Istation’s Indicators of Progress (ISIP)
Early Reading

Summary

ISIP Early Reading (ISIP ER) is an engaging computer adaptive assessment of reading ability that automatically adjusts the difficulty of items delivered to limit the amount of frustration or boredom often associated with traditional assessments. ISIP ER includes comprehensive reporting of teachers and parents, as well as downloadable teacher-directed lesson and resources for differentiated instruction. ISIP ER is intended to be used with students in grades K-3, and can be administered simultaneously to an entire classroom in approximately 30 minutes.

Where to Obtain:
Istation
info@istation.com
8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 2000, Dallas, TX, 75206
866-883-READ
www.istation.com
Initial Cost:
$5.95 per student
Replacement Cost:
$5.95 per student per year
Included in Cost:
ISIP ER is priced at $5.95 per student per year.
ISIP ER assessment packages includes online assessment, data hosting, reporting, teacher resources, online training center, user and manuals.
Training Requirements:
1 -4 hours of training.
Qualified Administrators:
Paraprofessional or professional
Access to Technical Support:
By email and phone (M-F 7am-6:30pm, CST)
Assessment Format:
  • Individual
  • Small group
  • Large group
  • Computer-administered
Scoring Time:
  • Scoring is automatic OR
  • 0 minutes per student/group
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
  • IRT-based score
  • Lexile score
  • Composite scores
Administration Time:
  • 30 minutes per student/group
Scoring Method:
  • Automatically (computer-scored)
Technology Requirements:
  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection

Tool Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:
ISIP Early Reading (ISIP ER) is an engaging computer adaptive assessment of reading ability that automatically adjusts the difficulty of items delivered to limit the amount of frustration or boredom often associated with traditional assessments. ISIP ER includes comprehensive reporting of teachers and parents, as well as downloadable teacher-directed lesson and resources for differentiated instruction. ISIP ER is intended to be used with students in grades K-3, and can be administered simultaneously to an entire classroom in approximately 30 minutes.
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)?
selected
not selected
The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).
not selected Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
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
selected 5 years old
selected 6 years old
selected 7 years old
selected 8 years old
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
selected English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What dimensions does the tool assess?

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

Spelling & Written Expression
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:
Kindergarten: Letter Knowledge, Phonemic Awareness, Vocabulary, Listening Comprehension. 1st Grade: Letter Knowledge, Phonemic Awareness, Alphabetic Decoding, Vocabulary. 2nd Grade: Alphabetic Decoding, Spelling, Connected Text Fluency, Vocabulary, Fluency. 3rd Grade: Spelling, Connected Text Fluency, Vocabulary, Comprehension.

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
info@istation.com
Address
8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 2000, Dallas, TX, 75206
Phone Number
866-883-READ
Website
www.istation.com
Initial cost for implementing program:
Cost
$5.95
Unit of cost
student
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
$5.95
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.
ISIP ER is priced at $5.95 per student per year.
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.
ISIP ER assessment packages includes online assessment, data hosting, reporting, teacher resources, online training center, user and manuals.

Administration

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

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

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

Does the program require technology?

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

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

What is the administration context?
selected
selected    If small group, n=
selected    If large group, n=
selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

What is the administration time?
Time in minutes
30
per (student/group/other unit)
student/group

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

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

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?
not selected
not selected
not selected
selected
If other, please specify:
Adaptive test stopping criteria based on minimized standard error of measurement

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:
1 -4 hours of training.
Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
Paraprofessional or professional
not selected No minimum qualifications
Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials field-tested?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?
Yes
If No, please describe training costs:
Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes
If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:
By email and phone (M-F 7am-6:30pm, CST)

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
selected IRT-based score
not selected Age equivalents
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents
not selected Developmental benchmarks
not selected Developmental cut points
not selected Equated
not selected Probability
selected Lexile score
not selected Error analysis
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.
Ability scores are estimated using Bayesian EAP with an informative prior under a 2 PL unidimensional IRT model. Reported scale scores are generated through a linear transformation of the raw IRT-based ability scores. Abilities for each of the subskills (phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, alphabetic decoding, spelling, vocabulary, and comprehension) are estimated separately based on examinee response patterns to the items adaptively administered. An overall ability is estimated after all of the appropriate subtests are given based on the responses from all items
Do you provide basis for calculating slope (e.g., amount of improvement per unit in time)?
No
ACADEMIC ONLY: Do you provide benchmarks for the slopes?
No
ACADEMIC ONLY: Do you provide percentile ranks for the slopes?
No
What is the basis for calculating slope and percentile scores?
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.
Ability scale scores are compared to cut-points determined from nationally representative norming sample to classify students into one of three instructional tiers. The data used for the calibration was based on an ethnically diverse regional sample, including urban and suburban students of varied ability and backgrounds. Annual reviews of item parameters, scoring scaling, and the setting of cut-points is practiced for ISIP.

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 norms for ISIP Early Reading enable teachers, parents, and students to know how their students’ scores compare with a nationally representative sample of children in their particular grade. Norming samples are obtained as part of istation's ongoing research in assessing reading ability. The samples were drawn from enrolled ISIP users during the 2014-2015 school year. Considerable attention was given to ensure the sample was nationally representative of students in Kindergarten through Grade 3 with respect to the demographic variables of age, race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, Special education services, and English language proficiency. Norming establishes the Instructional Tier Goals used to determine Instructional Tiers for each month. Consistent with other reading assessments, istation has defined a three-tier normative grouping based on indices associated with the 20th and 40th percentiles. Students with an index on or above the 40th percentile for their grade are placed into Tier 1. Students with an index below the 20th percentile are placed into Tier 3. These tiers are used to guide educators in determining the level of instruction for each student.
Are benchmarks for minimum acceptable end-of-year performance specified in your manual or published materials?
Yes
If yes, specify the end-of-year performance standards:
Istation establishes Instruction Tier Goals to determine Instructional Tiers for each month of the year. The monthly goals for May or June (determined by each customer) are used as the end-of-year performance goal.
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:
not 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)
Nationwide sample including 30 states
Date
Data collected from 14-15 school year
Size
342306
Gender (Percent)
Male
51.6
Female
48.4
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)
5% of the sample was classified as receiving Special Ed services.

First language (Please describe)


Language proficiency status (Please describe)
Do you provide, in your user’s manual, norms which are disaggregated by race or ethnicity? If so, for which race/ethnicity?
not selected White, Non-Hispanic
not selected Black, Non-Hispanic
not selected Hispanic
not selected American Indian/Alaska Native
not selected Asian/Pacific Islander
not selected Other
not selected Unknown

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

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

Performance Level

Reliability

Grade Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Rating Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.
Cronbach’s (1951) coefficient alpha is typically used as an indicator of reliability across test items within a testing instance. However, Cronboch’s Alpha is not appropriate for any IRT based measure because alpha assumes that all students in the testing instance respond to a common set of items. Due to its very nature, students taking a CAT-based assessment, such as ISIP Early Reading, will receive a custom set of items based on their initial estimates of ability and response patterns. Thus, students do not respond to a common set of items. The IRT analogue to classical internal consistency is marginal reliability (Bock & Mislevy, 1982) and thus applied to ISIP Early Reading. Marginal reliability is a method of combining the variability in estimating abilities at different points on the ability scale into a single index. Like Cronbach’s alpha, marginal reliability is a unitless measure bounded by 0 and 1, and it can be used with Cronbach’s alpha to directly compare the internal consistencies of classical test data to IRT-based test data. ISIP Early Reading has a stopping criteria based on minimizing the standard error of the ability estimate. As such, the lower limit of the marginal reliability of the data for any testing instance of ISIP Early Reading will always be approximately 0.90.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.
Sample derived from the total population of students using the ISIP assessment throughout the 2008-2009 school year. Large sample size ranges from 65,311 to 200,124 students across the United States
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.
Istation derived IRT-based reliability from Classical Test Theory standpoint to Item Response Theory as shown below. X=T+E σ_X^2= σ_T^2+ σ_E^2 ρ_(xx`)= (σ_T^2)/(σ_X^2 )= (σ_X^2- σ_E^2 )/(σ_X^2 )=1- (σ_E^2)/(σ_X^2 ) If X (i.e., in IRT) is standardized, ρ_(XX`)=1- σ_E^2 Since σ_E^2=SE(〖θ)〗^2 in IRT ρ_(xx`)=1-SE(〖θ)〗^2 is used to compute reliabilities.

*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:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Mathes, P., Torgeson, J., & Herron, J. (2016). Istation’s Indicators of Progress (ISIP) Early Reading: Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www.istation.com/Content/downloads/studies/er_technical_report.pdf
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 Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Rating Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.
Predictive Validities were conducted using the Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI) and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) were used as criterion. TPRI is an assessment used in to measure early reading skills in primary grades. ITBS is a standardized measure used to assess students’ reading ability success at grade level. STARR is the testing program for students in Texas public schools. STAAR Reading is the assessment used to determine whether students are successful in meeting the reading standards of their current grade and able to make academic progress from year to year. ISIP ER was developed to measure the skills that are most predictive of students’ future reading success. Since TPRI, ITBS and STAAR Reading are measures of reading ability and often determine students’ grade level success, it is important to understand the predictive validity of ISIP ER; used as a screener, when compared to these assessments.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
Sample is derived from urban school districts in the northeast area of the state of Texas. Sample size ranges from 95 to 3,694.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
The predictive validity study was conducted to determine how well ISIP measures predicted students' performance on other reading tests. The data were collected from one district in the State of Texas in 2007-2008 & 2012-2013 school years. Each student had both ISIP reading ability scores and TPRI, ITBS and STAAR scores. SPSS software was used to conduct the analyses. Pearson Product-Moment correlation analysis, multiple linear regression, and multiple logistic regression were applied for each grade data by using SPSS software.

*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:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Mathes, P., Torgeson, J., & Herron, J. (2016). Istation’s Indicators of Progress (ISIP) Early Reading: Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www.istation.com/Content/downloads/studies/er_technical_report.pdf
Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.
The results of these studies suggest moderate to strong relationships between ISIP ER TPRI, ITBS and STAAR Reading. Our findings also add to the evidence that ISIP Reading measures are predictive of students’ reading success across grades. The ISIP tests can be used as a prediction of how a student will score on TPRI, ITBS and STAAR.
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 Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Rating Yes Yes Yes Yes
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 Functioning (DIF) analysis was conducted by grade level (K - 3) using logistic regression DIF detection analysis by difR package in R software.
b. Describe the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted:
Four DIF factors were investigated: socioeconomic status, gender, race/ethnicity, and special education students.
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.
Using Zumbo & Thomas (ZT) DIF criterion, results showed 97% displayed as A item (negligible or non-significant DIF effect), 2% displayed as B item (slightly to moderate DIF effect), and only 1% displayed as C item (moderate to large DIF effect).

Growth Standards

Sensitivity: Reliability of Slope

Grade Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
Rating Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
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.
Only ISIP ER Tier 3 (students performing seriously lebow grade level and in need of intensive intervention) students are included. Sample size ranges from 6,434 to 8,144 across the United States.
Describe the frequency of measurement (for each student in the sample, report how often data were collected and over what span of time).
The data were collected monthly from August 2016 (Period 0) to May (Period 9) 2017. Each student had all 10 data points.
Describe the analysis procedures.
A structural equation modeling (SEM) framework was applied to estimate the reliability of slope. A growth model with two parallel growth processes was used. To be more specific, two linear growth models were simultaneously modeled. The two parallel growth processes were established by splitting the available time segments into two groups. One group of time segments (Periods 0,2,4,6, and 8) was used to form one linear growth process, and another group of time segments (Periods 1,3,5,7, and 9) was used to form another linear growth process. For each linear growth process, the individual slopes of growth were estimated as factor scores of the latent slope factor. Then, the correlation between individual slopes from the two parallel growth processes was computed as an estimate of the reliability of the growth slope. Mplus software was used. The Spearman-Brown formula was then used to correct the correlation coefficient because each process had only half the available time represented.

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:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Mathes, P., Torgeson, J., & Herron, J. (2016). Istation’s Indicators of Progress (ISIP) Early Reading: Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www.istation.com/Content/downloads/studies/er_technical_report.pdf
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:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Sensitivity: Validity of Slope

Grade Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
Rating Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.
Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics. Please provide documentation showing that the sample was composed of students in need of intensive intervention. A sample of students with intensive needs should satisfy one of the following criteria: (1) all students scored below the 30th percentile on a local or national norm, or the sample mean on a local or national test fell below the 25th percentile; (2) students had an IEP with goals consistent with the construct measured by the tool; or (3) students were non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction. Evidence based on an unknown sample, or a sample that does not meet these specifications, may not be considered.
Describe the frequency of measurement (for each student in the sample, report how often data were collected and over what span of time).
Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.

In the table below, report predictive validity of the slope (correlation between the slope and achievement outcome) by grade level (if relevant).
NOTE: The TRC suggests controlling for initial level when the correlation for slope without such control is not adequate.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published validity studies:
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.
Do you have validity of the slope data that is disaggregated by subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)?

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

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published validity studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Alternate Forms

Grade Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
Rating Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
Describe the sample for these analyses, including size and characteristics:
What is the number of alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty?
If IRT based, provide evidence of item or ability invariance
All items are calibrated by 2PL Unidimensional IRT. Item difficulties range from -3.0 to 3.0 and item discriminations range from 0.2 to 2.5. Items that did not meet these criterions are removed. Mathes, P., Torgeson, J., & Herron, J. (2016). Istation’s Indicators of Progress (ISIP) Early Reading: Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www.istation.com/Content/downloads/studies/er_technical_report.pdf
If computer administered, how many items are in the item bank for each grade level?
ISIP Early Reading’s CAT design allows items for all grades to be pulled from the same item pool by subtest. The amount of items per subtest are in the chart below. Alphabetic Decoding 231 Phonemic Awareness 1021 Comprehension 225 Letter Knowledge 296 Listening Comprehension 559 Spelling 220 Text Fluency 31 Vocabulary 1224
If your tool is computer administered, please note how the test forms are derived instead of providing alternate forms:
Because the ISIP assessment is computer adaptive, the test forms are built at the item level with each student response. The CAT system assigns an initial ability estimate to a student based on their grade to deliver the first item. With each student response to an item the system then selects an item that fits best based on student’s ability estimate using both item discrimination and item difficulty under Unidimensional 2PL IRT model. This continues with each student response to an item. Once the stopping criteria is met (reaching maximum item per subtest, the standard errors of student's ability drops below a preset threshold, or when 4 consecutive items have each reduced the standard error by less than a preset amount), the assessment stops, and a student ability score is reported for each subtest and an overall reading composite score.

Decision Rules: Setting & Revising Goals

Grade Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
Rating Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
In your manual or published materials, do you specify validated decision rules for how to set and revise goals?
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
Rating Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
In your manual or published materials, do you specify validated decision rules for when changes to instruction need to be made?
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.

Disclaimer

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.