FAST earlyMath

Area: Grouping and Place Value

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

The Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) is a cloud-based suite of assessment and reporting tools that includes earlyMath. As of 2013-14, there is a $5 per student per year charge for the system. As a cloud-based assessment suite, there are no hardware costs or fees for additional materials.

Computer and internet access is required for full use.

Testers will require less than 1 hour of training.

Paraprofessionals can administer the test.

earlyMath
43 Main St. SE
Suite 509
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Phone: 612-424-3710

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

Access to interactive online self-guided teacher training is included at no additional cost. In-person training is available at an additional cost of $300 per hour.

earlyMath is used to monitor student progress in early mathematics in the early primary grades (typically K to 1st). Most assessments provide information on both the accuracy and rate or efficiency of performance.

The appropriate progress monitoring assessment(s) is/are chosen based on screening performance and are used to diagnose and evaluate skill deficits. Those results help guide instructional and intervention development. It is recommended that Grouping and Place Value be used for progress monitoring throughout Grade 1 depending on specific student needs.

The Grouping and Place Value test assesses the student’s ability to correctly produce the numeral that corresponds with a set of base-10 blocks, and his/her ability to select the correct grouping of base-10 blocks when presented with a numeral. Understanding place value influences students’ development of number sense. Literature suggests that students with a poor understanding of place value concepts tend to have difficulties in understanding the algorithms underlying arithmetic (Van de Walle, et al., 2013; Cawley et al., 2007). This test is conducted on an individual or group basis, and the examiner scores the student’s work after the test is complete. The resulting score is the total number of items responded to correctly within two minutes.

Each earlyMath test takes approximately 1-4 minutes to administer; additional time required for scoring is 1 minute or less.

The Grouping and Place Value assessment has 20 alternate forms.

Raw scores are calculated by the number of items answered correctly per 2 minutes. Accuracy scores are also computed by the number of items correct per number of items attempted.

 

Reliability of the Performance Level Score: Convincing Evidence

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n (range)

Coefficient

SEM

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

range

median

Test-Retest

1

57

-

0.77

-

3% American Indian, 13% Asian, 21% Black, 5% Hispanic, 59% White; 38% Free and Reduced Lunch; 3% IEP eligible.

Inter-scorer

1

62

0.75-1.00

1.00

-

A random sample of cases were selected from the 2013-2014 school year.

Alternate Form

1

39 - 43

0.63 - 0.86

0.82

-

1% Asian, 15% Black, 9% Hispanic, 4% Multiracial, 71% White; 3% IEP eligible.

Coefficient alpha*

1

91

-

0.81 for first 3 items

0.82 for first 5 items

0.85 for first 7 items

-

A random sample of cases were selected from the 2013-2014 school year.

Spllit-Half*

1

91

-

0.85 for first 3 items

0.87 for first 5 items

0.90 for first 7 items

 

-

The same sample used to calculate coefficient alpha was used from the 2013-2014 school year.

*Internal consistency measures, such as coefficient alpha or split-half reliability, are inflated on timed measures because of the high percentage of incomplete items at the end of the assessment, which are those for which examinees did not respond (Crocker & Algina, 1986). As a solution to both illustrate the potential inflation and also reduce it, estimates of internal consistency (reliability) were run on the items attempted by approximately 16% of students, the items completed by 50% of students, and the items completed by approximately 84% of students. Items not completed were coded as incorrect.

Reliability of the Slope: Data Unavailable

Validity of the Performance Level Score: Convincing Evidence

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n (range)

Coefficient

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

range

median

Concurrent

1

Measures of Academic Progress for Primary Grades - Math (MAP)

194

-

0.62

Data collected in Fall. 3% American Indian, 7% Asian, 3% Black, 4% Hispanic, 84% White; 35% Free and reduced lunch; 7% IEP eligible.

Concurrent

1

MAP

192

-

0.44

Data collected in Winter. See above. 

Predictive

1

MAP

188

-

0.63

Fall to Winter prediction. See above.

Predictive

1

GMADE composite Level 1

155

-

0.57

Fall to Spring prediction. 1% American Indian, 5% Asian, 14% Black, 6% Hispanic, 74% White; 34% Free and reduced lunch; 13% IEP eligible.

Predictive

1

GMADE composite Level 1

158

-

0.58

Winter to Spring prediction. See above. 

Concurrent

1

GMADE composite Level 1

151

-

0.55

Data collected in Spring. See above.

 

Predictive Validity of the Slope of Improvement: Data Unavailable

Disaggregated Reliability and Validity Data: Data Unavailable

Alternate Forms: Unconvincing Evidence

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

The Grouping and Place Value test consists of 16 items. Eight items require the student to look at a set of base-10 blocks and write the corresponding numeral, and eight items require the student to circle the correct number of base-10 blocks when given a numeral. In each item type, the base-10 blocks are always presented with the tens in the top row, with the ones directly beneath in the bottom row. For all forms, numbers between 10 and 120 are used, and the numbers were randomly chosen using a random number generator. 

To determine parallel form construction, a one-way, within-subjects (or repeated measures) ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of alternate forms (n = 5) across 42 students on the number of mean correct responses within individuals. There was a non-significant effect for form F(4, 109) = 0.53, p=0.71. This indicates that different forms did not result in significantly different mean correct responses. 

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

20

Sensitive to Student Improvement: Unconvincing Evidence

Describe evidence that the monitoring system produces data that are sensitive to student improvement (i.e., when student learning actually occurs, student performance on the monitoring tool increases on average):

Across 384 First grade students, the slope for average weekly improvement (β1Week) was significantly different from 0 (β1Week = 0.14; SE = 0.01). In addition, a significant interaction term between Special Education Status and the slope for weekly improvement was observed. That is β3Special Education Status* Week = -0.04(SE = 0.2). This significant interaction term suggests that students receiving special education services (n = 48), on average, improved significantly less than regular education students. 

End-of-Year Benchmarks: Data Unavailable

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

Pending Fall 2014.

Rates of Improvement Specified: Unconvincing Evidence

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

Pending Fall 2014.

a. Specify the growth standards:

Percentile

Weekly Growth

25th

0.09

50th

0.15

75th

0.21

b. Basis for specifying minimum acceptable growth:

Norm-referenced.

Normative profile:

Representation: Local
Date: 2013-2014
Number of States: 1
Size: 384
Gender: 51% Male, 49% Female
SES: 43% eligible for free and reduced lunch.
Race/Ethnicity: 79% White, 9% Black, 6% Hispanic, 3% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2% American Indian/Alaska Native.
Disability classification: 13% eligible for special education services.

Decision Rules for Changing Instruction: Data Unavailable

Does manual or published materials specify validated decision rules for when changes to instruction need to be made?

No

Decision Rules for Increasing Goals: Data Unavailable

Does  manual or published materials specify validated decision rules for when changes to increase goals?

No

Improved Student Achievement: Data Unavailable

Improved Teacher Planning Data Unavailable