FAST earlyReading Spanish

Word Blending Spanish

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 Spanish. 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 Word Blending be used for progress monitoring throughout Kindergarten and Grade 1 depending on specific student needs.

The Word Blending task assesses the student’s ability to form a word from individually spoken sounds or phonemes. The examiner says each phoneme in a word and asks the student to say the complete word. The resulting score is 1 if the student says the word correctly and 0 if s/he does not produce the correct word.

This tool provides information on students in Spanish. Evidence was based on a sample of Native English-speakers in a Spanish-language immersion school. 

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

The Word Blending assessment has 20 alternate forms.

A raw score is calculated as number correct words blended out of 10. Rate (i.e., per minute) score can also be calculated when appropriate. 

 

Reliability of the Performance Level Score

GradeK1
RatingFull bubbleEmpty bubble

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n (range)

Coefficient

SEM

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

Range

Median

Split-half

K-1

606

-

0.87

-

Coefficients were derived from a random sample of students from the FAST database from the 2012-2013 academic year. Approximately 48% of the students were female, and 52% were male. Approximately 72.3% of students were White, 17.7% Hispanic, 4.5% Multiracial, 3% Black, and 2.6% Asian.

Coefficient α

K-1

606

-

0.87

-

Coefficients were derived from a random sample of students from the FAST database from the 2012-2013 academic year. Approximately 48% of the students were female, and 52% were male. Approximately 72.3% of students were White, 17.7% Hispanic, 4.5% Multiracial, 3% Black, and 2.6% Asian.

Delayed Test Retest

K

84

0.54 - 0.78

0.68

-

Fall to Winter; See Table 1, below, for more information on the sample.

Delayed Test Retest

K

219

0.49 - 0.67

0.59

-

Fall to Spring; See Table 1, below, for more information on the sample.

Delayed Test Retest

K

84

 

0.84

-

Winter to Spring

Delayed Test Retest

K

68

 

0.81

-

2-3 Week Delay

Delayed Test Retest

1

221

0.63 - 0.77

0.71

-

Fall to Winter; See Table 1, below, for more information on the sample.

Delayed Test Retest

1

221

0.44 - 0.62

0.54

-

Fall to Spring; See Table 1, below, for more information on the sample

 

Table 1. Demographics for Study A

Category

Kindergarten

First Grade

Total Percent

Ethnicity

White

151

159

69.50%

Hispanic

35

34

14.50%

Black

19

9

6.30%

Asian

8

6

3.10%

Gender

Male

109

119

51.10%

Female

114

104

48.90%

Special Education Status

General Education

211

214

95.30%

Special Education

12

9

4.70%

 

Reliability of the Slope

GradeK1
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n (range)

Coefficient

SEM

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

range

median

Reliability of the Slope

K

84

-

0.45

-

Using 3 time points: fall, winter, and spring

Reliability of the Slope

1

219

-

0.83

-

Using 3 time points: fall, winter, and spring

 

Validity of the Performance Level Score

GradeK1
RatingFull bubbleEmpty bubble

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

K

Aprenda Preprimario 2

88

-

0.54

Data collected in fall, winter, and spring;

See subject information under GOM 3

Predictive Validity of Slope

1

Aprenda Primario 1

87

-

0.23

Data collected in fall, winter, and spring;

See subject information under GOM 3

 

Bias Analysis Conducted

GradeK1
RatingNoNo

Disaggregated Reliability and Validity Data

GradeK1
RatingYesYes

DIsaggregated Reliability of the Performance Level Score:

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n (range)

Coefficient

SEM

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

Range

Median

Delayed Test Retest

1

9

 

0.79

 

Fall to Winter; African American

Delayed Test Retest

1

9

 

0.76

 

Winter to Spring; African American

Delayed Test Retest

1

9

 

0.68

 

Fall to Spring; African American

Delayed Test Retest

1

35

 

0.79

 

Fall to Winter; Hispanic

Delayed Test Retest

1

35

 

0.58

 

Fall to Spring; Hispanic

Delayed Test Retest

1

35

 

0.69

 

Winter to Spring; Hispanic

Delayed Test Retest

1

15

 

0.51

 

Fall to Winter; Multiracial

Delayed Test Retest

1

15

 

0.79

 

Winter to Spring; Multiracial

Delayed Test Retest

1

157

 

0.69

 

Fall to Winter; White

Delayed Test Retest

1

155

 

0.65

 

Winter to Spring; White

Delayed Test Retest

K

19

 

0.54

 

Fall to Spring; African American

Delayed Test Retest

K

17

 

0.63

 

Fall to Winter; Hispanic

Delayed Test Retest

K

35

 

0.59

 

Fall to Spring; Hispanic

Delayed Test Retest

K

17

 

0.76

 

Winter to Spring; Hispanic

Delayed Test Retest

K

9

 

0.85

 

2-3 Week Delay; Hispanic

Delayed Test Retest

K

59

 

0.68

 

Fall to Winter; White

Delayed Test Retest

K

150

 

0.57

 

Fall to Spring; White

Delayed Test Retest

K

59

 

0.84

 

Winter to Spring; White

Disaggregated Validity of the Performance Level Score:

The following disaggregated aReading validity coefficients were derived from a sample of approximately 13,624 1st grade students and 17,137 Kindergarten students in the FAST system (N = 30,761). Approximately 31% were female, 33.3% were male, and 35.7% of students did not report gender. Approximately 40.6% of the sample of students were White, 7.7% were African American, 4.8% were Hispanic, 3.3% were Asian, 4.9% 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 35.7% of the sample did not report ethnicity/race. Approximately 53% of students were not eligible for special education services. Approximately 3.7% of students were receiving special education services. Approximately 43% of students 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

K

aReading

28

 

0.28

Spring to spring; African-American students

Predictive

K

aReading

20

 

0.46

Fall to Spring; African-American students

Predictive

K

aReading

150

 

0.25

Fall to spring; White students

Concurrent

1

aReading

15

 

0.41

Spring to spring; Multiracial students

Concurrent

1

aReading

15

 

0.43

Fall to fall; Multiracial students

Predictive

1

aReading

15

 

0.63

Fall to spring; Multiracial students

 

Alternate Forms

GradeK1
Ratingdashdash

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:

Annual, Seasonal, Monthly, and Weekly Growth

Multi-level analyses were conducted within HLM7 using LMER. Random slopes and intercepts were used.

The updated submission includes requested average weekly growth rates for season and year as well as seasonal growth rates. Results of recent research suggest that seasonal growth rates might be more valid and indicative of student growth than annual growth rates (Ardoin & Christ, 2008; Christ, Silberglitt, Yeo, & Cormier, 2010; Graney, Missall, Martinez, & Bergstrom, 2009).

Measure

Grade

Annual

Fall to Winter &

Winter to Spring

Monthly

Weekly

Word Blending

K

4.32

2.16

0.54

0.14

Word Blending

1

2.94

1.47

0.38

0.01

 

b. Basis for specifying minimum acceptable growth:

Norm-referenced and average annual, semester, monthly, and weekly growth are calculated.

Normative profile:

Representation: Local
Date: 2012-2013
Number of States: 1
Size: 446
Gender: 51% Male, 49% Female
Region: Upper Midwest
Race/Ethnicity: 70% White, 6% Black, 15% Hispanic, 3% Asian/Pacific Islander, 6% Unknown
Disability classification: 5%

Procedure for specifying criterion for adequate growth:

Diagnostic accuracy was used to determine benchmarks at fall, winter, and spring. The Aprenda was used as the criterion measure.

End-of-Year Benchmarks

GradeK1
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty 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: 6 Words blended correctly by end of spring.

Grade 1:        8  Words blended correctly by end of spring. 

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

Criterion-referenced

c. Specify the benchmarks:

Low risk (High risk)

Kindergarten:    Fall = 1 (1)

                         Winter = 4 (1)

                         Spring = 6 (5)

Grade 1:          Fall = 5 (5)

                        Winter = 8 (7)

                        Spring = 8 (8)

d. Basis for specifying these benchmarks?

Criterion-referenced

The primary score for interpretation is number of decodable words read correct per minute. Psychometric evidence is provided and supports number correct or correct per minute as the primary methods 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 Aprenda 3 typically using the Preprimario 2 for Kindergarten students and Primario 1 for students in Grade 1. 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 Aprenda, a nationally normed reading assessment of Spanish 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: 176
Gender: Unknown
Region: Upper Midwest
Disability classification: 6%

Procedure for specifying benchmarks:

Diagnostic accuracy was used to determine cutpoints, or benchmarks, at the 15th and 40th percentile. These correspond to high risk and low risk, respectively. 

Sensitive to Student Improvement

GradeK1
Ratingdashdash

Decision Rules for Changing Instruction

GradeK1
Ratingdashdash

Decision Rules for Increasing Goals

GradeK1
Ratingdashdash

Improved Student Achievement

GradeK1
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

Design: Random assignment not used.

Unit of assignment: 11 Teachers

Unit of analysis: 11 Teachers

Duration of product implementation: 1 year

Describe analysis: Teachers were surveyed whether or not they agreed that use of this measure improved student achievement. 

Fidelity:

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Survey results were collected in the Spring after 1 year of implementation. Teachers were required to use the measure based on district requirements.

Results:

Results of the study: 67 and 60% of teachers in kindergarten and first grade agreed that the tool improved student achievement. 

Improved Teacher Planning

GradeK1
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

Describe 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).