Acadience Reading K-6 (aka DIBELS Next®)
Nonsense Word Fluency - Correct Letter Sounds (NWF-CLS)

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) is a brief, direct measure of the alphabetic principle and basic phonics. NWF assesses knowledge of basic letter-sound correspondences and the ability to blend letter sounds into consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) and vowel-consonant (VC) words. The test items used for NWF are phonetically regular make-believe (nonsense or pseudo) words. To successfully complete the NWF task, students must rely on their knowledge of letter-sound correspondences and how to blend sounds into whole words. Following a model and a practice item, the student is presented with a sheet of randomly ordered VC and CVC nonsense words (e.g., dif, ik, nop). Standardized directions are used to ask the student to read the make-believe words the best they can, reading either the whole word or saying any sounds they know. Correct Letter Sounds (CLS) is the number of letter sounds produced correctly in 1 minute. For example, if the student reads dif as /d/ /i/ /f/ the score for Correct Letter Sounds is 3.

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?

No

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:

If the student does not say any correct letter sounds in the first row, the assessment is discontinued and a score of 0 is recorded.

Training & Scoring

Training

Is training for the administrator required?

Yes

Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:

Approximately 2-4 hours to cover foundations of Acadience Reading, as well as administration and scoring of Nonsense Word Fluency.

Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.

Paraprofessional-level training and adequate training on administration and scoring of Nonsense Word Fluency.

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:

Acadience Learning: Customer support is available from 8:00am to 5:00pm PST, Monday through Friday by phone, email, or through Acadience Learning's website; Voyager Sopris: Customer support is available 8:00am to 6:00pm CST, Monday through Friday by phone, email, or through the Voyager Sopris website.

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.

The assessor shows a page of nonsense words (VC and CVC) to the student and the student reads them aloud. The Correct Letter Sounds (CLS) score is the number of correct letter sounds the student reads in 1 minute. The student receives 1 point for each correct letter sound read in isolation or as part of a nonsense word in 1 minute. As the student responds during the assessment, the assessor underlines each correct letter sound the student says either in isolation or blended together. For CLS, the assessor scores the student's final answer. Separate underlines are used to indicate reading sound-by-sound and a continuous underline is used to indicate blending together two or three sounds. The assessor marks a slash (/) through any incorrect sounds. The assessor leaves omitted sounds blank. When a student is reading sound-by-sound, assessors leave blank any inserted letter sounds. When the student is reading word-by-word, assessors slash the underline to indicate any inserted letter sounds. The assessor marks an "sc" above any letter sound that had been previously slashed and was self- corrected within 3 seconds. The assessor then will count that letter sound as correct. The assessor should draw a line through any row the student skips and not count the row when scoring. At the end of 1 minute, the assessor places a bracket after the last letter sound produced (even if it’s in the middle of a nonsense word), says Stop, and stops the stopwatch. If the student completes the assessment before 1 minute, the assessor should stop testing and record the student’s score. Scores are not prorated. The assessor should make a note in the scoring booklet about any patterns in student responses that were not captured by the marking procedures. To get the final score, the assessor records the total number of correct letter sounds (CLS) on the Total Correct Letter Sounds line of the NWF scoring page and also records that score in the appropriate box on the front page of the scoring booklet.

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?

No

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.

The Acadience Reading K-6 measures were designed to be economical and efficient indicators of a student's progress toward achieving a general outcome such as reading or phonemic awareness and to be used for both benchmark assessment and progress monitoring. Progress monitoring refers to the more frequent testing of students who may be at risk for future reading difficulty on the skill areas in which they are receiving instruction, to ensure that they are making adequate progress. Progress monitoring can be conducted using grade-level or out-of-grade materials, depending on the student's needs. Decisions about the skill areas and levels to monitor are made at the individual student level. Students who are receiving additional support should be monitored for progress more frequently to ensure that the instructional support being provided is helping them get back on track. Monitoring may occur once per month, once every two weeks, or as often as once per week. In general, students who need the most intensive instruction are monitored for progress most frequently. Progress monitoring materials contain alternate forms of the same measures administered during benchmark assessment. Each alternate form is of equivalent difficulty. Not all students will need progress monitoring. Progress monitoring materials are organized by measure, since students who need progress monitoring will typically be monitored on specific measures related to the instruction they are receiving, rather than on every measure for that grade. Material selected for progress monitoring must be sensitive to growth, yet still represent an ambitious goal. The standardized procedures for administering an Acadience Reading K-6 measure may apply when using Acadience Reading K-6 for progress monitoring. Progress monitoring data should be graphed and readily available to those who teach the student. An aimline should be drawn from the student's current skill level (which may be the most recent benchmark assessment score) to the goal. Progress monitoring scores can then be plotted over time and examined to determine whether they indicate that the student is making adequate progress (i.e. fall above or below the aimline). The Acadience Reading K-6 assessments were designed to support students of varied backgrounds. Acadience Reading K-6 is appropriate for most students for whom an instructional goal is to learn to read in English. For English language learners who are learning to read in English, Acadience Reading K-6 is appropriate for assessing and monitoring progress in acquisition of early reading skills.

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:

Using Acadience Reading Pathways of Progress, the growth standards depend on the student's beginning of year performance relative to students with similar levels of initial skills, i.e., student performance is only compared to other students who have the same beginning of year score. Student scores above the 80th percentile are considered Well Above Typical progress. Student scores between the 60th and 79th percentile are considered Above Typical progress.Student scores between the 40th and 59th percentile are considered Typical progress. Student scores between the 20th and 39th percentile are considered Below Typical progress. And student scores below the 20th percentile are considered Well Below Typical progress.

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:

Three primary end-of-year performance standards are specified: Well Below Benchmark, Below Benchmark, and At or Above Benchmark. These standards are used to indicate increasing odds of achieving At or Above Benchmark status at the next benchmark administration. NWF is administered to second grade students at the beginning of the year only to check against the first grade end-of-year performance level goal; i.e., there are no end-of-year benchmark goals for second grade. Progress monitoring of NWF in second grade is only recommended for out- of-grade level progress monitoring. End-of-year benchmarks goals and cut points for risk: Kindergarten Benchmark Goal: 28, Cut point: 15; Grade 1 Benchmark Goal: 58, Cut point: 47. Grade 2 is only administered at the beginning of year. Grade 2 Benchmark Goal: 54, Cut point: 35.

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)

The percentile ranks for the Acadience Reading national norms are based on a large national sample of school children across the United States. Data from the 2014-2015 school year were exported from three separate data management systems and combined into one data set. The final combined sample included approximately 2,765,000 students from 8,805 schools within 2,211 school districts in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, representing every census region in the United States. Thirty five percent of schools were located in cities, 26% were located in suburbs, 12% were located in towns, and 27% were located in rural areas.

Date

2018

Size

2,748,243

Gender (Percent)

Male

52%

Female

48%

Unknown

0%

SES indicators (Percent)

Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

60%

Other SES Indicators

Race/Ethnicity (Percent)

White, Non-Hispanic

45.63%

Black, Non-Hispanic

16.32%

Hispanic

29.25%

American Indian/Alaska Native

1.69%

Asian/Pacific Islander

3.22%

Other

3.53%

Unknown

0%

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 Acadience Reading K-6 benchmark goals provide targeted levels of skill that students need to achieve by specific points in time in order to be considered to be making adequate progress. The Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE; Williams, 2001), a high- quality, nationally norm-referenced assessment, was used as an external criterion in the Benchmark Goal Study. In the Benchmark Goal Study, the 40th percentile at or above the GRADE Total Test Raw Score was used as one approximation of adequate reading skill. The intent is to develop generalizable benchmark goals and cut points that are relevant and appropriate for a wide variety of reading outcomes, across a wide variety of states and regions, and for diverse groups of students. The principle vision for Acadience Reading K-6 is a step-by-step vision. Student skills at or above benchmark at the beginning of the year put the odds in favor of the student achieving the middle-of-year benchmark goal. In turn, students with skills at or above benchmark in the middle of the year have the odds in favor of achieving the end-of-year benchmark goal. Finally, students with skills at or above benchmark at the end of the year have odds in favor of having adequate reading skills on a wide variety of external measures of reading proficiency. The fundamental logic for developing the benchmark goals and cut points for risk was to begin with the external outcome goal and work backward in that step-by- step system. We first obtained an external criterion measure (the GRADE Total Test Raw Score) at the end of the year with a level of performance that would represent adequate reading skills (the GRADE Total Test Raw Score at the 40th percentile rank). Next we specified the benchmark goal and cut point for risk for end-of-year NWF CLS with respect to the end-of-year external criterion. Then, using the NWF CLS end-of-year goal as an internal criterion, we established the benchmark goals and cut points for risk for middle-of-year NWF CLS. Finally, we established the benchmark goals and cut points for risk for beginning-of-year NWF CLS using the middle-of-year NWF CLS goal as an internal criterion (see pp. 44-78) of the Acadience Reading K-6 Technical Manual.

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

Reliability

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2
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.

Reliability refers to the relative stability with which a test measures the same skills across minor differences in conditions. Three types of reliability are reported in the table below, alternate-form reliability, alpha, and inter-rater reliability. Alternate-form reliability is the correlation between different measures of the same early literacy skills. The coefficient reported is the average correlation among alternate forms of the measure. High alternate-form reliability coefficients suggest that these multiple forms are measuring the same construct. Coefficient alpha is a measure of reliability that is widely used in education research and represents the proportion of true score to total variance. Alpha incorporates information about the average inter-test correlation as well as the number of tests. Inter-rater reliability indicates the extent to which results generalize across assessors. The inter-rater reliability estimates reported here are based on two independent assessors simultaneously scoring student performance during a single test administration (“shadow-scoring”). The two raters’ scores were then correlated.

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

Alternate form reliability data were collected using progress monitoring data across the entire year, with pairwise correlations calculated for each individual week. The reported coefficient is the median correlation between each pairwise comparison across weeks. The correlations were developed on a final sample of 8,493 students. Inter-rater reliability was collected for first and second grade for 50 students in one school in one school district.

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

Alternate-form reliability is reported as the average correlation among alternate forms of the same test. Alternate-form reliability forms for NWF CLS were given after an approximate two-week delay after middle-of-year benchmark assessment. Coefficient alpha treats each of the tests as separate indicators and is calculated using the alternate form reliability, where the number of tests is equal to two. Pairwise correlations were performed on a data set that included scores from the administrator of the measure and a shadow scorer, resulting in two scores of the same student performance on the NWF CLS measure at the beginning of the year benchmark assessment.

*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.

Dewey, E. N., Powell-Smith, K. A., Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2015). Acadience Reading K-6 Technical Adequacy Brief. Eugene, OR: Acadience Learning. Powell-Smith, K. A., Good, R. H., Latimer, R. J., Dewey, E. N., & Kaminski, R. A. (2011). DIBELS Next Benchmark Goals Study (Tech. Report No. 11). Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group. Available: https://acadiencelearning.org. Please note that Dynamic Measurement Group is now Acadience Learning and Acadience Reading K-6 is also published as DIBELS Next. Some historical documents use the original company and assessment name.

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	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2
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 criterion used to assess predictive validity was the students' Acadience Reading Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Words Correct scores at the end of the following year. While not an external criterion, the measurement of the criterion takes place at least one year from the measurement of the NWF CLS score and represents a conceptually different measure of reading ability. We believe that this renders ORF Words Correct a sufficiently powerful tool with which to assess validity. To assess concurrent validity for grade K and 1, the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) was used as the criterion. The GRADE is an untimed, group-administered, norm-referenced reading achievement test appropriate for children in preschool through grade 12. The GRADE is comprised of 16 subtests within five components. Not all 16 subtests are used at each testing level. Various subtest scores are combined to form the Total Test composite score. The GRADE Total Test score is comprised of scores across subtests of the GRADE that vary by grade level. In kindergarten, the GRADE Total Test score is comprised of measures that assess phonics and phonemic and phonological awareness. In first grade, the GRADE Total Test score is comprised of measures of word reading, word meaning, and comprehension.

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

The reported predictive validity coefficients were calculated based on a sample of students whose scores were exported from Acadience Data Management and who had at least two years worth of data (so that the time span of at least a year between predictor and criterion could be preserved). This resulted in a final data set that consisted of 234, 092 students in grades K-2 within 2,240 schools and 825 districts in 48 US states. Demographic data is not available for this sample. The GRADE data set included students in third through sixth grade. The total sample size is 677 students from 13 schools within 5 school districts. The sample was drawn from two census regions (Pacific and North Central Midwest).

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

The predictive validity coefficients reported below represent the correlations between NWF CLS in the first year (year 1) and the students' scores on ORF Words Correct at the end of the following year (year 2). To keep NWF CLS as much an external criterion as possible for grades K and 1, CLS scores at the beginning and middle of year were examined, as possible (details below). Predictive validity for grade K is (a) the correlation between middle-of-year NWF CLS in year 1 and end-of-year ORF Words Correct in year 2 and (b) the correlation between end-of-year NWF CLS in year 1 and end-of-year ORF Words Correct in year 2. Predictive validity for grade 1 is (a) the correlation between beginning-of-year NWF CLS in year 1 and end-of-year ORF Words Correct in year 2 and (b) the correlation between middle-of-year NWF CLS in year 1 and end-of-year ORF Words Correct in year 2. NWF is only administered at the beginning of year in grade 2. Therefore, the reported predictive validity coefficient is the correlation between beginning-of-year NWF CLS in year 1 and end-of-year ORF Words Correct in year 2. Concurrent validity is the correlation between the NWF CLS score and the GRADE Total Test score, both administered at end of year. This coefficient represents the extent to which the NWF CLS score is related to important reading outcomes. NWF is not administered at the end of second grade, so concurrent validity could not be calculated.

*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:

Yes

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Dewey, E. N., Powell-Smith, K. A., Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2015). Acadience Reading K–6 Technical Adequacy Brief. Eugene, OR: Acadience Learning. Powell-Smith, K. A., Good, R. H., Latimer, R. J., Dewey, E. N., & Kaminski, R. A. (2011). DIBELS Next Benchmark Goals Study (Tech. Report No. 11). Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group. Available: https://acadiencelearning.org. Please note that Dynamic Measurement Group is now Acadience Learning and Acadience Reading K-6 is also published as DIBELS Next. Some historical documents use the original company and assessment name.

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

The moderate-strong predictive validity correlations that NWF CLS has with the criterion that is separated by an entire year and a conceptually different measure of reading skills (ORF Words Correct) and the moderate concurrent validity correlations of the NWF CLS measure and the GRADE measure provides good evidence for validity.

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.

No

If yes,

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

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

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

Sensitivity: Reliability of Slope

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2
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.

The sample consisted of students who were identified as being "Well Below Benchmark" using the benchmark assessment of Acadience Reading at the beginning of year. Being Well Below Benchmark corresponds to being below the 25th, 20th, 24th percentiles for first, second, and third grades, respectively. Students were only selected if they had a minimum of 15 observations.

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

Progress monitoring data were collected throughout the school year at the discretion of the administering school, but not more frequently than once per week. Any student who had fewer than fifteen progress monitoring assessments was excluded from the analysis.

Describe the analysis procedures.

Reliability of slope was calculated as the ratio of true score variance to observed total variance. The true score variance estimate came from a hierarchical linear model based estimate of the variance in progress monitoring slopes (using the R package lme4), the observed score variance was calculated as the variance of the ordinary least squares slopes created for each student that met the aforementioned inclusion criteria. Confidence intervals were calculated using bootstrap estimation.

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
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.

For the Acadience Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds progress monitoring assessment, we used the Acadience Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct at the end of the subsequent year as the criterion measure. For example, for the validity of the Grade 1 slope, we used the students' ORF Words Correct score at the end of Grade 2. While the criterion is internal in the sense that both the progress monitoring assessment and the criterion are Acadience measures, the criterion is external in the sense that it is distinct and separate from the Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds progress monitoring system. Indeed, there is no shared method variance between the two: (a) the Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds assessment requires a student to read silently nonsense words and provide orally the most frequently occurring letter sound for each of the letters in the word, (b) the Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct assessment requires a student to read a passage aloud accurately and fluently. In addition, there is no overlap of item samples: The nonsense words used for the Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds assessment are completely different and share no overlap with the passages used for the Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct assessment. These requirements (external measures, no shared method variance, no overlap of item samples) serve to ensure a conceptual distance between the slope of Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds and the criterion so there is not artificial overlap. In the reported analysis we increased the length of time between the slope of Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds and the criterion measure by examining the criterion at the end of the subsequent academic year - over 12 months later. So, for example, the validity of slope of progress on first-grade Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds assessment was examined with respect to end of second grade Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct assessment. In sum, we believe that the entire year in between the end of progress monitoring and the criterion, as well as the very different nature of ORF and NWF CLS renders it a sufficiently powerful criterion.

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.

The sample consisted of students who were identified as being "Well Below Benchmark" using the benchmark assessment of Acadience Reading at the beginning of year. Being Well Below Benchmark corresponds to being below the 22nd, 17th, 21st percentiles for first, second, and third grades, respectively. Students were only selected if they had a minimum of 15 observations.

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

Progress monitoring data were collected throughout the school year at the discretion of the administering school, but not more frequently than once per week. Any student who had fewer than fifteen progress monitoring assessments was excluded from the analysis.

Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.

Validity of slope was assessed using the partial correlations between the students' ordinary least squares slope and the criterion, while controlling for the students' ordinary least squares intercept.

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.

The moderate to strong partial correlations that the OLS slopes have with a criterion that is separated by an entire year and a conceptually different measure of reading skills provides strong evidence for validity.

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
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data 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

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	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2
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	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2
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.