Technical Manual - Renaissance Learning

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Accelerated Math for Interventionâ¢ - Renaissance Learning$

STAR Early Literacy Enterprise in the ClassroomApproaches and Rationales for Recommended UsesBenchmarks and Cut ScoresScreening applications of STAR Early Literacy Enterprise can be done within thecontext of benchmarks and cut scores. These scores help educators identify whichstudents require some form of intervention to accelerate growth and move towardproficiency.Benchmarks are the minimum performance levels students are expected to reachby certain points of the year in order to meet end-of-year performance goals. Theend-of-year benchmark typically represents the minimum level of performancerequired by state or local standards. Benchmarks are always grade specific, e.g.,the 2nd grade benchmark. In Table 57, the 40th and 50th percentile represent twobenchmark options. Schools should select one based on their staterecommendations or local guidelines. Experts often recommend the grade-levelbenchmark be set at the 40th percentile.A cut score is used to determine which students may need additional assistance tomove toward the end of year benchmark. In Table 57, the 10th, 20th, and 25thpercentile represent three cut scores options. Schools should select one based ontheir state recommendations or local guidelines.Benchmarks and cut scores do not replace educator judgment; they inform it.Proper determination of cut scores is key to successful implementation ofintervention and other data-based decision making processes.Table 57 (on the next page) offers benchmarks and cut scores for the three typicalscreening periods of the school year—fall (September), winter (January), andspring (May). For example, 1st grade students tested during the winteradministration who scored below 645 could be considered to be belowbenchmark, whereas students scoring at or above 672 could be considered at orabove benchmark.STAR Early LiteracyTechnical Manual118
STAR Early Literacy Enterprise in the ClassroomApproaches and Rationales for Recommended UsesTable 57:Benchmarks and Cut ScoresFallSeptemberWinterJanuarySpringMayGradePercentileScaledScoreEst. ORF aScaledScaledScore Est. ORF a ScoreEst. ORF aKCut Scores10 389 427 47520 419 463 51525 452 478 532Benchmarks40 469 519 57450 494 546 6001Cut Scores10 462 0 531 3 609 1520 501 0 579 11 660 2125 517 1 598 13 679 24Benchmarks40 560 8 645 19 723 3050 587 12 672 22 747 372Cut Scores10 589 13 631 19 672 2420 640 20 684 25 725 3125 659 22 703 27 743 35Benchmarks40 705 27 747 36 783 5050 730 32 770 44 803 603Cut Scores10 662 21 705 29 742 3820 715 31 752 41 783 5125 734 35 768 47 797 55Benchmarks40 775 49 802 56 825 6850 796 54 819 65 838 77a. Est. ORF: Estimated Oral Reading Fluency is only reported for grades 1–3.A second method of screening students is the fixed standard approach. In thismethod, early childhood educators in a school or district choose a STAR EarlyLiteracy Enterprise score that reflects their best judgment about which studentsSTAR Early LiteracyTechnical Manual119
Page 1 and 2:
STAR Early LiteracyTechnical Manual
Page 3:
ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . .
Page 8 and 9:
STAR Early LiteracyTechnical Manual
Page 10 and 11:
IntroductionOverviewEnterprise inco
Page 12 and 13:
IntroductionDesign of STAR Early Li
Page 14 and 15:
IntroductionDesign of STAR Early Li
Page 16 and 17:
IntroductionTest SecurityRepeating
Page 18 and 19:
IntroductionPsychometric Characteri
Page 20 and 21:
IntroductionPsychometric Characteri
Page 22 and 23:
IntroductionSTAR Early Literacy Ent
Page 24 and 25:
Content and Item DevelopmentThe STA
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Content and Item DevelopmentItem De
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Core Progress Learning Progression
Page 46 and 47:
Psychometric Research Supporting ST
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Reliability and Measurement Precisi
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
ValidityRelationship of STAR Early
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
ValidityPost-Publication Study Data
Page 76 and 77: ValidityPost-Publication Study Data
Page 86 and 87: ValidityConcurrent Validity of Esti
Page 88 and 89: ValiditySummary of STAR Early Liter
Page 90 and 91: ValidityValidation Research Study P
Page 92 and 93: ValidityValidation Research Study P
Page 94 and 95: ValiditySTAR Early Literacy Enterpr
Page 100 and 101: ValidityThe Validity of Early Numer
Page 102 and 103: ValidityThe Validity of Early Numer
Page 104 and 105: ValidityRelationship of STAR Early
Page 106 and 107: ValidityRelationship of STAR Early
Page 108 and 109: NormingSTAR Early Literacy Enterpri
Page 110 and 111: NormingDevelopment of Norms for STA
Page 112 and 113: NormingData AnalysisTable 49:Gender
Page 114 and 115: NormingGrowth Normswere smoothed us
Page 116 and 117: Score DistributionsScaled Scores: S
Page 118 and 119: Score DefinitionsFor its internal c
Page 120 and 121: Score DefinitionsEstimated Oral Rea
Page 122 and 123: STAR Early Literacy Enterprise in t
Page 160 and 161: AppendixTable 61:STAR Early Literac
Page 162 and 163: AppendixTable 61:STAR Early Literac
Page 164 and 165: ReferencesAdams, M. J. (1990). Begi
Page 166 and 167: IndexAAbsolute growth, 134Access le
Page 168 and 169: IndexScaled Score norms, 100Scaled
Page 170: IndexTest item design guidelinesans
show all

Technical Manual - Renaissance Learning

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?