i-Ready® Diagnostic
Reading

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

Offering a continuum of scale scores from kindergarten through high school, the i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading, a web-based adaptive screening assessment, is part of i-Ready’s integrated teaching and learning system. The i-Ready 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—providing actionable data and reports for each domain. The i-Ready Diagnostic is typically administered three times per academic year, with a recommended 12-18 weeks of instruction between assessments. Each screening takes approximately 45 minutes—which may be broken into multiple sittings—and may be conducted with all students or with specific groups of students who have been identified as at risk of academic failure. i-Ready Diagnostic’s sophisticated adaptive algorithm automatically selects from thousands of technology-enhanced and multiple-choice items to get to the core of each student's strengths and challenges, regardless of the grade level at which he or she is performing. The system automatically analyzes, scores, and provides reports that include student-level and aggregated (e.g., class, school, and district) results. Available as soon as a student completes the assessment, i-Ready Diagnostic’s intuitive reports provide comprehensive information (including developmental analyses) about student performance, group students who struggle with the same concepts, make instructional recommendations to target skill deficiencies, and monitor progress and growth as students follow their individualized instructional paths. Reports include suggested next steps for instruction and PDF Tools for Instruction lesson plans for the teacher to use during individual, small-group, or whole-class instruction. In addition, should educators also purchase the optional i-Ready Personalized Instruction, the system automatically prescribes online lessons that address each student’s identified academic needs.

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):

Highlight text; drag-and-drop; audio

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 Diagnostic for Reading assesses six domains (Phonological Awareness, Phonics, High Frequency Words, Vocabulary, Comprehension of Informational Text, and Comprehension of Literature). Each domain has corresponding subdomains. For the domain of Phonological Awareness (Grades K-1), the subdomains are rhyme recognition; syllable blending and segmenting; onset and rime blending and segmenting; phoneme identification, isolation, and pronunciation; phoneme blending and segmentation; and phoneme addition and substitution. For the domain of Phonics, the subdomains are alphabetic knowledge; sound-spellings; decoding one-syllable words; decoding, building and sorting multi-syllable words. The High Frequency Words domain includes words from Zeno, Dolch, and Fry lists. For the Vocabulary domain, the subdomains are academic and domain-specific vocabulary; word relationships; word-learning strategies; use of reference materials; prefixes; suffixes; and word roots. For the domain of Comprehension of Informational Text, the subdomains are author’s purpose; categorize and classify; cause and effect; drawing conclusions/making inferences; fact and opinion; main idea and details; message; summarize; text structure; vocabulary in context; compare and contrast across different mediums; analysis of close reading of the text; and citing textual evidence. For the domain of Comprehension of Literature, the subdomains are author’s purpose; cause and effect; drawing conclusions/making inferences; figurative language; story structure; summarize; theme/mood; understanding character; vocabulary in context; compare and contrast across different mediums; analysis of close reading of the text; and citing textual evidence.

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

info@cainc.com

Address

153 Rangeway Road, N. Billerica MA 01862

Phone Number

800-225-0248

Website

www.curriculumassociates.com

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost

$6.00

Unit of cost

student

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost

$6.00

Unit of cost

student

Duration of license

year

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the tool. Provide information on what is included in the published tool, as well as what is not included but required for implementation.

$6.00/student/year for i-Ready Diagnostic for reading; volume and multi-year subscription discounts are available. Annual license fee includes online student access to assessment, plus staff access to management and reporting suite, downloadable lesson plans, and user resources including i-Ready Central support website; account set-up and secure hosting; all program maintenance/updates/enhancements during the active license term; unlimited user access to U.S.-based service and support via toll-free phone and email during business hours. Professional development is required and available at an additional cost ($2,000/session up to six hours). If Curriculum Associates' minimum recommended professional development is purchased, the district will receive a 25 percent discount for a net price of $1500/session.

Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.

i-Ready Assessment is a fully web-based, vendor-hosted, Software-as-a-Service application. The per-student or site-based license fee includes account set-up and management; unlimited access to i-Ready’s assessment, management, and reporting functionality; and unlimited access to U.S.-based customer service/technical support and all program maintenance, updates, and enhancements for as long as the license remains active. The license fee also includes hosting, data storage, and data security. Via the i-Ready teacher and administrator dashboards and i-Ready Central support website, educators can access comprehensive user guides and downloadable lesson plans, as well as implementation tips, best practices, video tutorials, and more to supplement our live (either onsite or remotely-facilitated), fee-based professional development. These resources are self-paced and available 24/7. The i-Ready Diagnostic includes many accommodations and accessibility features, making it accessible by most students. Among those are Universal Accessibility Features that are available to all students and do not require that an educator intervene to enable these features. In addition, there are processes and tools in the i-Ready Diagnostic that are used to support students who require accommodations. Since fall 2019, the i-Ready Diagnostic meets the Level AA standard under the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0), with documented exceptions. Although all students have access to Universal Accessibility Features, some features of the i-Ready Diagnostic are designed to be available only to those students with IEPs or 504 plans that stipulate the use of the accommodations process or tool. The decision as to which accommodations a student receives are generally made by IEP teams and other educators within the school. Although Curriculum Associates provides guidance on how to implement various accommodations, it is up to educators who work with individual students to determine which accommodations are needed and how to correctly implement these accommodations. Universal Accessibility Features include these: • The test is untimed. • Students are also able to view closed captioning for key pre-recorded media. • Students can also navigate through the Diagnostic using a keyboard. • Students can adjust the volume of the audio, as needed. • The i-Ready Diagnostic has universally accessible audio support available for certain items where appropriate for the construct being measured. Locally-provided accommodations can include additional breaks during testing; use of an English dictionary, thesaurus, or bi-lingual dictionary (depending on domain assessed); noise buffering headphones; magnification devices to make the screen easier to read for students with low vision; and a separate setting for testing. As noted, teachers should follow each student’s IEP to determine needed and appropriate accommodations. Further information about i-Ready accessibility and accommodation is available at https://i-readycentral.com/pdfs/accessibility-and-accommodations-update/.

Administration

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What type of administrator is your tool designed for?

General education teacher
Special education teacher
Parent
Child
External observer
Other

If other, please specify:

What is the administration setting?

Direct observation
Rating scale
Checklist
Performance measure
Questionnaire
Direct: Computerized
One-to-one
Other

If other, please specify:

Does the tool require technology?

Yes

If yes, what technology is required to implement your tool? (Select all that apply)

Computer or tablet
Internet connection
Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

What is the administration context?

Individual
Small group   If small group, n=
Large group   If large group, n=
Computer-administered
Other

If other, please specify:

What is the administration time?

Time in minutes

45

per (student/group/other unit)

student

Additional scoring time:

Time in minutes

0

per (student/group/other unit)

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?

Curriculum Associates recommends giving the i-Ready Diagnostic three times a year. The i-Ready Diagnostic provides benchmarks in the form of Grade-Level Placements (Three Grades Below, Two Grades Below, One Grade Below, Early on Grade Level, Mid on Grade Level or Above). The i-Ready Diagnostic also provides intervention tiers associated with the Grade-Level Placements.

If yes, for which months are benchmarks available?

The Grade-Level Placement benchmarks are available at the beginning of the year (typically September), middle of the year (typically January or February), and end of the year (typically April or May).

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:

4-8 hours 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:

In-person (either onsite or remotely facilitated) professional development are also required and available for an additional cost

Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?

Yes

If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:

Curriculum Associates provides a dedicated account manager plus unlimited access to in-house technical support during business hours to every customer.

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:

i-Ready Diagnostic provides criterion-referenced Grade-Level Placement scores.

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.

i-Ready Diagnostic scale scores are linear transformations of logit values. Logits are measurement units for logarithmic probability models such as the Rasch model. Logits are used to determine both student ability and item difficulty. Within the Rasch model, if the ability matches the item difficulty, then the person has a .50 chance of answering the item correctly. For i-Ready Diagnostic, student ability and item logit values generally range from around -6 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 equations: 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.

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 i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading has intervention screening reports that categorize students into three colors: green identifies students who are eligible for Tier 1 instruction, yellow identifies students in need of Tier 2 intervention, and red identifies students at risk of being identified as in need of Tier 3 intervention. There are three intervention screening report views: beginning-of-year, standard, and end-of-year. Depending on the placement level of the student, he or she is designated into one of the three levels based on chronological grade level. In addition to reporting student performance by tier, i-Ready includes criterion-referenced Grade-Level Placements. Placement levels (cut points) for students’ overall performance and for each domain are presented on the Diagnostic Results for a student report. Placement levels indicate where students should be receiving instruction. i-Ready’s Grade-Level Placements are designed to help educators target instruction for each student. Grade-Level Placements also inform classroom instruction and provide domain-specific insights, allowing for targeted differentiation and remediation. i-Ready Diagnostic also provides national norms (as percentiles) for beginning-of-year, mid-year, and end-of-year testing. Test users who are more familiar with the percentile-based screening approach could also use the national norms for intervention classification. Curriculum Associates is committed to fair and unbiased product development. i-Ready Diagnostic is developmentally, linguistically, and culturally appropriate for a wide range of students at each of grade. For instance, the names, characters, and scenarios used within the programs—as well as the “study buddies” who act as onscreen guides for students—are ethnically and culturally diverse. We developed all items in i-Ready to be accessible for most students regardless of their need for accommodation. In most cases, students who require accommodations (e.g., large print or extra time) will not require additional help to complete an i-Ready assessment. The design of the assessment emphasizes making necessary adjustments to the items, so that a large percentage of students requiring accommodations will be able to take the test in a standard manner and the interpretation or the purpose of the test is not compromised. According to the Standards (AERA, APA, NCME, 2014), “Universal Design processes strive to minimize access challenges by taking into account test characteristics that may impede access to the construct for certain test takers.” i-Ready Diagnostic was developed with the universal principles of design for assessment in mind and followed the seven elements of Universal Design for large-scale assessments recommended by NCEO (2002): 1. Inclusive assessment population 2. Precisely defined constructs 3. Accessible, non-biased items 4. Amenable to accommodations 5. Simple, clear, and intuitive instructions and procedures 6. Maximum readability and comprehensibility 7. Maximum legibility Differential Item Function (DIF) was investigated using WINSTEPS® by comparing the item difficulty measure for two demographics categories in a pairwise comparison. The following demographic categories were compared: Female vs. Male; Black or African American and Latino vs. Caucasian; South, West, and Northeast vs. Midwest; English Learner vs. Non–English Learner; Students with Disabilities vs. General Education Students; Economically disadvantaged vs. Not economically disadvantaged. In each pairwise comparison, estimates of item difficulty for each category in the comparison were calculated. The difference between the two groups was then evaluated using both the Welch’s t-statistics and Mantel-Haenszel method. Items with significant and large differences in difficulty between the comparison groups were flagged for content inspection. In reading, of the 3,649 items evaluated, the majority of items (at least 90 percent) showed negligible DIF (level A) and only 3 percent of items showed large DIF (level C). Items with large and significant DIF are retired or replaced. Items with significant, but small, DIF are subjected to extensive content review by a committee, who then determine whether each item should remain in the operational pool, be removed, or be revised and re-piloted.

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Classification Accuracy Fall
Classification Accuracy Winter
Classification Accuracy Spring

Smarter Balanced 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 is the Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) ELA/Literacy test for grades 3-8. The SBA is an end-of-year state summative assessment administered in the spring in various states. The percentile scores defined in the Smarter Balanced 2017–18 Summative Technical Report were used to classify students. Students who scored below the score corresponding to the 20th percentile on the SBA for the given grade were classified as at-risk and students who scored at or above the score corresponding to the 20th percentile were classified as not-at-risk.

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 on the criterion measure (SBA) were determined as the scale score corresponding to the 20th percentile defined in the Smarter Balanced 2017–18 Summative Technical Report for the given subject and grade. This cut point follows the definition of students in need of intensive intervention provided by NCII’s Technical Review Committee. Students who scored below the score corresponding to the 20th percentile on the SBA for the given grade were classified as at-risk and students who scored at or above the score corresponding to the 20th percentile were classified as not-at-risk. Cut points on the screening measure (i-Ready Diagnostic) were empirically identified as scores that best align with SBA’s 20th percentile scores for each subject, grade and testing window. Using these cut scores, students were classified as at-risk if they scored below the cut score in the i-Ready Diagnostic for the given testing window, or not-at-risk if they scored at or above the cut. Classification indices between at-risk/not-at-risk on i-Ready Diagnostic and at-risk/not-at-risk on the SBA are calculated per the formulas in the classification worksheet.

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.

We did not collect information on whether students who were included in this analysis received an intervention in addition to typical classroom instruction between the screening measure and outcome assessment. With that said, based on the criteria for inclusion in this analysis (i.e., students scoring below the 20th percentile in spring) it is likely that students received some form of intervention.

Cross-Validation

Has a cross-validation study been conducted?

Yes

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.

The criterion measure is the ELA/Literacy Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) for grades 3-8, an end-of-year state summative assessment administered in the spring. The percentile scores defined in the Smarter Balanced 2017–18 Summative Technical Report are used to classify students. Students who scored below the score corresponding to the 20th percentile on the SBA test for the given grade were classified as at-risk and students who scored at or above the score corresponding to the 20th percentile were classified as not-at-risk.

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).

For the cross-validation study, we used data from five school districts not included in the main Classification Accuracy study. In order to validate our results, we used the same cut points as the main Classification Accuracy study for both the criterion measure (SBA) and screening measure (i-Ready Diagnostic) when performing the classification analyses. Cut points on the criterion measure (SBA) were determined as the scale score corresponding to the 20th percentile defined in the Smarter Balanced 2017–18 Summative Technical Report for the given subject and grade. This cut point follows the definition of students in need of intensive intervention provided by NCII’s Technical Review Committee. Students who scored below the score corresponding to the 20th percentile on the SBA for the given grade were classified as at-risk and students who scored at or above the score corresponding to the 20th percentile were classified as not-at-risk. Cut points on the screening measure (i-Ready Diagnostic) were the same scores identified as cut-points in the main Classification Accuracy study. Using these cut scores, students were classified as at-risk if they scored below the cut score in the i-Ready Diagnostic for the given testing window, or not-at-risk if they scored at or above the cut. Classification indices between at-risk/not-at-risk on i-Ready Diagnostic and at-risk/not-at-risk on the SBA are calculated per the formulas in the classification worksheet.

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.

We did not collect information on whether students who were included in this analysis received an intervention in addition to typical classroom instruction between the screening measure and outcome assessment. With that said, based on the criteria for inclusion in this analysis (i.e., students scoring below the 20th percentile in spring) it is likely that students received some form of intervention.

---

DIBELS NEXT

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 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills® (DIBELS) NEXT is a series of assessments that measure early literacy acquisition. The scores of DIBELS assessment are used to classify students at grade K-2. Students who were below the level of “Likely to Receive Intensive Support” were classified as at-risk and students who were at or above that cut score were classified as no-risk. DIBELS NEXT is now known as Acadience Reading.

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 scores on the screening measure (i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading) were empirically identified as scores that best align with DIBELS NEXT’s “Well Below Benchmark” which identifies students who are “likely to need intensive support” for each grade and testing window. Using these identified aligned scores, students were classified as at-risk by the i-Ready Diagnostic if they scored below the cut score on the i-Ready Diagnostic corresponding with DIBELS NEXT’s “Well Below Benchmark” score level for the given testing window, and not at risk if they scored at or above the cut. This same process was used for all testing windows and grades.

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.

We did not collect information on whether students who were included in this analysis received an intervention in addition to typical classroom instruction between the screening measure and outcome assessment. With that said, based on the criteria for inclusion in this analysis (i.e., students scoring Well Below Benchmark) it is likely that students received some form of intervention.

Cross-Validation

Has a cross-validation study been conducted?

Yes

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.

DIBELS NEXT (criterion measure) is a brief test designed to assess Reading fluency. These assessments are fixed-form and take only a few minutes to complete. The i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading (screening measure) is an adaptive measure designed to assess various aspects of student reading, not just fluency. While there is an overlap in content covered, each test also covers content not assessed by the other.

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).

Cut scores on the screening measure (i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading) were empirically identified as scores that best align with DIBELS NEXT’s “Well Below Benchmark – Likely to need intensive support” for each grade and testing window. Using these identified aligned scores, students were classified as at-risk by the i-Ready Diagnostic if they scored below the cut score on the i-Ready Diagnostic for the given testing window, and not at risk if they scored at or above the cut. This same process was used for all testing windows and grades.

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.

We did not collect information on whether students who were included in this analysis received an intervention in addition to typical classroom instruction between the screening measure and outcome assessment. With that said, based on the criteria for inclusion in this analysis (i.e., students scoring Well Below Benchmark) it is likely that students received some form of intervention.

---

Classification Accuracy - Fall

Evidence	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Criterion measure	DIBELS NEXT	DIBELS NEXT	DIBELS NEXT	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	13	10	20	20	20	20	20	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	4	65	105	2342	2378	2411	2432	2456	2468
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	336	381	435	468	494	518	535	550	562
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	236	160	412	1850	2025	2005	2205	2158	1922
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	389	360	287	1502	1427	1401	1612	1538	1386
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	95	44	76	449	491	483	547	536	476
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	992	1528	1670	8726	9506	9147	9953	9579	8614
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.79	0.85	0.92	0.91	0.92	0.92	0.91	0.92	0.91
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.77	0.83	0.91	0.91	0.92	0.92	0.91	0.91	0.91
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.82	0.88	0.93	0.92	0.93	0.93	0.92	0.92	0.92

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Base Rate	0.19	0.10	0.20	0.18	0.19	0.19	0.19	0.20	0.19
Overall Classification Rate	0.72	0.81	0.85	0.84	0.86	0.86	0.85	0.85	0.85
Sensitivity	0.71	0.78	0.84	0.80	0.80	0.81	0.80	0.80	0.80
Specificity	0.72	0.81	0.85	0.85	0.87	0.87	0.86	0.86	0.86
False Positive Rate	0.28	0.19	0.15	0.15	0.13	0.13	0.14	0.14	0.14
False Negative Rate	0.29	0.22	0.16	0.20	0.20	0.19	0.20	0.20	0.20
Positive Predictive Power	0.38	0.31	0.59	0.55	0.59	0.59	0.58	0.58	0.58
Negative Predictive Power	0.91	0.97	0.96	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.95

Sample	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Date	Fall 2016	Fall 2016	Fall 2016	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018
Sample Size	1712	2092	2445	12527	13449	13036	14317	13811	12398
Geographic Representation	Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)
Male	38.5%	47.3%	50.4%	46.4%	46.7%	46.4%	46.3%	46.2%	51.9%
Female	36.3%	47.9%	45.9%	45.2%	44.3%	44.8%	44.6%	44.3%	48.0%
Other
Gender Unknown	25.3%	4.8%	3.7%	8.3%	9.0%	8.8%	9.1%	9.6%	0.0%
White, Non-Hispanic	25.1%	31.7%	21.3%	20.2%	20.6%	21.3%	20.0%	19.4%	23.3%
Black, Non-Hispanic	7.9%	7.7%	6.7%	3.4%	3.7%	4.3%	3.6%	3.5%	4.3%
Hispanic	24.4%	27.9%	27.0%	40.1%	41.1%	40.3%	44.4%	44.0%	47.4%
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.3%	0.3%	0.4%	0.3%	0.3%	0.3%
Other	1.6%	1.8%	1.3%	1.9%	1.8%	1.6%	1.6%	1.4%	1.6%
Race / Ethnicity Unknown	40.8%	30.2%	43.3%	27.7%	25.9%	24.5%	23.0%	23.9%	14.5%
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Winter

Evidence	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Criterion measure	DIBELS NEXT	DIBELS NEXT	DIBELS NEXT	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	12	20	19	20	20	20	20	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	65	87	145	2342	2378	2411	2432	2456	2468
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	352	413	462	486	510	530	545	559	573
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	182	323	385	1919	2071	2102	2245	1946	1734
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	233	265	202	1201	1241	1308	1535	1325	1295
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	44	78	96	472	512	502	542	475	428
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	1243	1327	1616	9174	9844	9587	10061	8941	7878
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.90	0.90	0.93	0.93	0.93	0.93	0.92	0.92	0.91
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.88	0.89	0.92	0.92	0.93	0.92	0.91	0.91	0.91
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.92	0.92	0.94	0.93	0.94	0.93	0.92	0.92	0.92

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Base Rate	0.13	0.20	0.21	0.19	0.19	0.19	0.19	0.19	0.19
Overall Classification Rate	0.84	0.83	0.87	0.87	0.87	0.87	0.86	0.86	0.85
Sensitivity	0.81	0.81	0.80	0.80	0.80	0.81	0.81	0.80	0.80
Specificity	0.84	0.83	0.89	0.88	0.89	0.88	0.87	0.87	0.86
False Positive Rate	0.16	0.17	0.11	0.12	0.11	0.12	0.13	0.13	0.14
False Negative Rate	0.19	0.19	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.19	0.19	0.20	0.20
Positive Predictive Power	0.44	0.55	0.66	0.62	0.63	0.62	0.59	0.59	0.57
Negative Predictive Power	0.97	0.94	0.94	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.95

Sample	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Date	Winter 2016	Winter 2016	Winter 2016	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018
Sample Size	1702	1993	2299	12766	13668	13499	14383	12687	11335
Geographic Representation	Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)
Male	39.8%	47.7%	50.5%	46.7%	46.6%	46.2%	46.1%	46.2%	52.0%
Female	36.5%	46.6%	45.2%	45.0%	44.3%	45.2%	44.7%	44.1%	47.9%
Other
Gender Unknown	23.8%	5.7%	4.3%	8.3%	9.1%	8.6%	9.2%	9.7%	0.0%
White, Non-Hispanic	26.7%	30.7%	22.1%	20.1%	20.5%	20.6%	19.9%	19.1%	22.5%
Black, Non-Hispanic	6.3%	9.4%	7.5%	3.5%	3.7%	4.3%	3.7%	3.6%	4.4%
Hispanic	25.6%	29.1%	27.9%	40.0%	41.3%	41.1%	44.2%	43.3%	46.8%
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.1%	0.2%	0.3%	0.3%	0.3%	0.4%	0.3%	0.3%	0.4%
Other	1.8%	2.0%	1.2%	1.9%	1.8%	1.6%	1.6%	1.6%	1.7%
Race / Ethnicity Unknown	39.4%	28.1%	40.8%	27.7%	25.9%	24.8%	23.3%	24.5%	15.2%
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Spring

Evidence	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Criterion measure	DIBELS NEXT	DIBELS NEXT	DIBELS NEXT	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	15	20	17	20	20	20	20	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	94	101	180	2342	2378	2411	2432	2456	2468
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	378	423	474	491	513	530	545	557	567
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	207	360	374	1786	1907	1878	1715	1381	1222
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	321	180	236	921	953	1025	1088	855	871
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	51	77	85	443	473	456	423	341	298
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	1327	1600	1801	8259	8659	8310	7461	5862	4892
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.87	0.94	0.93	0.94	0.94	0.93	0.92	0.92	0.91
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.84	0.94	0.92	0.93	0.93	0.93	0.92	0.91	0.90
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.89	0.95	0.94	0.94	0.94	0.94	0.93	0.93	0.92

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Base Rate	0.14	0.20	0.18	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.21
Overall Classification Rate	0.80	0.88	0.87	0.88	0.88	0.87	0.86	0.86	0.84
Sensitivity	0.80	0.82	0.81	0.80	0.80	0.80	0.80	0.80	0.80
Specificity	0.81	0.90	0.88	0.90	0.90	0.89	0.87	0.87	0.85
False Positive Rate	0.19	0.10	0.12	0.10	0.10	0.11	0.13	0.13	0.15
False Negative Rate	0.20	0.18	0.19	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20
Positive Predictive Power	0.39	0.67	0.61	0.66	0.67	0.65	0.61	0.62	0.58
Negative Predictive Power	0.96	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.94

Sample	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Date	Spring 2017	Spring 2017	Spring 2017	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018
Sample Size	1906	2217	2496	11409	11992	11669	10687	8439	7283
Geographic Representation	East North Central (OH) Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	East North Central (OH) Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	East North Central (OH) Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)	New England (CT) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (DE)
Male	38.5%	48.0%	49.4%	49.4%	49.9%	49.2%	47.7%	47.4%	51.3%
Female	37.7%	45.7%	45.5%	47.5%	47.2%	47.2%	46.1%	45.6%	48.7%
Other
Gender Unknown	23.8%	6.3%	5.1%	3.1%	2.9%	3.6%	6.1%	7.1%	0.1%
White, Non-Hispanic	22.7%	29.9%	21.3%	22.0%	23.0%	22.5%	18.7%	13.2%	16.0%
Black, Non-Hispanic	6.6%	7.9%	6.7%	3.9%	4.3%	4.8%	4.3%	4.2%	5.3%
Hispanic	25.5%	27.8%	26.6%	44.4%	46.3%	45.6%	48.1%	52.4%	55.7%
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.1%	0.1%	0.2%	0.3%	0.4%	0.4%	0.4%	0.3%	0.4%
Other	1.7%	2.0%	1.2%	2.0%	2.0%	1.7%	1.1%	1.0%	0.9%
Race / Ethnicity Unknown	43.3%	31.8%	43.8%	20.1%	16.7%	16.7%	21.0%	24.3%	16.5%
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Cross-Validation - Fall

Evidence	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Criterion measure	DIBELS NEXT	DIBELS NEXT	DIBELS NEXT	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	13	10	20	20	20	20	20	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	4	65	105	2342	2378	2411	2432	2456	2468
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	336	381	435	468	494	518	535	550	562
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	239	145	399	824	971	1048	961	1055	1025
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	425	322	311	748	858	810	899	825	872
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	91	58	88	177	173	195	171	188	212
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	955	1566	1645	3614	4148	4067	4113	4508	4490
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.79	0.84	0.91	0.91	0.91	0.92	0.92	0.92	0.91
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.77	0.82	0.90	0.90	0.90	0.91	0.91	0.91	0.90
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.82	0.87	0.92	0.92	0.92	0.93	0.92	0.93	0.92

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Base Rate	0.19	0.10	0.20	0.19	0.19	0.20	0.18	0.19	0.19
Overall Classification Rate	0.70	0.82	0.84	0.83	0.83	0.84	0.83	0.85	0.84
Sensitivity	0.72	0.71	0.82	0.82	0.85	0.84	0.85	0.85	0.83
Specificity	0.69	0.83	0.84	0.83	0.83	0.83	0.82	0.85	0.84
False Positive Rate	0.31	0.17	0.16	0.17	0.17	0.17	0.18	0.15	0.16
False Negative Rate	0.28	0.29	0.18	0.18	0.15	0.16	0.15	0.15	0.17
Positive Predictive Power	0.36	0.31	0.56	0.52	0.53	0.56	0.52	0.56	0.54
Negative Predictive Power	0.91	0.96	0.95	0.95	0.96	0.95	0.96	0.96	0.95

Sample	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Date	Fall 2016	Fall 2016	Fall 2016	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018
Sample Size	1710	2091	2443	5363	6150	6120	6144	6576	6599
Geographic Representation	Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)
Male	41.5%	49.5%	49.3%	51.6%	51.1%	51.4%	50.5%	51.6%	52.0%
Female	36.7%	46.1%	47.4%	48.4%	48.9%	48.6%	49.5%	48.4%	48.0%
Other
Gender Unknown	21.8%	4.5%	3.2%
White, Non-Hispanic	28.7%	28.4%	20.8%	21.1%	21.5%	21.2%	21.4%	22.8%	22.6%
Black, Non-Hispanic	6.7%	9.4%	7.2%	7.3%	7.1%	7.3%	7.5%	7.1%	7.4%
Hispanic	25.4%	29.2%	26.9%	56.2%	56.9%	56.3%	55.4%	52.8%	52.6%
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.1%	0.0%	0.2%	0.5%	0.4%	0.4%	0.4%	0.5%	0.4%
Other	1.8%	1.7%	1.3%	0.4%	0.3%	0.4%	0.3%	0.1%	0.1%
Race / Ethnicity Unknown	36.9%	30.8%	43.3%	0.7%	0.6%	0.6%	0.6%	1.4%	0.9%
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Cross-Validation - Winter

Evidence	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Criterion measure	DIBELS NEXT	DIBELS NEXT	DIBELS NEXT	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	12	20	19	20	20	20	20	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	65	86	145	2342	2378	2411	2432	2456	2468
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	352	413	462	486	510	530	545	559	573
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	159	331	417	821	908	1092	993	1110	1082
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	264	269	199	617	748	764	828	844	889
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	66	68	62	161	178	131	159	160	138
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	1210	1322	1616	3342	3739	3734	3756	4024	3655
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.85	0.91	0.95	0.92	0.92	0.93	0.92	0.92	0.92
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.83	0.89	0.94	0.91	0.91	0.93	0.91	0.92	0.92
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.87	0.92	0.96	0.93	0.92	0.94	0.93	0.93	0.93

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Base Rate	0.13	0.20	0.21	0.20	0.19	0.21	0.20	0.21	0.21
Overall Classification Rate	0.81	0.83	0.89	0.84	0.83	0.84	0.83	0.84	0.82
Sensitivity	0.71	0.83	0.87	0.84	0.84	0.89	0.86	0.87	0.89
Specificity	0.82	0.83	0.89	0.84	0.83	0.83	0.82	0.83	0.80
False Positive Rate	0.18	0.17	0.11	0.16	0.17	0.17	0.18	0.17	0.20
False Negative Rate	0.29	0.17	0.13	0.16	0.16	0.11	0.14	0.13	0.11
Positive Predictive Power	0.38	0.55	0.68	0.57	0.55	0.59	0.55	0.57	0.55
Negative Predictive Power	0.95	0.95	0.96	0.95	0.95	0.97	0.96	0.96	0.96

Sample	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Date	Winter 2016	Winter 2016	Winter 2016	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018
Sample Size	1699	1990	2294	4941	5573	5721	5736	6138	5764
Geographic Representation	Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)
Male	37.4%	46.6%	47.1%	50.9%	50.9%	51.5%	51.1%	51.9%	51.8%
Female	37.4%	47.0%	48.0%	49.1%	49.1%	48.5%	48.9%	48.1%	48.2%
Other
Gender Unknown	25.2%	6.4%	4.9%
White, Non-Hispanic	24.9%	32.1%	22.2%	20.7%	19.5%	20.2%	20.4%	21.8%	19.8%
Black, Non-Hispanic	7.0%	9.0%	7.1%	7.8%	8.1%	8.0%	7.9%	7.6%	8.5%
Hispanic	25.5%	28.1%	26.1%	54.9%	57.3%	56.3%	55.6%	52.8%	54.0%
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.5%	0.5%	0.4%	0.5%	0.4%	0.4%
Other	1.7%	1.6%	1.5%	0.4%	0.3%	0.3%	0.3%	0.1%	0.1%
Race / Ethnicity Unknown	40.4%	28.4%	42.6%	1.0%	0.8%	0.7%	0.6%	1.6%	0.9%
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Cross-Validation - Spring

Evidence	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Criterion measure	DIBELS NEXT	DIBELS NEXT	DIBELS NEXT	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment	Smarter Balanced Assessment
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	15	20	17	20	20	20	20	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	94	101	180	2342	2378	2411	2432	2456	2468
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	378	423	474	491	513	530	545	557	567
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	203	351	374	769	874	916	683	751	623
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	390	184	215	517	637	552	520	554	427
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	53	85	82	151	173	145	146	132	105
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	1256	1594	1820	3340	3993	3489	2723	2577	2318
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.85	0.94	0.93	0.93	0.93	0.94	0.92	0.91	0.93
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.83	0.93	0.92	0.92	0.92	0.93	0.91	0.90	0.92
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.88	0.95	0.95	0.94	0.94	0.94	0.93	0.92	0.94

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Base Rate	0.13	0.20	0.18	0.19	0.18	0.21	0.20	0.22	0.21
Overall Classification Rate	0.77	0.88	0.88	0.86	0.86	0.86	0.84	0.83	0.85
Sensitivity	0.79	0.81	0.82	0.84	0.83	0.86	0.82	0.85	0.86
Specificity	0.76	0.90	0.89	0.87	0.86	0.86	0.84	0.82	0.84
False Positive Rate	0.24	0.10	0.11	0.13	0.14	0.14	0.16	0.18	0.16
False Negative Rate	0.21	0.19	0.18	0.16	0.17	0.14	0.18	0.15	0.14
Positive Predictive Power	0.34	0.66	0.63	0.60	0.58	0.62	0.57	0.58	0.59
Negative Predictive Power	0.96	0.95	0.96	0.96	0.96	0.96	0.95	0.95	0.96

Sample	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Date	Spring 2017	Spring 2017	Spring 2017	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018	Spring 2018
Sample Size	1902	2214	2491	4777	5677	5102	4072	4014	3473
Geographic Representation	East North Central (OH) Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	East North Central (OH) Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	East North Central (OH) Mountain (CO) South Atlantic (NC)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)	Mountain (ID) Pacific (CA)
Male	40.3%	48.8%	48.7%	51.1%	51.3%	50.9%	50.6%	52.4%	51.5%
Female	36.8%	45.0%	46.6%	48.9%	48.7%	49.1%	49.4%	47.6%	48.5%
Other
Gender Unknown	22.9%	6.2%	4.7%
White, Non-Hispanic	24.8%	28.2%	21.1%	21.9%	21.8%	22.3%	17.4%	18.2%	17.2%
Black, Non-Hispanic	6.2%	8.9%	7.1%	7.2%	6.6%	7.7%	7.4%	7.6%	7.9%
Hispanic	24.9%	30.2%	26.5%	54.0%	55.5%	54.1%	57.8%	61.8%	62.2%
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.1%	0.1%	0.2%	0.5%	0.5%	0.4%	0.5%	0.5%	0.2%
Other	1.4%	1.6%	1.5%	0.4%	0.3%	0.4%	0.4%	0.1%	0.1%
Race / Ethnicity Unknown	42.4%	30.4%	43.3%	0.9%	0.7%	0.6%	0.6%	1.2%	0.5%
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Reliability

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating		d	d	d	d	d	d	d	d

*Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.

The i-Ready Diagnostic provides two types of reliability estimates: • IRT-based reliability measures such as the marginal reliability estimate and standard error of measurement. • Test-retest reliability coefficients. Marginal Reliability: Given that the i-Ready Diagnostic is a computer-adaptive assessment that does not have a fixed form, some traditional reliability estimates such as Cronbach’s alpha are not an appropriate index for quantifying consistency or inconsistency in student performance. The IRT analogue to classical reliability is called marginal reliability and operates on the variance of the theta scores and the average of the expected error variance. The marginal reliability uses the classical definition of reliability as proportion of variance in the total observed score due to true score under an IRT model (the i-Ready Diagnostic uses a Rasch model, to be specific). Standard Error of Measurement (SEM): In an IRT model, SEMs are affected by factors such as how well the data fit the underlying model, student response consistency, student location on the ability continuum, match of items to student ability, and test length. Given the adaptive nature of i-Ready and the wide difficulty range in the item bank, standard errors are expected to be low and very close to the theoretical minimum for the test of the given length. The theoretical minimum would be reached if each interim estimate of student ability is assessed by an item with difficulty matching perfectly to the student’s ability estimated from previous items. Theoretical minimums are restricted by the number of items served in the assessment—the more items that are served up, the lower the SEM could potentially be. For ELA, the minimum SEM for overall scores is 8.9. Test-retest Reliability: The i-Ready Diagnostic is often used as an interim assessment, and students can take the assessment multiple times a year. Therefore, the test-retest reliability estimate is appropriate to provide stability estimates for the same students who took two Diagnostic tests.

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

Data for obtaining the marginal reliability and SEM was from the August and September administrations of the i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading from 2016 (reported in the 2016 i-Ready Diagnostic technical report). All students tested within the time-frame were included. Sample size by grade are presented in the table below. Evidence of test-retest stability was assessed based on a sub-sample of students who, during the 2016–2017 school year, took i-Ready Diagnostic twice within the recommended 12–18-week testing window. The average testing interval is 106 days (15 weeks). Sample sizes by grade are presented in the table below .

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

This marginal reliability uses the classical definition of reliability as proportion of variance in the total observed score due to true score. The true score variance is computed as the observed score variance minus the error variance (see equation below). ρ_θ=(σ_(θ-)^2 σ ̅_E^2)/(σ_θ^2 ) where ρθ is the marginal reliability estimate, σ2θ is the observed error variance of the ability estimate, σ ̅_E^2is the observed average conditional error variance. Similar to a classical reliability coefficient, the marginal reliability estimate increases as the standard error decreases; it approaches 1 when the standard error approaches 0. The observed score variance, the error variance, and SEM (the square root of the error variance) are obtained through WINSTEPS calibrations. One separate calibration was conducted for each grade. For test-retest reliability, Pearson correlation coefficients were obtained between scores for the two i-Ready Diagnostic tests. Correlations between the two i-ReadyDiagnostic tests were calculated. In lower grades where growth and variability are expected to be higher, test-retest correlations are expected to be relatively lower.

*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)?

Yes

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:

Yes

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Validity

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1	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 internal structure of the i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading is supported by construct maps and the ordering of the skills addressed at different stages on the map. We recognize that coverage of skills and difficulty of items will overlap a fair amount across grades, as much material is reviewed from year to year. However, what should be apparent from the estimated item difficulties is that, generally, items measuring skills targeting lower levels of the map should be easier, and items measuring skills targeting higher levels of the map should be more difficult.

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

Active items in the current item pool for the 2016–2017 school year are included in the analysis for interval validity. The number of items per grade is listed in the table below.

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

Distributions of indicator difficulties by grade level provide further evidence of internal structure. The difficulty of an indicator corresponds to a 67% probability of passing on the Indicator Characteristic Curve aggregated across all items aligned to the indicator. The table below shows the average and standard deviation of indicator difficulties. Indicator difficulty (as shown in the figures and tables) is used in conjunction with the student’s placement level on the i-Ready Diagnostic to help to determine what students can do, and what they should work on next to continue along the proficiency continuum. These “can dos” and “next steps” are part of the feedback provided in i-Ready reports. Student domain placement levels are compared to indicator difficulties and this provides personalized feedback for each student. To provide further information to educators, a State Standards Performance Report is provided for each state. For each standard, the student’s domain scale score (which is at a finer grain than the placement level) is used to determine whether students have mastered all of the standard, part but not all of the standard, or none of the standard. This determination is again made by comparing the student’s scale score to the indicator difficulty of the skill or skills mapped to each state standard.

*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:

*Lexile grade-banded results are featured, rather than grade-specific results. The i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading scale scores are created on a vertical scale which makes the scale scores comparable across grades. Thus, for efficiency purposes, the linking sample for the Lexile study includes only students from every other grade (i.e., grades 1, 3, 5, and 7), but results are generalized across grades in various grade bands (e.g., K-2). Additional information on the Lexile study, which was conducted in concert with MetaMetrics, is available upon request. The table below shows validity evidence based on internal structure, represented by indicator difficulty. The mean and standard deviation, as well as the number of items are presented by grade. Results show that items targeting progressively higher grade levels are progressively more difficult, as indicated by the aggregate difficulty of the indicator. Differences in item difficulties between the upper grades are less dramatic than such differences between the lower grades, which reflects the reality of student performance in the classroom. Validity Grade Indicator Indicator Number of Items Difference Difference (Mean) (SD) Internal Structure K 383.48 29.65 439 Internal Structure 1 440.77 37.41 430 Internal Structure 2 502.63 40.37 316 Internal Structure 3 524.97 33.99 302 Internal Structure 4 562.71 21.72 225 Internal Structure 5 583.54 19.13 224 Internal Structure 6 601.60 17.77 244 Internal Structure 7 616.77 19.70 253 Internal Structure 8 627.24 14.34 253 Indicator difficulty (as shown in the figures and tables) is used in conjunction with the student’s placement level on the i-Ready Diagnostic to help to determine what students can do, and what they should work on next to continue along the proficiency continuum. These “can dos” and “next steps” are part of the feedback provided in i-Ready reports. Student domain placement levels are compared to indicator difficulties and this provides personalized feedback for each student. To provide further information to educators, a State Standards Performance Report is provided for each state. For each standard, the student’s domain scale score (which is at a finer grain than the placement level) is used to determine whether students have mastered all of the standard, part but not all of the standard, or none of the standard. This determination is again made by comparing the student’s scale score to the indicator difficulty of the skill or skills mapped to each state standard.

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.

The internal structure of the i-Ready Diagnostic for Reading is supported by the construct maps and the ordering of the skills addressed at different stages on the map. Skills representing the lower levels on the construct map are those generally associated with items targeted at lower grade levels, and skills representing the higher levels on the map are ones generally associated with items targeted at higher grade levels.

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

No

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

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

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Bias Analysis

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating	Yes	Yes	Yes	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:

Differential Item Function (DIF) was investigated using WINSTEPS® by comparing the item difficulty measure for two demographic categories in a pairwise comparison through a combined calibration analysis. The essence of this methodology is to investigate the interaction of the person-groups with each item, while fixing all other item and person measures to those from the combined calibration. The method used to detect DIF is based on the Mantel-Haenszel procedure (MH), and the work of Linacre & Wright (1989) and Linacre (2012). Typically, the group representing test takers in a specific demographic group is referred to as the focal group. The group made up of test takers from outside this group is referred to as the reference group. For example, for gender, Female is the focal group, and Male is the reference group.

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

The latest large-scale DIF analysis included a random sample (10%) of students from the 2015–2016 i-Ready operational data. Given the large size of the 2015–2016 i-Ready student population, it is practical to carry out the calibration analysis with a random sample. The following demographic categories were compared: Female vs. Male; Black or African American and Latino vs. Caucasian; English Learner vs. non–English Learner; Students with Disabilities vs. General Education students; Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged. In each pairwise comparison, estimates of item difficulty for each category in the comparison were calculated.

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.

Active items in the current item pool for the 2016–2017 school year are included in the DIF analysis. The total numbers of items are 3649 for Reading. WINSTEPS (Version 3.92) was used to conduct the calibration for DIF analysis by grade. To help interpret the results, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) criteria using the delta method was used to categorize DIF (Zwick, Thayer, & Lewis, 1999).