Reading Plus
InSight

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

Reading Plus provides a web-based computer-adaptive assessment that measures three dimensions essential to successful independent silent reading: capacity, fluency, and motivation. In addition to assessing comprehension and vocabulary (capacity), it includes measures of comprehension-based silent reading rate (fluency) and motivation for reading. The comprehension and vocabulary components of the assessment are based on an IRT framework. The difficulty of items presented to students during the assessment is adjusted dynamically based on ongoing student performance. The assessment may be used with all students or with specific groups of students who have been identified as at risk of academic failure and may be individually or group administered. The initial administration of the assessment provides baseline performance measures, while subsequent administrations (mid-term and end-of-term) provide progress benchmarking. Students can complete the assessment on computers or tablets using a keyboard, mouse, or touch screen. On average, students require 30 minutes to complete the assessment. If students log out before completing the assessment, they are bookmarked so that they can later continue from where they left off. The assessment automatically scores and reports each student’s academic performance in terms of comprehension level, vocabulary level, and comprehension-based silent reading rate (in words per minute). These sub-scores are combined to provide the student’s overall reading Proficiency Index. Comprehension and Vocabulary Levels as well as the Reading Proficiency Index are reported on a grade-level scale. The assessment also measures students’ self-reported motivation for reading across several Motivation domains. Summary reports become available as soon as the student completes the assessment. If the Reading Plus instructional program has also been purchased, the assessment governs initial placement and an individualized instructional path within the various program components.

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:

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

sales@readingplus.com

Address

110 West Canal Street, Winooski, VT 05404

Phone Number

800-732-3758

Website

https://www.readingplus.com/

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost

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.

The Reading Plus program is offered on a subscription basis. There are many available options for license duration and cost. Please contact Reading Plus at https://www.readingplus.com/contact/learn-more/ to learn more. Customer support, including training and start-up assistance, continuing education, and offline learning materials, are all included in the subscription cost. Tablets or computers with Internet access are required.

Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.

The assessment is based on an IRT framework, and the difficulty of items presented to students is adjusted dynamically based on ongoing student performance. Adjustments to startup parameters (content level and other parameters) are implemented if a student is identified as having special needs. Students can complete the assessment on computers or tablets using a keyboard, mouse, or touch screen, thereby providing several options to accommodate students with limited motor skills. Close captioning for hearing impaired is provided for all instructional videos. Students may complete the assessment at their own pace, taking as much time and as many breaks as needed. Flexible scheduling is possible if students need multiple days to complete the assessment. If students log out before completing the assessment, they are bookmarked so that they can later continue from where they left off. For students with limited vision, the assessment is compatible with the in-browser zooming feature, allowing users to magnify all assessment screens.

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:

Reading Plus does not have any additional technology requirements, but it does integrate with Clever and ClassLink if districts are using those solutions.

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

40

per (student/group/other unit)

student

Additional scoring time:

Time in minutes

0

per (student/group/other unit)

student

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?

No discontinue rules provided
Basals
Ceilings
Other

If other, please specify:

Are norms available?

Yes

Are benchmarks available?

Yes

If yes, how many benchmarks per year?

3

If yes, for which months are benchmarks available?

No limitations, but recommendations are provided; initial (fall), mid-term (winter), and end-of-term (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?

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.

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:

A comprehensive system of support is available for educators who use Reading Plus. The Reading Plus Learn Site is the main portal for online video and webinar training, written resources, and additional online and offline teaching tools. Reading Plus Support is available via live chat, email, and phone to assist with any additional questions educators may have.

Scoring

How are scores calculated?

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

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:

Text Lexile Range, Instructional Reading Level, Instructional Vocabulary Level, Visual Skills Instructional Level *Percentile score available for comprehension-based silent reading rate **Grade-level scale score based on IRT scoring ***Sub-scores are available in the following areas: Comprehension Grade Level, Vocabulary Grade Level, Comprehension-based Silent Reading Rate (in words per minute), and Reading Motivation (e.g., self-improvement belief, confidence, interest)

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.

A student’s overall grade-level Reading Proficiency Index (composite score) is derived from a formula based on the Comprehension and Vocabulary grade-level scores in conjunction with the Comprehension-Based Silent Reading Rate measure (words per minute).

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 assessment calculates an ability estimate based on the calibrated difficulty of the vocabulary items and comprehension testlets and items that were presented to the student, and the student’s performance on these items. Reading Plus uses an IRT-based two-parameter logistic response model to calculate scores. The grade-level scale scores are linear transformations of the Rasch model logit scores. Comprehension-based silent reading rates are calculated based on a student’s reading rate while reading the various testlets, taking into consideration performance on the comprehension items that follow.

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Classification Accuracy Fall
Classification Accuracy Winter
Classification Accuracy Spring

Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment

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.

The criterion measure used in this classification accuracy analysis was the Smarter Balanced English-Language Arts (ELA) scores from spring 2017 (SBAC; Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, 2017). The Smarter Balanced ELA assessment was used by 13 states during the 2016-17 school year as their statewide assessment for grades 3-8 as required by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act. Technical documentation detailing the development and design of Smarter Balanced ELA is available on the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium website. The Reading Plus screening assessment is a completely independent measure from the Smarter Balanced ELA assessment. Its content is created, field tested, and reviewed by Reading Plus guided by an advisory panel. Although the Reading Plus assessment was designed independently, it used similar guidelines and standards as other literacy assessments (e.g., Common Core State Standards (CCSS), computerized adaptive testing (CAT) methodology, and educational testing standards). A Technical Brief (https://www-cdn.readingplus.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/InSight-Measuring-Three-Domains.pdf) provides additional information about the uses and development of the Reading Plus assessment.

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.

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).

Cut points are based on the Reading Plus overall reading Proficiency Index which is a weighted, composite score that combines vocabulary, comprehension and reading rate sub-scores on a continuous grade-level scale that ranges from 0.5 to 13.5. The cut-points for the classification accuracy analyses are primarily based on previous analysis conducted by Reading Plus. Since the 2013-14 school year, Reading Plus has analyzed the assessment and instructional program data of hundreds of thousands of students across all five regions and nine divisions of the United States. This analysis has enabled Reading Plus to profile and classify students’ overall reading proficiency on a grade-level scale that ranges from 0.5 to 13.5. The Reading Plus assessment cut-points for intensive intervention are described below, and show that students in need of intensive intervention typically have overall reading proficiency scores that are 3-4 levels below grade in the fall and 2-3 levels below grade in the spring. Fall: • Grade 3: Students cannot interact consistently with Grade 1 level vocabulary and reading comprehension content (0.5). • Grade 4: Students have beginning overall reading proficiency with Grade 1 level content (1.0). • Grade 5: Students have solid overall reading proficiency with Grade 1 level content and beginning proficiency with Grade 2 level content (2.0). • Grade 6: Students have solid overall reading proficiency with Grade 2 level content and beginning proficiency with Grade 3 level content (3.0). • Grade 7: Students have moderate overall reading proficiency with Grade 3 level content (3.5). • Grade 8: Students have solid overall reading proficiency with Grade 3 level content and beginning proficiency with Grade 4 level content (4.0). Spring: • Grade 3: Students have beginning overall reading proficiency with Grade 1 level content (1.0). • Grade 4: Students have moderate overall reading proficiency with Grade 2 level content (2.5). • Grade 5: Students have solid overall reading proficiency with Grade 2 level content and beginning proficiency with Grade 3 level content (3.0). • Grade 6: Students have moderate overall reading proficiency with Grade 3 level content (3.5). • Grade 7: Students have solid overall reading proficiency with Grade 3 level content and beginning proficiency with Grade 4 level content (4.0). • Grade 8: Students have solid overall reading proficiency with Grade 4 level content and beginning proficiency with Grade 5 level content (5.0).

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

Yes

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

The districts that participated in this study all used the Reading Plus instructional intervention program to various degrees in the 2016-17 school year. We do not have information, however, regarding the use of other intervention programs in the participating districts.

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 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Criterion measure	Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment	Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment	Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment	Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment	Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment	Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	20	20	20	20	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	0.5	1.0	2.0	3.0	3.5	4.0
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	255	280	268	363	276	188
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	104	175	180	245	171	154
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	84	103	61	54	76	68
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	1001	1259	1179	1261	1068	815
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.81	0.85	0.91	0.92	0.91	0.88
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.79	0.84	0.89	0.91	0.89	0.86
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.83	0.87	0.92	0.94	0.93	0.90

Statistics	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Base Rate	0.23	0.21	0.19	0.22	0.22	0.21
Overall Classification Rate	0.87	0.85	0.86	0.84	0.84	0.82
Sensitivity	0.75	0.73	0.81	0.87	0.78	0.73
Specificity	0.91	0.88	0.87	0.84	0.86	0.84
False Positive Rate	0.09	0.12	0.13	0.16	0.14	0.16
False Negative Rate	0.25	0.27	0.19	0.13	0.22	0.27
Positive Predictive Power	0.71	0.62	0.60	0.60	0.62	0.55
Negative Predictive Power	0.92	0.92	0.95	0.96	0.93	0.92

Sample	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Date	April 2017	April 2017	April 2017	April 2017	April 2017	April 2017
Sample Size	1444	1817	1688	1923	1591	1225
Geographic Representation	New England (VT) Pacific (CA) West North Central (SD)	New England (VT) Pacific (CA) West North Central (SD)	New England (VT) Pacific (CA) West North Central (SD)	Pacific (CA) West North Central (SD)	Pacific (CA) West North Central (SD)	Pacific (CA) West North Central (SD)
Male	52.5%	51.8%	49.7%	50.4%	51.7%	48.5%
Female	47.5%	48.2%	50.3%	49.6%	48.3%	51.5%
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic	46.7%	41.0%	39.8%	32.8%	22.4%	11.8%
Black, Non-Hispanic	2.6%	3.7%	3.0%	3.8%	3.7%	5.7%
Hispanic	27.2%	38.4%	40.5%	50.7%	62.3%	76.3%
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native	14.3%	10.3%	8.9%	7.2%	5.8%	1.1%
Other	9.1%	6.5%	7.8%	5.5%	5.8%	4.9%
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES	28.7%	38.7%	43.1%	53.5%	66.5%	84.9%
IEP or diagnosed disability	11.8%	10.0%	9.8%	8.4%	11.3%	7.9%
English Language Learner	12.5%	16.8%	13.3%	14.2%	12.9%	15.6%

Classification Accuracy - Spring

Evidence	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Criterion measure	Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment	Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment	Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment	Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment	Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment	Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	20	20	20	20	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	1.0	2.5	3.0	3.5	4.0	5.0
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	107	109	93	241	190	141
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	75	69	57	135	143	156
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	18	28	30	74	55	49
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	473	557	588	1170	912	709
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.91	0.93	0.92	0.92	0.91	0.87
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.89	0.91	0.90	0.90	0.89	0.84
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.93	0.95	0.94	0.93	0.93	0.89

Statistics	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Base Rate	0.19	0.18	0.16	0.19	0.19	0.18
Overall Classification Rate	0.86	0.87	0.89	0.87	0.85	0.81
Sensitivity	0.86	0.80	0.76	0.77	0.78	0.74
Specificity	0.86	0.89	0.91	0.90	0.86	0.82
False Positive Rate	0.14	0.11	0.09	0.10	0.14	0.18
False Negative Rate	0.14	0.20	0.24	0.23	0.22	0.26
Positive Predictive Power	0.59	0.61	0.62	0.64	0.57	0.47
Negative Predictive Power	0.96	0.95	0.95	0.94	0.94	0.94

Sample	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Date	April 2017	April 2017	April 2017	April 2017	April 2017	April 2017
Sample Size	673	763	768	1620	1300	1055
Geographic Representation	New England (VT) Pacific (CA) West North Central (SD)	New England (VT) Pacific (CA) West North Central (SD)	New England (VT) Pacific (CA) West North Central (SD)	Pacific (CA) West North Central (SD)	Pacific (CA) West North Central (SD)	Pacific (CA) West North Central (SD)
Male	52.6%	51.4%	49.5%	49.0%	50.1%	51.6%
Female	47.4%	48.6%	50.5%	51.0%	49.9%	48.4%
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic	71.6%	69.3%	67.8%	31.4%	16.9%	11.9%
Black, Non-Hispanic	1.6%	2.2%	2.5%	3.4%	3.8%	5.6%
Hispanic	6.1%	6.9%	8.9%	53.5%	69.3%	75.8%
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native	11.4%	14.5%	12.2%	5.9%	4.2%	1.0%
Other	9.2%	6.9%	8.6%	5.8%	5.7%	5.6%
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES	29.0%	39.1%	43.0%	55.9%	74.2%	85.7%
IEP or diagnosed disability	11.0%	11.4%	10.5%	7.7%	8.5%	5.8%
English Language Learner	1.8%	1.7%	3.1%	14.6%	13.8%	14.9%

Reliability

Grade	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.

a. Marginal Reliability: The Reading Plus assessment includes a large bank of test items designed to evaluate a student’s vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension level relative to their grade level. In an IRT-based model, marginal reliability provides an estimate of how well an assessment classifies students in relation to what is measured. Like traditional reliability coefficients, marginal reliability estimates are reported on a scale of 0 to 1. Higher values for marginal reliability indicate that an instrument is more sensitive to individual differences in the ability being measured; e.g., higher-performing students are more likely to achieve higher scores, and vice versa. b. Test-Retest Reliability: The Reading Plus assessment can be administered up to three times per school year and yields several sub scores (vocabulary, comprehension, comprehension-based reading rate, and motivation measures) as well as an overall reading proficiency composite score. Unlike the classic alternate form testing scenario, however, this assessment is an adaptive test with large content pools and with logic designed to avoid the repetition of content on successive administrations. As such, the specific content of each administration differs, as might the difficulty of the items in cases where a student has advanced. Under these circumstances, the calculated reliability coefficients reflect what some have called a “stratified, randomly parallel form reliability” (Green, Bock, Humphreys, Linn, & Reckase, 1984, p. 353). The interval between assessments can vary according to the goals of the administrator; e.g., to evaluate short-term versus full year gains. Under these circumstances, test-retest reliability coefficients are useful as estimates of score stability over these time spans. With this in mind, two test-retest reliability coefficients were calculated for each grade: i. One based on all students who completed two assessments with fewer than 60 days between administrations (actual mean test-retest intervals across grades ranged from 31 to 41 days). ii. Another based on a different sample consisting of all students who completed two assessments separated by at least 180 days (actual mean test-retest intervals across grades ranged from 226 to 251 days).

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

Calculations of marginal and test-retest reliability were calculated using all participating students in 48 states and the District of Columbia who fit the inclusion criteria; i.e., for whom valid scores were available on at least two Reading Plus assessments (a) administered within 60 days of each other or (b) administered more than 180 days apart, during the 2016-2017 school year.

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

Marginal reliability statistics were calculated separately for both the vocabulary and comprehension components of the assessment using the Winsteps Rasch-Model program (Linacre, 2006). Marginal reliability statistics were calculated separately for students at each grade level. Confidence intervals were also calculated by the Winsteps program (lower bound is the “real” person reliability; upper bound is the “model” person reliability). To evaluate test-retest reliability, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated separately at each grade level for two independent samples (students with two assessments within 60 days, and others with two assessments separated by at least 180 days) using data collected in the Fall of 2016 and Spring of 2017. The 95% confidence intervals around each test-retest correlation coefficient was calculated by (a) using Fisher's z' transformation to convert the coefficients to z' scores, (b) calculating the associated standard errors and 95% confidence intervals for z’, and then (c) converting the z’ score confidence intervals back into regression coefficients.

*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 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 criterion measures used in this analysis were English-Language Arts (ELA) scores from the spring 2017 administration of the Smarter Balanced assessment (SBAC; Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, 2016). This criterion measure is appropriate because: a. SBAC is among the most widely administered assessments in the United States (administered in 13 states plus the US Virgin Islands and the Bureau of Indian Education). b. The ELA portion of the SBAC was developed for the explicit purpose of providing a valid and reliable measure of literacy achievement as outlined in the Common Core State Standards (2010). c. Evidence supporting the validity of the SBAC derives from numerous sources, including evaluations of test content, internal structure, test bias, scoring reliability, and alignment with other measures.

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

The sample included all students in grades 3-8 who completed both the SBAC and a valid Reading Plus assessment during the 2016-2017 school year, and who attended school districts that shared SBAC data. This comprised a fall sample of 9,688 students and a spring sample of 6,179 students in school districts located in the Northeastern, Midwestern, and Western regions of the United States.

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

Two types of validity were evaluated: a. Concurrent validity was evaluated by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients comparing proficiency scores on the Spring 2017 administration of the Reading Plus InSight assessment with Spring 2017 ELA scaled scores on the SBAC. b. Predictive validity was evaluated by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients comparing proficiency scores on the Fall 2016 administration of the Reading Plus InSight assessment with ELA scaled scores on the Spring 2017 administrations of SBAC. The 95% confidence intervals around each correlation coefficient was calculated by (a) using Fisher's z' transformation to convert the coefficients to z' scores, (b) calculating the associated standard errors and 95% confidence intervals for z’, and then (c) converting the z’ score confidence intervals back into regression coefficients.

*In the table below, report the results of the validity analyses described above (e.g., concurrent or predictive validity, evidence based on response processes, evidence based on internal structure, evidence based on relations to other variables, and/or evidence based on consequences of testing), and the criterion measures.

Type of	Subgroup	Informant	Age / Grade	Test or Criterion	n	Median Coefficient	95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound	95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.

Do you have validity data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?

No

If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated validity data.

Type of	Subgroup	Informant	Age / Grade	Test or Criterion	n	Median Coefficient	95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound	95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Bias Analysis

Grade	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

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.

Yes

If yes,

a. Describe the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias:

The Winsteps® program was used to investigate Differential Item Functioning (DIF) (Linacre, 2006).

b. Describe the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted:

DIF analyses were conducted using males as a reference group and females as a focal group. Other DIF analyses could not be completed due to limited information identifying students in other demographic categories.

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.

The Educational Testing Service (ETS) delta method of categorizing DIF was used to differentiate items with negligible DIF (<.43 logits) from those with moderate DIF (>.43 to <.64 logits) and those with large DIF (>.64 logits) (Zwick, Thayer, & Lewis, 1999). Well over 90% of the items showed negligible DIF. Less than 1% of the comprehension items and 2.2% of the vocabulary items showed large DIF and have been pulled from the pool for revision.