Acadience Reading Pre-K: PELI
PELI Language Index
Summary
The Preschool Early Literacy Indicators (PELI®) is an individually administered assessment of essential skills for early literacy development in children who are 3 to 5 years of age. The PELI was developed to be used for the following primary purposes: (a) identification of preschool children who may need additional support in acquiring early literacy skills; (b) monitoring progress of children in acquisition of early literacy skills; and (c) evaluating child outcomes as a result of instruction and/or intervention. The PELI Language Index is a combined score of the two subtests that assess children’s skills in the language domain: Vocabulary-Oral Language and Comprehension. The Language Index reflects the child’s overall language skills. The Language Index was built because the language concepts of vocabulary, oral language, and comprehension are interrelated language skills, even though they are assessed in separate subtests. The Language Index score is more highly correlated with normative measures of language development than either subtest alone, thus provides a more representative measurement of a child’s overall language skills.
- Where to Obtain:
- Acadience Learning Inc.
- info@acadiencelearning.org; customerservice@voyagersopris.com
- Acadience Learning Inc. 4710 Village Plaza Loop, Suite 210, Eugene OR 97401; Voyager Sopris: 17855 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400, Dallas, TX 75287-6816
- Acadience Learning: (541)431-6931, (888)943-1240; Voyager Sopris Learning: (800)547-6747
- https://acadiencelearning.org/; https://www.voyagersopris.com/
- Initial Cost:
- $229.00 per per classroom kit (see additional cost information below)
- Replacement Cost:
- $65.00 per classroom per annual
- Included in Cost:
- Additional info on where the tool can be obtained: Voyager Sopris Learning (print materials in color) Print materials: Voyager Sopris Learning (Published print version in color) Website: http://voyagersopris.com Address: 17855 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400, Dallas, TX 75287-6816 Telephone number: (800) 547-6747. Classroom Kits for 3/4 = $229.00, $9.16 per student Classroom Kits for 4/5 = $229.00, $9.16 per student Data management via Acadience Learning Online: Manual Entry Licenses for K-6 = $2.50 per student, per year
- Approved test accommodations result in scores that can be reported as official scores and compared to the benchmark goals. General accommodations that are approved for the PELI include the following: • Testing using assistive listening devices for children with hearing impairment; and • Conducting the assessment across two or more sessions for children with challenging behaviors. Any other accommodations used would be considered unapproved. There may be times when an assessor wishes to use an unapproved accommodation to gather information about a child’s skills. These additional accommodations, and directions on how and when to use them, are outlined by the PELI Assessment Manual.
- Training Requirements:
- Administrator training for Acadience Reading Pre-K: PELI uses a combination of video modules, practice activities, and knowledge check assessments. Overall, the complete PELI Essential Workshop provides over four hours of in-depth training content focused on the administration and scoring of this assessment. Training for the PELI Composite Score sub tool requires approximately three and a half to seven hours to complete.
- Qualified Administrators:
- Administrator must have adequate training on the administration and scoring of the assessments.
- Access to Technical Support:
- Acadience Learning: Customer support is available from 8:00am to 5:00pm PT, Monday through Friday by phone, email, or through Acadience Learning's website; Voyager Sopris: Customer support is available 8:00am to 6:00pm CT, Monday through Friday by phone, email, or through the Voyager Sopris website.
- Assessment Format:
-
- Direct observation
- One-to-one
- Scoring Time:
-
- 1 minutes per student
- Scores Generated:
-
- Raw score
- Percentile score
- Developmental benchmarks
- Developmental cut points
- Administration Time:
-
- 15 minutes per student
- Scoring Method:
-
- Manually (by hand)
- Technology Requirements:
-
- Accommodations:
- Approved test accommodations result in scores that can be reported as official scores and compared to the benchmark goals. General accommodations that are approved for the PELI include the following: • Testing using assistive listening devices for children with hearing impairment; and • Conducting the assessment across two or more sessions for children with challenging behaviors. Any other accommodations used would be considered unapproved. There may be times when an assessor wishes to use an unapproved accommodation to gather information about a child’s skills. These additional accommodations, and directions on how and when to use them, are outlined by the PELI Assessment Manual.
Descriptive Information
- Please provide a description of your tool:
- The Preschool Early Literacy Indicators (PELI®) is an individually administered assessment of essential skills for early literacy development in children who are 3 to 5 years of age. The PELI was developed to be used for the following primary purposes: (a) identification of preschool children who may need additional support in acquiring early literacy skills; (b) monitoring progress of children in acquisition of early literacy skills; and (c) evaluating child outcomes as a result of instruction and/or intervention. The PELI Language Index is a combined score of the two subtests that assess children’s skills in the language domain: Vocabulary-Oral Language and Comprehension. The Language Index reflects the child’s overall language skills. The Language Index was built because the language concepts of vocabulary, oral language, and comprehension are interrelated language skills, even though they are assessed in separate subtests. The Language Index score is more highly correlated with normative measures of language development than either subtest alone, thus provides a more representative measurement of a child’s overall language skills.
ACADEMIC ONLY: What skills does the tool screen?
- Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:
- This tool also screens for Vocabulary-Oral Language. This subtest targets a child’s knowledge of and ability to use words in simple sentences to convey meaning, and is assessed by looking at a child's ability to name pictures and tell about them. This tool provides a score based on the number of pictures named and the quality of verbal responses about the pictures.
- 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
Administration
- Are norms available?
- Yes
- Are benchmarks available?
- Yes
- If yes, how many benchmarks per year?
- 3
- If yes, for which months are benchmarks available?
- Beginning of year (months 1 - 3 of school year), middle of year (months 4 - 6 of the school year), and end of year (months 7 - 9 of the school year).
- 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:
- Administrator training for Acadience Reading Pre-K: PELI uses a combination of video modules, practice activities, and knowledge check assessments. Overall, the complete PELI Essential Workshop provides over four hours of in-depth training content focused on the administration and scoring of this assessment. Training for the PELI Composite Score sub tool requires approximately three and a half to seven hours to complete.
- Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
- Administrator must have adequate training on the administration and scoring of the assessments.
-
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?
- No
- If No, please describe training costs:
- The Acadience Reading Pre-K: PELI Assessment Manual is included with test materials. In addition to administrator support provided within the Acadience Reading Pre-K: PELI Assessment Manual, Acadience Learning offers a variety of training options to meet different needs and at different price points. Training options include asynchronous training, and synchronous training via live online training, and onsite training (hiring a trainer to come out to the school or district). Acadience Learning staff can work with schools, LEAs, regional agencies, and SEAs to develop customized training plans to meet their unique needs. We also have an Acadience Mentor program, where individual participants or small groups of participants can become Acadience Reading Pre-K: PELI Mentors. Mentors receive access to our official training materials, which they can use to train others in their school or district. For an individual teacher subscription to the online Acadience Reading Pre-K: PELI Essential Workshop, the cost is $129. Please note: Other training options may cost more or less depending on the circumstances and the number of attendees.
- Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
- Yes
- If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:
- Acadience Learning: Customer support is available from 8:00am to 5:00pm PT, Monday through Friday by phone, email, or through Acadience Learning's website; Voyager Sopris: Customer support is available 8:00am to 6:00pm CT, Monday through Friday by phone, email, or through the Voyager Sopris website.
Scoring
- Do you provide basis for calculating performance level scores?
-
Yes
- Does your tool include decision rules?
-
Yes
- If yes, please describe.
- The development of PELI benchmark goals and studies evaluating their decision utility occurred in a series of studies over a two-year period. The first study included 274 three- to four-year-old children and 2,472 four- to five-year-old children from 217 preschool classrooms in 37 early childhood programs in nine states representing all four census regions of the United States. In the second study, 3,233 children participated from 106 schools located in 15 states representing all census regions of the United States. PELI benchmark goals and cut points for risk were derived by examining the predictive utility of a score on the PELI at a particular point in time, compared with later PELI measures and to criterion measures that served as outcomes. Our fundamental logic for developing the benchmark goals was to begin with an external outcome goal and work backward following systematic step-by-step procedures. We started by determining a level of performance representing adequate early literacy and language skills on each outcome measure at the end of the year. We used the benchmark goal for the beginning-of-kindergarten RCS as our external outcome goal for early literacy skills and the 40th percentile on the PPVT-4 as our external outcome goal for language skills. Next, we examined the predictive utility of the end-of-year PCS for 4- to 5-year-olds with respect to the end-ofyear external outcome goals (i.e., at or above benchmark on the RCS, 40th percentile on the PPVT-4) and used this data to specify a benchmark goal for the PCS. The primary specification for the PELI benchmark goals was to establish a level of skill where children scoring at or above the benchmark had a favorable probability (above 80%) of achieving subsequent literacy outcomes. Then, using the PCS end-of-year benchmark goal as an internal goal, we established the benchmark goals for the middle-of-year PCS. Finally, we established the benchmark goals on the beginning-of-year PCS using the middle-of-year PCS as an internal goal. Once the benchmark goals were established for the PCS, they were used to establish the benchmark goals for each individual PELI subtest using the same step-by-step procedures. The same step-by-step procedure was used for determining PELI goals for 3- to 4-year-olds using the 4- to 5-year-old beginning-of-year PCS as the starting point. Cut points for risk were derived using a similar step-by-step procedure. The primary specification for the PELI cut points for risk was to establish a level of skill where children scoring well below the benchmark had a low probability (less than 20%) of achieving subsequent literacy outcomes. In addition to the primary specifications for the benchmark goals and cut points for risk, an important secondary consideration was based on the logistic regression predicting the probability of scoring at or above the benchmark on the outcome measure based on a child’s score on the PELI. For all children with scores in the “At or Above Benchmark” range on the PELI, the overall probability of achieving subsequent early literacy goals may be greater than 80%, but for children with scores at the high end of the range, the probability is higher and for children at the low end of the range, the probability is lower. The logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the probability of achieving subsequent early literacy and language goals for children who obtained the exact benchmark score. We attempted to keep the predicted probabilities for children who obtained the exact benchmark score at 60% or higher. Diagnostic efficiency of the PELI benchmark goals and cut points for risk also was evaluated using receiveroperator characteristic (ROC) curves for the PCS, the PLI, and each subtest of the PELI with subsequent PELI assessments and with each of the outcome measures. Additional indices were calculated to provide multiple perspectives on the effectiveness of the PELI scores, including sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive power, and percent accurate classification. In early childhood, we are operating from a prevention perspective. As such, our primary consideration in developing PELI benchmark goals was to identify a level of skill that is predictive of success so that we can set our goals and monitor progress toward those outcomes. Further details and analyses can be found in Chapter 8 of the PELI Assessment Manual. Research on the technical adequacy and decision-making utility of the PELI is ongoing with different samples of children and statistical procedures, and using different external outcome measures. Ongoing research studies will provide additional evidence regarding the technical adequacy of the PELI as well as provide guidance for future revisions of the PELI. Current technical reports on the PELI are available from Acadience Learning.
- Can you provide evidence in support of multiple decision rules?
-
Yes
- If yes, please describe.
- Research evidence supporting the use of PELI measures for benchmark assessment three times per year is found in the following documents: •PELI Assessment Manual •Acadience Reading Pre-K: PELI Benchmark Goals and Composite Score •Kaminski, R., Abbott, M., Bravo Aguayo, K., Latimer, R., & Good, R. (2014). The preschool early literacy indicators: Validity and benchmark goals. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 34(2), 71-82.
- 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.
- The PELI Language Index combines the two subtests that assess children’s skills in the language domain: Vocabulary-Oral Language and Comprehension. The Language Index reflects the child’s overall language skills and, like the PCS, is weighted to ensure that each subtest is reflected equally in the score. The Language Index also has been equated to account for differences in difficulty of the books. Each PELI book has a score sheet corresponding to the specific items in that book. The front side of the score sheet includes sections corresponding to the subtests of the PELI. Within each section are all of the items that are administered in that subtest with spaces to record the scores. Each section of the score sheet is a different color, to facilitate ease of use. The front side of the score sheet also includes a space to provide a score for the articulation and child attention and participation ratings. On the backside of the score sheet there is space to write the child’s responses for the Tell About portion of the Vocabulary-Oral Language subtest. The Vocabulary-Oral Language subtest is broken down into two parts. In part one, Picture Naming, the child receives 1 point for each picture that is named correctly. There are 10 items for this section. In part two, Tell About, the child can receive up to 5 points based on the quality of their response. There are 5 items for this section, making the total number of items for this subtest 15 and the raw score scale between 0-35. Detailed scoring directions and examples are shown in the PELI Assessment Manual. The Comprehension subtest is also broken down into two parts. In part one, Comprehension Questions, all questions are scored on a 3-point scale, with a score of 2 being correct, a score of 1 being partially correct, and a score of 0 being incorrect. There are 9 items in this section. In part two, Shared Retell, all items are scored as 1 or 0, with a score of 1 being correct and a score of 0 being incorrect. There are 5 items in this section, making the total number of items for this subtest 14 and the raw score scale between 0-23. The PELI Assessment Manual provides a rubric and detailed examples to aid administrators in scoring this subtest.
- 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.
- We recommend that the PELI be used within an Outcomes-Driven Model of educational decision-making. The Outcomes-Driven Model is a data-based decision-making model in which data are used to make decisions that promote the acquisition of early literacy skills and enhance the school readiness of all children. Within the Outcomes-Driven Model, the PELI provides data that help teachers match the amount and type of instructional support with needs of individual children. The Outcomes-Driven Model consists of five decision-making steps. Step 1. Identify need for support. This process, also known as universal screening, occurs during benchmark assessment. The purpose is to identify those children who may need additional instructional support to meet end-of-preschool early literacy goals. At a systems level, benchmark assessment also provides data regarding the performance of all children in the program with respect to the benchmark goals. Step 2. Validate need for support. The purpose of this step is to be reasonably confident in your decision that a child needs or does not need additional instructional support. Before making a decision to provide instructional support, it is important to consider additional information and knowledge about a child to validate the score. Other sources of information that may be used to validate need for support include data from other assessments, classroom observations, anecdotal records, parental reports, and/or work samples. Step 3. Plan and implement support. Our research indicates that most children who meet the benchmark goals are likely to make adequate progress when they receive instruction in a research-based core curriculum in early literacy. Children whose scores are below the benchmark are likely to need additional instruction or intervention in the skill areas in which they are having difficulty. PELI data can be used to determine specific skill areas in which a child needs additional support. Step 4. Evaluate effectiveness of support. Children who are at risk for future difficulties in learning to read should be assessed more frequently to ensure that the instruction they are receiving is effective. PELI interim progress monitoring books may be used between the regular benchmark periods to assess all critical early literacy areas. Additionally, PELI Quick Checks may be used to efficiently monitor the progress of those children who are receiving targeted instructional support in a single skill area. Monitoring with Quick Checks may occur once a month, once every two weeks, or as often as once per week. In general, children who are furthest behind and need the most intensive support should be progress monitored more frequently to allow for timely decisions regarding the effectiveness of the intervention and whether or not to make modifications to the intervention plan. Step 5. Review outcomes. By looking at benchmark assessment data for all children at the end of the year, programs serving preschoolers can ensure that the core curriculum and supplemental interventions are working for all children. The preschool program can use the end-of-year PELI data at a systems level to identify areas of instructional support that may need improvement. The Outcomes-Driven Model is depicted in Figure 1.4. The numbers in the figure correspond to the steps of the model. The model consists of two recursive processes. The benchmark assessment process occurs from beginning-of-year to middle-of-year, and repeats from middle-of-year to end-of-year. Steps 1, 2, and 5 are a part of the benchmark assessment process. The progress monitoring process, consisting of steps 3 and 4, is ongoing and repeats as needed throughout the year. The PELI Assessment Manual also provides a breakdown regarding how administrators can support diverse populations including English language learners, children from culturally diverse backgrounds, children with special needs, and children out of preschool age range. These directions include information about approved and unapproved accommodations and modifications, and examples of how and when an administrator might want to use unapproved or modified assessment procedures (see PELI Assessment Manual, pp.15-21).
Technical Standards
Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary
| Grade |
Pre-Kindergarten 4/5-Year-Olds
|
|---|---|
| Classification Accuracy Fall |
|
| Classification Accuracy Winter |
|
| Classification Accuracy Spring |
|
Legend
Convincing evidencePartially convincing evidence
Unconvincing evidence
Data unavailabledDisaggregated data available
Peapody Picture Vocabulary Test
Classification Accuracy
- Describe the criterion (outcome) measure(s) including the degree to which it/they is/are independent from the screening measure.
- 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).
- 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.
Cross-Validation
- Has a cross-validation study been conducted?
-
No
- If yes,
- Describe the criterion (outcome) measure(s) including the degree to which it/they is/are independent from the screening measure.
- 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 | Pre-Kindergarten 4/5-Year-Olds |
|---|---|
| Criterion measure | Peapody Picture Vocabulary Test |
| Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure | 20 |
| Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure | 76 |
| Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure | 114 |
| Classification Data - True Positive (a) | 16 |
| Classification Data - False Positive (b) | 6 |
| Classification Data - False Negative (c) | 11 |
| Classification Data - True Negative (d) | 103 |
| Area Under the Curve (AUC) | 0.92 |
| AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound | 0.88 |
| AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound | 0.97 |
| Statistics | Pre-Kindergarten 4/5-Year-Olds |
|---|---|
| Base Rate | 0.20 |
| Overall Classification Rate | 0.88 |
| Sensitivity | 0.59 |
| Specificity | 0.94 |
| False Positive Rate | 0.06 |
| False Negative Rate | 0.41 |
| Positive Predictive Power | 0.73 |
| Negative Predictive Power | 0.90 |
| Sample | Pre-Kindergarten 4/5-Year-Olds |
|---|---|
| Date | |
| Sample Size | 136 |
| Geographic Representation | East North Central (MI) New England (CT) West North Central (KS) |
| 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 | Pre-Kindergarten 4/5-Year-Olds |
|---|---|
| Criterion measure | Peapody Picture Vocabulary Test |
| Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure | 20 |
| Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure | 76 |
| Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure | 111 |
| Classification Data - True Positive (a) | 15 |
| Classification Data - False Positive (b) | 1 |
| Classification Data - False Negative (c) | 10 |
| Classification Data - True Negative (d) | 108 |
| Area Under the Curve (AUC) | 0.93 |
| AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound | 0.88 |
| AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound | 0.98 |
| Statistics | Pre-Kindergarten 4/5-Year-Olds |
|---|---|
| Base Rate | 0.19 |
| Overall Classification Rate | 0.92 |
| Sensitivity | 0.60 |
| Specificity | 0.99 |
| False Positive Rate | 0.01 |
| False Negative Rate | 0.40 |
| Positive Predictive Power | 0.94 |
| Negative Predictive Power | 0.92 |
| Sample | Pre-Kindergarten 4/5-Year-Olds |
|---|---|
| Date | |
| Sample Size | 134 |
| Geographic Representation | East North Central (MI) New England (CT) West North Central (KS) |
| 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 | Pre-Kindergarten 4/5-Year-Olds |
|---|---|
| Criterion measure | Peapody Picture Vocabulary Test |
| Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure | 20 |
| Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure | 76 |
| Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure | 124 |
| Classification Data - True Positive (a) | 14 |
| Classification Data - False Positive (b) | 1 |
| Classification Data - False Negative (c) | 13 |
| Classification Data - True Negative (d) | 109 |
| Area Under the Curve (AUC) | 0.91 |
| AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound | 0.84 |
| AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound | 0.97 |
| Statistics | Pre-Kindergarten 4/5-Year-Olds |
|---|---|
| Base Rate | 0.20 |
| Overall Classification Rate | 0.90 |
| Sensitivity | 0.52 |
| Specificity | 0.99 |
| False Positive Rate | 0.01 |
| False Negative Rate | 0.48 |
| Positive Predictive Power | 0.93 |
| Negative Predictive Power | 0.89 |
| Sample | Pre-Kindergarten 4/5-Year-Olds |
|---|---|
| Date | |
| Sample Size | 137 |
| Geographic Representation | East North Central (MI) New England (CT) West North Central (KS) |
| 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 |
Pre-Kindergarten 4/5-Year-Olds
|
|---|---|
| Rating |
|
Legend
Convincing evidencePartially convincing evidenceUnconvincing evidenceData unavailabledDisaggregated data available
- *Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.
- Reliability refers to the relative stability with which a test measures the same skills across minor differences in conditions. Three types of reliability are reported in the table below, alternate form reliability, alpha, and inter-rater reliability. Alternate form reliability is the correlation between different measures of the same early literacy skills. The coefficient reported is the average correlation among three forms of the measure. Coefficient alpha is a measure of reliability that is widely used in education research and represents the proportion of true score to total variance. Alpha incorporates information about the average inter-test correlation as well as the number of tests.
- *Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.
- The data come from a dataset collected specifically to identify reliability. and a larger nationally collected dataset. Alternate form reliability was collected from an equating study in which students were given multiple forms of the PELI measure and the alternate forms of the assessment were correlated. Alpha reliability comes from a national dataset in which students have scores on all subtests and alpha was created using the correlation among subtests.
- *Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.
- Alternate form reliability is reported as the average correlation among three alternate forms of the same test. Coefficient alpha treats each of the three tests as separate indicators and is calculated using the alternate form reliability, where the number of tests is equal to three.
*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 |
Pre-Kindergarten 4/5-Year-Olds
|
|---|---|
| Rating |
|
Legend
Convincing evidencePartially convincing evidenceUnconvincing evidenceData unavailabledDisaggregated data available
- *Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.
- The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4, Dunn & Dunn, 2007), is a widely used standardized norm-referenced measure of receptive vocabulary that has been widely investigated and validated with children as young as 2.5 years of age. The PPVT-4 test was standardized on a national sample of individuals ages 2:6–90+. More than 5,500 individuals were tested; data from approximately 3,500 subjects was used for the normative scores. The sample matches the U.S. Census for gender,race/ethnicity, region, socioeconomic status (SES), and clinical diagnosis or special education placement. PPVT-4 test-retest reliability coefficients range from .91 to .94. Criterion validity correlations range from .66 to 92. Test-retest reliability ranges from Form .91 to .94 across forms A and B of the test. The criterion validity of the PPVT ranges from .66 to .77 with the OWLS Test Listening Comprehensions, and .67 to .83 on OWLS Test of Oral Expression. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test--Fourth Edition (PPVT-4)
- *Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
- Validity for the PELI Language Index was obtained from a sample of data that was collected across multiple states and census regions. The data consists of 136 4/5 year old students.
- *Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
- Predictive validity was assessed using the PPVT assessed at the end of the year, using PLI scores that were collected at the middle of year. Concurrent validity was assessed using the correlation between the PLI and PPVT assessed at the same end of year benchmark period.
*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 PPVT is another measure of language skills in pre-K students, and is correlated highly with the Acadience Pre-K PELI Language Index. This strong correlation suggests that the PLI is a valid screening tool for language difficulties.
- 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 |
Pre-Kindergarten 4/5-Year-Olds
|
|---|---|
| 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.
