easyCBM
Vocabulary

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

easyCBM® is a web-based assessment system that includes both benchmarking and progress monitoring assessments combined with a comprehensive array of reports. The assessments in easyCBM are general outcome curriculum-based measures, or CBMs, which are standardized measures that sample from a year’s worth of curriculum to assess the degree to which students have mastered the skills and knowledge deemed critical at each grade level. All easyCBM reading measures, in which the Vocabulary measure is included, have been developed with reference to the report of the National Reading Panel and developed using using Item Response Theory (IRT). In Grades 2–8, easyCBM provides three Vocabulary screening forms to be used locally for establishing benchmarks and 10 forms in Vocabulary to be used to monitor progress.

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

End-year goal
Short-term skill

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

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

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

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

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

Students in general education
Students with disabilities
English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What dimensions does the tool assess?

Reading

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

Spelling & Written Expression

Global Indicator of Spelling Competence
Global Indicator of Writting Expression Competence

Mathematics

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

Other

Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:

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

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

Acquisition and Cost Information

Administration

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

General education teacher
Special education teacher
Parent
Child
External observer
Other

If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration format?

Direct observation
Rating scale
Checklist
Performance measure
Other

If other, please specify:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What is the administration setting?

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

If other, please specify:

Does the program require technology?

Yes

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

Computer or tablet
Internet connection
Other technology (please specify)

What is the administration context?

Individual

Small group   If small group, n=

Large group   If large group, n=

Computer-administered
Other

If other, please specify:

The easyCBM Vocabulary measures are optimized for online administration, but can also be taken paper/pencil with teachers entering students’ responses into the system after the test has been completed. The measures are designed for group administration (with the number of students limited only by the number of available computers/tablets and adults to supervise the testing environment).

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?

No discontinue rules provided
Basals
Ceilings
Other

If other, please specify:

Training & Scoring

Training

Is training for the administrator required?

Yes

Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:

Less than one hour of training. In year one, there are three training webinars; one is provided at no charge and two cost $225 each.

Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.

Administrators are expected to have basic student management skills and be familiar with using websites.

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:

Help desk via email and phone

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.

Students receive one point for every item answered correctly. The final score is the sum of all items answered correctly on the measure. The Grade 2 easyCBM Vocabulary progress monitoring measures include 12 items while the forms at Grades 3–8 each have a total of 20.

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 authors have approached progress monitoring from two perspectives with respect to (a) goal level sampling from nationally framed standards and (b) scaling. The test format focuses on principles of universal design with individually administered tasks. Scoring practices emphasize objectivity with diagnostic information for teachers and immediate feedback for students. The authors used the report from the National Reading Panel as a reference when they were developing the easyCBM Vocabulary measures. From a scaling perspective, the authors used Item Response Theory (IRT) to design alternate forms so they are comparable. A common-person, common-item equating design was used to scale all items. Approximately 250 students responded to multiple item sets, and each test form contained items common across forms. The equated item scale scores and model fit statistics were used to (a) identify items of similar difficulty, (b) estimate student equated scores, and (c) remove/revise items of poor psychometric quality. The authors then placed the items into final alternate forms for progress monitoring so that each form included items with similar levels of difficulty. The authors generally placed easier items and interspersed common items near the beginning of the form, as many measures are timed, and students would then be assured of a sensitive measure for estimating their ability. N.B. IRT analyses were used to equate the forms but not to make the scales; rather, all outcomes are based on raw scores. See the Technical Manual: easyCBM detailing this process (attached). For all computer-based tests, the student administration is compatible with popular browsers (PC: Chrome, Internet Explorer, and Firefox, Mac: Safari, Chrome, and Firefox). Furthermore, the computer display was optimized for a clear presentation of the item, with large-option buttons to facilitate option selection, and ‘next’ buttons to assure easy navigation in moving forward or backward across questions.

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?

No

If yes, specify the growth standards:

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:

Spring norms based on representative national sample (raw score corresponding to performance at the 50th percentile). Grade 2: raw score of 12 Grade 3: raw score of 19 Grade 4: raw score of 18 Grade 5: raw score of 18 Grade 6: raw score of 19 Grade 7: raw score of 18 Grade 8: raw score of 18 See easyCBM Norms, 2014 Edition (attached).

What is the basis for specifying minimum acceptable growth and end of year benchmarks?

Norm-referenced
Criterion-referenced
Other

If other, please specify:

False

National representation (check all that apply):

Northeast:

New England

Middle Atlantic

Midwest:

East North Central

West North Central

South:

South Atlantic

East South Central

West South Central

West:

Mountain

Pacific

Local representation (please describe, including number of states)

Date

2012-2013

Size

2000 per grade

Gender (Percent)

Male

50%

Female

50%

Unknown

SES indicators (Percent)

Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

Other SES Indicators

Race/Ethnicity (Percent)

White, Non-Hispanic

50%

Black, Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

American Indian/Alaska Native

Asian/Pacific Islander

Other

50%

Unknown

Disability classification (Please describe)

First language (Please describe)

Language proficiency status (Please describe)

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

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

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

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

Note: The authors also developed a set of norms using a stratified random sample of students by gender and ethnicity-race (white female, white male, non-white female, non-white male). Race and ethnicity were aggregated, as the count of students with complete data for both categories was insufficient for disaggregation. In this process, Hispanic students were counted as “non-white” even when lacking a race designation other than “white.”

Reliability

Grade	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating	d	d	d	d	d	d

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

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

Internal consistency was investigated using Cronbach’s alpha, perhaps the most common measure of internal consistency. The authors supplemented these indices with split-half reliability estimates using all possible split-half comparisons. The means of the split-half estimates are reported in the table below.

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

A large sample collected across the country was used for investigation. Measures from each of the Fall, Winter, and Spring test windows were evaluated in Grades 2–8. The proportion of male students across grades varied from 50.8% to 52.4%. Across grades, approximately 3–4% of students identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native; 3–4% identified as Asian; 11–12% identified as Black or African American; 0–1% identified as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 5–10% identified as two or more races; 59–62% identified as White; and 10–16% were unknown or refused to report. These percentages are representative of the general student population in the United States.

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

Item-level data were extracted from the easyCBM database. Correct responses were coded 1 while incorrect responses were coded 0. The psych package in R (an open source system for statistical computation and graphics designed by Northwestern University) was used to calculate both indicators of internal consistency.

*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:

Yes

Provide citations for additional published studies.

The following study is included as an attachment with this submission. Wray, K. A., Alonzo, J., Tindal, G. (2014). Internal consistency of the easyCBM vocabulary measures grades 2–8 (Technical Report No. 1406). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. This technical report documents findings from a study of the internal consistency and split-half reliability of the easyCBM Vocabulary measures, grades 2–8. TechRpt_1406

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

Yes

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

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

Yes

Provide citations for additional published studies.

The following study is included as an attachment with this submission. Wray, K. A., Alonzo, J., Tindal, G. (2014). Internal consistency of the easyCBM vocabulary measures grades 2–8 (Technical Report No. 1406). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. This technical report documents findings from a study of the internal consistency and split-half reliability of the easyCBM Vocabulary measures, grades 2–8. TechRpt_1406

Validity

Grade	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

*Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.

We analyzed the relation between the easyCBM Vocabulary measures (Grades 3-8) and the English Language Arts (ELA) section of the Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA). The widespread use of SBA across the United States makes it an appropriate measure to use for analyzing criterion validity (both predictive and concurrent). It is external to the easyCBM system and is considered a high-stakes assessment, as it is the measure many states are using for their statewide large-scale assessment system.

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

Data for this study came from a convenience sample provided by two school districts in the Pacific Northwest. All students enrolled in school and present during the study in the Fall (September 2014), Winter (January 2015), and Spring (May 2015) were administered the easyCBM assessments. All enrolled students were likewise administered the Smarter Balanced Assessments during the testing window provided by the State in the Spring of 2015. The data set provided by the districts included easyCBM CCSS Math, Passage Reading Fluency, Vocabulary, and Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension (MCRC) as well as Smarter Balanced Math and ELA total scores for students enrolled in Grades 3-8. District 1 provided data for Grades 3-8, while District 2 provided data for Grades 4-8. In addition, District 1 provided demographic information, while District 2 (approximately ¼ the size of the first district) did not. Demographics of the sample are provided in Table 1 Sample Demographics, Study 1, included as an attachment to this submission. Because of the missing demographics from a large proportion of the sample, the percentages for each of the demographic variables are calculated based on the students in the sample whose data included full-resolution demographic information. During data cleaning, data from students who were administered the Alternate Assessment rather than the General Education Assessment were removed from the dataset prior to further analyses. In all, six students each from Grades 4, 6, and 7 and three students from Grade 5 were removed from the dataset in this step. Data from all additional students were retained.

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

We analyzed the data using bivariate correlations and linear regression using the 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.

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.

The following study is included as an attachment to this submission. Alonzo, J. (2016). The relation between Smarter Balanced and easyCBM mathematics and reading assessments. Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 1, 17–35. Access article through http://www.jsard.org/

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

Data from the study support the concurrent and predictive validity of the tool. Correlations between the easyCBM Vocabulary measures and an external measure of ELA suggest that the easyCBM Vocabulary assessments are, indeed, capturing important information about students’ knowledge of vocabulary. The easyCBM Vocabulary measures consistently predict student performance on other measures of ELA/vocabulary.

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

No

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

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Bias Analysis

Have you conducted additional analyses related to the extent to which your tool is or is not biased against subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)? Examples might include Differential Item Functioning (DIF) or invariance testing in multiple-group confirmatory factor models.

Yes

If yes,

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

We ran DIF analyses for all of our Vocabulary measures using the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) procedure with an iterative purification process. Items were evaluated by the delta MH statistic, and assigned letter grades (A, B, or C) based on the recommendation of Holland and Thayer (1988).

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

We conducted DIF analyses for these sub-groups: gender, disability status, and race/ethnicity.

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.

Results indicated the Vocabulary measures are not biased against gender, disability status, or race/ethnicity. At all grade levels, and all seasons, the Vocabulary measures received a grade of “A” in the DIF analyses in all three of the groupings examined. See the attachment included with this submission for the table displaying the results.

Sensitivity: Reliability of Slope

Grade	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

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

Our sample consisted of students who took easyCBM progress monitoring measures during the 2014–2015, 2015–2016, and 2016–2017 school years. Sample sizes varied by grade. All students in the sample were identified by their districts as in need of intensive intervention in the specific skill area targeted by the assessments for which their data were included in this study. Data from this study are a subset of a much larger extant dataset. The larger dataset includes scores for all students in all districts with easyCBM accounts between Fall of 2014 and Spring of 2017. From this larger dataset, we included only those students identified as in need of intensive intervention who had a minimum of 10 assessment scores on a given measure with a minimum of 20 weeks between the first and last assessment occasion.

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

Data were collected every 2–3 weeks over the course of the full school year.

Describe the analysis procedures.

We analyzed the reliability of the slope using two approaches. 1) Pearson Correlation Analysis For each student, assessments were divided into two datasets – odd and even numbered tests, depending on the chronological order in which they were taken. We estimated an Ordinary Least Squares slope of improvement for each dataset and for each student. The tables below summarize Pearson correlation coefficients as a measure of the strength of association between even and odd numbered slopes. 2) Reliability of Slope Reliability of the slope is defined here as the ratio of the true score variance to the total variance. The true score variance is the random slope variance in a mixed-effects growth model (lme4 package; Bates, Maechler, Bolker, & Walker, 2015) in the R software environment (R Core Team, 2018). The total variance is the estimation of total variance of each student’s individual slope of improvement (R Core Team, 2018).

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	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.

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

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

Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.

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

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

Manual cites other published validity studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

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

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

No

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

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

Manual cites other published validity studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Alternate Forms

Grade	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

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

The following numbers of students (by grade) participated in item piloting and IRT scaling: 1,136 (Grade 2); 1,685 (Grade 3); 1,499 (Grade 4); 1,525 (Grade 5); 1,602 (Grade 6); 1,431 (Grade 7); and 1,100 (Grade 8). The sample is a convenience sample. Participating schools were asked to administer the Vocabulary measures to students who were in need of intensive intervention. Inclusion criteria included students whose IEPs or 504 plans specified reading goals, students who had failed to make adequate growth in their Tier 2 interventions, and/or students who scored below the 25th percentile on national norms).

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

At each grade level, there are 10 alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty. The IRT Form Equivalence evidence is presented in the attached technical reports for each grade level.

If IRT based, provide evidence of item or ability invariance

Please see attached item difficulty tables.

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

Although the easyCBM Vocabulary assessments are optimized for online administration, they are not computer-adaptive tests. Rather, they use fixed-forms to control for difficulty across alternate forms.

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 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

In your manual or published materials, do you specify validated decision rules for how to set and revise goals?

No

If yes, specify the decision rules:

What is the evidentiary basis for these decision rules?
NOTE: The TRC expects evidence for this standard to include an empirical study that compares a treatment group to a control and evaluates whether student outcomes increase when decision rules are in place.

Decision Rules: Changing Instruction

Grade	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

In your manual or published materials, do you specify validated decision rules for when changes to instruction need to be made?

No

If yes, specify the decision rules:

What is the evidentiary basis for these decision rules?
NOTE: The TRC expects evidence for this standard to include an empirical study that compares a treatment group to a control and evaluates whether student outcomes increase when decision rules are in place.