AIMSweb

Reading Curriculum-Based Measurement

Rating Summary

Efficiency
Classification Accuracy
Generalizability		Moderate High
Reliability
Validity
Disaggregated Reliability and Validity Data
	Administration	Individual
	Administration & Scoring Time	1-5 Minutes
	Scoring Key	Computer Scored
	Benchmarks / Norms	Yes

Cost	Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs	Service and Support	Purpose and Other Implementation Information	Usage and Reporting
Annual cost per student: AIMSweb assessment materials are included with an AIMSweb System software subscription: AIMSweb Systems Grades K – 8: $3.00-$5.00 per student per year. Included in the price are manuals and test materials, directions for administration, test forms, technical manuals, and protocol per student. *all materials are provided via download in PDF format	Internet access is required for full use of product services. Testers will require 4 - 8 hours of training. Paraprofessionals can administer the test. Alternate forms available in Spanish for benchmarking.	Pearson 19500 Bulverde Road San Antonio, TX 78259 Phone: 210-339-5247 Visit AIMSweb.com Tech support: aimswebsupport@pearson.com Field tested training manuals are included and should provide all implementation information. AIMSweb Training sessions are available. Ongoing technical support is provided.	As a reading screening tool, Reading-CBM is utilized to identify children at-risk of reading failures and those students significantly below grade-level expectations. As a progress monitoring tool, additional standardized, equivalent, and graded alternate forms are used to frequently measure student progress towards specific goals and monitor the effects of instructional changes. Reading-CBM is a 1 minute standardized measure of oral reading of graded passages to administer for individual students.	Raw score, percentile score, developmental benchmark scores (cut points and benchmarks), probability scores, and error analysis scores are available. Raw scores are computed by computing the total number of words read correctly within the 1 minute time period. A raw score is also reported for the total number of errors (words read incorrectly). These data can be interpreted in a norm-referenced way via percentiles or categorically in a standard interpretive format (e.g., below average, average, above average, etc.). Scores are also interpreted by converting progress over time into a Rates of Improvement (ROI) index, typically derived by using an ordinary least squares regression line through the data. A composite score is not calculated. Reading-CBM has 33 alternate forms available for each grade 2 through 8, and 20 alternate forms for grade 1. Individually administered.

Annual cost per student:

AIMSweb assessment materials are included with an AIMSweb System software subscription:

AIMSweb Systems
Grades K – 8: $3.00-$5.00 per student per year.

Included in the price are manuals and test materials, directions for administration, test forms, technical manuals, and protocol per student.

*all materials are provided via download in PDF format

Internet access is required for full use of product services.

Testers will require 4 - 8 hours of training.

Paraprofessionals can administer the test.

Alternate forms available in Spanish for benchmarking.

Pearson
19500 Bulverde Road
San Antonio, TX 78259
Phone: 210-339-5247
Visit AIMSweb.com
Tech support: aimswebsupport@pearson.com

Field tested training manuals are included and should provide all implementation information.

AIMSweb Training sessions are available.

Ongoing technical support is provided.

As a reading screening tool, Reading-CBM is utilized to identify children at-risk of reading failures and those students significantly below grade-level expectations.

As a progress monitoring tool, additional standardized, equivalent, and graded alternate forms are used to frequently measure student progress towards specific goals and monitor the effects of instructional changes.

Reading-CBM is a 1 minute standardized measure of oral reading of graded passages to administer for individual students.

Raw score, percentile score, developmental benchmark scores (cut points and benchmarks), probability scores, and error analysis scores are available.

Raw scores are computed by computing the total number of words read correctly within the 1 minute time period. A raw score is also reported for the total number of errors (words read incorrectly). These data can be interpreted in a norm-referenced way via percentiles or categorically in a standard interpretive format (e.g., below average, average, above average, etc.). Scores are also interpreted by converting progress over time into a Rates of Improvement (ROI) index, typically derived by using an ordinary least squares regression line through the data. A composite score is not calculated.

Reading-CBM has 33 alternate forms available for each grade 2 through 8, and 20 alternate forms for grade 1.

Individually administered.

Classification Accuracy

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on Pennsylvania System of School Assessment
	Grade 1	Grade 3
False Positive Rate	0.10	0.19
False Negative Rate	0.28	0.23
Sensitivity	0.72	0.77
Specificity	0.90	0.81
Positive Predictive Power	0.74	0.65
Negative Predictive Power	0.89	0.88
Overall Classification Rate	0.85	0.80
AUC (ROC)	0.88	0.88
Base Rate	Not reported	Not reported
Cut Points:	36	110
At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	Not reported	Not reported
At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	Not reported	Not reported
At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	Not reported	Not reported

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on TerraNova Achievement Test
	Grade 2
False Positive Rate	0.09
False Negative Rate	0.21
Sensitivity	0.79
Specificity	0.91
Positive Predictive Power	0.81
Negative Predictive Power	0.90
Overall Classification Rate	0.87
AUC (ROC)	0.94
Base Rate	Not reported
Cut Points:	81
At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	Not reported
At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	Not reported
At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	Not reported

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on North Carolina End of Grade Test
	Grade 3		Grade 4		Grade 5
	Fall	Winter	Fall	Winter	Fall	Winter
False Positive Rate	0.24	0.25	0.26	0.23	0.26	0.27
False Negative Rate	0.23	0.23	0.22	0.22	0.25	0.21
Sensitivity	0.77	0.77	0.78	0.78	0.75	0.79
Specificity	0.76	0.75	0.74	0.77	0.74	0.73
Positive Predictive Power	0.59	0.61	0.51	0.58	0.51	0.53
Negative Predictive Power	0.88	0.87	0.91	0.90	0.90	0.90
Overall Classification Rate	0.76	0.76	0.75	0.77	0.75	0.75
AUC (ROC)	0.85	0.86	0.83	0.86	0.83	0.84
Base Rate	0.31	0.34	0.26	0.29	0.26	0.28
Cut Points:	84	103	101	113	115	135
At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	0.66	0.68	0.66	0.67	0.65	0.65
At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	0.77	0.76	0.76	0.83	0.75	0.77
At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	0.86	0.85	0.81	0.87	0.82	0.84

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISTAT)
	Grade 6		Grade 7		Grade 8
	Fall	Winter	Fall	WinterFall	Winter	Spring
False Positive Rate	0.26	0.27	0.25	0.24	0.21	0.26
False Negative Rate	0.23	0.22	0.24	0.23	0.20	0.21
Sensitivity	0.77	0.78	0.76	0.77	0.80	0.79
Specificity	0.74	0.73	0.75	0.76	0.79	0.74
Positive Predictive Power	0.48	0.46	0.48	0.48	0.47	0.46
Negative Predictive Power	0.91	0.92	0.91	0.92	0.94	0.92
Overall Classification Rate	0.75	0.74	0.75	0.76	0.79	0.75
AUC (ROC)	0.83	0.83	0.84	0.84	0.86	0.84
Base Rate	0.24	0.23	0.23	0.22	0.19	0.22
Cut Points:	128	141	133	144	130	144
At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	0.59	0.58	0.64	0.67	0.69	0.63
At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	0.76	0.75	0.76	0.78	0.81	0.76
At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	0.83	0.85	0.84	0.84	0.88	0.82

Generalizability

Description of Study Sample 1: Keller-Margulis, M., Shapiro, E. S., & Hintze, J. M. (2008). Long term diagnostic accuracy of curriculum-based measures in reading and mathematics. School Psychology Review, 37, 374-390.

		Grades 1-3
Number of States:		1
Size:		Approximately 200
Gender: Unknown		100% (not reported)
SES: Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch		32.8% (low-income level based on national poverty levels)
Race/ Ethnicity:	White, Non-Hispanic	58%
	Black, Non-Hispanic	9%
	Hispanic	31%
	American Indian/Alaska Native	<1%
	Asian/Pacific Islander	3%
Language proficiency status: % LEP		8%

Description of Study Sample 2:

		Grade 3		Grade 4		Grade 5		Grade 6		Grade 7		Grade 8
		Fall	Winter	Fall	Winter	Fall	Winter	Fall	Winter	Fall	Winter	Fall	Winter
Number of States:		1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Size:		1,105	1,248	1,193	1,332	1,105	1,171	1,393	1,599	1,444	1,656	1,276	1,223
Gender	Male	39%	40%	37%	39%	31%	33%	53%	52%	51%	50%	50%	50%
	Female	37%	39%	37%	38%	34%	35%	42%	44%	45%	47%	46%	46%
	Unknown	24%	21%	26%	23%	34%	33%	5%	4%	4%	3%	4%	4%
SES: Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch								36%	34%	31%	30%	32%	36%
Race/Ethnicity	White, Non-Hispanic	39%	36%	36%	33%	35%	34%	46%	47%	47%	45%	48%	56%
	Black, Non-Hispanic	18%	23%	21%	25%	20%	22%	11%	12%	9%	10%	9%	12%
	Hispanic	10%	11%	11%	12%	7%	8%	17%	18%	17%	18%	16%	20%
	American Indian/Alaska Native	0.1%	0.1%	0.2%	0.1%	0.3%	0.3%	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%
	Asian/Pacific Islander	3%	3%	2%	2%	2%	2%	1%	2%	1%	1%	1%	1%
	Other	4%	4%	3%	3%	3%	3%	2%	2%	2%	3%	2%	3%
	Unknown	25%	22%	26%	24%	32%	31%	22%	19%	25%	23%	23%	72%
Disability classification: % with disability classification		2%	3%	2%	3%	1%	1%	8%	8%	9%	8%	7%	7%
Language proficiency status: % ELL		4%	4%	3%	3%	1%	1%	3%	3%	2%	2%	1%	1%

Reliability

Type of Reliability	Age or Grade	n	Coefficient		SEM	Information (including normative data)/Subjects
Type of Reliability	Age or Grade	n	range	median	SEM	Information (including normative data)/Subjects
Alternate form	1 (W,S)	1,000	0.97-0.97	0.97	6.1	Calculated separately at each benchmark period (fall, winter, spring). Reliability of the median of three probe scores, based on the average inter-form correlation. Alternate-form reliability of the median: Just as the mean of several scores is more reliable that a single score, the median is also more reliable than a single score. However, there is no formula for estimating the reliability of a median that is analogous to the Spearman-Brown formula for estimating the reliability of a mean. Therefore, we conducted a series of 1,000-case simulation studies, each of which assumed an average inter-probe correlation at one of the values from 0.88 to 0.95. In each study, six variables were generated by adding random error to a true-score variable, with the error variance controlled so as to produce intercorrelations among the variables equal to the target value of the inter-probe correlation. The median score on variables 1 to 3 was then correlated with the median score on variables 4 to 6 to yield the alternate-form reliability of the median of three probes. Results indicated that average probe intercorrelations of 0.88 through 0.90 produced a reliability-of-the-median value of 0.95; intercorrelations of 0.91 through 0.93 produced reliability-of-the-median of 0.96; and intercorrelations of 0.94 through 0.96 produced reliability-of-the-median values of 0.97. Gender: F 50% M 50% Ethnicity: African American 10% Asian 4% Hispanic 10% White, non-Hispanic 73% Other 3%
	2	1,000	0.97-0.97	0.97	6.4
	3	1,000	0.96-0.97	0.97	7.2
	4	1,000	0.97-0.97	0.97	6.6
	5	1,000	0.97-0.97	0.97	7.3
	6	1,000	0.96-0.97	0.97	7.6
	7	1,000	0.96-0.97	0.97	7.8
	8	1,000	0.96-0.97	0.96	6.9
Inter-rater	2	61		0.99		Administrations of a single R-CBM probe were digitally recorded, and then each recording was independently scored by two different raters who did their own timing. The sample was obtained at two suburban Minnesota schools and three urban Texas schools. Demographic characteristics were similar at all four grades; for the total sample, they were: Gender: F 51% M 49% Ethnicity: African American 2% Asian 1% Hispanic 65% White, non-Hispanic 32% ELL: 1% Receiving special education services: 3%
	4	63		0.99
	6	73		0.99
	8	63		0.99
Split-half	2	61		0.97		Same sample as for inter-rater study. Correlations between scores (WRC) on the first and second 30-second portions of each probe were adjusted by Spearman-Brown and then used to compute the reliability of the median of three probe scores.
	4	63		0.97
	6	73		0.96
	8	63		0.97
Retest	1	1,000		0.91		Correlations between median scores at adjacent benchmark periods (fall-winter or winter-spring; winter-spring only for grade 1). Same sample as for alternate-form reliability.
	2	1,000	0.93,0.94	0.93
	3	1,000	0.93,0.94	0.93
	4	1,000	0.94,0.95	0.94
	5	1,000	0.95,0.95	0.95
	6	1,000	0.95,0.95	0.95
	7	1,000	0.95,0.95	0.95
	8	1,000	0.95,0.96	0.95

Validity

Type of Validity	Age or Grade	Test or Criterion	n (range)	Coefficient (if applicable)		Information (including normative data)/Subjects
Type of Validity	Age or Grade	Test or Criterion	n (range)	Range	Median	Information (including normative data)/Subjects
Predictive	2	PSSA	~ 200	0.69-0.71	0.71	1 year interval (Keller-Margulis et al., 2008)
Predictive	4	PSSA	~ 200	0.67-0.69	0.69	1 year interval (Keller-Margulis et al., 2008)
Predictive	3 (F,W)	MCA	2,051	0.68-0.70	0.69	Silberglitt & Hintze (2005)
Predictive	3 (F,W)	PSSA	185	0.65-0.66	0.65	Shapiro et al. (2006)
	4 (F,W)	MAT8	213	0.71-0.72	0.71
	5 (F,W)	PSSA	185	0.68-0.69	0.68
Predictive	3 (F)	MAP	137		0.76	Andren (2010)
Predictive	3 (F,W)	NECAP	137	0.68-0.71	0.69	Andren (2010)
Predictive	3 (F)	NCEGT	1,087		0.69 (0.67)	2009-2010
	4 (F)	NCEGT	1,174		0.70 (0.65)
	5 (F)	NCEGT	1,088		0.68 (0.66)
	6 (F)	ISAT	1,326		0.64 (0.64)
	7 (F)	ISAT	1,328		0.63 (0.65)
	8 (F)	ISAT	911		0.60 (0.62)
	3 (W)	NCEGT	1,087		0.71 (0.70)
	4 (W)	NCEGT	1,174		0.71 (0.67)
	5 (W)	NCEGT	1,088		0.67 (0.66)
	6 (W)	ISAT	1,326		0.65 (0.66)
	7 (W)	ISAT	1,328		0.63 (0.65)
	8 (W)	ISAT	911		0.60 (0.62)
Construct	3	MCA	2,126		0.71	Silberglitt & Hintze (2005)
Construct	3	PSSA	185		0.67	Shapiro et al. (2006)
	4	MAT8	213		0.70
	5	PSSA	206		0.67
Construct	2, 3, 4	MAP	71-85	0.68-0.72	0.70	Merino & Beckman (2010)
Construct	3 (F,W)	MAP	137	0.77-0.81	0.79	Andren (2010)
Construct	3 (S)	NCEGT	1,087		0.72 (0.71)	2009-2010
	4 (S)	NCEGT	1,174		0.72 (0.68)
	5 (S)	NCEGT	1,088		0.69 (0.67)
	6 (S)	ISAT	1,326		0.64 (0.65)
	7 (S)	ISAT	1,328		0.62 (0.64)
	8 (S)	ISAT	911		0.60 (0.62)
Content	The passages used in AIMSweb R-CBM were developed to represent the types of narrative text that students in a particular grade typically encounter in school. The creation and refinement of the set of passages followed a careful development process documented by Howe and Shinn (2002). Key components of this process included: authors with experience writing for students at various grade levels specifications for readability (such as number of syllables and sentences per 100 words) monitoring readability using the Fry formula and Lexile scaling field testing the passages and eliminating those with low alternate-form reliability, an atypical score level, or an inappropriate readability index or Lexile score

Disaggregated Reliability, Validity, and Classification Data for Diverse Populations

Disaggregated Classification Accuracy

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on North Carolina End of Grade Test
	Grade 3				Grade 4				Grade 5
	Fall		Winter		Fall		Winter		Fall		Winter
	African American	White, non-Hispanic	African American	White, non-Hispanic	African American	White, non-Hispanic	African American	White, non-Hispanic	African American	White, non-Hispanic	African American	White, non-Hispanic
False Positive Rate	0.27	0.29	0.23	0.23	0.29	0.31	0.28	0.28	0.37	0.26	0.33	0.26
False Negative Rate	0.25	0.15	0.22	0.17	0.25	0.23	0.21	0.16	0.23	0.13	0.21	0.18
Sensitivity	0.75	0.85	0.78	0.83	0.75	0.77	0.79	0.84	0.77	0.87	0.79	0.82
Specificity	0.73	0.71	0.77	0.77	0.71	0.69	0.72	0.72	0.63	0.74	0.67	0.74
Positive Predictive Power	0.79	0.30	0.84	0.35	0.67	0.24	0.71	0.30	0.70	0.35	0.73	0.34
Negative Predictive Power	0.68	0.97	0.70	0.97	0.78	0.96	0.80	0.97	0.70	0.97	0.73	0.96
Overall Classification Rate	0.75	0.73	0.77	0.78	0.73	0.70	0.75	0.74	0.70	0.76	0.73	0.75
AUC (ROC)	0.82	0.86	0.85	0.87	0.79	0.82	0.82	0.85	0.78	0.84	0.80	0.82
Base Rate	0.58	0.13	0.60	0.13	0.44	0.11	0.47	0.13	0.53	0.14	0.54	0.14
Cut Points:	80	90	98	102	97	108	109	122	117	123	132	143
At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	0.62	0.71	0.65	0.75	0.55	0.60	0.59	0.67	0.51	0.74	0.56	0.66
At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	0.73	0.80	0.81	0.83	0.71	0.70	0.76	0.80	0.63	0.80	0.68	0.74
At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	0.84	0.87	0.88	0.89	0.76	0.78	0.81	0.87	0.75	0.83	0.81	0.82

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT)
	Grade 6				Grade 7				Grade 8
	Fall		Winter		Fall		Winter		Fall		Winter
	Hispanic	White, non-Hispanic	Hispanic	White, non-Hispanic	Hispanic	White, non-Hispanic	Hispanic	White, non-Hispanic	Hispanic	White, non-Hispanic	Hispanic	White, non-Hispanic
False Positive Rate	0.29	0.34	0.23	0.28	0.36	0.27	0.37	0.27	0.29	0.20	0.26	0.21
False Negative Rate	0.16	0.25	0.22	0.25	0.24	0.19	0.25	0.18	0.20	0.17	0.23	0.20
Sensitivity	0.84	0.75	0.78	0.75	0.76	0.81	0.75	0.82	0.80	0.83	0.77	0.80
Specificity	0.71	0.66	0.77	0.72	0.64	0.73	0.63	0.73	0.71	0.80	0.74	0.79
Positive Predictive Power	0.55	0.39	0.58	0.42	0.54	0.46	0.50	0.45	0.53	0.47	0.55	0.43
Negative Predictive Power	0.91	0.90	0.89	0.91	0.83	0.93	0.84	0.94	0.90	0.96	0.88	0.95
Overall Classification Rate	0.75	0.68	0.77	0.73	0.68	0.74	0.67	0.75	0.74	0.81	0.75	0.80
AUC (ROC)	0.84	0.80	0.84	0.81	0.76	0.85	0.78	0.85	0.82	0.88	0.81	0.88
Base Rate	0.30	0.23	0.29	0.21	0.36	0.22	0.33	0.21	0.29	0.17	0.30	0.16
Cut Points:	127	136	133	144	136	138	144	151	132	128	141	140
At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	0.68	0.53	0.64	0.53	0.44	0.66	0.50	0.71	0.59	0.74	0.61	0.75
At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	0.74	0.66	0.80	0.72	0.64	0.75	0.63	0.80	0.77	0.87	0.76	0.83
At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals	0.84	0.78	0.91	0.80	0.71	0.83	0.75	0.84	0.78	0.91	0.80	0.89

Disaggregated Reliability

Type of Reliability	Age or Grade	n	Coefficient		SEM	Information (including normative data)/Subjects
Type of Reliability	Age or Grade	n	range	median	SEM	Information (including normative data)/Subjects
Alternate form	1 (W,S)	100	0.97-0.97	0.97	6.1	African American students. Reliability of the median of 3 probe scores administered at a benchmark testing period.
	2	54	0.96-0.97	0.96	6.3
	3	77	0.97-0.97	0.97	6.5
	4	51	0.97-0.97	0.97	6.6
	5	46	0.97-0.97	0.97	6.8
	6	59	0.96-0.97	0.97	8.0
	7	88	0.96-0.97	0.96	6.6
	8	130	0.97-0.97	0.97	6.9
Alternate form	1 (W,S)	105	0.96-0.97	0.96	5.1	Hispanic students. Reliability of the median of 3 probe scores administered at a benchmark testing period.
	2	58	0.96-0.97	0.96	6.2
	3	68	0.97-0.97	0.97	7.7
	4	69	0.97-0.97	0.97	6.6
	5	69	0.95-0.97	0.96	7.3
	6	88	0.96-0.97	0.96	6.9
	7	63	0.97-0.97	0.97	7.0
	8	44	0.95-0.96	0.95	6.2
Alternate form	1 (W,S)	449	0.97-0.97	0.97	6.0	White non-Hispanic students. Reliability of the median of 3 probe scores administered at a benchmark testing period.
	2	443	0.96-0.97	0.96	6.9
	3	511	0.96-0.97	0.96	7.5
	4	399	0.97-0.97	0.97	6.8
	5	468	0.97-0.97	0.97	7.4
	6	608	0.97-0.97	0.97	7.2
	7	487	0.96-0.97	0.97	8.0
	8	508	0.96-0.97	0.97	6.5
Alternate form	1 (W,S)	65	0.96-0.97	0.97	5.3	ELL students. Reliability of the median of 3 probe scores administered at a benchmark testing period.
	2	75	0.96-0.97	0.97	6.4
	3	74	0.96-0.97	0.97	6.5
	4	51	0.96-0.97	0.96	5.9
	5	60	0.96-0.96	0.96	6.7
	6	77	0.95-0.95	0.95	8.0
	7	98	0.96-0.96	0.96	7.2
	8	82	0.97-0.97	0.97	6.2
Alternate form	1 (W,S)	175	0.97-0.97	0.97	5.6	Students receiving free/reduced lunch. Reliability of the median of 3 probe scores administered at a benchmark testing period.
	2	133	0.96-0.97	0.96	6.6
	3	162	0.96-0.97	0.97	6.9
	4	157	0.97-0.97	0.97	6.9
	5	181	0.96-0.97	0.96	7.6
	6	246	0.95-0.96	0.96	8.0
	7	139	0.97-0.97	0.97	7.4
	8	100	0.96-0.97	0.97	6.7

Disaggregated Validity

Type of Validity	Age or Grade	Test or Criterion	n	median	Information (including normative data)/Subjects
Type of Validity	Age or Grade	Test or Criterion	n	Coefficient	Information (including normative data)/Subjects
Predictive	3 (F)	NCEGT	201	0.72 (0.65)	African American students in the Classification Accuracy samples
	4 (F)	NCEGT	246	0.64 (0.59)
	5 (F)	NCEGT	210	0.64 (0.61)
	6 (F)	ISAT	144	0.56 (0.57)
	7 (F)	ISAT	100	0.56 (0.55)
	8 (F)	ISAT	96	0.56 (0.55)
	3 (W)	NCEGT	201	0.72 (0.67)
	4 (W)	NCEGT	246	0.68 (0.62)
	5 (W)	NCEGT	210	0.66 (0.64)
	6 (W)	ISAT	144	0.66 (0.65)
	7 (W)	ISAT	100	0.55 (0.55)
	8 (W)	ISAT	96	0.57 (0.54)
	3 (F)	NCEGT	103	0.70 (0.60)	Hispanic students in the Classification Accuracy samples
	4 (F)	NCEGT	127	0.68 (0.58)
	5 (F)	NCEGT	81	0.55 (0.43)
	6 (F)	ISAT	228	0.67 (0.62)
	7 (F)	ISAT	211	0.58 (0.54)
	8 (F)	ISAT	177	0.64 (0.64)
	3 (W)	NCEGT	103	0.70 (0.61)
	4 (W)	NCEGT	127	0.73 (0.65)
	5 (W)	NCEGT	81	0.59 (0.50)
	6 (W)	ISAT	228	0.70 (0.66)
	7 (W)	ISAT	211	0.62 (0.57)
	8 (W)	ISAT	177	0.65 (0.65)
Construct	3 (S)	NCEGT	201	0.68 (0.61)	African American students in the Classification Accuracy samples
	4 (S)	NCEGT	246	0.70 (0.64)
	5 (S)	NCEGT	210	0.66 (0.63)
	6 (S)	ISAT	144	0.63 (0.61)
	7 (S)	ISAT	100	0.54 (0.54)
	8 (S)	ISAT	96	0.64 (0.61)
	3 (S)	NCEGT	103	0.70 (0.63)	Hispanic students in the Classification Accuracy samples
	4 (S)	NCEGT	127	0.70 (0.63)
	5 (S)	NCEGT	81	0.58 (0.50)
	6 (S)	ISAT	228	0.68 (0.63)
	7 (S)	ISAT	211	0.57 (0.56)
	8 (S)	ISAT	177	0.61 (0.62)