iSTEEP
Vocabulary Reading

Summary

The Vocabulary Reading assessment involves a student matching a word with a picture. The assessment requires both vocabulary and word reading skills.

Where to Obtain:
iSTEEP
support@isteep.com
800.881.9142
www.isteep.com
Initial Cost:
$2.00 per student
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.
Included in Cost:
iSTEEP provides pricing options that range from $2.00/student for early literacy screening up to $8/student for a comprehensive “Pro” package. The “Pro” package includes access to the full iSTEEP program which includes benchmarking assessments, screening assessments, an adaptive diagnostic, and progress monitoring for both reading and math. A writing component and behavior component is also included. All assessments are computer based meaning the computer will automatically time the assessments, calculate the scores, and enter the scores into the system.
Training Requirements:
Qualified Administrators:
Access to Technical Support:
Implementation Packages are available for 24/7 online access to professional development training and resources. Complimentary training sessions are also released throughout the year.
Assessment Format:
  • One-to-one
Scoring Time:
  • Scoring is automatic
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
Administration Time:
  • 1 minutes per student
Scoring Method:
  • Automatically (computer-scored)
Technology Requirements:
  • Computer or tablet
Accommodations:

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:
The Vocabulary Reading assessment involves a student matching a word with a picture. The assessment requires both vocabulary and word reading skills.
The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).
not selected Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
not selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelfth grade

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

The tool is intended for use with the following student populations.
selected Students in general education
selected Students with disabilities
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
selected Accuracy
selected Speed

Nonword
not selected Accuracy
selected Speed

Spelling
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Passage
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Reading 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 Other (please describe):


Listening comprehension:
not selected Multiple choice questions
not selected Cloze
not selected Constructed Response
not selected Retell
not selected Maze
not selected Sentence verification
selected Vocabulary
not selected Expressive
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
support@isteep.com
Address
Phone Number
800.881.9142
Website
www.isteep.com
Initial cost for implementing program:
Cost
$2.00
Unit of cost
student
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
Unit of cost
Duration of license
one 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.
iSTEEP provides pricing options that range from $2.00/student for early literacy screening up to $8/student for a comprehensive “Pro” package. The “Pro” package includes access to the full iSTEEP program which includes benchmarking assessments, screening assessments, an adaptive diagnostic, and progress monitoring for both reading and math. A writing component and behavior component is also included. All assessments are computer based meaning the computer will automatically time the assessments, calculate the scores, and enter the scores into the system.
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.

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
not selected Direct: Computerized
selected One-to-one
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Does the tool require technology?
Yes

If yes, what technology is required to implement your tool? (Select all that apply)
selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

What is the administration context?
selected Individual
not selected Small group   If small group, n=
not selected Large group   If large group, n=
not selected Computer-administered
selected Other
If other, please specify:
Computer assisted.

What is the administration time?
Time in minutes
1
per (student/group/other unit)
student

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

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


Are norms available?
Yes
Are benchmarks available?
Yes
If yes, how many benchmarks per year?
3
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?
Yes
Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:
Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
not selected No minimum qualifications
Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials field-tested?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?
Yes
If No, please describe training costs:
Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes
If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:
Implementation Packages are available for 24/7 online access to professional development training and resources. Complimentary training sessions are also released throughout the year.

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?
selected Age norms
selected Grade norms
selected Classwide norms
selected Schoolwide norms
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents

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

Does your tool include decision rules?
Yes
If yes, please describe.
Decision rules are available for the screening with the iSTEEP assessment and determining need for Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention. Beyond that an optional protocol is offered for deeper data analysis and decision making. With the optional process, screening is the first step in a multiple gating process. After screening students receive a second assessment to determine if the student’s deficit is due to skill or performance problems (can’t do or wont’ do). This assessment provides an additional check on the student’s initial screening score. Conceptually this assessment could be construed as a type of test retest reliability for students with skill deficits. The goal is identifying students with skill deficits and then students with skill deficits move on to the next step which is a survey level assessment to determine grade and skill level in reading (this latter step is not considered screening but is part of intervention planning). Further, the STEEP process recommends that initial selection of students in the screening process be based upon a dual standard. In addition to being “low” with respect to benchmarks, we recommend that students also be in the lowest X% of the class. We typically recommend that X=16%. This helps districts to begin with students most in need and it helps to insure only true positives become the target of intervention. Districts, depending on their intervention resources and goals, can set their own percentage of students for initial intervention. This percentage can be changed as a school is able to accommodate less or more students for intervention. Over identifying students for intervention can be a very significant problem for districts that lack the resources to deliver interventions for high numbers of students who may not truly need intervention. The STEEP data management system will automatically list students who meet the dual criteria of bottom X% (user specifies X) and below benchmark to facilitate decision making.
Can you provide evidence in support of multiple decision rules?
If yes, please describe.
The STEEP protocol was evaluated in various research including the following article: VanDerHeyden AM, Witt JC, Gilbertson DA. Multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology. 2007;45:225–256. This article provides a comprehensive evaluation of the various decision rules. Other research has been conducted on separate decision rules such the process for determining is low scores is the result of skill or motivation issue.
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.
This assessment yields a score representing the number correct in one minute. The score is calculated automatically by the system by subtracting responses with errors from the total sounds produced. Each form contains 50 items.
Describe the tool’s approach to screening, samples (if applicable), and/or test format, including steps taken to ensure that it is appropriate for use with culturally and linguistically diverse populations and students with disabilities.
The assessment contains representative exemplars for the skill. Test stimuli are reviewed by content experts to ensure the items are well suited for this skill and do not contain irrelevant difficulty. The probes have been reviewed for ethnic and gender bias.

Technical Standards

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade Grade 3
Classification Accuracy Fall Data unavailable
Classification Accuracy Winter Partially convincing evidence
Classification Accuracy Spring Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available

Star

Classification Accuracy

Select time of year
Describe the criterion (outcome) measure(s) including the degree to which it/they is/are independent from the screening measure.
The Star Assessment was used as the criterion in this study. This assessment purports to be a broad measure of reading that incorporates multiple skills, including comprehension. Both the Vocabulary Reading Assessment and the Star were administered in January.
Do the classification accuracy analyses examine concurrent and/or predictive classification?

Describe when screening and criterion measures were administered and provide a justification for why the method(s) you chose (concurrent and/or predictive) is/are appropriate for your tool.
Describe how the classification analyses were performed and cut-points determined. Describe how the cut points align with students at-risk. Please indicate which groups were contrasted in your analyses (e.g., low risk students versus high risk students, low risk students versus moderate risk students).
We used the 20th percentile on the criterion and on the predictor measure as the cut points. This cut-point was chosen because there is wide agreement that students below the 20th percentile need intensive intervention because, without such intervention, the students are unlikely to accomplish subsequent literacy goals. This cut-point also appears to align with the goals of NCII. We contrasted only two groups: students at high risk vs low risk. The analyses were performed using ROC analysis. Crosstabs were used to generate a 2 X 2 table (confusion matrix) to yield the classification data. The performance level descriptors for the iSTEEP assessments, were as follows: (a) Below 20th Percentile: Needs Intervention, (b) Between 20th and 40th Percentile: Below Benchmark, May need individual intervention, (c) Above 40th Percentile: Above Benchmark, Unlikely to Need Individual Intervention. The Percentage of Students at Each Performance Level was follows: Needs Intervention: 19% of students Below Benchmark: 26% of students Above Benchmark: 55% of 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?
Yes
If yes, please describe the intervention, what children received the intervention, and how they were chosen.
Approximately 15% of students were in intervention. The students were selected for intervention based upon and existing RTI/MTSS process.

Cross-Validation

Has a cross-validation study been conducted?
No
If yes,
Select time of year.
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?

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 - Winter

Evidence Grade 3
Criterion measure Star
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure 896
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 26
Classification Data - True Positive (a) 18
Classification Data - False Positive (b) 17
Classification Data - False Negative (c) 2
Classification Data - True Negative (d) 45
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.89
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.80
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.97
Statistics Grade 3
Base Rate 0.24
Overall Classification Rate 0.77
Sensitivity 0.90
Specificity 0.73
False Positive Rate 0.27
False Negative Rate 0.10
Positive Predictive Power 0.51
Negative Predictive Power 0.96
Sample Grade 3
Date January
Sample Size 82
Geographic Representation West South Central (LA)
Male  
Female  
Other  
Gender Unknown  
White, Non-Hispanic  
Black, Non-Hispanic  
Hispanic  
Asian/Pacific Islander  
American Indian/Alaska Native  
Other  
Race / Ethnicity Unknown  
Low SES  
IEP or diagnosed disability  
English Language Learner  

Reliability

Grade Grade 3
Rating Convincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.
Study 1: Alternate Form Justification: Alternate form reliability provides an indication of the consistency of a student’s score at two different points in time. It also provides an indicator of the consistency of response to different items which is partially dependent of the equivalence of the forms. Study 2: Inter-Rater Justification: The consistency of student scores can be influenced by examiner error. Coefficient Alpha was used to obtain a second estimate of reliability. This provides an estimate of the internal consistency of the assessment.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.
Alternate Form: The students in this study included a diverse group of 254 students from rural and medium sized suburban schools in Louisiana. The sample was representative of students across all performance levels. Alpha: The sample of 270 students was obtained from a large urban district in Louisiana. The sample was representative of students across all performance levels. The performance level descriptors for the iSTEEP assessments, were as follows: (a) Below 20th Percentile: Needs Intervention, (b) Between 20th and 40th Percentile: Below Benchmark, May need individual intervention, (c) Above 40th Percentile: Above Benchmark, Unlikely to Need Individual Intervention, Across all reliability analyses the median Percentage of Students at Each Performance Level for the various Samples ranged as follows: Needs Intervention: 24% of students Below Benchmark: 26% of students Above Benchmark: 50% of students
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.
Alternate Form: Two alternate forms were administered in a single setting. The scores were used within a correlational analysis. Alpha: Data were collected and item level data were analyzed with Coefficient Alpha.

*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 Grade 3
Rating Convincing 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.
Concurrent Validity: DIBELS Next ORF was used as the criterion in this study. This assessment measures reading fluency. Reliability and validity of the assessment have been well established. Both the iSTEEP Vocabulary Reading and the DIBELS ORF were administered in Winter. The Mississippi State test was also added as a concurrent validity analysis. Criterion validity: The iSTEEP Maze Assessment was used. Maze is a multiple choice cloze assessment where, words are replaced with three words inside parentheses. One of these words is correct. Given the theoretical and empirical linkage between fluency and comprehension, showing a relationship between fluency and the subsequent development of grade level comprehension skills would support the validity of the ORF assessment. We acknowledge the use of a criterion that is not external to the iSTEEP system may cause concern. However, maze and ORF are different ways of assessing reading which may help to assuage concerns about method variance. Also, item overlap is also minimal in that the two assessments don’t rely on the same items types. The Maze assessment was administered within the second and third weeks of January and the Maze assessment was administered within the first two weeks of May.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
Concurrent Validity Sample The sample included a diverse group of 137 students from one Southern state. The sample was representative of students across all performance levels. Predictive Validity Sample For the predictive validity study, the sample included a diverse group of 263 students from a suburban school in Mississippi. The sample was representative of students across all performance levels. The performance level descriptors for the iSTEEP assessments, were as follows: (a) Below 20th Percentile: Needs Intervention, (b) Between 20th and 40th Percentile: Below Benchmark, May need individual intervention, (c) Above 40th Percentile: Above Benchmark, Unlikely to Need Individual Intervention, Across all validity analyses the median Percentage of Students at Each Performance Level for the various Samples ranged as follows: Needs Intervention: 19% of students Below Benchmark: 28% of students Above Benchmark: 55% of students
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
Description of Analysis Procedures for the concurrent validity study: Bivariate correlation between the two measures was used to derive the validity coefficients. Description of Analysis Procedures for the predictive validity study: Bivariate correlation between the two measures was used to derive the validity coefficients.

*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 validity coefficients for kindergarten provide moderate support for the use of the iSTEEP Vocabulary Reading assessment for early literacy screening.
Do you have validity data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?

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

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

Bias Analysis

Grade Grade 3
Rating 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.
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.

Data Collection Practices

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.