easyCBM

Area: Reading - Phoneme Segmentation

Cost Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs Service and Support Purpose and Other Implementation Information Usage and Reporting

The Teacher Version is free and can be obtained at http://easycbm.com. The Teacher version includes progress monitoring information only.

The District Version is $1 per student and includes unlimited access to a separate easyCBM website created for that district. The District Version includes screening and progress monitoring.

Testers will require 1-4 hours of training.

Paraprofessionals and professionals can administer the test.

Accommodations:
All measures were developed following Universal Design for Assessment guidelines to reduce the need for accommodations. However, districts are directed to develop their own practices for accommodations as needed.

Behavioral Research and Teaching
5262 University of Oregon – 175 Education
Eugene, OR 97403-5262

Phone: 541-346-3535

http://easycbm.com

A field-tested training manual is available and provides all needed implementation information.

In grades K-8, easyCBM provides 3 forms of a screening measure to be used locally for establishing benchmarks and multiple forms to be used to monitor progress. All the measures have been developed with reference to specific content in reading and developed using Item Response Theory (IRT).

Test administrator orally presents words, one at a time, and the student segments each word into its constituent phonemes.

The tool provides information on student performance in English.

Phoneme Segmentation takes 1 minute to administer and the scores are entered on the computer. It is individually administered.

20 alternate forms are available for grades K-1.

Raw and percentile scores are provided. Raw scores are the number of items correct.

 

Reliability of the Performance Level Score: Unconvincing Evidence

Type of Reliability Age or Grade n (range) Coefficient SEM Information (including normative data)/Subjects
range median

Alternate Form

1

48 - 52

0.86 -0.91

0.91

3.83 & 4.76

 

Test Re-test

1

48 - 52

0.45 - 0.57

0.50

 

 

 

Reliability of the Slope: Unconvincing Evidence

Type of Reliability Age or Grade n (range) Coefficient Information (including normative data)/Subjects

Slope Reliability

K

617
334
481
484

0.67
0.66
0.46
0.09

Quartile 1
Quartile 2
Quartile 3
Quartile 4

 

Validity of the Performance Level Score: Unconvincing Evidence

Type of Validity Age or Grade Test or Criterion n (range) SEMI-PARTIAL CORRELATION Information (including normative data)/Subjects
Concurrent K Regression 189 0.015  
Predictive
F → SAT10
K Regression 189 0.311  
Predictive
W → SAT10
K Regression 189 0.322  

Type of Validity Age or Grade Test or Criterion n (range) FIT STATISTICS Information (including normative data)/Subjects
CFI/TLI RMSEA
Construct K CFA 862-1,449 0.997-0.999/0.992-0.997 0.028-0.047  
Construct 1 CFA 412-876 0.978-0.993/0.944-0.982 0.084-0.136  

 

Predictive Validity of the Slope of Improvement: Unconvincing Evidence

Type of Validity Age or Grade n (range) Coefficient Information (including normative data)/Subjects
Predictive Validity K 658
352
500
500
0.51
0.51
0.50
0.41
Quartile 1
Quartile 2
Quartile 3
Quartile 4

 

Disaggregated Reliability and Validity Data: Data Unavailable

Alternate Forms: Partially Convincing Evidence

1. Evidence that alternate forms are of equal and controlled difficulty or, if IRT based, evidence of item or ability invariance:

Initially, items were piloted using a common person / common item design to create an item bank with known item parameters (measure, mean square outfit, standard error, etc.). Using this data, we then distributed items across the multiple forms (3 screening forms to be administered in the fall, winter, and spring and 17 progress monitoring) to have approximately equal item measure estimates and comparable ranges. The comparability of each of the alternate forms was tested with grade-level students, using repeated measures ANOVA to test for form differences. Results of these studies are reported in the technical reports documenting the development of the measures:

Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2007). Examining the technical adequacy of early literacy measures in a progress monitoring assessment system: Letter names, letter sounds, and phoneme segmenting (Technical Report No. 39). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2009). Alternate form and test-retest reliability of easyCBM® reading measures (Technical Report No. 0906). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

The first technical report describes the process of initial instrument development, where we used a 1-PL Rasch model to estimate item difficulty for each word, divided up into its constituent phonemes, then used this information to construct 20 alternate forms of comparable difficulty for use in Kindergarten and Grade 1. In the second technical report, evidence is presented that the process we used in measurement development did, in fact, result in alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty. In a study of the alternate form reliability of the Phoneme Segmenting measures, we found correlations ranged from 0.86 to 0.91.

2. Number of alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty:

20 alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty are available in reading: 3 forms are used for screening and 17 forms are available to progress monitor.

Sensitive to Student Improvement: Data Unavailable

End-of-Year Benchmarks: Convincing Evidence

1. Are benchmarks for minimum acceptable end-of-year performance specified in your manual or published materials?

Yes.

a. Specify the end-of-year performance standards:

50th percentile = 44 Phonemes Segmented per minute in the spring for Kindergarten students; 52 for grade 1.

b. Basis for specifying minimum acceptable end-of-year performance:

Norm-referenced.

We used a large sample of students from school districts that had agreed to administer the fall, winter, and spring benchmark screener tests to all students in their districts to calculate these end-of-year benchmark performance goals. We selected the score that corresponded with the 50th percentile rank because that score can be roughly interpreted as indicative of 'on grade level' performance for students in that grade at that time of the year

c. Specify the benchmarks:

Percentile Phonemes Correctly Segmented Per Minute
Kindergarten First Grade
10th 25 35
20th 34 42
50th 44 52
75th 53 61
90th 61 67

d. Basis for specifying these benchmarks?

Norm-referenced

Normative profile:

Representation: Local
Date: 2009
Number of States: 1
Size: 1,357-4,649

Rates of Improvement Specified: Unconvincing Evidence

1. Is minimum acceptable growth (slope of improvement or average weekly increase in score by grade level) specified in manual or published materials?

Yes.

a. Specify the growth standards:

Here we present PSF mean gain and approximate weekly rates of improvement for Kindergarten and grade 1 students, separated by fall 25 percentile bands (e.g., “quartile 1” are those students who scored at or below the 25th percentile for PSF in the fall). To determine mean gain, we subtracted fall PSF scores from spring PSF scores, and calculated the mean and standard deviation for each group (i.e., quartile range). To determine the approximate weekly rates of improvement, we divided the mean gain scores by 32 (to represent time in weeks between fall and spring administration), and calculated the mean and standard deviation.

  Kindergarten     Grade 1  
Group Mean Gain SD Approximate Weekly Rate of Improvement SD   Mean Gain SD Approximate Weekly Rate of Improvement SD
Quartile 1 38.18 15.07 1.19 0.47   31.51 13.83 0.98 0.43
Quartile 2 36.82 13.58 1.15 0.42   18.63 11.57 0.58 0.36
Quartile 3 31.79 11.90 0.99 0.37   14.06 9.77 0.44 0.30
Quartile 4 15.69 13.20 0.49 0.41   3.96 3.96 0.12 0.37

b. Basis for specifying minimum acceptable growth:

Norm-referenced

Normative profile:

Representation: Local
Date: 2008-2009
Number of States: 1
Size: approximately 1,500 per grade
Gender: 50% Male, 50% Female
SES: 50% Title 1
Disability classification: 16%

Decision Rules for Changing Instruction: Data Unavailable

Decision Rules for Increasing Goals: Data Unavailable

Improved Student Achievement: Data Unavailable

Improved Teacher Planning Data Unavailable