The CBE and COLO engines met content specifications and recovered true scores well for the nine simulated MAP Growth tests¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2024: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Items administered by both engines met content specifications and estimated scores recovered true scores well across nine MAP Growth tests. → Hu 2021

Evidence¶

Hu 2021¶

Hu, A., Chien, M., & Meyer, P. (2021). Comparability of MAP Growth tests administered through different technology and psychometric infrastructure: A simulation study. NWEA. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/comparability-of-map-growth-tests-administered-through-different-technology-and-psychometric-infrastructure-a-simulation-study/

q2 · i? · design · r2

Final simulations on both engines across nine MAP Growth tests (reading, mathematics, language usage, science) checked content validity and recovery of true thetas. The report states the items "met the content specifications" and scores "recovered the true scores well."

"The items administered by the CBE and COLO met the content specifications, and the estimated scores recovered the true scores well for the nine MAP Growth tests investigated in this study."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• CBE shows better engine adaptivity than COLO, especially for extremely low or high achievement students — related
• Adaptivity and score reliability of both engines depend on item-pool depth; the CBE often performed better than COLO for extreme low or high achievers when item banks were shallow — related
• Marginal reliabilities of MAP Growth winter scores are comparable across engines and all in the 0.90s, with CBE showing slightly higher precision (lower SEM) — related
• Growth-score differences between CBE and COLO are small, exceeding 0.2 only in Reading Grades K–1 (favoring CBE) and Mathematics Grade 8 (favoring COLO) — related