i-Ready Literacy Tasks
Letter Naming Fluency

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

The Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency assesses the skill of quickly and accurately naming letter names aloud. As an early application of phonics, letter naming fluency is an important measure of current alphabet knowledge and predictor of future reading outcomes. Letter Naming Fluency measures a student’s fluency in identifying letter names with uppercase, lowercase, or mixed case letters. The task requires the student to voice their responses to stimuli presented by the educator using a printed PDF student form. Letter Naming Fluency forms are available for uppercase letters (four forms), lowercase letters (four forms), and mixed-case letters (10 forms) for grades K–2. Curriculum Associates generally recommends administering only the mixed-case form for screening needs. Curriculum Associates is submitting Letter Naming Fluency forms starting fall grade K through spring grade 2 based on established research.

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

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

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

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

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

Students in general education
Students with disabilities
English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What skills does the tool screen?

Reading

Phonological processing:

RAN
Memory
Awareness
Letter sound correspondence
Phonics
Structural analysis

Word ID

Accuracy
Speed

Nonword

Accuracy
Speed

Spelling

Accuracy
Speed

Passage

Accuracy
Speed

Reading comprehension:

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

Listening comprehension:

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

Mathematics

Global Indicator of Math Competence

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Early Numeracy

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematics Concepts

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematics Computation

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematic Application

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Fractions/Decimals

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Algebra

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Geometry

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Other (please describe):

Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:

The Letter Naming Fluency forms are available for uppercase letters (four forms), lowercase letters (four forms), and mixed-case letters (10 forms) for grades K–2. Curriculum Associates generally recommends administering only the mixed-case form for screening needs.

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

RFPs@cainc.com

Address

153 Rangeway Road, N. Billerica MA 01862

Phone Number

800-225-0248

Website

www.curriculumassociates.com

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost

$8.25

Unit of cost

student

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost

$8.25

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.

$8.25/student/year for i-Ready Assessment for reading, which includes the Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency for grades K–2. i-Ready is a fully web-based, vendor-hosted, Software-as-a-Service application, with the i-Ready Literacy Tasks available as PDFs that are printed from within the i-Ready system. The per-student or site-based license fee includes account set-up and management; unlimited access to i-Ready’s assessment, management, and reporting functionality; plus unlimited access to U.S.-based customer service/technical support and all program maintenance, updates, and enhancements for as long as the license remains active. The license fee also includes hosting, data storage, and data security. Via the i-Ready teacher and administrator dashboards, educators may access comprehensive user guides and downloadable lesson plans, as well as implementation tips, best practices, video tutorials, and more to supplement onsite, fee-based professional learning. These online resources are self-paced and available 24/7. The Literacy Tasks also have a digital administration feature in which a teacher can score a student in real time using a computer or iPad (rather than scoring the student on paper and inputting scores into i-Ready). Professional learning is required and available at an additional cost ($2,400/session up to six hours). Site-license pricing is also available. The Literacy Tasks also have a digital administration feature in which a teacher can score a student in real time using a computer or iPad (rather than scoring the student on paper and inputting scores into i-Ready). This new feature is currently available at no extra charge but it may incur an additional fee in later years. Professional development is required and available at an additional cost ($2,400/session up to six hours). Site-license pricing is also available.

Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.

The document linked below includes considerations and guidance related to the administration of i-Ready Literacy Tasks, including Letter Naming Fluency, for students with specific disabilities. While all decisions about appropriateness of tasks must be made by educators who have access to information about students’ IEPs, 504 plans, or other documented needs, the information in this document may be helpful to include in the decision-making process. We recommend that educators review this document, as well as each task, and apply what they know about their students to determine whether tasks are appropriate. FAQ: i-Ready Literacy Tasks Accessibility and Accommodations Guidance: https://cdn.bfldr.com/LS6J0F7/at/cqftmn8kmf3p5s43sc8w9z2q/iready-faq-literacy-tasks-accessibility-guidance.pdf. The linked documents and resources are housed on our Accessibility & Accommodations Resource Hub (https://www.curriculumassociates.com/access-and-outcomes/committed-to-accessibility/accessibility-in-our-programs), along with other helpful accessibility resources such as FAQs, feature overviews, and video demonstrations.

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

1

per (student/group/other unit)

student

Additional scoring time:

Time in minutes

2

per (student/group/other unit)

student

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?

No discontinue rules provided
Basals
Ceilings
Other

If other, please specify:

Guidance provided for educator.

Are norms available?

No

Are benchmarks available?

Yes

If yes, how many benchmarks per year?

Three

If yes, for which months are benchmarks available?

Fall, Winter, Spring

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

If yes, how many students can be rated concurrently?

Training & Scoring

Training

Is training for the administrator required?

No

Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:

i-Ready Literacy Tasks were intentionally designed with administration guidance that would make it possible for educators to administer with little or no formal training. The Teacher Form for each Literacy Task provides complete instructions, including how to prepare to administer the task, scripts for administering the task, and how to mark and score student responses. Educators should become familiar with this information prior to administering the task for the first time. Various training options are available to educators interested in using the i-Ready Literacy Tasks. Professional learning specialists can visit a district to provide live trainings, with Literacy Task training lengths varying based on the district’s needs and scope of implementation. In many cases, training on the Literacy Tasks is often folded into training on the computer-adaptive i-Ready Inform assessment and i-Ready Personalized Instruction lessons. These trainings are available at additional cost and can also be provided virtually. In addition to live trainings, i-Ready has an asynchronous learning platform known as the Online Educator Learning System. This system, available at no additional cost, features on-demand courses that can help educators understand how to use the Literacy Tasks. Courses include: Getting Started with i-Ready Literacy Tasks: 10 minutes; i-Ready Literacy Tasks Administration and Scoring: 30 minutes. Finally, Curriculum Associates has worked extensively to provide educators with the information they need right within the i-Ready system to administer Literacy Tasks with fidelity even with little or no training, although training is always recommended where possible.

Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.

No minimum qualifications

Are training manuals and materials available?

Yes

Are training manuals/materials field-tested?

Yes

Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?

Yes

If No, please describe training costs:

In addition to our no-cost training materials, facilitated professional learning is available for an additional cost if districts/schools have not already purchased a professional learning package. If they have purchased a package, Letter Naming Fluency training can be part of that package.

Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?

Yes

If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:

Support is available through dedicated i-Ready Partners (Partner Success Manager, Professional Learning Specialist), unlimited access to in-house technical support during business hours, and self-service resources via Success Central, accessible within the i-Ready platform. Self-service materials are available on Success Central and through our Online Educator Learning platform. Materials include guidance documents, recorded webinars, and administration videos with scoring practice options.

Scoring

How are scores calculated?

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

If other, please specify:

The Literacy Tasks also have a digital administration feature in which a teacher can score a student in real time using a computer or iPad (rather than scoring the student on paper and inputting scores into i-Ready). When the digital feature is used, all scores are calculated automatically based on the inputs by the task administrator

Do you provide basis for calculating performance level scores?

Yes

What is the basis for calculating performance level and percentile scores?

Age norms
Grade norms
Classwide norms
Schoolwide norms
Stanines
Normal curve equivalents

What types of performance level scores are available?

Raw score
Standard score
Percentile score
Grade equivalents
IRT-based score
Age equivalents
Stanines
Normal curve equivalents
Developmental benchmarks
Developmental cut points
Equated
Probability
Lexile score
Error analysis
Composite scores
Subscale/subtest scores
Other

If other, please specify:

On-grade performance level placements. Each form provides placement levels for students in chronological grade K fall through grade 2 fall showing whether students are Above, On, or Below level in Letter Naming Fluency. Students who perform On or Above level on the task can be considered proficient in letter naming skills based on grade-level expectations for that specific time of year. Students who perform Below level warrant additional support to accelerate their ability to read letters with automaticity.

Does your tool include decision rules?

Yes

If yes, please describe.

If the student’s placement level is On or Above, the student is showing proficiency with automatic letter name recognition and should continue to be supported through grade-level core instruction with a focus on letter sounds and phonemic awareness, bridging these two skills through decoding instruction. If the student’s placement is Below, the student would likely benefit from instruction focused on the letter names in which they need support, while bridging to instruction in letter sounds.

Can you provide evidence in support of multiple decision rules?

No

If yes, please describe.

Please describe the scoring structure. Provide relevant details such as the scoring format, the number of items overall, the number of items per subscale, what the cluster/composite score comprises, and how raw scores are calculated.

Scoring for Letter Naming Fluency consists of determining the number of letters a student reads correctly per minute. Each Letter Naming Fluency form consists of letters randomly presented in an array of 100 letters (20 rows with five letters per row) on a single page. As students read the letters aloud, the administrator marks if the student read or skipped each letter on the administrator scoring form (printed form or digital form). The number of letters read correctly by the student in one minute is the score. This can be derived by subtracting the number of incorrectly read letters or skipped letters from the total letters read. Student errors include omissions, substitutions, or hesitations of more than 3 seconds, while self-correction is scored as accurate.

Describe the tool’s approach to screening, samples (if applicable), and/or test format, including steps taken to ensure that it is appropriate for use with culturally and linguistically diverse populations and students with disabilities.

Letter Naming Fluency assesses the skill of quickly and accurately naming letter names aloud. As an early application of phonics, letter naming fluency is an important measure of current alphabet knowledge and predictor of future reading outcomes. The Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency measures a student’s fluency in identifying letter names with uppercase, lowercase, and mixed-case letters. The task requires the student to voice their responses to letter stimuli presented by the educator using a printed PDF student form. The task is timed at one minute. A student’s raw score is the number of letters correctly named in one minute. Student errors include omissions, substitutions, or hesitations of more than 3 seconds, while self-correction is scored as accurate. Each LNF form contains 100 letters arranged in a 5 by 20 array with approximately 50% of each case distributed across the form. To control for differences in difficulty level, each form followed the same template and item distribution rules. For mixed-case forms, 50 graphemes appear in the first 50 places in the array and are again distributed in the second 50 places of the array. Each form also follows research-based groupings (Jones & Mewhort, 2004) to ensure more frequently used letters are introduced first with a gradual increase in difficulty from beginning to end of the first subsection of each form. LNF also excludes the use of uppercase “I” and lowercase “l” to avoid identification confusion. Curriculum Associates is also dedicated to ensuring the Literacy Tasks are accessible to as many students as possible. To support educators when using the Literacy Tasks, a detailed FAQ is available that includes considerations to keep in mind when providing specific accommodations for English Learners and students with certain disabilities. Please refer to our i-Ready Literacy Tasks Accessibility and Accommodations Guidance: https://cdn.bfldr.com/LS6J0F7/at/cqftmn8kmf3p5s43sc8w9z2q/iready-faq-literacy-tasks-accessibility-guidance.pdf. While all decisions about appropriateness of tasks must be made by educators who have access to information about students’ IEPs, 504 plans, or other documented needs, the information in this document may be helpful to consider as one factor in the decision-making process. We recommend that educators review this document, as well as each task, and consider what they know about their students to determine whether tasks are appropriate. Specific guidance is provided for untimed accommodations; home language support; accommodations processes for students who are deaf or hard of hearing; accommodations for students who are blind, color blind, or have low vision; considerations for students who are non-verbal, have limited vocalizations, or variances in articulation processes for students who are deaf or hard of hearing; and masking accommodations.

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2
Classification Accuracy Fall
Classification Accuracy Winter
Classification Accuracy Spring

i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score

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.

For grade K–2, i-Ready Inform for reading overall score from the corresponding administration window (fall, winter, or spring) served as the external criterion measure for classification accuracy. i-Ready Inform for reading is a valid and reliable universal screener aligned to state standards and designed to assess foundational literacy skills, including phonological awareness and early reading development. Concurrent analyses were conducted for the Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency and i-Ready Inform administered within the same testing window. Although both assessments are produced by Curriculum Associates, they are distinct instruments with no item overlap and different measurement designs, consistent with TRC requirements for establishing validity evidence using two assessments from the same vendor. i-Ready Inform is a computer‑adaptive assessment that administers on‑grade and off‑grade items targeted to students’ estimated proficiency levels, with scores and placement levels modeled using item response theory (IRT). In contrast, the i‑Ready Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency is a brief, timed measure based on classical test theory, in which students name as many letters as possible within one minute. Separate samples and criterion established the validity and reliability evidence for i-Ready Inform compared to the validity and reliability evidence provided for Letter Naming Fluency. The overall score on i-Ready Inform for reading is highly correlated with measures of reading comprehension; therefore, this was used as an external measure to demonstrate classification accuracy for the Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency. Concurrent classification accuracy is often considered better given data are collected at the same time, reducing the impact of external factors. Therefore, similar classifications would indicate the Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency is an appropriate measure.

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.

Classification accuracy evaluates the degree of similarity in the classification results of two different measures. In this analysis, the Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency and i-Ready Inform for reading overall scale score are compared to determine if students would be grouped similarly by both measures. Both assessments were administered within the same testing window (fall, winter, or spring) and included students from all U.S. regions, representing 18 to 28 states in each testing window. Because both measures are used to identify students with reading difficulties, a concurrent method for classification analyses is appropriate. Concurrent classification accuracy is often considered better given data are collected at the same time, reducing the impact of external factors. Therefore, similar classifications would indicate the Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency is an appropriate measure.

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

i-Ready Inform for reading scale scores are linear transformations of logit values. Logits are measurement units for logarithmic probability models such as the Rasch model. Logits are used to determine both student ability and item difficulty. Within the Rasch model, if the ability matches the item difficulty, then the person has a .50 chance of answering the item correctly. For i-Ready Inform, student ability and item logit values generally range from around -7 to 6. When the i-Ready vertical scale was updated in August 2016, the equipercentile equating method was applied to the updated logit scale. The appropriate scaling constant and slope were applied to the logit value to convert to scale score values between 100 and 800 (Kolen and Brennan, 2014). This scaling is accomplished by converting the estimated logit values with the following equation: Scale Value = 499.38 + 37.81 × Logit Value. Once this conversion is made, floor and ceiling values are imposed to keep the scores within the 100–800 scale range. This is achieved by simply recoding all values below 100 as 100 and all values above 800 as 800. The scale score range, mean, and standard deviation on the updated scale are either exactly the same as (range), or very similar (mean and standard deviation) to those from the scale prior to the August 2016 scale update, which generally allows year-over-year comparisons of i-Ready scale scores. Classification analyses were conducted based on dichotomizing scores for these two measures. In August 2024, national norms for i-Ready Inform were released. In alignment with NCII’s identification of students at-risk, the overall scale score associated with the 20th percentile was used to group students in one of two groups. Using these cut scores, students were classified as at-risk if they scored below the cut score on i-Ready Inform for reading for the given testing window, or not-at-risk if they scored at or above the cut. Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency scores (number of letters read correctly within one minute) are aligned to one of three performance levels (Below Level, On Level, or Above Level) based on established cut scores. Data for Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency were dichotomized by assigning students Below Level to the at-risk group and students On Level or Above Level to a low to moderate risk group. Therefore, students who scored Below for Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency are likely to score below the 20th percentile of the i-Ready Inform for reading overall scale. Kolen M.J. & Brennan R.L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking. Springer, New York, NY.

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

No

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

Cross-Validation

Has a cross-validation study been conducted?

No

If yes,

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	Grade 2
Criterion measure	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	20	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	320	362	404
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	13	38	55
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	6794	6022	392
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	16539	10638	418
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	4224	1942	130
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	40263	21124	1056
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.72	0.79	0.81
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.72	0.78	0.79
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.73	0.79	0.83

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2
Base Rate	0.16	0.20	0.26
Overall Classification Rate	0.69	0.68	0.73
Sensitivity	0.62	0.76	0.75
Specificity	0.71	0.67	0.72
False Positive Rate	0.29	0.33	0.28
False Negative Rate	0.38	0.24	0.25
Positive Predictive Power	0.29	0.36	0.48
Negative Predictive Power	0.91	0.92	0.89

Sample	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2
Date	Fall 2024 screening and criterion	Fall 2024 screening and criterion	Fall 2024 screening and criterion
Sample Size	67820	39726	1996
Geographic Representation	East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, ME, NH) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, MD, SC, WV) West North Central (KS, MO) West South Central (TX)	East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) Pacific (AK, CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (GA, SC, WV) West North Central (KS, MO)	East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ) Mountain (NV) New England (MA) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (GA, MD, SC) West North Central (MO)
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	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Criterion measure	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	343	389
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	27	52
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	10114	1797
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	15331	2104
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	5492	366
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	46350	3069
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.77	0.80
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.77	0.79
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.78	0.81

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Base Rate	0.20	0.29
Overall Classification Rate	0.73	0.66
Sensitivity	0.65	0.83
Specificity	0.75	0.59
False Positive Rate	0.25	0.41
False Negative Rate	0.35	0.17
Positive Predictive Power	0.40	0.46
Negative Predictive Power	0.89	0.89

Sample	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Date	Winter 2025 screening and criterion	Winter 2025 screening and criterion
Sample Size	77287	7336
Geographic Representation	East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, ME, RI) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, SC, WV) West North Central (IA, KS, MO) West South Central (TX)	East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY) Mountain (AZ, NV) New England (MA, RI) Pacific (AK, CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (GA, MD, WV) West North Central (KS, MO)
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	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Criterion measure	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score	i-Ready Inform for Reading Overall Score
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	363	408
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	37	55
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	10889	867
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	15109	706
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	4681	305
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	44151	1795
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.80	0.80
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.80	0.79
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.80	0.82

Statistics	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Base Rate	0.21	0.32
Overall Classification Rate	0.74	0.72
Sensitivity	0.70	0.74
Specificity	0.75	0.72
False Positive Rate	0.25	0.28
False Negative Rate	0.30	0.26
Positive Predictive Power	0.42	0.55
Negative Predictive Power	0.90	0.85

Sample	Kindergarten	Grade 1
Date	Spring 2025 screening and criterion	Spring 2025 screening and criterion
Sample Size	74830	3673
Geographic Representation	East North Central (IL, MI, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) Mountain (AZ, CO, NV) New England (MA, ME, RI) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, NC, SC, WV) West North Central (IA, KS, MO) West South Central (TX)	East North Central (IL, OH, WI) East South Central (AL, KY, TN) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY) Mountain (AZ) New England (MA) Pacific (CA, OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA, MD, WV) West North Central (KS, MO) 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	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2
Rating

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

We provide three types of reliability to support the Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency. The first method, coefficient alpha (Cronbach Alpha) reliability, assesses internal consistency. This method is often used to demonstrate internal consistency of items in educational tests. For this measure, items are the letters on the form, and the maximum possible score is the total number of letters on the form. The total number of letters read correctly within one minute is the overall score. For each item (letter), a student’s correct or incorrect response and overall score are used in the calculation. Because Literacy Tasks are timed assessments and the formula for coefficient alpha does not account for response time with respect to accuracy, caution is recommended when interpreting the coefficients. The second method, concurrent alternate form reliability, compares the similarity in scores across two forms. Concurrent alternate form reliability evaluates the consistency or stability of the student scores obtained from two forms administered to the same student on the same day. The third method, delayed alternate form reliability, compares the similarity in scores across two forms administered during different testing windows. Delayed alternate form reliability evaluates the consistency of student scores obtained from two forms administered at different points in time. This is similar to a test-retest analysis; however, the saliency of the forms precludes the use of the same form during a second testing window. Consistency in scores across the forms is important because forms are constructed based on the same content requirements and to be of similar difficulty.

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

The samples for the reliability analyses were distinct for each analysis. The sample for the coefficient alpha analyses consisted of students testing in fall 2024. These analyses used naturally occurring data from the ordinary administration of Letter Naming Fluency in districts and schools that chose to administer it through digital administration. The kindergarten sample included 3,516 students from 31 districts across 13 states; the grade 1 sample included 939 students from 11 districts across 8 states; and the grade 2 sample included 93 students from 5 districts across 3 states. The sample included students from public and private schools, and the kindergarten and grade 1 samples represented most major regions of the U.S. The grade 2 sample primarily consisted of students in a single southern state. Concurrent alternate form reliability study data were collected through special studies conducted during the 2022-2023 academic year. Concurrent alternate form reliability required participating schools to administer an additional form to each student. The target sample size per task was one hundred students. Educators were instructed to administer two forms each to students, with the alternate form administered immediately following the first form on the same day. The kindergarten sample was collected in spring 2023 and included 147 students from four schools across three states representing the South, Northeast, and Midwest regions. The grade 1 and 2 samples were collected in fall 2022 and included 59 grade 1 students and 58 grade 2 students from four schools across three states representing the South, Northeast, and Midwest regions. Delayed alternate form reliability evaluates the consistency of student scores on the same task in adjacent administration windows such as fall compared to winter or winter compared to spring. These analyses used naturally occurring data from the ordinary administration of Letter Naming Fluency during the winter and spring 2024–2025 test administration windows. Typically, the form administered for each task in fall is the first form, the second form in winter, and the third form in spring. Delayed alternate form reliability requires matching students’ data across administration windows within a school year. The kindergarten sample included 64,688 students from public and private schools across 364 districts in 24 states; the grade 1 sample included 3,168 students from public and private schools in 63 districts across 13 states. These analyses could not be done for grade 2 because the task is offered only for the fall administration (i.e., there was not a second administration window to use in the analysis).

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

Letter Naming Fluency items are the letters on the form, and the maximum possible score is the total number of letters on the form. For each item (letter), a student’s correct or incorrect response and their overall score are used in the calculation. For each form, coefficient alpha is derived from the item-total correlation for each item, the average covariance between items, and the average total variance. Literacy Tasks are timed assessments and the formula for coefficient alpha does not account for response time with respect to accuracy, so caution is recommended when interpreting the coefficients. Pearson correlations were calculated to determine concurrent alternate form reliability and delayed alternate form reliability, as it provides a measure of the direction and strength of the relationship between two variables, in this case, the two forms. Because the task is used to establish performance benchmarks three times during the year, establishing the consistency with which forms measure the same construct is important. Results presented include Cronbach Alpha, concurrent alternate form reliability, and delayed alternate form reliability, with the lower and upper 95% confidence interval.

*In the table(s) below, report the results of the reliability analyses described above (e.g., internal consistency or inter-rater reliability coefficients).

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

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

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

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:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Validity

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2
Rating

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

Validity evidence for the Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency is based on relationships with scores from two widely recognized assessment programs. We selected the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, 8th Edition (DIBELS 8), as the external measure for concurrent validity because it is widely used as a universal literacy screener in U.S. elementary schools. DIBELS 8 purports to assess component skills involved in reading; more specifically, “DIBELS 8 subtests were developed and researched as indicators of risk and progress in overall reading, as well as risk for dyslexia and other reading difficulties” (DIBELS, 2023). Concurrent analyses were conducted for Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency and DIBELS 8 Letter Naming Fluency. The second source of evidence is with i-Ready Inform for reading overall score. i-Ready Inform for reading is a valid and reliable tool aligned to rigorous state standards across the following domains: Phonological Awareness, Phonics, High-Frequency Words, Vocabulary, Comprehension of Informational Text, and Comprehension of Literature. The i-Ready Inform for reading overall scale score is highly correlated with other measures of reading comprehension; therefore, it was used as an external measure to demonstrate validity evidence for the Letter Naming Fluency forms. Although both i-Ready Inform and the i‑Ready Literacy Tasks are provided by Curriculum Associates, they are entirely separate assessments that use different assessment methods and have no common items, consistent with TRC requirements for establishing validity using two assessments from the same vendor. i-Ready Inform is a computer adaptive assessment that administers on-grade and off-grade level items targeted to students’ interim proficiency. i-Ready Inform scores and placement levels are modeled through item response theory, while Letter Naming Fluency is based on classical test theory. Separate samples and criterion established the validity and reliability evidence for i-Ready Inform compared to the validity and reliability evidence for Letter Naming Fluency. Both assessments are typically administered three times during the academic year (fall, winter, and spring). Student performance on the fall i-Ready Inform for reading provides a reading performance baseline and is a good predictor of performance at the end of the year. University of Oregon (2023). 8th Edition of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS®): Administration and Scoring Guide. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Available: https://dibels.uoregon.edu)

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

Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency and DIBELS 8 Letter Naming Fluency data were collected during a special study conducted in fall 2023. Trained task administrators at participating schools administered i-Ready Literacy Tasks and DIBELS 8 Tasks at the same time to a sample of students in grades K–1. No personally identifiable student information or demographic characteristics were collected. The sample included 232 grade K students and 279 grade 1 students from three districts in three states representing the South, Midwest, and West regions. The predictive analyses for Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency and i-Ready Inform for reading leveraged naturally occurring data from the 2024-2025 academic year. Kindergarten and grade 1 students completed Letter Naming Fluency during the winter 2025 testing window and i-Ready Inform for reading in the spring 2025 testing window. The Kindergarten sample included 77,354 students from 491 districts across 28 states, and the grade 1 sample included 7,312 students from 183 districts across 23 states. All predictive validity samples included students from public and private schools and represented all major regions of the continental United States. Analyses for grade 2 were not performed because data were not collected as part of the special study.

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

Concurrent analyses were conducted using a representative sample of students with Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency scores and at least one of the following external measures: DIBELS 8 Letter Naming Fluency, and/or i-Ready Inform for reading. Pearson correlation coefficients and their corresponding lower and upper 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Because DIBELS 8 Letter Naming Fluency assesses content very similar to the Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency, a strong positive correlation was expected. i-Ready Inform for reading is a broad measure of reading achievement and is strongly related to reading comprehension. Although it provides supportive validity evidence for the Literacy Task, its relationship with Letter Naming Fluency was expected to be weaker than that of the DIBELS 8 Letter Naming Fluency measure. Consequently, moderate sized correlations between the two measures were expected. Predictive analyses were conducted using a representative sample of students who completed the i‑Ready Literacy Task for Letter Naming Fluency prior to administration of i-Ready Inform for reading. Pearson correlations between the Literacy Task score and i-Ready Inform for reading overall scale score and lower and upper 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Because i-Ready Inform for reading is a general measure of reading proficiency across multiple domains, a moderate correlation coefficient is expected. Results presented include Pearson correlations for the concurrent and predictive analyses, with lower and upper 95% confidence interval.

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

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

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

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

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

No

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

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

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

Manual cites other published reliability studies:

No

Provide citations for additional published studies.

Bias Analysis

Grade	Kindergarten	Grade 1	Grade 2
Rating	Not Provided	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.