades 3-8), 2009-2010 Version. (Technical Report #1005). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.

Alternate Forms

Grade Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Rating Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
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:
What is the number of alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty?
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, the authors 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., Liu, K., & Tindal, G. (2008). Examining the technical adequacy of second-grade reading comprehension measures in a progress monitoring assessment system (Technical Report No. 0808). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. TechRpt_0808 Alonzo, J., Liu, K., & Tindal, G. (2007). Examining the technical adequacy of reading comprehension measures in a progress monitoring assessment system (Technical Report No. 41). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. TechRpt_41 Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2008). Examining the technical adequacy of fifth-grade reading comprehension measures in a progress monitoring assessment system (Technical Report No. 0807). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.TechRpt_0807 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.
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 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
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 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
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.

Data Collection Practices

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.