easyCBM

Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension

Rating Summary

Classification Accuracyfull bubble
GeneralizabilityModerate High
Reliabilityempty bubble
Validityempty bubble
Disaggregated Reliability and Validity Datahalf bubble
Efficiency
AdministrationIndividual Group
Administration & Scoring Time25-40 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

There are two version of easyCBM:

Teacher – Designed for individual teachers. Any teacher can sign up for free at http://easycbm.com. This version of the system contains all released measures with the exception of three benchmark measures for each grade level. This version does not support multiple levels of access, automated syncing with student information systems and data warehouses, grouping of reports in school or district units, or district-wide screening for benchmarks.

District – School districts can pay $4 per student per year and receive unlimited access to their own separate easyCBM website for the entire school year which includes access to measures for fall, winter, and spring, and computer-based reports for both screening to benchmarking and alternate forms to progress monitor.

Computer and Internet access are required for full use of product services.

Testers will require 1 - 4 hours of training.

Paraprofessionals can administer the test.

Accommodations:
All measures were developed following Universal Design for Assessment guidelines to reduce the need for accommodations. However, districts are directed to develop their own practices for accommodations as needed.

Behavioral Research and Teaching
5262 University of Oregon – 175 Education
Eugene, OR 97403-5262

Phone: 541-346-3535
Web Site: http://easycbm.com

Field-tested training manuals are included and should provide all implementation information.

Ongoing technical support is available through a help desk by email and phone.

In grades K-8, easyCBM provides 3 forms of a screening measure to be used locally for establishing benchmarks. All measures have been developed with reference to specific content in reading (National Reading Panel) and using Item Response Theory.

Administration time is 1 minute and scoring is 2-3 minutes for Passage Reading Fluency.

Administration time is 25-40 minutes and scoring is automatic for Multiple Choice Reading Fluency.

Scoring is automatic for Vocabulary.

Raw and percentile scores are available. Raw scores are simply the total number correct.

 

Classification Accuracy

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on State Tests in Oregon and Washington
False Positive Rate 0.20 – 0.43
False Negative Rate 0.11 – 0.32
Sensitivity 0.68 – 0.89
Specificity 0.57 – 0.80
Positive Predictive Power 0.23 – 0.69
Negative Predictive Power 0.73 – 0.98
Overall Classification Rate 0.66 – 0.79
AUC (ROC) 0.74 – 0.87
Base Rate 0.10 – 0.45
Cut Points: 9 – 17
At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals 0.28 – 0.73 (median = 0.50)
At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals 0.47 – 0.82 (median = 0.66)
At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals 0.64 – 0.88 (median = 0.78)

Reported statistics range by grade (3-8), season (F, W, S), and study (OR and WA). All statistics reported from the following technical reports:
Park, B. J., Anderson, D., Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011). Diagnostic Efficiency of easyCBM Reading: Oregon (Technical Report No. 1106). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon
Anderson, D., Park, B. J., Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011). Diagnostic Efficiency of easyCBM Reading: Washington State (Technical Report No. 1107). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon
These reports can be found here http://www.brtprojects.org/publications/technical-reports.

Generalizability

Description of Study 1 Sample:

  • Number of States: 1
  • Size: 1,058-3,352
  • Gender:
    • 50% Male
    • 50% Female 
  • SES: 38.1-63.3% Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
  • Race/Ethnicity:
    • 61.9-65.5% White, Non-Hispanic
    • 2.0-2.6% Black, Non-Hispanic
    • 6.9-23.4% Hispanic
    • 1.0-1.6% American Indian/Alaska Native
    • 4.6-5.7% Asian/Pacific Islander
    • 2.2-4.0% Other
    • 1.7-15-2% Unknown
  • Disability classification: 13.6-16.6% Special Education Status
  • Language proficiency status: 5.0-9.9% ELL

Description of Study 2 Sample:

  • Number of States: 1
  • Size: 0-1,063
  • Gender:
    • 50% Male
    • 50% Female 
  • SES: 34.3-45.2% Eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
  • Race/Ethnicity:
    • 58.6-61.4% White, Non-Hispanic
    • 4.3-7.5% Black, Non-Hispanic
    • 10.5-12.2% Hispanic
    • 2.5-4.3% American Indian/Alaska Native
    • 8.0-9.5% Asian/Pacific Islander
    • 0.9-11.8% Other
    • 1.7-6.5% Unknown
  • Disability classification: 10.8-16.4% Special Education Status
  • Language proficiency status: 2.5-5.0% ELL

Reliability

Type of Reliability Age or Grade n (range) Coefficient Information (including normative data)/Subjects
range median
Cronbach’s α 3 2,105 – 2,271 0.55 - 0.78 0.69 Saez, L. et al. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (Grades 3-8), 2009-2010 version. (Technical Report #1005). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.
Cronbach’s α 4 2,100 – 2,286 0.73 - 0.78 0.78
Cronbach’s α 5 2,251 – 2,383 0.70 - 0.75 0.70
Cronbach’s α 6 1,156 – 2,275 0.63 - 0.67 0.66
Cronbach’s α 7 2,013 – 3,163 0.59 - 0.67 0.65

Validity

Concurrent Validity

Type of Validity Age or Grade Test or Criterion n (range) r Information (including normative data)/Subjects
Concurrent 3 State test 2,314 0.61 Saez, L. et al. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (Grades 3-8), 2009-2010 version. (Technical Report #1005). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.
Concurrent 4 State test 2,304 0.60
Concurrent 5 State test 2,395 0.55
Concurrent 6 State test 2,206 0.55
Concurrent 7 State test 3,231 0.60

Predictive Validity

Type of Validity Age or Grade Test or Criterion n (range) r Information (including normative data)/Subjects
Predictive
F → OAKS
3 State test 2,252 0.57 Saez, L. et al. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (Grades 3-8), 2009-2010 version. (Technical Report #1005). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.
Predictive
W → OAKS
3 State test 2,391 0.54
Predictive
F → OAKS
4 State test 2,244 0.67
Predictive
W → OAKS
4 State test 2,288 0.55
Predictive
F → OAKS
5 State test 2,410 0.56
Predictive
W → OAKS
5 State test 2,428 0.53
Predictive
F → OAKS
6 State test 2,299 0.55
Predictive
W → OAKS
6 State test 1,211 0.44
Predictive
F → OAKS
7 State test 3,191 0.69
Predictive
W → OAKS
7 State test 2,036 0.61

Construct Validity

Type of Validity Age or Grade Test or Criterion n (range) FIT STATISTICS Information (including normative data)/Subjects
CFI/TLI RMSEA
Construct 3 CFA 1,865-1,839 0.971-0.977/
0.984-0.987
0.022-0.026 Saez, L. et al. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (Grades 3-8), 2009-2010 version. (Technical Report #1005). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.
Construct 4 CFA 1,820-2,046 0.971-0.977/
0.984-0.987
0.023-0.027
Construct 5 CFA 1,962-2,119 0.972-0.973
0.985
0.023-0.025
Construct 6 CFA 2,271-2,366 0.952-0.964/
0.976-0.966
0.023-0.025
Construct 7 CFA 3,406-3,493 0.955- 0.968/
0.966-0.976
0.020-0.022

 

Disaggregated Reliability, Validity, and Classification Data for Diverse Populations

Disaggregated Reliability, Validity, and Classification Data for Diverse Populations

Disaggregated Classification Accuracy

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on State Tests in Oregon and Washingtona
  American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic White Multiethnic Non-English Language Learners English Language Learners
False Positive Rate 0.27 – 0.29 0.18 – 0.37 0.18 – 0.67 0.28 – 0.50 0.17 – 0.41 0.10 – 0.89 0.20 – 0.43 0.23 – 0.64
False Negative Rate 0.10 – 0.18 0.00 – 0.57 0.11 – 0.37 0.07 – 0.36 0.09 – 0.39 0.00 – 0.45 0.10 – 0.33 0.07 – 0.22
Sensitivity 0.82 – 0.90 0.43 – 1.00 0.11 – 0.89 0.64 – 0.93 0.61 – 0.91 0.55 – 1.00 0.67 – 0.90 0.78 – 0.93
Specificity 0.71 – 0.73 0.63 – 0.82 0.54 – 0.89 0.50 – 0.73 0.59 – 0.83 0.57 – 0.90 0.57 – 0.80 0.36 – 0.77
Positive Predictive Power 0.43 – 0.43 0.14 – 0.57 0.21 – 0.80 0.32 – 0.79 0.19 – 0.69 0.18 – 0.73 0.22 – 0.67 0.29 – 0.95
Negative Predictive Power 0.94 – 0.97 0.83 – 1.00 0.55 – 0.93 0.63 – 0.95 0.72 – 0.99 0.77 – 1.00 0.74 – 0.99 0.50 – 0.95
Overall Classification Rate 0.75 – 0.75 0.65 – 0.81 0.58 – 0.92 0.57 – 0.76 0.66 – 0.82 0.63 – 0.88 0.66 – 0.79 0.50 – 0.85
AUC (ROC) 0.84 – 0.91 0.74 – 0.97 0.71 – 0.88 0.66 – 0.83 0.74 – 0.92 0.72 – 0.93 0.73 – 0.87 0.61 – 0.92
Base Rate 0.20 – 0.20 0.05 – 0.36 0.14 – 0.45 0.19 – 0.60 0.08 – 0.42 0.10 – 0.25 0.09 – 0.43 0.22 – 0.84
Cut Points: 9 – 17 9 – 17 9 – 17 9 – 17 9 – 17 9 – 17 9 – 17 9 – 17
At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals 42% - 85% (Median: 53%) 30% - 87% (Median: 68%) 37% - 71% (Median: 52%) 11% - 63% (Median: 42%) 31% - 76% (Median: 49%) 20% - 85% (Median: 57%) 28% - 74% (Median: 50%) 18% - 80% (Median: 47%)
At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals 67% - 90% (Median: 79%) 49% - 96% (Median: 76%) 54% - 87% (Median: 67%) 28% - 76% (Median: 63%) 41% - 83% (Median: 68%) 40% - 90% (Median: 71%) 57% - 80% (Median: 67%) 40% - 86% (Median: 66%)
At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals 67% - 90% (Median: 89%) 63% - 98% (Median: 82%) 67% - 91% (Median: 79%) 70% - 85% (Median: 72%) 65% - 91% (Median: 79%) 57% - 93% (Median: 80%) 64% - 85% (Median: 78%) 50% - 100% (Median: 75%)

 

a.   Statistics not calculated when n < 50. Reported statistics range by grade (3-8), season (F, W, S) and study (OR & WA).

For a full description of all analyses, see:

Park, B. J., Anderson, D., Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011). Diagnostic Efficiency of easyCBM Reading: Oregon (Technical Report No. 1106). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon

Anderson, D., Park, B. J., Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011). Diagnostic Efficiency of easyCBM Reading: Washington State (Technical Report No. 1107). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon

These reports can be found here http://www.brtprojects.org/publications/technical-reports.

Disaggregated Reliability

Type of Reliability Grade n Coefficient SEM Information/Subjects
range median
Cronbach’s α 3 34 - 36 0.64 – 0.83 0.65 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Cronbach’s α 3 85 - 88 0.58 - 0.80 0.75 Asian/Pacific Islander
Cronbach’s α 3 41 - 46 0.43 - 0.73 0.59 Black
Cronbach’s α 3 321 - 351 0.48 - 0.74 0.63 Hispanic
Cronbach’s α 3 1,501 - 1,603 0.53 - 0.77 0.69 White
Cronbach’s α 3 56 - 61 0.68 - 0.76 0.70 Multi-Ethnic
Cronbach’s α 4 43 - 45 0.60 - 0.68 0.60 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Cronbach’s α 4 78 0.72 - 0.76 0.76 Asian/Pacific Islander
Cronbach’s α 4 43 - 46 0.70 - 0.77 0.77 Black
Cronbach’s α 4 334 - 345 0.70 - 0.71 0.71 Hispanic
Cronbach’s α 4 1,440 - 1,463 0.71 - 0.78 0.78 White
Cronbach’s α 4 83 - 86 0.68  - 0.79 0.79 Multi-Ethnic
Cronbach’s α 5 42 - 47 0.62 - 0.71 0.64 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Cronbach’s α 5 91 - 102 0.68 - 0.79 0.76 Asian/Pacific Islander
Cronbach’s α 5 50 - 54 0.58 - 0.78 0.70 Black
Cronbach’s α 5 363 - 396 0.66 - 0.76 0.71 Hispanic
Cronbach’s α 5 1,540 - 1,638 0.66 - 0.73 0.68 White
Cronbach’s α 5 82 - 88 0.56 - 0.67 0.60 Multi-Ethnic
Cronbach’s α 6 32 - 55 0.36 - 0.67 0.66 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Cronbach’s α 6 39 - 86 0.56 - 0.67 0.66 Asian/Pacific Islander
Cronbach’s α 6 29 - 50 0.62 - 0.71 0.68 Black
Cronbach’s α 6 132 - 240 0.62 - 0.73 0.64 Hispanic
Cronbach’s α 6 755 - 1,535 0.61 0.61 White
Cronbach’s α 6 48 - 81 0.56 - 0.69 0.64 Multi-Ethnic
Cronbach’s α 7 16 - 32 0.23 - 0.70 0.50 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Cronbach’s α 7 119 - 180 0.57 - 0.66 0.61 Asian/Pacific Islander
Cronbach’s α 7 47 - 74 0.55 - 0.70 0.68 Black
Cronbach’s α 7 518 - 641 0.57 - 0.70 0.65 Hispanic
Cronbach’s α 7 1215 - 2,114 0.57 - 0.61 0.60 White
Cronbach’s α 7 60 - 118 0.63 - 0.74 0.73 Multi-Ethnic

For a full description of all analyses, see:

Saez, L. et al. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (Grades 3-8), 2009-2010 version. (Technical Report #1005). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.

Disaggregated Validity

Type of Validity Age or Grade Test or Criterion n (range) r Information/Subjects
Concurrent 3 State test 36 0.55 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Concurrent 3 State test 94 0.59 Asian/Pacific Islander
Concurrent 3 State test 46 0.67 Black
Concurrent 3 State test 373 0.55 Hispanic
Concurrent 3 State test 1,656 0.59 White
Concurrent 3 State test 60 0.73 Multi-Ethnic
Concurrent 4 State test 45 0.77 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Concurrent 4 State test 91 0.40 Asian/Pacific Islander
Concurrent 4 State test 52 0.66 Black
Concurrent 4 State test 384 0.56 Hispanic
Concurrent 4 State test 1,596 0.60 White
Concurrent 4 State test 96 0.65 Multi-Ethnic
Concurrent 5 State test 49 0.62 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Concurrent 5 State test 104 0.37 Asian/Pacific Islander
Concurrent 5 State test 56 0.51 Black
Concurrent 5 State test 379 0.52 Hispanic
Concurrent 5 State test 1,668 0.55 White
Concurrent 5 State test 89 0.45 Multi-Ethnic
Concurrent 6 State test 54 0.61 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Concurrent 6 State test 84 0.52 Asian/Pacific Islander
Concurrent 6 State test 53 0.44 Black
Concurrent 6 State test 241 0.60 Hispanic
Concurrent 6 State test 1,584 0.54 White
Concurrent 6 State test 81 0.44 Multi-Ethnic
Concurrent 7 State test 33 0.66 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Concurrent 7 State test 182 0.57 Asian/Pacific Islander
Concurrent 7 State test 75 0.51 Black
Concurrent 7 State test 649 0.59 Hispanic
Concurrent 7 State test 2,118 0.58 White
Concurrent 7 State test 120 0.59 Multi-Ethnic
Predictive
F → OAKS
3 State test 35 0.62 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Predictive
F → OAKS
3 State test 92 0.54 Asian/Pacific Islander
Predictive
F → OAKS
3 State test 43 0.57 Black
Predictive
F → OAKS
3 State test 360 0.50 Hispanic
Predictive
F → OAKS
3 State test 1,615 0.56 White
Predictive
F → OAKS
3 State test 60 0.50 Multi-Ethnic
Predictive
F → OAKS
4 State test 45 0.59 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Predictive
F → OAKS
4 State test 84 0.58 Asian/Pacific Islander
Predictive
F → OAKS
4 State test 49 0.63 Black
Predictive
F → OAKS
4 State test 380 0.64 Hispanic
Predictive
F → OAKS
4 State test 1,555 0.66 White
Predictive
F → OAKS
4 State test 93 0.75 Multi-Ethnic
Predictive
F → OAKS
5 State test 47 0.60 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Predictive
F → OAKS
5 State test 97 0.66 Asian/Pacific Islander
Predictive
F → OAKS
5 State test 51 0.61 Black
Predictive
F → OAKS
5 State test 422 0.49 Hispanic
Predictive
F → OAKS
5 State test 1,660 0.54 White
Predictive
F → OAKS
5 State test 89 0.55 Multi-Ethnic
Predictive
F → OAKS
6 State test 56 0.62 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Predictive
F → OAKS
6 State test 89 0.68 Asian/Pacific Islander
Predictive
F → OAKS
6 State test 53 0.46 Black
Predictive
F → OAKS
6 State test 242 0.65 Hispanic
Predictive
F → OAKS
6 State test 1,602 0.52 White
Predictive
F → OAKS
6 State test 81 0.63 Multi-Ethnic
Predictive
F → OAKS
7 State test 32 0.60 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Predictive
F → OAKS
7 State test 182 0.63 Asian/Pacific Islander
Predictive
F → OAKS
7 State test 68 0.75 Black
Predictive
F → OAKS
7 State test 621 0.65 Hispanic
Predictive
F → OAKS
7 State test 2,116 0.61 White
Predictive
F → OAKS
7 State test 120 0.74 Multi-Ethnic
Predictive
W → OAKS
3 State test 36 0.56 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Predictive
W → OAKS
3 State test 95 0.60 Asian/Pacific Islander
Predictive
W → OAKS
3 State test 48 0.64 Black
Predictive
W → OAKS
3 State test 398 0.46 Hispanic
Predictive
W → OAKS
3 State test 1,700 0.52 White
Predictive
W → OAKS
3 State test 64 0.57 Multi-Ethnic
Predictive
W → OAKS
4 State test 45 0.72 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Predictive
W → OAKS
4 State test 86 0.50 Asian/Pacific Islander
Predictive
W → OAKS
4 State test 49 0.64 Black
Predictive
W → OAKS
4 State test 399 0.45 Hispanic
Predictive
W → OAKS
4 State test 1,582 0.54 White
Predictive
W → OAKS
4 State test 98 0.58 Multi-Ethnic
Predictive
W → OAKS
5 State test 48 0.57 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Predictive
W → OAKS
5 State test 106 0.47 Asian/Pacific Islander
Predictive
W → OAKS
5 State test 56 0.53 Black
Predictive
W → OAKS
5 State test 400 0.54 Hispanic
Predictive
W → OAKS
5 State test 1,680 0.51 White
Predictive
W → OAKS
5 State test 90 0.51 Multi-Ethnic
Predictive
W → OAKS
6 State test 33 0.69 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Predictive
W → OAKS
6 State test 44 0.56 Asian/Pacific Islander
Predictive
W → OAKS
6 State test 33 0.69 Black
Predictive
W → OAKS
6 State test 137 0.56 Hispanic
Predictive
W → OAKS
6 State test 802 0.40 White
Predictive
W → OAKS
6 State test 48 0.55 Multi-Ethnic
Predictive
W → OAKS
7 State test 16 0.27 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Predictive
W → OAKS
7 State test 120 0.58 Asian/Pacific Islander
Predictive
W → OAKS
7 State test 46 0.71 Black
Predictive
W → OAKS
7 State test 532 0.61 Hispanic
Predictive
W → OAKS
7 State test 1,228 0.56 White
Predictive
W → OAKS
7 State test 62 0.66 Multi-Ethnic

For a full description of all analyses, see:

Saez, L. et al. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (Grades 3-8), 2009-2010 version. (Technical Report #1005). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.