iSTEEP
Oral Reading Fluency

Summary

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.

Where to Obtain:
iSTEEP
support@isteep.com
iSTEEP 1302 Waugh, Suite #623 Houston, TX 77019
800-881-9142
www.isteep.com
Initial Cost:
$8.00 per student
Replacement Cost:
$8.00 per student per year
Included in Cost:
Progress monitoring forms are sold by grade level in packets of 100 pages (50 scoring forms and 50 student forms). A total of 50 alternative forms are available for each grade 1-5. Student forms are reusable. A web-based data management system is also available for storing, managing and reporting on student progress. Progress monitoring is one component of the iSTEEP Assessment and data management system that includes screening, intervention and progress monitoring.
Includes standard accommodations for students with disabilities.
Training Requirements:
1 - 4 hours of training.
Qualified Administrators:
Paraprofessionals or professionals
Access to Technical Support:
Support is provided through email, telephone and web.
Assessment Format:
  • Individual
  • Computer-administered
Scoring Time:
  • Scoring is automatic OR
  • 0 minutes per
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Standard score
Administration Time:
  • 1 minutes per student
Scoring Method:
  • Manually (by hand)
  • Automatically (computer-scored)
Technology Requirements:
  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection

Tool Information

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)?
selected
not selected
The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).
not selected Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
not selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
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
selected 10 years old
not selected 11 years old
not selected 12 years old
not selected 13 years old
not selected 14 years old
not selected 15 years old
not selected 16 years old
not selected 17 years old
not selected 18 years old

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

ACADEMIC ONLY: What dimensions does the tool assess?

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

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

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

Other
Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:


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

Acquisition and Cost Information

Where to obtain:
Email Address
support@isteep.com
Address
iSTEEP 1302 Waugh, Suite #623 Houston, TX 77019
Phone Number
800-881-9142
Website
www.isteep.com
Initial cost for implementing program:
Cost
$8.00
Unit of cost
student
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
$8.00
Unit of cost
student
Duration of license
year
Additional cost information:
Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the tool. Provide information on what is included in the published tool, as well as what is not included but required for implementation.
Progress monitoring forms are sold by grade level in packets of 100 pages (50 scoring forms and 50 student forms). A total of 50 alternative forms are available for each grade 1-5. Student forms are reusable. A web-based data management system is also available for storing, managing and reporting on student progress. Progress monitoring is one component of the iSTEEP Assessment and data management system that includes screening, intervention and progress monitoring.
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.
Includes standard accommodations for students with disabilities.

Administration

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

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

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

Does the program require technology?

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

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

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

What is the administration time?
Time in minutes
1
per (student/group/other unit)
student

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

How many alternate forms are available, if applicable?
Number of alternate forms
50
per (grade/level/unit)
Grade Level

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?
selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Can multiple students be rated concurrently by one administrator?
If yes, how many students can be rated concurrently?

Training & Scoring

Training

Is training for the administrator required?
Yes
Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:
1 - 4 hours of training.
Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
Paraprofessionals or professionals
not selected No minimum qualifications
Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials field-tested?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?
Yes
If No, please describe training costs:
Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes
If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:
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
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?
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
selected Standard score
not selected Percentile score
not selected Grade equivalents
not selected IRT-based score
not selected Age equivalents
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents
not selected Developmental benchmarks
not selected Developmental cut points
not selected Equated
not selected Probability
not selected Lexile score
not selected Error analysis
not selected Composite scores
not selected Subscale/subtest scores
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the scoring structure. Provide relevant details such as the scoring format, the number of items overall, the number of items per subscale, what the cluster/composite score comprises, and how raw scores are calculated.
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?
not selected Age norms
selected Grade norms
not selected Classwide norms
not selected Schoolwide norms
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents

Describe the tool’s approach to progress monitoring, behavior samples, test format, and/or scoring practices, including steps taken to ensure that it is appropriate for use with culturally and linguistically diverse populations and students with disabilities.
Progress monitoring 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?
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
not selected Middle Atlantic
Midwest:
selected East North Central
not selected West North Central
South:
selected South Atlantic
selected East South Central
selected West South Central
West:
not selected Mountain
not selected 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?
not selected White, Non-Hispanic
not selected Black, Non-Hispanic
not selected Hispanic
not selected American Indian/Alaska Native
not selected Asian/Pacific Islander
not selected Other
not selected Unknown

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

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

Performance Level

Reliability

Grade Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Rating Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.
Two types of reliability are reported. Alternate form is justifiable given that PM with this assessment relies on equivalence and stability from form to form so this indicator is relevant. 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.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Do you have reliability data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
No

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

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

Validity

Grade Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Rating Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing 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.
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.

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.
Validity coefficients are within an acceptable range given the expected relationship with the criterion measures.
Do you have validity data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
No

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

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

Bias Analysis

Grade Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Rating No No No No No
Have you conducted additional analyses related to the extent to which your tool is or is not biased against subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)? Examples might include Differential Item Functioning (DIF) or invariance testing in multiple-group confirmatory factor models.
If yes,
a. Describe the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias:
b. Describe the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted:
c. Describe the results of the bias analyses conducted, including data and interpretative statements. Include magnitude of effect (if available) if bias has been identified.

Growth Standards

Sensitivity: Reliability of Slope

Grade Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Rating Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
Describe the sample, including size and characteristics. Please provide documentation showing that the sample was composed of students in need of intensive intervention. A sample of students with intensive needs should satisfy one of the following criteria: (1) all students scored below the 30th percentile on a local or national norm, or the sample mean on a local or national test fell below the 25th percentile; (2) students had an IEP with goals consistent with the construct measured by the tool; or (3) students were non-responsive to Tier 2 instruction. Evidence based on an unknown sample, or a sample that does not meet these specifications, may not be considered.
Describe the frequency of measurement (for each student in the sample, report how often data were collected and over what span of time).
Describe the analysis procedures.

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

Type of Subscale Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n
(sample/
examinees)
n
(raters)
Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Do you have reliability of the slope data that is disaggregated by subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)?
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 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Rating Data unavailable 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:
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.

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 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Rating Unconvincing evidence 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 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 Data unavailable 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 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Rating Data unavailable 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.