i-Ready Diagnostic and Growth Monitoring
Reading / English Language Arts

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

i-Ready Growth Monitoring is a brief, computer-delivered, periodic adaptive assessment in reading/English language arts (ELA) for students in grades K–8, assessing Phonological Awareness, Phonics, High-Frequency Words, Vocabulary, Comprehension of Informational Text, and Comprehension of Literature. Growth Monitoring is part of the i-Ready Diagnostic & Instruction suite and is designed to be used jointly with i-Ready Diagnostic to allow for progress monitoring throughout the year and determine whether students are on track for appropriate growth. Growth Monitoring is designed to be administered monthly, but may be administered as frequently as every week in which the i-Ready Diagnostic assessment is not administered. i-Ready Growth Monitoring is a general outcome measure form of progress monitoring. The reports show whether students are on track for their target growth by projecting where their ability level will likely be at the end of the school year and comparing the projected growth-to-growth targets. For students who are below level, Growth Monitoring can be used as a tool for Response to Intervention (RTI) programs. Evidence-based and proven valid and reliable, Curriculum Associates designed and developed i Ready specifically to assess student mastery of state and Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Growth Monitoring assessment takes approximately 15 minutes and may be conducted with all students or with specific groups of students who have been identified as at risk of academic failure. i-Ready’s sophisticated adaptive algorithm automatically selects from thousands of multiple-choice and technology-enhanced items to get to the core of each student's strengths and challenges, regardless of the grade level at which he or she is performing. The depth of the item bank enables the assessment to truly pinpoint each student’s ability and ensures the accuracy of results. The system automatically analyzes and scores student responses. Available as soon as a student completes the assessment, i Ready’s intuitive Growth Monitoring reports—available at the student and class levels—focus solely on how students are tracking toward their end-of-year growth.

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:

Five domains are assessed within i Ready Growth Monitoring for reading; each domain has corresponding sub-domains. The topics addressed in the Phonological Awareness domain are: rhyme recognition; phoneme identity and isolation; phoneme blending and segmentation; phoneme addition and substitution; and phoneme deletion. The topics addressed in the Phonics and Word Recognition domain are: letter recognition; consonant sounds; short and long vowels; decoding one- and two-syllable words; inflectional endings; prefixes and suffixes; digraphs and diphthongs; vowel patterns; decoding longer words; and high-frequency words. The topics addressed in the Vocabulary domain are: academic and domain-specific vocabulary; word relationships; word-learning strategies; use of reference materials; prefixes; suffixes; and word roots. The topics addressed in the Comprehension of Informational Text domain are: author’s purpose; categorize and classify; cause and effect; drawing conclusions/making inferences; fact and opinion; main idea and details; message; summarize; text structure; vocabulary in context; compare and contrast across different mediums; analysis of close reading of the text; and citing textual evidence. The topics addressed in the Comprehension of Literature domain are: author’s purpose; cause and effect; drawing conclusions/making inferences; figurative language; story structure; summarize; theme/mood; understanding character; vocabulary in context; compare and contrast across different mediums; analysis of close reading of the text; and citing textual evidence.

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:

4 - 8 hours of training

Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.

Paraprofessional or professional

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:

Onsite professional development is also required and available for an additional cost.

Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?

Yes

If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:

Dedicated account manager plus unlimited access to in-house technical support during business hours.

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:

on-grade achievement level placements

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.

i-Ready scale scores are linear transformations of logit values. Logits, also known as “log odd units,” are measurement units for logarithmic probability models such as the Rasch model. Logits are used to determine both student ability and item difficulty. Within the Rasch model, if the ability matches the item difficulty, then the person has a .50 chance of answering the item correctly. For i-Ready, student ability and item logit values generally range from around -6 to 6. When the i-Ready vertical scale was updated in August 2016, the equipercentile equating method was applied to the updated logit scale. The appropriate scaling constant and slope were applied to the logit value to convert to scale score values between 100 and 800 (Kolen and Brennan, 2014). This scaling is accomplished by converting the estimated logit values with the following equations: Scale Value = 499.38 + 37.81 × Logit Value Once this conversion is made, floor and ceiling values are imposed to keep the scores within the 100–800 scale range. This is achieved by simply recoding all values below 100 up to 100 and all values above 800 down to 800. The scale score range, mean, and standard deviation on the updated scale are either exactly the same as (range), or very similar (mean and standard deviation) to those from the scale prior to the August 2016 scale update, which generally allows year-over-year comparisons of i-Ready scale scores. Additional information on the formulas used to derive raw scores is available from the Center upon request. i-Ready is a computer-adaptive test that uses Item Response Theory (IRT) to estimate a student’s score. In addition to the measurement model used to provide student scores, i-Ready Growth Monitoring also has a projection model that yields projected scores, which are particularly useful to educators interested in progress monitoring. The Growth Monitoring projection model was developed after the first full-year implementation of the assessment. Several models were evaluated in an extensive research study, in collaboration with independent researchers from Harvard University. The model that had the best psychometric characteristics (e.g., low residual, low residual bias, consistent projection precision across the school year) and was operationally feasible was selected. The final projection model has the following key structural features: • Projection is based on a weighted combination of two values: o The average across all test scores a student receives during the academic year, including Diagnostic and Growth Monitoring (grand mean, or GM) o Predicted end-of-year scale score based on a simple linear regression (linear prediction, or LP) • Weighting of the GM and the LP is determined by fitting multiple linear regression models to the preceding year’s assessment data on the relationship between GM and LP and the actual end-of-year Diagnostic test scores students obtained in the previous year. A set of multiple regression intercept and weighting factors is derived for each of the nine grades (K–8), two subjects, three ability groups based on fall percentile rank (bottom 25%, middle 50%, and top 25%), and eight months (October to May). Thus, a total of 432 (9 × 2 × 3 × 8) sets of model parameters are developed. These structural features of the projection model have a few advantages: • Because model parameters are obtained based on operational data, they can be updated yearly with the most current growth pattern from the past academic year. • Because model parameters are obtained for three ability groups, the differential growth rate for students at the high and low ends of the ability spectrum is taken into consideration. • Because model parameters are obtained for each month, the projection error stays low even at the beginning of the school year, when the number of data points is small. To illustrate the accuracy of the Growth Monitoring projection model, all students from the 2014–2015 school year were randomly assigned into one of two samples: the training sample or the validation sample. The training sample was used to derive weighting parameters for each of the 432 models. These parameters were then applied to the validation sample. Figure 3 in the Technical Manual shows the normalized root-mean-square error (NRMSE) from the validation sample. NRMSE is zero when the prediction matches perfectly to the actual test score; an NRMSE of less than .10 is considered adequate fit. Figure 3 of the Technical Manual shows that, while the prediction error is relatively higher in October when only three months of test data are available and the projection is more than six months out, it quickly drops to a lower level (i.e., most are below .10) in November and stays low and stable across the rest of the year. Section 2.2 of the i-Ready Technical Manual provides more details about the projection model. The methodology for setting growth targets is described in Chapter 6 of the i-Ready Technical Manual. Consumers interested in more detailed information should contact the publisher of the i-Ready Technical Manual, Curriculum Associates.

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?

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.

i-Ready Growth Monitoring is a brief, computer delivered, periodic adaptive assessment in reading/ELA for students in grades K–8. Growth Monitoring is part of the i-Ready Diagnostic & Instruction suite and is designed to be used jointly with i Ready Diagnostic to allow for progress monitoring throughout the year to determine whether students are on track for appropriate growth. Growth monitoring is a periodic assessment that may be administered as frequently as every week in which the i-Ready Diagnostic assessment is not administered. The reports for these brief assessments (an average duration of 15 minutes or less) show whether students are on track for their target growth by projecting where their ability level will likely be at the end of the school year and comparing the projected growth-to-growth targets. For students who are below level, Growth Monitoring can be used as a tool for response to intervention programs. i Ready Growth Monitoring is a general outcome measure form of progress monitoring. The reports associated with Growth Monitoring—available at the student and class levels—focus solely on how students are tracking toward their end-of-year growth. Curriculum Associates is committed to fair and unbiased product development. i-Ready is developmentally, linguistically, and culturally appropriate for a wide range of students at each assessed grade. For instance, the names, characters, and scenarios used within the program are ethnically and culturally diverse. We developed all items and passages in i-Ready to be accessible for all students regardless of their need for accommodation. In most cases, students who require accommodations (e.g., large print or extra time) will not require additional help to complete an i-Ready assessment. The design of the assessment emphasizes making necessary adjustments to the items so that a large percentage of students requiring accommodations will be able to take the test in a standard manner and the interpretation or the purpose of the test is not compromised. According to the Standards (AERA, APA, NCME, 2014), “Universal Design processes strive to minimize access challenges by taking into account test characteristics that may impede access to the construct for certain test takers.” i-Ready was developed with the universal principles of design for assessment in mind and followed the seven elements of Universal Design for large-scale assessments recommended by NCEO (2002): 1. Inclusive assessment population 2. Precisely defined constructs 3. Accessible, non-biased items 4. Amenable to accommodations 5. Simple, clear, and intuitive instructions and procedures 6. Maximum readability and comprehensibility Maximum legibility Curriculum Associates periodically runs differential item functioning (DIF) analysis to ensure that items are operating properly and to identify items that need to go through additional review by subject matter experts and key stakeholders to determine if the items should be removed from the item pool for further editing or replaced. Items with moderate and large DIF are subjected to this extensive review to identify the potential sources of differential functioning. We then determine whether each item should remain in the operational pool, be removed from the item pool, or be revised and resubmitted for field-testing. DIF analysis and subsequent item reviews are important quality assurance procedures to support the validity of the items in the item pool, and are carried out annually by Curriculum Associates following the best practices in the field of educational measurement. Validity refers to the degree to which evidence and theory can support the interpretations of scores used for the assessment (AERA, APA, NCME, 2014). Under the Rasch item response theory (IRT) model, the probability of a correct response to an item is only dependent on the item difficulty and the person’s ability level. If an item favors one group of students over another based on the test taker’s characteristics (e.g., gender, ethnicity), then the assumption of IRT is violated, and the item is considered biased and unfair. A biased item will exhibit DIF. DIF analysis is a procedure used to determine if items are fair and appropriate for assessing the knowledge of various subgroups (e.g., gender and ethnicity) while controlling for ability. However, it should be noted that the presence of DIF alone is not evidence of item bias. Difference in item responses would be expected when the student groups differed in knowledge or the ability level being measured. Consequently, difference in item performance obtained from groups of students with different ability levels does not represent item bias. The determination of DIF, therefore, should be based on not only DIF analysis, but also content experts’ comprehensive review. The following describes the latest DIF analysis conducted on the i-Ready items. DIF was investigated using WINSTEPS® by comparing the item difficulty measure for two demographic categories in a pairwise comparison through a combined calibration analysis. The essence of this methodology is to investigate the interaction of the person-groups with each item, while fixing all other item and person measures to those from the combined calibration. The method used to detect DIF is based on the Mantel-Haenszel procedure (MH), and the work of Linacre & Wright (1989) and Linacre (2012). Typically, the group representing test takers in a specific demographic group is referred to as the focal group. The group made up of test takers from outside this group is referred to as the reference group. For example, for gender, Female is the focal group, and Male is the reference group. More information is provided in section 3.4 of the i Ready Technical Manual. Consumers interested in more detailed information should contact the publisher of the i-Ready Technical Manual, Curriculum Associates.

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 grades K–8, our reading growth targets over a 30-week period are 46, 47, 35, 25, 19, 17, 12, 10, and 9.

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:

This information is provided directly to districts and schools as part of our support process.

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

Size

Gender (Percent)

Male

Female

Unknown

SES indicators (Percent)

Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

Other SES Indicators

Race/Ethnicity (Percent)

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

American Indian/Alaska Native

Asian/Pacific Islander

Other

Unknown

Disability classification (Please describe)

First language (Please describe)

Language proficiency status (Please describe)

Do you provide, in your user’s manual, norms which are disaggregated by race or ethnicity? If so, for which race/ethnicity?

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.

The setting of the Diagnostic performance levels in each grade was based on four years of research on data collected from national panels of accomplished teachers and from statewide testing programs. These performance levels reflect the knowledge and skill levels of students who are “early on grade level” and “mid on grade level” in each grade and subject area. The i-Ready growth targets in each grade and subject area stem from these performance levels and reflect the levels of progress expected with respect to the knowledge and skills targeted by i-Ready Diagnostic and the CCSS in each grade level. Specifically, a modified Bookmark standard setting was used to determine criterion-referenced growth targets, which were launched in the system in 2013. Appendix L in the i-Ready Technical Manual provides information on how the historical criterion-referenced growth targets were calculated. Because i-Ready Diagnostic underwent a recalibration for the 2014–2015 school year and a new Contrasting Groups standard setting was conducted in spring 2014, a rigorous review of the growth targets was conducted in summer 2015 to determine if changes to these growth targets should be made. The detailed descriptions of the standard-setting process and setting the criterion-referenced growth targets are provided in Chapter 6 of the i-Ready Technical Manual.

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

Reliability

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating		d	d	d	d	d	d	d	d

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.

For the i-Ready Diagnostic, Curriculum Associates prepares the IRT-based marginal reliability, as well as the standard error of measurement (SEM). Given that the i-Ready Diagnostic is a computer-adaptive assessment that does not have a fixed form, some traditional reliability estimates such as Cronbach’s alpha are inappropriate for quantifying consistency of student scores. The IRT analogue to classical reliability is called marginal reliability, and operates on the variance of the theta scores (i.e., proficiency) and the average of the expected error variance. The marginal reliability uses the classical definition of reliability as proportion of variance in the total observed score due to true score under an IRT model (the i-Ready Diagnostic uses a Rasch model to be specific). In addition to marginal reliability, SEMs are also important for quantifying the precision of scores. In an IRT model, SEMs are affected by factors such as how well the data fit the underlying model, student response consistency, student location on the ability continuum, match of items to student ability, and test length. Given the adaptive nature of i-Ready and the wide difficulty range in the item bank, standard errors are expected to be low and very close to the theoretical minimum for tests of similar length. The theoretical minimum would be reached if each interim estimate of student ability is assessed by an item with difficulty matching perfectly to the student’s ability estimated from previous items. Theoretical minimums are restricted by the number of items served in the assessment—the more items that are served up, the lower the SEM could potentially be. For ELA, the minimum SEM for overall scores is 8.90. In addition to providing the mean SEM by subject and grade, the graphical representations of the conditional standard errors of measurement (CSEM) provide additional evidence of the precision with which i-Ready measures student ability across the operational score scale. In the context of model-based reliability analyses for computer adaptive tests, such as i-Ready, CSEM plots permit test users to judge the relative precision of the estimate. These figures are available from the Center upon request.

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

Data for obtaining the marginal reliability and SEM was from the August and September administrations of the i-Ready Diagnostic from 2016 (reported in Table 4.4 of the i-Ready Diagnostic Technical Manual). All students tested within the timeframe were included and this time period was selected because it coincides with most districts’ first administration of the i-Ready Diagnostic. Sample sizes by grade are presented in the table below.

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

This marginal reliability uses the classical definition of reliability as the proportion of variance in the total observed score due to true score. The true score variance is computed as the observed score variance minus the error variance: ρ_θ=(σ_(θ-)^2 σ ̅_E^2)/(σ_θ^2 ) where ρθ is the marginal reliability estimate, σ2θ is the observed error variance of the ability estimate, σ ̅_E^2is the observed average conditional error variance. Similar to a classical reliability coefficient, the marginal reliability estimate increases as the standard error decreases; it approaches 1 when the standard error approaches 0.

*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)?

Yes

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	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
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.

The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) are a set of procedures and measures for assessing the acquisition of early literacy skills from kindergarten through sixth grade. The Lexile® Framework for Reading is an educational tool that uses a measure called a Lexile to match readers with books, articles, and other leveled reading resources. Readers and books are assigned a score on the Lexile scale, in which lower scores reflect easier readability for books and lower reading ability for readers. The North Carolina End-of-Grade (NC EOG) English Language Arts/Reading tests measure student performance on the grade-level competencies specified by North Carolina Public Schools. Ohio’s State Tests (OST) in English Language Arts measure the knowledge and skills specified by Ohio’s Learning Standards. The Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP) measures student achievement in relation to the Mississippi College and Career Readiness Standards for English Language Arts. The Florida Standards Assessments (FSA) in English Language Arts measure student achievement in relation to the education standards outlined by the Florida Department of Education. These criterions are appropriate because they measure the knowledge and skills specified by the educational standards of four different states.

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

The K–2 samples described in this section were selected such that at least three U.S. geographic regions are represented, and were then vetted to ensure the samples were consistent with the population of students who take i-Ready in grades K–2. The DIBELS measure consisted of data from the 2016–2017 school year from five districts and one charter organization across three states, Colorado, Ohio, and North Carolina. The Lexile data come from the Lexile / i-Ready linking study that was collaboratively conducted by MetaMetrics and Curriculum Associates. A total of 35 schools in 27 districts representing 10 states participated in the study. The samples for grades 3–8 described in this section were selected specifically to be representative of the states in terms of urbanicity; district size; proportion of English language learners, and students with disabilities; and proportion of students eligible for free- and reduced-priced lunch. The North Carolina sample consisted of 38,695 students from 12 school districts and 202 schools across the state of North Carolina. The Ohio sample consisted of 13,551 students from 10 school districts and 62 schools across the state of Ohio. The Mississippi sample consisted of 19,618 students from 13 school districts and 78 schools across the state of Mississippi. The Florida sample consisted of 230,705 students from 13 school districts and 816 schools across the state of Florida.

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

For the DIBELS analysis, the correlations were calculated between the spring administrations of both tests, allowing for concurrent validity inferences. For the Lexile analysis, the correlations were calculated between the fall administration of the Lexile process and the spring administration of i-Ready, yielding predictive validity inferences. For the North Carolina and Ohio studies, correlations were calculated between the given state assessment (administered in spring of 2016) and last i-Ready Diagnostic administration in spring of 2016. The state assessments were administered within 1–3 months of the i-Ready Diagnostic. For the Mississippi and Florida studies, correlations were calculated between the given state assessment (administered in spring of 2017) and the first i-Ready Diagnostic administration in fall of 2016. The state assessments were administered 4–10 months after the i-Ready Diagnostic. Fisher’s r to z transformation was used to obtain the 95% confidence interval for the correlation coefficients of all studies.

*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:

Note that for the purposes of the Lexile study referenced above, grade-banded results are featured, rather than grade-specific results. The i-Ready Diagnostic reading scale scores are created on a vertical scale, which makes the scale scores comparable across grades. Thus, for efficiency purposes, the linking sample for the Lexile study includes only students from every other grade (i.e., grades 1, 3, 5, and 7), but results are generalized across grades in various grade bands (e.g., K–2). Additional information on the Lexile study, which was conducted in concert with MetaMetrics, is available upon request.

Manual cites other published reliability 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 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.

Yes

If yes,

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

Differential Item Function (DIF) was investigated using WINSTEPS® (Version 3.92) by comparing item difficulty for pairs of demographic subgroups through a combined calibration analysis. This methodology evaluates the interaction of the person-level subgroups with each item, while fixing all other item and person measures to those from the combined calibration. The method used to detect DIF is based on the Mantel-Haenszel procedure (MH), and the work of Linacre & Wright (1989) and Linacre (2012). Typically, the groups of test takers are referred to as “reference” and “focal” groups. For example, for analysis of gender bias, Female test takers are the focal group, and Male test takers are the reference group. More information is provided in section 3.4 of the i Ready Technical Manual. Consumers interested in more detailed information should contact the publisher of the i-Ready Technical Manual, Curriculum Associates.

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

The latest large-scale DIF analysis included a random sample (20%) of students from the 2015–2016 i-Ready operational data. Given the large size of the 2015–2016 i-Ready student population, it is practical to carry out the calibration analysis with a random sample. The following demographic categories were compared: Female vs. Male; African American and Hispanic vs. Caucasian; English Learner vs. non–English Learner; Special Ed vs. General Ed; Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged. In each pairwise comparison, estimates of item difficulty for each category in the comparison were calculated. The table below presents the total number and percentage of students included in the DIF analysis. Subgroup n Percent Male 258400 52 Female* 238800 48 White 129200 36.6 African American or Hispanic* 224200 63.4 Non-EL 250800 81.2 EL* 58200 18.8 General Education 165800 85.7 Special Education* 27600 14.3 Not Economically Disadvantaged 177800 69.0 Economically Disadvantaged* 80000 31.1 *Denotes the focal group

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.

All active items in the current item pool for the 2015–2016 school year are included in the DIF analysis. The total numbers of items are 3,649 for reading. WINSTEPS was used to conduct the calibration for DIF analysis by grade. To help interpret the results, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) criteria using the delta method was used to categorize DIF (Zwick, Thayer, & Lewis, 1999) and is presented below: ETS DIF Category A (negligible): |DIF| < 0.43 B (moderate): |DIF| ≥ 0.43 and |DIF| < 0.64 C (large): |DIF| ≥ 0.64 B- or C- suggests DIF against focal group B+ or C+ suggests DIF against reference group Tables reporting the numbers and percentages of items exhibiting DIF for each of the demographic categories are available, upon request, from the Center. The majority of reading items showed negligible DIF (at least 90 percent), and for very few categories did more than 3 percent of items show large DIF (level C) by grade.

Sensitivity: Reliability of Slope

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
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:

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.

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Sensitivity: Validity of Slope

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
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:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.

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

No

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

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

Manual cites other published validity studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Alternate Forms

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

Describe the sample for these analyses, including size and characteristics:

The i-Ready assessment forms are assembled on the fly by Curriculum Associate's computer-adaptive testing (CAT) algorithm, subject to objective content and other constraints described in Section 2.1.3 in Chapter 2 of the i-Ready Technical Manual. As such, the sample size per form which would be applicable to linear (i.e. non-adaptive) assessments does not directly apply to Curriculum Associates' i-Ready Diagnostic Assessment. Note that many analyses that Curriculum Associates conducts (e.g. to estimate growth targets) are based on normative sample, which for the 2015-16 school year included 3.9 million i-Ready Diagnostic assessments taken by more than one million students from over 4,000 schools. The demographics of the normative sample at each grade closely match that of the national student population. Tables 7.3 and 7.4 of the Technical Manual present the sample sizes for each normative sample and the demographics of the samples compared with the latest population target, as reported by the National Center of Education Statistics. Consumers interested in more detailed information should contact the publisher of the i-Ready Technical Manual, Curriculum Associates.

What is the number of alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty?

Virtually infinite. As a computer-adaptive rest, in i-Ready all administrations are equivalent forms. However, each student presented with an individualized testing experience where he or she is served test items based on answer choices to previous questions. In essence, this scenario provides a virtually infinite number of test forms, because individual student testing experiences are largely unique.

If IRT based, provide evidence of item or ability invariance

Section 2.1.3 in Chapter 2 of the i-Ready Technical Manual describes the adaptive nature of the tests and how the items selection process works. The i-Ready Growth Monitoring assessments are a general outcome measure of student ability and measure a subset of skills that are test on the Diagnostic. Items on Growth Monitoring are from the same domain item pool for the Diagnostic. Test items are served based on the same IRT ability estimate and item selection logic. Often, test developers want to show that the items in their measure are invariant, meaning the items are measuring both groups similarly. To illustrate the property of item invariance across the groups of i-Ready test takers in need of intensive intervention (i.e., below the national norming sample’s 30th percentile rank in terms of overall reading scale score) and those without such need (i.e., at or above the 30th percentile rank), a special set of item calibrations were prepared. Correlations between independent item calibrations for subgroups of students below and at-or-above the 30th percentile rank were computed to demonstrate the extent that i-Ready parameter estimates are appropriate for use with both groups. To demonstrate comparable item parameter estimates, correlations between the below and at-or-above the 30th percentile item difficulty parameter estimates and their corresponding confidence intervals—constructed using Fisher’s r-to-z transformation (Fisher, R. A. 1915. Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation coefficient in samples from an indefinitely large population. Biometrika, 10(4), 507-521)—were provided. Correlations and corresponding confidence intervals can serve as a measure of the consistency between the item difficulty estimates. Student response data used for item invariance analyses were from the August and September 2017 administrations of the i-Ready Diagnostic. Students tested within this timeframe were subjected to the same inclusion rules that Curriculum Associates uses for new item calibration (i.e., embedded field test). This administration window was selected because it coincides with most districts’ first administration of the i-Ready Diagnostic. In order to ensure appropriately precise item parameter estimates, the sample was restricted to those items to which there were at least 300 students from each group (those below and those at-or-above the 30th percentile rank). Subgroup sample sizes and the counts of items included by grade for reading are presented in the table below. Analysis Grd < 30th % > 30th % Items Coefficient CI Item Invariance K 83,949 133,559 417 0.893 [0.871, 0.911] Item Invariance 1 125,087 248,046 787 0.840 [0.818, 0.859] Item Invariance 2 151,681 261,591 559 0.856 [0.832, 0.877] Item Invariance 3 177,285 294,692 690 0.799 [0.770, 0.824] Item Invariance 4 147,429 320,484 819 0.793 [0.766, 0.817] Item Invariance 5 141,917 311,892 860 0.733 [0.700, 0.762] Item Invariance 6 124,035 228,330 793 0.736 [0.702, 0.766] Item Invariance 7 105,505 190,601 750 0.706 [0.668, 0.740] Item Invariance 8 99,419 196,220 791 0.705 [0.668, 0.738] Note: Counts of students include all measurement occasions and hence may include the same unique student tested more than once.

If computer administered, how many items are in the item bank for each grade level?

For grades 1–8, typical item pool sizes are 1670, 1864, 2087, 2311, 2554, 2665, 2794, and 2913, respectively. Students who perform at an extremely high level will be served with items from grade levels higher than the grade level restriction.

If your tool is computer administered, please note how the test forms are derived instead of providing alternate forms:

The i-Ready Diagnostic and Growth Monitoring tests are computer adaptive, meaning the items presented to each student vary depending upon how the student has responded to the previous items. Upon completion of an item randomly selected from a set of five items around a predetermined staring difficulty level, interim ability estimates are updated, and the next item is chosen relative to the new information is obtained from each item presented.

Decision Rules: Setting & Revising Goals

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
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	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
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.