Cross-term WCPM score differences are more consistent across passage positions after equating, supporting progress monitoring¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2023: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Means and SDs of term-to-term differences in equated WCPM scores are much more consistent across the three passage positions than those of raw WCPM score differences. → Chen 2020

Evidence¶

Chen 2020¶

Chen, J., & Simpson, M. A. (2020). Equating words-correct-per-minute (WCPM) scores across passages of MAP Reading Fluency. Portland, OR: NWEA. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/equating-words-correct-per-minute-wcpm-scores-across-passages-of-map-reading-fluency/

q2 · i? · design · r2

Descriptive analysis of score differences between terms by passage position, using students with valid scores on the respective passage from both terms (Table 3.5). For Winter minus Fall, raw difference means "ranged from 0.307 to 11.206" versus 11.948 to 12.627 equated.

"Overall, the mean and SD of the differences in equated WCPM scores of each of the three passages across two terms were much more consistent than those of the differences in raw WCPM scores."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Equated WCPM scores show much less within-student variance than raw WCPM scores, indicating reduced passage-difficulty fluctuations — related
• Equated WCPM scores are more highly correlated across passages read by the same student than raw WCPM scores, suggesting greater reliability — related
• Equated WCPM scores from non-reference passages show smaller residuals against reference-passage scores than raw scores, with one passage exception — related
• Equated WCPM scores generally correlate more highly with MAP Growth Reading RIT scores than raw WCPM scores, with one exception — related