FAST earlyReading
Nonsense Words

Summary

The FAST™ Nonsense Words subtest assesses students' ability to read phonetically regular "words" (e.g., "vit"). It is called Nonsense Words because the "words" are decodable strings of letters that are not established words in the English language but are allowable letter sequences in English. The logic behind a nonsense word measure is that it assesses whether students can decode strings of letters and read them fluently while controlling for potential familiarity that students may have when decoding real words. Nonsense words has 50 items on fixed forms. A word bank containing 378 consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) or vowel-consonant (VC) pseudowords was created. Pseudowords that began with ci-, ce-, and ended in -l, -q, -r and –y were not included in the word bank. All inappropriate sounding words were not included in the word bank. None of the pseudowords were included in a Standard English dictionary. The first 15-20 words of each progress monitoring form contained words with unique initial sounds in random order. The remaining 30-35 words were randomly selected from the word bank, for a total of 50 words per form. All words on each form were unique. Each form was organized into ten rows with five words in each row. The Nonsense Word bank consists of a total of 1,000 items.

Where to Obtain:
FastBridge Learning, LLC
sales@fastbridge.org
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55402
612-254-2534
www.fastbridge.org
Initial Cost:
$7.50 per student
Replacement Cost:
$7.50 per student per year
Included in Cost:
FAST™ assessments are accessed through an annual subscription offered by FastBridge Learning, priced on a “per student assessed” model. The subscription rate for school year 2019–20 is $7.00 per student. There are no additional fixed costs. FAST subscriptions are all inclusive providing access to: all FAST reading and math assessments for universal screening, progress monitoring and diagnostic purposes including Computer Adaptive Testing and Curriculum-Based Measurement; Behavior and Developmental Milestones assessment tools; the FAST data management and reporting system; embedded online system training for staff; and basic implementation and user support. Several online training options in each assessment and report are available with the FAST subscription. In addition, schools can purchase additional training, or attend regional learning sessions, should they so choose.” A 2-day, onsite training, at the rate of $7000, provides in-depth training in screening and progress monitoring in reading and math. 2-day regional learning sessions are offered at a rate of $425/person.
The FAST™ application is a fully cloud-based system, and therefore computer and Internet access are required for full use of the application. Teachers will require less than one hour of training on the administration of the assessment. A paraprofessional can administer the assessment as a Group Proctor in the FAST application. The application allows for the following accommodations to support accessibility for culturally and linguistically diverse populations: o Enlarged and printed paper materials are available upon request. o Extra breaks as needed. o Preferential seating and use of quiet space. o Proxy responses.
Training Requirements:
Less than one hour of training.
Qualified Administrators:
Access to Technical Support:
Users have access to ongoing technical support.
Assessment Format:
  • Individual
  • Other: The stimulus material is presented in paper form and responses are recorded by the administrator on a digital record form in the FAST system.
Scoring Time:
  • Scoring is automatic OR
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
  • Developmental benchmarks
Administration Time:
  • 2 minutes per student
Scoring Method:
  • Automatically (computer-scored)
Technology Requirements:
  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection

Tool Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:
The FAST™ Nonsense Words subtest assesses students' ability to read phonetically regular "words" (e.g., "vit"). It is called Nonsense Words because the "words" are decodable strings of letters that are not established words in the English language but are allowable letter sequences in English. The logic behind a nonsense word measure is that it assesses whether students can decode strings of letters and read them fluently while controlling for potential familiarity that students may have when decoding real words. Nonsense words has 50 items on fixed forms. A word bank containing 378 consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) or vowel-consonant (VC) pseudowords was created. Pseudowords that began with ci-, ce-, and ended in -l, -q, -r and –y were not included in the word bank. All inappropriate sounding words were not included in the word bank. None of the pseudowords were included in a Standard English dictionary. The first 15-20 words of each progress monitoring form contained words with unique initial sounds in random order. The remaining 30-35 words were randomly selected from the word bank, for a total of 50 words per form. All words on each form were unique. Each form was organized into ten rows with five words in each row. The Nonsense Word bank consists of a total of 1,000 items.
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
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
not selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
not selected Fourth grade
not selected Fifth grade
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not 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
not selected 7 years old
not selected 8 years old
not selected 9 years old
not selected 10 years old
not selected 11 years old
not selected 12 years old
not selected 13 years old
not selected 14 years old
not selected 15 years old
not selected 16 years old
not selected 17 years old
not selected 18 years old

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

ACADEMIC ONLY: What dimensions does the tool assess?

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

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

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

Other
Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:


BEHAVIOR ONLY: Please identify which broad domain(s)/construct(s) are measured by your tool and define each sub-domain or sub-construct.
BEHAVIOR ONLY: Which category of behaviors does your tool target?

Acquisition and Cost Information

Where to obtain:
Email Address
sales@fastbridge.org
Address
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone Number
612-254-2534
Website
www.fastbridge.org
Initial cost for implementing program:
Cost
$7.50
Unit of cost
student
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
$7.50
Unit of cost
student
Duration of license
year
Additional cost information:
Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the tool. Provide information on what is included in the published tool, as well as what is not included but required for implementation.
FAST™ assessments are accessed through an annual subscription offered by FastBridge Learning, priced on a “per student assessed” model. The subscription rate for school year 2019–20 is $7.00 per student. There are no additional fixed costs. FAST subscriptions are all inclusive providing access to: all FAST reading and math assessments for universal screening, progress monitoring and diagnostic purposes including Computer Adaptive Testing and Curriculum-Based Measurement; Behavior and Developmental Milestones assessment tools; the FAST data management and reporting system; embedded online system training for staff; and basic implementation and user support. Several online training options in each assessment and report are available with the FAST subscription. In addition, schools can purchase additional training, or attend regional learning sessions, should they so choose.” A 2-day, onsite training, at the rate of $7000, provides in-depth training in screening and progress monitoring in reading and math. 2-day regional learning sessions are offered at a rate of $425/person.
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.
The FAST™ application is a fully cloud-based system, and therefore computer and Internet access are required for full use of the application. Teachers will require less than one hour of training on the administration of the assessment. A paraprofessional can administer the assessment as a Group Proctor in the FAST application. The application allows for the following accommodations to support accessibility for culturally and linguistically diverse populations: o Enlarged and printed paper materials are available upon request. o Extra breaks as needed. o Preferential seating and use of quiet space. o Proxy responses.

Administration

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

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

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

Does the program require technology?

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

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

What is the administration context?
selected
not selected    If small group, n=
not selected    If large group, n=
not selected
selected
If other, please specify:
The stimulus material is presented in paper form and responses are recorded by the administrator on a digital record form in the FAST system.

What is the administration time?
Time in minutes
2
per (student/group/other unit)
student

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

How many alternate forms are available, if applicable?
Number of alternate forms
20
per (grade/level/unit)
grade

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?
not 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.
Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
not selected No minimum qualifications
Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials field-tested?
No
Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?
Yes
If No, please describe training costs:
Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes
If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:
Users have access to ongoing technical support.

Scoring

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

Do you provide basis for calculating performance level scores?
Yes

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

What types of performance level scores are available?
selected Raw score
not selected Standard score
selected Percentile score
not selected Grade equivalents
not selected IRT-based score
not selected Age equivalents
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents
selected Developmental benchmarks
not selected Developmental cut points
not selected Equated
not selected Probability
not selected Lexile score
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.
Two raw scores are calculated: 1) items correct per minute; and 2) accuracy - items correct divided by number of items taken. There are 50 items on each form.
Do you provide basis for calculating slope (e.g., amount of improvement per unit in time)?
Yes
ACADEMIC ONLY: Do you provide benchmarks for the slopes?
Yes
ACADEMIC ONLY: Do you provide percentile ranks for the slopes?
Yes
What is the basis for calculating slope and percentile scores?
not selected Age norms
selected Grade norms
not selected Classwide norms
not selected Schoolwide norms
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents

Describe the tool’s approach to progress monitoring, behavior samples, test format, and/or scoring practices, including steps taken to ensure that it is appropriate for use with culturally and linguistically diverse populations and students with disabilities.
Users define a progress monitoring schedule that includes frequency of administration, an end goal date, and target score. For each data point, a single form is administered. Accuracy and rate scores are computed and plotted across time. Scores and trends are compared to a performance target to determine student response to instruction and intervention.

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:
National growth norms, representing average weekly rates of improvement (ROI) from fall to spring , and derived from the full population of students are used as the basis for acceptable growth. Using the median ROI growth rate for each measure and grade, the FAST system computes growth rate benchmarks based on 80% , 100%, 120% and 150% of the median. The 120% rate, called "Ambitious" in the system serves as the FAST recommended growth target. This target was chosen because research show that Tier 2 and Tier 3 students receiving appropriate, research-based intensive intervention should expect to growth about 20% faster than the general population.
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:
Minimum acceptable end-of-year performance are based on a national percentile threshold. For all grades and assessments the spring 40th national percentile is used.
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)
We have national demographically matched norms based on data obtained in 20 states.
Date
2017-2018
Size
91639
Gender (Percent)
Male
51
Female
49
Unknown
SES indicators (Percent)
Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
48%
Other SES Indicators
Race/Ethnicity (Percent)
White, Non-Hispanic
46
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
Unknown
Disability classification (Please describe)
Not reported

First language (Please describe)
Not reported

Language proficiency status (Please describe)
Not reported
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
Rating 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.
Inter-rater reliability is an appropriate measure of form reliability because it demonstrates the stability of scores across administrators. Because earlyReading Nonsense Words uses fixed forms for progress monitoring, it is important to demonstrate that alternate forms provide consistent measurement of students' basic math computation skills. Alternate form reliability was calculated to demonstrate consistency between progress monitoring forms. This reliability coefficient was calculated from actual progress monitoring data using scores from forms administered no more than two weeks apart.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.
For alternate form reliability, the data file consisted of all scores collected during the 2018-2019 school year. The sample demographics represent at least 15 states in each grade, all race/ethnicity categories, urban, suburban, and rural school districts, and the full range of socio-economic status. See results below for specific sample sizes by tool, grade, and analysis. Data for the inter-rater reliability analysis came from administrations done in 2014 by experienced graduate students who attended a 2-hour training collected the data. After the first testing session. Subtests were administered to students in nine elementary schools within three school districts in a metropolitan area in the Midwest. Students were administered five randomly selected progress monitoring forms. District A was about 56% White, 14% Black, 10% Hispanic, and 19% Asian/Pacific Islander. About 45% of students were eligible to receive free/reduced lunch and 13% were eligible for special education services. District B was about 93% White, 4% Black, 3% Hispanic, and 4% Asian/Pacific Islander. About 17% of students were eligible to receive free/reduced lunch and 10% were eligible for special education services. District C was about 80% White, 7% Black, 5% Hispanic, and 11% Asian/Pacific Islander. About 45% of students were eligible to receive free/reduced lunch and 10% were eligible for special education services.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.
For alternate form reliability the reliability coefficient was calculated from actual progress monitoring data using scores from forms administered no more than two weeks apart. Inter-rater reliability is a measure of the extent to which student scores are consistent across different examiners or scorers. Estimates of inter-rater reliability are based on two independent scorers, and the coefficients represent the level of agreement between examiners or raters.

*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
Rating 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.
FAST CBM Reading, and oral fluency measure, is an appropriate criterion measure for earlyReading Nonsense Words. The criterion tool is part of the FAST progress monitoring system, but measures skills that are distinct from earlyReading Nonsense Words. The measures have no overlapping items. earlyReading Nonsense Words assesses student phonemic awareness and decoding skills, which is a prerequisite skill for the development of fluent word reading and decoding skills. Reading skills exist on a continuum from pre-reading skills and phonemic awareness to comprehending long texts. Nonsense Words measures phonemic awareness and decoding skill and it is reasonable to compare it to the nearly adjacent, but distinct, skill of fluent passage reading as measured by CBM Reading.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
The data file consisted of all scores collected during the 2018-2019 school year. The sample demographics represent at least 15 states in each grade, all race/ethnicity categories, urban, suburban, and rural school districts, and the full range of socio-economic status. See results below for specific sample sizes by tool, grade, and analysis.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
Concurrent validity was calculated by correlating student scores during the same season administration of the earlyReading Nonsense Words tool and the CBM Reading criterion measure. Predictive validity was calculated by correlating student scores adjacent season administrations (for example, Fall to Winter) of the early Reading Nonsense Words tool and the FAST CBM Reading criterion measure.

*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.
earlyReading Nonsense Words is designed to measure foundational phonemic awareness skills that are critical to overall success in reading, and are sensitive to interventions delivered through MTSS. As such demonstrating the relationship between scores on earlyReading Nonsense Words and a measure of oral reading fluency reflects this purpose. Concurrent and predictive validity are both reasonable metrics for evaluating the validity of a progress monitoring tool. The results provide strong evidence of the value and validity of using earlyReading Nonsense Words to predict oral reading fluency.
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
Rating 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
Rating Convincing evidence
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:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Do you have reliability of the slope data that is disaggregated by subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)?
No

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

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)		 n
(raters)		 Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound		 95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Sensitivity: Validity of Slope

Grade Grade 1
Rating 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
Rating Convincing 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:
Forms were developed carefully to achieve content balance. Thus, each form was derived from a common blueprint. To demonstrate empirically the equivalence of forms, we used progress monitoring data. After selecting students who scored below the 30th percentile and had at least 10 observations over 20 weeks, we calculated a mean score for each form adjusted for typical growth. The form means were subtracted for the grand mean for all forms within the grade of interest. That difference was converted to standard deviation units. Comparability of the entire set of 20 forms is also summarized using analysis of variance where Form is treated as a fixed factor. The results indicate that Form accounts for a very small amount of the total score variance (between 0% and 2%). This is a very small percent and will have a trivial effect on the growth slope over the 20 or so administrations that are common for progress monitoring. The data file consisted of all scores collected during the 2018-2019 school year in which the students were below the 30th national percentile or lower. The sample demographics represent at least 15 states in each grade, all race/ethnicity categories, urban, suburban, and rural school districts, and the full range of socio-economic status. See results below for specific sample sizes by tool, grade, and analysis.
What is the number of alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty?
20
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?
N/A
If your tool is computer administered, please note how the test forms are derived instead of providing alternate forms:
N/A

Decision Rules: Setting & Revising Goals

Grade Grade 1
Rating 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?
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 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?
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.

Summary

Tool Information
Descriptive Information
Administration
Training & Scoring
Benchmarks

Performance Level
Reliability
Validity
Bias Analysis

Growth Standards
Sensitivity
Alternate Forms
Decision Rules

Data Collection Practices