Istation’s Indicators of Progress (ISIP)
Advanced Reading

Summary

ISIP Advanced Reading (ISIP AR) is a web based computer adaptive assessment intended for students in Grade 4 through Grade 8 and can be administered simultaneously to an entire classroom in approximately 30 minutes. There is no additional scoring time required for the assessment. Teachers can be trained on ISIP AR through either a webinar or an in-person training session. Training takes between 1 and 4 hours. All training materials are online and are created by Istation. Reports are available for both individual and groups of students indicating single administration results and comparisons of results over time. All reports include student scaled scores and tier levels based on student percentiles.

Where to Obtain:
Istation
info@istation.com
8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 2000, Dallas, TX, 75206
(866) 883-READ
www.istation.com
Initial Cost:
$5.95 per student
Replacement Cost:
$5.95 per student per year
Included in Cost:
ISIP AR is purchased as a yearly subscription. ISIP AR assessment packages includes online assessment, data hosting, reporting, teacher resources, online training center, user guides and manuals. In-person training conducted by a professional development specialist cost is $2800 per specialist per day. Computers and/or tablets are needed to implement this assessment, as well as internet access. ISIP AR can be used on many different technology platforms including desktops, laptops, and tablets.
Appropriate accommodations are provided during ISIP assessments for students who are receiving support services, including those who have an Individual Education or 504 Plan, or who qualify as English Language learners. These accommodations support students’ access to the content of the assessment by reducing or eliminating the effects of the disability or limitation but do not change the content of the assessment. ISIP assessments provide people with disabilities access that is comparable to access for non-impaired people — with the exception of a totally blind or totally deaf disabled person. Administrators with manager accounts can assign accommodations to students in the Istation report and Management Portal.
Training Requirements:
1-4 hours of training
Qualified Administrators:
Paraprofessional
Access to Technical Support:
By email and phone (M-F 7am-6:30pm) CST)
Assessment Format:
  • Performance measure
  • Direct: Computerized
  • One-to-one
Scoring Time:
  • Scoring is automatic
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
  • IRT-based score
  • Lexile score
  • Composite scores
  • Subscale/subtest scores
Administration Time:
  • 30 minutes per student/group
Scoring Method:
  • Automatically (computer-scored)
Technology Requirements:
  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection
  • Other technology :
Accommodations:
Appropriate accommodations are provided during ISIP assessments for students who are receiving support services, including those who have an Individual Education or 504 Plan, or who qualify as English Language learners. These accommodations support students’ access to the content of the assessment by reducing or eliminating the effects of the disability or limitation but do not change the content of the assessment. ISIP assessments provide people with disabilities access that is comparable to access for non-impaired people — with the exception of a totally blind or totally deaf disabled person. Administrators with manager accounts can assign accommodations to students in the Istation report and Management Portal.

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:
ISIP Advanced Reading (ISIP AR) is a web based computer adaptive assessment intended for students in Grade 4 through Grade 8 and can be administered simultaneously to an entire classroom in approximately 30 minutes. There is no additional scoring time required for the assessment. Teachers can be trained on ISIP AR through either a webinar or an in-person training session. Training takes between 1 and 4 hours. All training materials are online and are created by Istation. Reports are available for both individual and groups of students indicating single administration results and comparisons of results over time. All reports include student scaled scores and tier levels based on student percentiles.
The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).
not selected Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
not selected Kindergarten
not selected First grade
not selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
selected Sixth grade
selected Seventh grade
selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelfth grade

The tool is intended for use with the following age(s).
not selected 0-4 years old
not selected 5 years old
not selected 6 years old
not selected 7 years old
not selected 8 years old
selected 9 years old
selected 10 years old
selected 11 years old
selected 12 years old
selected 13 years old
not selected 14 years old
not selected 15 years old
not selected 16 years old
not selected 17 years old
not selected 18 years old

The tool is intended for use with the following student populations.
not selected Students in general education
not selected Students with disabilities
not selected English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What skills does the tool screen?

Reading
Phonological processing:
not selected RAN
not selected Memory
not selected Awareness
not selected Letter sound correspondence
not selected Phonics
selected Structural analysis

Word ID
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Nonword
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Spelling
selected Accuracy
selected Speed

Passage
selected Accuracy
selected Speed

Reading comprehension:
selected Multiple choice questions
not selected Cloze
not selected Constructed Response
not selected Retell
selected Maze
not selected Sentence verification
not selected Other (please describe):


Listening comprehension:
not selected Multiple choice questions
not selected Cloze
not selected Constructed Response
not selected Retell
not selected Maze
not selected Sentence verification
selected Vocabulary
not selected Expressive
not selected Receptive

Mathematics
Global Indicator of Math Competence
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Early Numeracy
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Mathematics Concepts
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Mathematics Computation
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Mathematic Application
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Fractions/Decimals
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Algebra
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Geometry
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

not selected Other (please describe):

Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:
BEHAVIOR ONLY: Which category of behaviors does your tool target?


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@istation.com
Address
8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 2000, Dallas, TX, 75206
Phone Number
(866) 883-READ
Website
www.istation.com
Initial cost for implementing program:
Cost
$5.95
Unit of cost
student
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
$5.95
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.
ISIP AR is purchased as a yearly subscription. ISIP AR assessment packages includes online assessment, data hosting, reporting, teacher resources, online training center, user guides and manuals. In-person training conducted by a professional development specialist cost is $2800 per specialist per day. Computers and/or tablets are needed to implement this assessment, as well as internet access. ISIP AR can be used on many different technology platforms including desktops, laptops, and tablets.
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.
Appropriate accommodations are provided during ISIP assessments for students who are receiving support services, including those who have an Individual Education or 504 Plan, or who qualify as English Language learners. These accommodations support students’ access to the content of the assessment by reducing or eliminating the effects of the disability or limitation but do not change the content of the assessment. ISIP assessments provide people with disabilities access that is comparable to access for non-impaired people — with the exception of a totally blind or totally deaf disabled person. Administrators with manager accounts can assign accommodations to students in the Istation report and Management Portal.

Administration

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What type of administrator is your tool designed for?
not selected General education teacher
not selected Special education teacher
not selected Parent
not selected Child
not selected External observer
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

What is the administration setting?
not selected Direct observation
not selected Rating scale
not selected Checklist
selected Performance measure
not selected Questionnaire
selected Direct: Computerized
selected One-to-one
not selected 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)
selected Computer or tablet
selected Internet connection
selected 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?
selected Individual
selected Small group   If small group, n=
selected Large group   If large group, n=
not selected Computer-administered
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

What is the administration time?
Time in minutes
30
per (student/group/other unit)
student/group

Additional scoring time:
Time in minutes
0
per (student/group/other unit)
student/group

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?
selected No discontinue rules provided
not selected Basals
not selected Ceilings
not selected Other
If other, please specify:


Are norms available?
Yes
Are benchmarks available?
Yes
If yes, how many benchmarks per year?
12
If yes, for which months are benchmarks available?
Entire year; January through December
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:
1-4 hours of training
Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
Paraprofessional
not selected No minimum qualifications
Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials field-tested?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?
Yes
If No, please describe training costs:
Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes
If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:
By email and phone (M-F 7am-6:30pm) CST)

Scoring

How are scores calculated?
not selected Manually (by hand)
selected Automatically (computer-scored)
not selected 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?
not selected Age norms
selected Grade norms
not selected Classwide norms
not selected Schoolwide norms
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents

What types of performance level scores are available?
selected Raw score
not selected Standard score
selected Percentile score
not selected Grade equivalents
selected IRT-based score
not selected Age equivalents
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents
not selected Developmental benchmarks
not selected Developmental cut points
not selected Equated
not selected Probability
selected Lexile score
not selected Error analysis
selected Composite scores
selected Subscale/subtest scores
not selected 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.
Ability scores are estimated using Bayesian EAP with an informative prior under a 2 PL unidimensional IRT model. Reported scale scores are generated through a linear transformation of the raw IRT-based ability scores. An overall ability is estimated after all of the appropriate sub-contents are measured based on the responses from all items.
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.
Ability scale scores are compared to cut-points determined from nationally representative norming sample to classify students into one out of three instructional tiers. The data used for the calibration was based on an ethnically diverse regional sample including urban and suburban students of varied ability and backgrounds. Annual reviews of item parameters, scoring, scaling, and the setting of cut-points is practiced for ISIP AR.

Technical Standards

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 1 Fall Partially convincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 1 Winter Partially convincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 1 Spring Partially convincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 2 Fall Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 2 Winter Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 2 Spring Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available

Classification Accuracy - Criterion 1 Fall

Evidence Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Criterion measure MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 20 20 20 20 20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure 188 195 201 204 207
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 1689 1783 1858 1989 2059
Classification Data - True Positive (a)
Classification Data - False Positive (b)
Classification Data - False Negative (c)
Classification Data - True Negative (d)
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.83 0.82
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.88 0.90 0.89 0.81 0.79
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.85 0.85
Statistics Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Date October, 2015 October, 2015 October, 2015 October, 2015 October, 2015
Sample Size
Geographic Representation West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX)
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Criterion 1 Winter

Evidence Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Criterion measure MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 20 20 20 20 20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure 194 200 204 207 209
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 1738 1812 1880 2010 2082
Classification Data - True Positive (a)
Classification Data - False Positive (b)
Classification Data - False Negative (c)
Classification Data - True Negative (d)
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.82 0.83
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.91 0.92 0.84 0.80 0.80
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.94 0.94 0.88 0.85 0.85
Statistics Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Date January, 2016 January, 2016 January, 2016 January, 2016 January, 2016
Sample Size
Geographic Representation West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX)
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Criterion 1 Spring

Evidence Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Criterion measure MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 20 20 20 20 20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure 196 202 206 208 209
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 1776 1936 1897 2031 2105
Classification Data - True Positive (a)
Classification Data - False Positive (b)
Classification Data - False Negative (c)
Classification Data - True Negative (d)
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.92 0.89 0.86 0.81 0.79
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.91 0.87 0.83 0.78 0.75
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.93 0.91 0.88 0.84 0.84
Statistics Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Date June, 2016 June, 2016 June, 2016 June, 2016 June, 2016
Sample Size
Geographic Representation West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX)
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Cross-Validation - Criterion 1 Fall

Evidence Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Criterion measure MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 20 20 20 20 20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure 188 195 201 204 207
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 1689 1783 1858 1989 2059
Classification Data - True Positive (a)
Classification Data - False Positive (b)
Classification Data - False Negative (c)
Classification Data - True Negative (d)
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.83 0.82
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.88 0.90 0.89 0.81 0.79
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.85 0.85
Statistics Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Date October, 2015 October, 2015 October, 2015 October, 2015 October, 2015
Sample Size
Geographic Representation West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX)
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Cross-Validation - Criterion 1 Winter

Evidence Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Criterion measure MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 20 20 20 20 20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure 194 200 204 207 209
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 1738 1812 1880 2010 2082
Classification Data - True Positive (a)
Classification Data - False Positive (b)
Classification Data - False Negative (c)
Classification Data - True Negative (d)
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.82 0.83
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.91 0.92 0.84 0.80 0.80
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.94 0.94 0.88 0.85 0.85
Statistics Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Date January, 2016 January, 2016 January, 2016 January, 2016 January, 2016
Sample Size
Geographic Representation West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX)
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Cross-Validation - Criterion 1 Spring

Evidence Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Criterion measure MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading MAP Reading
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 20 20 20 20 20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure 196 202 206 208 209
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 1776 1936 1897 2031 2105
Classification Data - True Positive (a)
Classification Data - False Positive (b)
Classification Data - False Negative (c)
Classification Data - True Negative (d)
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.92 0.89 0.86 0.81 0.79
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.91 0.87 0.83 0.78 0.75
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.93 0.91 0.88 0.84 0.84
Statistics Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Date June, 2016 June, 2016 June, 2016 June, 2016 June, 2016
Sample Size
Geographic Representation West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX)
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Reliability

Grade Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Rating Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.
Cronbach’s (1951) coefficient alpha is typically used as an indicator of reliability across test items within a testing instance. However, Cronboch’s Alpha is not appropriate for any IRT based measure because alpha assumes that all students in the testing instance respond to a common set of items. Due to its very nature, students taking a CAT-based assessment, such as ISIP Advanced Reading, will receive a custom set of items based on their initial estimates of ability and response patterns. Thus, students do not respond to a common set of items. The IRT analogue to classical internal consistency is marginal reliability (Bock & Mislevy, 1982) and thus applied to ISIP Advanced Reading. Marginal reliability is a method of combining the variability in estimating abilities at different points on the ability scale into a single index. Like Cronbach’s alpha, marginal reliability is a unitless measure bounded by 0 and 1, and it can be used with Cronbach’s alpha to directly compare the internal consistencies of classical test data to IRT-based test data. ISIP Advanced Reading has a stopping criteria based on minimizing the standard error of the ability estimate. As such, the lower limit of the marginal reliability of the data for any testing instance of ISIP Advanced Reading will always be approximately 0.90.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.
Sample derived from the total population of students using the ISIP AR assessment throughout the 2014-2015 school year. Large sample size ranges from 83,621 to 226,558 students across the United States.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.
Istation derived IRT-based reliability from Classical Test Theory standpoint to Item Response Theory.

*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.
Mathes, P. (2016). Istation’s Indicators of Progress (ISIP) Advanced Reading: Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www.istation.com/Content/downloads/studies/ar_technical_report.pdf
Do you have reliability data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
No

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

Type of Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Validity

Grade Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Rating Convincing evidence d Convincing evidence d Convincing evidence d Convincing evidence d Convincing evidence d
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.
Predictive validity The Kansas Assessment Program (KAP) was developed by the Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation (CETE), part of the University of Kansas’ Achievement and Assessment Institute. The content of all KAP tests and tools is derived from Kansas’ approved content standards for English language arts, science, mathematics, and social studies. KAP field tests its test questions to ensure appropriate fairness and difficulty. The Georgia Milestones Assessment System (Georgia Milestones) is a comprehensive summative assessment program that spans from 3rd grade through high school. Georgia Milestones measures how well students have learned the knowledge and skills outlined in the state-adopted content standards in English language arts (ELA), mathematics, science, and social studies. The Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) is Colorado’s standards-based assessment. The English Language Arts/Literacy (ELA) is a mandatory state assessment administered at the end of each school year between the months of March and May. The State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) is the testing program for students in Texas public schools. STAAR Reading is the assessment used to determine whether students are successful in meeting the reading standards of their current grade and able to make academic progress from year to year. Concurrent validity Gray Oral Reading Test-4 (GORT-4) is a standardized assessment that helps identify school-age children who are below their peers in oral reading proficiency, accuracy, fluency and comprehension. It diagnoses specific reading strengths and weaknesses, and document student reading growth as a result of special intervention. It is one of the most widely used measures of oral reading fluency and comprehension in the United States. The Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) is a standardized achievement battery first developed in 1977 by Richard Woodcock and Mary E. Bonner Johnson. It is a comprehensive instrument that may be administered to children from age two to the oldest adults (with norms utilizing individuals in their 90s). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II (WIAT-II; Wechsler, 2005) it a standardized test. It assesses the academic achievement of children, adolescents, college students and adults, age 4 through 85. The test enables the assessment of a broad range of academics skills or only a particular area of need. The WIAT-II is a revision of the original WIAT (The Psychological Corporation), and includes additional measures. There are four basic scales: reading, math, writing, and oral language.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
Predictive validity KAP-ELA: sample is derived from urban school districts in the state of Kansas. Sample size ranges from n=1,031 to 1,365. SS_ELA: sample is derived from urban school districts in the state of Georgia. Sample size ranges from n=185 to 365. CMAS: sample is derived from urban school districts in the state of Colorado. Sample size ranges from n=37 to 3,877. STAAR: sample is derived from urban school districts in the northeast area of the state of Texas. Sample size ranges from n=3,877 to 2,647. Samples have different background and knowledge. Concurrent validity The GORT-4, WJ-III, and WIAT-II sample is derived from two large Texas independent school districts. Sample size ranges from n=86 to 138. Samples have different background and knowledge across all performance levels.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
Predictive validity KAP-ELA: sample is derived from urban school districts in the state of Kansas. Sample size ranges from n=1,031 to 1,365. SS_ELA: sample is derived from urban school districts in the state of Georgia. Sample size ranges from n=185 to 365. CMAS: sample is derived from urban school districts in the state of Colorado. Sample size ranges from n=37 to 3,877. STAAR: sample is derived from urban school districts in the northeast area of the state of Texas. Sample size ranges from n=3,877 to 2,647. Samples have different background and knowledge. Concurrent validity The GORT-4, WJ-III, and WIAT-II sample is derived from two large Texas independent school districts. Sample size ranges from n=86 to 138. Samples have different background and knowledge across all performance levels.

*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:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Mathes, P. (2016). Istation’s Indicators of Progress (ISIP) Advanced Reading: Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www.istation.com/Content/downloads/studies/ar_technical_report.pdf
Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.
Predictive validity: the state tests are used for our predictive validity. Concurrent validity: the standardized tests are used for our concurrent validity.
Do you have validity 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 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 Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Rating 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 Functioning (DIF) analysis was conducted by grade level (4 - 8) using logistic regression DIF detection analysis by difR package in R software.
b. Describe the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted:
Four DIF factors were investigated: socioeconomic status, gender, race/ethnicity, and special education students.
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.
Using Zumbo & Thomas (ZT) DIF criterion, results showed 97% displayed as A item (negligible or non-significant DIF effect), 2% displayed as B item (slightly to moderate DIF effect), and only 1% displayed as C item (moderate to large DIF effect) across grade level.

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.