AIMSweb

Test of Early Numeracy - Number Identification

Rating Summary

Classification Accuracyempty bubble
GeneralizabilityBroad
Reliabilityfull bubble
Validityempty bubble
Disaggregated Reliability and Validity DataN A
Efficiency
AdministrationIndividual
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 K–1: $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 scores are determined by computing the total number of numerals identified correctly within the 1 minute time period. This 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

TEN has 33 alternate forms per skill, per grade.

Group administered.

 

Classification Accuracy

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on AIMSweb Mathematics Curriculum-Based Measurement
  Kindergarten Grade 1
Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring
False Positive Rate 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.22
False Negative Rate 0.42 0.75 0.79 0.61 0.61 0.61
Sensitivity 0.58 0.25 0.21 0.39 0.39 0.39
Specificity 0.93 0.99 0.99 0.78 0.78 0.78
Positive Predictive Power 0.83 0.86 0.80 0.38 0.41 0.43
Negative Predictive Power 0.80 0.82 0.85 0.79 0.77 0.75
Overall Classification Rate 0.90 0.82 0.85 0.68 0.67 0.66
AUC (ROC) 0.87 0.90 0.92 0.82 0.83 0.83
Base Rate 0.13 0.22 0.18 0.26 0.28 0.30
Cut Points: 4 21 36 Not available Not available Not available
At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available
At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available
At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available

 

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Test
  Grade 1
Fall Winter Spring
False Positive Rate 0.24 0.21 0.22
False Negative Rate 0.23 0.15 0.61
Sensitivity 0.77 0.85 0.39
Specificity 0.76 0.79 0.78
Positive Predictive Power 0.20 0.26 0.43
Negative Predictive Power 0.98 0.98 0.75
Overall Classification Rate 0.76 0.80 0.66
AUC (ROC) 0.85 0.89 0.83
Base Rate 0.07 0.08 0.30
Cut Points: 33 56 Not available
At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals 0.53 0.79 Not available
At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals 0.82 Not available Not available
At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals 0.87 0.93 Not available

Generalizability

Description of Study 1 Sample (analyses that used Mathematics Calculation Curriculum-Based Measurement as the criterion):

  • Number of States: 48
  • Size: 165,818
  • Region: All
  • Gender:
    • 48% Male
    • 52% Female
  • SES: about 30% eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
  • Race/Ethnicity:
    • 88% White, Non-Hispanic
    • 5% Black, Non-Hispanic
    • 2% Hispanic
    • 3% American Indian/Alaska Native
    • 2% Asian/Pacific Islander

Description of Study 2 Sample (analysis that used the Georgia CRCT Grade 1 as the criterion):

  • Number of States: 1
  • Size: 325
  • Gender:
    • 55% Male
    • 45% Female
  • SES: 5% Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
  • Race/Ethnicity:
    • 60% White, Non-Hispanic
    • 17% Black, Non-Hispanic
    • 14% Hispanic
    • 1% Asian/Pacific Islander
    • 7% Other
  • Disability classification: 3% were receiving special education services in Grade 1
  • Language proficiency status: 14% ELL

Cross Validation Study Description of study sample:

  • Number of States: 48
  • Size: 32,957
  • Region: All
  • Race/Ethnicity:
    • 88% White, Non-Hispanic
    • 5% Black, Non-Hispanic
    • 2% Hispanic
    • 3% American Indian/Alaska Native
    • 2% Asian/Pacific Islander

Reliability

Type of Reliability Age or Grade n (range) Coefficient Information
(including normative data) / Subjects
range median
Internal Consistency (Cohen’s Alpha) Kindergarten 59,621   0.94  
Internal Consistency (Cohen’s Alpha) 1st Grade 60,481   0.95  
Test-retest reliability Kindergarten 92 0.78 - 0.88 0.83 Hintze, J. M. (2010). An examination of the classification accuracy, reliability, and validity of the TENS with the TEMA.
Test-retest reliability 1st Grade 94 0.73 - 0.84 0.78

 

Validity

Content Validity (see below)* Age or Grade Test or Criterion n Coefficient Information (including normative data)/Subjects
Range Median
Construct 1 Number Knowledge Test 52   0.70 Clarke & Shinn (2004).
1 WJ-R Applied Problems 52 0.63, 0.65 0.64
Predictive 1 WJ-R Applied Problems 52 0.68, 0.72 0.70

*Number identification was identified as a critical skill by the NCTM Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000). Number identification is a component of the more general construct of “number sense.” Jordan, Glutting, Ramineni, and Watkins (2010, p. 183), citing the work of Clarke and Shinn (2004), noted that “number sense can be reliably measured in young children and is predictive of later mathematics outcomes.” Support for this conclusion has been provided by:

Clarke, B. & Shinn, M. R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234-248.

Jordan, N. C., Glutting, J., Ramineni, C., & Watkins, M. W. (2010). Validating a number sense screening tool for use in kindergarten and first grade: Prediction of mathematics proficiency in third grade. School Psychology Review, 39, 181-195.

Methe, S. A., Hintze, J.M., Floyd, R.G. (2008). Validation and decision accuracy of early numeracy skill indicators. School Psychology Review, 37, 359-373.

VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2010). Determining mathematical risk. School Psychology Review, 39, 196-202.

The naming of printed numbers has been incorporated in virtually all CBM tasks related to early mathematics (Methe, Hintze, & Floyd, 2008). AIMSweb’s Test of Early Numeracy—Number Identification samples all numbers from 1 through 20. For screening purposes, it is better to have a negatively skewed distribution (i.e., a test that is relatively easy for the average student) than a test that challenges the more-able students.