AIMSweb

Mathematics - Curriculum-Based Measurement

Rating Summary

Classification Accuracyhalf bubble
GeneralizabilityModerate High
Reliabilityhalf bubble
Validityempty bubble
Disaggregated Reliability and Validity DataN A
Efficiency
AdministrationGroup
Administration & Scoring Time2 Minutes
Scoring KeyComputer Scored
Benchmarks / NormsYes
Cost Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs Service and Support       Purpose and Other Implementation Information Usage and Reporting

Annual cost per student:
AIMSweb assessment materials are included with an AIMSweb System software subscription:

AIMSweb ProComplete/Pro Math

Grades 1–8: $3.00–$5.00 per student per year.

Included in the price are manuals and test materials, directions for administration, test forms, technical manuals, and protocol per student. All materials are provided via download in PDF format

Internet access is required for full use of product services.

Testers will require 4–8 hours of training.
Paraprofessionals can administer the test.

Alternate forms available for benchmarking.

Pearson Assessments
19500 Bulverde Road
San Antonio, TX 78259
Phone: 210-339-5247

Visit AIMSweb.com
Tech support: aimswebsupport@pearson.com

Field tested training manuals are included and should provide all implementation information.
AIMSweb Training sessions are available.

Ongoing technical support is provided.

 

Raw score, percentile score, developmental benchmark scores (cut points and benchmarks), probability scores, and error analysis scores are available. Raw scores are determined by computing the total number of numerals counted correctly within the 1 minute time period. These data can be interpreted in a norm-referenced way via percentiles or categorically in a standard interpretive format (e.g., below average, average, above average, etc.). Scores are also interpreted by converting progress over time into a Rate of Improvement (ROI) index, typically derived by using an ordinary least squares regression line through the data. A composite score is not calculated.

Math-CBM has 50 alternate forms available for each grade 1 through 8 Additional 100 assessments in optional ‘answer and process’ format for graded 5-6. Additional 120 total assessment for progress monitoring Math Facts
Group administered.

 

Classification Accuracy

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency Level on the Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test
and the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program


 

 

Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program
1st Grade (n = 3,296) 2nd Grade (n = 3,266) 3rd Grade (n = 6,495)
Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring
False Positive Rate 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.06
False Negative Rate 0.64 0.70 0.70 0.82 0.80 0.48 0.68 0.74 0.70
Sensitivity 0.36 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.17 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.29
Specificity 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.94 0.94
Positive Predictive Power 0.11 0.28 0.30 0.26 0.63 0.52 0.43 0.57 0.54
Negative Predictive Power 0.99 0.96 0.95 0.87 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.80 0.84
Overall Classification Rate 0.94 0.92 0.91 0.84 0.80 0.81 0.83 0.77 0.81
AUC (ROC) 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.82 0.80 0.80 0.80
Base Rate 0.02 0.06 0.70 0.13 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.24 0.20
Pass Cut-Score: 2 7 11 8 20 20 11 17 18
Fail Cut-Score: 1 3 5 3 6 9 7 9 9

 

Generalizability

Description of study sample:

  • Number of States: 3 (Georgia, Tennessee, Michigan)
  • Size: 6,495
  • Region:
    • Southeast
    • Midwest
  • Gender:
    • 51% Male
    • 49% Female
  • SES: about 30% eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
  • Race/Ethnicity:
    • 94% White, Non-Hispanic
    • 1% Black, Non-Hispanic
    • 1% Hispanic
    • 3% American Indian/Alaska Native
    • 1% Asian/Pacific Islander

Cross Validation Study Description of study sample:

  • Number of States: 2 (Georgia, Michigan)
  • Size: 6,495
  • Region:
    • Southeast
    • Midwest
  • Gender:
    • 52% Male
    • 48% Female

Reliability

Type of Reliability Age or Grade n Coefficient
Range Median
Alternate Form Grade 1 24,316 0.90 – 0.96 0.93
Alternate Form Grade 2 24,316 0.93 – 0.98 0.95
Alternate Form Grade 3 24,316 0.92 – 0.97 0.94

Validity

Type of Validity Age or Grade Test or Criterion n Coefficient
Range Median
Concurrent Grade 3 Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program 6495 0.42 – 0.49 0.48
Concurrent Grade 3 Michigan Educational Assessment Program 3227 0.40 – 0.52 0.52
Concurrent Grade 3 Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test 1442 0.35 – 0.37 0.35
Concurrent Grade 2 Georgia OLD Criterion Referenced Competency Test 280 0.41 – 0.51 0.50
Concurrent Grade 2 Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test 1442 0.40 – 0.47 0.45
Concurrent Grade 1 Georgia OLD Criterion Referenced Competency Test 280 0.43 – 0.50 0.45
Concurrent Grade 1 Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test 1442 0.46 – 0.53 0.49
Predictive Grade 2 Georgia OLD Criterion Referenced Competency Test 208 0.49 – 0.74 0.54
Predictive Grade 2 Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test 1442 0.45 – 0.51 0.49
Predictive Grade 1 Georgia OLD Criterion Referenced Competency Test 208 0.41 – 0.47 0.46
Predictive Grade 1 Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test 1442 0.46 – 0.65 0.54