Evaluating the Criterion Validity and Classification Accuracy of Universal Screening Measures in Reading

Educators use universal screening in the context of Response to Intervention frameworks to identify students who may be at risk for not meeting proficiency on the state assessment. Given the potential high-stakes of state tests, using accurate screening systems is critical for early remediation. Independent research is emerging on comprehensive and expensive reading screeners such as the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), a computer adaptive test, and the Strategic Teaching Evaluation of Progress (STEP), a developmental reading assessment. The current study evaluated the criterion-related validity of MAP and STEP with a state assessment. Additionally, the utility of each screening measure to distinguish between students at risk and not at risk for reading failure was evaluated. Participants were two cohorts (Cohort 1 N = 209; Cohort 2 N = 115) of children enrolled in a public charter school system. MAP and STEP were administered in spring of second grade, and fall and spring of third grade. Results suggested that MAP and STEP scores were significant strong predictors of third-grade state assessment scores. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that STEP scores explained more variance in scores on the state assessment above and beyond MAP scores alone; however, this effect was generally small. Furthermore, findings support the utility of MAP and STEP in distinguishing between students at risk for not meeting reading proficiency. Altogether, results from this study support the use of both of MAP and STEP scores to predict reading performance. However, MAP alone may be sufficient as a single screening measure