i-Ready Literacy Tasks
Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

The i‑Ready Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters measures a student’s ability to quickly and accurately name familiar items—in this case, letter names. Automaticity in recognizing and verbalizing familiar information is strongly linked to later reading success, particularly for students in the early grades. For this task, students verbally name letters presented by the educator using a printed student form. Six benchmark forms are available, with placement levels spanning from grade K spring through grade 3 spring.

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 skills does the tool screen?

Reading

Phonological processing:

RAN
Memory
Awareness
Letter sound correspondence
Phonics
Structural analysis

Word ID

Accuracy
Speed

Nonword

Accuracy
Speed

Spelling

Accuracy
Speed

Passage

Accuracy
Speed

Reading comprehension:

Multiple choice questions
Cloze
Constructed Response
Retell
Maze
Sentence verification
Other (please describe):

Listening comprehension:

Multiple choice questions
Cloze
Constructed Response
Retell
Maze
Sentence verification
Vocabulary
Expressive
Receptive

Mathematics

Global Indicator of Math Competence

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Early Numeracy

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematics Concepts

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematics Computation

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematic Application

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Fractions/Decimals

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Algebra

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Geometry

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Other (please describe):

Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:

Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters (RAN-L) measures how quickly a student can name aloud eight of the most common letters of the alphabet—either as lowercase or uppercase—when presented in a random order: e, t, S, A, M, o, C, n. These eight letter stimuli exclude frequently reversed or confused graphemes. RAN-L presents an array of 100 letter stimuli in a 5 x 20 matrix on a single printed page and asks the student to name aloud as many as possible within one minute. The student’s score is the number of letters named accurately within that one minute. Measures of rapid automatized naming assess how quickly students process familiar visual information and translate it into verbal responses. Research consistently shows that RAN is a strong predictor of current and future reading performance in early elementary grades and makes a unique contribution to reading outcomes beyond other early literacy skills.

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

Internalizing
Externalizing
Internalizing and Externalizing

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

Acquisition and Cost Information

Where to obtain:

Email Address

RFPs@cainc.com

Address

153 Rangeway Road, N. Billerica MA 01862

Phone Number

800-225-0248

Website

www.curriculumassociates.com

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost

$8.25

Unit of cost

student

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost

$8.25

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.

$8.25/student/year for i-Ready Assessment for reading, which includes Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters (RAN-L) for grades 1–3. i-Ready is a fully web-based, vendor-hosted, Software-as-a-Service application, with the i-Ready Literacy Tasks available as PDFs that are printed from within the i-Ready system. The per-student or site-based license fee includes account set-up and management; unlimited access to i-Ready’s assessment, management, and reporting functionality; plus unlimited access to U.S.-based customer service/technical support and all program maintenance, updates, and enhancements for as long as the license remains active. The license fee also includes hosting, data storage, and data security. Via the i-Ready teacher and administrator dashboards and Success Central support website, educators may access comprehensive user guides and downloadable lesson plans, as well as implementation tips, best practices, video tutorials, and more to supplement onsite, fee-based professional learning. These online resources are self-paced and available 24/7. The Literacy Tasks also have a digital administration feature in which a teacher can score a student in real time using a computer or iPad (rather than scoring the student on paper and inputting scores into i-Ready). Professional learning is required and available at an additional cost ($2,400/session up to six hours). Site-license pricing is also available.

Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.

The document linked below includes considerations and guidance related to the administration of the i-Ready Literacy Tasks, including Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters (RAN-L), for students with specific disabilities. While all decisions about appropriateness of tasks must be made by educators who have access to information about students’ IEPs, 504 plans, or other documented needs, the information in this document may be helpful to include in the decision-making process. We recommend that educators review this document, as well as each task, and apply what they know about their students to determine whether tasks are appropriate. FAQ: i-Ready Literacy Tasks Accessibility and Accommodations Guidance: https://cdn.bfldr.com/LS6J0F7/at/cqftmn8kmf3p5s43sc8w9z2q/iready-faq-literacy-tasks-accessibility-guidance.pdf. The linked documents and resources are housed on our Accessibility & Accommodations Resource Hub (https://www.curriculumassociates.com/access-and-outcomes/committed-to-accessibility/accessibility-in-our-programs), ), along with other helpful accessibility resources such as FAQs, feature overviews, and video demonstrations.

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:

What is the administration setting?

Direct observation
Rating scale
Checklist
Performance measure
Questionnaire
Direct: Computerized
One-to-one
Other

If other, please specify:

Does the tool require technology?

Yes

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

Computer or tablet
Internet connection
Other technology (please specify)

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?

Individual
Small group   If small group, n=
Large group   If large group, n=
Computer-administered
Other

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

2

per (student/group/other unit)

student

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?

No discontinue rules provided
Basals
Ceilings
Other

If other, please specify:

The task administrator is advised to discontinue the RAN Letters task if the student has difficulty identifying the letters correctly. Consider administering the RAN Colors task instead.

Are norms available?

No

Are benchmarks available?

Yes

If yes, how many benchmarks per year?

Three

If yes, for which months are benchmarks available?

Fall, Winter, Spring

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Can 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?

No

Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:

i-Ready Literacy Tasks were intentionally designed with administration guidance that would make it possible for educators to administer with little or no formal training. The Teacher Form for each Literacy Task provides complete instructions, including how to prepare to administer the task, scripts for administering the task, and how to mark and score student responses. Educators should become familiar with this information prior to administering the task for the first time. Various training options are available to educators interested in using the i-Ready Literacy Tasks. Professional learning specialists can visit a district to provide live trainings, with Literacy Task training lengths varying based on the district’s needs and scope of implementation. In many cases, training on the Literacy Tasks is often folded into training on the computer-adaptive i-Ready Inform assessment and i-Ready Personalized Instruction lessons. These trainings are available at additional cost and can also be provided virtually. In addition to live trainings, i-Ready has an asynchronous learning platform known as the Online Educator Learning System. This system, available at no additional cost, features on-demand courses that can help educators understand how to use the Literacy Tasks. Courses include: Getting Started with i-Ready Literacy Tasks: 10 minutes; i-Ready Literacy Tasks Administration and Scoring: 30 minutes. Finally, Curriculum Associates has worked extensively to provide educators with the information they need right within the i-Ready system to administer Literacy Tasks with fidelity even with little or no training, although training is always recommended where possible.

Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.

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:

In addition to our no-cost training materials, facilitated professional learning is available for an additional cost if districts/schools have not already purchased a professional learning package. If they have purchased a package, Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters training can be part of that package.

Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?

Yes

If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:

Support is available through dedicated i-Ready Partners (Partner Success Manager, Professional Learning Specialist), unlimited access to in-house technical support during business hours, and self-service resources via Success Central, accessible within the i-Ready platform Self-service materials are available on Success Central and through our Online Educator Learning platform. Materials include guidance documents, recorded webinars, and administration videos with scoring practice options.

Scoring

How are scores calculated?

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

If other, please specify:

The Literacy Tasks also have a digital administration feature in which a teacher can score a student in real time using a computer or iPad (rather than scoring the student on paper and inputting scores into i-Ready). When the digital administration feature is used, all scores are calculated automatically based on the inputs from the individual administering the test.

Do you provide basis for calculating performance level scores?

Yes

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:

On-grade performance level placements. Each form provides placement levels for students in chronological grades 1–3 spring showing whether students are On Level or Below level in Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters. Students who perform On level on the task can be considered proficient in automatized naming of letters based on grade-level expectations in that specific time of year. Students who perform Below may benefit from additional investigation into oral speech and language skills, as well as related neurocognitive areas.

Does your tool include decision rules?

Yes

If yes, please describe.

If the student’s placement level is On, the student is showing proficiency in rapid automatized naming skills, indicating efficient retrieval of phonological information and automatic naming of familiar symbols, in this case letter names. If the student’s placement is Below, the student would likely benefit from additional investigation into oral speech and language skills, as well as related neurocognitive areas.

Can you provide evidence in support of multiple decision rules?

No

If yes, please describe.

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 student’s score for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters (RAN-L) is the number of letters read correctly in one minute. Each RAN-L form consists of 8 common letters randomly presented in an array of 100 letters (20 rows with five letters per row) on a single printed page. As students read the letters aloud, the administrator marks if the student read or skipped a letter on the administrator scoring form (printed form or digital form). The number of letters read correctly can be derived by subtracting the number of incorrectly read or skipped letters from the total letters read. Student errors include omissions, substitutions, or hesitations of more than 3 seconds, while self-correction is scored as accurate.

Describe the tool’s approach to screening, samples (if applicable), and/or test format, including steps taken to ensure that it is appropriate for use with culturally and linguistically diverse populations and students with disabilities.

The Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letter (RAN-L) assesses the skill of quickly and accurately naming letters aloud. Automatized letter naming is an important measure of current alphabet knowledge and predictor of future reading outcomes. The RAN-L task measures a student’s skill in rapidly naming eight of the most common letters, either as lowercase or uppercase. The task requires the student to name letter stimuli on the printed student form. The task is timed at one minute. A student’s raw score is the number of letters correctly named in one minute. Errors include omissions, substitutions, or hesitations of more than 3 seconds, while self-correction is scored as accurate. Each RAN-L form contains the eight letters randomly arranged in a 5 by 20 array, with a total of 100 letter stimuli. Curriculum Associates is dedicated to ensuring the Literacy Tasks are accessible to as many students as possible. To support educators when using the Literacy Tasks, a detailed FAQ is available that includes considerations to keep in mind when providing specific accommodations for English Learners and students with certain disabilities. Please refer to our i-Ready Literacy Tasks Accessibility and Accommodations Guidance: https://cdn.bfldr.com/LS6J0F7/at/cqftmn8kmf3p5s43sc8w9z2q/iready-faq-literacy-tasks-accessibility-guidance.pdf. While all decisions about appropriateness of tasks must be made by educators who have access to information about students’ IEPs, 504 plans, or other documented needs, the information in this document may be helpful to consider as one factor in the decision-making process. We recommend that educators review this document, as well as each task, and consider what they know about their students to determine whether tasks are appropriate.

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Classification Accuracy Fall
Classification Accuracy Winter
Classification Accuracy Spring

RAN/RAS

Classification Accuracy

Select time of year

Fall

Winter

Spring

Describe the criterion (outcome) measure(s) including the degree to which it/they is/are independent from the screening measure.

For grades 1–3, classification accuracy of the i-Ready Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters was evaluated using the Rapid Automatized Naming/Rapid Alternating Stimulus (RAN/RAS) Letters measure (Wolf & Denckla, 2005) as the external criterion. RAN/RAS Letters is a well-established and widely used measure of rapid naming automaticity and is strongly associated with reading fluency and risk for reading difficulties, including dyslexia. RAN/RAS Letters is conceptually and structurally similar to the i-Ready Literacy Task: in both, students name letters as quickly and accurately as possible. The measures differ primarily in scoring and norming conventions: RAN/RAS is age based and the Literacy Task for RAN - Letters is grade based. In addition, RAN/RAS Letters performance is scored based on total completion time, while the Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters is scored based on the number of letters read correctly within one minute. Both tasks assess the same underlying construct: rapid automatized naming. Therefore, RAN/RAS Letters provides a theoretically-aligned and appropriate criterion for evaluating the classification accuracy of the Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters. The use of a concurrent design further minimizes the influence of instructional or developmental changes between administrations. Consistent classification outcomes across the two measures provide evidence that the Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters accurately identifies students’ rapid naming performance and is appropriate for screening purposes. Wolf, M. & Denckla, M.B. (2005). RAN/RAS Rapid Automatized Naming and Rapid Alternating Stimulus Tests Examiner's Manual. Pro-ed. Available at https://www.proedinc.com/Products/10435/ranras-rapid-automatized-naming-and-rapid-alternating-stimulus-tests.aspx

Do the classification accuracy analyses examine concurrent and/or predictive classification?

Concurrent
Predictive

Describe when screening and criterion measures were administered and provide a justification for why the method(s) you chose (concurrent and/or predictive) is/are appropriate for your tool.

Classification accuracy evaluates the degree of similarity in the classification results of two different measures. In this analysis, the Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized – Letters and the RAN/RAS Letters scores are compared to determine if students would be grouped similarly by both measures. Data for these analyses were collected through special studies conducted in winter and spring of the 2022-2023 academic year and fall of the 2023-2024 academic year. Schools were recruited to participate and administer both measures to students. The fall sample contained students from three school districts across three states representing the South, Midwest, and West regions of the U.S. The winter and spring samples contained students from three school districts across two states representing the South and Northeast regions. Because both measures are used to identify students with reading difficulties, a concurrent method for classification analyses is appropriate. Concurrent classification accuracy is often considered better given that data are collected at the same time, reducing the impact of external factors. Therefore, similar classifications would indicate the Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters is an appropriate measure.

Describe how the classification analyses were performed and cut-points determined. Describe how the cut points align with students at-risk. Please indicate which groups were contrasted in your analyses (e.g., low risk students versus high risk students, low risk students versus moderate risk students).

Classification analyses were conducted by dichotomizing scores on the Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters and the external criterion measure, the Rapid Automatized Naming/Rapid Alternating Stimulus (RAN/RAS) Letters task (Wolf & Denckla, 2005). The RAN/RAS Letters task classifies students into seven performance categories based on age‑based national norms, with the Below Average category corresponding to approximately the 10th to 23rd 18th percentile. Consistent with NCII guidance defining at risk performance as falling between the 10th and 20th percentiles and clinical and special education protocols, the standard score of 85 or lower on the RAN/RAS which falls in the Below Average category was used to identify at risk students, while students with a standard score of 86 or above were considered not at risk. Scores on the Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters are based on the number of letters named correctly within one minute and are interpreted using established benchmark cut scores that classify students as Below Level or On Level. For classification accuracy analyses, i‑Ready Inform scores were dichotomized by assigning students performing Below Level to the at‑risk group and students performing On Level to the low‑to‑moderate risk group. Classification analyses contrasted at‑risk versus not‑at‑risk students across the two measures to evaluate the extent to which the Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters identifies students with weak rapid naming performance as defined by the externally normed RAN/RAS Letters criterion. Please note, these tasks were not administered in grade 1 during the fall study, thus analyses could not be conducted for grade 1 fall.

Were the children in the study/studies involved in an intervention in addition to typical classroom instruction between the screening measure and outcome assessment?

No

If yes, please describe the intervention, what children received the intervention, and how they were chosen.

Cross-Validation

Has a cross-validation study been conducted?

No

If yes,

Select time of year.

Fall

Winter

Spring

Describe the criterion (outcome) measure(s) including the degree to which it/they is/are independent from the screening measure.

Do the cross-validation analyses examine concurrent and/or predictive classification?

Concurrent
Predictive

Describe when screening and criterion measures were administered and provide a justification for why the method(s) you chose (concurrent and/or predictive) is/are appropriate for your tool.

Describe how the cross-validation analyses were performed and cut-points determined. Describe how the cut points align with students at-risk. Please indicate which groups were contrasted in your analyses (e.g., low risk students versus high risk students, low risk students versus moderate risk students).

Were the children in the study/studies involved in an intervention in addition to typical classroom instruction between the screening measure and outcome assessment?

If yes, please describe the intervention, what children received the intervention, and how they were chosen.

---

Classification Accuracy - Fall

Evidence	Grade 2	Grade 3
Criterion measure	RAN/RAS	RAN/RAS
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	18	18
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	86	86
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	65	78
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	49	64
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	43	34
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	10	9
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	172	116
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.87	0.90
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.81	0.85
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.93	0.95

Statistics	Grade 2	Grade 3
Base Rate	0.22	0.33
Overall Classification Rate	0.81	0.81
Sensitivity	0.83	0.88
Specificity	0.80	0.77
False Positive Rate	0.20	0.23
False Negative Rate	0.17	0.12
Positive Predictive Power	0.53	0.65
Negative Predictive Power	0.95	0.93

Sample	Grade 2	Grade 3
Date	Fall 2023 screening and criterion	Fall 2023 screening and criterion
Sample Size	274	223
Geographic Representation	East North Central (OH) East South Central (AL) Mountain (CO)	East North Central (OH) East South Central (AL) Mountain (CO)
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Winter

Evidence	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Criterion measure	RAN/RAS	RAN/RAS	RAN/RAS
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	18	18	18
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	86	86	86
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	58	70	89
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	37	25	44
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	31	10	67
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	8	8	6
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	156	62	135
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.91	0.85	0.85
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.85	0.76	0.78
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.97	0.93	0.92

Statistics	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Base Rate	0.19	0.31	0.20
Overall Classification Rate	0.83	0.83	0.71
Sensitivity	0.82	0.76	0.88
Specificity	0.83	0.86	0.67
False Positive Rate	0.17	0.14	0.33
False Negative Rate	0.18	0.24	0.12
Positive Predictive Power	0.54	0.71	0.40
Negative Predictive Power	0.95	0.89	0.96

Sample	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Date	Winter 2023 screening and criterion	Winter 2023 screening and criterion	Winter 2023 screening and criterion
Sample Size	232	105	252
Geographic Representation	East South Central (AL) New England (MA)	East South Central (AL) New England (MA)	East South Central (AL) New England (MA)
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Spring

Evidence	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Criterion measure	RAN/RAS	RAN/RAS	RAN/RAS
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	18	18	18
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	86	86	86
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	64	74	90
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	27	15	28
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	38	15	55
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	7	6	8
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	158	71	160
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.87	0.86	0.84
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.78	0.76	0.76
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.95	0.96	0.93

Statistics	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Base Rate	0.15	0.20	0.14
Overall Classification Rate	0.80	0.80	0.75
Sensitivity	0.79	0.71	0.78
Specificity	0.81	0.83	0.74
False Positive Rate	0.19	0.17	0.26
False Negative Rate	0.21	0.29	0.22
Positive Predictive Power	0.42	0.50	0.34
Negative Predictive Power	0.96	0.92	0.95

Sample	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Date	Spring 2023 screening and criterion	Spring 2023 screening and criterion	Spring 2023 screening and criterion
Sample Size	230	107	251
Geographic Representation	East South Central (AL) New England (MA)	East South Central (AL) New England (MA)	East South Central (AL) New England (MA)
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Reliability

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Rating

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

We provide three types of reliability to support the Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters forms. The first method, coefficient alpha (Cronbach Alpha) reliability, assesses internal consistency. This method is often used to demonstrate internal consistency of items in educational tests. For this measure, the items are each letter on the form, and the maximum possible score is the total number of letters on the form. The total number of letters read correctly within one minute is the overall score. For each item (letter), a student’s correct or incorrect response and overall score are used in the calculation. Because Literacy Tasks are timed assessments and the formula for coefficient alpha does not account for response time with respect to accuracy, coefficients should be interpreted with caution. The second method, concurrent alternate form reliability, compares the similarity in scores across two forms. Concurrent alternate form reliability analysis evaluates the consistency or stability of scores obtained from two different forms administered to the same student on the same day. The third method, delayed alternate form reliability, compares the similarity in scores across two forms administered during different testing windows. Delayed alternate form reliability evaluates the consistency of student scores obtained from two forms administered at different points in time. This is similar to a test-retest analysis; however, the saliency of the forms precludes the use of the same form during a second testing window. Consistency in scores across forms is important because forms are constructed based on the same content requirements and to be of similar difficulty.

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

The samples for the reliability analyses were distinct for each analysis. The sample for the coefficient alpha analyses consisted of students tested in winter 2025. These analyses leveraged user data from the ordinary administration of the i-Ready Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters in districts and schools that chose to administer it through digital administration. The grade 1-3 samples included 10,000 to 12,000 students per grade level, from 23 to 31 districts across 3-5 states. The samples generally represented the South, Midwest, and West regions of the United States. Concurrent alternate form reliability study data were collected through a special study conducted in spring 2023. Schools participating in the study administered an additional form to each student immediately following the first form on the same day. The grade 1-3 samples included students in the Northeast, Midwest, and South regions. The grade 1 sample included 156 students from five schools across three states; the grade 2 sample included 145 students from four schools across four states; and the grade 3 sample included 143 students from four schools across three states. Delayed alternate form reliability evaluates the consistency of student scores on the same task in adjacent administration windows, such as fall compared to winter or winter compared to spring. These analyses were based on user data from the ordinary administration of the Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters during the winter and spring 2024–2025 test administration windows. Delayed alternate form reliability requires matching students across administration windows. The grade 1 sample included 11,351 students from 105 districts across 13 states and the grade 3 sample included 2,856 students from 59 districts across 7 states. Each sample included students from public and private schools and represented all major regions in the U.S.

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

Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters items are the letters on the form, and the maximum possible score is the total number of letters on the form. For each item (letter), a student’s correct or incorrect response and overall score are used in the calculation. For each form, coefficient alpha is derived from the item-total correlation for each item, the average covariance between items, and the average total variance. Because Literacy Tasks are timed assessments and the formula for coefficient alpha does not account for response time with respect to accuracy, caution is recommended when interpreting the coefficients. Pearson correlations were calculated to determine concurrent alternate form reliability and delayed alternate form reliability. Because the task is used to establish performance benchmarks three times during the year, establishing the consistency with which forms measure the same construct is important. Results reported include Cronbach Alpha, concurrent alternate form reliability, and delayed alternate form reliability, with the lower and upper 95% confidence interval.

*In the table(s) below, report the results of the reliability analyses described above (e.g., internal consistency or inter-rater reliability coefficients).

Type of	Subgroup	Informant	Age / Grade	Test or Criterion	n	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	Subgroup	Informant	Age / Grade	Test or Criterion	n	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
Rating

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

Validity evidence for the i Ready Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters is based on relationships with scores from two widely used assessments of related reading constructs. We selected the Rapid Automatized Naming/Rapid Alternating Stimulus (RAN/RAS) Letters measure (Wolf and Denckla, 2005) as the primary external criterion for concurrent validity because RAN/RAS tasks are commonly used to assess automaticity in accessing and verbalizing familiar symbols and are well established as indicators of reading fluency and risk for reading difficulties. Concurrent analyses examined the relationship between performance on the Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters and the external RAN/RAS Letters measure administered within the same testing window. Predictive validity evidence was examined using the i Ready Inform for reading overall scale score as the criterion measure. i-Ready Inform for reading is a valid and reliable computer adaptive assessment aligned to state standards and designed to measure foundational reading skills and comprehension. Because rapid automatized naming reflects underlying processes that support efficient reading development, performance on the Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters is expected to predict later reading outcomes. Although both i-Ready Inform and Literacy Tasks are produced by Curriculum Associates, they are distinct instruments with no shared items. They use different measurement models, consistent with TRC requirements for establishing validity evidence using two measures from the same vendor. Together, relationships with an external RAN/RAS measure and subsequent performance on i-Ready Inform for reading provide evidence supporting the validity of the Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters.

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

The Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters and Rapid Automatized Naming/Rapid Alternating Stimulus (RAN/RAS) Letters were administered as part of special studies conducted in winter and fall of 2023. Trained educators at participating schools administered both measures to students in grades 1–3. The grade 1 sample was collected in winter 2023 and included 232 students from two states capturing the South and Northeast. The grade 2 and 3 samples were collected in fall 2023 and included 274 grade 2 students and 223 grade 3 students. The sample included students in two states representing the South and Northeast. Personally identifiable student information was not collected for these studies, and demographic characteristics other than grade level were not available for these samples. The predictive validity analyses leveraged naturally occurring data from districts that administered the Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters during the winter 2025 testing window and the i‑Ready Inform for reading during the spring 2025 testing window. The predictive validity sample for grade 1 included 44,292 students, the grade 2 sample included 28,123 students, and the grade 3 sample included 27,880 students. These samples included students from public and private schools across 126-199 districts and 18-20 states, representing all major regions of the U.S. Demographic characteristics other than grade level were not analyzed as part of these validity studies due to a high rate of missing data.

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

Concurrent validity analyses were conducted using a representative sample of students with scores on the Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters and the Rapid Automatized Naming and Rapid Automatized Stimulus Test (RAN/RAS). Pearson correlation coefficients and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Strong conceptual alignment between the two RAN measures supported expectations of positive correlations, although differences in scoring frameworks—age‑based norms for the RAN/RAS versus grade‑based interpretation for Rapid Automatized Naming—were expected to slightly attenuate observed associations. Additional analyses examined relations between the Literacy Task for Rapid Automatized Naming – Letters and the i‑Ready Inform for reading overall score, a broad measure of reading achievement with a strong emphasis on comprehension. Because i-Ready Inform for reading assesses more distal reading outcomes than rapid naming, its relationship with RAN was expected to be weaker than that observed with the RAN/RAS. Accordingly, moderate correlations were anticipated for both concurrent and predictive validity analyses. All reported results include Pearson correlation coefficients with lower and upper 95% confidence intervals.

*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	Subgroup	Informant	Age / Grade	Test or Criterion	n	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.

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	Subgroup	Informant	Age / Grade	Test or Criterion	n	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
Rating	Not Provided	Not Provided	Not Provided

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.