Classworks Universal Screener
Reading
Summary
Classworks Universal Screeners for Reading are formal assessments used to measure readiness for grade level instruction, help identify baseline learning levels, and measure growth. The Universal Screeners were specifically designed for the purpose of screening students who may need additional intervention and can be used as part of the Response to Intervention (RtI) process. In addition to reporting an overall scaled score based on the total test, Classworks provides student strengths and weakness for key strands. Key strands include a minimum of four test questions to provide a reasonable estimate of student strengths and weaknesses.
- Where to Obtain:
- Developer: SEG Measurement Group; Publisher: Curriculum Advantage, Inc.
- jtreichler@classworks.com
- 5185 Peachtree Parkway Suite 285 Peachtree Corners, GA 30092
- 770-325-5555
- www.curriculumadvantage.com
- Initial Cost:
- $5.00 per student
- Replacement Cost:
- Free
- Included in Cost:
- Classworks Universal Screener is purchased as part of a comprehensive RTI program. When the full Classworks suite is purchased the screener is included. Classworks professional development includes free online training and virtual training sessions. Training days can be purchased at $1,500 - $1,800 per day depending on volume of days purchased.
- Curriculum Advantage, makers of Classworks, considered several issues related to accommodations and elements of Universal Design of large-scale assessments- https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/onlinepubs/Synthesis44.html. Accommodations included are as follows: ● Extra time—Students may need extra time to complete the task. The assessment may be stopped and started as needed to allow students needing extra time to finish, is untimed, and can be administered in multiple test sessions. ● Administrations—Students may be given the amount of days necessary to complete the test. ● Presentation—Classworks diagnostic items are presented in a large, easily legible format specifically chosen for its readability. With HTML5, you have the ability to change the screen size and font size. ● Audio Support–Audio support is available for all grades. ● Setting—Classworks assessments are web-based. They can be completed on any device with internet access that meets technical requirements. Students may use headphones to benefit from audio support. ● Response—Classworks assessments are easily completed on a computer using point and click or on a tablet device using touch screens for those with motor impairment.
- Training Requirements:
- Less than 1 hr of training
- Qualified Administrators:
- Paraprofessional can administer the test
- Access to Technical Support:
- Dedicated account manager. Classworks support is available online via in product chat, phone, and email.
- Assessment Format:
-
- Direct: Computerized
- Scoring Time:
-
- Scoring is automatic OR
- 0 minutes per student
- Scores Generated:
-
- Raw score
- IRT-based score
- Developmental benchmarks
- Equated
- Other: Strand level proficiency feedback
- Administration Time:
-
- 30 minutes per student
- Scoring Method:
-
- Manually (by hand)
- Automatically (computer-scored)
- Technology Requirements:
-
- Computer or tablet
- Internet connection
- Accommodations:
- Curriculum Advantage, makers of Classworks, considered several issues related to accommodations and elements of Universal Design of large-scale assessments- https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/onlinepubs/Synthesis44.html. Accommodations included are as follows: ● Extra time—Students may need extra time to complete the task. The assessment may be stopped and started as needed to allow students needing extra time to finish, is untimed, and can be administered in multiple test sessions. ● Administrations—Students may be given the amount of days necessary to complete the test. ● Presentation—Classworks diagnostic items are presented in a large, easily legible format specifically chosen for its readability. With HTML5, you have the ability to change the screen size and font size. ● Audio Support–Audio support is available for all grades. ● Setting—Classworks assessments are web-based. They can be completed on any device with internet access that meets technical requirements. Students may use headphones to benefit from audio support. ● Response—Classworks assessments are easily completed on a computer using point and click or on a tablet device using touch screens for those with motor impairment.
Descriptive Information
- Please provide a description of your tool:
- Classworks Universal Screeners for Reading are formal assessments used to measure readiness for grade level instruction, help identify baseline learning levels, and measure growth. The Universal Screeners were specifically designed for the purpose of screening students who may need additional intervention and can be used as part of the Response to Intervention (RtI) process. In addition to reporting an overall scaled score based on the total test, Classworks provides student strengths and weakness for key strands. Key strands include a minimum of four test questions to provide a reasonable estimate of student strengths and weaknesses.
ACADEMIC ONLY: What skills does the tool screen?
- 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
Administration
- Are norms available?
- No
- Are benchmarks available?
- No
- If yes, how many benchmarks per year?
- If yes, for which months are benchmarks available?
- 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:
- Less than 1 hr of training
- Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
- Paraprofessional can administer the test
- No minimum qualifications
- Are training manuals and materials available?
- Yes
- Are training manuals/materials field-tested?
- Yes
- Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?
- Yes
- If No, please describe training costs:
- Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
- Yes
- If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:
- Dedicated account manager. Classworks support is available online via in product chat, phone, and email.
Scoring
- Do you provide basis for calculating performance level scores?
-
Yes
- Does your tool include decision rules?
-
No
- If yes, please describe.
- 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.
- Raw scores are calculated as the total number of items answered correctly on the screener. Performance on the screeners is reported as a scaled score on a vertical scale ranging from 200 to 800 spanning across grades K to 10.
- 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.
- An item alignment review was conducted to ensure that the Universal Screener items align to the Classworks objectives and individual state standards for mathematics. Item content and bias reviews were conducted to ensure that the items selected for the Reading and Mathematics Universal Screeners were appropriate and reasonable for the purpose of screening students. Test specifications include a range of coverage including items at grade level, one grade below, and two grades below. This test design has been found to be effective for the purpose of screening. A Field test was conducted using a national sampling of students. The item level data was used to calibrate the items using the Rasch model. Items that did not fit the model or showed differential performance were edited or removed from the final forms.
Technical Standards
Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary
Grade |
Grade 2
|
Grade 3
|
Grade 4
|
Grade 5
|
Grade 6
|
Grade 7
|
Grade 8
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Classification Accuracy Fall | |||||||
Classification Accuracy Winter | |||||||
Classification Accuracy Spring |
MAP Growth Assessment
Classification Accuracy
- Describe the criterion (outcome) measure(s) including the degree to which it/they is/are independent from the screening measure.
- TThe NWEA MAP Growth assessment is the criterion used. This assessment is nationally normed and published by NWEA, completely independent of the Classworks assessment.
- 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 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).
- The cut points were determined based on the bottom 20% of the students scores on the nationally normed test (NWEA MAP Growth). The cut points identify students in need of intensive intervention by identifying student at risk of falling below the 20th percentile.
- 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.
Cross-Validation
- Has a cross-validation study been conducted?
-
No
- If yes,
- Describe the criterion (outcome) measure(s) including the degree to which it/they is/are independent from the screening measure.
- Describe when screening and criterion measures were administered and provide a justification for why the method(s) you chose (concurrent and/or predictive) is/are appropriate for your tool.
- Describe how the cross-validation analyses were performed and cut-points determined. Describe how the cut points align with students at-risk. Please indicate which groups were contrasted in your analyses (e.g., low risk students versus high risk students, low risk students versus moderate risk students).
- Were the children in the study/studies involved in an intervention in addition to typical classroom instruction between the screening measure and outcome assessment?
- If yes, please describe the intervention, what children received the intervention, and how they were chosen.
Classification Accuracy - Fall
Evidence | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | Grade 4 | Grade 5 | Grade 6 | Grade 7 | Grade 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Criterion measure | MAP Growth Assessment | MAP Growth Assessment | MAP Growth Assessment | MAP Growth Assessment | MAP Growth Assessment | MAP Growth Assessment | MAP Growth Assessment |
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure | <159 | <176 | <187 | <197 | <202 | <207 | <210 |
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure | <250 | <330 | <360 | <420 | <510 | <520 | <580 |
Classification Data - True Positive (a) | 110 | 223 | 118 | 178 | 430 | 77 | 83 |
Classification Data - False Positive (b) | 42 | 59 | 63 | 76 | 251 | 47 | 45 |
Classification Data - False Negative (c) | 51 | 61 | 31 | 37 | 299 | 7 | 4 |
Classification Data - True Negative (d) | 540 | 462 | 287 | 361 | 15 | 118 | 74 |
Area Under the Curve (AUC) | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.79 | 0.90 | 0.91 |
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.87 |
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.87 | 0.94 | 0.95 |
Statistics | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | Grade 4 | Grade 5 | Grade 6 | Grade 7 | Grade 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Base Rate | 0.22 | 0.35 | 0.30 | 0.33 | 0.73 | 0.34 | 0.42 |
Overall Classification Rate | 0.87 | 0.85 | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.45 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
Sensitivity | 0.68 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.59 | 0.92 | 0.95 |
Specificity | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.06 | 0.72 | 0.62 |
False Positive Rate | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.94 | 0.28 | 0.38 |
False Negative Rate | 0.32 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0.41 | 0.08 | 0.05 |
Positive Predictive Power | 0.72 | 0.79 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 0.63 | 0.62 | 0.65 |
Negative Predictive Power | 0.91 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.05 | 0.94 | 0.95 |
Sample | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | Grade 4 | Grade 5 | Grade 6 | Grade 7 | Grade 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date | 08/01/2019-11/23/2019 | 08/01/2019-11/23/2019 | 08/01/2019-11/23/2019 | 08/01/2019-11/23/2019 | 08/01/2019-11/23/2019 | 08/01/2019-11/23/2019 | 08/01/2019-11/23/2019 |
Sample Size | 743 | 805 | 499 | 652 | 995 | 249 | 206 |
Geographic Representation | East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, MS, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (CA) South Atlantic (GA, NC, SC) West South Central (AR, LA, TX) |
East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, MS, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (CA) South Atlantic (GA, NC, SC) West South Central (AR, LA, TX) |
East North Central (IL, MI, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, MS, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (CA) South Atlantic (GA, NC, SC) West South Central (AR, LA, TX) |
East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, MS, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (CA) South Atlantic (GA, NC, SC) West South Central (AR, LA, TX) |
East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, MS, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (CA) South Atlantic (GA, NC, SC) West South Central (AR, LA, TX) |
East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, MS, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (CA) South Atlantic (GA, NC, SC) West South Central (AR, LA, TX) |
East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, MS, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (CA) South Atlantic (GA, NC, SC) West South Central (AR, LA, TX) |
Male | 34.2% | 35.7% | 35.1% | 22.2% | 33.6% | 7.2% | 1.5% |
Female | 33.1% | 32.7% | 27.5% | 15.3% | 30.4% | 3.6% | 1.0% |
Other | |||||||
Gender Unknown | 32.7% | 31.7% | 37.5% | 62.4% | 36.1% | 89.2% | 97.6% |
White, Non-Hispanic | 0.9% | 4.2% | 0.6% | 3.8% | 20.5% | 27.7% | |
Black, Non-Hispanic | 9.0% | 16.0% | 16.6% | 10.9% | 10.9% | 10.0% | 18.9% |
Hispanic | |||||||
Asian/Pacific Islander | |||||||
American Indian/Alaska Native | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.4% | ||||
Other | 2.4% | 4.1% | 2.6% | 1.1% | 4.5% | 5.2% | 9.2% |
Race / Ethnicity Unknown | 87.6% | 86.6% | 80.2% | 88.0% | 80.7% | 63.9% | 44.2% |
Low SES | |||||||
IEP or diagnosed disability | |||||||
English Language Learner |
Reliability
Grade |
Grade 2
|
Grade 3
|
Grade 4
|
Grade 5
|
Grade 6
|
Grade 7
|
Grade 8
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rating |
- *Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.
- The Classworks Screener affords the means to screen students on multiple occasions (e.g., Fall, Winter, Spring) during the school year. Thus, test-retest reliability is necessary, and we estimate test-retest reliability via the Pearson correlation between Classworks Screener scores of students taking test in one terms within the school year (Fall/Winter). The second reliability test is Cronbach’s Alpha, a measure of internal consistency. This analysis was conducted on a sample of students who had posted scores for three sets of Classworks Screener questions, all of which aimed to measure a single construct--student’s reading proficiency.
- *Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.
- See sample size information in the data chart
- *Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.
- See above question 1.
*In the table(s) below, report the results of the reliability analyses described above (e.g., internal consistency or inter-rater reliability coefficients).
Type of | Subgroup | Informant | Age / Grade | Test or Criterion | n | Median Coefficient | 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound |
95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound |
---|
- Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
- Manual cites other published reliability studies:
- No
- Provide citations for additional published studies.
- Do you have reliability data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
- No
If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated reliability data.
Type of | Subgroup | Informant | Age / Grade | Test or Criterion | n | Median Coefficient | 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound |
95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound |
---|
- Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
- Manual cites other published reliability studies:
- No
- Provide citations for additional published studies.
Validity
Grade |
Grade 2
|
Grade 3
|
Grade 4
|
Grade 5
|
Grade 6
|
Grade 7
|
Grade 8
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rating |
- *Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.
- The validity evidence for the Classworks Screener comes from the relationships of Classworks Screener test scores to NWEA MAP Growth test scores. These relationships include a) the concurrent performance of students on Classworks Screener tests with their performance on MAP Growth tests and b) the predictive relationship between students’ performance on Classworks Screener tests with their performance, two testing terms later, on MAP Growth tests. The Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) is used as the outcome measure. Published by the NWEA the MAP Growth is regarded as a highly valid and reliable measure of broad reading ability. The NWEA website states, “Our tools are trusted by educators in 140 countries and more than half the schools in the US” which indicates it can be considered an excellent outcome measure for classification studies
- *Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
- See data chart for sample size information
- *Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
- For the validity analysis conducted, we used concurrent and predictive validity. Concurrent validity was estimated as the Pearson correlation coefficient between student scores from Fall 2019 and the same students’ total scale score on the Map Growth assessment, also administered in Fall 2019. Predictive validity was estimated as the Pearson correlation coefficient between student scores from a given term (Fall 2019) and the same students’ total scale score on the MAP Growth assessment administered in Winter 2020.
*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.
- Concurrent and predictive validity coefficients, for each grade and each time of year, were consistently in the mid to high 0.70s. This validity evidence demonstrates a strong relationship between the Classworks Screener and the MAP Growth assessments across the grades and times of year reported.
- Do you have validity data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
- No
If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated validity data.
Type of | Subgroup | Informant | Age / Grade | Test or Criterion | n | Median Coefficient | 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound |
95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound |
---|
- Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:
- Manual cites other published reliability studies:
- No
- Provide citations for additional published studies.
Bias Analysis
Grade |
Grade 2
|
Grade 3
|
Grade 4
|
Grade 5
|
Grade 6
|
Grade 7
|
Grade 8
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rating | No | No | No | No | No | 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.