AIMSweb

Test of Early Numeracy - Oral Counting

Rating Summary

Classification Accuracyempty bubble
GeneralizabilityModerate Low
Reliabilityempty 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 counted 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 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.23 0.23
False Negative Rate 0.46 0.54 0.60 0.56 0.58 0.59
Sensitivity 0.54 0.46 0.40 0.44 0.42 0.41
Specificity 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.76 0.77 0.77
Positive Predictive Power 0.78 0.86 0.86 0.18 0.27 0.32
Negative Predictive Power 0.79 0.94 0.91 0.92 0.87 0.83
Overall Classification Rate 0.79 0.93 0.91 0.72 0.71 0.67
AUC (ROC) 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.79 0.78 0.78
Base Rate 0.34 0.12 0.14 0.11 0.17 0.21
Cut Points: 14 32 45 44 60 69
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
  Kindergarten Grade 1
Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter
False Positive Rate 0.41 0.35 0.22 0.21 0.33
False Negative Rate 0.25 0.13 0.17 0.18 0.23
Sensitivity 0.75 0.88 0.83 0.82 0.77
Specificity 0.59 0.65 0.78 0.79 0.67
Positive Predictive Power 0.11 0.17 0.23 0.23 0.17
Negative Predictive Power 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.97
Overall Classification Rate 0.60 0.67 0.78 0.79 0.68
AUC (ROC) 0.74 0.80 0.89 0.90 0.83
Base Rate 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08
Cut Points: 35 61 71 68 90
At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals 0.45 0.65 0.74 0.72 0.54
At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals 0.59 0.69 0.84 0.90 0.67
At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals 0.74 0.72 0.89 0.93 0.94

Generalizability

Description of Study 1 Sample (analyses that used M-CBM and TEMA as the criteria):

  • Number of States: 48
  • Size: 165,818
  • Gender:
    • 48% Male
    • 52% Female
  • SES: 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
  • Disability classification: 5% were receiving special education services

 

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

Reliability

Type of Reliability Age or Grade n Coefficient SEM Information / Subjects
Range Median

Retest

K 92 0.74-0.80 0.77   Hintz (2010)

Alternate form

1 52   0.93 6.1 Clarke & Shinn (2004). Medium-size school district in the Pacific Northwest.

Gender: F 23 M 29
Ethnicity:
Native American 2
Hispanic 3
White, non-Hispanic 47
Free/reduced lunch: 58%
Receiving special education services: 6%

Retest

1 52   0.80 9.8

 

Validity

Type of Validity Age or Grade Test or Criterion n Coefficient Information / Subjects
range median
Construct 1 Number Knowledge Test 52   0.70 Clarke & Shinn (2004).
1 WJ-R Applied Problems 52 0.60, 0.64 0.62
Predictive 1 WJ-R Applied Problems 52 0.68, 0.72 0.70