FAST earlyReading

Word Segmenting

 

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
502 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 Segmenting be used for progress monitoring throughout kindergarten and in first grade as needed, depending on specific student needs.

The Word Segmenting task assesses the student’s ability to separate a spoken word into individual sounds, or phonemes. The examiner says a word and asks the student to say any sounds s/he hears in the word. The resulting score is the number of correctly identified sounds. For example, if the examiner says the word “stop” and the student says /s/ /t/ /o/ /p/, the score for that word is 4 because the student correctly identified the 4 individual sounds in the word. The resulting score is the total number of correctly identified sounds.

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 Word Segmenting assessment has 20 alternate forms.

A raw score is calculated as number of correctly read sounds out of 34 possible. Rate (i.e., per minute) score can also be calculated when appropriate.

 

 

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

37-38

0.68-0.92

0.82

8.07

Collected in Spring; see table 1 for information on the sample.

Alternate Forms

1

40

0.67-0.87

0.82

9.83

Collected in Spring; see table 1 for information on the sample

Test Retest

K

37

0.86-0.74

0.86

0.71*

Collected in Fall; see table 1 for information on the sample.

Test Retest

1

77

0.75-0.89

0.83

1.41*

Collected in Fall; see table 1 below for information on the sample.

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

>0.1%

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 bubbleEmpty bubble

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n (range)

Coefficient

SEM

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

range

median

Split-Half

K 112 - 0.66 0.12  

Split-Half

1 81 - 0.39 0.18  

Reliability for the Slope

K 86 - 0.58 - Duration of Progress Monitoring greater than 10 weeks.

Reliability for the Slope

1 53 - 0.62 - Duration of Progress Monitoring greater than 10 weeks.

Reliability for the Slope

1 28 - 0.62 - Duration of Progress Monitoring between 6-10 weeks. 

 

Validity of the Performance Level Score

GradeK1
RatingFull bubbleEmpty bubble

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n (range)

Coefficient

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

range

median

Concurrent

1

GRADE Composite Level K

71

 

0.49

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

K

GRADE Composite Level K

213

 

0.25

Data collected in Spring – see subject information above.

Concurrent

1

GRADE Composite Level 1

165

 

0.07

Data collected in Spring – see subject information above.

Predictive

1

GRADE Composite Level 1

179

 

0.32

Fall to Spring prediction – see subject information above.

Predictive

K

GRADE Composite Level K

228

 

0.58

Winter to Spring prediction – see subject information above.

Predictive

1

GRADE Composite Level 1

168

 

0.60

Winter to Spring prediction – see subject information above.

Concurrent

K

aReading

115

 

0.45

Data collected in Fall

Concurrent

K

aReading

3706

 

0.52

Data collected in Winter

Concurrent

K

aReading

4946

 

0.48

Data collected in Spring

Predictive

K

aReading

134

 

0.36

Fall to Spring

Predictive

K

aReading

4123

 

0.46

Winter to Spring

Concurrent

1

aReading

3870

 

0.40

Data collected in Fall

Concurrent

1

aReading

3442

 

0.36

Data collected in Winter

Concurrent

1

aReading

4555

 

0.33

Data collected in Spring

Predictive

1

aReading

3537

 

0.38

Fall to Winter

Predictive

1

aReading

4982

 

0.37

Fall to Spring

Predictive

1

aReading

4181

 

0.38

Winter to Spring

Concurrent

1

aReading

64

 

0.46

Data collected late Spring

Predictive

1

aReading

449

 

0.51

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

K

GRADE aggregate (full scale) Level K

224

-

0.49

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

1

GRADE aggregate (full scale)  Level 1

178

-

0.23

Data collected Fall, Winter, and Spring; See information above. 

 

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 = 27,835). 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

SEM

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

Range

Median

Delayed Test Retest

1

29

 

0.55

 

Fall to Winter; American Indian/Alaska Native

Delayed Test Retest

1

29

 

0.53

 

Fall to Spring; American Indian/Alaska Native

Delayed Test Retest

1

35

 

0.34

 

Winter to Spring; American Indian/Alaska Native

Delayed Test Retest

1

265

 

0.59

 

Fall to Winter; Asian

Delayed Test Retest

1

245

 

0.49

 

Fall to Spring; Asian

Delayed Test Retest

1

242

 

0.67

 

Winter to Spring; Asian

Test Retest

1

68

 

0.71

 

2-3 Week Delay; Asian

Delayed Test Retest

1

545

 

0.62

 

Fall to Winter; African American

Delayed Test Retest

1

537

 

0.51

 

Fall to Spring; African American

Delayed Test Retest

1

520

 

0.72

 

Winter to Spring; African American

Test Retest

1

202

 

0.71

 

2-3 Week Delay; African American

Delayed Test Retest

1

338

 

0.57

 

Fall to Winter; Hispanic

Delayed Test Retest

1

344

 

0.50

 

Fall to Spring; Hispanic

Delayed Test Retest

1

341

 

0.78

 

Winter to Spring; Hispanic

Test Retest

1

135

 

0.77

 

2-3 Week Delay; Hispanic

Delayed Test Retest

1

190

 

0.57

 

Fall to Winter; Multiracial

Delayed Test Retest

1

186

 

0.43

 

Fall to Spring; Multiracial

Delayed Test Retest

1

190

 

0.81

 

Winter to Spring; Multiracial

Test Retest

1

75

 

0.86

 

2-3 Week Delay; Multiracial

Delayed Test Retest

1

1679

 

0.54

 

Fall to Winter; White

Delayed Test Retest

1

1883

 

0.46

 

Fall to Spring; White

Delayed Test Retest

1

1710

 

0.62

 

Winter to Spring; White

Test Retest

1

344

 

0.58

 

2-3 Week Delay; White

Delayed Test Retest

K

129

 

0.70

 

Winter to Spring; American Indian/Alaska Native

Delayed Test Retest

K

339

 

0.74

 

Winter to Spring; Asian

Test Retest

K

157

 

0.76

 

2-3 Week Delay; Asian

Delayed Test Retest

K

52

 

0.61

 

Fall to Winter; African American

Delayed Test Retest

K

68

 

0.34

 

Fall to Spring; African American

Delayed Test Retest

K

610

 

0.65

 

Winter to Spring; African American

Test Retest

K

361

 

0.74

 

2-3 Week Delay; African American

Delayed Test Retest

K

90

 

0.46

 

Fall to Spring; Hispanic

Delayed Test Retest

K

356

 

0.66

 

Winter to Spring; Hispanic

Test Retest

K

178

 

0.76

 

2-3 Week Delay; Hispanic

Delayed Test Retest

K

123

 

0.56

 

Winter to Spring; Multiracial

Test Retest

K

83

 

0.71

 

2-3 Week Delay; Multiracial

Delayed Test Retest

K

161

 

0.61

 

Fall to Winter; White

Delayed Test Retest

K

245

 

0.24

 

Fall to Spring; White

Delayed Test Retest

K

4138

 

0.63

 

Winter to Spring; White

Test Retest

K

1084

 

0.69

 

2-3 Week Delay; White

Disaggregated Reliability of the Slope:

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n (range)

Coefficient

SEM

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

Range

Median

Reliability for the Slope

1

7

 

0.54

 

Hispanic

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

Predictive

K

aReading

10

 

0.65

Winter to Spring; American Indian or Alaska Native

Concurrent

K

aReading

214

 

0.38

Spring; American Indian or Alaska Native

Predictive

K

aReading

110

 

0.65

Winter to Spring; Asian

Concurrent

K

aReading

110

 

0.66

Spring; Asian

Predictive

K

aReading

56

 

0.51

Winter to Spring; African American

Concurrent

K

aReading

56

 

0.57

Spring; African American

Predictive

K

aReading

41

 

0.6

Winter to Spring; Hispanic

Concurrent

K

aReading

41

 

0.76

Spring; Hispanic

Concurrent

K

aReading

292

 

0.36

Winter; Multiracial

Predictive

K

aReading

237

 

0.47

Winter to Spring; White

Concurrent

K

aReading

237

 

0.39

Spring; White

Predictive

1

aReading

114

 

0.61

Fall to Spring; Asian

Predictive

1

aReading

114

 

0.46

Winter to Spring; Asian

Concurrent

1

aReading

114

 

0.61

Spring; Asian

Predictive

1

aReading

41

 

0.54

Fall to Spring; African American

Predictive

1

aReading

41

 

0.42

Winter to Spring; African American

Concurrent

1

aReading

41

 

0.47

Spring; African American

Predictive

1

aReading

39

 

0.47

Fall to Spring; Multicultural

Concurrent

1

aReading

21

 

0.62

Winter; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

Predictive

1

aReading

21

 

0.63

Winter to Spring; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

Concurrent

1

aReading

21

 

0.46

Spring; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

Predictive

1

aReading

234

 

0.47

Fall to Spring; White

Predictive

1

aReading

234

 

0.37

Winter to Spring; White

Concurrent

1

aReading

234

 

0.31

Spring; White

 

Alternate Forms

GradeK1
RatingHalf-filled bubbleEmpty bubble

1. Evidence that alternate forms are of equal and controlled difficulty or, if IRT based, evidence of item or ability invariance: Items for the Segmenting task came from a bank of 220 words. All words with short vowel sounds are decodable consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words or decodable words with initial or final blends (CCVC or CVCC). Words with long vowel sounds (9% of the total words) contain vowel diagraphs (CVVC), silent e (CVC+e), or initial blends+e (CCVC+e). R-Controlled words were not used. Half of the total words begin with continuous sounds and half begin with stop sounds. Each progress monitoring form contains 10 words. The first six items have 3 phonemes; items 7-10 have 4 phonemes, two words with initial blends and two words with final blends. Each form also has two words with each vowel in either long or short form. All words on the segmenting task are unique across forms. There is no overlap within three corresponding forms for blending and segmenting (i.e., all words are unique across Forms 1, 2, and 3 for blending and for segmenting). Across all sets, 30% of words overlap between the Blending tasks and the Segmenting tasks (i.e., the same word may appear in Form 4 of blending and Form 15 of segmenting). All existing consonant blends were available to use. To determine parallel form construction, a one-way, within-subjects (or repeated measures) ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of WS Alternate forms (n=5) on the number of correct responses within individuals in both Kindergarten and Grade 1. There was not a significant effect for forms as used in either grade: Kindergarten = F(1,150) = 3.24, p=0.07; Grade 1 = F(1,121) = 1.60, p=0.21. This indicates that different forms did not result in significantly different mean estimates of correct responses. 

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

3. Number of items in item bank for each grade level: 200 words (or 680 phonemes to segment) (i.e., 20 forms with 10 words / 34 phonemes on each form.)  

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:

The table below provides average weekly growth by percentile, grade level, and season.

Metric: Number Correct / 34

 

Kindergarten

First Grade

Percentile

Spring

Winter

Spring

90th

4.59

3.37

1.68

80th

3.38

2.47

1.07

70th

2.47

1.89

0.61

60th

1.81

1.41

0.48

50th

1.28

1.06

0.25

40th

0.86

0.74

0.00

30th

0.54

0.47

0.00

20th

0.23

0.00

-0.27

10th

0.00

0.00

-0.63

Average

1.78

1.35

0.34

SD

1.79

1.36

0.92

N

4453

1968

2161

Range

-0.87-6.62

-0.79 - 5.31

-1.54 - 3.3

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 10,776 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: 32 phonemes segmented correctly.

Grade 1:        32 phonemes segmented correctly.

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

Criterion-referenced

c. Specify the benchmarks:

Low Risk (High Risk)

Kindergarten:    Winter = 15 (4)

                          Spring = 28 (32)

Grade 1:            Fall = 27 (25)

                          Winter = 30 (29)

                          Spring = 32 (30)

d. Basis for specifying these benchmarks?

Criterion-referenced.

The primary score for interpretation is number of correct sounds read. Psychometric evidence is provided for those values and they support 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 15th and 40th percentile. These correspond to high risk and low risk, respectively. 

Sensitive to Student Improvement

GradeK1
RatingFull bubbleFull bubble

Describe evidence that the monitoring system produces data that are sensitive to student improvement:

Across 112 Kindergarten students, the slope for average weekly improvement (β1Week) was significantly different than 0 (β1Week = 0.09; SE = 0.03). 

Decision Rules for Changing Instruction

GradeK1
Ratingdashdash

Decision Rules for Increasing Goals

GradeK1
Ratingdashdash

Improved Student Achievement

GradeK1
RatingEmpty bubbleEmpty bubble

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).