Assessing Student Proficiency in Early Number Sense (ASPENS)
Mathematics

Summary

Assessing Student Proficiency in Early Number Sense (ASPENS) is a series of three curriculum-based measures administered for the purposes of universal screening of students’ mathematical proficiency. ASPENS assesses number sense for both kindergarten and first-grade students using grade-appropriate Magnitude Comparison and Missing Number measures, but also adds one additional aspect of mathematical proficiency at each grade level. The Numeral Identification measure is given in kindergarten only while the Basic Arithmetic Facts and Base 10 measure is given to first-graders to efficiently assess more sophisticated aspects of mathematical proficiency. The kindergarten ASPENS measure includes the Numerical Identification, Magnitude Comparison, and Missing Number subtests. Numbers for each subtest range from 0 to 20, and the score is the number of correct responses given in one minute. For the Numeral Identification measure, students are asked to name numbers as quickly as possible. The Magnitude Comparison measure requires students to name the greater of two visually presented numbers. The Missing Number measure is comprised of pages with boxes containing strings of three numbers with the first, middle, or last number of the string missing, and students name the missing number. The first grade ASPENS measure also includes Magnitude Comparison and Missing Number subtests. The tests use the same procedures described above; however, the range of numbers is 0 to 99 for first graders. The Basic Arithmetic Facts and Base 10 measure is added in the middle of first grade to assess recall of basic arithmetic facts. Students are presented problems that contain elements that can be composed or decomposed in the Base 10 system (e.g., 5 + 9 becomes 4 + 10) to assess fact fluency. The score is the number of correct items (1 point for each problem) solved in two minutes

Where to Obtain:
Ben Clarke, Russell Gersten, Joseph Dimino, Eric Rolfhus
ctran@inresg.org
Contact Christopher Tran at Instructional Research Group
(714) 826-9600
Instructional Research Group (www.inresg.org)
Initial Cost:
Free
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.
Included in Cost:
This is a not a commercial screening tool and therefore does not have a formal pricing plan. Contact Christopher Tran at Instructional Research Group (ctran@inresg.org). Costs include reproduction costs only or the minimal costs to prepare and send all the relevant electronic forms. ASPENS materials are available for benchmark and progress monitoring for students in kindergarten and first grade. A Benchmark Manual, Scoring Booklet for the Benchmark Assessments, Progress Monitoring Manual, and Scoring Booklet for the Progress Monitoring Assessments are provided for kindergarten and first grade. Training opportunities are provided by the authors of ASPENS at Instructional Research Group (www.inresg.org). Materials not included but required for implementation include a clipboard, pencil, and a digital timer/stopwatch.
• The use of a marker or ruler to focus student attention on each line of the assessment materials. First try to administer the assessment without a visual aid. If it is determined that the student needs this accommodation, retest the student with an alternate form of the Progress Monitoring Materials. • Student materials that have enlarged print to accommodate students with visual impairments. • The use of colored overlays, filters, or lighting adjustments for students with visual impairments. • The use of assistive technology, such as hearing aids and assistive listening devices, for students with hearing impairments.
Training Requirements:
1-4 hrs of training
Qualified Administrators:
Educational professionals and other school-approved personnel, provided they have received sufficient training on the administration and scoring rules and how to interpret the data.
Access to Technical Support:
Assessment Format:
  • One-to-one
Scoring Time:
  • 2 minutes per student
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Developmental benchmarks
  • Developmental cut points
  • Composite scores
Administration Time:
  • 7 minutes per student
Scoring Method:
  • Manually (by hand)
Technology Requirements:
Accommodations:
• The use of a marker or ruler to focus student attention on each line of the assessment materials. First try to administer the assessment without a visual aid. If it is determined that the student needs this accommodation, retest the student with an alternate form of the Progress Monitoring Materials. • Student materials that have enlarged print to accommodate students with visual impairments. • The use of colored overlays, filters, or lighting adjustments for students with visual impairments. • The use of assistive technology, such as hearing aids and assistive listening devices, for students with hearing impairments.

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:
Assessing Student Proficiency in Early Number Sense (ASPENS) is a series of three curriculum-based measures administered for the purposes of universal screening of students’ mathematical proficiency. ASPENS assesses number sense for both kindergarten and first-grade students using grade-appropriate Magnitude Comparison and Missing Number measures, but also adds one additional aspect of mathematical proficiency at each grade level. The Numeral Identification measure is given in kindergarten only while the Basic Arithmetic Facts and Base 10 measure is given to first-graders to efficiently assess more sophisticated aspects of mathematical proficiency. The kindergarten ASPENS measure includes the Numerical Identification, Magnitude Comparison, and Missing Number subtests. Numbers for each subtest range from 0 to 20, and the score is the number of correct responses given in one minute. For the Numeral Identification measure, students are asked to name numbers as quickly as possible. The Magnitude Comparison measure requires students to name the greater of two visually presented numbers. The Missing Number measure is comprised of pages with boxes containing strings of three numbers with the first, middle, or last number of the string missing, and students name the missing number. The first grade ASPENS measure also includes Magnitude Comparison and Missing Number subtests. The tests use the same procedures described above; however, the range of numbers is 0 to 99 for first graders. The Basic Arithmetic Facts and Base 10 measure is added in the middle of first grade to assess recall of basic arithmetic facts. Students are presented problems that contain elements that can be composed or decomposed in the Base 10 system (e.g., 5 + 9 becomes 4 + 10) to assess fact fluency. The score is the number of correct items (1 point for each problem) solved in two minutes
The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).
not selected Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
not selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
not selected Fourth grade
not selected Fifth grade
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelfth grade

The tool is intended for use with the following age(s).
not selected 0-4 years old
selected 5 years old
selected 6 years old
selected 7 years old
not selected 8 years old
not selected 9 years old
not selected 10 years old
not selected 11 years old
not selected 12 years old
not selected 13 years old
not selected 14 years old
not selected 15 years old
not selected 16 years old
not selected 17 years old
not selected 18 years old

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

ACADEMIC ONLY: What skills does the tool screen?

Reading
Phonological processing:
not selected RAN
not selected Memory
not selected Awareness
not selected Letter sound correspondence
not selected Phonics
not selected Structural analysis

Word ID
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Nonword
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Spelling
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Passage
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Reading comprehension:
not selected Multiple choice questions
not selected Cloze
not selected Constructed Response
not selected Retell
not selected Maze
not selected Sentence verification
not selected Other (please describe):


Listening comprehension:
not selected Multiple choice questions
not selected Cloze
not selected Constructed Response
not selected Retell
not selected Maze
not selected Sentence verification
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Expressive
not selected Receptive

Mathematics
Global Indicator of Math Competence
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Early Numeracy
selected Accuracy
selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
selected Constructed Response

Mathematics Concepts
selected Accuracy
selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
selected Constructed Response

Mathematics Computation
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Mathematic Application
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Fractions/Decimals
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Algebra
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Geometry
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

selected Other (please describe):
Numerical Identification, Magnitude Comparison, Missing Number, and The Basic Arithmetic Facts and Base 10 subtests

Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:
BEHAVIOR ONLY: Which category of behaviors does your tool target?


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
ctran@inresg.org
Address
Contact Christopher Tran at Instructional Research Group
Phone Number
(714) 826-9600
Website
Instructional Research Group (www.inresg.org)
Initial cost for implementing program:
Cost
$0.00
Unit of cost
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
Unit of cost
Duration of license
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.
This is a not a commercial screening tool and therefore does not have a formal pricing plan. Contact Christopher Tran at Instructional Research Group (ctran@inresg.org). Costs include reproduction costs only or the minimal costs to prepare and send all the relevant electronic forms. ASPENS materials are available for benchmark and progress monitoring for students in kindergarten and first grade. A Benchmark Manual, Scoring Booklet for the Benchmark Assessments, Progress Monitoring Manual, and Scoring Booklet for the Progress Monitoring Assessments are provided for kindergarten and first grade. Training opportunities are provided by the authors of ASPENS at Instructional Research Group (www.inresg.org). Materials not included but required for implementation include a clipboard, pencil, and a digital timer/stopwatch.
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.
• The use of a marker or ruler to focus student attention on each line of the assessment materials. First try to administer the assessment without a visual aid. If it is determined that the student needs this accommodation, retest the student with an alternate form of the Progress Monitoring Materials. • Student materials that have enlarged print to accommodate students with visual impairments. • The use of colored overlays, filters, or lighting adjustments for students with visual impairments. • The use of assistive technology, such as hearing aids and assistive listening devices, for students with hearing impairments.

Administration

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What type of administrator is your tool designed for?
not selected General education teacher
not selected Special education teacher
not selected Parent
not selected Child
not selected External observer
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

What is the administration setting?
not selected Direct observation
not selected Rating scale
not selected Checklist
not selected Performance measure
not selected Questionnaire
not selected Direct: Computerized
selected One-to-one
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Does the tool require technology?
No

If yes, what technology is required to implement your tool? (Select all that apply)
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected 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?
selected Individual
not selected Small group   If small group, n=
not selected Large group   If large group, n=
not selected Computer-administered
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

What is the administration time?
Time in minutes
7
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?
not selected No discontinue rules provided
not selected Basals
not selected Ceilings
selected Other
If other, please specify:
Testing for each measure is discontinued after a student misses 5 items consecutively.


Are norms available?
No
Are benchmarks available?
Yes
If yes, how many benchmarks per year?
3
If yes, for which months are benchmarks available?
Beginning, middle and end of the school year.
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?
Yes
Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:
1-4 hrs of training
Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
Educational professionals and other school-approved personnel, provided they have received sufficient training on the administration and scoring rules and how to interpret the data.
not selected No minimum qualifications
Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials field-tested?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?
No
If No, please describe training costs:
Contact Christopher Tran at Instructional Research Group (ctran@inresg.org).
Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
No
If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:

Scoring

How are scores calculated?
selected Manually (by hand)
not selected Automatically (computer-scored)
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Do you provide basis for calculating performance level scores?
No
What is the basis for calculating performance level and percentile scores?
not selected Age norms
not selected Grade norms
not selected Classwide norms
not selected Schoolwide norms
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents

What types of performance level scores are available?
selected Raw score
not selected Standard score
not selected Percentile score
not selected Grade equivalents
not selected IRT-based score
not selected Age equivalents
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents
selected Developmental benchmarks
selected Developmental cut points
not selected Equated
not selected Probability
not selected Lexile score
not selected Error analysis
selected Composite scores
not selected Subscale/subtest scores
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Does your tool include decision rules?
Yes
If yes, please describe.
Testing for each measure is discontinued after a student misses 5 items consecutively
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.
Unit-weighted composite scores were created using the procedure detailed in the ASPENS Administrator’s Handbook. Users multiply the raw subtest scores by a weight and then add the weighted subtests scores together. The unit weighting is accounted for by the multiplication weights assigned to each subtest. The weights for each subtest are based on the standard deviation (SD) of the raw scores for that subtest. The subtest with the largest SD is weighted a 1. The remaining subtests with smaller SDs (i.e., those with lower means and with inherently more difficult items) are given weights greater than 1, in proportion to the subtest with the SD of 1. Details of this approach are provided by Good, Powell-Smith, and Kaminski (2011). We explain this to practitioners as indicating that “raw scores for the subtests are combined, but the subtests are weighted differently before they are combined, with more weight given to measures that are harder for students at a particular age range” (Clarke et al., 2018). Developing benchmark goals and cut-points for risk: Odds of achieving subsequent reading goals. Presentation at pre-DIBELS Summit, Albuquerque, NM. Retrieved July 15, 2011 from http://hprec.org/DIBELS/Summitt2011Presentations/Keynote.pdf Clarke, B., Gersten, R., Smolkowski, K., Haymond, K., Dimino, J. & Sutherland, M. (2018). Exploring the validity and reliability of a screening measure that focuses solely on number knowledge for students in the primary grades. Manuscript submitted for publication.
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 tests are administered one-to-one to help facilitate student performance. Additional approaches ensuring appropriate use of the measure for diverse populations are addressed via training.

Technical Standards

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade Kindergarten
Grade 1
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 1 Fall Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 1 Winter Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 1 Spring Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 2 Fall Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 2 Winter Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 2 Spring Partially convincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available

Classification Accuracy - Criterion 1 Fall

Evidence Kindergarten Grade 1
Criterion measure TerraNova, Third Edition: Math Form G (Same Year) TerraNova, Third Edition: Math Form G (Same Year)
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 15 15
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure 25 21
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure
Classification Data - True Positive (a)
Classification Data - False Positive (b)
Classification Data - False Negative (c)
Classification Data - True Negative (d)
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.82 0.80
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.75 0.74
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.88 0.86
Statistics Kindergarten Grade 1
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Kindergarten Grade 1
Date 2009-2010; 2010-2011 2009-2010; 2010-2011
Sample Size
Geographic Representation    
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Criterion 1 Winter

Evidence Kindergarten Grade 1
Criterion measure TerraNova, Third Edition: Math Form G (Same Year) TerraNova, Third Edition: Math Form G (Same Year)
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 15 15
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure 54 30
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure
Classification Data - True Positive (a)
Classification Data - False Positive (b)
Classification Data - False Negative (c)
Classification Data - True Negative (d)
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.83 0.85
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.77 0.79
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.89 0.91
Statistics Kindergarten Grade 1
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Kindergarten Grade 1
Date 2009-2010; 2010-2011 2009-2010; 2010-2011
Sample Size
Geographic Representation    
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Criterion 1 Spring

Evidence Kindergarten Grade 1
Criterion measure TerraNova, Third Edition: Math Form G (Same Year) TerraNova, Third Edition: Math Form G (Same Year)
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 15 15
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure 90 45
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure
Classification Data - True Positive (a)
Classification Data - False Positive (b)
Classification Data - False Negative (c)
Classification Data - True Negative (d)
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.85 0.84
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.80 0.79
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.90 0.90
Statistics Kindergarten Grade 1
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Kindergarten Grade 1
Date 2009-2010; 2010-2011 2009-2010; 2010-2011
Sample Size
Geographic Representation    
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Criterion 2 Fall

Evidence Kindergarten Grade 1
Criterion measure TerraNova, Third Edition: Math Form G (Next School Year) TerraNova, Third Edition: Math Form G (Next School Year)
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 15 15
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure 25 25
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure
Classification Data - True Positive (a)
Classification Data - False Positive (b)
Classification Data - False Negative (c)
Classification Data - True Negative (d)
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.87 0.87
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.81 0.81
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.93 0.93
Statistics Kindergarten Grade 1
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Kindergarten Grade 1
Date
Sample Size
Geographic Representation    
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Criterion 2 Winter

Evidence Kindergarten Grade 1
Criterion measure TerraNova, Third Edition: Math Form G (Next School Year) TerraNova, Third Edition: Math Form G (Next School Year)
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 15 15
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure 55 28
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure
Classification Data - True Positive (a)
Classification Data - False Positive (b)
Classification Data - False Negative (c)
Classification Data - True Negative (d)
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.88 0.88
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.83 0.84
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.93 0.93
Statistics Kindergarten Grade 1
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Kindergarten Grade 1
Date 2009-2010; 2010-2011 2009-2010; 2010-2011
Sample Size
Geographic Representation    
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Criterion 2 Spring

Evidence Kindergarten Grade 1
Criterion measure TerraNova, Third Edition: Math Form G (Next School Year) TerraNova, Third Edition: Math Form G (Next School Year)
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 15 15
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure 92
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure
Classification Data - True Positive (a)
Classification Data - False Positive (b)
Classification Data - False Negative (c)
Classification Data - True Negative (d)
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.86 0.89
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.81 0.84
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.91 0.94
Statistics Kindergarten Grade 1
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Kindergarten Grade 1
Date
Sample Size
Geographic Representation    
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Reliability

Grade Kindergarten
Grade 1
Rating Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.
Test-retest reliabilities of kindergarten and first-grade ASPENS measures are in the moderate to high range. Test-retest reliabilities provide an estimate of the stability of scores across time.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.
Kindergarten and first-grade students in six elementary schools from fours districts in California and Ohio. Data were collected from schools in Los Angeles, CA, Pasadena, CA, Springfield, OH, and Conneaut, OH. A total of 715 students (341 kindergarteners and 374 first graders) were tested during the 2009–2010 school year. The following school year sample (2010–2011) included 567 of these students (264 first graders and 303 second graders) to examine predictive validity across two years.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.
Correlational data between two points in time.

*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:
N/a
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
Rating Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.
The criterion outcome was mathematics achievement assessed via the TerraNova, Third Edition (CTB/McGraw Hill, 2008) in May of 2010 and May of 2011. The TerraNova is a nationally norm referenced and standardized achievement test used in the U.S. to assess K–12 achievement in reading, language, mathematics, science and social studies. Form G of the Mathematics subtest was used as the criterion. The criterion measure is independent and external to the screening measure.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
Kindergarten and first-grade students in six elementary schools from fours districts in California and Ohio. Data were collected from schools in Los Angeles, CA, Pasadena, CA, Springfield, OH, and Conneaut, OH. A total of 715 students (341 kindergarteners and 374 first graders) were tested during the 2009–2010 school year. The following school year sample (2010–2011) included 567 of these students (264 first graders and 303 second graders) to examine predictive validity across two years.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
To obtain predictive validity, the fall and winter scores on the kindergarten and first grade ASPENS subtest measures were correlated with the spring scores on the TerraNova 3. To obtain concurrent validity, spring scores on the kindergarten and first grade ASPENS subtest measures were correlated with the spring scores on the TerraNova 3.

*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:
N/a
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.
The measure shows moderate correlations to a broad measure of the construct of interest (general mathematics performance). The correlations across multiple years remain at moderate levels, indicating long-term predictive value.
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
Rating No No
Have you conducted additional analyses related to the extent to which your tool is or is not biased against subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)? Examples might include Differential Item Functioning (DIF) or invariance testing in multiple-group confirmatory factor models.
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.

Data Collection Practices

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.