easyCBM

Reading - Letter Sounds

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).

Students read sounds produced by individual letters, diagraphs, and blends presented on a single sheet of paper.

The tool provides information on student performance in English.

Letter Sounds is individually administered and the scores are entered in the computer. It takes 1 minute to administer.

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

GradeK1
RatingdashFull bubble
Type of Reliability Age or Grade n (range) Coefficient SEM Information (including normative data)/Subjects
range median

Alternate Form

1

48-52

0.82 - 0.89

0.85

3.39 – 3.58

We conducted the reliability study in a mid-sized K-8 school in the Pacific Northwest in the spring of 2009. With 50% of the student body eligible for free or reduced-price meals, the school is comprised of 50% white, 16% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 2% Black, and 2% Native American students. In 2007, students at the participating school outperformed their peers in both the district and the state on the statewide reading assessment. Fully 90% of third-grade students at the participating school tested proficient on the state reading test, compared to 84% for the district overall and 82% for the state. In fifth grade, 83% of students at the participating school scored proficient, compared to 63% for the district and 71% for the state. In eighth grade, 70% of students at the participating school tested proficient, compared to 66% for the district and 68% for the state (demographic information retrieved from www.schoolmatters.com on May 4, 2009).

Test Re-test

1

48-52

0.64 - 0.68

0.66

 

 

Reliability of the Slope

GradeK1
RatingFull bubbleFull bubble
Type of Reliability Age or Grade n (range) Coefficient Information (including normative data)/Subjects

Slope

K

703
293
464
460

0.78
0.76
0.68
0.53

Quartile 1
Quartile 2
Quartile 3
Quartile 4

Slope

1

566
542
543
478

0.57
0.66
0.72
0.42

Quartile 1
Quartile 2
Quartile 3
Quartile 4

 

Validity of the Performance Level Score

GradeK1
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

Predictive Validity

Type of Validity Age or Grade Test or Criterion n (range) R2 β (SE) Information (including normative data)/Subjects
Predictive
F SAT10
1 Regression 161 0.29 1.71 (0.21)  
Predictive
W SAT10
1 Regression 177 0.31 1.64 (0.19)  

Construct Validity

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  


Test Type of Evidence Age/Grade Zero-order correlations

easyCBM

Lai, C. et al. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM primary reading measures (grades K – 1), 2009-2010 version. (Technical Report #1003). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.

Concurrent

S SAT10
K 0.72

Predictive

F SAT10
K 0.68

Predictive

W SAT10
K 0.64

Predictive

F SAT10
1 0.54

Predictive

W SAT10
1 0.56

 

Predictive Validity of the Slope of Improvement

GradeK1
RatingFull bubbleFull bubble
Type of Validity Age or Grade n (range) Coefficient Information (including normative data)/Subjects
Predictive Validity K 759
306
472
476
.69
.61
.49
.56
Quartile 1
Quartile 2
Quartile 3
Quartile 4
 
Predictive Validity

 

1 573
551
564
494
0.55
0.48
0.38
0.41
Quartile 1
Quartile 2
Quartile 3
Quartile 4

 

Bias Analysis Conducted

GradeK1
RatingNoNo

Disaggregated Reliability and Validity Data

GradeK1
RatingNoNo

Alternate Forms

GradeK1
Ratingdashdash

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 letter sound in its lower case and capital form and then used this information to construct 20 alternate forms of comparable difficulty for use in Kindergarten and Grade 1. Across all alternate forms, the mean measure of items in each row is within 0.02 of the mean measure of items in the same row on every other form. 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 Letter Sounds measures, we found correlations ranged from 0.76 to 0.88.

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

20 forms are available in each of grades K and 1: 3 forms are used for screening and 17 forms are available to progress monitor.

Rates of Improvement Specified

GradeK1
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

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 LSF mean gain and approximate weekly rates of improvement for all Kindergarten and grade 1 students, and then separated by fall 25 percentile bands (e.g., “quartile 1” are those students who scored at or below the 25th percentile for LSF in the fall). To determine mean gain, we subtracted fall LSF scores from spring LSF 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
All 26.88 11.78 0.84 0.37   21.15 14.49 0.66 0.45
Quartile 1 27.46 12.47 0.86 0.39   31.01 12.87 0.97 0.40
Quartile 2 29.53 10.76 0.93 0.34   23.10 11.89 0.72 0.37
Quartile 3 28.48 10.45 0.89 0.33   16.87 12.57 0.53 0.39
Quartile 4 22.66 11.54 0.71 0.36   10.94 12.49 0.34 0.39

b. Basis for specifying minimum acceptable growth:

Norm-referenced

Normative profile:

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

End-of-Year Benchmarks

GradeK1
RatingFull bubbleFull bubble

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:

Kindergarten: 50th percentile = 34 letter sounds per minute in the spring. First grade: 50th percentile = 46 correct letter sounds per minute in the spring. (see easyCBM.com ---- 'reports' ----- 'Interpreting the EasyCBM Progress Monitoring Test Results' pdf).

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.

Percentile Letter Sounds Correctly Spoken Per Minute
Kindergarten First Grade
10th 18 30
20th 23 36
50th 34 46
75th 42 54
90th 50 63

c. Specify the benchmarks:

NA

d. Basis for specifying these benchmarks?

Norm-referenced

Normative profile:

Representation: Local
Date: 2009
Number of States: 1
Size: 1,357 – 5,649

Sensitive to Student Improvement

GradeK1
Ratingdashdash

Decision Rules for Changing Instruction

GradeK1
Ratingdashdash

Decision Rules for Increasing Goals

GradeK1
Ratingdashdash

Improved Student Achievement

GradeK1
Ratingdashdash

Improved Teacher Planning

GradeK1
Ratingdashdash