AIMSweb National Norms Technical Documentation

Similar documents
Aimsweb Fluency Norms Chart

OVERVIEW OF CURRICULUM-BASED MEASUREMENT AS A GENERAL OUTCOME MEASURE

DIBELS Next BENCHMARK ASSESSMENTS

Iowa School District Profiles. Le Mars

ISD 2184, Luverne Public Schools. xcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv. Local Literacy Plan bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn

DELAWARE CHARTER SCHOOL ANNUAL REPORT

Rhyne Elementary School Improvement Plan

QUESTIONS ABOUT ACCESSING THE HANDOUTS AND THE POWERPOINT

Rhyne Elementary School Improvement Plan Rhyne Elementary School Contact Information

Miami-Dade County Public Schools

Port Jefferson Union Free School District. Response to Intervention (RtI) and Academic Intervention Services (AIS) PLAN

Psychometric Research Brief Office of Shared Accountability

Linking the Ohio State Assessments to NWEA MAP Growth Tests *

Using CBM for Progress Monitoring in Reading. Lynn S. Fuchs and Douglas Fuchs

Dibels Math Early Release 2nd Grade Benchmarks

Effectiveness of McGraw-Hill s Treasures Reading Program in Grades 3 5. October 21, Research Conducted by Empirical Education Inc.

Technical Report #1. Summary of Decision Rules for Intensive, Strategic, and Benchmark Instructional

Cooper Upper Elementary School

The Oregon Literacy Framework of September 2009 as it Applies to grades K-3

Wisconsin 4 th Grade Reading Results on the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

SSIS SEL Edition Overview Fall 2017

Evidence for Reliability, Validity and Learning Effectiveness

THE EFFECTS OF TEACHING THE 7 KEYS OF COMPREHENSION ON COMPREHENSION DEBRA HENGGELER. Submitted to. The Educational Leadership Faculty

Evaluation of Teach For America:

Norms How were TerraNova 3 norms derived? Does the norm sample reflect my diverse school population?

School Size and the Quality of Teaching and Learning

Cooper Upper Elementary School

Algebra 1, Quarter 3, Unit 3.1. Line of Best Fit. Overview

Shelters Elementary School

Diagnostic Test. Middle School Mathematics

Using SAM Central With iread

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills TM

George Mason University Graduate School of Education Program: Special Education

FY 2018 Guidance Document for School Readiness Plus Program Design and Site Location and Multiple Calendars Worksheets

Further, Robert W. Lissitz, University of Maryland Huynh Huynh, University of South Carolina ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS

NCEO Technical Report 27

Networks and the Diffusion of Cutting-Edge Teaching and Learning Knowledge in Sociology

Rural Education in Oregon

Interpreting ACER Test Results

ILLINOIS DISTRICT REPORT CARD

Georgia Department of Education

ILLINOIS DISTRICT REPORT CARD

Dyslexia and Dyscalculia Screeners Digital. Guidance and Information for Teachers

Using Choice as a Writing Intervention to Investigate Gender Differences

Redirected Inbound Call Sampling An Example of Fit for Purpose Non-probability Sample Design

Developing a College-level Speed and Accuracy Test

PROFESSIONAL TREATMENT OF TEACHERS AND STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT. James B. Chapman. Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia

Trends & Issues Report

Annual Report to the Public. Dr. Greg Murry, Superintendent

Scholastic Leveled Bookroom

2005 National Survey of Student Engagement: Freshman and Senior Students at. St. Cloud State University. Preliminary Report.

2015 Annual Report to the School Community

Omak School District WAVA K-5 Learning Improvement Plan

Data Diskette & CD ROM

Institution of Higher Education Demographic Survey

Tests For Geometry Houghton Mifflin Company

Peer Influence on Academic Achievement: Mean, Variance, and Network Effects under School Choice

An Empirical Analysis of the Effects of Mexican American Studies Participation on Student Achievement within Tucson Unified School District

UK Institutional Research Brief: Results of the 2012 National Survey of Student Engagement: A Comparison with Carnegie Peer Institutions

Test Blueprint. Grade 3 Reading English Standards of Learning

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD AD HOC COMMITTEE ON.

School Year 2017/18. DDS MySped Application SPECIAL EDUCATION. Training Guide

How to Judge the Quality of an Objective Classroom Test

Lesson M4. page 1 of 2

Engineers and Engineering Brand Monitor 2015

Literacy THE KEYS TO SUCCESS. Tips for Elementary School Parents (grades K-2)

Longitudinal Analysis of the Effectiveness of DCPS Teachers

Port Jervis City School District Academic Intervention Services (AIS) Plan

NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE)

Reading Comprehension Lesson Plan

Understanding and Interpreting the NRC s Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States (2010)

STEM Academy Workshops Evaluation

Why OUT-OF-LEVEL Testing? 2017 CTY Johns Hopkins University

Effective Pre-school and Primary Education 3-11 Project (EPPE 3-11)

DATE ISSUED: 11/2/ of 12 UPDATE 103 EHBE(LEGAL)-P

Progress Monitoring & Response to Intervention in an Outcome Driven Model

Evaluation of the. for Structured Language Training: A Multisensory Language Program for Delayed Readers

Global School-based Student Health Survey (GSHS) and Global School Health Policy and Practices Survey (SHPPS): GSHS

National Collegiate Retention and Persistence to Degree Rates

K-12 Academic Intervention Plan. Academic Intervention Services (AIS) & Response to Intervention (RtI)

Quantitative Research Questionnaire

The Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) provides a picture of adults proficiency in three key information-processing skills:

Extending Place Value with Whole Numbers to 1,000,000

Using CBM to Help Canadian Elementary Teachers Write Effective IEP Goals

Descriptive Summary of Beginning Postsecondary Students Two Years After Entry

Orleans Central Supervisory Union

Written Expression Examples For La County Exam

Statewide Framework Document for:

Bayley scales of Infant and Toddler Development Third edition

A Pilot Study on Pearson s Interactive Science 2011 Program

Evaluation of a College Freshman Diversity Research Program

Dibels Next Benchmarks Kindergarten 2013

National Survey of Student Engagement

Colorado s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for Online UIP Report

INTERNAL MEDICINE IN-TRAINING EXAMINATION (IM-ITE SM )

FTE General Instructions

K5 Math Practice. Free Pilot Proposal Jan -Jun Boost Confidence Increase Scores Get Ahead. Studypad, Inc.

Practices Worthy of Attention Step Up to High School Chicago Public Schools Chicago, Illinois

STA 225: Introductory Statistics (CT)

MULTIPLE CHOICE. Choose the one alternative that best completes the statement or answers the question.

Transcription:

AIMSweb National Norms Technical Documentation AIMSweb introduced National Norms in the fall of 2011 to provide benchmarkmeasure norms that reflect n ational Norms are offered for English-language measures in reading, math, and language arts at the standard grade levels and seasons at which these measures are used for benchmarking, as summarized in Table 1. Currently, National Norms are not available for Spanish-language measures or at preschool or high-school levels because nationally-representative samples have not yet been collected for those measures or grade levels. the performance of the Table 1. Measures and grade levels/seasons for National Norms at grades K through 8. Measure Simultaneously, AIMSweb Reading Curriculum-Based Measurement (R-CBM) implemented the midinterval method of calculating percentiles for all norms, including local norms as well as the National Norms. Grade Range From To (Winter) (Fall) Kindergarten (Winter) Kindergarten (Winter) (Fall) (Spring) Spelling MAZE (TEL): Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) Written Expression (CWS) The midinterval method Math Computation (M-COMP) is a superior technique for Math Concepts & Applications (M-CAP) Grade 2 describing where a raw Test of Early Numeracy (TEN) Oral Counting (OCM) Number Identification (NIM) Missing Number (MNM) Quantity Discrimination (QDM) (Spring) (Spring) (Spring) (Spring) score falls in a norm-sample distribution. 866.313.6194 AIMSweb.com AIMSweb and Pearson, design for Psi, and PsychCorp are trademarks, in the U.S. and/or other countries, of Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). 6830 01/121 national student population

Method Data for the National Norms were selected from the AIMSweb database, which includes all of the measure scores entered into the system by AIMSweb users. The sampling unit was the grade level of a school. In order for a norm sample to accurately represent the student population, it must not only be appropriately stratified along demographic variables, but it must also represent the full range of student performance. Although many schools administer AIMSweb benchmark measures as universal screeners, some schools assess only a subset of their student population, such as those considered to be at risk of not achieving a favorable academic outcome. Thus, drawing a sample without considering the likelihood of universal screening would be likely to result in an overrepresentation of lower-achieving students. For this reason, the data for each National Norm sample came only from schools that had conducted universal screening. In order to identify schools that had done universal screening with a measure at a grade, the AIMSweb team compared the number of benchmark administrations (at each season) with the total number of students enrolled in that grade, as reported by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). If at least 95% of enrolled students had taken the AIMSweb benchmark measure, then that grade at that school was considered eligible for inclusion in the National Norms sample for that measure. If fewer than 95% of the students at that grade had scores on the measure, then data from that grade at that school were not eligible for inclusion. That is, the scores from a grade at a school were treated as eligible or ineligible as a complete set. As a further requirement, only the scores from students who had taken the AIMSweb measure at all three benchmarking periods during the year were retained. (Written Expression was an exception at Grades 1, 6, 7, and 8.) This simplified the sampling process without sacrificing a significant number of cases, and it strengthens some analyses and interpretations of the data by reducing variations across benchmark periods due to sampling differences. From the eligible data at a grade, the AIMSweb team selected the final norm sample to match the national student population by gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (free/reduced lunch), according to demographic targets based on NCES data. Region was not included as a stratification variable because a preponderance of AIMSweb data meeting the inclusion criteria came from the Midwest and South regions, and the AIMSweb team judged that it was better to have larger samples stratified by gender, ethnicity, and SES than smaller samples that were also stratified by region. At each grade, the NCES-provided percentage of a school s students in a demographic category (e.g., American) was multiplied by the number of AIMSweb scores to yield an estimated number of students in that demographic category. The norm sample for each measure at each grade was constructed to be as large as possible while maintaining a close correspondence to national demographic percentages. For most measures, data from the 2009 2010 school year were sufficient to provide adequate sample sizes. However, for Spelling, Written Expression, and (at some grades) MAZE it was necessary to use data from 2007 2010 in order to obtain sufficiently large samples with good demographic representation. Table 2 reports the number of students in the norm sample for each measure at each benchmark period, per grade. Tables 2 and 3 report the demographic characteristics of each norm sample. Table 2. Number of cases (per benchmark period) in each norm sample Test of Early Numeracy Grade R-CBM MAZE LNF LSF PSF NWF Spelling WE M-CAP M-COMP OCM NIM MNM QDM K 32,597 50,586 48,100 42,104 18,790 20,746 12,152 11,949 1 55,158 3,513 71,316 59,372 39,310 25,099 819 2,250* 6,563 12,792 13,841 16,824 18,886 2 38,282 13,420 712 994 7,818 14,194 3 40,570 21,747 850 1,484 14,033 15,269 4 37,320 24,881 854 1,267 11,335 18,953 5 33,373 25,418 602 1,131 11,070 18,532 6 14,246 11,690 667 1,936* 3,163 4,477 7 6,468 7,201 689 820* 3,762 805 8 5,048 6,095 285 312* 2,746 1,921 * Average across seasons. Ranges: (1,423 to 2,689); Grade 6 (1,443 to 2,274); Grade 7 (644 to 1,159); (183 to 407) 2 AIMSweb National Norms Technical Documentation

Table 3. Demographic representation of the norm samples (percentages) Reading Curriculum-Based Measurement (R-CBM) 1 49 51 17 5 17 60 2 40 2 49 51 16 5 18 60 1 40 3 49 51 16 5 18 60 1 40 4 49 51 16 5 18 60 1 39 5 49 51 14 5 19 60 2 41 6 50 50 14 4 20 60 3 43 7 51 49 19 3 17 59 2 44 8 50 50 18 3 17 59 3 43 MAZE 1 50 50 20 3 17 59 1 43 2 49 51 17 5 18 59 1 45 3 49 51 15 5 19 60 1 41 4 49 51 17 5 17 60 2 42 5 49 51 15 5 18 60 3 42 6 49 51 17 4 17 59 4 41 7 51 49 17 5 17 59 2 41 8 50 50 17 4 15 59 4 40 Measure Female Male Kindergarten LNF 49 51 16 5 19 60 1 40 LSF 49 51 17 5 17 60 1 40 PSF 49 51 17 5 18 60 1 40 NWF 49 51 17 4 18 60 1 40 LNF 49 51 17 4 18 60 2 43 LSF 49 51 18 4 17 60 2 44 PSF 49 51 18 5 17 60 2 40 NWF 49 51 17 5 17 60 1 40 3 AIMSweb National Norms Technical Documentation

Table 3 (continued). Demographic representation of the norm samples (percentages) Spelling 1 52 48 13 5 8 66 9 40 2 52 48 12 4 22 60 3 48 3 51 49 11 4 17 62 7 46 4 51 49 11 4 26 58 0 49 5 50 50 11 3 11 60 14 42 6 51 49 4 2 12 66 17 40 7 51 49 17 2 24 55 2 49 8 50 50 3 2 12 63 20 38 Written Expression (Correct Word Sequences) 1* 50 50 14 4 18 59 4 40 2 51 49 17 4 16 58 5 40 3 49 51 15 6 16 60 3 41 4 49 51 6 5 19 65 5 39 5 49 51 12 2 22 59 4 48 6* 49 51 16 3 16 59 5 48 7* 48 52 14 1 18 67 1 48 8* 48 52 3 0 18 75 4 40 Math Concepts & Applications (M-CAP) 2 48 52 20 5 17 58 1 44 3 49 51 18 5 17 60 1 42 4 49 51 19 5 17 58 1 43 5 49 51 17 5 17 59 3 43 6 49 51 18 3 14 60 6 42 7 51 49 20 2 17 59 2 45 8 50 50 22 2 16 58 2 45 * Average across seasons. Ranges: (1,423 to 2,689); Grade 6 (1,443 to 2,274); Grade 7 (644 to 1,159); (183 to 407) 4 AIMSweb National Norms Technical Documentation

Table 3 (continued). Demographic representation of the norm samples (percentages) Math Computation (M-COMP) 1 49 51 16 5 17 59 3 40 2 49 51 17 4 18 59 2 39 3 49 51 15 5 20 60 1 39 4 49 51 17 5 17 59 2 39 5 49 51 14 6 18 59 2 39 6 49 51 17 3 17 59 5 43 7 51 49 13 4 23 55 5 39 8 50 50 17 4 14 59 7 43 Measure Female Male Kindergarten OCM 49 51 17 3 19 60 1 46 NIM 49 51 18 3 18 60 1 46 MNM 49 51 19 3 17 60 2 46 QDM 49 51 19 4 17 60 2 45 OCM 49 51 20 2 17 59 2 48 NIM 49 51 19 3 17 59 2 46 MNM 49 51 19 3 17 60 1 45 QDM 49 51 20 3 17 60 2 45 Midinterval percentile norms were calculated separately for each norm sample. Only minor smoothing was applied to the growth curves across benchmark periods (mostly at the top or the bottom of the percentile range) because the samples are the same at all periods during the year and because the probes within a year are similar but not identical in difficulty. Results The raw-score distributions in the National Norms samples tend to be about the same as, or slightly higher than, the Aggregate score distributions. This is consistent with expectation because the Aggregate sample, which includes all AIMSweb users, has a higher proportion of low-achieving students than the National Norms sample which includes only schools doing universal screening. Table 4 compares raw-score means and standard deviations in the National Norm and Aggregate samples for each measure and grade. 5 AIMSweb National Norms Technical Documentation

Table 4. Means and standard deviations of raw scores in the Aggregate and National Norm samples, by measure and grade R-CBM MAZE Spelling Written Expression M-CAP M-COMP Grade (Winter) Aggreg National Aggreg National Aggreg National Aggreg National Aggreg National Aggreg National 1 43(35) 47(36) 5(6) 5(5) 40(12) 42(10) 6(7) 7(7) 25(12) 27(12) 2 86(39) 90(38) 11(7) 11(7) 51(14) 53(13) 16(12) 18(13) 17(9) 17(9) 30(11) 30(11) 3 106(42) 110(41) 15(7) 16(7) 85(21) 87(23) 25(14) 26(15) 11(6) 11(6) 40(16) 41(16) 4 121(41) 126(40) 20(9) 21(8) 100(23) 103(20) 33(17) 35(16) 16(8) 17(7) 42(16) 43(16) 5 133(43) 139(41) 22(9) 23(9) 110(24) 117(21) 40(18) 40(17) 11(6) 12(6) 23(15) 25(15) 6 146(43) 154(40) 26(10) 29(10) 114(26) 118(22) 45(19) 47(19) 17(9) 18(9) 27(14) 28(14) 7 146(42) 154(38) 24(10) 27(9) 113(29) 120(22) 49(21) 51(18) 15(8) 16(8) 29(16) 28(15) 8 147(39) 153(34) 22(9) 24(9) 116(27) 123(21) 53(21) 55(19) 12(8) 12(7) 23(14) 24(13) Table 4 (continued). Means and standard deviations of raw scores in the Aggregate and National Norm samples, by measure and grade Letter Naming Letter Sound Phoneme Seg. Nonsense Word Period Aggreg National Aggreg National Aggreg National Aggreg National KINDERGARTEN GRADE 1 Fall 19(16) 22(16) Winter 39(18) 43(17) 25(16) 28(16) 27(18) 29(19) 24(19) 27(19) Spring 49(18) 52(18) 37(16) 39(16) 43(19) 46(20) 38(23) 43(24) Fall 45(17) 46(16) 30(15) 31(15) 37(17) 39(17) 34(24) 39(25) Winter 48(16) 50(16) 56(30) 61(32) Spring 70(33) 75(35) Test of Early Numeracy Oral Counting Number Identification Missing Number Quantity Disc. Period Aggreg National Aggreg National Aggreg National Aggreg National KINDERGARTEN GRADE 1 Fall 39(21) 41(21) 30(19) 31(18) 6(6) 6(6) 11(9) 12(9) Winter 58(20) 63(21) 44(15) 46(13) 11(6) 11(6) 18(9) 19(9) Spring 69(19) 76(19) 51(10) 52(9) 14(6) 15(6) 23(8) 24(7) Fall 67(18) 71(19) 40(17) 41(17) 11(6) 12(6) 20(10) 21(10) Winter 76(16) 83(16) 56(15) 59(15) 17(6) 18(6) 28(8) 30(9) Spring 81(14) 89(14) 59(14) 64(14) 19(6) 20(6) 30(8) 34(7) Because of these differences in score distributions, AIMSweb users will find that percentile scores tend to be slightly lower with the National Norms than with the previous Aggregate Norms. 6 AIMSweb National Norms Technical Documentation