Growth-norms predictions showed larger RMSDs for pilot math scores but similar predictions for reading¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2026: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Math RMSDs between observed spring RIT and norms-predicted scores were consistently larger for the pilot group, while reading predictions were similar across groups. → J. Patrick Meyer 2023
Evidence¶
J. Patrick Meyer 2023¶
J. Patrick Meyer, Ann Hu, Sylvia Li. (2023). Content Proximity Spring 2022 Pilot Study Research Brief. Psychometric Solutions, NWEA. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/content-proximity-spring-2022-pilot-study-research-report/
q2 · i? · causal · r2
Within-student comparison of observed spring RIT to scores predicted by the MAP Growth norms model found math "RMSDs for the pilot group were consistently larger than the RMSDs for the comparison group"; correlations were high and similar.
"Results in Table 2.5 showed that for math, the RMSDs for the pilot group were consistently larger than the RMSDs for the comparison group. This result was consistent with the difference in actual math scores observed for the students in the pilot study."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Content Proximity pilot tests contained significantly more on-grade items and made better use of adjacent-grade items than traditional MAP Growth tests — related
- The Content Proximity spring 2022 pilot study examined validity, reliability, and test score comparability of MAP Growth assessments using the new item-selection algorithm — a broader claim this one bears on
- EISA-based MAP Growth testing produced slightly lower fall Mathematics scores but higher winter and spring Mathematics scores than traditional MAP Growth, and equipercentile linking was used to align the two versions for norming — related
- Person and item fit statistics were similar across pilot and comparison groups, with items showing overfitting in both — related
- Eighth graders in the Breakthrough Collaborative math tutoring pilot showed math score growth from beginning to end of year at both affiliates, similar to a national pre-pandemic sample — related
- Content Proximity math scores were consistently higher than traditional MAP Growth math scores, with effects ranging from negligible to small by grade — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
norms-prediction-rmsd-math-reading |
title |
Growth-norms predictions showed larger RMSDs for pilot math scores but similar predictions for reading |
description |
Growth-norms predictions showed larger RMSDs for pilot math scores but similar predictions for reading |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2023 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
recheck_by |
2026 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — j-patrick-meyer-2023 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.