AIMSweb
Reading Curriculum-Based Measurement
Rating Summary
Classification Accuracy | ![]() | |
---|---|---|
Generalizability | Moderate High | |
Reliability | ![]() | |
Validity | ![]() | |
Disaggregated Reliability and Validity Data | ![]() | |
Efficiency | ||
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 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 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 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
range | median | |||||
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% |
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% |
||
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 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Range | Median | |||||
Predictive | 2 | PSSA | ~ 200 | 0.69-0.71 | 0.71 | 1 year interval (Keller-Margulis et al., 2008) |
4 | PSSA | ~ 200 | 0.67-0.69 | 0.69 | ||
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) | |
3 (F,W) | NECAP | 137 | 0.68-0.71 | 0.69 | ||
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:
|
Disaggregated Reliability, Validity, and Classification Data for Diverse Populations
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 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
range | median | |||||
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 | Coefficient | Information (including normative data)/Subjects |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
median | |||||
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) |