MICHIGAN LINKING STUDY

Similar documents
NEW YORK LINKING STUDY

OHIO LINKING STUDY. A Study of the Alignment of the NWEA RIT Scale with the Ohio Achievement Assessment (OAA) December 2012

Illinois LINKING STUDY

Massachusetts LINKING STUDY

CONNECTICUT LINKING STUDY

WASHINGTON LINKING STUDY

Illinois LINKING STUDY

Ohio Linking Study A Study of the Alignment of the NWEA RIT Scale with Ohio s Graduation Test (OGT)*

NEVADA LINKING STUDY COPYRIGHT 2011 NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION

SOUTH CAROLINA LINKING STUDY

A Study of the Alignment of the NWEA RIT Scale with the Montana Assessment System. Michael P. Dahlin, Ph.D.

A Study of the Alignment of the NWEA RIT Scale with the Maryland Assessment System. Deborah Adkins

A Study of the Alignment of the NWEA RIT Scale with the New England Common Assessments Program (NECAP) March, 2010 January, 2016 (Revised)

The Quantile Framework. for Mathematics. Linking Assessment with Mathematics Instruction

Non linearity issues in PD modelling. Amrita Juhi Lucas Klinkers

Module 9. Table of Contents

Statistics for Managers Using Microsoft Excel 7 th Edition

Math 14, Homework 6.2 p. 337 # 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22 Name

Instructors Who Taught Courses During the Spring 2006 Semester. Spring Semester 2006 Course and Teaching Evaluations

Instructors Who Taught Courses During the Spring 2007 Term. Spring 2007 Course and Teaching Evaluations

Detroit Community Schools (82925) Annual Education Report For Detroit Community Elementary and Middle School (k-8) And Detroit Community High School

Stat3011: Solution of Midterm Exam One

Intermediate Management Accounting Overview

Chapter 14. Descriptive Methods in Regression and Correlation. Copyright 2016, 2012, 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 14, Slide 1

Module 4. Instructions:

Example: Calculating the School Wide Composite Performance Index (CPI) Target for SY

Health Care Reform: Coverage for Adult Children Survey

Institute of Chartered Accountants Ghana (ICAG) Paper 1.4 Quantitative Tools in Business

Stat 101 Exam 1 - Embers Important Formulas and Concepts 1

BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE for Teachers and Students

2012 Kalamazoo County Dashboard

Chapter 18: The Correlational Procedures

REGISTRATION PACKET FOR ACTUARIAL SCIENCE MAJORS (Interdisciplinary Math/Stat Actuarial Science 7AA)

STAB22 section 2.2. Figure 1: Plot of deforestation vs. price

Instructors Who Taught Courses During the Fall 2005 Semester. Fall Semester 2005 Course and Teaching Evaluations

(Non-legislative acts) REGULATIONS

Sinfonia Asset Management Risk Profile Report May 2017

Spending Journal. SECONDARY School Module ACTIVITY BOOKLET

Online Appendix Table 1. Robustness Checks: Impact of Meeting Frequency on Additional Outcomes. Control Mean. Controls Included

Math 3907: Life Contingent Risk Modelling II

FASB Technical Bulletin No. 81-1

NUMERACY: The Basics Workbook

Page Points Score Total: 100

Statistics 114 September 29, 2012

Revised: Spring2009 Huseyin Yuce and Urmi Ghosh-Dastidar Revised: Urmi Ghosh-Dastidar and Grazyna Niezgoda (Spring 2013)

6683/01 Edexcel GCE Statistics S1 Gold Level G2

New York State School Report Card.

Chapter 3. Decision Analysis. Learning Objectives

DISTRIBUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE

Using survival models for profit and loss estimation. Dr Tony Bellotti Lecturer in Statistics Department of Mathematics Imperial College London

Exam Write the following ratio using fractional notation. Write in simplest form. a) 140 ounces to 155 ounces 2 points

Recreational marijuana and collision claim frequencies

Senior 4 Consumer Mathematics (40S) Standards Test. Written Test Student Booklet

University of Split Department of Professional Studies CORPORATE FINANCE II COURSE SYLLABUS

Lecture 7 Random Variables

Management Accounting

Daily Math Warm-Ups Grade Three

Consumer Finance ABRIDGED CONTENT. Purchase to View Full Benchmarking Report! The OpsDog Consumer Finance Benchmarking Report

CHAPTER 2 Describing Data: Numerical

10. DOES THE SCHOOL CONTRACT WITH A CHARTER OR EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION?

Tax table for daily and casual workers

Best Execution Global FX Annex Client Disclosure Statement HSBC Bank Malta plc Markets

ACCOUNTING CONCEPTS AND PROCEDURES

Level 3 Economics, 2016

Set up a normal distribution curve, to help estimate the percent of the band that, on average, practices a greater number of hours than Alexis.

Annual risk measures and related statistics

Section 5.5 Z Scores soln.notebook. December 07, Section 5.5 Z Scores

Math 122 Calculus for Business Admin. and Social Sciences

SOCIETY OF ACTUARIES Foundations of CFE Exam Exam CFEFD MORNING SESSION. Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 Time: 8:30 a.m. 11:45 a.m.

Monitoring Report R: Providing Secure and Stable Resources February 2013

Subject: Psychopathy

Math 142 Week-in-Review #1 (Sections A.8, 1.0, 1.1 topics, 1.2 topics, and 1.3)

Introduction LEARNING OBJECTIVES. The Six Steps in Decision Making. Thompson Lumber Company. Thompson Lumber Company

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

DEBITS AND CREDITS: ANALYZING AND RECORDING BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS

Economics 345 Applied Econometrics

YEAR 12 Trial Exam Paper FURTHER MATHEMATICS. Written examination 1. Worked solutions

Online Appendix to The Impact of Family Income on Child. Achievement: Evidence from the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Compensating for Missing ERISA Information in Calculating Private Market Per Capita Costs

Math 1070 Sample Exam 2 Spring 2015

International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee IFRIC DRAFT INTERPRETATION D9

Provider Enrollment Request Cycle Time

H&R Block Canada, Inc All Rights Reserved. Copyright is not claimed for any material secured from official government sources.

Math 2311 Bekki George Office Hours: MW 11am to 12:45pm in 639 PGH Online Thursdays 4-5:30pm And by appointment

Session 5: Associations

Final Exam - section 1. Thursday, December hours, 30 minutes

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

Exploring Microsoft Office Excel 2007 Comprehensive Grauer Scheeren Mulbery Second Edition

Appropriate placement test scores. ENG 1010 or ENG score or prerequisite course

Statistics S1 Advanced/Advanced Subsidiary

Understanding the Costs Associated with Interventions to Improve High School Completion

1. (9; 3ea) The table lists the survey results of 100 non-senior students. Math major Art major Biology major

University of North Carolina at Charlotte Mathematical Finance Program Comprehensive Exam. Spring, 2015

REGISTRATION PACKET FOR ACTUARIAL SCIENCE MAJORS (Interdisciplinary Math/Stat Actuarial Science 7AP)

Earnings Revisions Strategies

MEASURING IMPACT Impact Evaluation Methods for Policy Makers

Arius Deterministic Exhibit Statistics

Claims First Pass Resolution Rate

HB 3, Section

3 C: State logical assumptions being used.

Transcription:

MICHIGAN LINKING STUDY A Study of the Alignment of the NWEA RIT Scale with the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) April 2012 COPYRIGHT 2012 NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from NWEA.

A STUDY OF THE ALIGNMENT OF THE NWEA RIT SCALE WITH THE MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (MEAP) APRIL 2012 Recently, NWEA completed a project to connect the scale of the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) used for Michigan s mathematics and reading assessments with NWEA s RIT scale. Information from the state assessments was used in a study to establish performance-level scores on the RIT scale that would indicate a good chance of success on these tests. To perform the analysis, we linked together state test and NWEA test results for a sample of 19,908 Michigan students from at least 94 schools who completed both exams in the fall of 2011. The Michigan state test is administered in the fall. For the fall season (labeled current season ), an Equipercentile method was used to estimate the RIT score equivalent to each state performance level. For spring (labeled prior season ), we determined the percentage of the population within the selected study group that performed at each level on the state test and found the equivalent percentile ranges within the NWEA dataset to estimate the cut scores. For example, if 40% of the study group population in grade 3 mathematics performed below the proficient level on the state test, we would find the RIT score that would be equivalent to the 40 th percentile for the study population (this would not be the same as the 40 th percentile in the NWEA norms). This RIT score would be the estimated point on the NWEA RIT scale that would be equivalent to the minimum score for proficiency on the state test. Documentation about this method can be found on our website. Table Sets 1 and 2 show the best estimate of the minimum RIT equivalent to each state performance level for same-season (fall) and prior-season (spring) RIT scores. These tables can be used to identify students who may need additional help to perform well on these tests. Table Sets 3 and 4 show the estimated a student receiving a proficient score on the state assessment, based on that student s RIT score. These tables can be used to assist in identifying students who are not likely to pass these assessments, thereby increasing the probability that intervention strategies will be planned and implemented. These tables can also be useful for identifying target RITscore objectives likely to correspond to successful or proficient performance on the state test. Table 5 shows the correlation coefficients between MAP and the state test in each grade. These statistics show the degree to which MAP and the state test are linearly related, with values at or near 1.0 suggesting a perfect linear relationship, and values near 0.0 indicating no linear relationship. Table 6 shows the percentages of students at each grade and within each subject whose status on the state test (i.e., whether or not the student met standards ) was accurately predicted by their MAP performance and using the estimated cut scores within the current study. This table can be used to understand the predictive validity of MAP with respect to the MEAP.

TABLE SET 1 MINIMUM ESTIMATED SAME-SEASON (FALL) RIT CUT SCORES CORRESPONDING TO STATE PERFORMANCE LEVELS MATH-Current Season s and Percentiles for each State Performance Level Grade Not Proficient Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced Percentiltiltile 2 <171 171 29 181 59 203 97 3 <185 185 29 195 59 215 97 4 <198 198 33 204 51 222 92 5 <205 205 29 212 47 232 91 6 <212 212 31 222 56 243 94 7 <219 219 35 228 56 247 90 8 <223 223 34 237 66 255 93 READING-Current Season s and Percentiles for each State Performance Level Grade Not Proficient Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced Percentiltiltile 2 <152 152 6 170 35 192 86 3 <166 166 6 184 35 206 86 4 <178 178 6 192 29 217 89 5 <188 188 9 199 28 221 84 6 <196 196 13 205 31 221 73 7 <200 200 13 212 38 227 77 8 <201 201 11 217 44 236 87 * Note: the cut scores shown in this table are the minimum estimated scores. Meeting the minimum MAP cut score corresponds to a 50% achieving that performance level. Use the probabilities in Table Set 3 to determine the appropriate target scores for a desired level of certainty. Italics represent extrapolated data.

TABLE SET 2 MINIMUM ESTIMATED PRIOR-SEASON (SPRING) RIT CUT SCORES CORRESPONDING TO STATE PERFORMANCE LEVELS MATH-Prior Season s and Percentiles for each State Performance Level Grade Not Proficient Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced Percentiltiltile 2 <172 172 29 182 59 203 97 3 <184 184 28 194 59 215 97 4 <197 197 32 203 50 221 92 5 <204 204 27 211 46 231 91 6 <213 213 29 223 55 244 94 7 <219 219 34 228 56 246 90 8 <223 223 33 237 64 257 93 READING-Prior Season s and Percentiles for each State Performance Level Grade Not Proficient Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced Percentiltiltile 2 <154 154 6 171 34 193 86 3 <167 167 6 184 35 206 86 4 <177 177 6 191 28 217 89 5 <188 188 9 198 27 220 83 6 <196 196 13 205 30 221 73 7 <200 200 13 212 38 227 77 8 <202 202 11 217 43 236 87 * Note: the cut scores shown in this table are the minimum estimated scores. Meeting the minimum MAP cut score corresponds to a 50% achieving that performance level. Use the probabilities in Table Set 4 to determine the appropriate target scores for a desired level of certainty. Italics represent extrapolated data.

TABLE SET 3 ESTIMATED PROBABILITY OF SCORING AS PROFICIENT OR HIGHER ON THE STATE TEST IN SAME SEASON BY STUDENT GRADE AND RIT SCORE RANGE ON MAP ASSESSMENT MATH-Current Season Estimated Probability of Passing State Test Based on Observed MAP Score RIT Range 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 120 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 125 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 130 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 135 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 140 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 145 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 150 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 155 7% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 160 11% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 165 17% 5% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 170 25% 8% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% 175 35% 12% 5% 2% 1% 0% 0% 180 48% 18% 8% 4% 1% 1% 0% 185 60% 27% 13% 6% 2% 1% 1% 190 71% 38% 20% 10% 4% 2% 1% 195 80% 50% 29% 15% 6% 4% 1% 200 87% 62% 40% 23% 10% 6% 2% 205 92% 73% 52% 33% 15% 9% 4% 210 95% 82% 65% 45% 23% 14% 6% 215 97% 88% 75% 57% 33% 21% 10% 220 98% 92% 83% 69% 45% 31% 15% 225 99% 95% 89% 79% 57% 43% 23% 230 99% 97% 93% 86% 69% 55% 33% 235 100% 98% 96% 91% 79% 67% 45% 240 100% 99% 97% 94% 86% 77% 57% 245 100% 99% 98% 96% 91% 85% 69% 250 100% 100% 99% 98% 94% 90% 79% 255 100% 100% 99% 99% 96% 94% 86% 260 100% 100% 100% 99% 98% 96% 91% 265 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 98% 94% 270 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 96% 275 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 98% 280 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 285 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 290 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 295 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 300 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% *Note: This table provides the estimated state test based on a MAP test score taken during that same (Fall) season. Example: if a fifth grade student scored 200 on a MAP test taken during the Fall season, her/his estimated state test is 23%. Italics represent extrapolated data.

READING-Current Season Estimated Probability of Passing State Test Based on Observed MAP Score RIT Range 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 120 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 125 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 130 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 135 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 140 5% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 145 8% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 150 12% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 155 18% 5% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 160 27% 8% 4% 2% 1% 1% 0% 165 38% 13% 6% 3% 2% 1% 1% 170 50% 20% 10% 5% 3% 1% 1% 175 62% 29% 15% 8% 5% 2% 1% 180 73% 40% 23% 13% 8% 4% 2% 185 82% 52% 33% 20% 12% 6% 4% 190 88% 65% 45% 29% 18% 10% 6% 195 92% 75% 57% 40% 27% 15% 10% 200 95% 83% 69% 52% 38% 23% 15% 205 97% 89% 79% 65% 50% 33% 23% 210 98% 93% 86% 75% 62% 45% 33% 215 99% 96% 91% 83% 73% 57% 45% 220 99% 97% 94% 89% 82% 69% 57% 225 100% 98% 96% 93% 88% 79% 69% 230 100% 99% 98% 96% 92% 86% 79% 235 100% 99% 99% 97% 95% 91% 86% 240 100% 100% 99% 98% 97% 94% 91% 245 100% 100% 100% 99% 98% 96% 94% 250 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 98% 96% 255 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 98% 260 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 265 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 270 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 275 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 280 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 285 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 290 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 295 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 300 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Note: This table provides the estimated state test based on a MAP test score taken during that same (Fall) season. Example: if a fifth grade student scored 200 on a MAP test taken during the Fall season, her/his estimated state test is 52%. Italics represent extrapolated data.

TABLE SET 4 ESTIMATED PROBABILITY OF SCORING AS PROFICIENT OR HIGHER ON THE STATE TEST IN PRIOR SEASON BY STUDENT GRADE AND RIT SCORE RANGE ON MAP MATH-Prior Season Estimated Probability of Passing State Test Based on Observed MAP Score RIT Range 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 120 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 125 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 130 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 135 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 140 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 145 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 150 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 155 6% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 160 10% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 165 15% 5% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 170 23% 8% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 175 33% 13% 6% 3% 1% 0% 0% 180 45% 20% 9% 4% 1% 1% 0% 185 57% 29% 14% 7% 2% 1% 1% 190 69% 40% 21% 11% 4% 2% 1% 195 79% 52% 31% 17% 6% 4% 1% 200 86% 65% 43% 25% 9% 6% 2% 205 91% 75% 55% 35% 14% 9% 4% 210 94% 83% 67% 48% 21% 14% 6% 215 96% 89% 77% 60% 31% 21% 10% 220 98% 93% 85% 71% 43% 31% 15% 225 99% 96% 90% 80% 55% 43% 23% 230 99% 97% 94% 87% 67% 55% 33% 235 100% 98% 96% 92% 77% 67% 45% 240 100% 99% 98% 95% 85% 77% 57% 245 100% 99% 99% 97% 90% 85% 69% 250 100% 100% 99% 98% 94% 90% 79% 255 100% 100% 99% 99% 96% 94% 86% 260 100% 100% 100% 99% 98% 96% 91% 265 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 98% 94% 270 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 96% 275 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 98% 280 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 285 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 290 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 295 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 300 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% * Note: This table provides the estimated state test based on a MAP test score taken during that prior (Spring) season. Example: if a fifth grade student scored 200 on a MAP test taken during the Spring season, her/his estimated state test is 25%. Italics represent extrapolated data.

READING-Prior Season Estimated Probability of Passing State Test Based on Observed MAP Score RIT Range 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 120 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 125 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 130 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 135 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 140 4% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 145 7% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 150 11% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 155 17% 5% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% 160 25% 8% 4% 2% 1% 1% 0% 165 35% 13% 7% 4% 2% 1% 1% 170 48% 20% 11% 6% 3% 1% 1% 175 60% 29% 17% 9% 5% 2% 1% 180 71% 40% 25% 14% 8% 4% 2% 185 80% 52% 35% 21% 12% 6% 4% 190 87% 65% 48% 31% 18% 10% 6% 195 92% 75% 60% 43% 27% 15% 10% 200 95% 83% 71% 55% 38% 23% 15% 205 97% 89% 80% 67% 50% 33% 23% 210 98% 93% 87% 77% 62% 45% 33% 215 99% 96% 92% 85% 73% 57% 45% 220 99% 97% 95% 90% 82% 69% 57% 225 100% 98% 97% 94% 88% 79% 69% 230 100% 99% 98% 96% 92% 86% 79% 235 100% 99% 99% 98% 95% 91% 86% 240 100% 100% 99% 99% 97% 94% 91% 245 100% 100% 100% 99% 98% 96% 94% 250 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 98% 96% 255 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 98% 260 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 265 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 270 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 275 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 280 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 285 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 290 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 295 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 300 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% * Note: This table provides the estimated state test based on a MAP test score taken during that prior (Spring) season. Example: if a fifth grade student scored 200 on a MAP test taken during the Spring season, her/his estimated state test is 55%. Italics represent extrapolated data.

TABLE 5 CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN MAP AND STATE TEST FOR EACH GRADE AND TEST SUBJECT Grade Math Correlation Pearson's r Reading Correlation Pearson's r 3.817.783 4.847.757 5.872.789 6.861.784 7.861.790 8.834.754 * Note: Correlations range from 0 (indicating no correlation between the state test score and the NWEA test score) to 1 (indicating complete correlation between the state test score and the NWEA test score).

TABLE 6 PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHOSE PASS STATUS WAS ACCURATELY PREDICTED BY THEIR MAP PERFORMANCE USING REPORTED CUT SCORES Grade Sample Size MAP Accurately Predicted State Performance MAP Underestimated State Performance MAP Overestimated State Performance Mathematics 3 3408 84.9% 7.6% 7.5% 4 3253 85.7% 6.9% 7.4% 5 3491 86.5% 7.0% 6.6% 6 3345 87.3% 6.7% 6.1% 7 3346 88.9% 5.7% 5.4% 8 2803 88.9% 5.4% 5.7% Reading 3 3181 81.5% 9.6% 8.8% 4 3079 82.5% 9.1% 8.4% 5 3349 83.2% 7.9% 8.8% 6 3322 83.3% 8.4% 8.3% 7 3235 83.7% 8.7% 7.6% 8 2703 79.8% 10.6% 9.7% * Note: The third column of this table shows the percentage of students whose Pass/Not Pass status was predicted accurately when their state test score was linked to their MAP score based on this linking study. The fourth column shows the percentage of students whose MAP score predicted they would not pass the state benchmark but they did pass. The last column shows the percentage of students whose MAP score predicted they would pass the state benchmark but they did not pass. Due to rounding, percentages may not add to 100%.

2024 © financedocbox.com Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Feedback