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)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · checked against its sources 2026-10-09 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2023: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Marginal reliabilities for all grades on both engines are in the 0.90s and comparable, with the largest difference (0.04) in Reading Grade 1. → Bo 2020

Evidence¶

Bo 2020¶

Bo, E., & Meyer, P. (2020). Comparability of MAP Growth tests administered through different technology and psychometric infrastructure: An engine evaluation study based on empirical data. Portland, OR: NWEA. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/comparability-of-map-growth-tests-administered-through-different-technology-and-psychometric-infrastructure-an-engine-evaluation-study-based-on-empirical-data/

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Comparison of marginal reliability and mean SEM of Winter 2020 RIT scores by grade, content area, and engine, from the same Nebraska empirical dataset. The article reports reliabilities "in the 0.90s" and that CBE tests have slightly higher precision; no standardized effect size is printed.

"The marginal reliabilities for all grades and both engines are in the 0.90s, which suggests that MAP Growth tests on both CBE and COLO have high internal consistency. The reliabilities are comparable across the two groups, with the largest difference observed in Reading Grade 1 with a value of 0.04. In general, the tests delivered on CBE have slightly higher precision than those delivered on COLO."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The Altair (engine) main effect is not significant for winter RIT scores in either content area, but an Altair-by-sex interaction is significant in Reading only — related
• The CBE and COLO engines met content specifications and recovered true scores well for the nine simulated MAP Growth tests — related
• MAP Growth reliability coefficients average about 0.95, with lower values in Science and early grades and stronger test-retest reliability over shorter intervals — a broader claim this one bears on
• 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 for Spanish MAP Growth Reading are in the 0.90s across all grades — related
• Fall 2020 MAP Growth tests showed high levels of marginal reliability across all grades in both remote and in-person administration — related
• Findings of reliability, engagement, and consistent score trends increase confidence in the quality of remotely administered MAP Growth data in grades 3 and up — related
• CBE shows better engine adaptivity than COLO, especially for extremely low or high achievement students — 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