FAST™
CBMReading - English

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

FAST™ CBMreading is a version of Curriculum Based Measurement of Oral Reading (CBM-R), which was originally developed to index the level and rate of reading achievement. FAST™ CBMreading is used to screen and monitor student progress in reading competency in the primary grades (1-8). Students read aloud for one minute from grade-level or instructional-level passages (three passages per assessment). The words read correct per minute functions as a robust indicator of reading and a sensitive indicator of intervention effects.

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

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

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

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

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

Students in general education
Students with disabilities
English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What skills does the tool screen?

Reading

Phonological processing:

RAN
Memory
Awareness
Letter sound correspondence
Phonics
Structural analysis

Word ID

Accuracy
Speed

Nonword

Accuracy
Speed

Spelling

Accuracy
Speed

Passage

Accuracy
Speed

Reading comprehension:

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

Listening comprehension:

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

Mathematics

Global Indicator of Math Competence

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Early Numeracy

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematics Concepts

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematics Computation

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematic Application

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Fractions/Decimals

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Algebra

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Geometry

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Other (please describe):

Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Which category of behaviors does your tool target?

Internalizing
Externalizing
Internalizing and Externalizing

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Please identify which broad domain(s)/construct(s) are measured by your tool and define each sub-domain or sub-construct.

Acquisition and Cost Information

Administration

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What type of administrator is your tool designed for?

General education teacher
Special education teacher
Parent
Child
External observer
Other

If other, please specify:

What is the administration setting?

Direct observation
Rating scale
Checklist
Performance measure
Questionnaire
Direct: Computerized
One-to-one
Other

If other, please specify:

Does the tool require technology?

Yes

If yes, what technology is required to implement your tool? (Select all that apply)

Computer or tablet
Internet connection
Other technology (please specify)

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

What is the administration context?

Individual
Small group   If small group, n=
Large group   If large group, n=
Computer-administered
Other

If other, please specify:

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?

No discontinue rules provided
Basals
Ceilings
Other

If other, please specify:

Students read for one minute

Are norms available?

Yes

Are benchmarks available?

Yes

If yes, how many benchmarks per year?

3

If yes, for which months are benchmarks available?

September, December, and May

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:

Less than 1 hour of training

Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.

No minimum qualifications

Are training manuals and materials available?

Yes

Are training manuals/materials field-tested?

No

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:

Users have access to professional development technicians, as well as ongoing technical support.

Scoring

How are scores calculated?

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

If other, please specify:

Do you provide basis for calculating performance level scores?

Yes

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

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

What types of performance level scores are available?

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

If other, please specify:

Words read correct per minute

Does your tool include decision rules?

No

If yes, please describe.

Can you provide evidence in support of multiple decision rules?

No

If yes, please describe.

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

Three raw scores are calculated for FAST™ CBMreading: a) total words read, which is defined as the total number of words read, including correct and incorrect responses; b) number of errors, which is defined as the total number of errors the student made during the one minute administration; and c) words read correct per minute, which is calculated as the total number of words read in one minute minus the number of errors made during the one minute.

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.

FAST™ CBMreading is an evidence-based assessment used to screen and monitor students’ progress in reading achievement in the primary grades (1-8). Each assessment is designed to be highly efficient and give a broad indication of reading competence. The automated output of each assessment gives information on the accuracy and fluency of passage reading which can be used to determine instructional level to inform intervention. To administer the measure, an examiner listens to the child read a set of short passages aloud (typically three passages). Each passage is comprised of approximately 200 to 300 words, which correspond with grade level text. Level 1 corresponds with use in kindergarten or early first grade, Level 2 with second-third grade, Level 3 with fourth, fifth, or sixth grade, and Level 4 with seventh or eighth grade. Each passage is read for one minute while the examiner uses the software to mark omissions, insertions, substitutions, hesitations, and mispronunciations as errors. The number of words read correctly per min (WRC) is then scored using the online application. The browser-based software provides the teacher with a convenient method to score and record assessment data with efficiency and accuracy. The administration of three passages takes approximately 5 minutes per student. The basic procedure includes a standardized set of directions that prompt a student to read aloud: "This is a story about____(read & point to the title). When I say, “BEGIN,” start reading aloud on the top of the page. READ ACROSS THE PAGE and then go to the next line (point to the first word, across the first line, and to the beginning of the second line). Try to read EACH WORD. If you come to a word that you DON'T KNOW, I'll tell it to you. Be sure to do your BEST READING. Okay?" (pause). In addition to following a strict rubric developed in consultation with educators and content experts to write passages, the researchers analyzed data from three rounds of field testing and edited passages that had linguistic issues based on those analyses and input from educators in the schools. The researchers further consulted with experts to decrease the amount of culturally biased material (e.g. first names of characters in the stories) in the assessment. A word bank containing phonetically regular decodable words was developed. The words included in the word bank were in accordance with the word structure suggested by Hiebert and Fisher (2007) and with the word difficulty developed by Menon and Hiebert (1999). Words that were classified as falling into lower levels of difficulty were considered appropriate to use in passage development while words falling into higher levels of difficulty were not included. High frequency word lists were used to design reading passages for students with lower levels of reading. In addition, the developed rubric prohibited the use of predictable writing (e.g. rhyming, repeated phrases or patterns, alliteration) in order to rely on decodability and sight word knowledge, rather than literary clues and cultural context. The goal for developing FAST™ CBMreading materials was to develop passages that were consistent for students in grades 1-8 and provided few confounds with a student’s background knowledge. Therefore, one type of text (narrative) was selected for use. Narratives were selected as the genre for FAST™ CBMreading passages because the events they typically reflect may be autobiographical and reflect episodes that students have been exposed to throughout their early development (Schank & Ableson, 1977; Trabasso & Stein, 1997).

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6
Classification Accuracy Fall
Classification Accuracy Winter
Classification Accuracy Spring

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC)

Classification Accuracy

Describe the criterion (outcome) measure(s) including the degree to which it/they is/are independent from the screening measure.

The Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC) is a brief, group or individually administered test of reading that assesses silent reading of connected text for comprehension. The test can be used for both screening and progress monitoring. The TOSREC measures silent reading speed and accuracy, and comprehension. Respondents are given three minutes to read and verify the truthfulness of as many sentences as possible.

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).

Cut points were selected by optimizing sensitivity, and then balancing sensitivity with specificity using methods presented in Silberglitt and Hintze (2005). The cut points were derived for the 20th percentile.

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

No

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

Cross-Validation

Has a cross-validation study been conducted?

No

If yes,

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

Reliability

Grade	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

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

The first type of reliability evidence we present is inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability is an appropriate measure of reliability for the use of FAST™ CBMreading because teachers listen to students and evaluate their oral reading fluency, including accuracy, so consistency across teachers (raters) is important. The second type of reliability evidence we present is alternate-form reliability. Alternate-form reliability is an appropriate measure of reliability for FAST™ CBMreading as a screening tool because students take alternate forms (actually passages) at each screening time point, so consistency in the rank order of scores over forms (passages) is important. The results presented below are median correlations between students’ scores on multiple passages (39 in first grade, and 60 in the other grades). The maximum amount of time between administration of the passages was two weeks.

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

Inter-rater Reliability: Approximately 1,900 students in grades 1-6 (see table below for student N by grade level). Students came from three samples, one from Minnesota, one from Georgia, and one from New York. Alternate-form Reliability: Approximately 150 students in each of grades 1-5. Students came from three samples: one from Minnesota, one from Georgia, and another from New York.

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

Inter-rater reliability coefficients were estimated by calculating the median percent agreement between two teachers scores for each student. Confidence intervals represent 95% confidence intervals. Students were tested on multiple passages in two weeks or less. Alternate-form reliability coefficients were estimated by calculating the Pearson product moment correlations between scores for each combination of passages. The coefficients below represent the median of those correlations. Confidence intervals represent 95% confidence intervals.

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

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.

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
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

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

The criterion measure for both types of validity analyzes (concurrent and predictive) is the oral reading fluency measure that is a part of the AIMSWEB system. The measure is an appropriate criterion because is measures a construct hypothesized to be related to FAST™ CBMreading.

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

Concurrent and predictive analyses with AIMSWEB oral reading fluency measure were conducted on a sample of students from Minnesota. There were approximately 220 students in each of grades 1-6.

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

Validity coefficients were calculated by computing Pearson product moment correlations between FAST™ CBMreading and the criterion measure. Confidence intervals represent 95% confidence intervals.

*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.

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 provide moderate to strong evidence for the use of FAST™ CBMreading as a measure of CBM-R.

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.

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

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.