FAST earlyMath

Area: Decomposing

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. 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 Decomposing be used for progress monitoring throughout Kindergarten depending on specific student needs.

The Decomposing test assesses the student’s ability to put together (compose) and take apart (decompose) numbers by using “parts” and a “whole”. As the student verbalizes the number that represents the missing “part,” the examiner marks any errors on his/her copy of the score form. The resulting score is the total number of items responded to correctly per minute.

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

The Decomposing assessment has 20 alternate forms.

Rate is calculated as the number of items answered correctly per minute. Raw scores of total and correct items and accuracy scores are also provided.

 

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

36

-

0.83

-

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

Interrater

1

45

0.67-1.00

1.00

-

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

Alternate Form

1

39-43

0.75-0.87

0.83

-

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

Coefficient alpha*

1

573

-

0.79 for first 6 items

0.87 for first 10 items

0.88 for first 13 items

-

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

Split-Half*

1

573

-

0.82 for first 6 items

0.88 for first 10 items

0.90 for first 13 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 attempted 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

-

0.57

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

-

0.51

Data collected in Winter. See above. 

Predictive

1

MAP

188

-

0.59

Fall to Winter prediction. See above.

Predictive

1

GMADE composite Level 1

155

-

0.59

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

161

-

0.56

Winter to Spring prediction. See above. 

Concurrent

1

GMADE composite Level 1

166

-

0.63

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:

There are 24 items on this test and 8 target numbers are used, each with 3 opportunities for responses. All 20 progress monitoring forms were constructed so that each form begins with the same example item. Target numbers include numbers between 5 and 20. The target number, the “whole,” is located at the top of the student stimulus page, and each of the three items are aligned vertically beneath the target number in a 2 x 1 matrix. The left side of the matrix contains the “part” represented by a numeral or set of dots. If a set of dots was used to represent the “part,” arrays did not contain more than 5 dots. The right side of each matrix is blank, and the student is required to determine what number is the missing “part.” For each item, each of the three given “parts” on the student stimulus sheets were decided based on the following guidelines: The “part” is approximately 33% or less of the target number. The “part” is between 33 – 66% of the target number.  The “part” is approximately 66% or greater than the target number. For example, if the target number is 12, the three given “parts” used as student prompts could be 2, 6, and 9. Forms were constructed so that about 1/3 of the target numbers were between 5 and 9 and the remaining target numbers were between 10 and 20. 

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, 130) = 1.23, p= 0.30. 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 than 0 (β1Week = 0.14; SE = 0.01).

End-of-Year Benchmarks: Data Unavailable

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

Pending 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
Region: Midwest
Gender: 51% male, 49% female
SES: 43% eligible for free or 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

Decision Rules for Increasing Goals: Data Unavailable

Improved Student Achievement: Data Unavailable

Improved Teacher Planning Data Unavailable