aimswebPlus Reading
Early Literacy Composite

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

The aimswebPlus Early Literacy Composite is an academic screening tool which combines the scores of two component measures in Kindergarten and three component measures in Grade1 to provide a general indicator of early Literacy abilities aligned to grade level expectations. The Early Literacy Composite scores are available for universal and benchmark screening four times per year in Kindergarten and Grade 1. Specifically, students can complete testing to obtain an Early Literacy Composite score in the beginning (fall), middle (winter), and end (Spring) of the standard school year and may also complete Early Literacy Composite measures during the summer months. Component measures, which combine to provide the Early Literacy Composite score, in kindergarten include Letter Naming Fluency and Letter Word Sounds Fluency. In Grade 1, the Early Literacy Composite includes scores from Oral Reading Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Word Reading Fluency. These measures help to assess a wide range of early literacy skills students are expected to be learning and demonstrating at each grade level. All Early Literacy component measures are administered individually with printed stimulus pages, and corresponding digital record forms for examiners to score responses in real time. The component measures available for each testing window within a grade level are equivalent in design and difficulty but unique, so each time students complete the Early Literacy Composite they are assessed with new items. Early Literacy Composite scores are reported in the aimswebPlus web application, where teachers and administrators can track students' scores, observe growth over the school year, and receive feedback about how students are performing relative to peers and a nationally normed data.

The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).

Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
Kindergarten
First grade
Second grade
Third grade
Fourth grade
Fifth grade
Sixth grade
Seventh grade
Eighth grade
Ninth grade
Tenth grade
Eleventh grade
Twelfth grade

The tool is intended for use with the following age(s).

0-4 years old
5 years old
6 years old
7 years old
8 years old
9 years old
10 years old
11 years old
12 years old
13 years old
14 years old
15 years old
16 years old
17 years old
18 years old

The tool is intended for use with the following student populations.

Students in general education
Students with disabilities
English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What skills does the tool screen?

Reading

Phonological processing:

RAN
Memory
Awareness
Letter sound correspondence
Phonics
Structural analysis

Word ID

Accuracy
Speed

Nonword

Accuracy
Speed

Spelling

Accuracy
Speed

Passage

Accuracy
Speed

Reading comprehension:

Multiple choice questions
Cloze
Constructed Response
Retell
Maze
Sentence verification
Other (please describe):

Listening comprehension:

Multiple choice questions
Cloze
Constructed Response
Retell
Maze
Sentence verification
Vocabulary
Expressive
Receptive

Mathematics

Global Indicator of Math Competence

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Early Numeracy

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematics Concepts

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematics Computation

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematic Application

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Fractions/Decimals

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Algebra

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Geometry

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Other (please describe):

Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Which category of behaviors does your tool target?

Internalizing
Externalizing
Internalizing and Externalizing

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Please identify which broad domain(s)/construct(s) are measured by your tool and define each sub-domain or sub-construct.

Acquisition and Cost Information

Where to obtain:

Email Address

aimswebsupport@pearson.com

Address

Pearson Clinical Assessment, 927 E. Sonterra Blvd., Ste 119, San Antonio, TX 78258

Phone Number

1-866-313-6194

Website

www.pearsonassessment.com/aimswebPlus

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost

$7.50

Unit of cost

student

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost

$7.50

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.

aimswebPlus is a subscription-based online solution that includes digital editions of training manuals and testing materials within the application. The per-student cost of $7.50 for one year grants access to all measures (reading and math). The per-student cost for one year's access to only Reading is $4.25. An aimswebPlus Unlimited Subscription is available for districts with enrollment of 2,500 students or fewer. It includes all aimswebPlus measures (Reading and Math) and these supplemental measures: Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen, BASC-3 BESS Teacher and Student Forms, WriteToLearn, and RAN Objects, Colors and Shapes. The cost for one year is $4995.00

Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.

In general, accommodations consistent with IEPs and 504 plans are permitted with aimswebPlus, but modifications which bias or conflict with a measure's scoring logic are not recommended. Unique exceptions permitting modifications depend on the nature of the modification, and if the necessity and benefit to testing goals significantly outweigh any consequence to scoring. Extensive guidance on test accommodations, modifications, and their appropriate use is provided in the aimswebPlus Manual and other training materials.

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

10

per (student/group/other unit)

student

Additional scoring time:

Time in minutes

5

per (student/group/other unit)

student

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?

No discontinue rules provided
Basals
Ceilings
Other

If other, please specify:

Are norms available?

Yes

Are benchmarks available?

Yes

If yes, how many benchmarks per year?

4

If yes, for which months are benchmarks available?

Fall (August-November), Winter (December - March 15), Spring (March 16 - May), Summer (June-July).

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Can students be rated concurrently by one administrator?

If yes, how many students can be rated concurrently?

Training & Scoring

Training

Is training for the administrator required?

Yes

Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:

Less than one hour of administrator training is required.

Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.

Administrators may be paraprofessional or professional members of the educational staff. All test administrators must understand the administration and scoring guidelines for all measures.

No minimum qualifications

Are training manuals and materials available?

Yes

Are training manuals/materials field-tested?

No

Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?

Yes

If No, please describe training costs:

Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?

Yes

If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:

Pearson provides an extensive online Help database and offers both phone- and email-based support. A customer forum facilitates asking and answering questions, and additional on-site, virtual, and on-demand training may be purchased.

Scoring

How are scores calculated?

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

If other, please specify:

For some measures, test items are scored by the examiner on a digital record form as the the student responds. Responses can be reviewed before submitting each measure to be scored using the aimswebPlus platform.

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:

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.

The aimswebPlus Early Literacy composite is calculated by summing the scores of two or more measures. The composite for kindergarten students is formed by the sum of Letter Naming Fluency and Letter Word Sounds Fluency scores. For students in Grade 1, the composite is formed by the sum of Oral Reading Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Word Reading Fluency scores. Because these measures assess fluency, each student's skill competency will determine how many items are answered within the time limit. Letter Naming Fluency measures a student's ability to name visually presented uppercase and lowercase letters. The student sees rows of letters and names as many as possible in 1 minute. Depending on the student's ability, they may answer as many as 100 items. A student's raw score is based on 1 point for each letter named correctly within the time limit. Letter Word Sounds Fluency measures a student's ability to say the sounds of individual letters, vowel-consonant pairs, and consonant-vowel-consonant word blends. The student sees letters and word parts and makes as many letter/word sounds as possible in 1 minute. Depending on the student's ability, they may answer as many as 75 items. A student's raw score is based on 1 point for each correctly-made sound or word within the time limit. Oral Reading Fluency measures a student's ability to read fictional English texts aloud quickly and accurately. For benchmark screening, the student sees a one-page story and reads as much of the story as possible in 1 minute, then a second one-page story is administered. Depending on the stories and the student's ability, as many as 350 items may be answered. One point is given for each word read correctly within the time limit, and student's raw score is the average words read correctly per minute based on the scores of both stories. Reading accuracy is also reported as the percentage of the words read correctly within the total number of words attempted. Administrators may optionally mark categories of miscues and qualitative observations to enhance score interpretation. Nonsense Word Fluency measures a student's ability to say the individual letter sounds of unfamiliar vowel-consonant and consonant-vowel-consonant nonsense words. The student sees rows of nonsense words and says as many letter sounds as possible in 1 minute. Depending on the student's ability, they may answer as many as 222 items. A student's raw score is based on 1 point for each letter sound correctly made within the time limit. Word Reading Fluency measures a student's familiarity with regularly and irregularly spelled words commonly used in Kindergarten and Grade 1 classroom materials. The student sees columns of lowercase words and reads as many as possible in 1 minute. Depending on the student's ability, they may answer as many as 99 items. A student's raw score is based on 1 point for each word read correctly within the time limit. Combining scores on essential early reading tasks into a composite that can be tracked over time presents a comprehensive and efficient evaluation of a student's on-grade-level performance.

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.

aimswebPlus was designed to be an essential part of a school's strategy to meet state and federal accountability requirements and to document the academic performance data for students who have wide-ranging ability levels. In the fall, winter, spring, and summer, the Early Literacy benchmark screening measures provide data to identify students' academic strengths and weaknesses. When this benchmark screening reveals gaps among students, aimswebPlus provides information to help education teams decide next steps. Score reports can display student performance by subdomain or item-level error analysis. These reports help identify specific areas of academic concern and may reveal patterns for creating instructional groups of students with similar learning needs. The individually administered measures given to obtain an Early Literacy composite include tasks that require administrator observation, judgment, and support (e.g., teaching new tasks and applying discontinue rules). To facilitate this, aimswebPlus uses a computer- and tablet-compatible digital record form (DRF) to make it easy to capture and score student responses. The DRF includes all administration instructions; the words said aloud to the student, and practice items; the test items and method for capturing correct/incorrect responses; and other tools (e.g., a timer) needed for accurate recording and scoring. Once the DRF with the student's responses are submitted to the aimswebPlus system, a score for each measure is generated automatically. Student materials use colorful art, grade-appropriate fonts, and other design features to engage young test-takers. Printed stimulus books are required that include practice and test pages, response booklets, or other materials specified in the directions for administering and scoring each measure. One printed stimulus book may be reused to test many students. All student materials are available as downloadable PDFs and are included in the per-student cost of aimswebPlus. To support assessment with diverse populations, steps were taken during the development of each measure, beginning with the review of content by qualified experts to minimize bias and to ensure the appropriate skill coverage by age/grade. Test instructions are intentionally brief and rely on simple, grade-appropriate language. Pilot studies included students with diverse skill levels and backgrounds, and psychometric analyses were performed to show that items and measures are fair and free from bias. To ensure an equitable testing experience for all students, guidance is offered to establish rapport and to address challenges for students related to language or physical differences. For students who speak Spanish, aimswebPlus offer unique measures that take into consideration the unique structure of the Spanish language. The administration instructions for the measures that make up the Early Literacy composite are given in English. Materials and scoring guidelines for students who speak Spanish are included in the per-student cost of aimswebPlus. aimswebPlus also offers general guidance for when it's appropriate to give test items in Spanish. When allowed by a student's IEP accommodations, adapting the physical environment is permitted.

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

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

Alabama Comprehensive Assessment Program - English Language Arts (ACAP-ELA)

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 Alabama Comprehensive Assessment Program summative assessment for English Language Arts (ACAP-ELA) was used as the criterion measure for grades K-1. ACAP-ELA is a state-summative assessment measuring reading, vocabulary, language, and writing abilities with a focus on reading comprehension. This summative assessment is used to indicate a student's end of year proficiency in ELA skills generally and identify students' performing below expectations who may need intensive intervention. The ACAP-ELA has no direct relation to the aimswebPlus Reading Composite. ACAP-ELA was developed separately using data from unique samples of students and published by a different organization than aimswebPlus.

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.

The aimswebPlus Kindergarten and Grade 1 Early Literacy Composite screening measures were administered three times during the standard school year, in the Fall, Winter, and Spring. The ACAP-ELA was administered 1-2 years later as an end of year summative exam to the same students in Grade 2 in the Spring. Therefore, all classification accuracy analyses used a predictive method on Fall, Winter, and Spring Early Literacy Composite scores predicting risk of students in need of intensive interventions by Grade 2 based on outcomes of ACAP-ELA testing.

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 ACAP-ELA scale were chosen to identify students with intensive needs in accordance with the definition provided by the NCII’s Technical Review Committee. Specifically, cut points were determined separately for each grade level at the ACAP-ELA scale score associated with the 20th percentile of performance. Students with external criterion scores below the 20th percentile were labeled as “at-risk”; students with external criterion scores equal to or greater than the 20th percentile were labeled as “not at-risk.” The cut points on the aimswebPlus Early Literacy Composite score scale were determined by identifying the scores that maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity with the classification outcomes of the ACAP-ELA. Students with Early Literacy Composite scores below the cut point were classified as “at-risk”; students with Early Literacy Composite scores at or above the cut point were classified as “not at-risk”. Lastly, classification indices were calculated using the formulates provided by the NCII 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 receive data specific to the types of interventions students were receiving in addition to standard classroom instruction. However, verbal reports from the school district we partnered with are consistent with Alabama State guidance on interpreting ACAP scores indicating that students scoring below the 20th percentile are most in need of intensive intervention and additional support.

Cross-Validation

Has a cross-validation study been conducted?

No

If yes,

Select time of year.

Fall

Winter

Spring

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

Do the cross-validation analyses examine concurrent and/or predictive classification?

Concurrent
Predictive

Describe when screening and criterion measures were administered and provide a justification for why the method(s) you chose (concurrent and/or predictive) is/are appropriate for your tool.

Describe how the cross-validation analyses were performed and cut-points determined. Describe how the cut points align with students at-risk. Please indicate which groups were contrasted in your analyses (e.g., low risk students versus high risk students, low risk students versus moderate risk students).

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

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

---

Classification Accuracy - Fall

Evidence	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Criterion measure	Alabama Comprehensive Assessment Program - English Language Arts (ACAP-ELA)	Alabama Comprehensive Assessment Program - English Language Arts (ACAP-ELA)
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	460	460
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	5	54
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	18	33
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	53	120
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	16	3
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	272	257
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.73	0.85
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.64	0.81
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.82	0.90

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Base Rate	0.09	0.09
Overall Classification Rate	0.81	0.70
Sensitivity	0.53	0.92
Specificity	0.84	0.68
False Positive Rate	0.16	0.32
False Negative Rate	0.47	0.08
Positive Predictive Power	0.25	0.22
Negative Predictive Power	0.94	0.99

Sample	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Date
Sample Size	359	413
Geographic Representation	East South Central (AL)	East South Central (AL)
Male	49.3%	49.6%
Female	50.7%	50.4%
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic	17.3%	17.9%
Hispanic	22.0%	21.8%
Asian/Pacific Islander	1.1%	1.2%
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.3%	0.2%
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown	59.3%	58.8%
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Winter

Evidence	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Criterion measure	Alabama Comprehensive Assessment Program - English Language Arts (ACAP-ELA)	Alabama Comprehensive Assessment Program - English Language Arts (ACAP-ELA)
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	460	460
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	68	96
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	28	36
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	104	113
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	7	3
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	225	275
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.78	0.88
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.71	0.84
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.85	0.93

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Base Rate	0.10	0.09
Overall Classification Rate	0.70	0.73
Sensitivity	0.80	0.92
Specificity	0.68	0.71
False Positive Rate	0.32	0.29
False Negative Rate	0.20	0.08
Positive Predictive Power	0.21	0.24
Negative Predictive Power	0.97	0.99

Sample	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Date
Sample Size	364	427
Geographic Representation	East South Central (AL)	East South Central (AL)
Male	49.2%	48.9%
Female	50.8%	51.1%
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic	17.0%	17.6%
Hispanic	22.0%	22.2%
Asian/Pacific Islander	1.1%	1.2%
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.3%	0.2%
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown	59.6%	58.8%
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Spring

Evidence	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Criterion measure	Alabama Comprehensive Assessment Program - English Language Arts (ACAP-ELA)	Alabama Comprehensive Assessment Program - English Language Arts (ACAP-ELA)
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	460	460
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	91	128
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	28	35
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	97	72
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	7	3
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	235	323
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.83	0.92
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.76	0.89
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.90	0.95

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Base Rate	0.10	0.09
Overall Classification Rate	0.72	0.83
Sensitivity	0.80	0.92
Specificity	0.71	0.82
False Positive Rate	0.29	0.18
False Negative Rate	0.20	0.08
Positive Predictive Power	0.22	0.33
Negative Predictive Power	0.97	0.99

Sample	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Date
Sample Size	367	433
Geographic Representation	East South Central (AL)	East South Central (AL)
Male	49.0%	49.4%
Female	51.0%	50.6%
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic	16.9%	18.0%
Hispanic	22.1%	22.6%
Asian/Pacific Islander	1.1%	1.2%
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.3%	0.2%
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown	59.7%	58.0%
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Reliability

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Rating

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

The aimswebPlus Early Literacy Composite is used to measure early literacy abilities as a single general construct reflecting performance on a combination of key skills students are expected to learn and develop in Kindergarten and Grade 1. To test the reliability of the Early Literacy Composite, we calculated coefficient omega using a model-based approach for each grade level and each benchmark screening season (Fall, Winter, and Spring). Coefficient omega indicates how well the component measures of the Early Literacy Composite reliably measure the same general construct. This reliability approach accounts for how the Early Literacy composite score is calculated as the combination of scores from unique component measures. (Reference: McDonald, R. P. (1978). Generalizability in factorable domains: “domain validity and generalizability”: 1. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38 (1), 75-79.)

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

The data sample used to calculate coefficient omega was comprised of Kindergarten and Grade 1 students (n = 9,199) from 34 states who completed benchmark screening with the Early Literacy measures in the Fall, Winter, and Spring of 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. Students of all performance levels were included in the analysis. Demographic data for the sample included reported gender, race/ethnicity, and English as a second language (ESL). The sample included 48.5% female and 51.5% male students. These students represented a diversity of racial/ethnic groups: American-Indian (1.4%), Asian (5.4%), Black (16.2%), Hispanic (25.1%), Multi-Racial (5.9%), Pacific-Islander (0.6%), and White (45.4%). 7.9% of students in the sample were designated as ESL students.

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

Omega coefficients were calculated for each Early Literacy grade level (Kindergarten and Grade 1) and benchmark screening season (Fall, Winter, and Spring). Analyses were conducted in R. Omega (total) coefficients were calculated using the “omega” function from the “psych” package. This method first performs a factor analysis on the scores of the Early Literacy composite’s component measures to extract a single common factor. Omega total is then calculated as the proportion of total variance in the scores attributed to the single common factor. 95% confidence intervals of the reliability coefficient were estimated through a bootstrapping approach using the “boot” package.

*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:

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)?

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:

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Validity

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Rating

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

The i-Ready Diagnostic Reading (i-Ready Reading) was used as the criterion measure for concurrent validity and predictive validity analyses of the aimswebPlus Early Literacy (EL) Composite scores for Kindergarten and Grade 1. Concurrent validity analyses provide evidence for construct validity and i-Ready Reading is an appropriate external criterion measure because both the aimswebPlus EL Composite and i-Ready Reading are assessment tools are designed to measure a variety of early literacy and reading skills aligned to academic state standards for each grade level at multiple time points in the school year. The significant overlap in the skills assessed by the EL Composite and the i-Ready Reading measure make the i-Ready Reading measure an appropriate external criterion measure for predictive validity analyses evaluating the strength of how well screening early literacy skills measured by the EL composite predict future early literacy and reading proficiency later in the school year.

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

Concurrent and predictive validity analyses with i-Ready-Reading scores included Kindergarten and Grade 1 students from an elementary school within a small urban and suburban school district in Missouri. Students of all ability levels in this school completed the aimswebPlus Early Literacy (EL) Composite measures as a part of their universal screening assessments at the beginning (fall), middle (winter), and end (spring) of the school year. Around these same times in the school year these students also completed i-Ready Reading assessments. Concurrent validity analyses included all students with valid scores in the sample who had completed the EL Composite and i-Ready Reading in the Fall of 2022 and Spring of 2023 in Kindergarten, and the Fall of 2023 and Spring of 2024 in Grade 1. Predictive validity analyses for Kindergarten and Grade 1 included all students in the sample who completed the EL Composite in the Fall and/or Winter of the 2022-2023 school year and completed i-Ready Reading in the Spring of 2023.

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

Two types of validity analyses were conducted with Early Literacy (EL) Composite scores and the external criterion measures: predictive validity and concurrent validity. Predictive Validity analyses for Kindergarten and Grade 1 examined the strength of the Pearson correlation coefficient between EL Composite scores collected in the Fall and Winter of the 2022-2023 school year and i-Ready Diagnostic Reading scores (i-Ready Reading) collected multiple months later in the spring of 2023. Concurrent Validity analyses examined the strength of the Pearson correlation coefficient between EL Composite scores and i-Ready Reading scores collected in the same benchmark screening periods. Analyses with Kindergarten students used data from the Fall and Spring of the 2022-2023 school year; analyses with Grade 1 students used data from the Fall and Spring of the 2023-2024 school year. For predictive and concurrent validity analyses, 95% confidence intervals for the correlation coefficients were calculated using the Fischer z-transformation.

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

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

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

Provide citations for additional published studies.

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

The provided data show strong evidence that the aimswebPlus Early Literacy (EL) Composite scores provide a valid indication of Kindergarten and Grade 1 students’ emerging reading abilities. Concurrent validity results indicate that EL Composite scores show a moderate-to-strong positive relationship with similar assessment tools like iReady Reading, which measure the same general early literacy and Reading skills. Predictive validity results present strong evidence that the Grade 1 EL Composites measured at the beginning and middle of the school year can predict early literacy abilities observed at the end of the year in i-Ready Diagnostic Reading scores. Confidence intervals around the observed concurrent and predictive validity correlation coefficients were broader in Kindergarten than Grade 1. This may reflect the smaller size of the student sample available for analysis among other plausible sources of variability present when testing younger students. Together, predictive and concurrent validity results provide convergent evidence that the EL Composites measure the foundational reading abilities they are designed to assess and can provide valuable predictive insights for future performance.

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

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:

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Bias Analysis

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Rating	Not Provided	Not Provided

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.