iSTEEP
Nonsense Word Fluency

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

Nonsense Word Fluency is an individually administered assessment of letter-sound correspondence. This assessment is part of the iSTEEP comprehensive suite of screening, benchmarking, diagnostic and progress monitoring tools. The suite includes a wide range of assessments for students in grades K-12.

Is your tool designed to measure progress towards an end-of-year goal (e.g., oral reading fluency) or progress towards a short-term skill (e.g., letter naming fluency)?

End-year goal
Short-term skill

The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).

Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
Kindergarten
First grade
Second grade
Third grade
Fourth grade
Fifth grade
Sixth grade
Seventh grade
Eighth grade
Ninth grade
Tenth grade
Eleventh grade
Twelfth grade

The tool is intended for use with the following age(s).

0-4 years old
5 years old
6 years old
7 years old
8 years old
9 years old
10 years old
11 years old
12 years old
13 years old
14 years old
15 years old
16 years old
17 years old
18 years old

The tool is intended for use with the following student populations.

Students in general education
Students with disabilities
English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What dimensions does the tool assess?

Reading

Global Indicator of Reading Competence
Listening Comprehension
Vocabulary
Phonemic Awareness
Decoding
Passage Reading
Word Identification
Comprehension

Spelling & Written Expression

Global Indicator of Spelling Competence
Global Indicator of Writting Expression Competence

Mathematics

Global Indicator of Mathematics Comprehension
Early Numeracy
Mathematics Concepts
Mathematics Computation
Mathematics Application
Fractions
Algebra

Other

Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Please identify which broad domain(s)/construct(s) are measured by your tool and define each sub-domain or sub-construct.

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Which category of behaviors does your tool target?

Acquisition and Cost Information

Administration

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What type of administrator is your tool designed for?

General education teacher
Special education teacher
Parent
Child
External observer
Other

If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration format?

Direct observation
Rating scale
Checklist
Performance measure
Other

If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration setting?

General education classroom
Special education classroom
School office
Recess
Lunchroom
Home
Other

If other, please specify:

Does the program require technology?

Yes

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program? (Select all that apply)

Computer or tablet
Internet connection
Other technology (please specify)

What is the administration context?

Individual

Small group   If small group, n=

Large group   If large group, n=

Computer-administered
Other

If other, please specify:

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?

No discontinue rules provided
Basals
Ceilings
Other

If other, please specify:

Training & Scoring

Training

Is training for the administrator required?

Yes

Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:

Assessors must receive training prior to administration and scoring.

Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.

Paraprofessionals or professionals

No minimum qualifications

Are training manuals and materials available?

Yes

Are training manuals/materials field-tested?

Yes

Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?

Yes

If No, please describe training costs:

Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?

Yes

If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:

Routine technical support is provided at no cost via telephone, email, and an online portal. Professional training and support is available via e-learning and live seminars.

Scoring

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What types of scores result from the administration of the assessment?

Score

Observation	Behavior Rating
Frequency Duration Interval Latency	Raw score

Conversion

Observation	Behavior Rating
Rate Percent	Standard score Subscale/ Subtest Composite Stanine Percentile ranks Normal curve equivalents IRT based scores

Interpretation

Observation	Behavior Rating
Error analysis Peer comparison Rate of change	Dev. benchmarks Age-Grade equivalent

How are scores calculated?

Manually (by hand)
Automatically (computer-scored)
Other

If other, please specify:

What is the basis for calculating performance level and percentile scores?

Age norms
Grade norms
Classwide norms
Schoolwide norms
Stanines
Normal curve equivalents

What types of performance level scores are available?

Raw score
Standard score
Percentile score
Grade equivalents
IRT-based score
Age equivalents
Stanines
Normal curve equivalents
Developmental benchmarks
Developmental cut points
Equated
Probability
Lexile score
Error analysis
Composite scores
Subscale/subtest scores
Other

If other, please specify:

Please describe the scoring structure. Provide relevant details such as the scoring format, the number of items overall, the number of items per subscale, what the cluster/composite score comprises, and how raw scores are calculated.

Raw score is the number of questions answered correctly.

Do you provide basis for calculating slope (e.g., amount of improvement per unit in time)?

Yes

ACADEMIC ONLY: Do you provide benchmarks for the slopes?

No

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

No

What is the basis for calculating slope and percentile scores?

Age norms
Grade norms
Classwide norms
Schoolwide norms
Stanines
Normal curve equivalents

Describe the tool’s approach to progress monitoring, behavior samples, test format, and/or scoring practices, including steps taken to ensure that it is appropriate for use with culturally and linguistically diverse populations and students with disabilities.

Progress monitoring is designated as a formative evaluation tool for students receiving Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention. Progress monitoring is administered individually and is recommended to occur weekly. Interpretation of the progress monitoring data is via an idiographic analysis of student trend. Student trend is compared to projected trend (i.e., an aimline). Data can be reviewed in the Progress Monitoring Dashboard that provides intelligent recommendations relative to ROI and end of year goals. As a guide for establishing an initial aimline or projected growth rate, guidelines are available relative to national norms for student growth. End of year percentiles can also be used for goal setting.

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:

For students receiving intervention we suggest 1 point per week growth as a starting point. After progress monitoring begins we provide guidance on adjusting the airline based on a student's historical performance. This process is recommend but not required. It is useful because general guidelines or even norms for student growth do not incorporate important student (e.g., motivation, learning history) as well as critical situational variables (e.g.,fidelity of intervention delivery, intensity of intervention, feedback to student, fidelity to the progress monitoring process). After obtaining data for a particular student in a specific setting, it is possible to incorporate an Idiographic analysis using variables and functional relations that have been individually selected, or derived. This maximize the relevance for the particular individual an can lead to more accurate goal setting or, ideally a better understanding of how to improve intervention outcomes for a specific student.

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:

Grade 1: 40

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

11-1-16

Size

5519

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.

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

Reliability

Grade	Grade 1
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.

Two types of reliability were reported: inter-rater and alternate form. Inter-rater was administered because this type of reliability is strongly recommended by the TRC for tests which are subjective and require human judgment. Alternate form reliability was reported because this type of reliability helps to establish that different forms yield similar results.

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

Analysis procedures for Study 1 (Inter-Rater): Audio recordings were made of students reading a single NWF protocol.. Two different experienced assessors then independently scored each recording. The two scoring protocols were examined for agreement on a word-by-word basis. The analysis of agreement consisted of dividing the total number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements. Study 2: The alternate form study was conducted by administering two forms of the NWF assessment to a student in the same setting. In line with TRC requirements, the analyses for all grades and for both types of reliability were conducted on the general population of students which is a sample that is representative of students across all performance levels.”

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

Study 1: As noted above, the two scoring protocols were examined for agreement on a word-by-word basis. The analysis of agreement consisted of dividing the total number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements. Study 2: A pearson product moment correlation was used as and index of the degree of relationship between the two forms.

*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)?

No

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

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Validity

Grade	Grade 1
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.

This section describes concurrent and predictive validity studies pertaining to the assessment. The Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was used in a concurrent validity study. Both the STEEP NWF and GRADE assess early literacy skills. The second concurrent validity study involved the Words Their Way assessment. This assessment is considered an appropriate criterion because it measures early literacy skills that overlap with the skills assessed by the iSTEEP NWF. The Words Their Way Inventory (WTW, 2012, Pearson), purports to have adequate reliability and validity. According to Sterbinksy (2007) the assessment has reliability coefficients in the high .80’s to low .90’s. Concurrent and predictive validity is in the upper .60’s to mid .70’s. The test had concurrent validity with the California Standards Test of .74. The criterion measure is not published by iSTEEP and is a completely independent assessment method. WTW assesses word analysis and orthographic knowledge. Orthographic knowledge has received increased attention as an indicator of the acquisition of key skills related to reading including phonemic awareness and the alphabetic principle. As Berninger (2019) has pointed out, orthographic knowledge requires bringing to mind the sounds within a word and then matching letters with sounds and, in some cases, writing the letters. As the student becomes more sophisticated s/he sounds out words and self-checks by blending the letters into a word. Orthographic knowledge ultimately is the application and integration of phonological (i.e., analyzing the word at the subword level which includes phonemes, rimes or syllables), orthographic (i.e., the retrieval of whole word, letter cluster unit, or a component letter) and morphological (i.e., whether a word is composed of smaller meaning units) information. Skills related to orthographic knowledge have been shown to correlate highly with other reading skills (Berniger, 2019) More specifically, Sterbinsky (2007) indicated the concurrent validity of the WTW with Word Analysis portion of the California Standards Test was .74. WTW has the additional advantage of mitigating the method variance problem. References: Berninger, V. (2019). Reading and writing acquisition: A developmental neuropsychological perspective. New York: Routledge. Pearson Education. (2012) Word their Way Inventory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Sterbinsky, A. (2007). Words Their Way Inventories: Reliability and Validity Analyses. Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis. Two criterion validity study used the iSTEEP Oral Reading Fluency assessment as the criterion. Given the theoretical and empirical linkage between fluency in letter-sound correspondence and reading fluency, showing a relationship between letter sound fluency and oral reading would support the validity of the NWF assessment. We acknowledge the use of a criterion that is not external to the iSTEEP system may cause concern. However NWF and ORF are different assessment methods and there is no item overlap. In terms of the method of assessment, Nonsense Word Fluency involves students reading a list of isolated nonsense words. The words are not real words. With ORF, a student is given a passage of real words to read and the score is simply the number of words read correctly. Since NWF and ORF are different methods of assessing reading this may help to assuage concerns about method variance. With regard to item overlap—there is no item overlap. Item overlap is not a factor because the two assessments don’t rely on the same items types. ORF includes only real words. NWF includes only non-real words. Hence, there is no possible overlap in items.

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

Description of Sample for Study 1 with STEEP ORF: The sample consisted of a diverse group of 7657 students from six states. Description of Sample for Study 2 with GRADE: The sample consisted of a diverse group of students from the State of Louisiana. Students were from suburban and rural districts. Demographic breakdown was as follows: African American 53% Asian 2% Hispanic 2% White, non-Hispanic 43%. Study 3 with Word their Way. The sample included a diverse group of 426 students from one midwestern state. The sample was representative of students across all performance levels. Study 4 with STEEP Oral Reading Fluency included 298 students from one Southern state. In line with TRC requirements, the analyses for all studies and for both types of validity were conducted on the general population of students which is a sample that is representative of students across all performance levels.

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

Description of Analysis Procedures for all validity studies. Bivariate correlation between the two measures was used to derive the validity coefficients.

*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)?

No

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

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Bias Analysis

Have you conducted additional analyses related to the extent to which your tool is or is not biased against subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)? Examples might include Differential Item Functioning (DIF) or invariance testing in multiple-group confirmatory factor models.

No

If yes,

a. Describe the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias:

b. Describe the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted:

c. Describe the results of the bias analyses conducted, including data and interpretative statements. Include magnitude of effect (if available) if bias has been identified.

Sensitivity: Reliability of Slope

Grade	Grade 1
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

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

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

Describe the analysis procedures.

In the table below, report reliability of the slope (e.g., ratio of true slope variance to total slope variance) by grade level (if relevant).

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

Provide citations for additional published studies.

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

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

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Sensitivity: Validity of Slope

Grade	Grade 1
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:

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)?

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:

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Alternate Forms

Grade	Grade 1
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data 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?

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
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
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.