Technical Manual - Renaissance Learning

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Accelerated Math for Interventionâ¢ - Renaissance Learning$

ValidityPost-Publication Study DataTable 27:Descriptive Statistics for Each Measurement Occasion for the Total Sampleand for Each Grade-Level GroupSTAR Early LiteracyInitial-Year Scale ScoresSTAR ReadingEnd-Year ScaleScores aGrade GroupsFall Winter Spring FallTotal Sample Mean 593.07 641.39 694.41 318.47Std Dev b128.51 120.03 115.76 165.83N 2,730 2,978 3,384 4,028ρxx 0.87 0.85 0.86 0.93K-2 cMean 490.87 555.23 615.13 218.27Std Dev 86.28 92.35 96.26 127.45N 1,024 1,230 1,501 1,312ρxx 0.75 0.71 0.72 0.921-3 dMean 613.70 684.08 745.27 340.25Std Dev 97.05 93.54 88.54 149.92N 1,082 1,322 1,359 1,749ρxx 0.72 0.74 0.79 0.902-4 eMean 725.03 757.68 789.64 415.01Std Dev 91.80 91.37 76.79 167.64N 624 426 524 967ρxx 0.83 0.78 0.83 0.89a. STAR Reading was taken two years after the initial-year fall administration of STAR Early Literacy.b. Abbreviations: STD Dev = standard deviation; N = number of students; ρxx = reliability estimate.c. The group with initial grade in kindergarten.d. The group with initial grade in 1st grade.e. The group with initial grade in 2nd grade.To analyze whether differences between grade levels were statistically significant,a MANOVA was used with the three STAR Early Literacy scores as outcomes andgrade level fixed. Results indicated significant differences existed, Wilks’ Lambda =0.5465, F(6, 3404) = 199.19, p < 0.001. Follow up analysis indicated significantdifferences existed between all grades at all measurement occasions, fall STAREarly Literacy scores, F(2, 2727) = 1302.84, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.49, winter scores,F(2, 2975) = 1005.79, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.40, and spring scores, F(2, 3381) = 1083.23,p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.39. All differences between grade levels were also significant,STAR Early LiteracyTechnical Manual74
ValidityPost-Publication Study Datawhich indicated that at each measurement occasion, the higher grade scoredsignificantly higher than the lower grade.An interesting phenomenon was noted when evaluating the differences betweenspring scores of one school year on STAR Early Literacy and the next higher gradelevel’s fall scores on STAR Early Literacy: fall scores for the next higher grade wereslightly lower than spring scores for the preceding grade. For instance, the averagescale score of about 615 at the end of kindergarten (spring) is about one pointhigher than the average of first grade students’ scores at the beginning of theschool year (fall). A larger difference is seen between the average spring first gradescale score of about 745 and the fall second grade average of about 725. This doesnot necessarily invalidate claims of developmental validity, because the drop inscores coincides with the occurrence of summer break. This summer break fromschool has been identified with regression in student scores between grades(Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2003; Bracey, 2002; Malach & Rutter, 2003;McGill-Franzen & Allington, 2003). The drop in scores between grade levels isconsistent with the research just cited; that is, it does not necessarily represent aninversion or discontinuity in measurement, but rather an empirical phenomenonsometimes referred to as the summer slump.Table 28 displays correlations among STAR Early Literacy test scores at differentoccasions, and of STAR Early Literacy test scores with STAR Reading scores. STAREarly Literacy-STAR Reading correlations corrected for measurement error(Crocker & Algina, 1986) are also included.STAR Early Literacy scores taken during the fall measurement point at thebeginning of the school year are significantly predictive of STAR Early Literacyscores at both the winter and spring measurement occasions. Similarly, the winterassessment was significantly predictive of the spring assessment. This indicatesthat early literacy scores within a school year are highly predictive of later scores.In addition, the STAR Early Literacy scores at each occasion were moderately tohighly related to reading scores two years after the original assessment occasion.These results are consistent for each of the subgroups partitioned by initial gradelevel.STAR Early LiteracyTechnical Manual75
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 44 and 45: Core Progress Learning Progression
Page 46 and 47: Psychometric Research Supporting ST
Page 52 and 53: Reliability and Measurement Precisi
Page 64 and 65: ValidityRelationship of STAR Early
Page 74 and 75: 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 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 132 and 133:
STAR Early Literacy Enterprise in t
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
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?