iSTEEP
Oral Reading Fluency

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

The iSTEEP Oral Reading Fluency progress monitor is designed for progress monitoring in the area of Oral Reading Fluency. It consists of 50 forms of equivalent difficulty at each grade 1-5.

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

End-year goal
Short-term skill

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

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

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

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

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

Students in general education
Students with disabilities
English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What dimensions does the tool assess?

Reading

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

Spelling & Written Expression

Global Indicator of Spelling Competence
Global Indicator of Writting Expression Competence

Mathematics

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

Other

Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:

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

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

Acquisition and Cost Information

Administration

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

General education teacher
Special education teacher
Parent
Child
External observer
Other

If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration format?

Direct observation
Rating scale
Checklist
Performance measure
Other

If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration setting?

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

If other, please specify:

Does the program require technology?

Yes

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

Computer or tablet
Internet connection
Other technology (please specify)

What is the administration context?

Individual

Small group   If small group, n=

Large group   If large group, n=

Computer-administered
Other

If other, please specify:

Computer assisted administration is available. Using this, the students reads while the assessor marks error on the computer. The computer times the assessment, determines the words read correctly and submits the score automatically.

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:

1 - 4 hours of training.

Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.

Paraprofessionals or professionals

No minimum qualifications

Are training manuals and materials available?

Yes

Are training manuals/materials field-tested?

Yes

Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?

Yes

If No, please describe training costs:

Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?

Yes

If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:

Support is provided through email, telephone and web.

Scoring

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

Score

Observation	Behavior Rating
Frequency Duration Interval Latency	Raw score

Conversion

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

Interpretation

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

How are scores calculated?

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

If other, please specify:

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

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

What types of performance level scores are available?

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

If other, please specify:

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

Raw score is the number of words read 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?

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

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

Progress monitoring of ORF is designated as a formative evaluation tool for students receiving Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention in which reading fluency is a primary goal. Progress monitoring is individually administered and is recommended to occur on a weekly basis. Each progress monitoring session consists of the administration of 3 different grade level probes at the student’s instructional level. The administration and scoring of the ORF passages follows a standard format (cf. Shinn, 1989). The student’s score is represented by the median of the three probes. Interpretation of the progress monitoring data is via an idiographic analysis of student trend. Student trend is compared projected trend (i.e., an aimline). As a guide for establishing an initial aimline or projected growth rate, guidelines are available relative to grade level instructional standards, national norms for student growth, and local norms for student growth.

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:

We suggest 1-1.5 words per week increase. However, we caution against a single indicator and provide the means to also compute local growth norms and to chart progress toward end of year percentile goals

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: 43 Gr 2: 74 Gr 3: 91 Gr 4: 108 Gr 5: 118

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

2005-2017

Size

Min 1000 per grade

Gender (Percent)

Male

49

Female

51

Unknown

SES indicators (Percent)

Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

28

Other SES Indicators

Race/Ethnicity (Percent)

White, Non-Hispanic

Black, Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

American Indian/Alaska Native

Asian/Pacific Islander

Other

Unknown

Disability classification (Please describe)

First language (Please describe)

Language proficiency status (Please describe)

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

White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
Unknown

If criterion-referenced, describe procedure for specifying criterion for adequate growth and benchmarks for end-of-year performance levels.

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

Reliability

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

*Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.

Two types of reliability 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. Inter-Rater reliability helps to estimate the degree to which two assessors score each student protocol in the same way. Justification for Study 1 (Alternate Form): Alternate form reliability provides an indication of the consistency of a student’s score at two different points in time. It also provides an indicator of the consistency of response to different passages which is partially dependent of the equivalence of passages. Justification for Study 2 (Inter-rater Reliability): The consistency of student scores can be influenced by examiner error. Inter-rater reliability provides and estimate of the extent to which student scores contain error related to the examiner.

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

Sample Characteristics for Study 1 (Alternate Form): The students in this study were from medium sized suburban schools in Louisiana and Texas. Demographics were: Gender: F 51% M 49% Ethnicity: African American 39% Asian 1%er Hispanic 5% White, non-Hispanic 55% Sample Characteristics for Study 2 (Inter-rater): The sample was obtained from a large urban district in Louisiana. Approximately 80% of the students were African American and 20% were White, non-Hispanic.

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

Analysis procedures for Study 1 (Alternate Form): Three alternate forms were administered in a single setting. Single Forms 1 and 3 were used within a correlational analysis. Analysis procedures for Study 2 (Inter-rater): Audio recordings were made of students reading a single ORF passage. Two different experienced assessors then independently scored each recording. The two scoring protocols were examined for agreement on a word-by-word basis. The analysis of agreement consisted of dividing the total number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements.

*In the table(s) below, report the results of the reliability analyses described above (e.g., model-based evidence, internal consistency or inter-rater reliability coefficients). Include detail about the type of reliability data, statistic generated, and sample size and demographic information.

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Do you have reliability data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?

No

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

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Validity

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5
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.

Description of Criterion Measure for Study 1: The iSTEEP Maze Assessment was used. 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. Given the theoretical and empirical linkage between fluency and comprehension, showing a relationship between fluency and the subsequent development of basic comprehension skills would support the validity of the ORF assessment. We acknowledge the use of a criterion that is not external to the iSTEEP system may cause concern. However maze and ORF are different ways of assessing reading which may help to assuage concerns about method variance. Also, item overlap is also minimal in that the two assessments don’t rely on the same items types. The ORF assessment was administered within the second and third week of January and the Maze assessment was administered within the first two weeks of May. Description of Criterion Measure for Study 2: For Grades 1-4, the Word Identification subtest from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test was used. For Grade 5 the Louisiana State Accountability Test, ILEAP) was used.

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

Description of Sample for Study 1: The sample consisted of a diverse group of students. Approximately 25% of the sample was taken from each of four states: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and Texas. Students were from suburban and rural districts. Demographic breakdown was as follows: African American 23% Asian 2% Hispanic 18% White, non-Hispanic 57% Description of Sample for Study 2: The sample consisted of a diverse group of students from the State of Louisiana. Students were from suburban and rural districts. Demographic breakdown was as follows: African American 53% Asian 2% Hispanic 2% White, non-Hispanic 43%

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

Description of Analysis Procedures for Study 1: Bivariate correlation between the two measures was used to derive the validity coefficients. Description of Analysis Procedures for Study 2: Bivariate correlation between the two measures was used to derive the validity coefficients.

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

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

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

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.

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.

If yes,

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

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

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

Sensitivity: Reliability of Slope

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

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

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

Describe the analysis procedures.

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

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

Provide citations for additional published studies.

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

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	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5
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	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

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

Sample Characteristics: The students in this study were from medium sized suburban schools in Louisiana and Texas. Demographics were: Gender: F 51%; M 49% Ethnicity: African American 39%; Asian 1%; Hispanic 5%; White, non-Hispanic 55%

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

We have 50 alternative forms for each grade 1-5. Alternate form reliability data is sufficient to show forms are reasonably equivalent. Reliability Type Grade n Coefficient CI Alternate form 1 227 0.98 .96-.99 Alternate form 2 204 0.95 .89-.98 Alternate form 3 182 0.97 .93-.98 Alternate form 4 241 0.94 .85-.98 Alternate form 5 201 0.97 .89-.99 Justification: Alternate form reliability provides an indication of the consistency of a student’s score at two different points in time. It also provides an indicator of the consistency of response to different passages which is partially dependent of the equivalence of passages. Analysis Procedures Used: Three alternate forms were administered in a single setting. Single Forms 1 and 3 were used within a correlational analysis.

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 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5
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?

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 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5
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?

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.