Classworks Universal Screener
Mathematics

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

Classworks Universal Screeners for Mathematics 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.

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

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:

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?

No discontinue rules provided
Basals
Ceilings
Other

If other, please specify:

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, by phone, and by email.

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?

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:

Strand level proficiency feedback

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.

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

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

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.

The 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

Reliability

Grade	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

*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 proficiency in mathematics.

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

See sample size information in the data

*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).

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.

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

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

*Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.

The 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 2019/2020.

*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.

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 0.60s to 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.

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

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.