You are here
Home ›AIMSweb
Cost 
Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs 
Service & Support 
Purpose & Other Implementation Information 
Usage & Reporting 
ReadingCBM is included in a subscription to AIMSweb Pro Reading, AIMSweb Pro Language Arts, or AIMSweb Pro Complete which range from $4.00 to $6.00 per student per year. Every AIMSweb subscription provides unlimited access to the AIMSweb online system, which includes:

Internet access is required for full use of product services. Testers will require 1  2 hours of training. Paraprofessionals can administer the test.

Pearson Access to field tested training manuals are included with AIMSweb subscriptions which provide administration, scoring and implementation information. 
As a reading screening tool, ReadingCBM is used to identify children atrisk of reading failures and those students significantly below gradelevel expectations. 
Raw score (words read correctly per minute), national percentiles (grades 1 – 12) and normative performance levels by grade and season, individual student growth percentiles by grade and season (based on rates of improvement, ROI), success probability scores (cut scores that indicate a 50% or 80% probability of passing the state test), Lexile, and error analysis scores. Local norms are also available. Instructional links to Reading Streets and My Sidewalks, Prentice Hall Literature (grades 6 – 8), and a Common Core Lexile Report 
Type of Reliability  Age or Grade  n (range)  Coefficient  Information (including normative data)/Subjects  

range  median  
Ratio of Observed Variance to True Variance estimated through HLM.  Grade 3 aggregated sample across ethnicities.  396  0.71  Reliability of slope for Total sample = 0.71  Reliability of slope based on 20 observational data points collected over the course of 20 weeks (i.e., one data point per week). 
Ratio of Observed Variance to True Variance estimated through HLM.  Grade 1 aggregated sample across ethnicities.  1044  0.86  Reliability of slope for Total sample = 0.86  Reliability of slope based on 15 observational data points collected over the course of 15 weeks (i.e., one data point per week). 
Ratio of Observed Variance to True Variance estimated through HLM.  Grade 2 aggregated sample across ethnicities.  1179  0.66  Reliability of slope for Total sample = 0.66  Reliability of slope based on 15 observational data points collected over the course of 15 weeks (i.e., one data point per week). 
Type of Reliability  Age or Grade  n (range)  Coefficient  

range  median  
Alternate Form  Grade 1  1766  0.89 to .91  0.91 
Alternate Form  Grade 2  1766  0.80 to .85  0.81 
Alternate Form  Grade 3  1766  0.83 to .87  0.85 
Type of Validity  Age or Grade  n (range)  Coefficient  Test or Criterion 

Predictive  1st  1475  0.47  Minnesota Comprehensive Examine Grade 3 Reading 
Predictive  1st  1549  0.57  Minnesota Comprehensive Examine Grade 3 Reading 
Predictive  2nd  1863  0.60  Minnesota Comprehensive Examine Grade 3 Reading 
Predictive  2nd  1892  0.66  Minnesota Comprehensive Examine Grade 3 Reading 
Predictive  2nd  1935  0.67  Minnesota Comprehensive Examine Grade 3 Reading 
Predictive  3rd  2045  0.68  Minnesota Comprehensive Examine Grade 3 Reading 
Predictive  3rd  2113  0.70  Minnesota Comprehensive Examine Grade 3 Reading 
Predictive  3rd  2126  0.71  Minnesota Comprehensive Examine Grade 3 Reading 
Criterionrelated  2nd  80  0.63  AIMSweb MazeCBM 
Criterionrelated  3rd  78  0.72  AIMSweb MazeCBM 
Criterionrelated  4th  69  0.80  AIMSweb MazeCBM 
Criterionrelated  5th  76  0.76  AIMSweb MazeCBM 
Type of Validity  Age or Grade  Test or Criterion  n (range)  Coefficient  Information (including normative data)/Subjects  

median  
Predictive  Grade 3  State Exam  396  Predictive validity of slope for Total sample = 0.23.  Reliability of slope based on 20 data points collected over the course of 20 weeks (i.e. one data point per week).  
Predictive  Grade 1  State Exam  199  Predictive validity of slope for Total sample = 0.42.  Reliability of slope based on 8 data points collected over the course of 8 weeks (i.e. one data point per week).  
Predictive  Grade 2  State Exam  235  Predictive validity of slope for Total sample = 0.43.  Reliability of slope based on 8 data points collected over the course of 8 weeks (i.e. one data point per week). 
Disaggregated Validity of the Performance Level Score
Type of Reliability  Age or Grade  n (range)  Coefficient  Information (including normative data)/Subjects  

range  median  
Ratio of Observed Variance to True Variance estimated through HLM.  Grade 3 disaggregated by ethnicity.  396  0.69 to 0.72  Reliability of slope for Caucasian subsample = 0.72. Reliability of slope for African American and Hispanic subsamples both = 0.69.  Reliability of slope based on 20 observational data points collected over the course of 20 weeks (i.e., one data point per week). 
Ratio of Observed Variance to True Variance estimated through HLM.  Grade 1 disaggregated by ethnicity.  1044  0.86 to 0.86  Reliability of slope for Caucasian subsample = 0.86. Reliability of slope for African American and Hispanic subsamples both = 0.86.  Reliability of slope based on 15 observational data points collected over the course of 15 weeks (i.e., one data point per week). 
Ratio of Observed Variance to True Variance estimated through HLM.  Grade 2 disaggregated by ethnicity.  1179  0.65 to 0.70  Reliability of slope for Caucasian subsample = 0.70. Reliability of slope for African American and Hispanic subsamples both = 0.65.  Reliability of slope based on 15 observational data points collected over the course of 15 weeks (i.e., one data point per week). 
Disaggregated Predictive Validity of the Slope of Improvement
Type of Validity  Age or Grade  Test or Criterion  n (range)  Coefficient  Information (including normative data)/Subjects 
median  
Predictive  Grade 3  State Exam  396  0.23 to 0.25  Predictive validity of slope for Caucasian sample = 0.25. Reliability of slope for African American sample = 0.23. Reliability of slope for Hispanic sample = 0.24 
1. Evidence that alternate forms are of equal and controlled difficulty or, if IRT based, evidence of item or ability invariance:
Educators constructed passages uses Standard Reading Assessment Passages that produce reliable and valid judgments about general reading achievement for individual students. The data generated are sensitive to between person differences (i.e., educational need) and withinperson differences (i.e., sensitivity to improvement). For grades 17, a stratified random sample of 25 students per grade served as the initial fieldtesting pool. All students read all passages. Median alternate form reliabilities across all grades was 0.86. For primer and grade 8 passages, a horizontal field testing model was used with a significantly larger sample size (369 and 183 students, respectively), where more students read fewer randomly assigned passages, with at least 30 paired comparisons. This strategy resulted in alternateform reliabilities of 0.87 and 0.90, respectively.
2. Number of alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty:
20 alternate forms in grade 1 and 30 alternate forms in grades 28.
1. 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).
In order to assess the sensitivity of the AIMSWeb RCBM assessment to student improvement, data from a 2year period were analyzed for students in grades 2 (n=142), 3 (n=96), 4 (n=78), and 5 (n=65) who were receiving Tier 2 RTI supplemental instruction. The intervention for students in grades 2 and 3 consisted of intensified instruction and intervention in phonemic segmentation, alphabetic principle, decoding, encoding, word analysis, vocabulary development, sight word recognition, fluency, and comprehension (i.e., Wilson Foundations). Students in grades 4 and 5 received intensified instruction and intervention in word attack basics (e.g., letter sounds, letter combinations, short vowels), decoding strategies, regular and irregular words, high utility words, rate, and fluency (i.e., Corrective Reading). At each grade level, the average rate of improvement (ROI) of students receiving intervention was compared with the median ROI of students in general education who were not receiving supplemental intervention. Results of onesample ttestswere statistically significant (p <.01) at each grade level. Students in grades 2 through 5 who received intervention evidenced average rates of improvement of 3.40, 4.06, 4.33, and 3.84 words read correctly per minute (WRC) per week, respectively. These ROIs were higher than the median ROIs for generaleducation students by between 2.20 and 3.53 WRC per week. Results of these analyses provide evidence that the AIMSWeb RCBM assessment measure is sensitive to validated interventions.
1. Are benchmarks for minimum acceptable endofyear performance specified in your manual or published materials?
Yes.
a. Specify the endofyear performance standards:
Customers can 1) Define their own benchmark targets based on norm tables or other data, 2) Use AIMSweb presets, which are based on the score at the 50th percentile from the AIMSweb National Norms. 3) Use DIBELS presets, or 4) Use the AIMSweb test correlation feature to generate benchmark targets that predict success on high stakes testing.
b. Basis for specifying minimum acceptable endofyear performance:
Normreferenced and criterionreferenced
c. Specify the benchmarks:
d. Basis for specifying these benchmarks?
Normreferenced/Criterionreferenced
Normative profile:
Representation: National
Date: 20012008
Number of States: 49 & DC
Size: 288,105
Procedure for specifying benchmarks for endofyear performance levels:
By establishing the predictive relationship between RCBM criterion, AIMSweb users can use the scores that predicts passing with an 80% or 90% probability.
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:
Grade  ROI 

1  1.36 
2  1.17 
3  1.03 
4  0.81 
5  0.89 
6  1.69 
b. Basis for specifying minimum acceptable growth:
Criterionreferenced and normreferenced
2. Normative profile:
Representation: National
Date: 20012008
Number of States: 49 & DC
Size: 288,105
3. Procedure for specifying criterion for adequate growth:
By establishing the predictive relationship between RCBM criterion, AIMSweb users can use the scores that predicts passing with an 80% or 90% probability.
Specification of validated decision rules for when changes to instruction need to be made: The newest version of the AIMSweb online system, to be released for piloting in the fall of 2012 and made available to all users no later than the fall of 2013, applies a statistical procedure to the student’s monitoring scores in order to provide empiricallybased guidance about whether the student is likely to meet, fall short of, or exceed their goal. The calculation procedure (presented below) is fully described in the AIMSweb Progress Monitoring Guide (Pearson, 2012) and can be implemented immediately by AIMSweb users if they create a spreadsheet or simple software program. Once the new AIMSweb online system is fully distributed, the user will not have to do any calculations to obtain this databased guidance. The decision rule is based on a 75% confidence interval for the student’s predicted score at the goal date. This confidence interval is studentspecific and takes into account the number and variability of monitoring scores and the duration of monitoring. Starting at the sixth week of monitoring, when there are at least four monitoring scores, the AIMSweb report following each monitoring administration includes one of the following statements: “The student is projected to not reach the goal.” This statement appears if the confidence interval is completely below the goal score. “The student is projected to exceed the goal.” This statement appears if the confidence interval is completely above the goal score. “The student is on track to reach the goal. The projected score at the goal date is between X and Y” (where X and Y are the bottom and top of the confidence interval). This statement appears if the confidence interval includes the goal score. If Statement A appears, the user has a sound basis for deciding that the current intervention is not sufficient and a change to instruction should be made. If Statement B appears, there is an empirical basis for deciding that the goal is not sufficiently challenging and should be increased. If Statement C appears, the student’s progress is not clearly different from the aimline and so there is not a compelling reason to change the intervention or the goal; however, the presentation of the confidenceinterval range enables the user to see whether the goal is near the upper limit or lower limit of the range, which would signal that the student’s progress is trending below or above the goal. A 75% confidence interval was chosen for this application because it balances the costs of the two types of decision errors. Incorrectly deciding that the goal will not be reached (when in truth it will be reached) has a moderate cost: an intervention that is working will be replaced by a different intervention. Incorrectly deciding that the goal may be reached (when in truth it will not be reached) also has a moderate cost: an ineffective intervention will be continued rather than being replaced. Because both kinds of decision errors have costs, it is appropriate to use a modest confidence level. Calculation of the 75% confidence interval for the score at the goal date. Calculate the trend line. This is the ordinary leastsquares regression line through the student’s monitoring scores. Calculate the projected score at the goal date. This is the value of the trend line at the goal date. Calculate the standard error of estimate (SEE) of the projected score at the goal date, using the following formula: [((1 + 1/k + (GW – mean(w)))/(k – 2))((sum(y – y’)^{2})/(sum(w – mean(w))^{2}))]^{1/2 }where k = number of completed monitoring administrations w = week number of a completed administration GW = week number of the goal date y = monitoring score y’ = predicted monitoring score at that week (from the student’s trendline). The means and sums are calculated across all of the completed monitoring administrations up to that date. Add and subtract 1.25 times the SEE to the projected score, and round to the nearest whole numbers.
Evidentiary basis for these decision rules: The decision rules are statistically rather than empirically based. The guidance statements that result from applying the 75% confidence interval to the projected score are correct probabilistic statements, under certain assumptions: The student’s progress can be described by a linear trend line. If the pattern of the student’s monitoring scores is obviously curvilinear, then the projected score based on a linear trend will likely be misleading. We provide training in the AIMSweb Progress Monitoring Guide about the need for users to take nonlinearity into account when interpreting progressmonitoring data. The student will continue to progress at the same rate as they have been progressing to that time. This is an unavoidable assumption for a decision system based on extrapolating from past growth. Even though the rules are not derived from data, it is useful to observe how they work in a sample of real data. For this purpose, we selected random samples of students in the AIMSweb 20102011 database who were progressmonitored on either Reading CurriculumBased Measurement (RCBM) or Math Computation (MCOMP). All students scored below the 25^{th} percentile in the fall screening administration of RCBM or MCOMP. The RCBM sample consisted of 1,000 students (200 each at grades 2 through 6) who had at least 30 monitoring scores, and the MCOMP sample included 500 students (100 per grade) with a minimum of 28 monitoring scores. This analysis was only a rough approximation, because we did not know each student’s actual goal or whether the intervention or goal was changed during the year. To perform the analyses, we first set an estimated goal for each student by using the ROI at the 85^{th} percentile of AIMSweb national ROI norms to project their score at their 30^{th} monitoring administration. Next, we defined “meeting the goal” as having a mean score on the last three administrations (e.g., the 28^{th} through 30^{th} administrations of RCBM) that was at or above the goal score. At each monitoring administration for each student, we computed the projected score at the goal date and the 75% confidence interval for that score, and recorded which of the three decision statements was generated (projected not to meet goal, projected to exceed goal, or ontrack/nochange).
In this analysis, accuracy of guidance to change (that is, accuracy of projections that the student will not reach the goal or will exceed the goal) reached a high level (80%) by about the 13^{th} to 15^{th} monitoring administration, on average. The percentage of students receiving guidance to not change (i.e., their trendline was not far from the aimline) would naturally tend to decrease over administrations as the size of the confidence interval decreased. At the same time, however, there was a tendency for the trendline to become closer to the aimline over time as it became more accurately estimated, and this worked to increase the percentage of students receiving the “no change” guidance.
Specification of validated decision rules for when increases in goals need to be made: The newest version of the AIMSweb online system, to be released for piloting in the fall of 2012 and made available to all users no later than the fall of 2013, applies a statistical procedure to the student’s monitoring scores in order to provide empiricallybased guidance about whether the student is likely to meet, fall short of, or exceed their goal. The calculation procedure (presented below) is fully described in the AIMSweb Progress Monitoring Guide (Pearson, 2012) and can be implemented immediately by AIMSweb users if they create a spreadsheet or simple software program. Once the new AIMSweb online system is fully distributed, the user will not have to do any calculations to obtain this databased guidance. The decision rule is based on a 75% confidence interval for the student’s predicted score at the goal date. This confidence interval is studentspecific and takes into account the number and variability of monitoring scores and the duration of monitoring. Starting at the sixth week of monitoring, when there are at least four monitoring scores, the AIMSweb report following each monitoring administration includes one of the following statements: “The student is projected to not reach the goal.” This statement appears if the confidence interval is completely below the goal score. “The student is projected to exceed the goal.” This statement appears if the confidence interval is completely above the goal score. “The student is on track to reach the goal. The projected score at the goal date is between X and Y” (where X and Y are the bottom and top of the confidence interval). This statement appears if the confidence interval includes the goal score. If Statement A appears, the user has a sound basis for deciding that the current intervention is not sufficient and a change to instruction should be made. If Statement B appears, there is an empirical basis for deciding that the goal is not sufficiently challenging and should be increased. If Statement C appears, the student’s progress is not clearly different from the aimline and so there is not a compelling reason to change the intervention or the goal; however, the presentation of the confidenceinterval range enables the user to see whether the goal is near the upper limit or lower limit of the range, which would signal that the student’s progress is trending below or above the goal. A 75% confidence interval was chosen for this application because it balances the costs of the two types of decision errors. Incorrectly deciding that the goal will not be reached (when in truth it will be reached) has a moderate cost: an intervention that is working will be replaced by a different intervention. Incorrectly deciding that the goal may be reached (when in truth it will not be reached) also has a moderate cost: an ineffective intervention will be continued rather than being replaced. Because both kinds of decision errors have costs, it is appropriate to use a modest confidence level. Calculation of the 75% confidence interval for the score at the goal date. Calculate the trend line. This is the ordinary leastsquares regression line through the student’s monitoring scores. Calculate the projected score at the goal date. This is the value of the trend line at the goal date. Calculate the standard error of estimate (SEE) of the projected score at the goal date, using the following formula: [((1 + 1/k + (GW – mean(w)))/(k – 2))((sum(y – y’)^{2})/(sum(w – mean(w))^{2}))]^{1/2 }where k = number of completed monitoring administrations w = week number of a completed administration GW = week number of the goal date y = monitoring score y’ = predicted monitoring score at that week (from the student’s trendline). The means and sums are calculated across all of the completed monitoring administrations up to that date. Add and subtract 1.25 times the SEE to the projected score, and round to the nearest whole numbers.
Evidentiary basis for these decision rules: The decision rules are statistically rather than empirically based. The guidance statements that result from applying the 75% confidence interval to the projected score are correct probabilistic statements, under certain assumptions: The student’s progress can be described by a linear trend line. If the pattern of the student’s monitoring scores is obviously curvilinear, then the projected score based on a linear trend will likely be misleading. We provide training in the AIMSweb Progress Monitoring Guide about the need for users to take nonlinearity into account when interpreting progressmonitoring data. The student will continue to progress at the same rate as they have been progressing to that time. This is an unavoidable assumption for a decision system based on extrapolating from past growth. Even though the rules are not derived from data, it is useful to observe how they work in a sample of real data. For this purpose, we selected random samples of students in the AIMSweb 20102011 database who were progressmonitored on either Reading CurriculumBased Measurement (RCBM) or Math Computation (MCOMP). All students scored below the 25^{th} percentile in the fall screening administration of RCBM or MCOMP. The RCBM sample consisted of 1,000 students (200 each at grades 2 through 6) who had at least 30 monitoring scores, and the MCOMP sample included 500 students (100 per grade) with a minimum of 28 monitoring scores. This analysis was only a rough approximation, because we did not know each student’s actual goal or whether the intervention or goal was changed during the year. To perform the analyses, we first set an estimated goal for each student by using the ROI at the 85^{th} percentile of AIMSweb national ROI norms to project their score at their 30^{th} monitoring administration. Next, we defined “meeting the goal” as having a mean score on the last three administrations (e.g., the 28^{th} through 30^{th} administrations of RCBM) that was at or above the goal score. At each monitoring administration for each student, we computed the projected score at the goal date and the 75% confidence interval for that score, and recorded which of the three decision statements was generated (projected not to meet goal, projected to exceed goal, or ontrack/nochange).
In this analysis, accuracy of guidance to change (that is, accuracy of projections that the student will not reach the goal or will exceed the goal) reached a high level (80%) by about the 13^{th} to 15^{th} monitoring administration, on average. The percentage of students receiving guidance to not change (i.e., their trendline was not far from the aimline) would naturally tend to decrease over administrations as the size of the confidence interval decreased. At the same time, however, there was a tendency for the trendline to become closer to the aimline over time as it became more accurately estimated, and this worked to increase the percentage of students receiving the “no change” guidance.