i-Ready Literacy Tasks
Word Recognition Fluency

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

The i-Ready Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency measures students’ automatic word recognition skills for grade level-appropriate, high-frequency words. Students are asked to read aloud as many of the real words in the task matrix as possible within one minute. The task requires the student to voice their response based on stimuli presented by the educator using a printed PDF student form. Word Recognition Fluency Benchmark Tasks are available for grades K–3 (six forms per grade). Progress monitoring forms are also available at grades K–1 (25 forms per grade).

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:

The i-Ready Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency measures students’ automatic word recognition skills for grade level-appropriate, high-frequency words. Students are asked to read aloud as many of the real words in the task matrix as possible within one minute. Word Recognition Fluency Benchmark Tasks are available for grades K–3 (six forms per grade). The task requires the student to voice their response based on stimuli presented by the educator using a printed PDF student form.

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 Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency for grades K–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, 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. 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). This new feature is currently available at no charge and may incur an additional fee in later years. 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 i-Ready Literacy Tasks, including Word Recognition Fluency, 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:

Guidance provided for educator.

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, Word Recognition Fluency 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 the i-Ready platform and Success Central. 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:

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 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 grade K fall through grade 3 spring showing whether students are Above, On, or Below level in Word Recognition Fluency. Students who perform On or Above level on the task can be considered proficient in their automatic word recognition skills based on grade-level expectations in that specific time of year. Students who perform Below level warrant additional support to accelerate their ability to recognize words with automaticity.

Does your tool include decision rules?

Yes

If yes, please describe.

If the student’s placement level is On or Above, the student is showing proficiency with automatic word recognition and should continue to be supported through grade-level core instruction with a focus on spelling and reading connected text. If the student’s placement is Below, the student would likely benefit from instruction focused on automatic word recognition of HFWs they don’t recognize as well as on grade-appropriate decoding and encoding strategies that will help build a needed foundation for reading with automaticity.

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.

Scoring for Word Recognition Fluency consists of determining the number of words a student reads correctly per minute. The number of words varies by grade level with 36 words for grade K (presented in a 4 by 9 matrix), 55 for grade 1 (5 by 11 matrix), and 84 for grade 2 and grade 3 (6 by 14 matrix) printed on a single page. As students read the words out loud, the administrator marks if the student read or skipped a word on the administrator scoring form (printed form or digital form). The number of words read correctly by the student in one minute is the score. This can be derived by subtracting the number of incorrectly read words or skipped words from the total words student read out loud. Student errors include omissions/skipped items, substitutions, or hesitations of more than 6 seconds in kindergarten or three seconds in grades 1–3, while a 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.

Word Recognition Fluency measures a student’s automatic word recognition skills for grade-level appropriate, high-frequency words. It involves the automatic recognition and retrieval of familiar words from memory, enabling smooth and efficient reading. In early literacy acquisition, this skill can predict students’ future reading performance. Students read aloud as many of the real words in the task matrix as possible within one minute. A student’s raw score is the number of words read correctly in one minute. Student errors include omissions/skipped items, substitutions, or hesitations beyond the limit, while a self-correction is scored as accurate. Each WRF form increases in difficulty based on an algorithm that accounts for both frequency of the word and the word’s readability (considering factors such as the word’s decodability and if there are any silent letters or irregular spellings). The focus on each word’s readability and frequency, rather than relying on frequency alone, accounts for potential differences in students’ backgrounds and thus exposure to different texts and words in their early literacy acquisition years. Scoring guidance permits the task administrator to accept accurate nonstandard student responses as correct as long as they are intelligible. These responses include articulations and pronunciations that may not conform to a specific dialect but can be interpreted as correct based on the student’s articulation pattern. To control for differences in difficulty level, each form followed the same templating and distribution rules, with words selected and ordered on each form based on similar frequency and readability characteristics. Curriculum Associates ensures 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 for educators 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. Specific guidance is provided for untimed accommodations; home language support; accommodations processes for students who are deaf or hard of hearing; accommodations for students who are blind, color blind, or have low vision; considerations for students who are non-verbal, have limited vocalizations, or variances in articulation processes for students who are deaf or hard of hearing; and masking accommodations.

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

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

i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score

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.

i-Ready Inform for reading overall scale score from the corresponding administration window (fall, winter, or spring) served as the criterion measure for classification accuracy. i-Ready Inform for reading is a valid and reliable tool aligned to rigorous state standards across the following domains: Phonological Awareness, Phonics, High-Frequency Words, Vocabulary, Comprehension of Informational Text, and Comprehension of Literature. Although both i-Ready Inform for reading and i-Ready Literacy Tasks are provided by Curriculum Associates, they are separate assessments. The method variance and lack of item overlap are consistent with the TRC requirements for two assessments from the same vendor establishing validity evidence. i-Ready Inform is a computer adaptive assessment that administers on-grade and off-grade level items targeted to students’ interim proficiency. i-Ready Inform scores and placement levels are modeled through item response theory, while the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency is based on classical test theory. Separate samples and criterion established the validity and reliability evidence for i-Ready Inform compared to the validity and reliability evidence for the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency. The i-Ready Inform for reading overall scale score is highly correlated with other measures of reading comprehension; therefore, this was used as an external measure to demonstrate classification accuracy for the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency. Concurrent classification accuracy is often considered better, because data are collected at the same time, reducing the impact of external factors. Therefore, similar classifications would indicate the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency is an appropriate measure.

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, i-Ready Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency and i-Ready Inform for reading overall score are compared to determine if students would be grouped similarly by both measures. Both assessments were administered within the same testing window (fall, winter, or spring) and included students from all U.S. regions, with participants representing 29 to 30 states in each testing window. 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, because data are collected at the same time, reducing the impact of external factors. Therefore, similar classifications would indicate the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency is an appropriate measure. Classification accuracy results for grade K Fall are not available because the cut score on the form is zero, which does not permit these analyses to be conducted.

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).

i-Ready Inform for reading scale scores are linear transformations of logit values. Logits are measurement units for logarithmic probability models such as the Rasch model. Logits are used to determine both student ability and item difficulty. Within the Rasch model, if the ability matches the item difficulty, then the person has a .50 chance of answering the item correctly. i-Ready Inform student ability and item logit values generally range from around -7 to 6. When the i-Ready vertical scale was updated in August 2016, the equipercentile equating method was applied to the updated logit scale. The appropriate scaling constant and slope were applied to the logit value to convert to scale score values between 100 and 800 (Kolen and Brennan, 2014). This scaling is accomplished by converting the estimated logit values with the following equation: Scale Value = 499.38 + 37.81 × Logit Value. Once this conversion is made, floor and ceiling values are imposed to keep the scores within the 100–800 scale range. This is achieved by simply recoding all values below 100 as 100 and all values above 800 as 800. The scale score range, mean, and standard deviation on the updated scale are either exactly the same as (range), or very similar (mean and standard deviation) to those from the scale prior to the August 2016 scale update, which generally allows year-over-year comparisons of i-Ready scale scores. Classification analyses were conducted based on dichotomizing scores for these two measures. In August 2024, national norms for i-Ready Inform were released. In alignment with NCII’s identification of students at-risk, the overall scale score associated with the 20th percentile was used to group students in one of two groups. Using these cut scores, students were classified as at-risk if they scored below the cut score on i-Ready Inform for the given testing window, or not-at-risk if they scored at or above the cut. The i-Ready Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency scores (number of words read correctly within one minute) are aligned to one of three performance levels (Below Level, On Level, or Above Level) based on established cut scores. Data for the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency were dichotomized by assigning students Below Level to the at-risk group and students On Level or Above Level to a low to moderate risk group. Therefore, students scoring in the Below for the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency are likely to score below the 20th percentile of i-Ready Inform for reading overall scale. Kolen M.J. & Brennan R.L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking. Springer, New York, NY.

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 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Criterion measure	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	20	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	362	404	434
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	7	22	33
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	5787	694	689
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	12438	897	671
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	2088	111	87
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	30220	1696	1783
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.80	0.84	0.90
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.79	0.83	0.89
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.80	0.86	0.91

Statistics	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Base Rate	0.16	0.24	0.24
Overall Classification Rate	0.71	0.70	0.77
Sensitivity	0.73	0.86	0.89
Specificity	0.71	0.65	0.73
False Positive Rate	0.29	0.35	0.27
False Negative Rate	0.27	0.14	0.11
Positive Predictive Power	0.32	0.44	0.51
Negative Predictive Power	0.94	0.94	0.95

Sample	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Date	Fall 2024 screening and criterion	Fall 2024 screening and criterion	Fall 2024 screening and criterion
Sample Size	50533	3398	3230
Geographic Representation	East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, ME, NH, VT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, SC, WV) West North Central (KS, MO) West South Central (OK, TX)	East North Central (IL, MI, OH) East South Central (AL, KY, MS, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, VT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (GA, SC, WV) West North Central (MO) West South Central (TX)	East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, TN) Middle Atlantic (NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, VT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (GA, SC, WV) West North Central (MO)
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	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Criterion measure	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	20	20	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	343	389	426	461
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	3	15	41	40
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	319	1095	980	770
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	551	1306	756	586
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	229	281	87	119
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	1918	3213	1801	1788
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.75	0.84	0.91	0.90
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.73	0.83	0.90	0.89
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.77	0.85	0.92	0.92

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Base Rate	0.18	0.23	0.29	0.27
Overall Classification Rate	0.74	0.73	0.77	0.78
Sensitivity	0.58	0.80	0.92	0.87
Specificity	0.78	0.71	0.70	0.75
False Positive Rate	0.22	0.29	0.30	0.25
False Negative Rate	0.42	0.20	0.08	0.13
Positive Predictive Power	0.37	0.46	0.56	0.57
Negative Predictive Power	0.89	0.92	0.95	0.94

Sample	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Date	Winter 2025 screening and criterion	Winter 2025 screening and criterion	Winter 2025 screening and criterion	Winter 2025 screening and criterion
Sample Size	3017	5895	3624	3263
Geographic Representation	East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO) New England (ME) Pacific (CA, OR) South Atlantic (GA, SC, WV) West North Central (MO) West South Central (LA)	East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, ME, VT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, SC, WV) West North Central (MO) West South Central (LA, TX)	East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, MS, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, RI, VT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (GA, WV) West North Central (KS, MO) West South Central (TX)	East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, NV) New England (MA, ME, VT) Pacific (CA, OR) South Atlantic (GA, WV) West North Central (MO) West South Central (LA)
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	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Criterion measure	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	20	20	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	363	408	450	475
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	12	34	51	47
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	614	922	557	368
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	1008	1039	414	383
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	144	112	64	71
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	1772	2464	1217	1024
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.81	0.89	0.92	0.88
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.79	0.88	0.90	0.86
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.82	0.90	0.93	0.90

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Base Rate	0.21	0.23	0.28	0.24
Overall Classification Rate	0.67	0.75	0.79	0.75
Sensitivity	0.81	0.89	0.90	0.84
Specificity	0.64	0.70	0.75	0.73
False Positive Rate	0.36	0.30	0.25	0.27
False Negative Rate	0.19	0.11	0.10	0.16
Positive Predictive Power	0.38	0.47	0.57	0.49
Negative Predictive Power	0.92	0.96	0.95	0.94

Sample	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Date	Spring 2025 screening and criterion	Spring 2025 screening and criterion	Spring 2025 screening and criterion	Spring 2025 screening and criterion
Sample Size	3538	4537	2252	1846
Geographic Representation	East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, WV) West North Central (MO)	East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV, UT) New England (MA) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, SC, WV) West North Central (KS, MO) West South Central (LA)	East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, ME, RI) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (GA, WV) West North Central (KS, MO) West South Central (TX)	East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, MS, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, WV) West North Central (KS, MO)
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	Kindergarten	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 i-Ready Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency. The first method, coefficient alpha (Cronbach Alpha) reliability analysis, assesses internal consistency. This method is often used to demonstrate internal consistency of items in educational tests. For this measure, items are each word on the form, and the maximum possible score is the total number of words on the form. The total number of words read correctly within one minute is the overall score. A student’s correct or incorrect response to each item (word) 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, caution is recommended when interpreting the coefficients. The second method, concurrent alternate form reliability, compares the similarity in scores across two forms. Concurrent alternate form reliability evaluates the consistency or stability of student scores obtained from two 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 words in the forms precludes the use of the same form during a second testing window. Consistency in scores across forms is important because forms are developed 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 testing within a given administration window (fall or winter) during the 2024-2025 academic year. Data from the ordinary administration of the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency in districts and schools that chose to administer it through digital administration were used for the analyses. The kindergarten sample included 423 students from 4 districts in 1 southern state who tested during the winter 2025 window. The grade 1–3 samples completed the task during the fall 2024 testing window and included: 2,086 grade 1 students from 13 districts across 9 states; 46 grade 2 students from 6 districts across 3 states; and 97 grade 3 students from 6 districts across 4 states. The grade 1 sample represented students from the Northeast, South, and West regions of the United States. The grade 2 sample represented the South and West regions, and the grade 3 sample represented the South, West, and Midwest regions of the United States. Concurrent alternate form reliability study data were collected through a special study conducted in winter 2023. Schools were recruited to participate and administer an additional form to each student. The target sample size per task was one hundred students. Educators administered two forms to students, with the alternate form administered immediately following the first form on the same day. The samples included between 186 to 361 students at five to ten schools per grade level and were representative of the general population. The sample included schools in four states from the Northeast, Midwest, and South regions. 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 did not rely on a special study for data collection. Naturally occurring data from the ordinary administration of the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency during the winter and spring testing windows during the 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 testing windows were analyzed. Typically, the form administered for each task in fall is the first form, the second form in winter, and the third form in spring. Delayed alternate form reliability requires matching students across administration windows who took the same task (different form) in more than one administration window within a school year. Because some students are not administered the same task multiple times, the data available to analyze may be limited. We combined data across years to increase sample representation. The kindergarten sample included 4,206 students from 51 districts across 16 states. Grade 1 included 5,952 students from 68 districts in 20 states; grade 2 included 3,443 students from 62 districts in 17 states; and grade 3 included 2,729 students from 51 districts in 15 states. All samples represented each major region of the United States and included students from both private and public schools.

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

For the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency, items are the words on the form, and the maximum possible score is the total number of words on the form. A student’s correct or incorrect response to each item (word) and their 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, as it provides a measure of the direction and strength of the relationship between two variables, in this case, the two forms. 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. The following results 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	Kindergarten	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 Word Recognition Fluency is based on relationships with scores from two widely recognized assessment programs. We selected Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, 8th Edition (DIBELS 8) as the primary external measure for concurrent validity evidence because it is commonly used in United States elementary schools as a universal literacy screener. DIBELS 8 purports to assess component skills involved in reading (DIBELS, 2023). Concurrent analyses were conducted for the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency and DIBELS 8 Word Recognition Fluency. The second source of evidence is with i-Ready Inform for reading overall score. i-Ready Inform for reading is a valid and reliable tool aligned to rigorous state standards across the following domains: Phonological Awareness, Phonics, High-Frequency Words, Vocabulary, Comprehension of Informational Text, and Comprehension of Literature. Although both i-Ready Inform and the i-Ready Literacy Tasks are provided by Curriculum Associates, the method variance and lack of item overlap are consistent with the TRC requirements for two assessments from the same vendor establishing validity evidence. Both are available within the i-Ready platform, but they are completely separate assessments. i-Ready Inform is a computer adaptive assessment that administers on-grade and off-grade level items targeted to students’ interim proficiency estimate. i-Ready Inform scale scores and placement levels are modeled through item response theory, while the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency is based on classical test theory. The two assessments do not share any items. Separate samples and criterion established the validity and reliability evidence for i-Ready Inform compared to the validity and reliability evidence for the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency. Both assessments are typically administered three times during the academic year (fall, winter, and spring). Student performance in fall on i-Ready Inform for reading provides a baseline for students’ current reading performance and is a good predictor of student performance at the end of the year. The i-Ready Inform for reading overall scale score is highly correlated with measures of reading comprehension; therefore, this was used as an external measure to demonstrate validity evidence for the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency forms. University of Oregon (2023). 8th Edition of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS®): Administration and Scoring Guide. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Available: https://dibels.uoregon.edu

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

The Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency and DIBELS 8 Word Recognition Fluency data were collected during special studies conducted in spring and fall of 2023. Trained administrators at volunteer schools administered i-Ready Literacy Tasks and DIBELS 8 Tasks at the same time to a sample of students in grade K through 2. Other than grade level, no personally identifiable student information or demographic characteristics were collected. The kindergarten sample was collected in spring 2023 and included 159 students from two states in the Northeast and South regions of the U.S. The grade 1 and 2 samples were collected in fall 2023 and included approximately 270 students per grade, from three states representing the West, Midwest, and South regions of the U.S. Because the special studies did not include the grade 3 Literacy Task Word Recognition Fluency form, we provide an estimate of concurrent validity for grade 3 between Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency and the i-Ready Inform for reading overall score. We used naturally occurring data from districts that administered both during the winter 2025 testing window. The sample included 3,288 students from public and private schools, representing 70 districts across 22 states and capturing all major regions of the U.S. The predictive analyses for the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency and i-Ready Inform for reading overall score also used naturally occurring data from the winter 2024 testing window and i‑Ready Inform for reading in the spring 2024 window. The kindergarten sample included 2,859 students from 48 districts across 19 states. Grade 1 included 3,338 students from 85 districts in 21 states; grade 2 included 1,349 students from 56 districts in 19 states; and grade 3 included 848 students from 38 districts in 11 states. All samples represented each major region of the United States and included students from both private and public schools.

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

Concurrent analyses required a representative sample of students who completed both the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency and either the DIBELS 8 Word Recognition Fluency or i-Ready Inform for reading. Pearson correlations and the lower and upper 95% confidence interval were calculated. Given the DIBELS 8 Word Recognition Fluency measures similar content to the Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency, a strong, positive correlation is expected. The concurrent analyses are expected to be higher than a predictive analysis because i-Ready Inform for reading was administered at later time. Predictive analyses required a representative sample with Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency scores for winter and i-Ready Inform for reading overall scores for spring. Pearson correlations and the lower and upper 95% confidence interval were calculated. Due to the overall score assessing students across multiple domains, a moderate to highly moderate correlation coefficient is expected. Results provided include Pearson correlations for concurrent and predictive analyses, with the lower and upper 95% confidence interval.

*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	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Rating	Not Provided	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.