FAST earlyReading

Decodable Words

 

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 earlyReading English. 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.

FastBridge Learning
520 Nicollet Mall
Suite 910
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1057
Phone: 612-254-2534

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.

earlyReading is used to monitor student progress in early reading in the early primary grades. Most earlyReading 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 Decodable Words be used for progress monitoring throughout kindergarten and First Grade, depending on specific student needs.

The Decodable Words task assesses the student’s ability to read simple, 3-letter, phonetically-regular words. As the student becomes fluent with letter-sound correspondence, s/he will move from saying the sound of each letter in a word to the goal of reading whole words. The examiner and student each have the same page of words. As the student reads the words, the examiner marks errors on his/her own copy. The resulting scores are the number of decodable words read correctly in one minute.

Each earlyReading test takes approximately 1-2 minutes to administer. earlyReading is computer administered to individual students and scoring is automated; it does not require any additional time to score.

The Decodable Words assessment has 20 alternate forms.

Rate is calculated as the number of decodable words read correctly per minute. Raw scores of total and correct words are also provided. An inventory of known decodable words can be generated. 

 

Reliability of the Performance Level Score

GradeK1
RatingFull bubbleFull bubble

     Type of Reliability     

   Age or Grade   

  n (range)  

Coefficient

SEM or CSEM*

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

      Range Median    

Alternate Forms

K

29

0.96-0.98

0.97

2.93 (2.71)

Collected in Spring; See Table 1 below 

Alternate Forms

1

36-37

0.97-0.98

0.98

2.98

Collected in Spring; See Table 1 below 

Test Retest

K

29

0.96-0.99

0.98

2.12*

Collected in Fall 2012

Test Retest

1

73

0.95-0.98

0.97

2.83*

Collected in Fall 2012

Delayed Test Retest

K

56

0.53-0.81

0.70

-

Fall-Winter

 

Delayed Test Retest

1

2,152

0.78-0.81

0.80

-

Fall-Winter

 

Delayed Test Retest

1

1,194

0.65-0.71     

0.69     

-

Fall-Spring

 

Test-retest

K 3400   0.85   Collected in Spring

Delayed Test-retest

K 4364   0.81   Winter to Spring data collection

* CSEM = median of the conditional standard error of measurement across participants.

 

Table 1. Sample Demographics for Alternate Forms Study

 

 

Category

District A (%)

District B (%)

District C (%)

White

56.1%

93%

79.5%

Black

13.5%

4%

6.8%

Hispanic

10.3%

3%

4.5%

Asian/Pacific Islander

19.4%

4%

10.5%

American Indian/Alaskan Native

>.1%

1%

.25%

Free and Reduced Lunch

44.9%

17%

9%

LEP

15.8%

6%

6%

Special Education

12.6%

10%

10%

 

Reliability of the Slope

GradeK1
RatingFull bubbleFull bubble

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n (range)

Coefficient

SEM

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

range

median

Split-Half

K

59

-

0.57

0.22

-

Split-Half

1

437

-

0.75

0.12

-

Reliability for the Slope

1

371

-

0.75

-

Duration of Progress Monitoring greater than 10 weeks. 

Reliability for the Slope

K

41

-

0.71

-

Duration of Progress Monitoring greater than 10 weeks. 

Reliability of the Slope K 196   0.75   Students with greater than 10 weeks of data

 

Validity of the Performance Level Score

GradeK1
RatingFull bubbleFull bubble

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n (range)

Coefficient

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

range

median

Concurrent K GRADE composite Level K 214   0.27 Data collected in Fall; Participants included kindergarten students from two school districts. In School District 1 three elementary schools participated. Kindergarten students from District 1 who participated in the study were enrolled in all day or half day kindergarten. The majority of students within the school district were White (78%), with the remaining students identified as either African American (19%), or other (3%). 40 to 50 percent of students at each school were on free and reduced lunch. In school District 2, the majority of students within the school district were White (53%), with the remaining students identified as African American (26%), Hispanic (11%), Asian (8%), or other (2%). 40 to 50 percent of students at each school were on free and reduced lunch. 
Concurrent 1 GRADE composite Level K 71   0.22

Data collected in Spring.

See subject information above.

Predictive 1 GRADE composite Level 1 179   0.59 Fall to Spring prediction;

 

See subject information above

 

Predictive

1

GRADE composite Level 1

168

 

0.78

Winter to Spring prediction

See subject information above

Concurrent

1

GRADE composite Level 1

124

 

0.46

Data collected in Spring

See subject information above

Concurrent

K

aReading

1744

 

0.55

Data collected in Spring 2014

Predictive

K

aReading

657

 

0.45

Winter to Spring

Concurrent

K

aReading

18

 

0.78

Data collected in Spring 2014

Concurrent

1

aReading

1773

 

0.55

Data collected in Fall 2013

Concurrent

1

aReading

1742

 

0.61

Data collected in Spring 2013

Predictive

1

aReading

405

 

0.53

Fall to Winter

Predictive

1

aReading

1793

 

0.45

Fall to Spring

 

Predictive Validity of the Slope of Improvement

GradeK1
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n (range)

Coefficient

Information (including normative data)/Subjects

range

median

Predictive Validity of Slope

1

GRADE Level 1

179

 

0.62

Data collected fall, winter, and spring.

Participants included kindergarten students from two school districts. In School District 1 three elementary schools participated. Kindergarten students from District 1 who participated in the study were enrolled in all day or half day kindergarten. The majority of students within the school district were White (78%), with the remaining students identified as either African American (19%), or other (3%). 40 to 50 percent of students at each school were on free and reduced lunch. In school District 2, the majority of students within the school district were White (53%), with the remaining students identified as African American (26%), Hispanic (11%), Asian (8%), or other (2%). 40 to 50 percent of students at each school were on free and reduced lunch. 

Predictive Validity of Slope

K

aReading

41

 

0.40

The aReading predictive validity of slope coefficient was derived from a sample of approximately 964 1st grade students and 1220 Kindergarten students in the FAST system (N = 2184). Approximately 34% were female, 45% were male, and 21% of students did not report gender. Approximately 46% of the sample of students were White, 2.57% were Black/African American, 8% were Hispanic, 7% were Asian, 1% were recorded as “Other”, 3% were Multiracial, 2% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.3% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Approximately 21% of the sample did not report ethnicity/race. Approximately 61% of students were reported as not eligible for Special education services, while 17% of students were receiving special education services. However, 21% of the sample did not report special education status or receipt of services. 

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Criterion

N

Coefficient Range

Coefficient Median

Information (Including Normative data)/Subjects

Predictive validity of the slope

1

aReading

444

 

0.29

Students were monitored for greater than 10 observations between Fall and Spring

Predictive validity of the slope

1

aReading

137

 

0.43

Students were monitored for 6-10 observations between Fall and Spring

Predictive validity of the slope

KG

aReading

45

 

0.30

Students were monitored for greater than 10 observations between Fall and Spring

Predictive validity of the slope

KG

aReading

41

 

0.4

2013-2014 school year

Predictive validity of the slope

1

aReading

218

 

0.24

2013-2014 school year

 

Bias Analysis Conducted

GradeK1
RatingNoNo

Disaggregated Reliability and Validity Data

GradeK1
RatingYesYes

Disaggregated Reliability of the Performance Level Score:

The following disaggregated delayed test retest reliability coefficients were derived from a sample of approximately 11,850 1st grade students and 15,985 Kindergarten students in the FAST system (N = 27835). Approximately 29.3% were female, 31.3% were male, and 39.4% of students did not report gender. Approximately 39.1% of the sample of students were White, 8% were African American, 5% were Hispanic, 3.3% were Asian, 2.1% were recorded as “Other”, 1.9% were Multiracial, 1% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.1% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Approximately 39.4% of the sample did not report ethnicity/race. Approximately 50% of students were reported as not eligible for Special education services, while 10.4% of students were receiving special education services. However, 39.4% of the sample did not report special education status or receipt of services.

Type of Reliability Age or Grade

n (range)

Coefficient Range Coefficient Median SEM      Information (including normative data) / Subjects
Delayed Test Retest K 1171      - 0.8      - Winter to Spring; White
Delayed Test Retest K 217      - 0.58      - Fall to Spring; White
Delayed Test Retest K 160      - 0.56      - Fall to Winter; White
Delayed Test Retest K 3      - 1      - Winter to Spring; Pacific Islander
Delayed Test Retest K 31      - 0.72     -  Winter to Spring; Multiracial
Delayed Test Retest K 4      - 0.42      - Fall to Spring; Multiracial
Delayed Test Retest K 80 - 0.88 - 2-3 Week Delay
Delayed Test Retest K 75 - 0.62 - Winter to Spring; Hispanic
Delayed Test Retest K 16 - 0.79 - Fall to Spring; Hispanic
Delayed Test Retest K 111 - 0.79 - Winter to Spring; African American
Delayed Test Retest K 200 - 0.8 - 2-3 Week Delay; African American
Delayed Test Retest K 52 - 0.38 - Fall to Spring; African American
Delayed Test Retest K 39 - 0.89 - Winter to Spring; Asian
Delayed Test Retest K 66 - 0.79 - Winter to Spring; American Indian/Alaska Native
Delayed Test Retest K 5 - 0.56 - Fall to Spring; American Indian/Alaska Native
Delayed Test Retest K 3 - 1 - Fall to Winter; American Indian/ Alaska Native
Delayed Test Retest 1 310 - 0.85 - Winter to Spring; White
Delayed Test Retest 1 1679 - 0.74 - Fall to Spring; White
Delayed Test Retest 1 1450 - 0.84 - Fall to Winter; White
Delayed Test Retest 1 3 - 0.99 - Winter to Spring; Pacific Islander
Delayed Test Retest 1 150 - 0.87 - Winter to Spring; Multiracial
Delayed Test Retest 1 145 - 0.73 - Fall to Spring; Multiracial
Delayed Test Retest 1 151 - 0.83 - Fall to Winter; Multiracial
Delayed Test Retest  1 70 - 0.89 - 2-3 Week Delay; Multiracial
Delayed Test Retest 1 151 - 0.83 - Fall to Winter; Multiracial
Delayed Test Retest 1 341 - 0.86 - Winter to Spring; Hispanic
Delayed Test Retest 1 122 - 0.75 - Fall to Spring; Hispanic
Delayed Test Retest 1 129 - 0.9 - 2-3 Week Delay; Hispanic
Delayed Test Retest 1 330 - 0.77 - Fall to Winter; Hispanic
Delayed Test Retest 1 551 - 0.88 - Winter to Spring; African American
Delayed Test Retest 1 514 - 0.75 - Fall to Spring; African American
Delayed Test Retest 1 200 - 0.88 - 2-3 Week Delay; African American
Delayed Test Retest 1 538 - 0.79 - Fall to Winter; African American
Delayed Test Retest 1 137 - 0.86 - Winter to Spring; Asian
Delayed Test Retest 1 136 - 0.79 - Fall to Spring; Asian
Delayed Test Retest 1 42 - 0.94 - 2-3 Week Delay; Asian
Delayed Test Retest 1 144 - 0.88 - Fall to Winter; Asian
Delayed Test Retest 1 21 - 0.86 - Winter to Spring; American Indian/Alaska Native
Delayed Test Retest 1 23 - 0.56 - Fall to Spring; American Indian/Alaska Native
Delayed Test Retest 1 23 - 0.71 - Fall to Winter; American Indian/Alaska Native

Disaggregated Reliability of the Slope:

The following disaggregated reliability of the slope coefficients were derived from a sample of approximately 907 1st grade students and 1180 Kindergarten students in the FAST system (N = 2,087). Approximately 33.7% were female, 44.8% were male, and 21.5% of students did not report gender. Approximately 45.9% of the sample of students were White, 11.5% were African American, 7.2% were Hispanic, 6.8% were Asian, 1.2% were recorded as “Other”, 3.3% were Multiracial, 2.2% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.4% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Approximately 21.5% of the sample did not report ethnicity/race. Approximately 59.9% of students were reported as not eligible for Special education services, while 18.5% of students were receiving special education services. Approximately 21.5% of students did not report Special education status (i.e., receipt of services). 

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n (range)

Coefficient

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

range

median

Reliability for the Slope

1

22

-

0.95

Asian

Reliability for the Slope

1

246

-

0.52

White

Reliability for the Slope

1

46

-

0.63

Hispanic

Reliability for the Slope

1

19

-

0.68

Multiracial

Reliability for the Slope

1

96

-

0.67

African American

Reliability for the Slope

1

7

-

0.71

American Indian or Alaska Native

 

Disaggregated Validity of the Performance Level Score:

The following disaggregated aReading validity coefficients were derived from a sample of approximately 13,624 first grade students in the FAST system. Approximately 29.5% were female, and 31.4% were male, with approximately 39% of the sample not reporting their gender. Approximately 38% of the sample of students were White, 6.8% were African American, 4.7% were Hispanic, 3% were Asian, 5.5% were recorded as “Other”, 2.1% were Multiracial, 0.8% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.2% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Approximately 39% of the sample did not report ethnicity/race. Approximately 50% of students were reported as not eligible for Special education services, while approximately 3.9% of students were receiving special education services. Approximately 45.8% did not report their special education status. 

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n (range)

Coefficient

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

range

median

Concurrent

1

aReading

6

-

0.48

Multiracial

Predictive

1

aReading

17

-

0.72

White; Fall to Spring prediction.

 

Alternate Forms

GradeK1
RatingEmpty bubbleHalf-filled bubble

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

Intraclass correlation (ICC) from a multilevel model of persons nested within forms was computed. The ICC provides an estimate of the amount of variability in scores explained by the forms. Lower values indicate that variability is not due to form differences, but rather due to differences in individuals.  Amongst 1st grade students, only 4.01% of variability in scores was attributable to forms. Amongst KG students, only 13.09% of variability in scores was attributable to forms.

Measure

Grade

ICC

Decodable Words

1st

4.01%

Decodable Words

KG

13.09%

 

Means and standard deviations, by form and grade level, are provided below.

N

Form #

Mean

SD

Measure

Grade

1283

1

14.20187

10.02581

Decodable Words

1

1212

2

12.47525

9.845137

Decodable Words

1

1249

3

17.14732

13.97253

Decodable Words

1

1131

4

15.52431

11.12989

Decodable Words

1

1022

5

14.89139

10.61391

Decodable Words

1

998

6

16.76854

11.53667

Decodable Words

1

822

7

17.37591

10.53888

Decodable Words

1

720

8

19.32361

11.0403

Decodable Words

1

706

9

17.46176

11.27285

Decodable Words

1

595

10

19.2605

9.400607

Decodable Words

1

486

11

15.83333

9.227871

Decodable Words

1

1378

12

12.90203

9.511212

Decodable Words

1

1071

13

15.29599

10.25986

Decodable Words

1

470

14

17.33191

9.287888

Decodable Words

1

406

15

16.66995

10.49794

Decodable Words

1

485

16

18.25979

10.49156

Decodable Words

1

480

17

19.02917

10.61743

Decodable Words

1

390

18

17.95897

11.05157

Decodable Words

1

563

19

17.37655

10.54934

Decodable Words

1

467

20

17.98501

10.1642

Decodable Words

1

245

1

8.583673

5.791293

Decodable Words

KG

206

2

9.427184

6.185904

Decodable Words

KG

178

3

10.73596

6.877701

Decodable Words

KG

206

4

11.60194

6.438966

Decodable Words

KG

49

5

11.85714

6.191392

Decodable Words

KG

451

6

6.301552

6.288435

Decodable Words

KG

356

7

6.702247

4.735969

Decodable Words

KG

357

8

6.652661

5.031064

Decodable Words

KG

310

9

7.616129

5.531118

Decodable Words

KG

334

10

8.047904

5.667258

Decodable Words

KG

314

11

8.070064

6.679916

Decodable Words

KG

136

12

10.47059

6.625362

Decodable Words

KG

127

13

9.307087

4.417699

Decodable Words

KG

154

14

12.44156

6.954556

Decodable Words

KG

123

15

9.056911

4.61164

Decodable Words

KG

65

16

10.64615

4.757989

Decodable Words

KG

9

17

6.333333

5.123475

Decodable Words

KG

24

18

9.333333

5.163978

Decodable Words

KG

11

19

6.909091

6.655142

Decodable Words

KG

12

20

5.166667

4.589184

Decodable Words

KG

2. Number of alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty: 20

 

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:

Estimates of growth are based on an academically representative sample, and were derived using progress monitoring data.

 

Table 1

Students Scoring Below the 30th Percentile

Grade

 

Fall-Winter ROI

Winter-Spring ROI

Fall-Spring ROI

Kindergarten

--

1.34 (1.18)

--

First Grade

1.91 (1.27)

2.82 (2.18)

2.27 (1.27)

Note. Scores represent mean values, with standard deviations in parentheses.

 

Table 2

Students Scoring Between the 30th and 80th Percentiles

Grade

 

Fall-Winter ROI

Winter-Spring ROI

Fall-Spring ROI

Kindergarten

1.12 (0.94)

2.49 (1.71)

1.79 (0.99)

First Grade

3.02 (1.90)

4.71 (3.26)

3.22 (1.45)

Note. Scores represent mean values, with standard deviations in parentheses.

 

Table 3

Students Scoring Above the 80th Percentile

Grade

 

Fall-Winter ROI

Winter-Spring ROI

Fall-Spring ROI

Kindergarten

1.64 (1.27)

4.52 (3.11)

2.42 (1.49)

First Grade

3.65 (2.38)

3.52 (3.75)

3.31 (1.52)

Note. Scores represent mean values, with standard deviations in parentheses.

 

b. Basis for specifying minimum acceptable growth:

Norm-referenced weekly growth is calculated.

Normative profile:

Representation: Local
Date: 2013-2014
Number of States: 2
Size: The sample was composed of 26,566 total students across two states. However, one of the states did not provide demographic information by the time of this submission. This state’s sample comprised 10776 total students, or 40.6% of the total two-state sample. This fact is reflected by the percentages labeled “N/A” below.
Gender: 28.9% Male, 30.5% Female, 40.6% N/A
Region: Midwest
Race/Ethnicity: 38.8% White, 7.8% Black, 4.6% Hispanic, 40.6% Unknown, 1.0% American Indian/Alaska Native, 3.4% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2.0% Other, 1.9% Multiracial.
Disability classification: 49.3% of this sample did not receive special education services. 3.4% of this sample did receive special education services; the special education status was unknown for 47.3% of this sample.
Grade distribution: 57.5% kindergarten; 42.5% first grade.

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:    9 Decodable words read correct per minute.

Grade 1:           24 Decodable Words read correct per minute. 

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

Criterion-referenced

c. Specify the benchmarks:

Low risk (High risk)

Kindergarten:              Winter = 5 (3)

           Spring = 9 (3)

Grade 1:                      Fall= 5 (2)

Grade 1:                      Winter = 15 (10)

Grade 1:                      Spring = 24 (22)

d. Basis for specifying these benchmarks?

Criterion-referenced

The primary score for interpretation is number of correct decodable words read per minute. Psychometric evidence is provided and supports number correct per minute as the primary method of interpretation. Accuracy scores are provided as a supplemental score, such that students who perform at less than 95% accuracy are flagged for the user to consider. Our training materials caution the interpretation of rate-based scores until accuracy is approximately 95%. The goals in the system include number correct and number correct per min as the primary index of growth, but also prompt monitoring of the accuracy of student responding. This is designed to help teachers and other users consider multiple aspects of student performance, which includes number correct, errors, rate and accuracy.

Benchmarks were established for earlyReading to help teachers accurately identify students who are at risk or not at risk for academic failure. These benchmarks were developed from a criterion study examining earlyReading assessment scores in relation to scores on the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE). Measures of diagnostic accuracy were used to determine decision thresholds using criteria related to sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). Specifically, specificity and sensitivity was computed at different cut scores in relation to maximum AUC values.  Decisions for final benchmark percentiles were generated based on maximizing each criterion at each cut score (i.e., when the cut score maximized specificity ≥ 0.70, and sensitivity was also ≥ 0.70; see Silberglitt & Hintze, 2005). Precedence was given to maximizing specificity. Based on these analyses, the values at the 40th and 15th percentiles were identified as the primary and secondary benchmarks for earlyReading, respectively. These values thus correspond with a prediction of performance at the 40th and 15th percentiles on the GRADE, a nationally normed reading assessment of early reading skills. Performance above the primary benchmark indicates the student is at low risk for long term reading difficulties. Performance between the primary and secondary benchmarks indicates the student is at some risk for long term reading difficulties. Performance below the secondary benchmark indicates the student is at high risk for long term reading difficulties. These risk levels help teachers accurately monitor student progress using the FAST earlyReading measures.

Normative profile:

Representation: Local
Date: 2012-2013
Number of States: 1
Size: ~230
Gender: 55% Male, 45% Female
Region: Upper Midwest
Disability classification: 7% Special Education
 
Procedure for specifying benchmarks for end-of-year performance levels: 
Diagnostic accuracy was used to determine cutpoints, or benchmarks, at the 20th and 35th percentile. These correspond to high risk and low risk, respectively. 

Sensitive to Student Improvement

GradeK1
RatingFull bubbleFull bubble

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).

Data were collected by schools who use earlyReading across the United States as part of their typical school practices in the 2014-2015 school year. We extracted all progress monitoring data in the FastBridge Learning system. The following states were represented: Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. All students had a minimum of 6 observations (M = 12.56; SD = 6.39) across 6 weeks (M = 17.79; SD = 7.74). The total samples for kindergarten and first grade were approximately 52% male and 48% female. Sample sizes and represented states varied across individual earlyReading assessments. We coded special education status where 0 = regular education only, and 1 = evaluated and receiving special education services. Some schools did not provide data for special education status and such student data were coded as NA. 

To evaluate sensitivity to student improvement we fit a linear regression model to progress monitoring data. Across 265 Kindergarten students, the slope for average weekly improvement (β1Week) was significantly different than 0 (β1Week = 0.41; SE =0.02). In other words, the slopes on the progress monitoring tool are significantly different than zero. In addition, a significant interaction term between Special Education Status and the slope for weekly improvement was observed. That is, β3Special Education Status * Week =-0.18(SE = 0.06). This significant interaction term suggests that students receiving special education services (n = 29), on average, improved significantly less than regular education students.

Across 1,011 First grade students, the slope for average weekly improvement (β1Week) was significantly different than 0 (β1Week = 0.38; 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 =-0.05(SE = 0.03; p < 0.1). This significant interaction term suggests that students receiving special education services (n = 228), on average, improved significantly less than regular education students

Decision Rules for Changing Instruction

GradeK1
Ratingdashdash

Decision Rules for Increasing Goals

GradeK1
Ratingdashdash

Improved Student Achievement

GradeK1
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

We analyzed grade level performance of a suburban Midwest LEA (Schools = 7) with aReading data (broad measure of reading achievement). Performance data from the fall of year 1 implementation of FAST earlyReading (i.e., pre-test) were compared to fall of year 2 implementation (e.g., post-test) to evaluate the effect of FAST earlyReading progress monitoring. That is, the difference in performance between first graders in 2013 (control, M = 433) and first graders in 2014 (after teachers implemented earlyReading progress monitoring for one year; M = 437) might be attributed, in part, to the FAST earlyReading progress monitoring. We analyzed scores in first and second grade using independent samples t-tests to show the improvements of using FAST earlyReading in kindergarten and first grade. Then, we calcaulated Cohen’s d as an index of effect size. There were statistically significant differences with meaningful effect sizes in both general and special education samples. This was observed at the district and school levels. Although not all differences were statistically significant (viz., special education) that is likely attributed to statistical power. The observed effect sizes converge with the findings of Kingston and Nash (2011). These are meaningful and important improvements that replicated across grades.

 

FAST Statistical Significance and Effect Sizes

 

 

2013

 

2014

 

 

Grade

Group

M

SD

N

 

M

SD

N

 

t

df

p

Cohen’s d

1st

GenEd

433.33

27.21

830

 

437.85

28.22

556

 

2.99

1384

0.003*

0.16

SpEd

413.58

28.36

77

 

418.89

32.55

46

 

0.95

121

0.344

0.18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2nd

GenEd

468.30

21.29

796

 

471.51

23.69

683

 

2.75

1477

0.006*

0.14

SpEd

445.57

35.02

68

 

452.88

33.60

59

 

1.20

125

0.234

0.21

Note. Adaptive Reading (aReading) is a computer adaptive test of broad reading on a score scale range of 350 to 650, which span K to 12th grade achievement. Aggregate data are presented for 7 schools. Grade level performance was compared across the first two years of implementation.

 

References

Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011), Formative assessment. A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28 – 37.

Improved Teacher Planning

GradeK1
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

Description of evidence that teachers’ use of the tool results in improved planning:

In a teacher-user survey, 82% of teachers indicated that FAST assessment results were helpful in making instructional grouping decisions (n = 401). 82% of teachers also indicated that assessment results helped them adjust interventions for students who were at-risk (n = 369). Finally, a majority of teachers indicated that they look at assessment results at least once per month (66%), and nearly a quarter of teachers indicated that they look at assessment results weekly or even more often (n = 376).