Istation’s Indicators of Progress (ISIP)
Advanced Reading

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).

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

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?

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

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?

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?

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

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?

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:

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.

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Classification Accuracy Fall
Classification Accuracy Winter
Classification Accuracy Spring

MAP Reading

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.

MAP Reading is a computer adaptive assessment of reading ability. It is similar to ISIP AR in the fact that each student receives a set of items that is optimal for the student’s ability level. ISIP AR and MAP are independent to each other.

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).

Classification accuracy analyses were performed to determine ISIP AR using MAP as the criterion assessments. 20th percentile are used for both measures and it is a cut point for intensive need. The data were collected in 2015-16 school year from urban districts in the State of Texas.

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

No

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

Cross-Validation

Has a cross-validation study been conducted?

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.

MAP Reading is a computer adaptive assessment of reading ability. It is similar to ISIP AR in the fact that each student receives a set of items that is optimal for the student’s ability level. ISIP AR and MAP are independent to each 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).

Cross-validation analyses were performed to determine ISIP AR using MAP as the criterion assessments. 20th percentile are used for both measures and it is a cut point for intensive need. The data were collected in 2015-16 school year from urban districts in the State of Texas.

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

No

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

---

Classification Accuracy - 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
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - 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
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - 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
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Cross-Validation - 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
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Cross-Validation - 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
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Cross-Validation - 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
Asian/Pacific Islander
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

*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	d	d	d	d	d

*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.