Cross-validation in an independent Indiana sample was consistent with the primary-sample classification accuracy results¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
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¶

q3 i? Classification accuracy results from the secondary Indiana sample (Spring 2019) were consistent with those from the five-state primary sample, which the authors take as evidence that the recommended cut scores are valid. → He 2021

Evidence¶

He 2021¶

He, W., & Meyer, P. (2021). MAP Growth universal screening benchmarks: Establishing MAP Growth as an effective universal screener. NWEA. https://www.nwea.org

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Cross-validation analysis using Indiana students in Grades K-8 (N=241,079 mathematics; 244,023 reading per Table 2.1) who took the state test and MAP Growth in Spring 2019; the conclusion reports results "were consistent with those from the primary sample."

"The cross-validation results based on the secondary sample were consistent with those from the primary sample, providing evidence that the recommended universal screening cut scores are valid."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• MAP Growth cut scores at the 30th percentile of national norms best identify Grade K-8 students in need of intensive intervention in reading and mathematics — related
• MAP Growth spring RIT cut scores classify students as proficient or not proficient on the MCA-III Mathematics test with 0.87–0.90 overall accuracy — related
• Recommended MAP Growth screening cut scores yield sensitivity, specificity, and lower-bound AUC of at least 0.8 for most grades and terms — related
• Classification accuracy of the screening cut scores is lower for Grades K-2 than Grades 3-8, attributed to a 12-36 month lapse between MAP Growth and criterion measures — related