1. Barbara Foorman, Yaacov Petscher, & Chris Schatschneider, Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University

2. FCRR’s Subaward to ETS’ RFU- Assessment grant 2010-2014: Developed computer-adaptive K-12 component skills battery [(item tryouts, IRT analyses, & linking studies. Called the FCRR Reading Assessment (FRA)]. The FRA added academic language tasks to previous reading assessments of the TPRI (& Tejas LEE) and FAIR. 2010-2015: Conducted cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of reading & language development & predictive validity studies of FRA.

3. The Florida Center for Reading Research Reading Assessment (FRA) is a set of computer-administered (prekindergarten) or computer-adaptive (K–2 and 3– 12) literacy assessment systems that consist of screening, comprehension, and diagnostic reading and language tasks. The preK system has 3 forms. The K–2 and 3–12 systems are computer-adaptive and, therefore, do not have forms. All systems completed within 45 minutes. Licensed to FLDOE as the FAIR-FS and to Lexia Learning as the RAPID. What is the FRA?

4. FRA Technical Manuals (Foorman, Petscher, & Schatschneider, 2015) at: http://www.fcrr.org/for- researchers/fra.asphttp://www.fcrr.org/for- researchers/fra.asp Validity addressed through analysis of: factor structure; discriminant, convergent, predictive, and diagnostic validity. Marginal reliabilities addressed with Item Response Theory. Psychometrics

5. Word Recognition Task Vocabulary Knowledge Task Syntactic Knowledge Task Reading Comprehension Task Number of items Passages administered% students mean209171 passage9.7% median198162 passages22.7% administered 30 items31%2%15%3 passages67.6% Reliability marginal reliability coefficient0.930.910.930.94 Cronbach's alpha ≥.9 82%98%87%54% Cronbach's alpha ≥.8 98%99% 93% Time (minutes : seconds) mean3:042:063:54NA* median2:361:403:30NA* directions time0:420:240:350:15 3-12 FRA Task Efficiency *The mean and median values for amount of time spent on the Reading Comprehension Task are not available due to the nature of the task.

6. Note : GMAT = Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test; SAT-10 = Stanford Achievement Test, 10 th edition; FSA = FL Standards Assessment Predictive Validity of the 3-10 FRA to End-of-Year Outcomes

7. Structure of reading K - 3 Foorman et al. (2015) Reading & Writing Decoding fluency Syntax Phonological awareness Vocabulary Listening Comp Oral language Reading Comprehension

8. Structure of reading 4 - 10 Foorman, et al. (2015) Journal of Educational Psychology Decoding fluency Syntax Vocabulary Oral language Reading Comprehension 72% - 99% variance

9.  FRA: Grades K - 2 “ Before you put the book at the end of the row, click on the cat.” “ The girl is eating dinner by herself.”

10.  FRA: Grades 3 through 12

12. Results translate to instruction --FCRR Student Center Activities http://www.fcrr.org/for-educators/sca_cc.asp http://www.fcrr.org/for-educators/sca_cc.asp --FAIR-FS professional development http://www.fcrr.org/pmrn/fairspd/pd_materials.asp --Implications of connectives for text understanding http://www.fcrr.org/_/documents/instructional_implicat ions _for_connectives.docx Uses of the FRA

13. Example of FRA score report for English learner student in upper elementary who is learning to read English Technical assistance project of the Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast at FSU/FCRR

14.  Vocabulary Pairs (K,1,2) Audio provides each word and box lights up as each word is said. Student clicks on 2 words that go together.

15. Combining information on ability scores and levels: Do students who stay within level meet or exceed the 50 th percentile? Technical assistance project of the Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast at FSU/FCRR

16. Examples from data chats Teachers saw students’ FRA scores as consistent with oral language proficiency scores. Teachers saw low Following Directions scores as consistent with observations of inattentiveness and poor memory Teachers strategized about instruction to improve vocabulary (using recommendations from WWC practice guide) Teachers shared growth charts with parents and with receiving teachers Technical assistance project of the Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast at FSU/FCRR

17. Lessons learned Eliminate overlapping assessments & delineate their purpose. Select online computer-adaptive literacy assessments with strong evidence of validity and reliability and that measure growth. Select K-2 measures that can be administered individually so that teachers can observe & respond to students’ misconceptions & learning differences. Support PD on how to administer computer-adaptive assessments & interpret/use data at the classroom, school, and district level. Train teachers/staff for 45-90 min before school starts. Strategize how to implement 1:1 administration for students needing foundational skills, such as using support staff or combining students across classrooms within a grade. Conduct data chats during team meetings after each assessment period to discuss translation of data to instructional planning. Technical assistance project of the Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast at FSU/FCRR

18. bfoorman@fcrr.org