iSTEEP
Maze Reading

Summary

Reading Maze is a group administered assessment that provides information about student reading comprehension and fluency. 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.

Where to Obtain:
iSTEEP
support@isteep.com
iSTEEP 1302 Waugh, Suite #623 Houston, TX 77019
800-881-9142
www.isteep.com
Initial Cost:
$3.00 per Student
Replacement Cost:
$3.00 per Student per Year
Included in Cost:
iSTEEP provides pricing options that range from $2.00/student for early literacy screening up to $8/student for a comprehensive “Pro” package. The “Pro” package includes access to the full iSTEEP program which includes benchmarking assessments, screening assessments, an adaptive diagnostic, and progress monitoring for both reading and math. A writing component and behavior component is also included. All assessments are computer based meaning the computer will automatically time the assessments, calculate the scores, and enter the scores into the system.
Includes standard accommodations for students with disabilities.
Training Requirements:
Assessors must receive training prior to administration and scoring.
Qualified Administrators:
Paraprofessionals or professionals
Access to Technical 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.
Assessment Format:
  • Individual
  • Small group
  • Large group
  • Computer-administered
Scoring Time:
  • Scoring is automatic OR
  • 0 minutes per
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
  • Developmental cut points
Administration Time:
  • 3 minutes per
Scoring Method:
  • Automatically (computer-scored)
Technology Requirements:
  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection

Tool Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:
Reading Maze is a group administered assessment that provides information about student reading comprehension and fluency. 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)?
not selected
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
selected Ninth grade
selected Tenth grade
selected Eleventh grade
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
selected 14 years old
selected 15 years old
selected 16 years old
selected 17 years old
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
selected Global Indicator of Reading Competence
not selected Listening Comprehension
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Phonemic Awareness
not selected Decoding
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
support@isteep.com
Address
iSTEEP 1302 Waugh, Suite #623 Houston, TX 77019
Phone Number
800-881-9142
Website
www.isteep.com
Initial cost for implementing program:
Cost
$3.00
Unit of cost
Student
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
$3.00
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.
iSTEEP provides pricing options that range from $2.00/student for early literacy screening up to $8/student for a comprehensive “Pro” package. The “Pro” package includes access to the full iSTEEP program which includes benchmarking assessments, screening assessments, an adaptive diagnostic, and progress monitoring for both reading and math. A writing component and behavior component is also included. All assessments are computer based meaning the computer will automatically time the assessments, calculate the scores, and enter the scores into the system.
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.
Includes standard accommodations for students with disabilities.

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
not selected
If other, please specify:

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

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

How many alternate forms are available, if applicable?
Number of alternate forms
50
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:
Assessors must receive training prior to administration and scoring.
Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
Paraprofessionals or professionals
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:
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
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
not selected Developmental benchmarks
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.
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?
Yes
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.
Progress monitoring is designated as a formative evaluation tool for students receiving Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention. Progress monitoring is administered individually or in small groups and is recommended to occur bi-weekly (or more frequently if warranted). 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 .25 points 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.,fiddling 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:
Min Perf: Gr 1: 9 Gr 3: 23 Gr 5: 23 Gr 8: 22
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
not selected Middle Atlantic
Midwest:
selected East North Central
selected West North Central
South:
selected South Atlantic
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
1-30-16
Size
3400 per grade
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?
not selected White, Non-Hispanic
not selected Black, Non-Hispanic
not selected Hispanic
not selected American Indian/Alaska Native
not 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.

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

Performance Level

Reliability

Grade Grade 1
Grade 3
Grade 5
Grade 8
Rating 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
*Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.
Two types of reliability are reported. Alternate form is justifiable given that PM with this assessment relies on equivalence and stability from form to form so this indicator is relevant. Coefficient alpha was used as an estimate of Internal consistency. Since students do not complete all items during a session internal consistency estimates are useful because they provide increased confidence that the distribution of scores obtained would be similar if the students had completed all possible items or had completed another subset of the items.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.
Alternate Forms: For grades 1, 3 and 5 approximately 140 students per grade participated. Students were primarily from Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia. For Grade 8, 270 students from Louisiana participated. Coefficient Alpha: For grades 6-8, approximately 400 students per grade participated. Students were primarily from Louisiana and Mississippi 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. The students participating in the internal consistency reliability study were different from those participant n the study on alternate forms reliability study.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.
Alternate Form: Students were administered the assessment on two separate occasions approximately one week apart. To calculate alternate-form reliability coefficients, the Pearson product moment correlation was computed. Internal Consistency: To obtain an estimate of internal consistency reliability, coefficient alphas was calculated.

*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)?
No

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:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Validity

Grade Grade 1
Grade 3
Grade 5
Grade 8
Rating Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Unconvincing 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.
This section describes the measures and provides a rationale for their inclusion. FIRST GRADE—- In first grade, the criterion measure was the GRADE assessment for the criterion validity study. Two studies of concurrent validity were conducted. One used the iSTEEP ORF as the criterion assessment. The second concurrent validity study used Words Their Way for the criterion concurrent validity study. Words their Way was considered an appropriate criterion because it measures 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. THIRD GRADE—- In third, the criterion assessment was the Mississippi State Test, the MCT, for the criterion related validity study. The concurrent validity study for third grade used two measures, the iSTEEP Oral Reading Fluency assessment and the Benchmark Assessment System (BAS). The Benchmark Assessment System (BAS, Fountas and Pinnell, 2016) is designed to evaluate student reading and comprehension ability and determine each student’s instructional level. Studies on the reliability of this measure indicate median reliability of .94. The authors report concurrent validity coefficients using external measures ranging from the mid .60’s to the mid .90’s. Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, Fuchs, Bouton, Gilbert, Barquero, Cho, E., & Crouch, (2010) reported concurrent validity coefficients with WIF and ORF measures in .70’s and .80’s.  References—Fountas IC, Pinnell GS. (2016) Field Study of Reliability and Validity of the Benchmark Assessment Systems I and 2. Portsmouth: Heinemann  Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Gilbert, J. K., Barquero, L. A., Cho, E., & Crouch, R. C. (2010). Selecting At-Risk First-Grade Readers for Early Intervention: Eliminating False Positives and Exploring the Promise of a Two-Stage Gated Screening Process. Journal of educational psychology, 102(2), 327–340.  FIFTH GRADE—-For fifth grade the iSTEEP Oral reading fluency was used assessment for the criterion assessment for the concurrent validity study and the MCT was used in the study of criterion validity. EIGHTH GRADE—- The criterion measure for the criterion related validity study in 8th grade was the Georgia state test, CRCT. Since the iSTEEP assessment may be used by schools to predict how students would do on the state test, this type of analysis is useful. The criterion measure for the concurrent validity study in 8th grade was the iSTEEP Oral Reading Fluency assessment. Since the maze assessment focuses on reading comprehension and ORF focuses on reading fluency, it was expected that the two tests should have at least a moderate relationship. METHOD VARIANCE AND ITEM OVERLAP ISSUE WITH ISTEEP ORF In some of the validity studies reported, the iSTEEP ORF is used as the criterion measure. Use of measures from the same family of assessments can be a cause for concern. The main concerns are possible common method variance and items overlap. In this particular case, these problems do not appear to apply for the following reasons. METHOD VARIANCE— The methods used by the two assessments are different and method variance is unlikely to play a role in this instance.  By method variance we refer to variance that is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the constructs the measures are assumed to represent.   Method variance is systematic error variance shared among variables measured with as a function of the same method.   Maze is a multiple-choice cloze assessment where, after the first sentence, every 7th word is replaced with three words inside parentheses. One of these words is correct.  In ORF, a student is given a passage to read and the score is simply the number of words read correctly.  We acknowledge the use of a criterion that is not external to the iSTEEP system may cause concern. However maze and ORF are very different methods of assessing reading which may help to assuage concerns about method variance.  ITEM OVERLAP— There is no item overlap.  Item overlap is not a factor since the two assessments don’t rely on the same items types and the mode of response are different.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
In line with TRC requirements, the analyses for all grades 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. 1st Grade: In first grade the STEEP ORF and GRADE studies were conducted with a sample of 73 first grade students in a Southern state. The WTW study was conducted on a sample of 426 students in one midwestern state. 3rd Grade. The ORF and MCT studies were conducted with 236 students in a Southern state. The BAS study was conducted with 92 students in one midwestern state. 5th Grades: Both the concurrent and predictive validity studies were conducted on 173 students in a Southern state. 8th Grade: The criterion related validity study was conducted with 238 eighth grade students in a Southern sate. The concurrent validity study was conducted in one southern state with approximately with 358 students.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
For all studies, the relationship between the iSTEEP measure and the criterion measures was analyzed using the Pearson Product Moment correlation coefficient.

*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.
In most situations, validity coefficients are within an acceptable range given the expected relationship with the criterion measures.
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.

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.

Bias Analysis

Grade Grade 1
Grade 3
Grade 5
Grade 8
Rating 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 3 Grade 5 Grade 8
Rating 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.
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:
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.

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.

Sensitivity: Validity of Slope

Grade Grade 1 Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8
Rating 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:
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.

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:
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Alternate Forms

Grade Grade 1 Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8
Rating 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:
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 Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8
Rating 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 3 Grade 5 Grade 8
Rating 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.