Iowa Assessments
Reading Tests, Forms E, F, G

Summary

The Iowa Assessments are a comprehensive set of measures that assess student achievement in Kindergarten through Grade 12. The tests are designed to provide a thorough assessment of a student’s progress in skills and standards that are essential to successful learning. The tests provide a continuous standard score scale based on the performance of nationally representative groups of students. Available for web-based or paper-based administration, three forms are available for Grades K–8; two forms are available at the high school levels. The exceptional quality of the Iowa Assessments comes in part from the unique, collaborative test development process. The tests are written by researchers at The University of Iowa and are the nation’s only nationally norm-referenced test series developed by independent authors who teach measurement courses, conduct research on both measurement theory and practice, develop tests, and administer a statewide testing program. Constructing meaning from print, or reading comprehension, should be the main focus of reading instruction regardless of grade level. The Iowa Assessments Reading tests are designed with this underlying philosophy in mind. The scope and sequence provides a framework for assessing reading skills that is aligned with proven methods of instruction across the grades. The Reading tests focus on two critical strands in the process of learning to read: Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary. The scores from the Reading and Vocabulary tests together produce the Reading Total score. At the primary grades (Kindergarten through Grade 3), an optional Word Analysis test is available.

Where to Obtain:
Developer: Iowa Testing Programs, College of Education, The University of Iowa Publisher: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
AssessmentsCS@hmhco.com
HMH, Attention Customer Experience Support-Assessments, 255 38th Avenue, Suite L, St. Charles, IL 60174
800.323.9540
https://www.hmhco.com/programs/iowa-assessments
Initial Cost:
$14.00 per student
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.
Included in Cost:
Replacement cost: depends on mode of administration The Iowa Assessments can be administered on paper, requiring a scannable test booklet (Grades K–2) or a reusable test booklet and a scannable answer sheet (Grades 3–12). They can also be administered online. The cost varies by mode of administration, grade level/level of the test, scoring services desired, and version of the assessment (Complete/Core/Survey). Machine-scorable Test Booklets are available in packages of 5 or 25, at an average cost per student between $9.15 – $12.27. Reusable Test Bookless are also available in packages of 5 or 25, at an average cost per student between $7.82 – $9.60. Answer Documents come in packages of 15, 50, or 100, and range in cost per student from $1.56 – $1.92. Additionally, Braille and Large Print versions are available options for student testing. When the Iowa Assessments are administered online, students must have access to an Internet-connected computer (Mac or PC). Teachers need Internet-connected computers to access DataManager, HMH’s web-based system for managing test administrations and accessing score reports and ancillary materials. Online Testing is priced at $14/student.
All measures were developed following Universal Design for Assessment guidelines to reduce the need for accommodations. A number of accommodations that are commonly used with students taking the Iowa Assessments are listed in the Directions for Administration. Braille (Grades 3–12) and Large-Print (Grades 1–8) editions as available; these forms require a paper-based administration.
Training Requirements:
1-4 hrs of training
Qualified Administrators:
professional level
Access to Technical Support:
Help Desk via email and phone
Assessment Format:
  • Direct: Computerized
  • Other: Direct: Paper based
Scoring Time:
  • Scoring is automatic
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Standard score
  • Percentile score
  • Grade equivalents
  • Stanines
  • Normal curve equivalents
  • Equated
  • Lexile score
  • Composite scores
  • Subscale/subtest scores
  • Other: predicted scores are available
Administration Time:
  • 52 minutes per student
Scoring Method:
  • Automatically (computer-scored)
Technology Requirements:
  • Computer or tablet
  • Internet connection
  • Other technology : Educators can also use printers to print reports and the manuals, if they wish, also headphones
Accommodations:
All measures were developed following Universal Design for Assessment guidelines to reduce the need for accommodations. A number of accommodations that are commonly used with students taking the Iowa Assessments are listed in the Directions for Administration. Braille (Grades 3–12) and Large-Print (Grades 1–8) editions as available; these forms require a paper-based administration.

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:
The Iowa Assessments are a comprehensive set of measures that assess student achievement in Kindergarten through Grade 12. The tests are designed to provide a thorough assessment of a student’s progress in skills and standards that are essential to successful learning. The tests provide a continuous standard score scale based on the performance of nationally representative groups of students. Available for web-based or paper-based administration, three forms are available for Grades K–8; two forms are available at the high school levels. The exceptional quality of the Iowa Assessments comes in part from the unique, collaborative test development process. The tests are written by researchers at The University of Iowa and are the nation’s only nationally norm-referenced test series developed by independent authors who teach measurement courses, conduct research on both measurement theory and practice, develop tests, and administer a statewide testing program. Constructing meaning from print, or reading comprehension, should be the main focus of reading instruction regardless of grade level. The Iowa Assessments Reading tests are designed with this underlying philosophy in mind. The scope and sequence provides a framework for assessing reading skills that is aligned with proven methods of instruction across the grades. The Reading tests focus on two critical strands in the process of learning to read: Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary. The scores from the Reading and Vocabulary tests together produce the Reading Total score. At the primary grades (Kindergarten through Grade 3), an optional Word Analysis test is available.
The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).
not selected Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
selected Sixth grade
selected Seventh grade
selected Eighth grade
selected Ninth grade
selected Tenth grade
selected Eleventh grade
selected Twelfth grade

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

Word ID
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Nonword
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Spelling
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Passage
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Reading comprehension:
selected Multiple choice questions
not selected Cloze
not selected Constructed Response
not selected Retell
not 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
not 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
AssessmentsCS@hmhco.com
Address
HMH, Attention Customer Experience Support-Assessments, 255 38th Avenue, Suite L, St. Charles, IL 60174
Phone Number
800.323.9540
Website
https://www.hmhco.com/programs/iowa-assessments
Initial cost for implementing program:
Cost
$14.00
Unit of cost
student
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
Unit of cost
Duration of license
1 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.
Replacement cost: depends on mode of administration The Iowa Assessments can be administered on paper, requiring a scannable test booklet (Grades K–2) or a reusable test booklet and a scannable answer sheet (Grades 3–12). They can also be administered online. The cost varies by mode of administration, grade level/level of the test, scoring services desired, and version of the assessment (Complete/Core/Survey). Machine-scorable Test Booklets are available in packages of 5 or 25, at an average cost per student between $9.15 – $12.27. Reusable Test Bookless are also available in packages of 5 or 25, at an average cost per student between $7.82 – $9.60. Answer Documents come in packages of 15, 50, or 100, and range in cost per student from $1.56 – $1.92. Additionally, Braille and Large Print versions are available options for student testing. When the Iowa Assessments are administered online, students must have access to an Internet-connected computer (Mac or PC). Teachers need Internet-connected computers to access DataManager, HMH’s web-based system for managing test administrations and accessing score reports and ancillary materials. Online Testing is priced at $14/student.
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.
All measures were developed following Universal Design for Assessment guidelines to reduce the need for accommodations. A number of accommodations that are commonly used with students taking the Iowa Assessments are listed in the Directions for Administration. Braille (Grades 3–12) and Large-Print (Grades 1–8) editions as available; these forms require a paper-based administration.

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
not selected Performance measure
not selected Questionnaire
selected Direct: Computerized
not selected One-to-one
selected Other
If other, please specify:
Direct: Paper based

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:
Educators can also use printers to print reports and the manuals, if they wish, also headphones

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
52
per (student/group/other unit)
student

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

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?
No
If yes, how many benchmarks per year?
If yes, for which months are benchmarks available?
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 hrs of training
Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
professional level
not selected No minimum qualifications
Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials field-tested?
No
Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?
No
If No, please describe training costs:
Training can occur either in-person or online. Online Training starts at $200.00. A more in-depth online training is $800.00, with onsite training starting at $2,950.00_______________________
Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes
If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:
Help Desk via email and phone

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
selected Stanines
selected Normal curve equivalents

What types of performance level scores are available?
selected Raw score
selected Standard score
selected Percentile score
selected Grade equivalents
not selected IRT-based score
not selected Age equivalents
selected Stanines
selected Normal curve equivalents
not selected Developmental benchmarks
not selected Developmental cut points
selected Equated
not selected Probability
selected Lexile score
not selected Error analysis
selected Composite scores
selected Subscale/subtest scores
selected Other
If other, please specify:
predicted scores are available

Does your tool include decision rules?
Yes
If yes, please describe.
In general, the Iowa Assessments adopts the 20th local percentile rank for its decision rule when identifying students within a grade in need of intensive intervention. However, at the request of a district or school, alternative decisions rules are considered. For example, some schools elect to use a local percentile rank of 15, as well as a cut point corresponding to the “below basic” category on the state’s accountability examine.
Can you provide evidence in support of multiple decision rules?
Yes
If yes, please describe.
As seen in the prediction study report attached , there are two cut scores defined on the Iowa Assessments for each school system, which correspond to the state’s lowest performance level cut and to 15th percentile rank (PR) of the system’s state assessment score distribution. The former can be considered as a moderate intervention and the later as an intensive intervention. However, for the NCII Screening Tools application, only the 20th PR for the ACT and FAST, and15th PR for the Georgia Milestones and Texas STAAR should be considered.
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.
Score keys and Norms and Score Conversions Guides can be purchased The number of questions a student gets right on a test is the student’s raw score. By itself, a raw score has little or no meaning; therefore, raw scores are usually converted to other types of scores for interpretational purposes, including standard scores. Composite scores are obtained by averaging the developmental standard scores from certain component tests. The average standard score can be converted to a percentile rank, grade equivalent, or other type of score for interpretational purposes
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.
Comparative data collected at the time of standardization enable norm-referenced interpretations of student performance in addition to standards-based interpretations. It is through the standardization process that scores, scales, and norms are developed. The procedures used in the standardization of the Iowa Assessments are designed to make the norming sample reflect the national population as closely as possible, ensuring proportional representation of important groups of students. Many public and non-public schools cooperated in the National Comparison Study. The standardization program, planned jointly by Iowa Testing Programs and the company, was carried out as a single enterprise. The standardization program sample should be selected to represent the national population with respect to ability and achievement. It should be large enough to represent the diverse characteristics of the population, but a carefully selected sample of reasonable size would be preferred over a larger but less carefully selected sample. Sampling units should be chosen primarily on the basis of district size, region of the country, and socioeconomic characteristics as determined by the school’s Title I status and percent of students eligible for free- and reduced-price lunch. A balance between public and non-public schools should be obtained. To ensure applicability of norms to all students, testing accommodations for students who require them should be a regular part of the standard administrative conditions as designated in a student’s Individual Education Program (IEP) and in the accommodation practices of the participating schools. Many public and non-public schools cooperated in the National Comparison Study. Additionally, various approaches to understanding group differences in test scores are a regular part of research and test development efforts for the Iowa Assessments. To ensure that assessment materials are appropriate and fair for different groups, careful test development procedures are followed. Sensitivity reviews by content and fairness committees and extensive statistical analysis of the items and tests are conducted. The precision of measurement for important groups in the National Comparison Study is evaluated when examining the measurement characteristics of the tests. Differences between groups in average performance and in the variability of performance are also of interest, and these are examined for changes over time. In addition to descriptions of group differences in test performance, analyses of differential item functioning are undertaken with results from the national item tryouts as well as with results from the National Comparison Study.

Technical Standards

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 1 Fall Data unavailable Data unavailable Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 1 Winter Data unavailable Data unavailable Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 1 Spring Convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 2 Fall Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 2 Winter Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence 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 Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence 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 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Criterion measure Georgia Milestone Georgia Milestone Georgia Milestone ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 15th percentile 15th percentile 15th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile
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) 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.86
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.84 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.84
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.86 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.87
Statistics Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Date Fall 2017 Fall 2017 Fall 2017 Fall ‘02 Fall ‘03 Fall ‘04 Fall ‘05 Fall ‘06 Fall ‘07 Fall ‘08
Sample Size
Geographic Representation South Atlantic (GA) South Atlantic (GA) South Atlantic (GA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA)
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 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Criterion measure State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STARR) State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STARR) State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STARR) ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 15th percentile 15th percentile 15th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile
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) 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.87 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.87 0.88 0.87
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.86 0.87 0.85
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.88 0.89 0.88
Statistics Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Date Early 2017 Early 2017 Early 2017 Winter 0203 Winter 0304 Winter 0405 Winter 0506 Winter 0607 Winter 0708 Winter 0809
Sample Size
Geographic Representation West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West South Central (TX) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA)
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 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Criterion measure FAST FAST FAST FAST FAST FAST ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile
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) 0.88 0.91 0.93 0.96 0.92 0.91 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.88 0.88
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.86 0.89 0.91 0.94 0.90 0.89 0.84 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.86
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.90
Statistics Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Date Spring ‘17 Spring ‘17 Spring '17 Spring ‘17 Spring ‘17 Spring ‘17 Spring ‘04 Spring ‘05 Spring ‘06 Spring ‘07 Spring ‘08 Spring ‘09
Sample Size
Geographic Representation West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA)
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 2 Fall

Evidence Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Criterion measure Georgia Milestone Georgia Milestone Georgia Milestone
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 15th percentile 15th percentile 15th percentile
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) 0.88 0.92 0.92
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.86 0.90 0.91
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.91 0.94 0.94
Statistics 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 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Date Fall 2017 Fall 2017 Fall 2017
Sample Size
Geographic Representation South Atlantic (GA) South Atlantic (GA) South Atlantic (GA)
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 2 Winter

Evidence Grade 6 Grade 7
Criterion measure State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STARR) State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STARR)
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 15th percentile 15th percentile
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 0.89
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.89 0.88
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.91 0.90
Statistics Grade 6 Grade 7
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Grade 6 Grade 7
Date Early 2017 Early 2017
Sample Size
Geographic Representation 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 2 Spring

Evidence Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Criterion measure FAST FAST FAST
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile
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) 0.91 0.91 0.89
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.89 0.89 0.92
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.94 0.94 0.95
Statistics 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 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Date Spring ‘17 Spring ‘17 Spring ‘17
Sample Size
Geographic Representation West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA)
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 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Criterion measure ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile
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) 0.84 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.85 0.86
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.87
Statistics Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Date Fall ‘06 Fall ‘07 Fall ‘08 Fall ‘09 Fall ‘10 Fall ‘11 Fall ‘12
Sample Size
Geographic Representation West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA)
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 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Criterion measure ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile
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) 0.82 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.85 0.86
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.81 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.82 0.84 0.84
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.84 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.87
Statistics Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Date Winter 0607 Winter 0708 Winter 0809 Winter 0910 Winter 1011 Winter 1112 Winter 1213
Sample Size
Geographic Representation West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA)
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 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Criterion measure FAST FAST FAST FAST FAST ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT ACT
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile
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 0.94 0.92 0.91 0.93 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.87
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.90 0.93 0.90 0.89 0.91 0.86 0.87 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.85
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.94 0.96 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.88 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88
Statistics Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Date Spring ‘16 Spring ‘16 Spring ‘16 Spring ‘16 Spring ‘15 Spring ‘08 Spring ‘09 Spring ‘10 Spring ‘11 Spring ‘12 Spring ‘13
Sample Size
Geographic Representation West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA)
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 2 Spring

Evidence Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Criterion measure FAST FAST FAST
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 20th percentile 20th percentile 20th percentile
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 0.91 0.90
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.91 0.90 0.88
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.95 0.93 0.92
Statistics 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 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Date Spring ‘15 Spring ‘15 Spring ‘15
Sample Size
Geographic Representation West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA) West North Central (IA)
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 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
Rating Partially convincing evidence d Convincing evidence d Partially convincing evidence d Convincing evidence d Convincing evidence d Partially convincing evidence d Convincing evidence d Unconvincing evidence d Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing 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.
Internal Consistency The internal consistency reliability coefficient estimates the proportion of variability within a single administration of a test that is due to inconsistency among the items that comprise the test. Test-retest Reliability: The Iowa Assessments are often used as an interim assessment, and students can take the assessment multiple times a year. Therefore, the test-retest reliability estimate is appropriate to provide stability estimates for the same students.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.
Investigation of sources of variation that might affect scores on large-scale assessments was provided in two studies of reliability based on test administrations from multiple occasions. The first used data from a national probability that was weighted to match the characteristics of the national student population. The second used data from comparability study comparing paper-and-pencil administrations to computer-based administrations. Table 2.1 presents the n-counts for the sample from the national probability sample. Tables 2.1.A presents the percentages of students by school type. Tables 2.1.B and C present the percentages of the geographical region for public and private schools, respectively. Table 2.1.D presents the percentages of the racial-ethnic representation. Note that tables 2.1A to D include Grades K to 12.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.
• For internal consistency, K-R 20 reliability coefficients were calculated from the item-response records in the standardization sample. This national sample was weighted to be reflective of the national student population. The 95% confidence interval for the reliability estimate was computed using Feldt’s (1965) approximations for a sample size of 500. • Test-retest reliability estimates were calculated for a subsample of the national probability sample used in the standardization. Specifically, several hundred students in each grade were tested in the fall and then retested in the spring using the same from. Reliability estimates were calculated by correlating scores from the two administrations. • Although not summarized here, the Research and Development Guide for the Iowa Assessments includes several other types of reliability information, including split-half reliability, alternate forms reliability, and CSEMS. Another study examined the comparability of paper-based and computer-based administrations of the Iowa Assessments. In this study, the same students took both administration modes. The order of testing modes was counterbalanced, and an interval of between one and two weeks separated the two administrations. Correlations between scores in different modes can be interpreted as estimates of test-retest reliability. While the mode of administration does represent an additional source of variation in these scores, high correlations constitute evidence that the combined effects of temporal changes in examinees and administrative conditions are small.

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

Type of Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Do you have reliability data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
Yes

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

Type of Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Validity

Grade Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
Rating Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
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.
All analyses presented here utilized a criterion that was external to the assessment system. In Grades 1–5, one criterion was the grade-specific FAST aReading score. The FAST aReading assessment is a computer-adaptive measure of broad reading ability for Grades K–12. aReading is designed for universal screening to identify students at risk for academic delay. It targets phonological awareness, orthography and morphology, vocabulary, concepts of print, and phonics. Like the Iowa Assessments, FAST is designed to identify student’s strengths and weakness, monitor student growth in reading, and inform student instruction. Scores on the ACT served as a criterion in Grades 6–12. The ACT is generally taken during Grades 11–12 and it is commonly used by school districts to gauge their students’ level of college and career readiness as well as by postsecondary institutions for admissions and placement decisions. The ACT test is designed to measure knowledge and skills in four core academic content areas: English, mathematics, reading, and science. Reading is used here because, like the Reading test on the Iowa Assessments, it is a measure of general reading comprehension that requires students refer to what was explicitly state, reason to determine implicit meanings, determine main ideas, understand sequence of events, and draw generalizations, amongst other similarities. Validity coefficients with Georgia Milestones and Texas STAAR are also presented. Iowa Assessments scores are often used to predict performance on other state assessments at the end of the school year.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
The FAST samples come from one of Iowa’s most diverse and largest districts. This district includes the city of Davenport and portions of neighboring cities. It represents the full range of student achievement. Sample sizes and characteristics of each grade are presented in the supporting tables in Section 1 (Classification Accuracy) and Section 4 (Cross-Validation). The ACT samples comprise the same students presented in the supporting tables in Sections 1 (Classification Accuracy) and 4 (Cross-Validation). Sample sizes and student characteristics are presented in each section. This sample represents potential college-bound students and demonstrates how, even in middle school, the development of student achievement is strongly related to students’ later readiness for college. The Georgia Milestones samples come from Newton County Schools, and the sample sizes are between 1275 to 1359 across Grades 3 to 8. The Texas STAAR samples come from Houston Independent School District, and the sample sizes between 4253 to 5609 across Grades 3 to 8.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
For evidence of concurrent and predictive validity, correlations between scores on the Iowa Assessments and the FAST or ACT were examined and the 95% confidence interval was computed for each sample. Concurrent evidence comes from when the Iowa Assessments and the criterion were administered in the same grade. When there was a year or more between administrations, the type of evidence was specified predictive. Concurrent validity coefficients between the Iowa Assessments and Georgia Milestones are from the Iowa Assessments and Georgia Milestones Assessment System (the Milestones) prediction study, where the prediction equations are developed. Results from the Iowa Assessments administration in Fall 2017 and the Milestones administration in Spring 2018 are used in this study. Concurrent validity coefficients between the Iowa Assessments and Texas STAAR are from the Iowa Assessments and Texas STAAR prediction study, where the prediction equations are developed. Results from the Iowa Assessments administration in January 2017 for Grades 3 through 7 and the STAAR assessment in March and May 2017 were used in this study.

*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.
The evidence presented above strongly supports the use of the Iowa Assessments as an intervention tool. For example, even though FAST has an adaptive platform while the Iowa Assessments used in this study are paper-based, correlation coefficients with the FAST were high (.70–.80). With the ACT, all correlation coefficients were higher than .70. Only in Grade 6 did the correlation fall below .70. This is not surprising given that the Grade 6 assessment was administered about 5 years before students took the ACT. What is remarkable is the strong and consistent relationship observer between scores on the Iowa Assessments and the ACT. The correlation coefficients between the Iowa Assessments and Georgia Milestones, and between the Iowa Assessments and Texas STAAR were generally about .80 across Grades 3 to 8. These evidences support high or appropriate level of concurrent and predictive validity of the Iowa Assessments.
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 Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
Rating No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No
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:
questions in contexts accessible to students with a variety of backgrounds and interests. A goal of all test development in Iowa Testing Programs is to assemble test materials that reflect the diversity of the test-taking population in the United States. Reviewers are given information about the purposes of the tests, the content areas, and cognitive classifications. They are asked to look for possible racial-ethnic, regional, cultural, or gender biases in the way the item was written or in the information required to answer the question. The reviewers rate items as “probably fair,’’ “possibly unfair,” or “probably unfair” and comment on the balance of the items and make recommendations for change. Based on these reviews, items identified by the reviewers as problematic are either revised to eliminate objectionable features or eliminated from consideration for the final forms. Differential Item Functioning (DIF): DIF identifies items that function differently for two groups of examinees with the same total test score. In many cases, one group will be more likely to answer an item correctly on average than another group. These differences might be due to differing levels of knowledge and skills between the groups. DIF analyses take these group differences into account and help identify items that might unfairly favor one group over another. The items that are identified as potentially unfair by DIF are then presented for additional review. The statistical analyses of items for DIF are based on variants of the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) procedure (Dorans and Holland, 1993) . Specific item-level comparisons of performance are made for groups of males and females, Blacks and Whites, and Hispanics and Whites. The number of items identified as favoring a given group according to the classification scheme used by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is shown in Table 5.1 below. Differential Test Functioning (DTF): A series of logistic regressions are conducted in predicting success on an end of year outcome measures (i.e., Georgia Milestones and Texas STAAR), predicted by risk-status as determined by the Iowa Assessments, membership in a gender and ethnicity groups, and an interaction term between the two variables. The presence or absence of bias are determined based on the statistical significance of the interaction term.
b. Describe the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted:
Gender (Male vs. Female) and Ethnicity groups (Blacks vs. White and Hispanic vs. White) are considered for DIF and DTF.
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.
Differential Item Functioning The overall percentages of items flagged for DIF in each form are very small and generally balanced across comparison groups. This is the goal of careful attention to content relevance and sensitivity during test development. Table 5.2 presents the number of items identified in category C from a national standardization study.

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.