NEW YORK LINKING STUDY

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

Illinois LINKING STUDY

CONNECTICUT LINKING STUDY

MICHIGAN LINKING STUDY

Massachusetts 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

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:

Health Care Reform: Coverage for Adult Children Survey

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

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

Stat 101 Exam 1 - Embers Important Formulas and Concepts 1

New York State School Report Card.

BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE for Teachers and Students

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

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

Spending Journal. SECONDARY School Module ACTIVITY BOOKLET

Sinfonia Asset Management Risk Profile Report May 2017

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

Math 3907: Life Contingent Risk Modelling II

NUMERACY: The Basics Workbook

FASB Technical Bulletin No. 81-1

Page Points Score Total: 100

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

Statistics 114 September 29, 2012

Earnings Revisions Strategies

6683/01 Edexcel GCE Statistics S1 Gold Level G2

Chapter 3. Decision Analysis. Learning Objectives

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

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

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

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

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

Tax table for daily and casual workers

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

ACCOUNTING CONCEPTS AND PROCEDURES

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.

Level 3 Economics, 2016

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

Math 122 Calculus for Business Admin. and Social Sciences

Annual risk measures and related statistics

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

Subject: Psychopathy

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.

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

DEBITS AND CREDITS: ANALYZING AND RECORDING BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

Monitoring Report R: Providing Secure and Stable Resources February 2013

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

Economics 345 Applied Econometrics

HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE AMONG WORKERS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS IN NEW YORK,

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.

Exploring Microsoft Office Excel 2007 Comprehensive Grauer Scheeren Mulbery Second Edition

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

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

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

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

Statistics S1 Advanced/Advanced Subsidiary

Understanding the Costs Associated with Interventions to Improve High School Completion

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

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

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

MEASURING IMPACT Impact Evaluation Methods for Policy Makers

Arius Deterministic Exhibit Statistics

Claims First Pass Resolution Rate

3 C: State logical assumptions being used.

Name Period. Linear Correlation

Module Contact: Will Carpenter, CMP Copyright of the University of East Anglia Version 1

C03-Fundamentals of business mathematics

The Spearman s Rank Correlation Test

Transcription:

NEW YORK LINKING STUDY A Study of the Alignment of the NWEA RIT Scale with the New York State (NYS) Testing Program November 2013 COPYRIGHT 2013 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. 1

A STUDY OF THE ALIGNMENT OF THE NWEA RIT SCALE WITH THE NEW YORK STATE (NYS) TESTING PROGRAM NOVEMBER 2013 Recently, NWEA completed a project to connect the scale of the New York State (NYS) Testing Program used for New York 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 6,209 New York students who completed both exams in the spring of 2013. The New York state test is administered in the spring. For the spring season (labeled current season ), an Equipercentile method was used to estimate the RIT score equivalent to each state performance level. For fall (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 (spring) and prior-season (fall) 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 probability of 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 NYS. 2

TABLE SET 1 MINIMUM ESTIMATED SAME-SEASON (SPRING) RIT CUT SCORES CORRESPONDING TO STATE PERFORMANCE LEVELS MATH - Current Season s and s for each State Performance Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 2 <184 184 29 193 56 204 84 3 <196 196 29 205 56 216 84 4 <207 207 35 219 68 235 95 5 <219 219 45 233 79 249 97 6 <217 217 30 232 66 242 85 7 <227 227 42 242 74 254 91 8 <227 227 34 245 72 263 95 READING - Current Season s and s for each State Performance Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 2 <186 186 41 200 77 213 94 3 <196 196 41 210 77 222 94 4 <204 204 42 215 72 223 88 5 <210 210 44 222 75 232 92 6 <211 211 36 225 72 232 86 7 <215 215 37 228 72 239 91 8 <219 219 41 229 67 242 91 * Note: the cut scores shown in this table are the minimum estimated scores. Meeting the minimum MAP cut score corresponds to a 50% probability of 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. 3

TABLE SET 2 MINIMUM ESTIMATED PRIOR-SEASON (FALL) RIT CUT SCORES CORRESPONDING TO STATE PERFORMANCE LEVELS MATH - Prior Season s and s for each State Performance Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 2 <171 171 29 180 56 191 84 3 <185 185 29 194 56 204 83 4 <198 198 33 210 68 226 95 5 <211 211 45 224 78 240 97 6 <211 211 29 226 66 235 84 7 <222 222 42 236 73 248 91 8 <223 223 34 240 72 259 95 READING - Prior Season s and s for each State Performance Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 2 <172 172 40 187 76 200 94 3 <186 186 40 201 77 213 94 4 <197 197 42 208 72 216 87 5 <205 205 44 216 73 227 92 6 <207 207 36 220 70 228 86 7 <211 211 35 224 71 235 91 8 <216 216 41 226 67 239 91 * Note: the cut scores shown in this table are the minimum estimated scores. Meeting the minimum MAP cut score corresponds to a 50% probability of 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. 4

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

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

TABLE SET 4 ESTIMATED PROBABILITY OF SCORING AS PROFICIENT OR HIGHER ON THE STATE TEST IN PRIOR SEASON (FALL), BY STUDENT GRADE AND RIT SCORE RANGE ON MAP MATH - Prior Season Estimated Probability of Passing State Test Based on Observed MAP 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 5% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 155 8% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 160 12% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 165 18% 5% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 170 27% 8% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 175 38% 13% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% 180 50% 20% 5% 1% 1% 0% 0% 185 62% 29% 8% 2% 2% 1% 0% 190 73% 40% 12% 3% 3% 1% 1% 195 82% 52% 18% 5% 4% 2% 1% 200 88% 65% 27% 8% 7% 3% 2% 205 92% 75% 38% 13% 11% 4% 3% 210 95% 83% 50% 20% 17% 7% 5% 215 97% 89% 62% 29% 25% 11% 8% 220 98% 93% 73% 40% 35% 17% 12% 225 99% 96% 82% 52% 48% 25% 18% 230 99% 97% 88% 65% 60% 35% 27% 235 100% 98% 92% 75% 71% 48% 38% 240 100% 99% 95% 83% 80% 60% 50% 245 100% 99% 97% 89% 87% 71% 62% 250 100% 100% 98% 93% 92% 80% 73% 255 100% 100% 99% 96% 95% 87% 82% 260 100% 100% 99% 97% 97% 92% 88% 265 100% 100% 100% 98% 98% 95% 92% 270 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 97% 95% 275 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 98% 97% 280 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 98% 285 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 290 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 295 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 300 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% *Note: This table provides the the state test based on a MAP test score taken during that prior (fall) season. Example: if a fifth grade student scored 200 on a MAP test taken during the fall season, her/his estimated probability of passing the state test is 8%. Italics represent extrapolated data. 7

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

TABLE 5 CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN MAP AND STATE TEST FOR EACH GRADE AND TEST SUBJECT Math Correlation Pearson's r Reading Correlation Pearson's r 3 0.752 0.726 4 0.756 0.745 5 0.756 0.724 6 0.739 0.704 7 0.758 0.700 8 0.767 0.708 * 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). 9

TABLE 6 PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHOSE PASS STATUS WAS ACCURATELY PREDICTED BY THEIR MAP PERFORMANCE USING REPORTED CUT SCORES Mathematics Sample Size MAP Accurately Predicted State Performance MAP Underestimated State Performance MAP Overestimated State Performance 3 1025 81.0% 8.9% 10.1% 4 1074 80.0% 9.7% 10.3% 5 1048 80.4% 10.2% 9.4% 6 1018 77.2% 11.3% 11.5% 7 1029 81.0% 10.3% 8.7% 8 954 81.9% 9.4% 8.7% Reading 3 1027 83.0% 9.3% 7.7% 4 1070 82.8% 8.5% 8.7% 5 1047 80.7% 10.2% 9.1% 6 1026 81.0% 9.7% 9.3% 7 1028 82.1% 8.7% 9.2% 8 958 79.9% 9.9% 10.2% * Note: The third column of this table shows the percentage of students whose Pass/NotPass 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%. 10

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