i-Ready Literacy Tasks
Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

Pseudoword decoding is the skill of reading pseudowords (nonwords) aloud using knowledge of sound-spelling patterns. The i-Ready Literacy Task for Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency (PWD–F) presents students with a matrix of 50 pseudowords (25 pseudowords per page) and asks them to read them aloud, moving through the matrix from left to right and top to bottom, following standard protocols for reading text in English. The task is scored for the number of pseudowords read correctly within the one-minute time limit. This task content is not leveled by grade but instead follows a progression of decoding skills from VC and CVC words into more complex spelling patterns aligned with expectations for steadily increasing fluency, regardless of the grade level at which each skill is typically taught. The pseudowords on a form are arranged in a typical phonics instruction progression based on sound spellings. Differing performance expectations for students are based on their chronological grade level, as indicated in the scoring tables. Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency Benchmark Tasks are available for grades K–3 (15 forms). Progress monitoring forms are also available for grades K-3 (38 forms).

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 Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency measures students’ proficiency to fluently decode using primarily simple, single-syllable pseudowords (nonwords) with regular spellings, ranging from simple VC and CVC patterns to more complex pseudowords and morpheme types. Students read aloud as many pseudowords in the task matrix as possible within one minute. The task requires the student to voice their response to the nonword stimuli presented by the educator using a printed PDF student form. Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency Benchmark Tasks are available for grades K–3 (15 forms). Progress monitoring forms are also available for grades K–3 (38 forms).

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 Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency. 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 i-Ready Literacy Tasks, including Pseudoword Decoding – 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 for task administration, 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, Pseudoword Decoding – 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 via 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 grade K fall through grade 3 spring showing whether students are Above, On, or Below level in Pseudoword Decoding Fluency. Students who perform On or Above level on the task can be considered proficient in their decoding 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 decode letters and 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 word decoding 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 grade-appropriate decoding and encoding strategies for automatic word recognition of high frequency words to help build a foundation for decoding and 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 Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency consists of counting the number of words a student reads correctly within the one-minute time limit. Each form has 50 pseudowords arranged in a 5 x 10 matrix across two printed pages (with 25 words per page). As students read the words aloud, 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 read aloud. Student errors include omissions/skipped items, substitutions, or hesitations of more than six 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.

Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency is a component measure of the Early Literacy and Dyslexia Risk Screener by i-Ready at grades K–3. Automatic word recognition is the skill of quickly and accurately recognizing and reading words without needing to sound them out letter by letter. This skill relies on the component skills of phonemic awareness, phonics, structural analysis, and decoding. Decoding real words involves recognizing and processing words that are stored in memory. Proficient readers use both phonological decoding and orthographic mapping (recognizing whole words by sight) to read smoothly and quickly. While real word decoding is often impaired in individuals with dyslexia, it may not reveal phonological processing issues as clearly as pseudoword decoding does. Learners can sometimes rely on contextual cues or rote memorization, which may mask their decoding struggles. Fluent decoding of pseudowords (nonwords) requires recognizing familiar phoneme and syllable patterns to quickly decode pseudowords that resemble real words in connected text. Because pseudowords are not real words, students must rely solely on their phonetic decoding skills rather than memory or context. This provides a clearer measure of their decoding skills than tasks that use real words. Pseudoword decoding is especially useful for distinguishing between general reading difficulties and dyslexia-specific issues. Curriculum Associates is dedicated to ensuring the Literacy Tasks are accessible to as many students as possible. When developing PWD-F, we were attentive to ensuring that pseudowords were not actual words, cognates, or otherwise inappropriate words or near-words in languages other than English. 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 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 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. The linked document is 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.

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.

For grades K-3, i Ready Inform for reading overall score from the corresponding administration window (fall, winter, or spring) served as the external criterion measure for classification accuracy. i-Ready Inform for reading is a valid and reliable universal screener aligned to state standards and designed to assess foundational literacy skills, including phonological awareness and early reading development. Concurrent analyses were conducted for the Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency and i-Ready Inform administered within the same testing window. Although both assessments are produced by Curriculum Associates, they are distinct instruments with no item overlap and different measurement designs, consistent with TRC requirements for establishing validity evidence using two assessments from the same vendor. i-Ready Inform is a computer‑adaptive assessment that administers on‑grade and off‑grade items targeted to students’ estimated proficiency levels, with scores and placement levels modeled using item response theory (IRT). In contrast, Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency is a brief, timed measure based on classical test theory, in which students are asked to read as many pseudowords as possible within a fixed time period. Separate samples and criterion established the validity and reliability evidence for i-Ready Inform compared to the validity and reliability evidence provided for Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency. The overall score on i-Ready Inform is highly correlated with measures of reading comprehension; therefore, this was used as an external measure to demonstrate classification accuracy for the Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency forms. Concurrent classification accuracy is often considered better given data are collected at the same time thereby reducing the impact of external factors. Therefore, similar classifications would indicate the Literacy Task for Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency is an appropriate measure. Note, classification accuracy results for kindergarten Fall are not available because the cut score on the form is zero, which does not permit these analyses to be conducted.

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 is a way of measuring the degree of similarity in the classification results of two different measures. In this analysis, i-Ready Literacy Task for Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency and i-Ready Inform 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 21 to 29 states in each testing window. Because both measures are used to identify students with reading difficulties, a concurrent method for classification analyses was deemed appropriate. Concurrent classification accuracy is often considered better given data are collected at the same time thereby reducing the impact of external factors. Therefore, similar classifications would indicate i-Ready Literacy Task for Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency 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).

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. For 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 up to 100 and all values above 800 down to 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. Pseudoword Decoding - Fluency scores (number of pseudowords 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. The data for i-Ready Literacy Task for Pseudoword Decoding – 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 Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency are likely to score below the 20th percentile of i-Ready Inform 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	6	13	21
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	6756	5398	2319
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	9361	5842	2682
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	1782	996	334
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	19292	9096	3849
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.81	0.82	0.82
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.80	0.81	0.81
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.81	0.82	0.83

Statistics	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Base Rate	0.23	0.30	0.29
Overall Classification Rate	0.70	0.68	0.67
Sensitivity	0.79	0.84	0.87
Specificity	0.67	0.61	0.59
False Positive Rate	0.33	0.39	0.41
False Negative Rate	0.21	0.16	0.13
Positive Predictive Power	0.42	0.48	0.46
Negative Predictive Power	0.92	0.90	0.92

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	37191	21332	9184
Geographic Representation	East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH) East South Central (AL, KY) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, ME, NH, VT) Pacific (AK, CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, MD, SC, WV) West North Central (KS, MO) West South Central (TX)	East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH) East South Central (AL, KY, MS) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, ME) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, MD, SC, WV) West North Central (KS, MO) West South Central (TX)	East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, MS) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, MD, 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	2	10	17	25
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	6352	9973	9491	6607
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	9410	9414	8147	9087
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	1541	2994	1230	910
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	16552	29554	18206	14913
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.76	0.85	0.88	0.85
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.76	0.85	0.87	0.85
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.77	0.85	0.88	0.86

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Base Rate	0.23	0.25	0.29	0.24
Overall Classification Rate	0.68	0.76	0.75	0.68
Sensitivity	0.80	0.77	0.89	0.88
Specificity	0.64	0.76	0.69	0.62
False Positive Rate	0.36	0.24	0.31	0.38
False Negative Rate	0.20	0.23	0.11	0.12
Positive Predictive Power	0.40	0.51	0.54	0.42
Negative Predictive Power	0.91	0.91	0.94	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	33855	51935	37074	31517
Geographic Representation	East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH) East South Central (AL, KY) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, ME) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, SC, WV) West North Central (IA, KS, MO) West South Central (LA, TX)	East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, ME) Pacific (AK, CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, MD, SC, WV) West North Central (KS, MO) West South Central (LA, TX)	East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, MS) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, ME, RI) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, SC, WV) West North Central (IA, KS, MO) West South Central (LA, TX)	East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, MS) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, ME) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, SC, WV) West North Central (IA, 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 - 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	5	11	21	35
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	3000	5515	4338	1642
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	2684	3100	3124	2834
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	1428	2339	452	132
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	12042	17393	5048	2029
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.82	0.87	0.87	0.83
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.81	0.87	0.86	0.82
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.83	0.88	0.87	0.84

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3
Base Rate	0.23	0.28	0.37	0.27
Overall Classification Rate	0.79	0.81	0.72	0.55
Sensitivity	0.68	0.70	0.91	0.93
Specificity	0.82	0.85	0.62	0.42
False Positive Rate	0.18	0.15	0.38	0.58
False Negative Rate	0.32	0.30	0.09	0.07
Positive Predictive Power	0.53	0.64	0.58	0.37
Negative Predictive Power	0.89	0.88	0.92	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	19154	28347	12962	6637
Geographic Representation	East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, ME, NH) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, SC, WV) West North Central (IA, KS, MO) West South Central (TX)	East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, ME) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, MD, SC, WV) West North Central (IA, KS, MO) West South Central (LA, TX)	East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, MS) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY) Mountain (AZ, NV) New England (MA, ME) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, SC, WV) West North Central (IA, KS, MO) West South Central (TX)	East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (CT, MA) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, 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

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 Pseudoword Decoding – 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, the items represent 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. For each item or word, a student’s correct or incorrect response along with their overall score is 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. The purpose of the concurrent alternate form reliability analysis is to assess the consistency or stability of the student scores obtained from two forms that were administered to the same student on the same day. Consistency in scores across the forms is important since the forms are developed based on the same content requirements and to be of similar difficulties. The third method, delayed alternate form reliability, compares the similarity in scores across two forms administered during different testing windows. The purpose of the delayed alternate form reliability analysis is to assess the consistency of student scores obtained from two forms that were 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 the forms is important because forms are constructed based on the same content requirements and to be of similar difficulties.

*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 did not rely on a special study for data collection. Rather, they relied on user data from the ordinary administration of i-Ready Literacy Task for Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency in districts and schools that chose to administer it through digital administration. The sample for each grade level included between 7,000 to 10,000 students from 27-40 districts across 4-6 states. The kindergarten and grade 1 samples included students from the South, Southwest, and Midwest regions of the United States; the grade 2 sample included students from most major regions of the United States; and the samples for grade 3 consisted of 4 states from the South region of the United States. Concurrent alternate form reliability study data were collected through a special study conducted in spring 2024. Concurrent alternate form reliability depended on recruiting a convenience sample to administer both forms to a student on the same day. Each grade level sample included between 61 to 153 students. Demographic data was reported for students in 7 school districts across 4 states (77.1% of the sample) representing 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 were based on user data that arose from the ordinary administration of Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency in districts and schools that chose to administer them during the winter and spring 2024–2025 test administration windows. Delayed alternate form reliability requires matching students across administration windows. The kindergarten sample included 12,865 students from 118 districts in 21 states; the grade 1 sample included 25,650 students from 273 districts across 24 states; the grade 2 sample included 10,071 students from 222 districts in 20 states; and the grade 3 sample included 5,796 students from 93 districts in 19 states. Each sample included students from both public and private schools and captured all major regions of the U.S.

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

For Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency, the items represent each word on the form, and the maximum possible score is the total number of words on the form. For each item or word, a student’s correct or incorrect response along with their overall score is 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	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 Pseudoword Decoding – 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; more specifically, “DIBELS 8 subtests were developed and researched as indicators of risk and progress in overall reading, as well as risk for dyslexia and other reading difficulties” (DIBELS, 2023). Concurrent analyses were conducted for Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency and the words recoded correctly score from DIBELS 8 Nonsense Word 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. While both i-Ready Inform and Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency are available within the i-Ready platform, 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 scores and placement levels are modeled through item response theory, unlike Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency which is based on classical test theory. There is no overlap between items. Separate samples and criterion established the validity and reliability evidence for i-Ready Inform compared to the validity and reliability evidence provided for Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency. Both assessments are typically administered three times throughout the academic year (fall, winter, and spring). Student performance in fall on i-Ready Inform provides a baseline for students’ current reading performance and is a good predictor of student performance at the end of the year. The overall score on i-Ready Inform is highly correlated with measures of reading comprehension; therefore, this was used as an external measure to demonstrate validity evidence for Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency. 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.

i-Ready Literacy Task Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency and DIBELS 8 Nonsense Word Fluency data were collected during special studies conducted in fall 2023 whereby 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 1 through 3. Other than grade level, we did not request any personally identifiable student information or demographic characteristics about the students for whom the schools participating in the studies submitted data. Each grade level sample included approximately 270 students from three states representing the West, Midwest, and South regions of the U.S. Because the special study did not include kindergarten, we provide an estimate of concurrent validity for kindergarten between Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency and i-Ready Inform for reading overall score. We leveraged naturally occurring data from districts that chose to administer both during the spring 2025 testing window. The sample included 24,865 students from public and private schools, representing 208 districts across 27 states and capturing all major regions of the continental U.S. The predictive analyses for each grade-level Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency and a subsequent i-Ready Inform for reading overall score also leveraged naturally occurring data for districts and schools who administered the Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency during the winter 2025 administration window and also administered i‑Ready Inform for reading in the spring 2025 window. The kindergarten sample included 33,544 students from 179 districts across 26 states. Grade 1 included 51,611 students from 399 districts in 28 states; grade 2 included 36,680 students from 348 districts in 29 states; and grade 3 included 31,494 students from 186 districts in 26 states. All samples represented each major region of the continental 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 with Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency scores and either DIBELS 8 Nonsense Word Fluency or i-Ready Inform for reading completed during the same testing window. Pearson correlations and the lower and upper 95% confidence interval were calculated. Given the DIBELS 8 Nonsense Word Fluency measures similar content to i-Ready Literacy Task for Pseudoword Decoding – Fluency, a strong, positive correlation is expected. i Ready Inform for reading is a general measure of reading achievement and is strongly related to reading comprehension. Although the measure includes broader content coverage captured through multiple domains, we still expect it to have a moderate to strong positive correlation. Predictive analyses required a representative sample with Pseudoword Decoding – 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 passage of time between the two measures and the broader range of content covered by i-Ready Inform for reading, we expect moderate to highly moderate correlation coefficients. The following results included concurrent and predictive analyses through Pearson correlations and 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.