i-Ready Literacy Tasks
Word Recognition Fluency

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

The i-Ready Literacy Task for Word Recognition Fluency measures students’ automatic word recognition skills for grade level-appropriate, high-frequency words. Students are asked to read aloud as many of the real words in the task matrix as possible within one minute. The task requires the student to voice their response based on stimuli presented by the educator using a printed PDF student form. For Benchmark Tasks, Word Recognition Fluency tasks are available for grades K–3 (four forms per grade). Progress monitoring forms are also available at grades K–1 (20 forms per grade). Curriculum Associates is submitting Word Recognition Fluency forms for fall grade 1 based on established research. Although we continue to engage in our research agenda around Word Recognition Fluency in the other available grades, these results are not yet available for submission.

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 Word Recognition Fluency measures students’ automatic word recognition skills for grade level-appropriate, high-frequency words. Students are asked to read aloud as many of the real words in the task matrix as possible within one minute. For Benchmark Tasks, Word Recognition Fluency tasks are available for grades K–3 (four forms per grade). The task requires the student to voice their response based on stimuli presented by the educator using a printed PDF student form.

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:

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. 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 Diagnostic 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 development is available for an additional cost if districts/schools have not already purchased a professional learning package. If they have purchased a package, Word Recognition 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 on i-ReadyCentral.com/LiteracyTasks. Self-service materials are available on i-Ready 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). This new feature is currently available at no charge and may incur an additional fee in later years. 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 Word Recognition Fluency. Students who perform On or Above level on the task can be considered proficient in their automatic word recognition 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 recognize 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 automatic word recognition 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 automatic word recognition of HFWs they don’t recognize as well as on grade-appropriate decoding and encoding strategies that will help build a needed foundation for 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 Word Recognition Fluency consists of determining the number of words a student reads correctly per minute. Each Word Recognition Fluency Grade 1 form consists of a total of 55 words and is distributed in a 5 by 11 matrix. As students read the words out loud, the administrator indicates 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 represents the score. This can be derived by subtracting the number of incorrectly read words or skipped words from the total words student read out loud. Student errors include omissions/skipped items, substitutions, or hesitations of more than 3 seconds, 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.

The Word Recognition Fluency task measures a student’s automatic word recognition skills for grade-level appropriate, high-frequency words. It involves the automatic recognition and retrieval of familiar words from memory, enabling smooth and efficient reading. The task requires the student to voice their response based on stimuli presented by the educator using a printed PDF student form. Within our grade 1 WRF task, students are asked to read aloud as many of the 55 real words in the task matrix as possible within one minute. A student’s raw score is the number of words read correctly in one minute. Student errors include omissions/skipped items, substitutions, or hesitations of more than 3 seconds, while a self-correction is scored as accurate. Each grade 1 WRF form contains a total of 55 words and is distributed in a 5 by 11 array with stimuli that increase in difficulty based on an algorithm that accounts for both frequency of the word and the word’s readability (considering factors such as the word’s decodability and if there are any silent letters or irregular spellings). The focus on each word’s readability and frequency, rather than relying on frequency alone, accounts for potential differences in students’ backgrounds and thus exposure to different texts and words in their early literacy acquisition years. To control for differences in difficulty level, each form followed the same templating and distribution rules, with words selected and ordered on each form based on similar frequency and readability characteristics. Curriculum Associates is also dedicated to ensuring the Literacy Tasks are accessible to as many students as possible. To help aid educators in using the Literacy Tasks, a detailed FAQ is available that includes considerations for educators to keep in mind about the provision of specific accommodations and/or the use of i-Ready Literacy Tasks for English Learners and students with specific 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 as one factor 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. 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.

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade	Grade 1
Classification Accuracy Fall
Classification Accuracy Winter
Classification Accuracy Spring

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading overall score

Classification Accuracy

Describe the criterion (outcome) measure(s) including the degree to which it/they is/are independent from the screening measure.

The fall i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading overall score served as the criterion measure for classification accuracy. The i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading (referred to as Diagnostic) 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 the Diagnostic 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 the Diagnostic and Word Recognition Fluency tasks are available within the i-Ready platform, they are completely separate assessments. The Diagnostic is a computer adaptive assessment that administers on-grade and off-grade level items targeted to students’ interim proficiency. The Diagnostic scores and placement levels are modeled through item response theory, unlike Word Recognition Fluency which is based on classical test theory. Separate samples and criterion established the validity and reliability evidence for the Diagnostic compared to the validity and reliability evidence provided for Word Recognition Fluency. The overall score on the Diagnostic is highly correlated with measures of reading comprehension; therefore, this was used as an external measure to demonstrate classification accuracy for the Word Recognition 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 i-Ready Literacy Task Word Recognition Fluency is an appropriate 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.

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 Word Recognition Fluency and the Diagnostic overall score are compared to determine if students would be grouped similarly by both measures. The data collection spanned twenty states across all regions of the United States. Both measures were administered in the fall within a similar time in the fall testing window. Since 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 the i-Ready Literacy Task Word Recognition 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 Diagnostic 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 the Diagnostic, 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 2020, national norms for the Diagnostic 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 the Diagnostic for the given testing window, or not-at-risk if they scored at or above the cut. i-Ready Literacy Word Recognition Fluency scores (number of words 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 Word Recognition 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 i-Ready Literacy Task Word Recognition Fluency are likely to score below the 20th percentile of the Diagnostic 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,

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 1
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.

We provide three types of reliability to support the Word Recognition Fluency forms. 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. For each item or word, a student’s correct or incorrect response along with their overall score is used in the calculation. Since 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. For each form, the total number of words read correctly within one minute is the overall score. 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. For each form, the total number of words read correctly within one minute is the overall score. 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 words in the forms precludes the use of the same form during a second testing window. 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.

*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 testing in fall 2024. These analyses did not rely on a special study for data collection. The naturally occurring data source arose from the ordinary administration of Word Recognition Fluency in districts and schools that chose to administer it. This reflected all students taking Word Recognition Fluency in grade 1 scored through digital administration. Approximately 2,000 students from public and private schools across 36 districts in 14 states across all regions were represented in the sample from grade 1. Concurrent alternate form reliability study data were collected through special studies during school years 2020–2021 through 2024–2025. Concurrent alternate form reliability depends on recruiting schools to participate and administer an additional form to each student. The target sample size per task was one hundred students. Educators voluntarily participating in the study were instructed to administer two forms each to students, with the alternate form administered immediately following the first form on the same day. The samples were representative of the general population with nine schools from four states representing the Northeast, 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 did not rely on a special study for data collection. Naturally occurring data that arose from the ordinary administration of Word Recognition Fluency during fall and winter testing windows in districts and schools that chose to administer them during the 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 test administration windows were leveraged. Typically, the form administered for each task in fall is the first form, the second form in winter, and the third form in spring. Delayed alternate form reliability requires matching students across administration windows who took the same task (different form) in more than one administration window within a school year. Because some students are not administered the same task multiple times, the data available to analyze may be limited. Approximately 3,000 students from public and private schools across 52 districts in 19 states across all regions were represented in the sample.

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

For Word Recognition 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. Since 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 of the Word Recognition Fluency task, as it provides a measure of the direction and strength of the relationship between two variables, in this case, the two forms. 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. The following results included Cronbach Alpha, concurrent alternate form reliability, and delayed alternate form reliability and 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).

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 1
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.

Establishing validity for a measurement instrument requires accumulating evidence to support the inferences made from the information provided by the instrument. Thus, validity is not considered a property of an assessment but rather the collection of evidence that supports the uses of its scores (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014). Of the five categories for validity evidence, we provide concurrent and predictive analyses as evidence based on relationships with other variables. One source of evidence is with the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, 8th Edition (DIBELS 8) Word Recognition Fluency. We selected DIBELS 8 as the external measure 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 i-Ready Literacy Task Word Recognition Fluency and DIBELS 8 Word Recognition Fluency and to the DIBELS 8 Composite Score. The second source of evidence is with i-Ready Diagnostic, including overall score and relevant domain scores. The i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading (referred to as Diagnostic) 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 the Diagnostic 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 the i-Ready Diagnostic and Word Recognition Fluency tasks are available within the i-Ready platform, they are completely separate assessments. The Diagnostic is a computer adaptive assessment that administers on-grade and off-grade level items targeted to students’ interim proficiency. The Diagnostic scores and placement levels are modeled through item response theory, unlike Word Recognition 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 the Diagnostic compared to the validity and reliability evidence provided for Word Recognition Fluency. Both assessments are typically administered three times throughout the academic year (fall, winter, and spring). Student performance in fall on the Diagnostic 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 the Diagnostic is highly correlated with measures of reading comprehension; therefore, this was used as an external measure to demonstrate validity evidence for the Word Recognition Fluency forms. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (Eds.). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. 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 Word Recognition Fluency and DIBELS 8 Word Recognition Fluency data were collected during a special study conducted in fall 2023 whereby trained administers at volunteer schools administered i-Ready Literacy Tasks and DIBELS 8 Tasks at the same time to a sample of students in grade 1. In addition, students at each school took the i-Ready Diagnostic in each administration window. 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. Approximately, 280 students in grade 1 participated from three states representing West, Midwest, and South regions provided representative samples. The predictive analyses for a prior i-Ready Literacy Task Word Recognition Fluency and i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading overall scores did not rely on a special study for data collection. Naturally occurring data that arose from the ordinary administration of Word Recognition Fluency in districts and schools that chose to administer them during the 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 test administration windows along with administering the i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading overall scores in the spring were leveraged. Approximately 33,000 students from public and private schools across 115 districts in 21 states across all regions were represented in our fall to winter sample. Approximately 32,000 students from public and private schools across 114 districts in 21 states across all regions were represented in our fall to spring sample.

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

Concurrent analyses required a representative sample with i-Ready Literacy Task Word Recognition Fluency scores, DIBELS 8 Word Recognition Fluency, and DIBELS 8 Composite score. Pearson correlations and the lower and upper 95% confidence interval were calculated. Given the DIBELS 8 Word Recognition Fluency measures similar content to i-Ready Literacy Task Word Recognition Fluency task, a strong, positive correlation is expected. The concurrent analyses are expected to be higher than a predictive analysis since the Diagnostic was administered at later time. It’s important to note that the DIBELS 8 Word Recognition Fluency score contributes to the DIBELS 8 composite score. Predictive analyses required a representative sample with i-Ready Literacy Task Word Recognition Fluency scores for fall and i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading overall scores for winter and spring. Pearson correlations and the lower and upper 95% confidence interval were calculated. Due to the overall score assessing students across multiple domains, a moderate to highly moderate correlation coefficient is expected. 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.

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.

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.