On-grade mathematics item pools yield larger SEMs and lower efficiency than all-grade pools for on-grade students, especially at the low end of the scale¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2022: 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? In CAT simulations, SEMs for on-grade simulees were consistently larger with the on-grade mathematics pool (average SEM 3.16, above the desirable SEM < 3) than with ±1-grade and all-grade pools, with the largest values at the low end of the scale. → Li 2019
Evidence¶
Li 2019¶
Li, S., & Meyer, J. P. (2019). Simulation study for evaluating MAP® Growth™ grade-level item pools. Portland, OR: NWEA. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/simulation-study-for-evaluating-map-growth-item-pools-with-grade-level-constraints/
q2 · i? · causal · r2
CAT simulation of mathematics item pools using the SAS sandbox tool, with 500 simulees per true RIT point drawn from empirical 2016–2017 distributions. The on-grade pool's "average SEM for the on-grade pool is 3.16", versus averages below 3 for the ±1-grade and all-grade pools.
"The average SEM for the on-grade pool is 3.16, which is above the desirable value for precise measurement (i.e., SEM < 3). In the worst case (Grade 8, RIT = 190), the on-grade test would need to be 2.8 times longer than a test from the all-grade pool"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The study examines how CAT test design and item bank distribution affect content coverage and test efficiency in a CCSS-aligned reading comprehension test — related
- On-grade item pools cause content balancing failures for off-grade-ability students, while all-grade pools improve balancing and language usage tests remained balanced throughout — related
- Testing students with off-grade ability using on-grade item pools substantially diminishes measurement precision compared with all-grade pools — related
- Reading SEMs exceed those in mathematics under all pool types, and only the all-grade reading pool meets the operational SEM stopping rule on average — related
- Bias and RMSE of ability estimates are larger for on-grade item pools than for ±1-grade and all-grade pools across content areas and simulee types — related
- Restricted item pools show higher item use rates than all-grade pools, and use rates drop sharply for off-grade simulees — related
- CAT development decisions influence and might threaten content alignment — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
on-grade-math-pools-larger-sem-low-end |
title |
On-grade mathematics item pools yield larger SEMs and lower efficiency than all-grade pools for on-grade students, especially at the low end of the scale |
description |
On-grade mathematics item pools yield larger SEMs and lower efficiency than all-grade pools for on-grade students, especially at the low end of the scale |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
recheck_by |
2022 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — li-2019 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.