David A. Klingbeil, Ethan R. Van Norman, David J. Osman, Kimberly Berry-Corie, Caroline K. Carberry, Jessica S. Kim
{"title":"比较AimswebPlus与小学高年级普遍筛选基准评估系统","authors":"David A. Klingbeil, Ethan R. Van Norman, David J. Osman, Kimberly Berry-Corie, Caroline K. Carberry, Jessica S. Kim","doi":"10.1177/07342829221139520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Early identification of students needing additional support is a foundational component of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). Due to the resource-intensive nature of implementing MTSS, it is critical that universal screening procedures are maximally accurate and efficient. The purpose of this study was to compare the classification accuracy of aimswebPlus reading scores to the Benchmark Assessment System scores. We used data from a mid-size city in Texas to retrospectively compare the classification accuracy between fall aimswebPlus reading composites to the Benchmark Assessment System scores when predicting student performance on the statewide reading test. When classification decisions were made based on the vendor-recommended cut-scores, both measures were insufficiently sensitive for screening in MTSS. Following aimswebPlus’ recommended method for establishing local-cut scores improved the sensitivity of decisions, but the specificity values were well below minimally acceptable levels. Limitations, directions for future research, and implications for practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment","volume":"41 1","pages":"194 - 208"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing AimswebPlus to the Benchmark Assessment System for Universal Screening in Upper Elementary Grades\",\"authors\":\"David A. Klingbeil, Ethan R. Van Norman, David J. Osman, Kimberly Berry-Corie, Caroline K. Carberry, Jessica S. Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/07342829221139520\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Early identification of students needing additional support is a foundational component of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). Due to the resource-intensive nature of implementing MTSS, it is critical that universal screening procedures are maximally accurate and efficient. The purpose of this study was to compare the classification accuracy of aimswebPlus reading scores to the Benchmark Assessment System scores. We used data from a mid-size city in Texas to retrospectively compare the classification accuracy between fall aimswebPlus reading composites to the Benchmark Assessment System scores when predicting student performance on the statewide reading test. When classification decisions were made based on the vendor-recommended cut-scores, both measures were insufficiently sensitive for screening in MTSS. Following aimswebPlus’ recommended method for establishing local-cut scores improved the sensitivity of decisions, but the specificity values were well below minimally acceptable levels. Limitations, directions for future research, and implications for practice are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"194 - 208\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829221139520\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829221139520","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing AimswebPlus to the Benchmark Assessment System for Universal Screening in Upper Elementary Grades
Early identification of students needing additional support is a foundational component of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). Due to the resource-intensive nature of implementing MTSS, it is critical that universal screening procedures are maximally accurate and efficient. The purpose of this study was to compare the classification accuracy of aimswebPlus reading scores to the Benchmark Assessment System scores. We used data from a mid-size city in Texas to retrospectively compare the classification accuracy between fall aimswebPlus reading composites to the Benchmark Assessment System scores when predicting student performance on the statewide reading test. When classification decisions were made based on the vendor-recommended cut-scores, both measures were insufficiently sensitive for screening in MTSS. Following aimswebPlus’ recommended method for establishing local-cut scores improved the sensitivity of decisions, but the specificity values were well below minimally acceptable levels. Limitations, directions for future research, and implications for practice are discussed.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment (JPA) publishes contemporary and important information focusing on psychological and educational assessment research and evidence-based practices as well as assessment instrumentation. JPA is well known internationally for the quality of published assessment-related research, theory and practice papers, and book and test reviews. The methodologically sound and impiricially-based studies and critical test and book reviews will be of particular interest to all assessment specialists including practicing psychologists, psychoeducational consultants, educational diagnosticians and special educators.