RTI screening assessment assessed

Curriculum Advantage Inc., developer of Classworks® instructional improvement system, today released the results of a year-long study evaluating the technical quality and accuracy of its Universal Screener Assessments. The study, conducted by SEG Measurement, an independent assessment and research organization, found that the Universal Screeners in Classworks’ assessment solution are an effective tool for identifying students requiring intervention as part of Response to Intervention (RTI) programs.

Universal screening of students is the mechanism for identifying students who struggle or are at risk for learning difficulties. The key to a prevention model, universal screeners help classroom teachers differentiate their instruction and provide early intervening services to assist students before they fall too far behind.

“We have heard anecdotally from teachers and administrators that the Universal Screeners in Classworks are an effective tool for evaluating students as part of their RTI programs,” said Melissa Sinunu, COO for Curriculum Advantage. “We are pleased to have those opinions validated through a rigorous technical study.”

According to Dr. Scott Elliot, president and senior research scientist for SEG Measurement, the study examined several technical aspects of Classworks’ Universal Screeners including reliability. “The Classworks mathematics and reading Universal Screeners were found to reliably identify students in need of instructional intervention,” said Elliot.

Test reliability -- the consistency and accuracy of test scores -- is critical to any testing program. The study found that, on average, reliability for the reading Universal Screeners for kindergarten through high school is 0.90. For mathematics, the reliability is 0.88. (Reliability values range from 0 to 1.00, with higher values indicating higher reliability.)

The study also found substantial support for the validity of the mathematics and reading Universal Screeners. Test validity refers to the appropriateness of the tests for its intended purpose.

“We evaluated test validity in several ways,” said Elliot. “First, we compared the Screener results to other high stakes tests to ensure performance on the Universal Screeners is consistent with performance on other assessments. Second, we evaluated the accuracy with which the Universal Screeners classified students as ‘at risk,’ by comparing the classifications produced by the Screeners to the classifications produced by other measures.”

The study found, on average, the correlation between the Screeners and other high stakes tests to be .46 for mathematics, which is considered good, and .63 for reading, which is considered excellent. (Validity values at .50 and above are considered excellent, while values less than .30 are considered poor.) Further, the Screeners were found to agree with other measures in classifying students as “not at risk” 93 percent of the time in mathematics, and 97 percent of the time in reading.

The complete study is available from Curriculum Advantage at (888) 841-4790 x6990.