California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA ...California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) The CAPA is an individually administered performance assessment that is used

California Department of Education Standards and Assessment Division

California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA)

Technical Report Spring 2007 Administration

February 2008 Educational Testing Service (ETS)

Contract no. 5417

STAR Program

Table of Contents Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................1

Background ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Education Code 60602 Legislative Intent ....................................................................................................................................... 1

California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) ............................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 1. Test Overview..................................................................................................................................................3

Test Content ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Target Population ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Scores for Analysis and Reporting.................................................................................................................................................. 3

Chapter 2. Content Validity ..............................................................................................................................................5 CAPA Assessment Review Panel .................................................................................................................................................... 5

Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Composition.................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

CAPA Task Writers......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 CAPA Development Procedures ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

Test Assembly ................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Test Specifications.......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Task Development .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Internal Reviews ............................................................................................................................................................................. 9 ARP Meetings for Review of CAPA Tasks .................................................................................................................................. 10 SPAR Review Panel ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Chapter 3. Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................................12 Classical Task Analyses ................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Differential Task [Item} Functioning (DIF) Analyses................................................................................................................. 13 Reliability........................................................................................................................................................................................ 15

Test Score Reliability.................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Standard Error of Measurement .................................................................................................................................................... 16 Inter-Rater Reliability ................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy..................................................................................................................... 17

Scaling and Production of Scoring Tables ................................................................................................................................... 18 Task Calibration and Equating...................................................................................................................................................... 18 Equating Samples ......................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Statistical Analysis Results ............................................................................................................................................................ 20 Chapter 4. Statewide Assessment Results ......................................................................................................................60

Participation ................................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Test Results..................................................................................................................................................................................... 63

References....................................................................................................................................................................... 108 Appendix A. Individual Task Statistics........................................................................................................................ 109

Tables Table 1.1 Summary of CAPA Assessment Levels.......................................................................................................................... 3 Table 1.2 Base Rubrics for CAPA Scoring .................................................................................................................................... 3 Table 2.1 CAPA ARP Member Education, by Subject and Total................................................................................................ 6 Table 2.2 Statistical Specifications for CAPA................................................................................................................................ 8 Table 3.1 Student Subgroups for DIF Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 14 Table 3.2 DIF Flags based on the ETS DIF Classification Scheme............................................................................................ 15 Table 3.3 Operational Test and Associated Task Summary Statistics....................................................................................... 22 Table 3.4 Frequency of Operational Task Scores: ELA ............................................................................................................. 23 Table 3.5 Frequency of Operational Task Scores: Mathematics................................................................................................ 24 Table 3.6 Raw Score Intercorrelations by Section: Level I ........................................................................................................ 25 Table 3.7 Raw Score Intercorrelations by Section: Level II....................................................................................................... 25 Table 3.8 Raw Score Intercorrelations by Section: Level III ..................................................................................................... 25 Table 3.9 Raw Score Intercorrelations by Section: Level IV...................................................................................................... 25 Table 3.10 Raw Score Intercorrelations by Section: Level V ..................................................................................................... 25 Table 3.11 Ethnic Group DIF Statistics for C Category Tasks .................................................................................................. 26 Table 3.12 Disability Group DIF Statistics for C Category Tasks ............................................................................................. 27 Table 3.13 Double Rater Summary for Operational Tasks: Level I .......................................................................................... 30 Table 3.14 Double Rater Summary for Operational Tasks: Level II ........................................................................................ 31 Table 3.15 Double Rater Summary for Operational Tasks: Level III ....................................................................................... 32 Table 3.16 Double Rater Summary for Operational Tasks: Level IV ....................................................................................... 33 Table 3.17 Double Rater Summary for Operational Tasks: Level V......................................................................................... 34

Page ii

STAR Program

Table 3.18 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level I English–Language Arts*......................................... 35 Table 3.19 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level I Mathematics*........................................................... 35 Table 3.20 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level II English–Language Arts* ....................................... 36 Table 3.21 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level II Mathematics* ......................................................... 36 Table 3.22 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level III English–Language Arts*...................................... 37 Table 3.23 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level III Mathematics* ....................................................... 37 Table 3.24 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level IV English–Language Arts*...................................... 38 Table 3.25 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level IV Mathematics*........................................................ 38 Table 3.26 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level V English–Language Arts* ....................................... 39 Table 3.27 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level V Mathematics* ......................................................... 39 Table 3.28 CAPA 2007 Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations: Equating Sample vs. Total .......................................... 40 Table 3.29 Evaluation of Common Tasks between New and Reference Test Forms................................................................ 40 Table 3.30 Score Conversions: ELA Level I ................................................................................................................................ 41 Table 3.31 Score Conversions: Mathematics Level I .................................................................................................................. 42 Table 3.32 Score Conversions: ELA Level II............................................................................................................................... 43 Table 3.33 Score Conversions: Mathematics Level II ................................................................................................................. 44 Table 3.34 Score Conversions: ELA Level III ............................................................................................................................. 45 Table 3.35 Score Conversions: Mathematics Level III ............................................................................................................... 46 Table 3.36 Score Conversions: ELA Level IV ............................................................................................................................. 47 Table 3.37 Score Conversions: Mathematics Level IV................................................................................................................ 48 Table 3.38 Score Conversions: ELA Level V............................................................................................................................... 49 Table 3.39 Score Conversions: Mathematics Level V ................................................................................................................. 50 Table 3.40 Scale Score Frequency Distributions: Level I ELA and Mathematics .................................................................... 51 Table 3.41 Scale Score Frequency Distributions: Level II ELA and Mathematics .................................................................. 52 Table 3.42 Scale Score Frequency Distributions: Level III ELA and Mathematics................................................................. 53 Table 3.43 Scale Score Frequency Distributions: Level IV ELA and Mathematics ................................................................. 54 Table 3.44 Scale Score Frequency Distributions: Level V ELA and Mathematics................................................................... 55 Table 3.45 Raw Score Frequency Distributions: Level I Science ............................................................................................... 56 Table 3.46 Raw Score Frequency Distributions: Level III Science............................................................................................ 57 Table 3.47 Raw Score Frequency Distributions: Level IV Science ............................................................................................ 58 Table 3.48 Raw Score Frequency Distributions: Level V Science.............................................................................................. 59 Table 4.1 Distribution of Students Across Test Levels................................................................................................................ 60 Table 4.2 Disability Distributions across All Levels .................................................................................................................... 60 Table 4.3 Level I Disability Distributions..................................................................................................................................... 61 Table 4.4 Level II Disability Distributions ................................................................................................................................... 61 Table 4.5 Level III Disability Distributions ................................................................................................................................. 62 Table 4.6 Level IV Disability Distributions.................................................................................................................................. 62 Table 4.7 Level V Disability Distributions ................................................................................................................................... 63 Table 4.8 Performance Score Distributions for All Examinees*: English–Language Arts 2007 ............................................. 64 Table 4.9 Performance Score Distributions for All Examinees*: Mathematics 2007............................................................... 66 Table 4.10 Performance Score Distributions*: Level I English–Language Arts ...................................................................... 68 Table 4.11 Performance Score Distributions*: Level I Mathematics ........................................................................................ 70 Table 4.12 Performance Score Distributions*: Level II English–Language Arts..................................................................... 72 Table 4.13 Performance Score Distributions*: Level II Mathematics....................................................................................... 74 Table 4.14 Performance Score Distributions*: Level III English–Language Arts ................................................................... 76 Table 4.15 Performance Score Distributions*: Level III Mathematics ..................................................................................... 78 Table 4.16 Performance Score Distributions*: Level IV English–Language Arts.................................................................... 80 Table 4.17 Performance Score Distributions*: Level IV Mathematics ..................................................................................... 82 Table 4.18 Performance Score Distributions*: Level V English–Language Arts ..................................................................... 84 Table 4.19 Performance Score Distributions*: Level V Mathematics ....................................................................................... 86 Table 4.20 Scale Score Distributions*: Level I English–Language Arts.................................................................................... 88 Table 4.21 Scale Score Distributions*: Level I Mathematics ..................................................................................................... 90 Table 4.22 Scale Score Distributions*: Level II English–Language Arts .................................................................................. 92 Table 4.23 Scale Score Distributions*: Level II Mathematics.................................................................................................... 94 Table 4.24 Scale Score Distributions*: Level III English–Language Arts ................................................................................ 96 Table 4.25 Scale Score Distributions*: Level III Mathematics .................................................................................................. 98 Table 4.26 Scale Score Distributions*: Level IV English–Language Arts............................................................................... 100 Table 4.27 Scale Score Distributions*: Level IV Mathematics................................................................................................. 102 Table 4.28 Scale Score Distributions*: Level V English–Language Arts ................................................................................ 104 Table 4.29 Scale Score Distributions*: Level V Mathematics .................................................................................................. 106 Table A.1 2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level I .......................................................................................................................... 109 Table A.2 2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level II ......................................................................................................................... 111 Table A.3 2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level III ....................................................................................................................... 112 Table A.4 2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level IV........................................................................................................................ 114 Table A.5 2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level V ......................................................................................................................... 116

Page iii

STAR Program

CAPA Technical Report Acronyms and Initialisms 1PPC 1-parameter partial credit AIS average task (item) score API Academic Performance Index ARP Assessment Review Panel AYP Adequate Yearly Progress CAHSEE CAPA

California High School Exit Examination California Alternate Performance Assessment

CAT/6 Survey California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition Survey CDE California Department of Education CI confidence interval CSEM conditional standard error of measurement CST California Standards Tests DIF Differential Task [Item} Functioning ELA English–language arts EM expectation maximization ETS Educational Testing Service GENASYS Generalized Analysis System ICC task (item)characteristic curves IEP individualized education program IRT task (item) response theory MAD mean absolute differences NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress NCLB No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 NR No Response SBE State Board of Education SD standard deviation SEM standard error of measurement SMD standardized mean difference SPAR statewide pupil assessment review STAR Standardized Testing and Reporting STS Standards-based Tests in Spanish TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language WRMSD weighted root mean square difference

Page iv

Introduction | Background

Introduction Background

In 1997 and 1998, the California State Board of Education (SBE) adopted rigorous content standards in four major content areas: English–language arts (ELA), mathematics, history–social science, and science. These standards were designed to guide instruction and learning for all students in the state and to bring California students to world-class levels of achievement.

In order to measure and evaluate student achievement of the content standards, the state instituted the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program. This Program, administered annually, was authorized in 1997 by state law (Senate Bill 376). Senate Bill 1448, approved by the Legislature and the Governor in August 2004, reauthorized the STAR Program through January 1, 2011, in grades three through eleven. STAR Program testing in grade two has been extended to the 2007–08 school year (spring 2008 administration).

The primary goal of the STAR Program is to help measure how well students are learning required academic skills. The STAR Program has five components:

• California Standards Tests (CSTs) produced for California public schools • California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition Survey (CAT/6 Survey) for grades 3 and 7,

published by CTB/McGraw-Hill • California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA), an assessment produced for students

with significant cognitive disabilities who are not able to take the CSTs and the CAT/6 Survey

• Standards-based Tests in Spanish (STS), an assessment of California content standards for Spanish-speaking English learners in grades 2–4 in spring 2007

• Aprenda: La prueba de logros en español, Tercera edición (Aprenda 3), published by Harcourt Assessment Inc., for students in grades 5–11

Education Code 60602 Legislative Intent The results for tests within the STAR Program are used for three primary purposes:

Excerpted from California Education Code Section 60602, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=60001-61000&file=60600-60603. “60602. (a) (1) First and foremost, provide information on the academic status and progress of individual pupils to those pupils, their parents, and their teachers. This information should be designed to assist in the improvement of teaching and learning in California public classrooms. The Legislature recognizes that, in addition to statewide assessments that will occur as specified in this chapter, school districts will conduct additional ongoing pupil diagnostic assessment and provide information regarding pupil performance based on those assessments on a regular basis to parents or guardians and schools. The legislature further recognizes that local diagnostic assessment is a primary mechanism through which academic strengths and weaknesses are identified.” “60602. (a) (4) Provide information to pupils, parents or guardians, teachers, schools, and school districts on a timely basis so that the information can be used to further the development of the pupil and to improve the educational program.” “60602. (c) It is the intent of the Legislature that parents, classroom teachers, other educators, governing board members of school districts, and the public be involved, in an active and ongoing basis, in the design and implementation of the statewide pupil assessment program and the development of assessment instruments.”

February 2008 CAPA Technical Report | Spring 2007 Administration Page 1

Introduction | California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA)

“60602. (d) It is the intent of the Legislature, insofar as is practically feasible and following the completion of annual testing, that the content, test structure, and test items [tasks] in the assessments that are part of the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program become open and transparent to teachers, parents, and pupils, to assist all the stakeholders in working together to demonstrate improvement in pupil academic achievement. A planned change in annual test content, format, or design, should be made available to educators and the public well before the beginning of the school year in which the change will be implemented.”

Additionally, STAR program assessments are used to provide data for state and federal accountability purposes.

California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) The CAPA is an individually administered performance assessment that is used to measure the

achievement of students with significant cognitive disabilities on California’s content standards for English–language arts, mathematics, and science. CAPA is part of the STAR Program. The CAPA was added to the STAR Program in 2003 to meet the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act of 1997 (IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) that an alternate assessment be in place for those students with significant cognitive disabilities who are unable to take the general STAR CSTs even with accommodations or modifications. Eligibility for participation in CAPA is determined by the student’s individualized education program (IEP) team.

In 2007, CAPA was administered in each school during a 21-day window comprised of the ten (10) days before and ten (10) days after the day on which 85% of all instructional days for the school year were completed. This same window was used for the CSTs. Across the state, a total of 43,136 students in grades 2–11 participated in the CAPA.

This technical report outlines the statistical analyses that were carried out in support of the 2007 CAPA. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the test content, target population, and scoring procedures. Chapter 2 describes the procedures required to substantiate the content validity of the CAPA test. Chapter 3 details the statistical procedures that were carried out in support of the CAPA. These procedures include preliminary task analyses, differential task functioning analyses, equating and scaling, and various miscellaneous analyses. Chapter 4 presents statewide test results.

CAPA Technical Report | Spring 2007 Administration February 2008 Page 2

Chapter 1. Test Overview | Test Content

Chapter 1. Test Overview Table 1.1 Summary of CAPA Assessment Levels

Test Level I II III IV V Grades 2–11 2–3 4–5 6–8 9–11

Content Area

ELA ELA ELA ELA ELA Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics

Science* Science** Science*** Science**** * Grades 5, 8 and 10 only ** Grade 5 only *** Grade 8 only **** Grade 10 only

Test Content The CAPA is a standards-based, on-demand assessment designed to measure the progress of

students with significant cognitive disabilities in meeting the California content standards. The CAPA assesses English–language arts and mathematics for students in grades 2–11 and has a field-test section in science for students in grades 5, 8, and 10. CAPA has five assessment levels: Level I is for those students in grades 2–11 with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Levels II–V are age/grade appropriate. Table 1.1 summarizes the grades and content areas assessed by each CAPA level.

Target Population Students with significant cognitive disabilities in grades two through eleven who are unable to

take the STAR CSTs even with accommodations or modifications take the CAPA. Participation in CAPA and eligibility for Level I assessment is determined by the student’s IEP team. Only students whose parents/guardians have submitted written requests to exempt them from STAR Program testing do not take the tests.

Scores for Analysis and Reporting In 2007, each ELA and Mathematics test consisted of eight operational tasks and four field test

tasks. An additional science section1 was administered in grades 5, 8, and 10 for field-testing but no scores were reported. Student performance on each task is scored by one primary examiner, usually the child’s teacher or other licensed or certificated staff member who is familiar to the student and who has completed the CAPA training. To establish scoring reliability, approximately 10% of students receive a second independent rating by a trained observer who is also a licensed or certificated staff member. The Level I assessment is scored using a 5-point rubric based on the level of independence with which the student completes a task. The Level II–V assessments are scored with a 4-point rubric based on the degree to which the student completes the task and includes task-specific qualifiers to aid in the objective scoring of each task. Table 1.2 provides the general rubrics applied to the CAPA tasks.

Table 1.2 Base Rubrics for CAPA Scoring Level I Levels II–V

Score Points Description


5 Complete task without prompts 4 Completes task with 100% accuracy

4 Completes task with a verbal or gestural prompt 3 Partially completes task (scoring criteria

specific to the task)

1 This was the fourth year of science field tests at Levels I, III, and V and the third year at Level IV. In the 2007 science field test there were eight field-test forms per level. Each field test form had five common or core tasks.


Chapter 1. Test Overview | Scores for Analysis and Reporting

Level I Levels II–V Score Points Description


3 Completes task with a physical or modeled prompt 2 Minimally completes task (scoring

criteria specific to the task) 2 Attempts task 1 Attempts task 1 Orients to task 0 No Response 0 No Response

For test scoring purposes, No Response (NR) ratings were assigned a task raw score of zero. Thus, CAPA raw scores range from 0 to 40 for Level I and from 0 to 32 for Levels II–V. For CAPA, raw scores are converted to scale scores ranging from 15 to 60. Performance levels based on scale scores include: Far Below Basic, Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Basic and Proficient cut points are at scale scores of 30 and 35, respectively. The cut points for Below Basic and Advanced vary by CAPA assessment level and content area. (For information on the standard setting procedures used to establish cut points, see the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) Standard Setting Technical Report, submitted to the California Department of Education [CDE] on July 8, 2003.)


Chapter 2. Content Validity | CAPA Assessment Review Panel

Chapter 2. Content Validity Content validity refers to the degree to which the content of a test is congruent with the purpose of

the testing. CAPA tasks were developed to align with the content standards that are representative of the broader content domains: ELA, mathematics, and science. Thus, the content-related evidence of validity concerns the extent to which the test tasks represent these specified content domains and cognitive dimensions.

Content validity also provides information about how well a performance task measures its intended construct. Such validity is determined by a critical review of the performance tasks by experts in the field. For the CAPA, these reviews are conducted by a number of experts in their designated areas from both the CDE and Educational Testing Service (ETS). For these reviews, ETS senior content staff worked directly with CDE content consultants. The CDE content consultants each have extensive experience in K–12 assessments, particularly in their subject of expertise, and many are former teachers. At minimum, each CDE content consultant holds a bachelor's degree; most have advanced degrees in their area of expertise. All ETS content and test development staff have extensive experience with K–12 assessments, experience in teaching students with a broad range of disabilities, and understanding of the California standards.

CAPA Assessment Review Panel In addition to the thorough content reviews completed by ETS content-area experts and the

content staff at the CDE, all CAPA performance tasks are reviewed by a content-area Assessment Review Panel (ARP). The ARPs are advisory panels to ETS on areas related to task development for the CAPA. Their credentials are presented later in this document.

Purpose ETS is responsible for working with ARPs as tasks are developed for the CAPA tests. For the

2007 development cycle, the ARPs were responsible for reviewing all newly developed tasks for alignment to the California content standards. The ARPs also reviewed the tasks for accuracy of task content, clarity of phrasing, and task quality. ETS provided the ARPs with the opportunity to review the tasks with the applicable field-test statistics and to make recommendations for the use of tasks in subsequent test forms. The ARPs may raise concerns in their examination of test tasks related to age/grade appropriateness, and to gender, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic bias.

The ARPs are also responsible for reviewing all newly developed performance tasks for alignment to the California content standards. Specifically, they determine if performance tasks are:

• Measuring the California standards as appropriate for the CAPA testing population • Free from bias to the degree possible • Interesting and appropriate to students tested at a particular grade/course level

Composition Every effort is made to ensure that ARP committees include representation of gender and of the

geographic regions and ethnic groups in California. For CAPA, efforts are also made to ensure representation by members with experience serving California’s diverse special education population.

The ARPs are comprised of current and former special education teachers, resource specialists, administrators, curricular experts, and other education professionals. Current school staff members must meet minimum qualifications to serve on the CAPA ARPs, including:

• Experience with students who have severe cognitive disabilities; • Experience with more than one type of disability;


Chapter 2. Content Validity | CAPA Assessment Review Panel

• Three or more years of general teaching experience in grades kindergarten through twelve and in the content areas (English–language arts, mathematics, or science); or special education teaching experience;

• Bachelor’s or higher degree in special education or in a subject area related to English– language arts, mathematics, or science; and

• Knowledge and experience with the California content standards in English–language arts, mathematics, or science.

School administrators, district/county content/program specialists, or university educators serving on the CAPA ARPs must meet the following qualifications:

• Three or more years of experience as a school administrator, district/county content/program specialist, or university instructor in the area of special education or areas related to English– language arts, mathematics, or science;

• Bachelor’s or higher degree in special education or in a subject area related to English– language arts, mathematics, or science; and

• Knowledge of and experience with the California content standards in English–language arts, mathematics, or science.

For CAPA, efforts are also made to ensure representation by members with experience serving California’s diverse special education population.

Current ARP members were recruited through an application process. Recommendations were solicited from districts and county offices of education in addition to CDE and SBE staff. Applications are received and reviewed throughout the year. ARP applications are reviewed by the ETS Assessment Directors, who confirm that the applicant’s qualifications meet the specified criteria. Applications that meet the criteria are forwarded to the CDE and SBE staff for review and final approval. Upon approval, the applicant is notified that he or she has been selected to serve on the ARP committee. Table 2.1 shows the qualifications and background of the current CAPA ARP members.

Currently, there are no term limits for ARP members. While most members participate in the ARP meetings for only one STAR testing program, some members serve on more than one panel to encourage consistency in decisions among the STAR testing programs. ETS and CDE annually review the ARP membership for active participation. Members who have not attended a meeting within the last two years are notified that their invitation to participate may be withdrawn due to lack of attendance at meetings. In addition, ETS and CDE regularly review concerns about members whose conduct may be unprofessional and not conducive to the purpose of the ARP. If the concerns are determined to be valid, membership is revoked immediately.

Table 2.1 CAPA ARP Member Education, by Subject and Total

ELA Math Science Total Total 8 6 8 22 Occupation (Members may teach at multiple levels) Teacher or Program Specialist, Elementary/Middle School 3 2 0 5 Teacher or Program Specialist, High School 1 0 3 4 Teacher or Program Specialist, K–12 5 3 4 12 University Personnel 0 0 1 1 Other District Personnel (e.g., Director of Special Services, etc.) 1 2 2 5


Chapter 2. Content Validity | CAPA Task Writers

ELA Math Science Total Total 8 6 8 22 Highest Degree Earned Bachelor’s Degree 8 6 8 22 Master’s Degree 6 5 8 19 Doctorate 0 0 1 1 Credential (Members may hold multiple credentials) Elementary Teaching (Multiple Subjects) 5 2 1 8 Secondary Teaching (Single Subject) 0 1 4 5 Special Education 1 4 3 8 Reading Specialist 1 0 0 1 English Learner (CLAD, BCLAD) 1 0 1 2 Administrative 1 2 1 4 Other 2 2 1 5 None (teaching at university level) 0 0 1 1

CAPA Task Writers The tasks selected for each CAPA test are developed by special panels of California teachers.

Applicants for task writing were screened by senior ETS content staff; only those with strong content and special education backgrounds were approved for inclusion in the training. Thus, the participants were particularly experienced in writing to the standards assessed on CAPA. All task writers met the following minimum qualifications:

• Bachelor’s or master’s degree in special education or in a specified content area being tested • Three or more years of general education teaching experience in the content areas (English–

language arts, mathematics, and science); or special education teaching experience; or experience as a school administrator or program specialist

• Experience with students who have severe cognitive disabilities • Experience with more than one type of disability • Knowledge about the capabilities of the students taking these tests • Knowledge and experience with California content standards in English–language arts, math,

or science Participants attended a general CAPA task development training session, and then were given

specific subject-area training. After viewing multiple examples of previously written CAPA tasks, participants were given task writing assignments. ETS facilitators provided feedback, and peer review methods were employed.

CAPA Development Procedures The CAPA exams were constructed to measure the California content standards as well as to meet

psychometric criteria for difficulty and reliability. The psychometric criteria were evaluated using projections based on task statistics from field-testing or previous operational administrations.

Test Assembly Test blueprints for the components of the STAR Program (which includes CAPA) were proposed

by ETS, reviewed and approved by the respective ARPs, also reviewed and approved by the CDE, and presented to the SBE for adoption. These were updated for the 2007 operational CAPA tests. For each test, the California content standards were used as the basis for choosing tasks. Additional


Chapter 2. Content Validity | CAPA Development Procedures

technical targets (e.g., difficulty and discrimination) for test construction were established based on past characteristics of the tests, with the goal of maintaining parallel forms to the greatest extent possible.

Test Specifications Statistical Specifications The primary statistical targets used for CAPA test assembly in 2007 were based on the task

difficulty (mean, minimum, and maximum) and the biserial correlation (mean and minimum). The biserial correlation is a measure of how well the tasks discriminate among test takers and is related to the overall reliability of the test.

These specifications were developed from the analyses of test forms administered in the years from 2002 to 2005; the target values and ranges for the specifications are presented in Table 2.2 below. The minimum target value for a task polyserial was set at 0.55 for each test.

Table 2.2 Statistical Specifications for CAPA

Subject CAPA Level

Mean AIS*

Min AIS*

Max AIS

Mean Polyserial

Min Polyserial

I 2.55–2.95 1.50 4.00 0.80–0.85 0.60

English–Language Arts II 2.00–2.40 1.20 3.20 0.80–0.85 0.60 III 2.00–2.40 1.20 3.20 0.80–0.85 0.60 IV 2.00–2.40 1.20 3.20 0.80–0.85 0.60 V 2.00–2.40 1.20 3.20 0.80–0.85 0.60 I 2.55–2.95 1.50 4.00 0.80–0.85 0.60 II 2.00–2.40 1.20 3.20 0.80–0.85 0.60

Mathematics III 2.00–2.40 1.20 3.20 0.80–0.85 0.60 IV 2.00–2.40 1.20 3.20 0.80–0.85 0.60 V 2.00–2.40 1.20 3.20 0.80–0.85 0.60

*AIS=Average Task (Item) Score

Content Specifications ETS developed all CAPA test tasks to conform to the SBE-approved content standards and test

blueprints. The content blueprints for the CAPA can be found on the CDE Web site, at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/capablueprints.asp.

Task Development ETS senior content staff led the task writers in the task development and review process. In

addition, experienced ETS content specialists and assessment editors reviewed each task during development and the forms construction processes. The lead assessment specialist for each content area worked directly with the other ETS assessment specialists to carefully review and edit each task for technical characteristics like quality (for example, one right answer, clearly stated stem, absence of clueing, plausibility of, distractors), match to standard, and conformity with California-approved task-writing practices.

ETS has maintained task specifications for each CAPA test. ETS followed the SBE-approved Task Utilization Plan to guide the development of the quantity of tasks for each subject area.

Task specification documents included the constructs to be measured and the California content standards included in the test blueprints. The task specifications help ensure that the CAPA tests consistently match the content standards from year to year. Task writing emphasis is determined in consultation with the CDE. The task specifications also provide specific and important guidance to



task writers, and ensure that tasks are consistent in approach and written to measure the standards. The task specifications describe the general characteristics of the tasks for each content standard or content to be avoided, and define the content limits for the tasks. In summary, the specifications included the following:

• A statement of the strand or topic for the standard • A full statement of the academic content standard, as found in each CAPA blueprint • The expected cognitive level(s) of tasks written for the standard (low, medium, or high), as

defined by ETS and approved by CDE • The construct(s) appropriately measured by the standard • A description of the kinds of tasks appropriate for the standard • A description of specific kinds of tasks to be avoided, if any • A description of appropriate stimuli (e.g., stimulus cards or manipulatives) for tasks • A description of observable behaviors for science

Internal Reviews After the tasks were written, ETS employed a series of internal reviews. The reviews established

the criteria used to judge the content validity of the tasks, making sure that each task was measuring what it was intended to measure. The internal reviews also examined the overall quality of the tasks before they were prepared for presentation to CDE and the ARPs. Because of the complexities involved in producing defensible tasks for high-stakes programs such as the STAR Program, it is essential that many experienced individuals review each task before it is brought to CDE and the ARP and SPAR panels.

The ETS review process for the CAPA included the following: 1. Internal content review 2. Internal editorial review 3. Internal sensitivity review

Throughout this multi-step review process, the lead content area assessment specialists and development team members continually evaluated the relevance of the information being assessed, its relevance to the California content standards, its match to the test and task specifications, and its appropriateness to the population being assessed. Tasks that are only peripherally related to the test and task specifications, that do not measure core outcomes reflected in the California content standards, or that are not developmentally appropriate were eliminated early in this rigorous review process.

1. Internal Content Review CAPA tasks materials received two reviews from the content area assessment specialists. These

assessment specialists made sure that the tasks and related materials were in compliance with ETS’s written guidelines for clarity, style, accuracy, and appropriateness for California students, and in compliance with the approved task specifications. Assessment specialists reviewed each task following the criteria below:

• Relevance of each task as the task relates to the purpose of the test • Match of each task to the task specifications, including cognitive level • Match of each task to the principles of quality task development • Match of each task to the identified standard • Difficulty of the task • Accuracy of the content of the task



• CAPA-level appropriateness of the task • Appropriateness of any stimulus cards or manipulatives The assessment specialists also checked all tasks against their cluster classification codes, both to

evaluate the correctness of the classification and to ensure that a given task is of a type appropriate to the outcome it was intended to measure. The reviewers accepted the task and classification as written, suggested revisions, or recommended that the tasks be discarded. These steps occurred prior to CDE review.

2. Internal Editorial Review After the content area assessment specialists reviewed each task, a group of specially trained

editors reviewed each task in preparation for review by CDE and the ARPs. The editors checked questions for clarity, correctness of language, appropriateness of language, adherence to the style guidelines, and conformity with accepted task writing practices.

3. Internal Sensitivity Review ETS assessment specialists who are specially trained to identify and eliminate questions that

contain content or wording that could be construed to be offensive to or biased against members of specific ethnic, racial, or gender groups, conducted the next level of review. These trained staff members reviewed every task before it was prepared for CDE and ARP review. In addition, the review process promoted a general awareness of and responsiveness to the following:

• Cultural diversity • Diversity of background, cultural tradition and viewpoints to be found in the test-taking

populations • Changing roles and attitudes toward various groups • Role of language in setting and changing attitudes toward various groups • Contributions of diverse groups (including ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and

women) to the history and culture of the United States and the achievements of individuals within these groups

ARP Meetings for Review of CAPA Tasks The ETS content area assessment specialists facilitated the CAPA ARP meetings. Each meeting

began with a brief training session on how to review tasks. ETS provided this training, which consisted of the following steps:

• An overview of the purpose and scope of the CAPA • An overview of CAPA test design specifications and blueprints • An analysis of CAPA task specifications • An overview of criteria for reviewing constructed-response tasks • Review and evaluation of tasks for bias and sensitivity issues The criteria for evaluating constructed-response tasks included: • overall technical quality • match to the California content standards • match to the construct being assessed by the standard • difficulty range • clarity • bias and sensitivity factors The committee was also trained on how to make recommendations for revising tasks. Guidelines

for reviewing tasks were provided by ETS and approved by CDE. The guidelines for reviewing tasks are summarized below:



Task Guidelines: Does the task… • Measure the content standard? • Match the test task specifications? • Align with the construct being measured? • Test worthwhile concepts or information? • Include administrator directions that give the student a full sense of what the task is asking? • Avoid unnecessary wordiness? • Reflect content that is free from bias against any person or group? Stimulus Guidelines: Is the stimulus (if any) for the task… • Required in order to answer the task? • Likely to be interesting to students? • Clearly and correctly labeled? • Providing all the information needed to answer the task? As the first step of the task review process, panel members reviewed a set of tasks independently

and recorded their individual comments. The next step in the review process was for the group to discuss each task. The content area assessment specialists facilitated the discussion and recorded all recommendations. These recommendations were recorded in a master task review booklet. Task review binders and other task evaluation materials also identified potential bias and sensitivity factors the ARP considers as part of its task reviews.

ETS staff maintained the minutes summarizing the review process and then forwarded copies of the minutes to the CDE, emphasizing in particular the recommendations of the panel members.

SPAR Review Panel The statewide pupil assessment review (SPAR) panel is responsible for reviewing and approving a

single achievement test to be used statewide for the testing of students in California public schools, grades 2–11. At the SPAR panel meetings, all new tasks were presented in binders for review. The SPAR panel representatives ensured that the test tasks conformed to the requirements of Education Code Section 60614. The constructed-response tasks were also presented for review. If the SPAR panel rejected specific tasks and/or constructed-response tasks, the tasks and/or tasks were replaced. For the SPAR panel meeting, the task development coordinator or an ETS content specialist who had been requested in advance by CDE attended the opening session and remained at a nearby location or near a telephone to be available to respond to any questions during the course of the meeting.


Chapter 3. Analysis | Classical Task Analyses

Chapter 3. Analysis Following the scanning of answer documents, student demographic and task response data were

transmitted to the ETS statistical analysis division. ETS research and statistical analysis staff had primary responsibility for analyzing CAPA operational and field test data to ensure accuracy and validity of scoring. Most of the psychometric work was carried out using Generalized Analysis System (GENASYS), proprietary statistical analysis software developed by ETS. The GENASYS system includes components for establishing testing program statistical information, processing scores for students (including case sampling and scoring of multiple-choice tasks), traditional task analyses, and task response theory (IRT) analyses.

The proprietary version of PARSCALE (Muraki & Bock, 1999) that is contained within GENASYS allows for estimation of IRT task parameters for polytomously scored tasks. It has been thoroughly tested and is currently utilized by several high-stakes testing programs administered by ETS, including the California STAR assessments and the California High School Exit Examinations (CAHSEE), as well as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). All technical support and analyses were carried out in accordance with the ETS Standards for Quality and Fairness (2002).

ETS staff verified the output from the scoring programs to ensure the accuracy of the scoring process. After the operational administration, ETS analysis staff ran a set of preliminary task analyses based on a sample of the early answer document receipts. The preliminary task analyses were used to assure the accuracy of the scoring and to get an initial indication of how tasks were functioning. A minimum of approximately 1,500 answer sheets at each assessment level from a heterogeneous sample of different schools (that is, diverse in geography and demographic characteristics) were used. ETS instituted a set of flags that automatically identified tasks with questionable performance characteristics.

Content specialists examined all flagged tasks to verify that the tasks in the published test books were correct and unambiguous.

After scoring, ETS subjected all test tasks to extensive statistical analyses. These analyses showed which tasks were at an appropriate difficulty level for the testing population and screened for differential task difficulty for subgroups of the state’s population. Additionally, ETS content specialists confirmed the task-to-standard match for each of the content areas.

The analysis of the test data can be broken down into several components: • Classical task analyses • Differential task functioning (DIF) analyses • Reliability analyses; and • Scaling and production of scoring tables. In the sections that follow, the analysis procedures for each component are described in detail.

Tables summarizing the analyses are provided at the end of the chapter.

Classical Task Analyses Classical task analyses involve computing, for every task in each form, a set of statistics based on

classical test theory. Each statistic is designed to provide some key information about the quality of the task from an empirical perspective. The statistics calculated for CAPA operational and field test analyses are described below.

• Average Task (Item) Score (AIS): For polytomously scored tasks, this statistic indicates the average rating earned on the task. Desired values generally fall within the range of 30–80% of the maximum task score. Occasionally, tasks that fall outside this range can be justified for


Chapter 3. Analysis | Differential Task [Item} Functioning (DIF) Analyses

inclusion in an task bank or a test form based upon the quality and educational importance of the task content or to better measure students with very high or low achievement. CAPA rubrics range from 0 to 4 or from 0 to 5 depending on the test level. As a result, the average task score for a CAPA task falls between 0 and either 4 or 5 corresponding to the rubric in use. For Level I tasks, which are scored on a 0–5 point rubric, 30% is represented by the value 1.50 and 80% is represented by the value 4.00. For Levels II–V tasks, which are scored on a 0–4 point rubric, 30% is represented by the value 1.20 and 80% is represented by the value 3.20.

• Polyserial correlation of the task score with the total test score: This statistic describes the relationship between performance on the specific task and performance on the total test. It is sometimes referred to as a discrimination index because it is an indicator of the degree to which students who do well on the total test also do well on this task. Tasks with negative or extremely low correlations can indicate serious problems with the task itself or can indicate that students have not been taught the content. Since the tasks are polytomously scored, the polyserial correlations tend to be higher than dichotomously scored items. Also, since the CAPA tasks are composed of eight operational tasks, the average discrimination must be high so that the test is sufficiently reliable. That is, the polyserials for tasks included in the operational forms are high because the tasks are polytomous and there are few of them. Based on the range of polyserials produced in field test analyses, an indicator of poor discrimination was set to .60.

• Pearson Product Moment Correlation: For all tasks, this statistic was also computed and is included in Appendix A. The formula for this correlation between two variables, X and Y, is

cov( x y, )ρ = [3.1]

For the CAPA analyses, flags were defined in order to identify tasks with extreme values. Flagged tasks were subject to additional scrutiny by statistical analysis and test development staff. The following flagging criteria were applied to all tasks tested in Spring 2007:

• Difficulty Flags: o A: Low average task score (e.g. below 1.5 at Level I; below 1.2 at Levels II–V) o H: High average task score (e.g. above 4.0 at Level I; above 3.2 at Levels II–V)

• Discrimination Flag: o R: Polyserial correlation less than .60

• Omit/Nonresponse/Flag: o O: Omit/Nonresponse rates greater than 5%

Results of these analyses are presented in Appendix A on page 109.

Differential Task [Item} Functioning (DIF) Analyses One of the goals of test development is to assemble a set of tasks that provides an estimate of a

student’s ability that is as fair and accurate as possible for all groups within the population. DIF statistics are used to identify those tasks for which identifiable groups of students with the same underlying level of ability have different probabilities of answering correctly.

If the task is differentially more difficult for an identifiable subgroup when conditioned on ability, the task may be measuring something different from the intended construct. However, it is important to recognize that DIF-flagged tasks might be related to actual differences in relevant knowledge or skills (task impact) or statistical Type 1 error. As a result, DIF statistics are used to identify potential

var( ) var( ) xy x y


Chapter 3. Analysis | Differential Task [Item} Functioning (DIF) Analyses

sources of task bias. Subsequent review by content experts and bias/sensitivity committees are required to determine the source and meaning of performance differences.

In the CAPA DIF analyses, DIF statistics were estimated for all major subgroups with sufficient sample size. These groups were identified by CDE and are listed in Table 3.1. Tasks with statistically significant differences in performance were flagged so that tasks could be carefully examined for possible biased or unfair content that was undetected in earlier fairness and bias content review meetings held prior to form construction.

Table 3.1 Student Subgroups for DIF Analysis

DIF Type Reference Group Focal Group Gender Male Female Race/Ethnicity White African American

Hispanic/Latin American American Indian Asian Pacific Islander Filipino Combined Asian Group (Asian/Pacific Islander/Filipino)

Disability Mental Retardation Hard of Hearing Deafness Speech or Language Impairment Visual Impairment Emotional Disturbance Orthopedic Impairment Other Health Impairment Specific Learning Disability Deaf-Blindness Multiple Disabilities Autism Traumatic Brain Injury

DIF analyses of the CAPA polytomously scored tasks were completed using two procedures. The first is the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) ordinal procedure, which is based on the Mantel procedure (Mantel, 1963; Mantel & Haenszel, 1959), compares the proportions of matched examinees from each group in each polytomous task-response category—that is, the probability of a given task score for the studied groups of interest after matching on total test score. As with dichotomously scored tasks, the common odds ratio is estimated across all categories of matched examinee ability. The resulting estimate is interpreted as the relative likelihood of a given task score for members of two groups when matched on ability. As such, the common odds ratio provides an estimated effect size where a value of unity indicates equal odds, and thus no DIF (Dorans & Holland, 1993). The corresponding statistical test is Ho: α = 1, where α is a common odds ratio assumed equal for all matched score categories s = 1 to S. Values less than unity indicate DIF in favor of the focal group, a value of unity indicates the null condition, and a value greater than one indicates DIF in favor of the reference group. The associated MHχ2 is distributed as a chi-square random variable with 1 degree of freedom.


Chapter 3. Analysis | Reliability

The Mantel chi-square statistic is used in conjunction with a second procedure, the standardization procedure (Dorans & Schmitt, 1993). This procedure produces a DIF statistic based on the standardized mean difference (SMD) in average task scores between members of two groups who have been matched on their overall test score. The SMD compares the task means of the two studied groups after adjusting for differences in the distribution of members across the values of the matching variable (total test score). A negative SMD value means that, conditional on the matching variable, the focal group has a lower mean task score than the reference group. In contrast, a positive SMD value means that, conditional on the matching variable, the reference group has a lower mean task score than the focal group. The SMD is divided by the standard deviation (SD) of the total group task score in its original metric to produce an effect-size measure of differential performance.

The ETS classification scheme puts tasks into three DIF categories on the basis of a combination of statistical significance of the Mantel chi-square statistic and the magnitude of the SMD effect-size:

• A tasks or negligible DIF: The Mantel chi-square statistic is not statistically significant (at the 0.05 level) or |SMD/SD| < 0.17.

• B tasks or intermediate DIF: The Mantel chi-square statistic is statistically significant (at the 0.05 level) and 0.17 ≤ |SMD/SD| < 0.25

• C tasks or large DIF: The Mantel chi-square statistic is statistically significant (at the 0.05 level) and |SMD/SD| > 0.25.

Tasks classified as B+ or C+ tend to be easier for members of the focal group than for members of the reference group with comparable total scores. Tasks classified as B- or C- tend to be more difficult for members of the focal group than for members of the reference group whose total scores on the test are like those of the focal group. (See Table 3.2.)

Table 3.2 DIF Flags based on the ETS DIF Classification Scheme

Flag Descriptor A- Low DIF favoring members of the reference group B- Moderate DIF favoring members of the reference group C- High DIF favoring members of the reference group A+ Low DIF favoring members of the focal group B+ Moderate DIF favoring members of the focal group C+ High DIF favoring members of the focal group

Following standard ETS procedure, tasks classified in Category C were sent for review by test development staff and/or content review committees to consider any identifiable characteristics that may have contributed to the differential task functioning. These tasks might be revised for additional field testing or removed from the task pool.

Reliability Reliability is used to measure the extent to which an assessment will yield the same results when

administered in different occasions, locations, or populations, when the two administrations do not differ in relevant variables. Reliability coefficients are usually forms of correlation coefficients. The forms of reliability below measure different dimensions of reliability and thus any or all might be used in assessing the reliability of CAPA.

Test Score Reliability Reliability focuses on the extent to which differences in test scores reflect true differences in the

knowledge, ability, or skills being tested rather than fluctuations due to chance or factors other than those tested. The variance in the distributions of test scores—essentially, the differences among



individuals—is partly due to real differences in the knowledge, skills, or ability being tested (true variance) and partly due to random errors in the measurement process (error variance). The number used to describe reliability is an estimate of the proportion of the total variance that is true score variance. Several different ways of estimating this proportion exist.

Reliability can be evaluated using a variety of procedures. Some of the most common included test-retest, alternate forms, and internal consistency. The first two are not applicable for the California testing programs because they involve having the same students take the same or a parallel form of the same test at a later date. The third procedure, internal consistency, is, however, appropriate and allows the estimation of the reliability of the test when only a single form is administered (as in CAPA). When the goal is to estimate the precision of a set of test scores from a single administration, a measure of internal consistency is frequently used to estimate reliability. For the CAPA, a measure of internal consistency called coefficient alpha (α) was used for estimating the reliability of the test scores. The formula for coefficient alpha, given by

k ∑σi 2

α ≥ (1− 2 ) , [3.2]k −1 σX

2where k is the number of tasks on the test, ∑σ i is the task score variance summed over all tasks, and σ X

2 is the test-score variance. Coefficient alpha, α , can be thought of as a lower bound to a theoretical reliability.

Internal consistency measures apply only to the test form being analyzed. They do not take into account form-to-form variation due to equating limitations or lack of parallelism, nor are they responsive to day-to-day variation due, for example, to the state of each examinee’s health or testing environment. Reliability coefficients may range from 0 to 1. The higher the reliability coefficient for a set of scores, the more likely individuals would be to obtain very similar scores upon repeated testing occasions with parallel forms.

Standard Error of Measurement The squared standard error of measurement (SEM) is an estimate of error score variance, σ E

2 . The SEM is in the metric of the score scale and is estimated based on the standard deviation of observed scores and test reliability coefficient:

SEM = sx 1−α , [3.3]

where SEM = standard error of measurement, sx = standard deviation of observed scores, and α = coefficient of reliability (alpha). SEM is particularly useful in determining the confidence interval (CI) that captures an examinee’s

true score. Assuming that measurement error is normally distributed, it can be said that upon infinite replications of the testing occasion, approximately 95 percent of the CIs of ±1.96 SEM around the observed score would contain an examinee’s true score (Crocker & Algina, 1986). For example, if an examinee’s observed score on a given test equals 15 points, and the SEM equals 1.92, one can be 95% confident that the examinee’s true score lies between 11 and 19 points (15 ± 3.76 rounded to the nearest integer).

The conditional standard error of measurement (CSEM) is estimated as a function of measured ability. It is typically smaller in scale score units towards the center of the scale in the test metric where more tasks are located and larger at the extremes where there are fewer tasks. An examinee’s



CSEM under the IRT framework is equal to the inverse of the square root of the test information function:

CSEM(θ̂) = 1 a, [3.4]I θ( )

where CSEM( θ̂ ) is the standard error of measurement and I(θ) is the test information function. The statistic is multiplied by a , where a is the original scaling factor needed to transform theta to the scale score metric. The value of a varies by grade and subject. CSEMs are provided for each raw score point of the operational CAPA tests.

Inter-Rater Reliability Inter-rater reliability addresses the consistency of the implementation of a rating system. For the

CAPA, approximately 10% of students received two ratings, one by the primary examiner and a second independent rating by a trained observer. Consistency between the two ratings was evaluated with the following statistics:

• Number and percentage of exact agreement between raters • Number and percentage of adjacent agreement between raters • Number and percentage of nonadjacent scores between raters • Mean absolute difference between ratings for the examiner and the observer • Correlation between ratings for the examiner and the observer The Inter-Rater Reliabilities are presented by level in Tables 3.13–3.17 on pages 30–34.

Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy The methodology used for estimating the reliability of performance-level classification decisions

as described in Livingston and Lewis (1995) provides estimates of decision accuracy and classification consistency.

The term accuracy…refers to the extent to which the actual classifications of test takers (on the basis of their single-form scores) agree with those that would be made on the basis of their true scores, if their true scores could somehow be known. The term consistency refers to the agreement between the classifications based on two non-overlapping, equally difficult forms of the test. (Livingston & Lewis, 1995, p.178)

For CAPA, it is implemented using the ETS-proprietary computer program RELCLASS-COMP (Version 4.12). For each level and test, RELCLASS-COMP estimates true scores and single-form scores on forms parallel to the one actually given. RELCLASS-COMP estimates decision accuracy using an estimated joint distribution of reported performance level classifications on the current form of the exam and the performance level classifications based on an all-forms average (true score). RELCLASS-COMP estimates decision consistency using an estimated joint distribution of reported performance level classifications on the current form of the exam and performance level classifications on the alternate (parallel) form.

In each case, the proportion of performance level classifications with exact agreement is the sum of the entries in the diagonal of the contingency table representing the joint distribution. Reliability of classification at each performance level cut score is estimated by collapsing the joint distribution at the passing score boundary into a 2-by-2 table and summing the two entries in the diagonal. RELCLASS COMP also computes the effective length of the test. The Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracies are presented by level in Tables 3.18–3.27, pages 35–39.


Chapter 3. Analysis | Scaling and Production of Scoring Tables

Scaling and Production of Scoring Tables Task Calibration and Equating

Even after tests have been assembled to meet a specified level of difficulty , small differences in difficulty exist between test forms. The equating process adjusts for these differences so that test scores are comparable from form to form. For the CAPA tests, IRT equating methods are used.

The IRT model used to calibrate the CAPA test tasks was the 1-parameter partial credit (1PPC) model, a more restrictive model of the generalized partial-credit model (Muraki, 1992) where all tasks are assumed to be equally discriminating. The fundamental equation of this model is the probability that a person with proficiency θ k on scale k will have, for the j th task, a response x j

that is scored in the i th of mj ordered score categories: i

exp ∑1.7a j (θ k − b j + d jv ) v=0P(x j = i |θ k , a j ,b j , d j 0 ,..., d jm j −1 ) = m −1 g

≡ Pji (θ k ) , [3.5]j

exp 1.7a (θ − b + d )∑ ∑ j k j jv g =0 v=0

where: mj is the number of categories in the response to task j;

x j is the response to task j , with possible values 0, 1, …, mj −1;

a j is the slope parameter (equal to 0.588);

bj is the task location parameter characterizing overall difficulty; and

d jv is the category v threshold parameter

All IRT analyses were conducted using the proprietary version of PARSCALE (Muraki & Bock, 1999) that is contained within GENASYS. In IRT-based equating, once two forms have been placed on the same IRT scale through their common tasks, raw scores on a new form can be converted to raw scores on the reference form. These converted raw scores are then transformed to scale scores through table lookup and linear interpolation. The “base” or “reference” calibrations for the CAPA tests are based on the 2003 administration. For the purpose of linking to the base year, each 2007 CAPA form was constructed to include a set of five tasks that had been administered operationally in 2005. The 2007 tasks were placed on the base scale through the set of common tasks from the 2005 forms previously placed on the reference scale. (See Table 3.29 on p. 40.)

The procedures used for equating the CAPA tests involved three steps: 1. Task calibration 2. Task parameter scaling, and 3. True score equating.

These steps are described below. Step 1: For the task calibrations, the PARSCALE program was constrained by setting a common

discrimination value for all tasks equal to 1.0 / 1.7 (or 0.588). The resulting estimation was equivalent to the Rasch partial credit model for polytomously scored tasks.

The PARSCALE calibrations were run in two stages, following procedures used with other ETS testing programs. In the first stage, estimation imposed normal constraints on the updated prior ability distribution. The estimates resulting from this first stage were used as starting values for a second PARSCALE run, in which the subject prior distribution was updated after each expectation maximization (EM) cycle with no constraints. For both stages, the metric of the scale was controlled


Chapter 3. Analysis | Scaling and Production of Scoring Tables

by the constant discrimination parameters. This approach was used to obtain unscaled 2007 task parameter estimates. Each task was evaluated using fit statistics in conjunction with plots of model-data fit that were generated by the GENASYS system. Tasks flagged for potential misfit were evaluated with respect to their impact on test specifications, psychometric quality, and coverage of academic content standards.

Step 2: Next, parameter estimates were transformed to the CAPA base scales using the Stocking and Lord (1983) procedure, using an embedded anchor set drawn from the 2005 forms. In the case of the 1-parameter model, this procedure is equivalent to estimating the mean difference between the new task parameter estimates for the common tasks and the previously scaled estimates. As commonly done in this approach, the linking process was carried out iteratively by inspecting differences between the transformed new and old (reference) estimates for the linking tasks, and, if necessary, removing tasks for which the task difficulty estimates changed significantly. The differences were calculated using the following formula:

2WRMSD = 61

w [P ( ) ( )θ − P θ ] , [3.6]∑ j n j r j j=1

where θj ranges from –3.0 to 3.0 by 0.1, wj is a weight equal to the proportion of estimated abilities from the transformed new form in interval j, Pn(θj) is the probability of a given score for the transformed new form task at ability level j, and Pr(θj) is the probability of the same score for the old (reference) form task.

Simply put, transformed new and old parameter estimates were evaluated using weighted (based on the reference form abilities) root mean square difference (WRMSD) statistics that summarize differences in task characteristic curves (ICCs).

The linking criteria required removing tasks with an WRMSD greater than 0.625 for Level I and 0.500 for Levels II–V. For the 2007 CAPA tests, no linking tasks were eliminated.

Step 3: Once the new calibrations for each test were transformed to the reference scale, IRT true score equating procedures were utilized to transform the new form number-correct scores to their respective reference form scale scores. The true score equating procedure is based on the relationship between raw scores and ability. For tests consisting entirely of multiple-choice tasks, this is the well-known relationship defined in Lord (1980; eq. 4–5):

ξ( )θ =∑ n

Pi ( ) ,θ [3.7] i=1

where Pi(θ) is the probability of a correct response to task i at ability level θ (defined by the Rasch model), ξ(θ) is the corresponding true score, and the summation is over the n tasks in the test.

For all CAPA tests, ξ(θ) is based on polytomously scored performance (constructed response) tasks2, and the relationship can be defined as:

ncr m

( ) ∑ ∑ ( )θ , [3.8]ξ θ = s Px xj j=1 x=1

where ncr is the number of constructed response tasks in the test, m is the number of score categories in each polytomously scored task, sx is the score value for category x, and Pxj(θ) is the probability of a score in category x at ability θ (defined by the Rasch partial credit model). For Level I there are six possible scores per task: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. For Levels II–V there are five

2 See Chapter 1 for the scoring rubric.


Chapter 3. Analysis | Statistical Analysis Results

possible scores: 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4. A score of zero is only assigned for students who fail to respond to the prompt.

For each integer score ξ n on the new form, the true score equating procedure first solved for the corresponding ability level using equation 7. Next, the procedure used that ability level to find the corresponding score ξ b on the base or reference form. Finally, each score ξ b was transformed to the appropriate CAPA scale score scale using the reference form CAPA raw-score-to-scale-score conversion tables and linear interpolation.

Equating Samples The 2007 equating samples were selected from available student records in a data file obtained in

early June. These data consisted of approximately 17 to 25 percent of the total CAPA testing data that were eventually available when all testing was completed. The use of partial student samples for equating was necessitated by score reporting deadlines, and was approved by the CDE. Only students with valid results on the CAPA tests were included in the equating samples.

Statistical Analysis Results This section contains the tabled results of the analyses described above. Individual classical task

statistics (AIS and polyserial correlations) and associated flags are provided in Appendix A on page 109.

Table 3.3 provides a general statistical summary of each CAPA ELA and mathematics test by level. For each level and content area, test level statistics include the scale score mean, standard deviation, median, and range, as well as the internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) and standard error of measurement. Task/task summary statistics include the means and standard deviations for the average task scores, polyserial correlations, and Rasch difficulties. Reliability coefficients ranged from 0.88 (Mathematics Level II and Level IV) to 0.92 (ELA Level V). Mean equated Rasch difficulties ranged from -0.74 (ELA Level II) to 0.02 (ELA Level I).

Tables 3.4 and 3.5 provide the frequency and percent of operational task scores for each level of ELA and Mathematics. More than 50% of examinees were awarded the highest task score on 15 of the 40 ELA tasks, six of which are on the Level II test. In Mathematics, more than 50% of examinees received the highest rating on 14 of the 40 tasks, with five of the tasks from the Level II test and five from the Level III test.

Tables 3.6–3.10 provide the content area raw score means and standard deviations and the raw score intercorrelations for each CAPA level. Intercorrelations ranged from 0.76 (Level III ELA and Science; Level IV ELA and Science) to 0.88 (Level I Mathematics and Science; Level I Mathematics and ELA) indicating a moderate to high degree of correlation between performance on the content areas. Given the functional nature of many of the standards being assessed on CAPA, this degree of correlation is not surprising.

DIF and SMD statistics for operational and field test tasks flagged for C category ethnic and disability DIF are provided in Tables 3.11 and 3.12, respectively. For ethnic comparisons, the reference group is White. One science task, two Mathematics, and 15 ELA tasks were flagged for ethnic DIF. This included White compared to Asian, Filipino, Combination Asian, and Black. No tasks were flagged for gender DIF. A number of tasks in all three content areas were flagged for disability DIF. For this, the reference group is Mental Retardation. For the operational tasks, all tasks flagged for DIF by disability involved the Mental Retardation/Autism comparison, mostly in ELA.

Tables 3.13–3.17 summarize the results of examiner and observer double ratings of each operational ELA and Mathematics task. Included are the mean and standard deviation of assigned ratings, the percentage of exact and adjacent ratings and percentage of ratings that differ by more than one score point (neither exact nor adjacent), as well as the mean absolute difference and the correlation between ratings for the examiner and the observer. Mean absolute differences (MAD)



range from 0.03–0.21. The correlations between examiner and observer ratings range from 0.89– 0.98.

The classification reliability for both accuracy and consistency are reported in Tables 3.18–3.27. The decision accuracy for ELA ranges from 0.69–0.78 across all performance levels and from 0.90– 0.94 for the proficient and above classification. The decision accuracy for mathematics ranges from 0.66–0.76 across all performance levels and from 0.90–0.93 for the proficient and above classification. The decision consistency for ELA ranges from 0.61–0.70 across all performance levels and from 0.87–0.91 for the proficient and above classification. The decision consistency for Mathematics ranges from 0.56–0.68 across all performance levels and from 0.84–0.89 for the proficient and above classification.

Table 3.28 provides the means and standard deviations of the 2007 CAPA equating samples, as well as the 2007 total examinee population. The equating samples were very similar to the total examinee population.

Table 3.29 presents, for each CAPA test, the number of common tasks between the 2007 (new) and 2005 (reference) test forms, the number of tasks removed from the common task sets, the final correlations between the new and reference difficulty estimates, and the average WRMSD statistic (see equation 1) across the final set of common tasks. These results indicate that the new and reference difficulty estimates for the common tasks were highly correlated (0.97 or higher) and similar in magnitude (average WRMSD values of 0.10 and lower).

The raw-to-scale-to-performance level conversions and CSEMs are presented in Tables 3.30–3.39 for ELA and Mathematics. Tables 3.40–3.44 present the scale score frequency distributions for ELA and Mathematics by level. In Level I ELA approximately 18% of students obtained the highest scale score. Note that gaps in the table indicate scale scores that were not in the 2007 raw-to-scale conversion tables. Tables 3.45–3.48 present the raw score frequency distributions for Science field tests in Levels I, III, IV, and V.


Chap

ter 3.

Ana

lysis

| Stat

istica

l Ana

lysis

Resu

lts Ta

ble

3.3

Ope

ratio

nal T

est a

nd A

ssoc

iate

d Ta

sk S

umm

ary

Stat

istic

s I

II

III

IV

VL

evel

/Con

tent

E

LA

M

ath

EL

A

Mat

h E

LA

M

ath

EL

A

Mat

h E

LA

M

ath

Scal

e Sc

ore

Info

rmat

ion

Num

ber o

f Exa

min

ees

9240

92

06

6554

65

43

6687

66

81

1060

4 10

581

1005

1 10

031

Mea

n Sc

ore

43.9

4 33

.62

38.5

1 40

.03

37.8

7 41

.49

36.0

2 34

.98

38.2

8 35

.77

SD*

12.9

0 10

.77

9.00

8.

79

10.4

9 10

.60

9.43

10

.44

10.7

9 10

.27

Poss

ible

Ran

ge

15–6

0 15

–60

15–6

0 15

–60

15–6

0 15

–60

15–6

0 15

–60

15–6

0 15

–60

Obt

aine

d R

ange

15

–60

15–6

0 15

–60

15–6

0 15

–60

15–6

0 15

–60

15–6

0 15

–60

15–6

0 M

edia

n 45

34

38

39

38

41

36

34

38

35

R

elia

bilit

y 0.

91

0.91

0.

90

0.88

0.

90

0.90

0.

90

0.88

0.

92

0.91

SE

M**

3.

87

3.23

2.

85

3.04

3.

32

3.35

2.

98

3.62

3.

05

3.08

Raw

Sco

re In

form

atio

n

Mea

n Sc

ore

25.0

9 22

.19

23.7

9 23

.02

22.1

3 23

.63

21.2

5 21

.59

21.7

8 19

.17

SD*

11.1

4 11

.51

7.18

7.

38

7.77

7.

55

7.69

7.

72

7.92

7.

98

Poss

ible

Ran

ge

0-40

0-

40

0-32

0-

32

0-32

0-

32

0-32

0-

32

0-32

0-

32

Obt

aine

d R

ange

0-

40

0-40

0-

32

0-32

0-

32

0-32

0-

32

0-32

0-

32

0-32

M

edia

n 27

24

26

25

24

26

23

23

24

19

R

elia

bilit

y 0.

91

0.91

0.

90

0.88

0.

90

0.90

0.

90

0.88

0.

92

0.91

SE

M**

3.

34

3.45

2.

27

2.56

2.

46

2.39

2.

43

2.67

2.

24

2.39

Task

Info

rmat

ion

Num

ber o

fTas

ks

8 8

8 8

8 8

8 8

8 8

Mea

n A

IS**

* 3.

14

2.77

2.

98

2.89

2.

76

2.96

2.

65

2.69

2.

73

2.41

SD

AIS

***

0.51

0.

18

0.29

0.

41

0.31

0.

35

0.34

0.

41

0.34

0.

42

Ran

ge A

IS

2.41

–3.9

4 2.

37–3

.95

2.52

–3.2

3 2.

07–3

.50

2.41

–3.4

1 2.

45–3

.46

2.22

–3.1

6 1.

84–3

.20

2.00

–3.0

9 1.

76–3

.04

Poss

ible

Ran

ge

0–5

0–5

0–4

0–4

0–4

0–4

0–4

0–4

0–4

0–4

Mea

n Po

lyse

rial

0.82

0.

82

0.78

0.

77

0.80

0.

80

0.79

0.

78

0.82

0.

83

SD P

olys

eria

l 0.

05

0.02

0.

03

0.08

0.

03

0.03

0.

06

0.04

0.

04

0.04

R

ange

Pol

yser

ial

0.71

–0.8

5 0.

79–0

.84

0.74

–0.8

1 0.

65–0

.87

0.73

–0.8

3 0.

76–0

.83

0.71

–0.8

6 0.

70–0

.82

0.77

–0.8

8 0.

75–0

.87

Mea

n R

asch

Diff

icul

ty

0.02

-0

.22

-0.7

4 -0

.34

-0.4

5 -0

.53

-0.2

9 -0

.51

-0.1

8 -0

.14

SD R

asch

Diff

icul

ty

0.34

0.

16

0.27

0.

44

0.46

0.

38

0.39

0.

43

0.34

0.

46

Ran

ge o

f Ras

ch D

iffic

ulty

(-

0.48

) –

(-0.

34) –

(-

1.01

) –

(-1.

03) –

(-

1.31

) –

(-1.

19) –

(-(-

1.15

) –

(-1.

06) –

(-

0.62

) –

(-0.

88) –

0.

51

0.15

(-

0.29

) 0.

53

0.00

3 0.

06)

0.16

0.

41

0.56

0.

55

*Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

| **S

tand

ard

Erro

r of M

easu

rem

ent |

***

AIS

= A

vera

ge T

ask

(Ite

m) S

core

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

22

8

Chap

ter 3.

Ana

lysis

| Stat

istica

l Ana

lysis

Resu

lts

Tabl

e 3.

4 Fr

eque

ncy

of O

pera

tiona

l Tas

k Sc

ores

: ELA

E

LA

Sco

re/T

ask

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 L

evel

C

ount

Pe

rcen

t C

ount

Pe

rcen

t C

ount

Per

cent

C

ount

Per

cent

C

ount

Per

cent

C

ount

Per

cent

C

ount

Per

cent

C

ount

Per

cent

I

0 11

21

12.1

6 13

30

14.4

5 59

4 6.

48

1070

11

.64

881

9.59

72

0 7.

84

1213

13

.21

900

9.81

1

1229

13

.33

1791

19

.46

1009

11

.01

1272

13

.84

1097

11

.95

720

7.84

14

88

16.2

1 10

85

11.8

2

2 18

90

20.5

0 23

53

25.5

6 10

82

11.8

1 19

99

21.7

4 10

10

11.0

0 41

7 4.

54

2442

26

.60

1546

16

.85

3

849

9.21

97

7 10

.61

610

6.66

80

6 8.

77

825

8.98

59

5 6.

48

863

9.40

74

4 8.

11

4 96

4 10

.46

837

9.09

10

78

11.7

6 86

8 9.

44

979

10.6

6 77

1 8.

39

666

7.25

90

8 9.

90

5 31

65

34.3

3 19

16

20.8

2 47

90

52.2

8 31

78

34.5

7 43

90

47.8

1 59

64

64.9

2 25

10

27.3

4 39

93

43.5

2

II

0 14

5 2.

14

258

3.81

17

6 2.

60

117

1.73

20

9 3.

09

277

4.10

13

2 1.

95

141

2.10

1

612

9.04

39

0 5.

76

1544

22

.84

1225

18

.12

1176

17

.37

496

7.34

91

4 13

.53

1324

19

.68

2

802

11.8

4 71

8 10

.61

1777

26

.29

641

9.48

21

29

31.4

5 66

5 9.

84

902

13.3

5 50

7 7.

53

3 13

58

20.0

6 16

55

24.4

6 11

51

17.0

3 11

00

16.2

7 12

43

18.3

6 14

98

22.1

7 81

4 12

.05

1320

19

.62

4

3854

56

.92

3746

55

.36

2112

31

.24

3677

54

.39

2012

29

.72

3821

56

.55

3993

59

.11

3437

51

.08

III

0 13

0 1.

87

129

1.86

16

3 2.

35

573

8.27

43

0 6.

20

311

4.50

15

5 2.

24

385

5.58

1

1072

15

.46

410

5.92

21

56

31.1

1 11

02

15.9

0 11

39

16.4

3 13

21

19.1

0 12

27

17.7

3 20

60

29.8

3

2 13

34

19.2

3 63

6 9.

19

852

12.2

9 11

92

17.2

0 14

84

21.4

1 12

90

18.6

5 13

78

19.9

1 10

75

15.5

7

3 10

41

15.0

1 10

50

15.1

6 10

54

15.2

1 10

65

15.3

7 13

37

19.2

9 19

97

28.8

8 61

1 8.

83

1035

14

.99

4

3359

48

.43

4699

67

.87

2705

39

.03

2997

43

.25

2542

36

.67

1997

28

.88

3550

51

.29

2350

34

.03

IV

0 15

4 1.

43

588

5.45

34

2 3.

19

510

4.73

54

7 5.

07

695

6.44

54

2 5.

03

335

3.11

1

817

7.58

28

27

26.2

1 27

84

25.9

7 23

83

22.1

2 16

14

14.9

5 15

08

13.9

8 34

55

32.0

7 33

32

30.9

4

2 13

67

12.6

8 10

34

9.59

32

46

30.2

8 77

1 7.

16

1675

15

.52

1453

13

.47

2313

21

.47

2671

24

.80

3

3044

28

.25

1628

15

.10

2138

19

.94

1498

13

.91

2202

20

.40

1793

16

.62

1765

16

.38

1278

11

.87

4

5395

50

.06

4708

43

.65

2210

20

.62

5611

52

.08

4757

44

.07

5336

49

.48

2699

25

.05

3151

29

.26

V

0 36

8 3.

64

269

2.68

27

9 2.

76

471

4.68

58

8 5.

82

530

5.25

22

6 2.

24

346

3.44

1

4454

44

.05

1581

15

.73

1732

17

.14

2192

21

.76

1275

12

.61

962

9.53

13

25

13.1

3 27

64

27.4

5

2 18

70

18.4

9 25

15

25.0

3 21

15

20.9

3 77

2 7.

66

1414

13

.99

1241

12

.29

1652

16

.37

1486

14

.76

3

1681

16

.63

2276

22

.65

3112

30

.80

1265

12

.56

1494

14

.78

1728

17

.12

2074

20

.55

1502

14

.91

4

1738

17

.19

3408

33

.91

2865

28

.36

5374

53

.35

5337

52

.80

5633

55

.81

4816

47

.72

3973

39

.45

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

23

8

Chap

ter 3.

Ana

lysis

| Stat

istica

l Ana

lysis

Resu

lts

Tabl

e 3.

5 Fr

eque

ncy

of O

pera

tiona

l Tas

k Sc

ores

: Mat

hem

atic

s M

ath

Scor

e/T

ask

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 L

evel

C

ount

Per

cent

C

ount

Per

cent

Cou

nt P

erce

nt

Cou

nt P

erce

nt

Cou

nt P

erce

nt C

ount

Per

cent

C

ount

Per

cent

C

ount

Per

cent

I

0 20

31

22.1

0 10

12

11.0

3 10

55

11.5

3 10

76

11.7

6 11

04

12.0

9 11

61

12.6

9 11

39

12.4

4 11

43

12.5

1

1 20

09

21.8

6 13

44

14.6

5 13

27

14.5

1 13

09

14.3

1 13

35

14.6

2 15

74

17.2

0 14

73

16.0

9 15

55

17.0

2

2 12

99

14.1

4 21

45

23.3

8 20

80

22.7

4 19

63

21.4

6 17

81

19.5

0 20

94

22.8

8 22

22

24.2

7 16

93

18.5

3

3 54

7 5.

95

871

9.49

88

5 9.

67

821

8.97

78

8 8.

63

905

9.89

82

0 8.

96

872

9.54

4

673

7.32

90

4 9.

85

895

9.78

89

5 9.

78

844

9.24

86

1 9.

41

827

9.03

86

0 9.

41

5 26

30

28.6

2 28

98

31.5

9 29

06

31.7

7 30

85

33.7

2 32

80

35.9

2 25

57

27.9

4 26

73

29.2

0 30

15

32.9

9

II

0 11

8 1.

75

199

2.96

21

4 3.

17

283

4.19

21

9 3.

25

102

1.51

27

4 4.

07

152

2.26

1

594

8.81

16

68

24.8

0 25

47

37.7

3 11

17

16.5

4 17

17

25.4

4 14

16

20.9

9 92

4 13

.71

1415

21

.08

2

435

6.45

99

0 14

.72

1265

18

.74

367

5.43

59

5 8.

82

752

11.1

5 50

4 7.

48

716

10.6

6

3 28

6 4.

24

1267

18

.83

1960

29

.04

1751

25

.93

740

10.9

7 91

4 13

.55

764

11.3

4 77

1 11

.48

4

5310

78

.75

2603

38

.69

764

11.3

2 32

36

47.9

1 34

77

51.5

3 35

63

52.8

1 42

74

63.4

1 36

60

54.5

1

III

0 17

1 2.

47

179

2.59

17

6 2.

55

120

1.73

17

0 2.

46

168

2.43

30

0 4.

34

182

2.67

1

2007

28

.98

1734

25

.05

1263

18

.29

473

6.84

12

53

18.1

4 73

9 10

.69

1790

25

.90

1081

15

.85

2

926

13.3

7 13

72

19.8

2 58

3 8.

44

543

7.85

49

6 7.

18

796

11.5

1 59

4 8.

59

689

10.1

0

3 14

53

20.9

8 19

80

28.6

0 69

9 10

.12

852

12.3

1 63

8 9.

24

1375

19

.88

895

12.9

5 74

6 10

.94

4

2368

34

.19

1657

23

.94

4186

60

.61

4932

71

.27

4349

62

.97

3837

55

.49

3333

48

.22

4122

60

.44

IV

0 44

2 4.

10

184

1.71

23

5 2.

19

302

2.81

98

3 9.

13

245

2.28

34

7 3.

24

297

2.80

1

2877

26

.72

2051

19

.06

2176

20

.23

2621

24

.41

5771

53

.62

3038

28

.27

1855

17

.31

2413

22

.78

2

1671

15

.52

576

5.35

18

60

17.3

0 17

19

16.0

1 60

1 5.

58

1724

16

.04

800

7.46

10

27

9.70

3

2091

19

.42

411

3.82

27

84

25.8

9 70

4 6.

56

644

5.98

93

7 8.

72

1287

12

.01

1615

15

.25

4

3688

34

.25

7536

70

.05

3699

34

.40

5391

50

.21

2763

25

.67

4803

44

.69

6429

59

.98

5239

49

.47

V

0 35

1 3.

48

487

4.84

25

1 2.

50

358

3.56

69

3 6.

88

330

3.29

47

1 4.

69

393

3.94

1

2172

21

.52

1758

17

.46

1986

19

.74

1403

13

.94

4611

45

.77

4120

41

.08

5850

58

.21

4244

42

.58

2

1317

13

.05

1899

18

.86

1115

11

.08

2963

29

.44

540

5.36

16

83

16.7

8 84

0 8.

36

1570

15

.75

3

1843

18

.26

3262

32

.40

502

4.99

18

45

18.3

3 65

6 6.

51

1420

14

.16

1344

13

.37

1475

14

.80

4

4408

43

.68

2662

26

.44

6205

61

.69

3494

34

.72

3574

35

.48

2477

24

.70

1544

15

.36

2284

22

.92

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

24


Table 3.6 Raw Score Intercorrelations by Section: Level I ELA Mathematics Science*

ELA – 0.88 0.86 Mathematics – 0.88 Science – N 9240 9206 2815 Raw Score Mean 25.09 22.19 13.05 Raw Score SD 11.14 11.51 7.46

*Science raw scores are based on 5 tasks common across field-test forms.

Table 3.7 Raw Score Intercorrelations by Section: Level II ELA Mathematics

ELA – 0.86 Mathematics – N 6554 6543 Raw Score Mean 23.79 23.02 Raw Score Std 7.18 7.38

Table 3.8 Raw Score Intercorrelations by Section: Level III ELA Mathematics Science*

ELA – 0.86 0.76 Mathematics – 0.79 Science – N 6687 6681 3414 Raw Score Mean 22.13 23.63 14.19 Raw Score Std 7.77 7.55 4.26


Table 3.9 Raw Score Intercorrelations by Section: Level IV ELA Mathematics Science*


* Science raw scores are based on 5 tasks common across field-test forms.

Table 3.10 Raw Score Intercorrelations by Section: Level V ELA Mathematics Science*





Table 3.11 Ethnic Group DIF Statistics for C Category Tasks

Content Area Task No. Level Task# Version SMD Comparison Disadvantaged

ELA VB487173 3 6 OP -0.469 White/Asian Asian

VB397804 3 7 OP -0.466 White/Asian Asian

VB541371 3 11 OP 0.323 White/Asian White

VB487173 3 6 OP -0.367 White/Filipino Filipino


VB487173 3 6 OP -0.379 White/Comb Asian Comb Asian

VB397804 3 7 OP -0.411 White/Comb Asian Comb Asian

VB539454 4 11 OP 0.339 White/Asian White


VB539454 4 11 OP 0.354 White/Filipino White

VC208234 2 10 FT -0.323 White/Black Black

VC208254 2 6/1 FT -0.274 White/Asian Asian

VC208254 2 6/1 FT -0.242 White/Comb Asian Comb Asian

VC208214 2 6 FT -0.498 White/Comb Asian Comb Asian


Mathematics VC203908 2 16 FT -0.225 White/Black Black


Science VC206341 3 36 FT -0.351 White/Comb Asian Comb Asian



Table 3.12 Disability Group DIF Statistics for C Category Tasks

Disability Group DIF Statistics for C Category Tasks Content Area Task No. Level Task# Version SMD Comparison Disadvantaged

ELA OP Tasks VB397808 1 5 OP 0.479 MR/VI MR

VB397808 1 5 OP 0.465 MR/OI MR

VB429438 2 3 OP -0.292 MR/AU AU

VB487040 2 4 OP 0.449 MR/AU MR

VB486738 2 5 OP 0.310 MR/AU MR

VB540161 2 9 OP -0.321 MR/AU AU

VB539452 2 11 OP 0.349 MR/AU MR

VB487040 3 2 OP 0.409 MR/AU MR

VB487173 3 6 OP -0.602 MR/AU AU

VB397804 3 7 OP -0.638 MR/AU AU

VB540186 3 8 OP -0.322 MR/AU AU

VB541371 3 11 OP 0.489 MR/AU MR

VB539450 3 12 OP 0.597 MR/AU MR

VB539454 4 11 OP 0.352 MR/SI MR

VB397806 4 7 OP -0.408 MR/AU AU

VB487173 4 8 OP -0.403 MR/AU AU

VB539454 4 11 OP 0.670 MR/AU MR

VB411735 5 6 OP -0.339 MR/AU AU

VB487173 5 8 OP -0.399 MR/AU AU

VB540151 5 11 OP 0.447 MR/AU MR

ELA FT Tasks VC205948 1 3, 1 3, 5 -0.514 MR/OI OI

February 2008 Page 27

CAPA Technical Report | Spring 2007 Administration



VC205948 1 3, 1 3, 5 0.492 MR/AU MR

VC208241 2 8 1, 2, 5, 6 0.317 MR/SI MR

VC208241 2 8 1, 2, 5, 6 0.350 MR/SL MR

VC208254 2 6, 1 1, 5; 2, 4, 6, 8 -0.298 MR/AU AU

VC208233 2 10 1, 5 0.393 MR/AU MR

VC208257 2 8 3, 7 -0.297 MR/AU AU

VC208245 2 10 3, 7 -0.355 MR/AU AU

VC208214 2 6 4, 8 -0.457 MR/AU AU

VC208309 3 9 3, 7 -0.350 MR/AU AU

VC208299 3 1 4, 8 -0.357 MR/AU AU

VC208510 4 1 1, 8 0.547 MR/AU MR

VC208483 4 2 1, 8 -0.366 MR/AU AU

VC208341 4 10 1, 8 0.711 MR/AU MR

VC208409 4 2 3 -0.303 MR/AU AU

VC208488 4 10 4 0.365 MR/AU MR

VC208471 4 2 5 -0.664 MR/AU AU

VC208595 4 1 7 -0.356 MR/AU AU

VC208649 5 9 1, 7 0.425 MR/AU MR

VC208654 5 9 2, 8 0.457 MR/AU MR

VC208675 5 10 2, 8 -0.560 MR/AU AU

VC208632 5 7 3 -0.346 MR/AU AU

VC208658 5 9 3 0.343 MR/AU MR

VC208679 5 10 3 -0.384 MR/AU AU




VC208660 5 10 4 0.742 MR/AU MR

VC208668 5 10 5 0.374 MR/AU MR

Math OP Tasks VB323291 2 19 OP -0.338 MR/AU AU

VB487027 3 14 OP 0.330 MR/AU MR

Math FT Tasks VC205546 2 13 1, 5 0.322 MR/AU MR

VC205563 2 15 2, 6 0.412 MR/AU MR

VC205611 2 22 2, 6 0.413 MR/AU MR

VC207333 3 22 1, 5 0.382 MR/AU MR

VC207348 3 13 2, 6 0.593 MR/AU MR

VC207451 3 22 3, 7 -0.321 MR/AU AU

VC207831 4 17 1, 8 0.529 MR/SL MR

VC207482 4 18 1, 8 0.413 MR/SL MR

VC207535 4 22 1, 8 0.439 MR/SL MR

Math FT Tasks VC207831 4 17 1, 8 0.308 MR/AU MR

VC207949 4 22 3 -0.362 MR/AU AU

VC207541 4 20 4 0.486 MR/AU MR

VC207969 5 20 3 0.495 MR/AU MR

VC208074 5 20 5 0.375 MR/AU MR

Science OP Tasks - - - - - - -

Science FT Tasks VC206206 1 31; 34 1, 3, 5, 7; 2, 4, 6, 8 -0.549 MR/OI OI

VC206601 4 31 1, 3, 5, 7 0.316 MR/AU MR

VC206555 4 29 2, 4, 6, 8 0.313 MR/AU MR


Chap

ter 3.

Ana

lysis

| Stat

istica

l Ana

lysis

Resu

lts

Tabl

e 3.

13 D

oubl

e R

ater

Sum

mar

y fo

r Ope

ratio

nal T

asks

: Lev

el I

Lev

el I

Firs

t Rat

ing

Seco

nd R

atin

g %

Agr

eem

ent

MA

D*

Cor

r**

Subj

ect

Tas

k N

M

ean

SD

N

Mea

n SD

E

xact

A

djac

ent

Nei

ther

EL

A

2 95

1 3.

05

1.81

95

1 3.

02

1.82

90

.85

6.94

2.

21

0.13

0.

96

4 95

1 2.

51

1.74

95

1 2.

48

1.74

89

.48

7.68

2.

84

0.15

0.

95

5 95

1 3.

83

1.69

95

1 3.

82

1.69

89

.38

6.10

4.

52

0.21

0.

89

6 95

1 3.

01

1.78

95

1 3.

00

1.80

91

.17

5.99

2.

84

0.14

0.

95

8 95

1 3.

56

1.81

95

1 3.

55

1.81

89

.38

7.57

3.

05

0.17

0.

93

9 95

1 4.

09

1.60

95

1 4.

07

1.62

91

.90

5.57

2.

53

0.14

0.

93

11

951

2.64

1.

80

951

2.61

1.

81

90.7

5 6.

20

3.05

0.

15

0.94

12

95

1 3.

38

1.80

95

1 3.

38

1.81

91

.69

6.10

2.

21

0.13

0.

95

Mat

hem

atic

s 1

921

2.54

1.

94

921

2.52

1.

96

92.6

2 5.

75

1.63

0.

10

0.97

2

921

3.04

1.

76

921

3.02

1.

76

91.7

5 6.

62

1.63

0.

11

0.97

3

921

3.02

1.

76

921

3.01

1.

76

90.6

6 6.

95

2.39

0.

14

0.95

5

921

3.06

1.

77

921

3.05

1.

80

90.6

6 6.

08

3.26

0.

16

0.94

6

921

3.18

1.

79

921

3.17

1.

79

93.4

9 4.

78

1.73

0.

10

0.97

9

921

2.88

1.

78

921

2.89

1.

78

90.4

5 6.

84

2.71

0.

14

0.95

11

92

1 2.

84

1.72

92

1 2.

84

1.74

90

.34

6.73

2.

93

0.15

0.

95

12

921

3.03

1.

79

921

3.04

1.

80

88.9

3 8.

58

2.49

0.

16

0.95

* M

ean

abso

lute

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

first

and

seco

nd ra

tings

, **

Pear

son

corr

elat

ion

betw

een

first

and

seco

nd ra

tings

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

30

Chap

ter 3.

Ana

lysis

| Stat

istica

l Ana

lysis

Resu

lts

Tabl

e 3.

14 D

oubl

e R

ater

Sum

mar

y fo

r Ope

ratio

nal T

asks

: Lev

el II

L

evel

II

Firs

t Rat

ing

Seco

nd R

atin

g %

Agr

eem

ent

MA

D*

Cor

r**

Subj

ect

Tas

k N

M

ean

SD

N

Mea

n SD

E

xact

A

djac

ent

Nei

ther

EL

A

2 76

9 3.

21

1.11

76

9 3.

20

1.14

97

.01

1.69

1.

30

0.05

0.

95

3 76

9 3.

25

1.06

76

9 3.

23

1.09

94

.80

3.51

1.

69

0.09

0.

91

4 76

9 2.

49

1.20

76

9 2.

48

1.22

94

.67

3.51

1.

82

0.08

0.

94

5 76

9 3.

10

1.20

76

9 3.

07

1.23

93

.89

4.42

1.

69

0.10

0.

93

7 76

9 2.

52

1.15

76

9 2.

51

1.16

92

.59

5.85

1.

56

0.09

0.

95

9 76

9 3.

28

1.07

76

9 3.

26

1.10

95

.45

3.25

1.

30

0.07

0.

95

11

769

3.15

1.

19

769

3.12

1.

22

95.7

1 2.

86

1.43

0.

07

0.95

12

76

9 2.

90

1.29

76

9 2.

90

1.30

94

.02

3.51

2.

47

0.10

0.

94

Mat

hem

atic

s 2

769

3.53

1.

03

769

3.51

1.

05

96.1

0 2.

21

1.69

0.

07

0.92

5

769

2.64

1.

30

769

2.62

1.

30

93.2

4 5.

33

1.43

0.

09

0.96

6

769

2.09

1.

10

769

2.09

1.

10

93.7

6 5.

59

0.65

0.

07

0.95

7

769

2.96

1.

24

769

2.95

1.

26

94.5

4 2.

47

2.99

0.

09

0.95

8

769

2.80

1.

39

769

2.79

1.

40

95.9

7 3.

25

.078

0.

05

0.98

9

769

2.98

1.

25

769

2.98

1.

26

94.9

3 3.

64

1.43

0.

07

0.96

11

76

9 3.

22

1.23

76

9 3.

22

1.24

96

.23

2.47

1.

30

0.06

0.

96

12

769

2.97

1.

32

769

2.99

1.

30

95.5

8 2.

86

1.56

0.

07

0.95

* M

ean

abso

lute

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

first

and

seco

nd ra

tings

, **

Pear

son

corr

elat

ion

betw

een

first

and

seco

nd ra

tings

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

31

Chap

ter 3.

Ana

lysis

| Stat

istica

l Ana

lysis

Resu

lts

Tabl

e 3.

15 D

oubl

e R

ater

Sum

mar

y fo

r Ope

ratio

nal T

asks

: Lev

el II

I L

evel

III

Firs

t Rat

ing

Seco

nd R

atin

g %

Agr

eem

ent

MA

D*

Cor

r**

Subj

ect

Tas

k N

M

ean

SD

N

Mea

n SD

E

xact

A

djac

ent

Nei

ther

EL

A

2 79

1 2.

99

1.14

79

1 3.

00

1.13

97

.47

1.64

0.

89

0.04

0.

97

3 79

1 3.

53

0.89

79

1 3.

50

0.93

96

.97

1.90

1.

13

0.05

0.

92

4 79

1 2.

52

1.32

79

1 2.

51

1.32

94

.06

4.30

1.

64

0.09

0.

95

6 79

1 2.

73

1.36

79

1 2.

69

1.36

90

.52

7.96

1.

52

0.12

0.

95

7 79

1 2.

69

1.25

79

1 2.

66

1.27

92

.92

5.56

1.

52

0.09

0.

95

8 79

1 2.

62

1.14

79

1 2.

62

1.15

92

.67

5.69

1.

64

0.10

0.

92

11

791

3.05

1.

20

791

3.03

1.

22

96.8

4 1.

77

1.39

0.

06

0.96

12

79

1 2.

52

1.34

79

1 2.

51

1.35

95

.32

3.16

1.

52

0.08

0.

95

Mat

hem

atic

s 2

797

2.61

1.

25

797

2.62

1.

25

96.4

9 2.

26

1.25

0.

06

0.96

3

797

2.45

1.

13

797

2.45

1.

12

96.2

4 2.

89

0.88

0.

05

0.97

5

797

3.15

1.

27

797

3.17

1.

25

96.1

1 2.

76

1.13

0.

06

0.96

7

797

3.58

0.

84

797

3.58

0.

84

97.8

7 1.

51

0.62

0.

03

0.97

8

797

3.25

1.

20

797

3.24

1.

21

96.9

9 1.

88

1.13

0.

05

0.97

9

797

3.23

1.

07

797

3.22

1.

08

96.7

4 2.

51

0.75

0.

05

0.96

11

79

7 2.

74

1.34

79

7 2.

73

1.35

96

.61

2.26

1.

13

0.05

0.

97

12

797

3.25

1.

17

797

3.27

1.

15

96.6

1 1.

13

2.26

0.

08

0.91

* M

ean

abso

lute

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

first

and

seco

nd ra

tings

, **

Pear

son

corr

elat

ion

betw

een

first

and

seco

nd ra

tings

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

32

Chap

ter 3.

Ana

lysis

| Stat

istica

l Ana

lysis

Resu

lts

Tabl

e 3.

16 D

oubl

e R

ater

Sum

mar

y fo

r Ope

ratio

nal T

asks

: Lev

el IV

L

evel

IV

Firs

t Rat

ing

Seco

nd R

atin

g %

Agr

eem

ent

MA

D*

Cor

r**

Subj

ect

Tas

k N

M

ean

SD

N

Mea

n SD

E

xact

A

djac

ent

Nei

ther

EL

A

3 10

26

3.24

0.

95

1026

3.

22

0.97

94

.64

4.48

0.

88

0.07

0.

95

4 10

26

2.71

1.

38

1026

2.

70

1.38

93

.27

4.87

1.

86

0.10

0.

95

5 10

26

2.27

1.

13

1026

2.

29

1.14

92

.01

6.43

1.

56

0.10

0.

94

6 10

26

2.96

1.

36

1026

2.

97

1.35

93

.18

4.87

1.

95

0.10

0.

95

7 10

26

2.91

1.

24

1026

2.

92

1.23

90

.06

7.99

1.

95

0.12

0.

94

8 10

26

2.97

1.

30

1026

2.

98

1.29

90

.94

6.73

2.

33

0.13

0.

93

11

1026

2.

33

1.26

10

26

2.33

1.

27

93.2

7 5.

26

1.47

0.

09

0.96

12

10

26

2.34

1.

27

1026

2.

34

1.28

90

.74

6.82

2.

44

0.13

0.

92

Mat

hem

atic

s 1

1022

2.

59

1.28

10

22

2.60

1.

28

92.9

5 5.

.87

1.18

0.

09

0.95

2

1022

3.

27

1.24

10

22

3.25

1.

25

94.5

2 2.

84

2.64

0.

10

0.93

3

1022

2.

76

1.16

10

22

2.77

1.

15

93.4

4 4.

89

1.67

0.

09

0.95

4

1022

2.

85

1.32

10

22

2.86

1.

32

95.0

1 3.

23

1.76

0.

08

0.95

7

1022

1.

79

1.36

10

22

1.80

1.

36

95.6

9 2.

94

1.37

0.

06

0.97

9

1022

2.

60

1.36

10

22

2.59

1.

36

92.5

6 5.

19

2.25

0.

11

0.94

11

10

22

3.13

1.

24

1022

3.

13

1.25

95

.30

3.23

1.

47

0.07

0.

95

12

1022

2.

95

1.29

10

22

2.96

1.

28

93.5

4 4.

70

1.76

0.

10

0.93

* M

ean

abso

lute

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

first

and

seco

nd ra

tings

, **

Pear

son

corr

elat

ion

betw

een

first

and

seco

nd ra

tings

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

33

Chap

ter 3.

Ana

lysis

| Stat

istica

l Ana

lysis

Resu

lts

Tabl

e 3.

17 D

oubl

e R

ater

Sum

mar

y fo

r Ope

ratio

nal T

asks

: Lev

el V

L

evel

V

Firs

t Rat

ing

Seco

nd R

atin

g %

Agr

eem

ent

MA

D*

Cor

r**

Subj

ect

Tas

k N

M

ean

SD

N

Mea

n SD

E

xact

A

djac

ent

Nei

ther

EL

A

2 85

6 1.

82

1.13

85

6 1.

82

1.13

93

.34

5.84

0.

82

0.08

0.

96

3 85

6 2.

64

1.15

85

6 2.

62

1.16

92

.87

5.96

1.

17

0.09

0.

94

4 85

6 2.

55

1.08

85

6 2.

57

1.09

91

.24

7.36

1.

40

0.11

0.

92

5 85

6 2.

84

1.36

85

6 2.

82

1.37

95

.21

3.27

1.

52

0.07

0.

96

6 85

6 2.

90

1.31

85

6 2.

92

1.29

90

.19

6.66

3.

15

0.14

0.

92

8 85

6 3.

10

1.21

85

6 3.

09

1.21

91

.47

5.96

2.

57

0.12

0.

93

11

856

2.98

1.

15

856

2.98

1.

16

94.0

4 4.

56

1.40

0.

09

0.94

12

85

6 2.

49

1.32

85

6 2.

49

1.32

94

.39

4.44

1.

17

0.08

0.

96

Mat

hem

atic

s 1

856

2.64

1.

28

856

2.65

1.

28

92.4

1 6.

66

0.93

0.

09

0.96

3

856

2.61

1.

10

856

2.62

1.

10

92.1

7 5.

84

1.99

0.

10

0.94

4

856

2.97

1.

33

856

2.99

1.

31

95.5

6 3.

50

0.94

0.

06

0.97

5

856

2.57

1.

16

856

2.57

1.

15

93.9

3 4.

79

1.28

0.

08

0.96

7

856

2.06

1.

45

856

2.06

1.

44

94.2

8 3.

50

2.22

0.

09

0.95

9

856

2.08

1.

26

856

2.08

1.

27

95.5

6 3.

39

1.05

0.

06

0.97

11

85

6 1.

64

1.12

85

6 1.

64

1.13

94

.51

4.21

1.

28

0.07

0.

95

12

856

2.00

1.

25

856

2.00

1.

24

91.8

2 5.

61

2.57

0.

12

0.92

* M

ean

abso

lute

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

first

and

seco

nd ra

tings

, **

Pear

son

corr

elat

ion

betw

een

first

and

seco

nd ra

tings

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

34


Table 3.18 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level I English–Language Arts*

Placement Score Advanced Proficient Basic Below

Basic

Far Below Basic

Category Total**

Decision Accuracy

28–40 0.44 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 17–27 0.04 0.20 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.28 13–16 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.06

All-forms Average

9–12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.06 0–8 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.11

Estimated Proportion Correctly Classified : Total = 0.78, Proficient & Above = 0.94

Decision Consistency

28–40 0.42 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 17–27 0.06 0.17 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.27 13–16 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.07

Alternate Form

9–12 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.06 0–8 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.11

Estimated Proportion Correctly Classified : Total =0.70, Proficient & Above = 0.91 *Values in table are proportions of the total sample. **Inconsistencies with category cell entries are due to rounding.

Table 3.19 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level I Mathematics*


Basic

Far Below Basic

Category Total**

Decision Accuracy

35–40 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 25–34 0.04 0.22 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.32 18–24 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.19

All-forms Average

7–17 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.01 0.21 0–6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.12



35–40 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 25–34 0.06 0.18 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.32 18–24 0.00 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.19

Alternate Form

7–17 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.15 0.03 0.21 0–6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12

Estimated Proportion Correctly Classified : Total = 0.62, Proficient & Above = 0.87 *Values in table are proportions of the total sample. **Inconsistencies with category cell entries are due to rounding.



Table 3.20 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level II English–Language Arts*


Basic

Far Below Basic

Category Total**

Decision Accuracy

29–32 0.28 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 22–28 0.04 0.26 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.34 14–21 0.00 0.04 0.15 0.02 0.00 0.21

All-forms Average

8–13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.08 0–7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03

Estimated Proportion Correctly Classified : Total = 0.76 , Proficient & Above = 0.92


29–32 0.26 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 22–28 0.07 0.21 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.34 14–21 0.00 0.06 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.21

Alternate Form

8–13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.08 0–7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03

Estimated Proportion Correctly Classified : Total =0.66, Proficient & Above = 0.88 *Values in table are proportions of the total sample. **Inconsistencies with category cell entries are due to rounding.

Table 3.21 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level II Mathematics*


Basic

Far Below Basic

Category Total**

Decision Accuracy

27–32 0.35 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 18–26 0.04 0.28 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.34 11–17 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.17

All-forms Average

8–10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0–7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03



27–32 0.34 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.42 18–26 0.07 0.23 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.34 11–17 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.17

Alternate Form

8–10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0–7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03

Estimated Proportion Correctly Classified : Total =0.68, Proficient & Above =0.89 *Values in table are proportions of the total sample. **Inconsistencies with category cell entries are due to rounding.



Table 3.22 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level III English–Language Arts*


Basic

Far Below Basic

Category Total**

Decision Accuracy

27–32 0.31 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 21–26 0.04 0.17 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.25 16–20 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.15

All-forms Average

10–15 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.15 0–9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.07



27–32 0.30 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.37 21–26 0.06 0.14 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.25 16–20 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.15

Alternate Form

10–15 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.15 0–9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.07


Table 3.23 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level III Mathematics*


Basic

Far Below Basic

Category Total**

Decision Accuracy

28-32 0.36 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.43 20-27 0.03 0.24 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.30 14-19 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.15

All-forms Average

9-13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.08 0-8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04

Estimated Proportion Correctly Classified : Total =0.76 , Proficient & Above = 0.93


28-32 0.34 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.43 20-27 0.06 0.20 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.30 14-19 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.15

Alternate Form

9-13 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.09 0-8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04




Table 3.24 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level IV English–Language Arts*


Basic

Far Below Basic

Category Total**

Decision Accuracy

27-32 0.26 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 21-26 0.04 0.19 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.27 16-20 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.16

All-forms Average

11-15 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.14 0-10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.11



27-32 0.25 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.32 21-26 0.06 0.15 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.27 16-20 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.16

Alternate Form

11-15 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.14 0-10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.11


Table 3.25 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level IV Mathematics*


Basic

Far Below Basic

Category Total**

Decision Accuracy

29-32 0.17 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 24-28 0.03 0.16 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.25 18-23 0.00 0.05 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.23

All-forms Average

13-17 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.14 0-12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.11 0.15

Estimated Proportion Correctly Classified : Total =0.66, Proficient & Above = 0.90


29-32 0.16 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.23 24-28 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.25 18-23 0.01 0.06 0.11 0.05 0.01 0.23

Alternate Form

13-17 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.14 0-12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.16




Table 3.26 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level V English–Language Arts*


Basic

Far Below Basic

Category Total**

Decision Accuracy

27-32 0.31 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 21-26 0.03 0.18 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.25 15-20 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.17

All-forms Average

12-14 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.08 0-11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.14



27-32 0.30 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.37 21-26 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.25 15-20 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.17

Alternate Form

12-14 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.08 0-11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.14

Estimated Proportion Correctly Classified : Total = 0.65 , Proficient & Above = 0.89 *Values in table are proportions of the total sample. **Inconsistencies with category cell entries are due to rounding.

Table 3.27 Reliability of Classification and Decision Accuracy: Level V Mathematics*


Basic

Far Below Basic

Category Total**

Decision Accuracy

25-32 0.26 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 19-24 0.03 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.22 14-18 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.03 0.01 0.20

All-forms Average

12-13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.08 0-11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.16 0.20



25-32 0.25 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 19-24 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.22 14-18 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.20

Alternate Form

12-13 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.07 0-11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.20

Estimated Proportion Correctly Classified : Total = 0.64 , Proficient & Above = 0.88 *Values in table are proportions of the total sample. **Inconsistencies with category cell entries are due to rounding.



Table 3.28 CAPA 2007 Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations: Equating Sample vs. Total

Group Level N

ELA % Total N Mean RS SD RS N

Mathematics % Total N Mean RS SD RS

Total I II III IV V

9240 6554 6687

10604 10051

25.09 23.79 22.13 21.25 21.78

11.14 7.18 7.77 7.69 7.92

9206 6543 6681 10581 10031

22.19 23.02 23.63 21.59 19.17

11.517.38 7.55 7.72 7.98

Equating Sample

I II III IV V

1498 1324 1350 2001 2734

16% 20% 20% 19% 27%

25.4924.3122.6021.8422.40

11.29 7.01 7.72 7.43 7.60

1495 1320 1349 1999 1515

16% 20% 20% 19% 15%

22.4423.5823.9722.1720.11

11.68 7.36 7.37 7.58 7.77

Table 3.29 Evaluation of Common Tasks between New and Reference Test Forms

Subject Level N Common Tasks

N Tasks Removed

Common Task Correlation WRMSD*

ELA I II III IV V

5 5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0 0

0.98 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.98

0.10 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.08

Mathematics I II III IV V

5 5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0 0

0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98

0.08 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.06

*Weighted root mean square difference



Table 3.30 Score Conversions: ELA Level I

Raw Score 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28

Scale Score 60 60 60 60 59 56 55 53 51 50 49 48 46

CSEM* 13.8 13.5 9.0 7.3 6.3 5.7 5.3 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3

Performance Level

Advanced

27 45 4.2 26 44 4.2 25 43 4.1 24 42 4.1 23 41 4.1 22 40 4.0 Proficient 21 39 4.0 20 38 4.1 19 37 4.1 18 36 4.1 17 35 4.1 16 15 14 13

34 33 32 31

4.2 4.3 4.3 4.5

Basic

12 11 10 9

29 28 26 26

4.6 4.8 5.0 5.3

Below Basic

8 25 5.7 7 24 6.2 6 23 6.8 5 22 7.5 4 20 8.4 Far Below Basic 3 18 9.7 2 16 11.9 1 15 16.6 0 15 16.7

*Conditional standard error of measurement



Table 3.31 Score Conversions: Mathematics Level I

Raw Score Scale Score CSEM Performance

Level 40 60 15.4 39 56 10.6 38 37

50 47

6.9 5.5

Advanced

36 45 4.7 35 44 4.2 34 42 3.9 33 41 3.6 32 40 3.4 31 39 3.3 30 29

38 38

3.2 3.1

Proficient

28 37 3.0 27 36 3.0 26 36 2.9 25 35 2.9 24 34 2.9 23 34 2.9 22 33 3.0 21 32 3.0 Basic 20 31 3.0 19 31 3.1 18 30 3.2 17 29 3.3 16 28 3.4 15 27 3.6 14 26 3.7 13 25 3.9 12 24 4.1 Below Basic 11 23 4.4 10 23 4.7 9 22 4.9 8 22 5.2 7 21 5.5 6 20 5.9 5 20 6.3 4 19 6.9 3 18 7.8 Far Below Basic 2 16 9.3 1 15 12.9 0 15 13.1



Table 3.32 Score Conversions: ELA Level II


Level 32 60 17.8 31 30

46 43

4.9 3.5

Advanced

29 41 2.9 28 40 2.6 27 39 2.3 26 38 2.2 25 37 2.0 Proficient 24 36 2.0 23 35 1.9 22 35 1.8 21 34 1.8 20 33 1.8 19 33 1.7 18 17

32 32

1.7 1.8

Basic

16 31 1.8 15 30 1.8 14 30 1.9 13 29 1.9 12 28 2.0 11 10

27 27

2.1 2.2

Below Basic

9 26 2.3 8 25 2.5 7 23 2.6 6 22 2.8 5 20 3.0 4 3

18 16

3.3 3.6

Far Below Basic

2 15 4.2 1 15 5.5 0 15 5.5



Table 3.33 Score Conversions: Mathematics Level II

Raw Score Scale Score CSEM Performance Level

32 60 11.5 31 52 7.0 30 29

47 44

4.7 3.6

Advanced

28 42 3.1 27 41 2.7 26 40 2.5 25 39 2.3 24 38 2.2 23 38 2.1 22 37 2.0 Proficient 21 36 2.0 20 36 1.9 19 35 1.9 18 35 1.9 17 34 1.9 16 33 2.0 15 33 2.0 14 32 2.0 Basic 13 31 2.1 12 31 2.2 11 30 2.4 10 29 2.6 9 28 2.9 Below Basic 8 26 3.3 7 24 3.7 6 22 4.0 5 19 4.2 4 3

16 15

4.3 4.6

Far Below Basic

2 15 5.2 1 15 6.8 0 15 6.8



Table 3.34 Score Conversions: ELA Level III


Level 32 60 11.5 31 53 7.4 30 29

47 44

5.1 4.1

Advanced

28 42 3.5 27 41 3.2 26 40 3.0 25 38 2.8 24 23

38 37

2.7 2.6

Proficient

22 36 2.6 21 35 2.6 20 34 2.6 19 33 2.6 18 32 2.6 Basic 17 31 2.7 16 30 2.7 15 29 2.8 14 28 2.9 13 12

27 26

3.0 3.2

Below Basic

11 25 3.4 10 23 3.6 9 22 3.8 8 22 4.1 7 21 4.4 6 20 4.7 5 4

19 19

5.0 5.3

Far Below Basic

3 17 5.7 2 16 6.5 1 15 8.4 0 15 8.4



Table 3.35 Score Conversions: Mathematics Level III


Level 32 60 12 31 55 7.9 30 49 5.5 Advanced 29 46 4.4 28 44 3.8 27 42 3.4 26 41 3.1 25 40 2.9 24 23

39 38

2.8 2.7

Proficient

22 37 2.6 21 36 2.6 20 35 2.6 19 34 2.6 18 33 2.6 17 16

33 32

2.6 2.7

Basic

15 31 2.7 14 30 2.8 13 29 3.0 12 28 3.2 11 26 3.4 Below Basic 10 25 3.7 9 25 4.0 8 24 4.3 7 23 4.7 6 22 4.9 5 21 5.1 4 19 5.3 Far Below Basic 3 18 5.7 2 16 6.5 1 15 8.5 0 15 8.5



Table 3.36 Score Conversions: ELA Level IV


Level 32 60 13.1 31 51 6.9 30 29

47 44

4.8 4.0

Advanced

28 42 3.5 27 41 3.2 26 40 3.0 25 38 2.8 24 23

37 36

2.7 2.6

Proficient

22 35 2.6 21 35 2.5 20 34 2.5 19 33 2.5 18 32 2.5 Basic 17 31 2.5 16 30 2.6 15 29 2.6 14 28 2.7 13 27 2.8 Below Basic 12 26 3.0 11 25 3.2 10 23 3.4 9 22 3.6 8 21 3.9 7 20 4.2 6 20 4.4 5 19 4.6 Far Below Basic 4 18 4.9 3 17 5.3 2 16 6.1 1 15 8.0 0 15 7.9



Table 3.37 Score Conversions: Mathematics Level IV


Level 32 31 30 29

60 49 44 42

16.3 7.3 5.0 4.1

Advanced

28 40 3.6 27 39 3.3 26 37 3.2 Proficient 25 36 3.0 24 35 2.9 23 34 2.8 22 33 2.7 21 20

32 32

2.7 2.7

Basic

19 31 2.6 18 30 2.6 17 29 2.7 16 28 2.7 15 27 2.8 Below Basic 14 27 2.9 13 26 3.0 12 24 3.2 11 23 3.5 10 22 3.9 9 20 4.4 8 19 5.1 7 19 5.6 6 18 5.8 Far Below Basic 5 18 5.9 4 17 6.0 3 16 6.3 2 15 7.0 1 15 9.2 0 15 9.2



Table 3.38 Score Conversions: ELA Level V


Level 32 60 9.9 31 56 6.9 30 29

50 47

4.9 4.1

Advanced

28 44 3.6 27 43 3.3 26 41 3.1 25 40 2.9 24 23

38 37

2.8 2.7

Proficient

22 36 2.6 21 35 2.6 20 34 2.5 19 33 2.5 18 17

33 32

2.5 2.5

Basic

16 31 2.6 15 30 2.7 14 29 2.8 13 27 2.9 Below Basic 12 26 3.1 11 24 3.3 10 24 3.5 9 23 3.8 8 22 4.1 7 21 4.3 6 5

21 20

4.5 4.6

Far Below Basic

4 18 4.8 3 17 5.1 2 16 5.8 1 15 7.6 0 15 7.5



Table 3.39 Score Conversions: Mathematics Level V


Level 32 60 10.3 31 56 7.0 30 49 4.8 29 28

47 45

3.9 3.4

Advanced

27 43 3.1 26 42 2.9 25 41 2.8 24 40 2.7 23 39 2.6 22 21

38 37

2.6 2.6

Proficient

20 36 2.6 19 35 2.6 18 34 2.7 17 33 2.7 16 32 2.8 Basic 15 31 2.9 14 30 3.0 13 12

28 27

3.1 3.4

Below Basic

11 25 3.7 10 24 4.2 9 24 4.8 8 23 5.2 7 21 5.3 6 5

20 19

5.2 5.1

Far Below Basic

4 18 5.2 3 16 5.4 2 15 6.1 1 15 8.0 0 15 8.0


Chap

ter 3.

Ana

lysis

| Stat

istica

l Ana

lysis

Resu

lts

Tabl

e 3.

40 S

cale

Sco

re F

requ

ency

Dis

trib

utio

ns: L

evel

I EL

A a

nd M

athe

mat

ics

Scal

e Sc

ore

EL

A

Mat

hem

atic

s

Freq

uenc

y Pe

rcen

t C

umul

ativ

e Fr

eque

ncy

Perc

ent B

elow

Fr

eque

ncy

Perc

ent

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y Pe

rcen

t Bel

ow

60

57–5

9 54

–56

51–5

3 48

–50

45–4

7 42

–44

39–4

1 36

–38

33–3

5 30

–32

27–2

9 24

–26

21–2

3 18

–20

15–1

7

1634

17

.68

1634

82

.32

302

3.27

19

36

79.0

5 67

4 7.

29

2610

71

.75

583

6.31

31

93

65.4

4 98

4 10

.65

4177

54

.79

638

6.90

48

15

47.8

9 83

6 9.

05

5651

38

.84

708

7.66

63

59

31.1

8 56

3 6.

09

6922

25

.09

474

5.13

73

96

19.9

6 28

7 3.

11

7683

16

.85

309

3.34

79

92

13.5

1 50

8 5.

50

8500

8.

01

183

1.98

86

83

6.03

15

9 1.

72

8842

4.

31

398

4.31

92

40

0.00

371

4.03

37

1 95

.97

168

1.82

53

9 94

.15

160

1.74

69

9 92

.41

535

5.81

12

34

86.6

0 55

8 6.

06

1792

80

.53

838

9.10

26

30

71.4

3 14

71

15.9

8 41

01

55.4

5 10

92

11.8

6 51

93

43.5

9 93

5 10

.16

6128

33

.43

585

6.35

67

13

27.0

8 50

9 5.

53

7222

21

.55

840

9.12

80

62

12.4

3 50

6 5.

50

8568

6.

93

638

6.93

92

06

0.00

Not

e: G

aps i

ndic

ate

scal

e sc

ores

that

wer

e no

t in

the

2007

raw

-to-s

cale

con

vers

ions

.

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

51

Chap

ter 3.

Ana

lysis

| Stat

istica

l Ana

lysis

Resu

lts

Tabl

e 3.

41 S

cale

Sco

re F

requ

ency

Dis

trib

utio

ns: L

evel

II E

LA a

nd M

athe

mat

ics

Scal

e Sc

ore

EL

A

Mat

hem

atic

s

Freq

uenc

y Pe

rcen

t C

umul

ativ

e Fr

eque

ncy

Perc

ent B

elow

Fr

eque

ncy

Perc

ent

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y Pe

rcen

t Bel

ow

60

57–5

9 54

–56

51–5

3 48

–50

45–4

7 42

–44

39–4

1 36

–38

33–3

5 30

–32

27–2

9 24

–26

21–2

3 18

–20

15–1

7

591

9.02

59

1 90

.98

583

8.90

11

74

82.0

9 55

0 8.

39

1724

73

.70

1297

19

.79

3021

53

.91

929

14.1

7 39

50

39.7

3 11

35

17.3

2 50

85

22.4

1 75

3 11

.49

5838

10

.92

385

5.87

62

23

5.05

13

4 2.

04

6357

3.

01

71

1.08

64

28

1.92

62

0.

95

6490

0.

98

64

0.98

65

54

0.00

386

5.90

38

6 94

.10

644

9.84

10

30

84.2

6

508

7.76

15

38

76.4

9 90

9 13

.89

2447

62

.60

906

13.8

5 33

53

48.7

5 12

06

18.4

3 45

59

30.3

2 98

7 15

.08

5546

15

.24

534

8.16

60

80

7.08

17

2 2.

63

6252

4.

45

135

2.06

63

87

2.38

26

0.

40

6413

1.

99

32

0.49

64

45

1.50

98

1.

50

6543

0.

00

Not

e: G

aps i

ndic

ate

scal

e sc

ores

that

wer

e no

t in

the

2007

raw

-to-s

cale

con

vers

ions

.

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

52

Chap

ter 3.

Ana

lysis

| Stat

istica

l Ana

lysis

Resu

lts

Tabl

e 3.

42 S

cale

Sco

re F

requ

ency

Dis

trib

utio

ns: L

evel

III E

LA a

nd M

athe

mat

ics

Scal

e Sc

ore

EL

A

Mat

hem

atic

s

Freq

uenc

y Pe

rcen

t C

umul

ativ

e Fr

eque

ncy

Perc

ent B

elow

Fr

eque

ncy

Perc

ent

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y Pe

rcen

t Bel

ow

60

57–5

9 54

–56

51–5

3 48

–50

45–4

7 42

–44

39–4

1 36

–38

33–3

5 30

–32

27–2

9 24

–26

21–2

3 18

–20

15–1

7

470

7.03

47

0 92

.97

478

7.15

94

8 85

.82

434

6.49

13

82

79.3

3 78

1 11

.68

2163

67

.65

649

9.71

28

12

57.9

5 11

26

16.8

4 39

38

41.1

1 68

0 10

.17

4618

30

.94

567

8.48

51

85

22.4

6 57

9 8.

66

5764

13

.80

318

4.76

60

82

9.05

35

9 5.

37

6441

3.

68

128

1.91

65

69

1.76

11

8 1.

76

6687

0.

00

691

10.3

4 69

1 89

.66

579

8.67

12

70

80.9

9

538

8.05

18

08

72.9

4 56

9 8.

52

2377

64

.42

855

12.8

0 32

32

51.6

2 81

9 12

.26

4051

39

.37

590

8.83

46

41

30.5

3 68

9 10

.31

5330

20

.22

493

7.38

58

23

12.8

4 28

8 4.

31

6111

8.

53

363

5.43

64

74

3.10

97

1.

45

6571

1.

65

37

0.55

66

08

1.09

73

1.

09

6681

0.

00

Not

e: G

aps i

ndic

ate

scal

e sc

ores

that

wer

e no

t in

the

2007

raw

-to-s

cale

con

vers

ions

.

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

53

Chap

ter 3.

Ana

lysis

| Stat

istica

l Ana

lysis

Resu

lts

Tabl

e 3.

43 S

cale

Sco

re F

requ

ency

Dis

trib

utio

ns: L

evel

IV E

LA a

nd M

athe

mat

ics

Scal

e Sc

ore

EL

A

Mat

hem

atic

s

Freq

uenc

y Pe

rcen

t C

umul

ativ

e Fr

eque

ncy

Perc

ent B

elow

Fr

eque

ncy

Perc

ent

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y Pe

rcen

t Bel

ow

60

57–5

9 54

–56

51–5

3 48

–50

45–4

7 42

–44

39–4

1 36

–38

33–3

5 30

–32

27–2

9 24

–26

21–2

3 18

–20

15–1

7

372

3.51

37

2 96

.49

524

4.94

89

6 91

.55

581

5.48

14

77

86.0

7 12

92

12.1

8 27

69

73.8

9 12

05

11.3

6 39

74

62.5

2 14

74

13.9

0 54

48

48.6

2 15

63

14.7

4 70

11

33.8

8 94

5 8.

91

7956

24

.97

912

8.60

88

68

16.3

7 55

8 5.

26

9426

11

.11

643

6.06

10

069

5.05

35

0 3.

30

1041

9 1.

74

185

1.74

10

604

0.00

779

7.36

77

9 92

.64

518

4.90

12

97

87.7

4

1084

10

.24

2381

77

.50

1096

10

.36

3477

67

.14

1062

10

.04

4539

57

.10

1445

13

.66

5984

43

.45

1489

14

.07

7473

29

.37

1163

10

.99

8636

18

.38

563

5.32

91

99

13.0

6 45

8 4.

33

9657

8.

73

727

6.87

10

384

1.86

19

7 1.

86

1058

1 0.

00

Not

e: G

aps i

ndic

ate

scal

e sc

ores

that

wer

e no

t in

the

2007

raw

-to-s

cale

con

vers

ions

.

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

54

Chap

ter 3.

Ana

lysis

| Stat

istica

l Ana

lysis

Resu

lts

Tabl

e 3.

44 S

cale

Sco

re F

requ

ency

Dis

trib

utio

ns: L

evel

V E

LA a

nd M

athe

mat

ics

Scal

e Sc

ore

EL

A

Mat

hem

atic

s

Freq

uenc

y Pe

rcen

t C

umul

ativ

e Fr

eque

ncy

Perc

ent B

elow

Fr

eque

ncy

Perc

ent

Cum

ulat

ive

Freq

uenc

y Pe

rcen

t Bel

ow

60

57–5

9 54

–56

51–5

3 48

–50

45–4

7 42

–44

39–4

1 36

–38

33–3

5 30

–32

27–2

9 24

–26

21–2

3 18

–20

15–1

7

513

5.10

51

3 94

.90

601

5.98

11

14

88.9

2

618

6.15

17

32

82.7

7 68

8 6.

85

2420

75

.92

1286

12

.79

3706

63

.13

1013

10

.08

4719

53

.05

1145

11

.39

5864

41

.66

1272

12

.66

7136

29

.00

756

7.52

78

92

21.4

8 54

0 5.

37

8432

16

.11

711

7.07

91

43

9.03

58

4 5.

81

9727

3.

22

124

1.23

98

51

1.99

20

0 1.

99

1005

1 0.

00

368

3.67

36

8 96

.33

379

3.78

74

7 92

.55

389

3.88

11

36

88.6

8 78

0 7.

78

1916

80

.90

808

8.06

27

24

72.8

4 11

28

11.2

5 38

52

61.6

0 10

90

10.8

7 49

42

50.7

3 11

65

11.6

1 61

07

39.1

2 11

68

11.6

4 72

75

27.4

7 77

6 7.

74

8051

19

.74

1017

10

.14

9068

9.

60

449

4.48

95

17

5.12

24

3 2.

42

9760

2.

70

271

2.70

10

031

0.00

Not

e: G

aps i

ndic

ate

scal

e sc

ores

that

wer

e no

t in

the

2007

raw

-to-s

cale

con

vers

ions

.

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

55


Table 3.45 Raw Score Frequency Distributions: Level I Science Percent Raw

Score Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency

Raw Score Frequency Percent Cumulative

Frequency 25 183 6.50 183 24 71 2.52 254 23 86 3.06 340 22 132 4.69 472 21 101 3.59 573 20 85 3.02 658 19 137 4.87 795 18 92 3.27 887 17 101 3.59 988 16 158 5.61 1146 15 139 4.94 1285 14 89 3.16 1374 13 166 5.90 1540 12 119 4.23 1659 11 116 4.12 1775 10 97 3.45 1872 9 91 3.23 1963 8 87 3.09 2050 7 90 3.20 2140 6 105 3.73 2245 5 122 4.33 2367

Below 93.5090.9887.9283.2379.6476.63 71.76 68.49 64.90 59.29 54.35 51.19 45.29 41.07 36.94 33.50 30.27 27.18 23.98 20.25 15.91

Percent Below

4 75 2.66 2442 13.25 3 61 2.17 2503 11.08 2 74 2.63 2577 8.45 1 66 2.34 2643 6.11 0 172 6.11 2815 0.00

* Level I Science raw scores are based on 5 tasks common across field-test forms.



Table 3.46 Raw Score Frequency Distributions: Level III Science Raw Score Frequency Percent Cumulative

Frequency Percent Below



20 170 4.98 170 95.02 4 25 0.73 3330 2.46 19 321 9.40 491 85.62 3 16 0.47 3346 1.99 18 345 10.11 836 75.51 2 12 0.35 3358 1.64 17 310 9.08 1146 66.43 1 17 0.50 3375 1.14 16 352 10.31 1498 56.12 0 39 1.14 3414 0.00 15 358 10.49 1856 45.64 14 316 9.26 2172 36.38 13 283 8.29 2455 28.09 12 229 6.71 2684 21.38 11 157 4.60 2841 16.78 10 129 3.78 2970 13.01 9 84 2.46 3054 10.54 8 75 2.20 3129 8.35 7 58 1.70 3187 6.65 6 50 1.46 3237 5.18 5 68 1.99 3305 3.19

* Level III Science raw scores are based on 5 tasks common across field-test forms.



Table 3.47 Raw Score Frequency Distributions: Level IV Science Raw Score Frequency Percent Cumulative




20 123 3.25 123 96.75 4 39 1.03 3657 3.23 19 167 4.42 290 92.33 3 31 0.82 3688 2.41 18 236 6.25 526 86.08 2 15 0.40 3703 2.01 17 280 7.41 806 78.67 1 26 0.69 3729 1.32 16 280 7.41 1086 71.26 0 50 1.32 3779 0.00 15 325 8.60 1411 62.66 14 355 9.39 1766 53.27 13 311 8.23 2077 45.04 12 295 7.81 2372 37.23 11 264 6.99 2636 30.25 10 245 6.48 2881 23.76 9 188 4.97 3069 18.79 8 153 4.05 3222 14.74 7 135 3.57 3357 11.17 6 127 3.36 3484 7.81 5 134 3.55 3618 4.26

* Level IV Science raw scores are based on 5 tasks common across field-test forms.



Table 3.48 Raw Score Frequency Distributions: Level V Science Raw Score Frequency Percent Cumulative




20 129 3.65 129 96.35 4 26 0.73 3401 3.90 19 186 5.26 315 91.10 3 18 0.51 3419 3.39 18 291 8.22 606 82.88 2 31 0.88 3450 2.51 17 374 10.57 980 72.31 1 18 0.51 3468 2.01 16 431 12.18 1411 60.13 0 71 2.01 3539 0.00 15 387 10.94 1798 49.19 14 333 9.41 2131 39.79 13 257 7.26 2388 32.52 12 213 6.02 2601 26.50 11 158 4.46 2759 22.04 10 121 3.42 2880 18.62 9 142 4.01 3022 14.61 8 102 2.88 3124 11.73 7 86 2.43 3210 9.30 6 57 1.61 3267 7.69 5 108 3.05 3375 4.63

* Level V Science raw scores are based on 5 tasks common across field-test forms.


Chapter 4. Statewide Assessment Results | Participation

Chapter 4. Statewide Assessment Results In 2007, a total of 43,136 students in grades 2–11 participated in the CAPA. This chapter provides

detailed information on statewide test results. The first section includes information on the number of participants and their disabilities; the second section includes test results in the aggregate and disaggregated by demographic and disability subgroups.

Participation The number of students with one or more test sections is presented in Table 4.1 by test level.

Level IV had the largest sample size with 10,604 examinees, followed by Levels V and I with 10,051 and 9,240 assessed students, respectively.

Table 4.1 Distribution of Students Across Test Levels Test Frequency Percent Cumulative Cumulative

Level Frequency Percent I 9240 21.4 9240 21.4 II 6554 15.2 15794 36.6 III 6687 15.5 22481 52.1 IV 10604 24.6 33085 76.7 V 10051 23.3 43136 100.0

Table 4.2 provides the CAPA population disability frequencies for students completing a CAPA test in ELA or mathematics. Across all levels, the largest disability group (44.5%) is Mental Retardation, followed by Autism (19.8%) and Orthopedic Impairment (9.7%). The unknown category comprises those examinees for which no disability type was marked. This category included 2.1% of the examinees. Tables 4.3–4.7 provide parallel information by test level.

Table 4.2 Disability Distributions across All Levels

Disability ELA Mathematics

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Mental Retardation 19180 44.5 19150 44.5 Hard of Hearing 375 0.9 374 0.9 Deafness 427 1.0 428 1.0 Speech or Language Impairment 1375 3.2 1370 3.2 Visual Impairment 530 1.2 528 1.2 Emotional Disturbance 379 0.9 375 0.9 Orthopedic Impairment 4200 9.7 4184 9.7 Other Health Impairment 1505 3.5 1500 3.5 Established Medical Disability 0 0.0 0 0.0 Specific Learning Disability 3031 7.0 3028 7.0 Deaf-Blindness 43 0.1 43 0.1 Multiple Disabilities 2400 5.6 2394 5.6 Autism 8535 19.8 8515 19.8 Traumatic Brain Injury 263 0.6 262 0.6 Unknown 893 2.1 891 2.1 TOTAL 43136 100.0 43042 100.0



Table 4.3 Level I Disability Distributions



Table 4.4 Level II Disability Distributions





Table 4.5 Level III Disability Distributions



Table 4.6 Level IV Disability Distributions




Chapter 4. Statewide Assessment Results | Test Results

Table 4.7 Level V Disability Distributions



Test Results In this section, test results are provided by level and disaggregated by demographic subgroups.

Consistent with CDE policy, information on subgroups with 11 or fewer members is not reported. Tables 4.8–4.9 summarize the performance score distributions in ELA and mathematics for all

CAPA examinees, and disaggregated by grade, demographic subgroup, and primary disability. Provided are the number of students tested and the percent of students scoring in each performance level (Far Below Basic, Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced). In the aggregate, there were approximately 4,000 students per grade in grades 2 through 11. In general, students performed better in ELA than in mathematics. Approximately 66% of all students who took the CAPA were classified as Proficient or Advanced in ELA, and 57% in mathematics.

Tables 4.10–4.19 provide parallel information by CAPA test level. As expected, the performance distribution is substantially more varied by primary disability than by grade or demographic subgroup. For ELA, most frequently, students with Specific Learning Impairment outperformed students with other primary disabilities. Across all levels, the group having the largest percentage of students in the Proficient or Advanced category was Specific Learning Impairment. The second highest was Emotional Disturbance.

Tables 4.20–4.29 summarize the scale score distributions by test level for ELA and mathematics for the population, and disaggregated by grade, demographic subgroup, and primary disability. Statistics include the number of valid scores, the scale score mean and standard deviation, the mean scale score at selected percentile points, as well as alpha reliability and SEM. Subgroup reliabilities ranged from 0.70 ( Level IV Mathematics for Specific Learning Impairment) to 0.96 (Level I ELA Unknown Gender) with most closer to 0.90.


Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

8 Pe

rfor

man

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns fo

r All

Exam

inee

s*: E

nglis

h–La

ngua

ge A

rts

2007

Pe

rfor

man

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns fo

r A

ll E

xam

inee

s*: E

nglis

h–L

angu

age

Art

s 200

7 Pe

rcen

tE

LA

Su

bgro

up

N

Far

Bel

ow

Bel

owA

ll L

evel

s B

asic

B

asic

B

asic

Pr

ofic

ient

A

dvan

ced

All

All

4313

6 10

10

15

28

38

Gra

de

2 43

14

5 8

19

33

36

3 44

09

4 7

17

32

41

4 43

12

8 14

1426

37

5 41

37

7 13

1326

42

6 43

53

13

14

15

29

30

7 45

05

11

12

14

27

36

8 45

06

10

11

12

28

40

9 44

7015

8

15

27

34

10

4196

13

814

24

41

11

39

3412

7

14

24

43

Gen

der

Mal

e 27

460

10

10

15

28

38

Fem

ale

1550

5 10

10

15

28

37

U

nkno

wn

171

9 9

15

20

47

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

383

8 8

14

25

46

Ethn

icity

A

sian

29

87

13

12

16

27

32

Paci

fic Is

land

er

228

11

13

11

26

39

Filip

ino

1226

13

12

16

28

32

H

ispa

nic

or L

atin

o 20

744

10

11

15

28

37

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

4842

9

18

14

28

41

Whi

te(n

ot H

ispa

nic

orig

in)

1211

9 9

9 14

27

40

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

64

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Perf

orm

ance

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

for

All

Exa

min

ees*

: Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts 2

007

Perc

ent

EL

A

Subg

roup

N

Fa

r B

elow

B

elow

All

Lev

els

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Prof

icie

nt

Adv

ance

d La

ngua

ge

Engl

ish

Onl

y 26

727

10

10

15

28

38

Flue

ncy

Initi

ally

–Flu

ent E

nglis

h Pr

ofic

ient

12

14

14

14

16

27

29

Engl

ish

Lear

ner

1374

3 9

10

15

28

38

Rec

lass

ified

–Flu

ent E

nglis

h Pr

ofic

ient

73

4 11

13

14

27

35

U

nkno

wn

718

8 7

12

29

43

Econ

omic

Y

es

2524

8 9

10

15

28

38

Dis

adva

ntag

e N

o 16

601

11

11

15

27

36

Unk

now

n 12

87

8 6

13

28

46

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 19

180

9 12

17

28

34

D

isab

ility

H

ard

of H

earin

g 37

5 15

10

10

31

34

D

eafn

ess

427

7 10

16

35

31

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

1375

1

4 7

28

59

Vis

ual I

mpa

irmen

t 53

0 14

9

15

32

30

Emot

iona

l Dis

turb

ance

37

9 3

3 7

22

65

Orth

oped

ic Im

pairm

ent

4200

14

11

14

31

31

O

ther

Hea

lth Im

pairm

ent

1505

6

7 14

26

46

Sp

ecifi

c Le

arni

ng Im

pairm

ent

3031

1

2 5

24

68

Dea

f Blin

dnes

s 43

26

9

28

26

12

Mul

tiple

Gro

up

2400

16

12

15

28

28

A

utis

m

8535

12

11

15

27

36

Tr

aum

atic

Bra

in In

jury

26

3 7

11

12

28

42

Unk

now

n 89

3 8

8 13

27

43

*R

esul

ts fo

r gro

ups w

ith fe

wer

than

11

mem

bers

are

not

repo

rted

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

65

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

9 Pe

rfor

man

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns fo

r All

Exam

inee

s*: M

athe

mat

ics

2007

Pe

rfor

man

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns fo

r A

ll E

xam

inee

s*: M

athe

mat

ics 2

007

Mat

hem

atic

s Pe

rcen

t A

ll L

evel

s Su

bgro

up

N

Far

Bel

ow

Bel

ow

Gro

up

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Prof

icie

nt

Adv

ance

d A

ll

All

4304

2 12

12

19

28

29

Gra

de

2 43

03

5 8

20

35

32

3 43

99

4 8

16

32

39

4 43

06

6 12

1731

34

5 41

33

5 11

1529

40

6 43

45

18

16

24

25

17

7 44

92

15

15

22

27

22

8 44

94

13

15

21

27

24

9 44

63

20

12

20

24

25

10

4183

18

1019

2429

11

39

2417

10

1923

31

Gen

der

Mal

e 27

403

12

11

19

27

31

Fem

ale

1546

8 13

13

20

28

26

U

nkno

wn

171

9 10

14

28

39

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

381

8 12

15

27

38

Et

hnic

ity

Asi

an

2981

15

14

20

28

24

Pa

cific

Isla

nder

22

8 12

11

17

25

35

Fi

lipin

o 12

22

14

13

23

27

23

His

pani

c or

Lat

ino

2070

3 12

12

19

28

30

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

48

27

11

10

18

29

31

Whi

te(n

ot H

ispa

nic

orig

in)

1209

4 12

12

19

28

29

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

66

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Perf

orm

ance

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

for

All

Exa

min

ees*

: Mat

hem

atic

s 200

7 M

athe

mat

ics

Perc

ent

All

Lev

els

Subg

roup

N

Fa

r B

elow

B

elow

G

roup

B

asic

B

asic

B

asic

Pr

ofic

ient

A

dvan

ced

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

2666

4 12

12

19

28

29

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

1209

16

15

26

24

19

En

glis

h Le

arne

r 13

720

11

11

19

28

31

Rec

lass

ified

–Flu

ent E

nglis

h Pr

ofic

ient

73

1 14

13

20

24

29

U

nkno

wn

718

10

9 18

28

35

Econ

omic

Y

es

2520

1 11

11

19

28

31

D

isad

vant

age

No

1655

7 14

13

20

28

26

U

nkno

wn

1284

9

9 18

29

35

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 19

150

13

12

22

28

25

Dis

abili

ty

Har

d of

Hea

ring

374

16

12

15

27

30

Dea

fnes

s 42

8 6

6 14

30

43

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

1370

1

3 9

27

60

Vis

ual I

mpa

irmen

t 52

8 18

19

19

27

18

Em

otio

nal D

istu

rban

ce

375

3 2

11

23

61

Orth

oped

ic Im

pairm

ent

4184

18

21

20

24

17

O

ther

Hea

lth Im

pairm

ent

1500

8

9 17

27

39

Sp

ecifi

c Le

arni

ng Im

pairm

ent

3028

1

1 7

24

66

Dea

f Blin

dnes

s 43

33

16

21

23

7

M

ultip

le g

roup

23

94

19

20

20

24

16

Aut

ism

85

15

12

11

20

31

26

Trau

mat

ic B

rain

Inju

ry

262

11

9 16

28

35

U

nkno

wn

891

12

8 17

29

34

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

67

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

10 P

erfo

rman

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el I

Engl

ish–

Lang

uage

Art

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el I

Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts Pe

rcen

tE

LA

Su

bgro

up

N

Far

Bel

ow

Bel

owL

evel

1

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Prof

icie

nt

Adv

ance

d A

ll

All

9240

11

6 6

2849

Gra

de

2 12

30

8 5

7 25

56

3

939

8 6

829

49

4 91

311

6

530

48

5 84

911

6

728

48

6 94

312

5

729

46

7 90

813

6

628

47

8 90

910

6

630

48

9 96

413

7

726

48

10

837

12

7 6

2550

11

74

812

6

728

47

Gen

der

Mal

e 56

21

10

6 6

27

51

Fem

ale

3592

12

6

7 29

46

U

nkno

wn

27

30

0 0

11

59

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

59

7 5

3 29

56

Et

hnic

ity

Asi

an

737

13

5 7

27

48

Paci

fic Is

land

er

45

7 4

7 22

60

Fi

lipin

o 29

7 8

7 8

31

46

His

pani

c or

Lat

ino

4494

12

6

6 26

50

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

10

11

10

6 6

28

50

Whi

te(n

ot H

ispa

nic

orig

in)

2502

10

5

8 30

47

U

nkno

wn

95

15

2 5

27

51

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

68

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Perf

orm

ance

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

I E

nglis

h–L

angu

age

Art

s Perc

ent

EL

A

Subg

roup

N

Fa

r B

elow

B

elow

Lev

el 1

B

asic

B

asic

B

asic

Pr

ofic

ient

A

dvan

ced

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

5672

11

6

7 29

47

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

357

12

8 5

35

40

Engl

ish

Lear

ner

2970

11

5

6 25

53

R

ecla

ssifi

ed–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

117

13

7 5

22

53

Unk

now

n 12

4 14

2

3 33

48

Econ

omic

Y

es

5188

10

6

6 27

52

D

isad

vant

age

No

3834

12

7

7 29

45

U

nkno

wn

218

19

5 3

28

45

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 32

10

8 4

5 24

60

D

isab

ility

H

ard

of H

earin

g 75

3

4 1

40

52

Dea

fnes

s 43

14

7

12

21

47

Spee

ch/L

angu

age

Impa

irmen

t 61

0

2 7

13

79

Vis

ual I

mpa

irmen

t 24

2 15

7

8 35

34

O

rthop

edic

Impa

irmen

t 22

86

17

9 8

32

33

Oth

er H

ealth

Impa

irmen

t 18

2 14

5

9 24

47

Sp

ecifi

c Le

arni

ng Im

pairm

ent

102

6 1

3 21

70

D

eaf B

lindn

ess

23

22

4 26

30

17

M

ultip

le g

roup

10

88

18

9 9

32

32

Aut

ism

17

23

3 3

5 28

61

Tr

aum

atic

Bra

in In

jury

61

15

11

8

23

43

Unk

now

n 13

4 16

4

7 25

47

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

69

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

11 P

erfo

rman

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el I

Mat

hem

atic

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el I

Mat

hem

atic

s Pe

rcen

tM

athe

mat

ics

Subg

roup

N

Far

Bel

ow

Bel

owL

evel

1

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Prof

icie

nt

Adv

ance

d A

ll

All

9206

12

21

19

32

16

Gra

de

2 12

22

10

18

21

34

17

3 93

710

23

2133

12

4 91

212

23

1932

14

5 84

613

20

2131

14

6 93

915

20

2132

13

7 90

513

22

1631

18

8 90

611

20

1933

17

9 96

114

24

1628

19

10

833

13

1919

3416

11

74

515

21

1826

20

Gen

der

Mal

e 56

04

12

20

19

33

16

Fem

ale

3575

14

22

19

29

16

U

nkno

wn

27

19

15

19

30

19

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

58

5 24

22

28

21

Et

hnic

ity

Asi

an

736

14

22

18

31

15

Paci

fic Is

land

er

45

7 18

16

33

27

Fi

lipin

o 29

5 13

20

24

29

14

H

ispa

nic

or L

atin

o 44

78

13

21

19

31

17

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

1009

13

20

17

32

18

W

hite

(not

His

pani

c or

igin

) 24

89

11

21

20

33

15

Unk

now

n 96

9

27

19

36

8

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

70

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Perf

orm

ance

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

I M

athe

mat

ics

Perc

ent

Mat

hem

atic

s Su

bgro

up

N

Far

Bel

ow

Bel

owL

evel

1

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Prof

icie

nt

Adv

ance

d La

ngua

ge

Engl

ish

Onl

y 56

46

13

22

19

32

15

Flue

ncy

Initi

ally

–Flu

ent E

nglis

h Pr

ofic

ient

35

6 13

23

24

27

12

En

glis

h Le

arne

r 29

64

12

20

19

31

18

Rec

lass

ified

–Flu

ent E

nglis

h Pr

ofic

ient

11

6 13

17

17

30

22

U

nkno

wn

124

14

20

20

30

16

Econ

omic

Y

es

5172

11

20

19

33

18

D

isad

vant

age

No

3817

14

23

19

30

14

U

nkno

wn

217

20

21

18

28

13

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 32

04

8 16

18

35

23

D

isab

ility

H

ard

of H

earin

g 74

7

19

18

35

22

Dea

fnes

s 43

21

12

14

33

21

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

60

3 7

15

38

37

Vis

ual I

mpa

irmen

t 24

0 16

27

21

26

10

O

rthop

edic

Impa

irmen

t 22

78

21

29

19

23

8

Oth

er H

ealth

Impa

irmen

t 18

1 15

24

19

22

20

Sp

ecifi

c Le

arni

ng Im

pairm

ent

102

4 11

13

40

32

D

eaf B

lindn

ess

23

26

22

30

22

0

Mul

tiple

gro

up

1085

20

30

20

23

8

A

utis

m

1716

4

14

20

44

18

Trau

mat

ic B

rain

Inju

ry

60

22

25

13

27

13

Unk

now

n 13

2 19

17

19

31

14

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

less

than

11

mem

bers

are

not

repo

rted

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

71

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

12 P

erfo

rman

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

Eng

lish–

Lang

uage

Art

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts Pe

rcen

tE

LA

Su

bgro

up

N

Far

Bel

ow

Bel

owL

evel

1I

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Prof

icie

nt

Adv

ance

d A

ll

All

6554

3

821

34

34

Gra

de

2 30

84

3 8

24

36

28

3 34

70

3 7

19

32

39

Gen

der

Mal

e 44

14

3 8

21

35

34

Fem

ale

2114

3

8 23

33

33

U

nkno

wn

26

0 12

23

15

50

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

57

2 2

19

33

44

Ethn

icity

A

sian

47

1 4

9 23

36

29

Pa

cific

Isla

nder

33

0

24

9 39

27

Fi

lipin

o 22

2 4

13

22

37

24

His

pani

c or

Lat

ino

3228

3

8 22

37

24

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

65

4 2

6 17

37

38

W

hite

(not

His

pani

c or

igin

) 17

88

3 8

22

32

35

Unk

now

n 10

1 2

8 21

34

36

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

4104

3

8 21

35

34

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

132

5 20

23

31

21

En

glis

h Le

arne

r 21

57

2 7

22

34

34

Rec

lass

ified

–Flu

ent E

nglis

h Pr

ofic

ient

55

5

15

33

18

29

Unk

now

n 10

6 3

8 22

27

41

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

72

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Perf

orm

ance

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

II E

nglis

h–L

angu

age

Art

s Perc

ent

EL

A

Subg

roup

N

Fa

r B

elow

B

elow

Lev

el 1

I B

asic

B

asic

B

asic

Pr

ofic

ient

A

dvan

ced

Econ

omic

Y

es

3840

3

7 20

34

36

D

isad

vant

age

No

2483

4

9 23

34

30

U

nkno

wn

231

2 4

21

34

39

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 24

84

3 10

27

36

25

D

isab

ility

H

ard

of H

earin

g 55

7

5 11

42

35

D

eafn

ess

66

2 12

15

48

23

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

519

0 3

8 35

55

V

isua

l Im

pairm

ent

52

10

12

25

35

19

Emot

iona

l Dis

turb

ance

38

0

0 5

21

74

Orth

oped

ic Im

pairm

ent

380

3 8

26

34

29

Oth

er H

ealth

Impa

irmen

t 30

5 3

3 18

32

43

Sp

ecifi

c Le

arni

ng Im

pairm

ent

475

0 1

5 27

66

M

ultip

le g

roup

22

3 5

12

26

33

24

Aut

ism

17

73

4 10

22

33

31

Tr

aum

atic

Bra

in In

jury

33

6

9 9

33

42

Unk

now

n 14

6 4

5 21

34

36

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

73

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

13 P

erfo

rman

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

Mat

hem

atic

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

Mat

hem

atic

s Pe

rcen

tM

athe

mat

ics

Subg

roup

N

Far

Bel

ow

Bel

owL

evel

II

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Prof

icie

nt

Adv

ance

d A

ll

All

6543

3

417

34

42

Gra

de

2 30

81

3 5

19

35

37

3 34

62

3 4

15

32

47

Gen

der

Mal

e 44

07

3 4

16

33

44

Fem

ale

2111

3

4 19

36

38

U

nkno

wn

25

4 8

16

24

48

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

57

2 4

7 28

60

Et

hnic

ity

Asi

an

468

3 5

20

34

38

Paci

fic Is

land

er

33

3 9

24

21

42

Filip

ino

222

2 6

22

40

29

His

pani

c or

Lat

ino

3225

3

4 17

34

43

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

65

3 2

3 16

32

46

W

hite

(not

His

pani

c or

igin

) 17

85

3 4

17

33

43

Unk

now

n 10

0 3

5 21

33

38

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

4095

3

4 17

34

42

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

132

4 5

27

37

27

Engl

ish

Lear

ner

2155

2

3 17

33

44

R

ecla

ssifi

ed–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

55

2 7

24

42

25

Unk

now

n 10

6 5

3 16

31

45

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

74

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Perf

orm

ance

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

II M

athe

mat

ics

Perc

ent

Mat

hem

atic

s Su

bgro

up

N

Far

Bel

ow

Bel

owL

evel

II

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Prof

icie

nt

Adv

ance

d Ec

onom

ic

Yes

38

37

2 4

16

33

45

Dis

adva

ntag

e N

o 24

75

4 5

18

36

37

Unk

now

n 23

1 2

3 16

33

47

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 24

81

3 4

23

37

33

Dis

abili

ty

Har

d of

Hea

ring

55

5 7

7 33

47

D

eafn

ess

66

2 3

9 38

48

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

518

0 1

7 24

68

V

isua

l Im

pairm

ent

52

12

6 15

35

33

Em

otio

nal D

istu

rban

ce

38

0 0

5 13

82

O

rthop

edic

Impa

irmen

t 37

9 3

4 19

31

42

O

ther

Hea

lth Im

pairm

ent

304

3 3

12

31

51

Spec

ific

Lear

ning

Impa

irmen

t 47

5 0

1 2

16

81

Mul

tiple

gro

up

222

5 5

21

35

35

Aut

ism

17

69

4 5

17

38

36

Trau

mat

ic B

rain

Inju

ry

33

3 3

15

36

42

Unk

now

n 14

6 5

3 17

29

45

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

75

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

14 P

erfo

rman

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

I Eng

lish–

Lang

uage

Art

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

I Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts Pe

rcen

tE

LA

Su

bgro

up

N

Far

Bel

ow

Bel

owL

evel

1II

B

asic

B

asic

B

asic

Pr

ofic

ient

A

dvan

ced

All

All

6687

7

1515

2537

Gra

de

4 33

99

8 16

16

25

34

5

3288

6

1414

2540

M

ale

4387

7

15

15

26

37

Gen

der

Fem

ale

2267

6

17

15

25

37

Unk

now

n

33

3 12

18

18

48

Am

eric

an In

dian

or A

lask

a N

ativ

e 65

5

17

14

20

45

Rac

e A

sian

46

6 9

17

17

28

29

Ethn

icity

Pa

cific

Isla

nder

37

8

19

14

19

41

Filip

ino

185

13

19

12

25

30

His

pani

c or

Lat

ino

3422

7

17

15

25

36

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

716

6 10

15

24

44

W

hite

(not

His

pani

c or

igin

)

1711

7

14

15

25

39

Unk

now

n

85

5 8

927

51

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

4038

7

15

15

25

38

Flue

ncy

Initi

ally

–Flu

ent E

nglis

h Pr

ofic

ient

13

4 10

25

25

19

21

En

glis

h Le

arne

r 23

47

7 16

14

25

38

R

ecla

ssifi

ed–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

95

6 17

15

32

31

U

nkno

wn

73

0 5

15

34

45

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

76

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Perf

orm

ance

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

III E

nglis

h–L

angu

age

Art

s Perc

ent

EL

A

Subg

roup

N

Fa

r B

elow

B

elow

Lev

el 1

II

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Prof

icie

nt

Adv

ance

d Ec

onom

ic

Yes

41

65

6 15

15

25

38

D

isad

vant

age

No

2370

9

16

16

24

35

Unk

now

n 15

2 3

7 14

29

46

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 29

13

7 20

18

25

29

D

isab

ility

H

ard

of H

earin

g 58

12

17

19

28

24

D

eafn

ess

55

2 20

16

42

20

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

349

2 5

6 23

65

V

isua

l Im

pairm

ent

54

13

15

13

31

28

Emot

iona

l Dis

turb

ance

63

0

5 11

25

59

O

rthop

edic

Impa

irmen

t 38

7 7

16

17

26

34

Oth

er H

ealth

Impa

irmen

t 28

4 4

12

11

23

50

Spec

ific

Lear

ning

Impa

irmen

t 61

3 0

1 4

17

78

Mul

tiple

gro

up

255

10

13

24

24

30

Aut

ism

15

03

13

16

15

29

29

Trau

mat

ic B

rain

Inju

ry

30

0 13

20

20

47

U

nkno

wn

119

1 11

11

29

48

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

77

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

15 P

erfo

rman

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

I Mat

hem

atic

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

I Mat

hem

atic

s Pe

rcen

tM

athe

mat

ics

Subg

roup

N

Far

Bel

ow

Bel

owL

evel

III

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Prof

icie

nt

Adv

ance

d A

ll

All

6681

4

915

30

43

Gra

de

4 33

94

5 9

16

31

39

5 32

87

3 8

14

28

46

Gen

der

Mal

e 43

83

4 9

15

28

44

Fem

ale

2265

4

9 15

32

40

U

nkno

wn

33

0 6

339

52

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

65

0 11

11

31

48

Et

hnic

ity

Asi

an

465

6 11

15

31

37

Pa

cific

Isla

nder

37

3

11

16

27

43

Filip

ino

185

6 12

18

27

37

H

ispa

nic

or L

atin

o 34

20

4 9

15

29

43

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

714

4 7

12

29

48

Whi

te(n

ot H

ispa

nic

orig

in)

1710

4

9 16

30

42

U

nkno

wn

85

1 9

841

40

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

4035

4

9 15

30

42

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

133

3 13

32

24

28

En

glis

h Le

arne

r 23

45

4 8

14

29

44

Rec

lass

ified

–Flu

ent E

nglis

h Pr

ofic

ient

95

5

11

18

21

45

Unk

now

n 73

0

3 8

3356

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

78

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Perf

orm

ance

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

III M

athe

mat

ics

Perc

ent

Mat

hem

atic

s Su

bgro

up

N

Far

Bel

ow

Bel

owL

evel

III

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Prof

icie

nt

Adv

ance

d Ec

onom

ic

Yes

41

63

4 8

14

29

45

Dis

adva

ntag

e N

o 23

66

5 10

16

31

38

U

nkno

wn

152

1 7

11

31

50

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 29

10

4 10

19

32

35

D

isab

ility

H

ard

of H

earin

g 58

3

10

12

34

40

Dea

fnes

s 55

2

0 7

31

60

Spee

ch/L

angu

age

Impa

irmen

t 34

8 1

1 5

25

68

Vis

ual I

mpa

irmen

t 54

11

11

9

30

39

Emot

iona

l Dis

turb

ance

63

0

0 6

32

62

Orth

oped

ic Im

pairm

ent

386

6 11

17

27

39

O

ther

Hea

lth Im

pairm

ent

284

4 9

9 27

51

Sp

ecifi

c Le

arni

ng Im

pairm

ent

613

0 0

3 20

77

M

ultip

le G

roup

25

5 5

13

20

27

34

Aut

ism

15

02

7 11

16

30

37

Tr

aum

atic

Bra

in In

jury

30

0

0 10

43

47

U

nkno

wn

119

1 7

8 42

43

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

79

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

16 P

erfo

rman

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el IV

Eng

lish–

Lang

uage

Art

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el IV

Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts Pe

rcen

tE

LA

Su

bgro

up

N

Far

Bel

ow

Bel

owL

evel

1V

B

asic

B

asic

B

asic

Pr

ofic

ient

A

dvan

ced

All

All

1060

4 11

14

16

27

32

Gra

de

6 34

10

13

16

17

29

25

7 35

97

11

14

17

26

33

8 35

97

10

12

14

27

37

Gen

der

Mal

e 67

93

11

14

16

27

32

Fem

ale

3769

11

14

16

27

32

U

nkno

wn

42

7 10

21

21

40

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

106

11

9 15

24

41

Et

hnic

ity

Asi

an

688

16

18

18

24

24

Paci

fic Is

land

er

53

11

19

17

26

26

Filip

ino

276

20

14

20

20

26

His

pani

c or

Lat

ino

5027

11

14

16

28

31

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

12

15

9 11

15

29

37

W

hite

(not

His

pani

c or

igin

) 30

70

11

14

15

27

34

Unk

now

n 16

9 12

9

17

30

32

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

6529

11

13

15

27

33

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

279

19

19

18

20

24

Engl

ish

Lear

ner

3368

11

15

17

29

29

R

ecla

ssifi

ed–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

226

9 17

14

27

32

U

nkno

wn

202

4 9

12

29

45

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

80

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Perf

orm

ance

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

IV E

nglis

h–L

angu

age

Art

s Perc

ent

EL

A

Subg

roup

N

Fa

r B

elow

B

elow

Lev

el 1

V

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Prof

icie

nt

Adv

ance

d Ec

onom

ic

Yes

63

40

10

14

16

28

31

Dis

adva

ntag

e N

o 39

19

13

14

16

25

31

Unk

now

n 34

5 4

8 14

28

46

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 50

68

11

16

18

29

26

Dis

abili

ty

Har

d of

Hea

ring

99

23

16

10

23

27

Dea

fnes

s 13

5 12

12

16

36

24

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

293

3 9

9 27

53

V

isua

l Im

pairm

ent

95

15

13

19

26

27

Emot

iona

l Dis

turb

ance

11

4 3

3 11

25

60

O

rthop

edic

Impa

irmen

t 63

6 10

13

17

31

28

O

ther

Hea

lth Im

pairm

ent

387

4 9

15

28

44

Spec

ific

Lear

ning

Impa

irmen

t 96

3 1

2 6

29

62

Mul

tiple

gro

up

417

15

20

17

24

24

Aut

ism

20

52

19

17

15

22

27

Trau

mat

ic B

rain

Inju

ry

67

1 12

15

28

43

U

nkno

wn

272

7 9

11

30

43

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

81

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

17 P

erfo

rman

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el IV

Mat

hem

atic

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el IV

Mat

hem

atic

s Pe

rcen

tM

athe

mat

ics

Subg

roup

N

Fa

r B

elow

B

elow

Lev

el IV

B

asic

B

asic

B

asic

Pr

ofic

ient

A

dvan

ced

All

All

1058

1 16

14

23

25

23

Gra

de

6 34

06

19

15

25

24

18

7 35

87

15

13

23

26

23

8 35

88

13

13

22

26

26

Gen

der

Mal

e 67

77

16

13

23

25

24

Fem

ale

3761

16

15

24

25

21

U

nkno

wn

43

12

16

19

23

30

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

106

14

12

22

22

30

Ethn

icity

A

sian

68

8 21

15

27

22

15

Pa

cific

Isla

nder

53

17

11

17

30

25

Fi

lipin

o 27

6 22

16

25

22

16

H

ispa

nic

or L

atin

o 50

17

16

14

23

25

23

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

1210

12

12

22

29

25

W

hite

(not

His

pani

c or

igin

) 30

63

15

14

23

25

22

Unk

now

n 16

8 14

10

27

23

26

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

6514

16

14

23

25

22

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

279

25

17

26

17

15

Engl

ish

Lear

ner

3360

15

14

23

25

23

R

ecla

ssifi

ed–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

226

14

18

23

23

23

Unk

now

n 20

2 6

11

21

29

32

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

82

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Perf

orm

ance

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

IV M

athe

mat

ics

Perc

ent

Mat

hem

atic

s Su

bgro

up

N

Far

Bel

ow

Bel

owL

evel

IV

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Prof

icie

nt

Adv

ance

d Ec

onom

ic

Yes

63

27

15

13

23

25

24

Dis

adva

ntag

e N

o 39

11

17

15

24

24

20

Unk

now

n 34

3 5

9 25

30

31

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 50

61

18

16

26

24

17

Dis

abili

ty

Har

d of

Hea

ring

99

24

16

17

18

24

Dea

fnes

s 13

5 4

10

19

27

40

Spee

ch/L

angu

age

Impa

irmen

t 29

2 2

9 14

35

40

V

isua

l Im

pairm

ent

95

26

16

23

19

16

Emot

iona

l Dis

turb

ance

11

3 2

4 20

27

47

O

rthop

edic

Impa

irmen

t 63

4 19

15

22

23

20

O

ther

Hea

lth Im

pairm

ent

386

8 9

22

32

30

Spec

ific

Lear

ning

Impa

irmen

t 96

0 1

2 11

34

52

M

ultip

le g

roup

41

6 23

19

22

22

13

A

utis

m

2045

20

15

25

22

18

Tr

aum

atic

Bra

in In

jury

67

7

7 21

27

37

U

nkno

wn

272

10

9 23

27

31

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

83

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

18 P

erfo

rman

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el V

Eng

lish–

Lang

uage

Art

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el V

Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts Pe

rcen

tE

LA

Su

bgro

up

N

Far

Bel

ow

Bel

owL

evel

V

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Prof

icie

nt

Adv

ance

d A

ll A

ll 10

051

14

8 17

25

37

Gra

de

9 35

06

15

8 18

28

31

10

33

5913

8

17

24

38

11

3186

12

715

24

42

Gen

der

Mal

e 62

45

14

8 16

25

37

Fe

mal

e 37

63

13

8 17

26

37

U

nkno

wn

43

7 9

12

30

42

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

96

10

4 16

21

49

Et

hnic

ity

Asi

an

625

20

9 19

24

28

Pa

cific

Isla

nder

60

20

5

10

25

40

Filip

ino

246

19

8 17

27

30

H

ispa

nic

or L

atin

o 45

73

13

9 18

26

34

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

12

46

13

7 15

26

40

W

hite

(not

His

pani

c or

igin

) 30

48

13

7 14

24

42

U

nkno

wn

157

22

12

10

25

31

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

6384

14

8

16

24

39

Flue

ncy

Initi

ally

–Flu

ent E

nglis

h Pr

ofic

ient

31

2 15

11

20

25

29

En

glis

h Le

arne

r 29

01

13

8 18

27

34

R

ecla

ssifi

ed–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

241

15

10

14

29

32

Unk

now

n 21

3 15

7

12

26

40

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

84

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Perf

orm

ance

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

V E

nglis

h–L

angu

age

Art

s Perc

ent

EL

A

Subg

roup

N

Fa

r B

elow

B

elow

Lev

el V

B

asic

B

asic

B

asic

Pr

ofic

ient

A

dvan

ced

Econ

omic

Y

es

5715

13

8

17

26

36

Dis

adva

ntag

e N

o 39

95

14

8 16

25

37

U

nkno

wn

341

10

5 12

23

50

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 55

05

14

9 18

27

33

D

isab

ility

H

ard

of H

earin

g 88

22

8

13

26

32

Dea

fnes

s 12

8 5

5 18

28

44

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

153

3 1

7 25

64

V

isua

l Im

pairm

ent

87

15

7 24

25

29

Em

otio

nal D

istu

rban

ce

154

4 3

4 21

69

O

rthop

edic

Impa

irmen

t 51

1 16

11

23

23

27

O

ther

Hea

lth Im

pairm

ent

347

9 6

13

24

48

Spec

ific

Lear

ning

Impa

irmen

t 87

8 1

1 6

23

69

Mul

tiple

gro

up

417

21

11

19

24

25

Aut

ism

14

84

22

9 16

22

30

Tr

aum

atic

Bra

in In

jury

72

8

10

11

33

38

Unk

now

n 22

2 13

8

16

20

43

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

85

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

19 P

erfo

rman

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el V

Mat

hem

atic

s Pe

rfor

man

ce S

core

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el V

Mat

hem

atic

s Pe

rcen

tM

athe

mat

ics

Subg

roup

N

Fa

r B

elow

B

elow

Lev

el V

B

asic

B

asic

B

asic

Pr

ofic

ient

A

dvan

ced

All

All

1003

1 20

8

20

22

31

Gra

de

9 35

02

22

8 21

22

27

10

33

5019

7

19

21

33

11

3179

18

719

22

34

Gen

der

Mal

e 62

32

20

7 19

20

34

Fe

mal

e 37

56

20

9 21

24

26

U

nkno

wn

43

9 5

14

26

47

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

95

13

9 9

29

39

Ethn

icity

A

sian

62

4 26

10

18

22

24

Pa

cific

Isla

nder

60

23

7

15

15

40

Filip

ino

244

26

8 25

17

25

H

ispa

nic

or L

atin

o 45

63

19

8 20

22

31

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

12

41

19

7 21

23

30

W

hite

(not

His

pani

c or

igin

) 30

47

18

8 19

22

33

U

nkno

wn

157

30

7 17

20

26

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

6374

20

8

20

22

31

Flue

ncy

Initi

ally

–Flu

ent E

nglis

h Pr

ofic

ient

30

9 22

9

24

20

26

Engl

ish

Lear

ner

2896

19

7

19

23

32

Rec

lass

ified

–Flu

ent E

nglis

h Pr

ofic

ient

23

9 19

10

18

19

33

U

nkno

wn

213

19

7 17

23

35

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

86

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Perf

orm

ance

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

V M

athe

mat

ics

Perc

ent

Mat

hem

atic

s Su

bgro

up

N

Far

Bel

ow

Bel

owL

evel

V

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Bas

ic

Prof

icie

nt

Adv

ance

d Ec

onom

ic

Yes

57

02

19

8 20

22

31

D

isad

vant

age

No

3988

21

8

20

21

30

Unk

now

n 34

1 13

5

16

26

40

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 54

94

20

9 23

23

25

D

isab

ility

H

ard

of H

earin

g 88

28

7

17

22

26

Dea

fnes

s 12

9 6

5 16

29

45

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

152

4 1

11

24

61

Vis

ual I

mpa

irmen

t 87

20

14

15

32

20

Em

otio

nal D

istu

rban

ce

153

4 3

7 18

67

O

rthop

edic

Impa

irmen

t 50

7 26

10

19

24

21

O

ther

Hea

lth Im

pairm

ent

345

13

6 21

20

41

Sp

ecifi

c Le

arni

ng Im

pairm

ent

878

2 1

7 19

71

M

ultip

le g

roup

41

6 29

10

20

23

19

A

utis

m

1483

28

7

20

17

26

Trau

mat

ic B

rain

Inju

ry

72

15

3 17

21

44

U

nkno

wn

222

21

5 15

21

38

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

87

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

20 S

cale

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

I En

glis

h–La

ngua

ge A

rts

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el I

Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts

EL

A

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el I

50

75

95

991

5 25

A

ll

All

9240

43

.94

12.9

15

18

35

45

55

60

60

0.

91

3.87

Gra

de

2 12

30

45.6

9 12

.14

15

22

37

48

56

60

60

0.90

3.

84

3 93

9 44

.14

12.1

5 15

22

36

45

55

60

60

0.

89

4.03

4

913

43.8

0 12

.30

15

20

36

45

53

60

60

0.90

3.

89

5 84

9 43

.54

12.9

0 15

18

35

45

55

60

60

0.

91

3.87

6

943

42.9

1 12

.73

15

18

34

44

53

60

60

0.91

3.

82

7 90

8 43

.49

13.3

4 15

18

35

45

56

60

60

0.

92

3.77

8

909

44.2

7 12

.77

15

20

36

45

56

60

60

0.91

3.

83

9 96

4 43

.44

13.6

8 15

16

33

45

56

60

60

0.

92

3.87

10

83

7 44

.07

13.5

4 15

18

35

46

56

60

60

0.

92

3.83

11

74

8 43

.32

13.6

1 15

15

34

44

56

60

60

0.

93

3.60

Gen

der

Mal

e 56

21

44.3

3 12

.81

15

20

36

46

55

60

60

0.91

3.

84

Fe

mal

e

3592

43

.32

13.0

1 15

18

35

44

55

60

60

0.

91

3.90

U

nkno

wn

27

43.0

7 16

.23

15

16

24

48

60

60

60

0.96

3.

25

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

59

46.4

4 12

.60

15

18

40

49

60

60

60

0.91

3.

78

Ethn

icity

A

sian

73

7 43

.46

13.0

7 15

18

35

45

55

60

60

0.

91

3.92

Paci

fic Is

land

er

45

46.1

1 12

.42

15

24

38

49

56

60

60

0.91

3.

73

Filip

ino

297

43.6

8 11

.88

15

22

35

44

53

60

60

0.88

4.

12

His

pani

c or

Lat

ino

4494

43

.94

13.2

6 15

18

35

45

56

60

60

0.

92

3.75

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

1011

44

.20

12.8

7 15

18

36

45

55

60

60

0.

91

3.86

W

hite

(not

His

pani

c or

igin

) 25

02

43.9

1 12

.35

15

22

36

45

55

60

60

0.90

3.

91

Unk

now

n 95

43

.17

12.8

8 15

16

36

46

53

60

60

0.

91

3.86

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

88

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el I

Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts

EL

A

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el I

50

75

95

991

5 25

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

5672

43

.60

12.6

6 15

20

35

45

55

60

60

0.

90

4.00

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

357

42.1

3 12

.20

15

20

35

43

51

60

60

0.89

4.

05

En

glis

h Le

arne

r 29

70

44.7

7 13

.32

15

18

36

46

59

60

60

0.92

3.

77

Rec

lass

ified

–Flu

ent E

nglis

h Pr

ofic

ient

11

7 44

.62

14.0

3 15

18

35

46

59

60

60

0.

92

3.97

U

nkno

wn

124

43.9

4 13

.55

15

15

37

45

56

60

60

0.91

4.

07

Econ

omic

Y

es

5188

44

.90

12.7

8 15

20

37

46

56

60

60

0.

91

3.83

D

isad

vant

age

No

3834

42

.76

12.8

4 15

18

34

44

53

60

60

0.

91

3.85

U

nkno

wn

218

41.6

5 14

.96

15

15

33

44

53

60

60

0.93

3.

96

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 32

10

47.1

1 12

.44

15

23

40

50

60

60

60

0.91

3.

73

Dis

abili

ty

Har

d of

Hea

ring

75

46.9

3 11

.18

15

28

38

48

60

60

60

0.89

3.

71

Dea

fnes

s 43

42

.65

14.3

2 15

15

33

45

55

60

60

0.

93

3.79

Spee

ch/L

angu

age

Impa

irmen

t 61

52

.25

9.24

29

33

49

55

60

60

60

0.

88

3.20

Vis

ual I

mpa

irmen

t 24

2 40

.10

12.6

15

16

32

40

.5

49

60

60

0.90

3.

98

O

rthop

edic

Impa

irmen

t 22

86

39.3

4 12

.8

15

15

29

40

49

60

60

0.91

3.

84

O

ther

Hea

lth Im

pairm

ent

182

43.0

0 13

.86

15

15

32

45

55

60

60

0.92

3.

92

Spec

ific

Lear

ning

Impa

irmen

t 10

2 50

.05

11.6

3 18

25

44

55

60

60

60

0.

93

3.08

Dea

f Blin

dnes

s 23

35

.91

11.2

5 15

18

29

34

43

51

60

0.

88

3.90

Mul

tiple

gro

up

1088

38

.59

13.0

3 15

15

29

40

48

60

60

0.

91

3.91

A

utis

m

1723

47

.70

10.1

5 22

28

41

49

56

60

60

0.

84

4.06

Tr

aum

atic

Bra

in In

jury

61

40

.79

14.3

2 15

15

29

43

53

60

60

0.

92

4.05

U

nkno

wn

134

42.5

0 14

15

15

34

44

.5

55

60

60

0.93

3.

70

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

89

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s Tabl

e 4.

21 S

cale

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

I M

athe

mat

ics

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el I

Mat

hem

atic

s M

athe

mat

ics

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el I

1 5

25

50

75

95

99

All

All

9206

33

.62

10.7

7 15

15

25

34

39

56

60

0.

91

3.23

Gra

de

2 12

22

34.6

8 10

.51

15

18

28

35

40

56

60

0.90

3.

32

3 93

7 32

.99

9.60

15

16

26

34

39

47

60

0.

89

3.18

4

912

33.1

3 10

.36

15

16

25

34

39

50

60

0.91

3.

11

5 84

6 33

.13

10.4

1 15

15

26

34

39

50

60

0.

91

3.12

6

939

32.6

7 10

.39

15

15

24

34

38

50

60

0.91

3.

12

7 90

5 33

.81

11.2

4 15

15

25

34

40

56

60

0.

92

3.18

8

906

34.2

3 10

.81

15

16

26

35

40

56

60

0.91

3.

24

9 96

1 33

.59

11.5

9 15

15

24

34

41

60

60

0.

93

3.07

10

83

3 33

.92

10.9

4 15

15

26

34

40

56

60

0.

92

3.09

11

74

5 33

.76

11.7

8 15

15

23

34

40

60

60

0.

93

3.12

Gen

der

Mal

e 56

04

33.9

6 10

.76

15

16

26

34

40

56

60

0.91

3.

21

Fe

mal

e

3575

33

.09

10.8

4 15

15

24

34

39

56

60

0.

92

3.07

U

nkno

wn

27

34.2

6 13

.07

15

15

22

34

42

60

60

0.94

3.

20

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

58

35.9

1 11

.64

15

15

28

34

40

60

60

0.90

3.

68

Ethn

icity

A

sian

73

6 32

.99

10.6

2 15

15

25

34

39

50

60

0.

91

3.19

Paci

fic Is

land

er

45

37.2

2 12

.62

15

18

30

36

44

60

60

0.94

3.

09

Filip

ino

295

33.1

9 10

.28

15

16

26

33

39

56

60

0.90

3.

25

His

pani

c or

Lat

ino

4478

33

.63

10.9

7 15

15

25

34

40

56

60

0.

92

3.10

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

1009

34

.05

11.0

8 15

15

25

35

40

56

60

0.

91

3.32

W

hite

24

89

33.5

8 10

.32

15

15

26

34

39

50

60

0.90

3.

26

Unk

now

n 96

32

.59

10.0

0 15

16

24

33

38

50

60

0.

90

3.16

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

90

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el I

Mat

hem

atic

s M

athe

mat

ics

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el I

1 5

25

50

75

95

99

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

5646

33

.37

10.6

0 15

15

25

34

39

56

60

0.

91

3.18

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

356

32.1

7 9.

96

15

16

24

32

38

50

60

0.90

3.

15

En

glis

h Le

arne

r 29

64

34.2

4 11

.08

15

15

26

34

41

56

60

0.92

3.

13

Rec

lass

ified

–Flu

ent E

nglis

h Pr

ofic

ient

11

6 34

.61

11.4

3 15

15

26

.5

35

42

56

60

0.92

3.

23

Unk

now

n 12

4 33

.6

11.4

8 15

15

26

.5

34

39

56

60

0.92

3.

25

Econ

omic

Y

es

5172

34

.43

10.8

2 15

16

27

35

40

56

60

0.

91

3.25

D

isad

vant

age

No

3817

32

.63

10.5

3 15

15

24

33

39

50

60

0.

91

3.16

U

nkno

wn

217

31.8

8 12

.03

15

15

22

32

39

60

60

0.93

3.

18

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 32

04

36.2

3 10

.98

15

18

30

36

42

60

60

0.91

3.

29

Dis

abili

ty

Har

d of

Hea

ring

74

35.6

8 10

.13

15

20

29

35.5

41

56

60

0.

89

3.36

D

eafn

ess

43

33.6

0 11

.03

15

15

25

36

41

47

60

0.93

2.

92

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

60

40.4

7 10

.16

18

23

34.5

39

47

60

60

0.

87

3.66

Vis

ual I

mpa

irmen

t 24

0 31

.20

10.1

4 15

15

23

31

38

47

60

0.

92

2.87

Orth

oped

ic Im

pairm

ent

2278

29

.56

10.0

0 15

15

22

30

36

47

60

0.

92

2.83

Oth

er H

ealth

Impa

irmen

t 18

1 33

.25

11.7

1 15

15

24

33

40

56

60

0.

93

3.10

Sp

ecifi

c Le

arni

ng Im

pairm

ent

102

40.3

0 11

.32

19

21

34

39

47

60

60

0.90

3.

58

D

eaf B

lindn

ess

23

27.5

2 8.

04

15

15

20

30

34

38

40

0.88

2.

79

M

ultip

le g

roup

10

85

29.4

6 9.

82

15

15

22

30

36

45

60

0.92

2.

78

Aut

ism

17

16

36.6

1 8.

81

15

22

31

36

41

56

60

0.84

3.

52

Trau

mat

ic B

rain

Inju

ry

60

31.4

12

.56

15

15

21

30.5

39

60

60

0.

94

3.08

U

nkno

wn

132

32.8

6 11

.56

15

15

24

34

39

56

60

0.92

3.

27

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

91

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

22 S

cale

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

II E

nglis

h–La

ngua

ge A

rts

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts

EL

A

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Alp

ha

SEM

Subg

roup

N

Mea

n SD

Lev

el II

1 5

25 50

75

95

99

All

All

6554

38

.51

9.00

18

26

33

38

43

60

60

0.

90

2.85

Gra

de

2 30

84

37.4

8 8.

45

18

26

33

37

41

60

60

0.89

2.

80

3 34

70

39.4

3 9.

37

18

27

33

39

43

60

60

0.90

2.

96

Gen

der

Mal

e 44

14

38.5

5 8.

96

18

26

33

38

43

60

60

0.89

2.

97

Fem

ale

2114

38

.41

9.09

16

27

33

38

43

60

60

0.

90

2.87

U

nkno

wn

26

39.8

1 8.

71

25

27

33

40.5

46

60

60

0.

93

2.30

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

57

40.2

1 8.

12

20

30

35

40

43

60

60

0.88

2.

81

Ethn

icity

A

sian

47

1 37

.46

8.72

15

26

33

37

41

60

60

0.

90

2.76

Pa

cific

Isla

nder

33

36

.15

6.37

25

26

30

38

41

46

46

0.

92

1.80

Fi

lipin

o 22

2 36

.81

8.36

16

26

32

36

40

60

60

0.

89

2.77

H

ispa

nic

or L

atin

o 32

28

38.5

9.

07

18

26

33

38

43

60

60

0.90

2.

87

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

654

39.4

8 8.

79

20

27

35

39

43

60

60

0.89

2.

92

Whi

te

1788

38

.61

9.07

16

26

33

38

43

60

60

0.

90

2.87

U

nkno

wn

101

39.2

5 9.

69

18

27

33

39

41

60

60

0.88

3.

36

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

4104

38

.5

9.03

16

26

33

38

43

60

60

0.

90

2.86

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

132

36

9.92

16

22

29

.5

35

39

60

60

0.92

2.

81

Engl

ish

Lear

ner

2157

38

.71

8.84

18

27

33

38

43

60

60

0.

90

2.80

R

ecla

ssifi

ed–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

55

36.0

7 8.

73

20

22

30

34

41

60

60

0.92

2.

47

Unk

now

n 10

6 39

.2

9.47

20

28

33

38

43

60

60

0.

90

2.99

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

92

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts

EL

A

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Alp

ha

SEM

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SDL

evel

II

1 5

25 50

75

95

99

Econ

omic

Y

es

3840

38

.97

9.00

20

27

33

38

43

60

60

0.

90

2.85

D

isad

vant

age

No

2483

37

.72

9.01

15

26

32

37

41

60

60

0.

90

2.85

U

nkno

wn

231

39.3

5 8.

24

22

29

34

39

43

60

60

0.86

3.

08

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 24

84

36.9

7 8.

22

18

26

32

36

41

60

60

0.89

2.

73

Dis

abili

ty

Har

d of

Hea

ring

55

40.0

5 10

.42

22

23

35

38

43

60

60

0.89

3.

46

Dea

fnes

s 66

37

.17

7.55

16

26

33

37

40

46

60

0.

89

2.50

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

519

43.1

3 8.

73

26

32

38

41

46

60

60

0.85

3.

38

Vis

ual I

mpa

irmen

t 52

35

.50

10.2

9 15

16

32

36

39

.5

60

60

0.92

2.

91

Emot

iona

l Dis

turb

ance

38

44

.95

8.11

33

33

40

43

46

60

60

0.

75

4.06

O

rthop

edic

Impa

irmen

t 38

0 37

.0

9.11

16

27

32

36

41

60

60

0.

90

2.88

O

ther

Hea

lth Im

pairm

ent

305

40.6

3 9.

77

16

27

35

39

46

60

60

0.90

3.

09

Spec

ific

Lear

ning

Impa

irmen

t 47

5 44

.87

8.91

27

33

40

43

46

60

60

0.

84

3.56

M

ultip

le g

roup

22

3 36

.75

9.24

15

25

32

35

40

60

60

0.

89

3.06

A

utis

m

1773

37

.53

8.61

18

25

32

37

41

60

60

0.

90

2.72

Tr

aum

atic

Bra

in In

jury

33

38

.00

8.07

18

22

35

40

43

46

60

0.

92

2.28

U

nkno

wn

146

39.0

9 9.

47

18

26

33

39

43

60

60

0.90

2.

99

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

93

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s Tabl

e 4.

23 S

cale

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

II M

athe

mat

ics

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

Mat

hem

atic

s M

athe

mat

ics

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el II

1 5

25 50

75

95

99

All

All

6543

40

.03

8.79

15

28

35

39

44

60

60

0.

88

3.04

Gra

de

2 30

81

39.0

3 8.

39

15

28

34

38

44

52

60

0.88

2.

91

3 34

62

40.9

2 9.

04

15

29

35

40

47

60

60

0.89

3.

00

Gen

der

Mal

e 44

07

40.2

9 8.

82

15

28

35

39

44

60

60

0.88

3.

06

Fe

mal

e

2111

39

.48

8.67

15

28

34

38

44

60

60

0.

88

3.00

U

nkno

wn

25

41.2

4 10

.37

24

26

34

39

47

60

60

0.93

2.

74

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

57

42.2

8 8.

61

19

26

36

41

52

60

60

0.87

3.

10

Ethn

icity

A

sian

46

8 38

.82

8.49

15

28

34

38

42

52

60

0.

87

3.06

Paci

fic Is

land

er

33

38.6

1 9.

00

19

26

32

39

44

52

60

0.91

2.

70

Filip

ino

222

37.9

6 7.

59

16

28

33

38

42

52

60

0.86

2.

84

His

pani

c or

Lat

ino

3225

40

.1

8.70

15

28

35

39

44

60

60

0.

89

2.89

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

653

40.5

7 8.

39

16

30

35

40

44

60

60

0.87

3.

03

Whi

te

1785

40

.24

9.17

15

28

35

39

44

60

60

0.

89

3.04

U

nkno

wn

100

40.1

9 9.

83

17

27

33

39

44

60

60

0.90

3.

11

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

4095

39

.97

8.95

15

28

35

39

44

60

60

0.

89

2.97

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

132

37.7

2 8.

21

15

29

33

36

42

52

60

0.87

2.

96

En

glis

h Le

arne

r 21

55

40.3

8.

41

16

29

35

39

44

60

60

0.88

2.

91

Rec

lass

ified

–Flu

ent E

nglis

h Pr

ofic

ient

55

37

.73

8.64

16

26

33

36

42

60

60

0.

88

2.99

U

nkno

wn

106

41.0

3 10

.03

19

26

35

39

47

60

60

0.90

3.

17

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

94

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

Mat

hem

atic

s M

athe

mat

ics

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el II

1

5 25

50 75

95

99

Ec

onom

ic

Yes

38

37

40.6

2 8.

66

16

29

35

40

47

60

60

0.88

3.

00

Dis

adva

ntag

e N

o 24

75

39.0

2 8.

92

15

26

34

38

44

60

60

0.89

2.

96

Unk

now

n 23

1 41

.16

8.46

22

30

36

40

47

60

60

0.

86

3.17

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 24

81

38.4

3 7.

96

15

28

33

37

42

52

60

0.87

2.

87

Dis

abili

ty

Har

d of

Hea

ring

55

41.4

10

.59

19

24

35

40

47

60

60

0.91

3.

18

Dea

fnes

s 66

41

.48

8.11

24

31

37

40

44

60

60

0.

84

3.24

Spee

ch/L

angu

age

Impa

irmen

t 51

8 44

.47

7.82

29

33

39

44

52

60

60

0.

84

3.13

Vis

ual I

mpa

irmen

t 52

37

9.

99

15

16

33

38

42

52

60

0.92

2.

83

Em

otio

nal D

istu

rban

ce

38

48.1

8 8.

19

33

33

44

47

52

60

60

0.76

4.

01

O

rthop

edic

Impa

irmen

t 37

9 39

.87

9.42

15

26

34

38

44

60

60

0.

91

2.83

Oth

er H

ealth

Impa

irmen

t 30

4 41

.93

9.84

15

29

36

41

47

60

60

0.

89

3.26

Sp

ecifi

c Le

arni

ng Im

pairm

ent

475

46.9

9 7.

54

29

35

42

47

52

60

60

0.83

3.

11

M

ultip

le g

roup

22

2 38

.52

9.17

15

26

33

38

44

52

60

0.

90

2.90

A

utis

m

1769

38

.75

8.42

15

26

34

38

42

52

60

0.

87

3.04

Tr

aum

atic

Bra

in In

jury

33

39

.91

7.63

24

29

35

40

44

52

60

0.

87

2.75

U

nkno

wn

146

41.1

8 10

.2

16

24

34

39

52

60

60

0.90

3.

23

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

95

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

24 S

cale

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

III E

nglis

h–La

ngua

ge A

rts

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

I Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts

ELA

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Leve

l III

1 5

25

50

75

95

99

All

All

6687

37

.87

10.4

9 15

22

30

38

44

60

60

0.

90

3.32

Gra

de

4 33

99

37.0

9 10

.31

15

22

30

37

42

60

60

0.90

3.

26

5 32

88

38.6

8 10

.62

16

22

31

38

44

60

60

0.90

3.

36

Gen

der

Mal

e 43

87

37.8

1 10

.48

15

22

31

38

44

60

60

0.90

3.

31

Fem

ale

2267

37

.96

10.5

1 16

22

30

38

44

60

60

0.

91

3.15

U

nkno

wn

33

40.1

5 10

.32

22

25

33

38

47

60

60

0.89

3.

42

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

65

39.4

8 10

.62

22

25

31

38

47

60

60

0.91

3.

19

Ethn

icity

A

sian

46

6 35

.82

9.76

15

20

29

36

41

53

60

0.

90

3.09

Pa

cific

Isla

nder

37

37

.59

10.6

5 19

22

28

38

44

60

60

0.

91

3.20

Fi

lipin

o 18

5 34

.86

10.1

0 15

19

27

36

41

53

60

0.

92

2.86

H

ispa

nic

or L

atin

o 34

22

37.6

9 10

.56

15

22

30

37

44

60

60

0.91

3.

17

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

716

39.3

1 10

.59

15

22

33

38

44

60

60

0.90

3.

35

Whi

te

1711

38

.32

10.3

9 17

22

31

38

44

60

60

0.

90

3.29

U

nkno

wn

85

40.6

4 10

.01

19

25

35

41

47

60

60

0.90

3.

17

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

4038

37

.88

10.4

3 15

22

30

38

44

60

60

0.

90

3.30

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

134

33.8

7 9.

53

15

21

28

33

40

53

60

0.90

3.

01

Engl

ish

Lear

ner

2347

38

.04

10.6

8 16

22

30

38

44

60

60

0.

91

3.20

R

ecla

ssifi

ed–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

95

36.6

1 9.

62

17

22

31

36

42

53

60

0.88

3.

33

Unk

now

n 73

41

.07

8.23

25

29

35

40

44

60

60

0.

76

4.03

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

96

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

I Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts

ELA

M

ean

at P

erce

ntile

sSu

bgro

up

N

Mea

n SD

A

lpha

SE

MLe

vel I

II

1 5

25

50

75

95

99

Econ

omic

Y

es

4165

38

.22

10.5

5 16

22

31

38

44

60

60

0.

91

3.17

D

isad

vant

age

No

2370

37

.13

10.4

2 15

21

30

37

42

60

60

0.

90

3.30

U

nkno

wn

152

39.9

5 8.

97

21

27

34.5

40

44

60

60

0.

84

3.59

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 29

13

36.1

3 9.

70

16

22

29

36

42

53

60

0.90

3.

07

Dis

abili

ty

Har

d of

Hea

ring

58

35.0

3 9.

52

16

20

29

35

40

53

60

0.90

3.

01

Dea

fnes

s 55

35

.6

7.61

17

23

31

36

40

47

60

0.

90

2.41

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

349

44.0

9 9.

65

19

28

38

42

53

60

60

0.86

3.

61

Vis

ual I

mpa

irmen

t 54

35

.94

10.6

0 15

19

27

36

41

53

60

0.

91

3.18

Em

otio

nal D

istu

rban

ce

63

45.9

4 10

.88

27

30

37

44

60

60

60

0.85

4.

21

Orth

oped

ic Im

pairm

ent

387

37.2

4 10

.36

15

21

30

37

42

60

60

0.90

3.

28

Oth

er H

ealth

Impa

irmen

t 28

4 41

.1

10.7

1 16

25

34

41

47

60

60

0.

91

3.21

Sp

ecifi

c Le

arni

ng Im

pairm

ent

613

47.2

2 8.

59

28

34

41

47

53

60

60

0.78

4.

03

Mul

tiple

gro

up

255

36.3

10

.05

15

20

30

35

42

53

60

0.90

3.

18

Aut

ism

15

03

35.5

3 10

.21

15

19

28

36

41

53

60

0.91

3.

06

Trau

mat

ic B

rain

Inju

ry

30

40.2

3 9.

95

25

28

32

40

42

60

60

0.84

3.

98

Unk

now

n 11

9 40

.24

8.66

23

26

35

40

44

60

60

0.

83

3.57

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

97

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s Tabl

e 4.

25 S

cale

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

III M

athe

mat

ics

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

I Mat

hem

atic

s M

athe

mat

ics

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el II

I

1 5

25 50

75 95

99

All

All

6681

41

.49

10.6

0 16

25

33

41

49

60

60

0.

90

3.35

Gra

de

4 33

94

40.6

8 10

.48

15

25

33

40

46

60

60

0.90

3.

31

5 32

87

42.3

4 10

.65

18

25

34

42

49

60

60

0.90

3.

37

Gen

der

Mal

e 43

83

41.6

5 10

.78

16

25

33

41

49

60

60

0.90

3.

41

Fem

ale

2265

41

.13

10.2

3 16

25

33

41

49

60

60

0.

90

3.24

U

nkno

wn

33

45.7

9.

48

25

29

39

46

55

60

60

0.82

4.

02

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

65

42.8

9.

70

26

28

35

42

49

60

60

0.88

3.

36

Ethn

icity

A

sian

46

5 39

.72

10.3

2 15

24

33

40

46

60

60

0.

90

3.26

Pa

cific

Isla

nder

37

42

.19

11.3

3 22

25

33

41

49

60

60

0.

91

3.40

Fi

lipin

o 18

5 39

.35

11.2

7 15

23

31

38

46

60

60

0.

91

3.38

H

ispa

nic

or L

atin

o 34

20

41.4

9 10

.50

18

25

34

41

49

60

60

0.90

3.

32

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

714

43.0

1 11

.10

15

25

35

42

49

60

60

0.91

3.

33

Whi

te

1710

41

.45

10.5

6 19

25

33

41

49

60

60

0.

90

3.34

U

nkno

wn

85

42.6

7 9.

39

23

28

38

41

46

60

60

0.86

3.

51

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

4035

41

.45

10.7

2 16

25

33

41

49

60

60

0.

90

3.39

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

133

37.8

3 9.

94

15

25

31

36

44

60

60

0.89

3.

30

Engl

ish

Lear

ner

2345

41

.71

10.4

4 18

25

34

42

49

60

60

0.

90

3.30

R

ecla

ssifi

ed–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

95

40.8

1 10

.51

16

24

32

41

49

60

60

0.91

3.

15

Unk

now

n 73

44

.32

8.21

25

32

39

44

49

60

60

0.

77

3.94

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

98

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el II

I Mat

hem

atic

s M

athe

mat

ics

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el II

I 1

5 25

50 75

95 99

Econ

omic

Y

es

4163

42

.05

10.5

3 18

25

34

42

49

60

60

0.

90

3.33

D

isad

vant

age

No

2366

40

.41

10.7

1 15

25

33

40

46

60

60

0.

90

3.39

U

nkno

wn

152

43.1

4 9.

36

21

26

37

43

49

60

60

0.86

3.

50

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 29

10

39.8

5 9.

91

19

25

33

40

46

60

60

0.90

3.

13

Dis

abili

ty

Har

d of

Hea

ring

58

40.8

1 10

.39

16

25

34

40

46

60

60

0.89

3.

45

Dea

fnes

s 55

46

.09

9.53

19

32

40

46

55

60

60

0.

81

4.15

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

348

47.8

6 8.

85

24

33

42

46

55

60

60

0.82

3.

75

Vis

ual I

mpa

irmen

t 54

38

.78

11.2

3 15

19

32

39

46

60

60

0.

92

3.18

Em

otio

nal D

istu

rban

ce

63

48.4

3 9.

73

30

34

40

46

60

60

60

0.80

4.

35

Orth

oped

ic Im

pairm

ent

386

40.2

3 11

.08

15

24

33

40

46

60

60

0.92

3.

13

Oth

er H

ealth

Impa

irmen

t 28

4 43

.37

10.8

5 15

26

36

44

49

60

60

0.

92

3.07

Sp

ecifi

c Le

arni

ng Im

pairm

ent

613

49.3

7 7.

85

31

37

44

49

55

60

60

0.70

4.

30

Mul

tiple

gro

up

255

39.2

10

.8

15

24

31

39

46

60

60

0.91

3.

24

Aut

ism

15

02

39.8

8 10

.99

15

23

32

40

46

60

60

0.90

3.

48

Trau

mat

ic B

rain

Inju

ry

30

44.1

7 9.

06

30

31

37

42

55

60

60

0.80

4.

05

Unk

now

n 11

9 42

.95

8.56

25

28

38

42

49

60

60

0.

82

3.63

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

99

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

26 S

cale

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

IV E

nglis

h–La

ngua

ge A

rts

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el IV

Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts

EL

A

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el IV

1

525

50

75

95

99

A

ll A

ll 10

604

36.0

2 9.

43

16

20

30

36

42

51

60

0.90

2.

98

Gra

de

6 34

10

34.6

6 8.

94

15

20

28

35

41

51

60

0.89

2.

97

7 35

97

36.0

5 9.

37

16

21

30

36

42

51

60

0.90

2.

96

8 35

97

37.2

9 9.

77

16

21

31

37

42

60

60

0.90

3.

09

Gen

der

Mal

e 67

93

35.9

8 9.

48

16

20

29

36

42

51

60

0.90

3.

00

Fem

ale

3769

36

.07

9.34

16

21

30

36

42

51

60

0.

89

3.10

U

nkno

wn

42

37.8

8 9.

79

15

21

32

38

44

51

60

0.91

2.

94

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

106

37.4

7 9.

76

18

22

31

37.5

44

51

60

0.

90

3.09

Et

hnic

ity

Asi

an

688

33.8

1 9.

57

15

20

27

34

40

51

60

0.90

3.

03

Paci

fic Is

land

er

53

34.9

4 10

.1

16

19

28

35

41

60

60

0.90

3.

19

Filip

ino

276

33.4

1 9.

31

15

20

26

33

41

51

60

0.91

2.

79

His

pani

c or

Lat

ino

5027

35

.88

9.21

16

21

29

36

41

51

60

0.

90

2.91

A

fric

an A

mer

ican

12

15

37.3

4 9.

45

16

21

32

37

42

51

60

0.90

2.

99

Whi

te

3070

36

.41

9.59

16

20

30

36

42

51

60

0.

89

3.18

U

nkno

wn

169

36.5

9.

91

15

19

31

36

42

51

60

0.90

3.

13

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

6529

36

.19

9.58

15

20

30

36

42

51

60

0.

90

3.03

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

279

33.1

1 9.

48

16

20

26

33

40

51

60

0.91

2.

84

Engl

ish

Lear

ner

3368

35

.73

9.09

16

21

29

35

41

51

60

0.

89

3.01

R

ecla

ssifi

ed–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

226

36.0

1 9.

03

18

23

29

36

42

51

60

0.89

2.

99

Unk

now

n 20

2 39

.45

9.43

18

25

34

38

44

60

60

0.

88

3.27

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

100

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el IV

Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts

EL

A

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el IV

1

525

50

75

95

99

Ec

onom

ic

Yes

63

40

36.0

8 9.

24

16

21

30

36

42

51

60

0.89

3.

06

Dis

adva

ntag

e N

o 39

19

35.6

5 9.

77

15

20

29

35

42

51

60

0.90

3.

09

Unk

now

n 34

5 39

.24

8.45

20

25

34

40

44

51

60

0.

85

3.27

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 50

68

35.2

8.

82

17

21

29

35

41

51

60

0.89

2.

93

Dis

abili

ty

Har

d of

Hea

ring

99

33.1

3 9.

88

15

19

26

35

41

51

60

0.92

2.

79

Dea

fnes

s 13

5 35

.21

8.08

19

21

31

35

40

47

51

0.

89

2.68

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

293

40.6

2 8.

44

20

27

36

41

44

60

60

0.85

3.

27

Vis

ual I

mpa

irmen

t 95

34

.16

9.12

15

17

29

35

41

51

60

0.

90

2.88

Em

otio

nal D

istu

rban

ce

114

42.3

9 9.

24

17

27

37

42

47

60

60

0.88

3.

20

Orth

oped

ic Im

pairm

ent

636

35.4

8 8.

93

15

20

30

35

41

51

60

0.89

2.

96

Oth

er H

ealth

Impa

irmen

t 38

7 39

.32

9.27

19

25

33

40

44

60

60

0.

87

3.34

Sp

ecifi

c Le

arni

ng Im

pairm

ent

963

42.3

8 7.

39

25

32

38

42

47

60

60

0.77

3.

54

Mul

tiple

gro

up

417

33.5

8 8.

93

15

20

27

34

40

47

60

0.90

2.

82

Aut

ism

20

52

33.9

4 10

.37

15

18

26

34

41

51

60

0.91

3.

11

Trau

mat

ic B

rain

Inju

ry

67

39

7.98

15

27

33

38

44

51

60

0.

87

2.88

U

nkno

wn

272

38.8

1 9.

48

16

21

34

38

44

60

60

0.89

3.

14

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s w

ith fe

wer

than

11

mem

bers

are

not

repo

rted

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

101

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s Tabl

e 4.

27 S

cale

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

IV M

athe

mat

ics

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el IV

Mat

hem

atic

s M

athe

mat

ics

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el IV

1

5 25

50

75

95

99

A

ll A

ll 10

581

34.9

8 10

.44

15

19

28

34

40

60

60

0.88

3.

62

Gra

de

6 34

06

33.6

8 9.

96

15

19

27

33

39

60

60

0.88

3.

45

7 35

87

35.0

7 10

.47

15

19

28

34

40

60

60

0.88

3.

63

8 35

88

36.1

3 10

.7

16

19

29

35

42

60

60

0.88

3.

71

Gen

der

Mal

e 67

77

35.2

2 10

.64

15

19

28

34

40

60

60

0.88

3.

69

Fem

ale

3761

34

.56

10.0

6 15

19

28

34

40

60

60

0.

88

3.48

U

nkno

wn

43

35.3

3 9.

56

15

19

28

36

42

49

60

0.86

3.

58

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

106

36.7

5 11

.31

18

19

29

35

42

60

60

0.89

3.

75

Ethn

icity

A

sian

68

8 32

.62

9.63

15

19

27

32

37

49

60

0.

87

3.47

Pa

cific

Isla

nder

53

35

.92

11.6

6 15

19

27

35

40

60

60

0.

90

3.69

Fi

lipin

o 27

6 32

.59

10.0

5 15

18

26

32

39

49

60

0.

89

3.33

H

ispa

nic

or L

atin

o 50

17

35.0

8 10

.46

15

19

28

34

40

60

60

0.88

3.

62

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

1210

36

.05

10.3

0 15

19

30

35

40

60

60

0.

87

3.71

W

hite

30

63

35.0

4 10

.51

15

19

28

34

40

60

60

0.88

3.

64

Unk

now

n 16

8 35

.76

10.1

8 15

19

30

34

42

60

60

0.

87

3.67

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

6514

34

.94

10.4

9 15

19

28

34

40

60

60

0.

88

3.63

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

279

32.0

3 10

.16

15

19

26

32

36

60

60

0.88

3.

52

Engl

ish

Lear

ner

3360

35

.17

10.4

16

19

28

34

40

60

60

0.

88

3.60

R

ecla

ssifi

ed–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

226

34.3

4 9.

34

18

20

28

34

40

49

60

0.87

3.

37

Unk

now

n 20

2 38

.05

9.66

19

24

32

37

42

60

60

0.

83

3.98

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

102

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el IV

Mat

hem

atic

s M

athe

mat

ics

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el IV

1

5 25

50

75

95

99

Ec

onom

ic

Yes

63

27

35.3

1 10

.49

15

19

28

34

40

60

60

0.88

3.

63

Dis

adva

ntag

e N

o 39

11

34.1

9 10

.37

15

19

27

33

40

60

60

0.88

3.

59

Unk

now

n 34

3 38

9.

23

19

26

32

37

42

60

60

0.80

4.

13

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 50

61

33.4

2 9.

48

16

19

27

33

39

49

60

0.87

3.

42

Dis

abili

ty

Har

d of

Hea

ring

99

34.2

1 12

.22

15

18

26

33

40

60

60

0.91

3.

67

Dea

fnes

s 13

5 39

.66

10.2

7 20

26

32

37

44

60

60

0.

81

4.48

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

292

40.0

6 9.

25

19

27

34

39

44

60

60

0.78

4.

34

Vis

ual I

mpa

irmen

t 95

31

.66

10.5

8 15

16

24

31

37

49

60

0.

91

3.17

Em

otio

nal D

istu

rban

ce

113

42.3

5 10

.79

16

29

34

40

49

60

60

0.79

4.

94

Orth

oped

ic Im

pairm

ent

634

33.8

4 10

.37

15

19

27

33

39

60

60

0.90

3.

28

Oth

er H

ealth

Impa

irmen

t 38

6 37

.81

10.1

8 19

22

32

36

42

60

60

0.

85

3.94

Sp

ecifi

c Le

arni

ng Im

pairm

ent

960

43.6

1 9.

78

27

31

36

42

49

60

60

0.70

5.

36

Mul

tiple

gro

up

416

31.7

7 9.

45

15

18

26

32

37

49

60

0.89

3.

13

Aut

ism

20

45

33.5

5 10

.57

15

18

27

33

39

60

60

0.88

3.

66

Trau

mat

ic B

rain

Inju

ry

67

38.4

9 9.

73

15

23

32

39

42

60

60

0.83

4.

01

Unk

now

n 27

2 37

.81

10.4

8 15

22

32

37

42

60

60

0.

86

3.92

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

103

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Tabl

e 4.

28 S

cale

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

V E

nglis

h–La

ngua

ge A

rts

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el V

Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts

EL

A

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el V

1

5 25

50 75

95 99

A

ll A

ll 10

051

38.2

8 10

.79

15

22

31

38

44

60

60

0.92

3.

05

Gra

de

9 35

06

36.9

7 10

.27

15

21

30

37

44

56

60

0.91

3.

08

10

3359

38

.65

10.8

8 16

22

31

38

47

60

60

0.

92

3.08

11

31

86

39.3

4 11

.10

15

22

32

40

47

60

60

0.92

3.

14

Gen

der

Mal

e 62

45

38.1

9 10

.92

15

21

31

38

44

60

60

0.92

3.

09

Fem

ale

3763

38

.4

10.5

8 16

22

31

38

44

60

60

0.

91

3.17

U

nkno

wn

43

40.3

3 9.

92

21

24

33

41

44

60

60

0.86

3.

71

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

96

41.7

1 11

.27

21

23

33

41

50

60

60

0.91

3.

38

Ethn

icity

A

sian

62

5 35

.67

10.5

9 15

20

27

35

43

56

60

0.

92

3.00

Pa

cific

Isla

nder

60

38

.47

11.5

5 15

22

.5

28.5

38

47

60

60

0.

94

2.83

Fi

lipin

o 24

6 36

.4

10.7

0 15

21

27

36

43

56

60

0.

92

3.03

H

ispa

nic

or L

atin

o 45

73

37.8

5 10

.46

15

22

31

37

44

56

60

0.91

3.

14

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

1246

38

.95

10.7

5 15

22

32

38

47

60

60

0.

92

3.04

W

hite

30

48

39.3

6 11

.13

15

21

32

40

47

60

60

0.92

3.

15

Unk

now

n 15

7 35

.56

10.7

3 16

21

26

36

44

56

60

0.

92

3.03

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

6384

38

.58

11.0

0 15

21

31

38

47

60

60

0.

92

3.11

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

312

36.2

3 10

.07

17

21

29

35.5

43

56

60

0.

91

3.02

En

glis

h Le

arne

r 29

01

37.8

5 10

.34

15

22

31

37

44

56

60

0.91

3.

10

Rec

lass

ified

–Flu

ent E

nglis

h Pr

ofic

ient

24

1 37

.9

10.9

4 15

23

30

37

44

56

60

0.

91

3.28

U

nkno

wn

213

38.6

3 10

.74

16

21

31

40

44

56

60

0.92

3.

04

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

104

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el V

Eng

lish–

Lan

guag

e A

rts

EL

A

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el V

1

5 25

50 75

95 99

Ec

onom

ic

Yes

57

15

38.2

1 10

.64

16

22

31

38

44

56

60

0.92

3.

01

Dis

adva

ntag

e N

o 39

95

38.1

7 11

.02

15

21

31

38

44

60

60

0.92

3.

12

Unk

now

n 34

1 40

.74

10.2

6 17

22

34

43

47

56

60

0.

91

3.08

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 55

05

37.5

4 10

.26

16

22

31

37

44

56

60

0.91

3.

08

Dis

abili

ty

Har

d of

Hea

ring

88

35.6

1 10

.39

15

20

26

37

43

50

60

0.93

2.

75

Dea

fnes

s 12

8 39

.93

8.72

20

24

34

41

45

.5

56

56

0.88

3.

02

Spee

ch/L

angu

age

Impa

irmen

t 15

3 44

.31

8.45

21

32

40

44

50

60

60

0.

82

3.59

V

isua

l Im

pairm

ent

87

36.4

4 10

.33

15

21

31

36

44

56

60

0.91

3.

10

Emot

iona

l Dis

turb

ance

15

4 45

.32

9.81

15

26

40

44

56

60

60

0.

89

3.25

O

rthop

edic

Impa

irmen

t 51

1 36

.12

10.5

5 15

21

29

35

43

56

60

0.

92

2.98

O

ther

Hea

lth Im

pairm

ent

347

41.2

9 10

.91

15

23

34

41

50

60

60

0.92

3.

09

Spec

ific

Lear

ning

Impa

irmen

t 87

8 46

.29

8.77

23

33

41

47

56

60

60

0.

82

3.72

M

ultip

le g

roup

41

7 35

.24

10.6

3 15

21

26

34

43

56

60

0.

92

3.01

A

utis

m

1484

35

.78

11.4

7 15

18

26

35

44

56

60

0.

93

3.03

Tr

aum

atic

Bra

in In

jury

72

39

.42

10.2

8 15

23

33

39

47

60

60

0.

90

3.25

U

nkno

wn

222

39.3

7 11

.16

15

21

31

40

47

56

60

0.92

3.

16

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

105

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s Tabl

e 4.

29 S

cale

Sco

re D

istr

ibut

ions

*: L

evel

V M

athe

mat

ics

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el V

Mat

hem

atic

s M

athe

mat

ics

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el V

1

5 2

5 50

75 95

99

All

All

1003

1 35

.77

10.2

7 15

20

28

35

42

56

60

0.

91

3.08

Gra

de

9 35

02

34.7

9.

81

15

20

27

34

41

56

60

0.90

3.

10

10

3350

36

.23

10.5

3 15

21

28

36

42

56

60

0.

91

3.16

11

31

79

36.4

7 10

.40

15

21

28

36

43

56

60

0.91

3.

12

Gen

der

Mal

e 62

32

36.2

10

.69

15

20

28

36

43

56

60

0.91

3.

21

Fem

ale

3756

35

.02

9.48

15

21

28

35

41

56

60

0.

90

3.00

U

nkno

wn

43

40.0

2 9.

97

23

23

34

40

47

60

60

0.88

3.

45

Rac

e A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r Ala

ska

Nat

ive

95

38.8

10

.87

15

23

31

38

45

60

60

0.91

3.

26

Ethn

icity

A

sian

62

4 33

.69

10.0

9 15

18

25

33

40

56

60

0.

91

3.03

Pa

cific

Isla

nder

60

36

.55

10.6

2 15

23

27

36

45

56

60

0.

93

2.81

Fi

lipin

o 24

4 33

.58

9.75

15

18

25

33

40

56

56

0.

91

2.93

H

ispa

nic

or L

atin

o 45

63

35.8

2 10

.16

15

21

28

35

42

56

60

0.91

3.

05

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

1241

35

.85

10.1

6 15

21

28

35

42

56

60

0.

90

3.21

W

hite

30

47

36.2

8 10

.46

15

20

28

36

42

56

60

0.91

3.

14

Unk

now

n 15

7 33

.54

10.0

3 15

18

24

34

41

49

60

0.

91

3.01

Lang

uage

En

glis

h O

nly

6374

35

.69

10.3

1 15

20

28

35

42

56

60

0.

91

3.09

Fl

uenc

y In

itial

ly–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

309

34.2

8 9.

52

15

20

27

34

41

49

60

0.89

3.

16

Engl

ish

Lear

ner

2896

36

.01

10.1

7 15

21

28

36

42

56

60

0.

91

3.05

R

ecla

ssifi

ed–F

luen

t Eng

lish

Prof

icie

nt

239

36.2

8 10

.65

15

23

28

35

43

60

60

0.91

3.

20

Unk

now

n 21

3 36

.7

10.8

5 15

20

28

36

43

56

60

0.

92

3.07

CA

PA

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t | S

prin

g 20

07 A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

200

8

Page

106

Chap

ter 4.

Stat

ewide

Ass

essm

ent R

esult

s | T

est R

esult

s

Scal

e Sc

ore

Dis

trib

utio

ns*:

Lev

el V

Mat

hem

atic

s M

athe

mat

ics

Mea

n at

Per

cent

iles

Subg

roup

N

M

ean

SD

Alp

ha

SEM

Lev

el V

1

5 2

5 50

75 95

99

Econ

omic

Y

es

5702

35

.89

10.1

7 15

21

28

35

42

56

60

0.

91

3.05

D

isad

vant

age

No

3988

35

.37

10.3

7 15

20

27

35

42

56

60

0.

91

3.11

U

nkno

wn

341

38.4

3 10

.45

15

23

31

39

45

56

60

0.90

3.

30

Prim

ary

Men

tal R

etar

datio

n 54

94

34.5

5 9.

31

15

21

27

34

40

49

60

0.89

3.

09

Dis

abili

ty

Har

d of

Hea

ring

88

34.1

3 10

.4

15

16

25

34

41

49

60

0.92

2.

94

Dea

fnes

s 12

9 39

.67

8.62

21

24

34

40

45

56

60

0.

83

3.55

Sp

eech

/Lan

guag

e Im

pairm

ent

152

42.5

5 8.

63

19

28

37

42

47

60

60

0.83

3.

56

Vis

ual I

mpa

irmen

t 87

33

.59

8.80

15

18

27

35

39

49

56

0.

89

2.92

Em

otio

nal D

istu

rban

ce

153

44.2

7 10

.21

15

28

39

45

49

60

60

0.89

3.

39

Orth

oped

ic Im

pairm

ent

507

33.6

9 9.

86

15

20

25

33

39

56

60

0.91

2.

96

Oth

er H

ealth

Impa

irmen

t 34

5 37

.84

10.0

7 15

23

31

38

45

56

60

0.

90

3.18

Sp

ecifi

c Le

arni

ng Im

pairm

ent

878

45.1

2 8.

90

23

32

39

43

49

60

60

0.81

3.

88

Mul

tiple

gro

up

416

32.6

7 9.

64

15

18

25

32

39

49

60

0.91

2.

89

Aut

ism

14

83

33.8

10

.97

15

16

25

33

41

56

60

0.92

3.

10

Trau

mat

ic B

rain

Inju

ry

72

39.0

1 10

.43

15

24

31.5

39

45

56

60

0.

90

3.30

U

nkno

wn

222

37.4

9 11

.63

15

20

28

38

45

60

60

0.93

3.

08

*Res

ults

for g

roup

s with

few

er th

an 1

1 m

embe

rs a

re n

ot re

porte

d

Febr

uary

200

8 C

AP

A T

echn

ical

Rep

ort |

Spr

ing

2007

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Page

107

References | Test Results

References American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National

Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational And Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 1999.

Crocker, L. and Algina, J. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. New York: Holt, 1986.

Cronbach, L.J. “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests,” Psychometrika Vol. 16 (1951), pp. 292–334.

Dorans, N. J., and Holland, P. W. “DIF Detection and Description: Mantel-Haenszel and Standardization,” in Differential Item Functioning. Edited by P. W. Holland and H. Wainer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993, pp. 35–66.

Dorans N.J., and Schmitt A.P. “Constructed Response and Differential Item Functioning: A Pragmatic Approach,” in Construction Versus Choice in Cognitive Measurement. Edited by R.E. Bennett and W.C. Ward. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993, pp.135–165.

Drasgow F. “Polychoric and Polyserial Correlations,” in Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, Vol. 7. Edited by L. Kotz, N. L. Johnson. New York: Wiley, 1988, pp. 69–74.

Educational Testing Service. ETS Standards for Quality and Fairness. Princeton, NJ: Author, 2002.

Feldt, L. S. and Brennen, R. L. “Reliability,” in Educational Measurement. Edited by R.L. Linn. New York: Macmillan, 1989.

Holland, P.W. and Thayer, D.T. “An Alternative Definition of the ETS Delta Scale of Item Difficulty.” RR-85–43, 1985.

Livingston, S.A., and Lewis, C. “Estimating the Consistency and Accuracy of Classification Based on Test Scores.” Journal on Educational Measurement Vol. 32 (1995), pp. 179–197.

Lord, F.M. Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1980.

Mantel, N. “Chi-square Tests with One Degree of Freedom: Extensions of the Mantel-Haenszel Procedure.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 58 (1963), pp. 690–700.

Mantel, N, and Haenszel, W. “Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data from Retrospective Studies of Disease.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 22 (1959), pp. 719–748.

Muraki, E. “A Generalized Partial Credit Model: Application of an EM Algorithm.” Applied Psychological Measurement Vol. 16 (1992), pp. 159–176.

Muraki, E. and Bock, R.D. “PARSCALE” [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software, Inc., 1999.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq (PL 107–110), 2001.

Stocking, M.L., and Lord, F.M. “Developing a Common Metric in Item Response Theory.” Applied Psychological Measurement (1983), pp. 201–210, 1983.


Appendix A. Individual Task Statistics | Test Results

Appendix A. Individual Task Statistics Table A.1 2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level I

2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level I Flag Values: A = Low Average Task Score • R = Low Correlation with Criterion • O = High Percent of Omits/Not Responding • H = High Average Task Score

Level I Content Version Task Numbe

r AIS Polyserial Pearson Flag English–Language Arts 01/07* 1 3.21 .75 0.73

OP 2 2.94 .83 0.81 01/07* 3 2.98 .80 0.78

OP 4 2.41 .84 0.79 OP 5 3.62 .71 0.68 OP 6 2.93 .85 0.82

01/02/03/04/06/07/08* 7 3.31 .65 0.64 OP 8 3.41 .80 0.79 OP 9 3.94 .82 0.77

01/02/04/07/08* 10 3.22 .81 0.77 OP 11 2.61 .83 0.79 OP 12 3.25 .84 0.82

02/08* 1 2.74 .78 0.74 02/06* 10 3.17 .77 0.76

03 1 3.10 .78 0.75 03/05* 3 3.30 .75 0.67 03/05* 10 3.07 .73 0.70

04 1 3.18 .76 0.73 04 10 3.21 .81 0.78 05 7 3.24 .77 0.74 06 1 3.29 .71 0.68 06 3 3.10 .78 0.76

Mathematics OP 13 2.37 .79 0.68 OP 14 2.86 .82 0.73 OP 15 2.85 .79 0.70

01/07* 16 2.49 .77 0.73 OP 17 2.90 .84 0.80 OP 18 2.95 .80 0.73

01/07* 19 2.70 .78 0.75 01/07* 20 2.13 .74 0.69

OP 21 2.68 .84 0.67 01/07* 22 2.29 .81 0.76

OP 23 2.71 .84 0.72 OP 24 2.83 .84 0.72

02/08* 16 2.68 .75 0.70 02/08* 19 2.31 .81 0.74 02/08* 20 2.62 .79 0.73 02/08* 22 2.37 .76 0.70



2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level I Flag Values: A = Low Average Task Score • R = Low Correlation with Criterion • O = High Percent of Omits/Not Responding • H = High Average Task Score

Level I Content Version Task Numbe

r AIS Polyserial Pearson Flag 03 16 2.61 .79 0.76 03 19 2.48 .72 0.69 03 20 2.34 .75 0.71 03 22 1.91 .76 0.71 04 16 2.71 .75 0.72 04 19 2.82 .78 0.74 04 20 2.55 .79 0.74 04 22 2.74 .75 0.70 05 16 2.80 .73 0.68 05 19 2.78 .69 0.63 05 20 3.00 .71 0.66 05 22 3.10 .77 0.73 06 16 3.33 .78 0.75 06 19 3.19 .80 0.78 06 20 2.92 .75 0.70 06 22 2.96 .78 0.73

Science OP 25 2.57 .87 0.63 OP 26 2.53 .86 0.67 OP 27 2.79 .85 0.65

01/03/05/07* 28 2.33 .78 0.77 01/03/05/07* 29 2.67 .82 0.82

OP 30 2.65 .83 0.70 OP 31 3.37 .74 0.76 OP 32 2.43 .86 0.62

01/03/05/07* 33 2.23 .79 0.78 01/03/05/07* 34 2.76 .81 0.81

OP 35 2.67 .78 0.78 OP 36 2.90 .82 0.78

02/04/06/08* 29 3.01 .65 0.66 02/04/06/08* 31 2.99 .80 0.79 02/04/06/08* 33 3.03 .76 0.76 02/04/06/08* 36 3.21 .77 0.76

*This task appeared on more than one field test form.



Table A.2 2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level II

2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level II Flag Values: A = Low Average Task Score • R = Low Correlation with Criterion • O = High Percent of Omits/Not Responding • H = High Average Task Score

Level II Content Version Task Number AIS Polyserial Pearson Flag English–Language Arts 01/05* 1 2.26 .55 0.50 R

OP 2 3.21 .81 0.79 H OP 3 3.23 .76 0.75 H OP 4 2.52 .74 0.71 OP 5 3.04 .79 0.77

01/02/04/05/06/08* 6 3.54 .67 0.63 H OP 7 2.54 .76 0.72

01/02/05/06* 8 2.43 .61 0.57 OP 9 3.20 .81 0.80 H

01/05* 10 2.96 .57 0.56 R OP 11 3.13 .79 0.77 OP 12 2.99 .80 0.77

02/06* 6 2.60 .63 0.59 02/06* 10 2.36 .54 0.50 R 03/07* 1 3.78 .55 0.43 R H 03/07* 6 2.57 .62 0.57 03/07* 8 3.00 .62 0.60 03/07* 10 2.39 .45 0.42 R 04/08* 6 2.75 .75 0.75 04/08* 8 2.58 .66 0.63 04/08* 10 2.91 .53 0.51 R

Mathematics 01/05* 13 3.09 .71 0.70 OP 14 3.50 .70 0.68 H

01/05* 15 3.16 .65 0.61 01/05* 16 3.45 .64 0.61 H

OP 17 2.65 .77 0.67 OP 18 2.07 .73 0.65 OP 19 2.97 .65 0.64 OP 20 2.82 .78 0.70 OP 21 2.96 .85 0.79

01/05* 22 2.83 .70 0.67 OP 23 3.17 .84 0.80 OP 24 2.96 .87 0.85

02/06* 13 2.76 .67 0.64 02/06* 15 1.82 .64 0.60 02/06* 16 2.62 .55 0.50 R 02/06* 22 2.22 .76 0.69 03/07* 13 2.74 .65 0.63 03/07* 15 2.89 .67 0.65 03/07* 16 2.41 .76 0.71 03/07* 22 2.93 .69 0.66 04/08* 13 2.60 .74 0.71 04/08* 15 2.43 .58 0.55 R 04/08* 16 1.84 .70 0.69 04/08* 22 2.64 .73 0.70

*This task appeared on more than one field test form.



Table A.3 2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level III 2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level III

Flag Values: A = Low Average Task Score • R = Low Correlation with Criterion • O = High Percent of Omits/Not Responding • H = High Average Task Score

Level III Content Version Task Number AIS Polyserial Pearson Flag English–Language Arts 01/05* 1 2.85 .69 0.67

OP 2 2.92 .83 0.82 OP 3 3.41 .80 0.74 H OP 4 2.57 .73 0.69

01/05* 5 2.59 .54 0.51 R OP 6 2.70 .79 0.77 OP 7 2.63 .78 0.76 OP 8 2.58 .81 0.79

01/05* 9 3.14 .72 0.69 01/05* 10 3.25 .68 0.63 H

OP 11 2.89 .83 0.81 OP 12 2.41 .83 0.79

02/06* 1 3.17 .60 0.60 02/06* 5 2.81 .49 0.45 R 02/06* 9 3.20 .62 0.56 H 02/06* 10 3.15 .70 0.68 03/07* 1 2.80 .51 0.48 R 03/07* 5 2.17 .61 0.56 03/07* 9 2.64 .61 0.57 03/07* 10 2.82 .71 0.68 04/08* 1 2.50 .73 0.72 04/08* 5 3.53 .72 0.60 H 04/08* 9 3.05 .64 0.60 04/08* 10 2.94 .70 0.67

Mathematics 01/05* 13 2.94 .51 0.48 R OP 14 2.54 .81 0.70 OP 15 2.45 .76 0.69

01/05* 16 2.28 .56 0.52 R OP 17 3.08 .78 0.70

01/05* 18 2.64 .77 0.71 OP 19 3.46 .78 0.64 H OP 20 3.13 .81 0.75 OP 21 3.15 .77 0.72

01/05* 22 2.33 .77 0.69 OP 23 2.74 .83 0.79 OP 24 3.10 .83 0.80

02/06* 13 2.19 .62 0.55 02/06* 16 2.09 .56 0.51 R 02/06* 18 2.52 .54 0.49 R 02/06* 22 2.26 .68 0.61 03/07* 13 2.86 .77 0.76 03/07* 16 2.90 .72 0.71 03/07* 18 2.35 .51 0.47 R



2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level III Flag Values: A = Low Average Task Score • R = Low Correlation with Criterion • O = High Percent of Omits/Not Responding • H = High Average Task Score

Level III Content Version Task Number AIS Polyserial Pearson Flag 03/07* 22 2.14 .48 0.43 R 04/08* 13 1.76 .49 0.38 R 04/08* 16 2.32 .49 0.46 R 04/08* 18 2.02 .70 0.61 04/08* 22 3.19 .78 0.76

Science OP 25 2.75 .75 0.70 OP 26 3.51 .79 0.75 H OP 27 3.04 .79 0.74

01/03/05/07* 28 2.85 .65 0.63 01/03/05/07* 29 2.78 .68 0.64

OP 30 2.32 .84 0.80 01/03/05/07* 31 2.46 .71 0.68

OP 32 2.59 .80 0.74 01/03/05/07* 33 2.93 .73 0.70 01/03/05/07* 34 2.93 .70 0.65 01/03/05/07* 35 2.68 .72 0.66 01/03/05/07* 36 2.69 .76 0.66 02/04/06/08* 28 3.32 .60 0.58 H 02/04/06/08* 29 3.13 .68 0.66 02/04/06/08* 31 2.94 .69 0.67 02/04/06/08* 33 2.58 .65 0.61 02/04/06/08* 34 2.56 .61 0.56 02/04/06/08* 35 2.28 .60 0.54 02/04/06/08* 36 2.83 .65 0.57



Table A.4 2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level IV 2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level IV


Level IV Content Version Task Number AIS Polyserial Pearson Flag English–Language Arts 01/08* 1 2.95 .68 0.65

01/08* 2 2.37 .72 0.69 OP 3 3.16 .75 0.72 OP 4 2.64 .86 0.84 OP 5 2.28 .76 0.70 OP 6 2.85 .86 0.84 OP 7 2.82 .82 0.80 OP 8 2.87 .81 0.80

01/08* 9 3.11 .66 0.63 01/08* 10 2.56 .73 0.70

OP 11 2.22 .75 0.70 OP 12 2.32 .71 0.66 02 1 3.10 .61 0.57 02 2 3.26 .64 0.61 H 02 9 3.42 .66 0.60 H 02 10 2.80 .57 0.56 R 03 1 3.33 .72 0.65 H 03 2 3.04 .71 0.66 03 9 2.98 .68 0.64 03 10 2.06 .80 0.74 04 1 3.16 .67 0.62 04 2 2.43 .76 0.73 04 9 2.95 .66 0.63 04 10 1.85 .76 0.65 05 1 1.64 .64 0.55 05 2 2.54 .76 0.74 05 9 2.45 .65 0.63 05 10 2.67 .55 0.52 R 06 1 3.03 .74 0.71 06 2 3.00 .64 0.60 06 9 2.30 .75 0.70 06 10 3.43 .67 0.60 H 07 1 2.65 .66 0.64 07 2 3.37 .62 0.58 H 07 9 2.51 .72 0.68 07 10 2.78 .68 0.67

Mathematics OP 13 2.51 .78 0.70 OP 14 3.20 .70 0.60 H OP 15 2.69 .76 0.66 OP 16 2.75 .81 0.67

01/08* 17 1.70 .69 0.57 01/08* 18 2.03 .63 0.55

OP 19 1.84 .82 0.68 01/08* 20 3.04 .55 0.52 R

OP 21 2.65 .78 0.69 01/08* 22 2.31 .75 0.69



2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level IV Flag Values: A = Low Average Task Score • R = Low Correlation with Criterion • O = High Percent of Omits/Not Responding • H = High Average Task Score

Level IV Content Version Task Number AIS Polyserial Pearson Flag OP 23 3.07 .81 0.73 OP 24 2.84 .81 0.75 02 17 2.34 .72 0.68 02 18 2.78 .50 0.45 R 02 20 1.87 .75 0.63 02 22 2.97 .54 0.51 R 03 17 2.41 .78 0.72 03 18 2.21 .72 0.69 03 20 1.33 .68 0.61 03 22 2.99 .60 0.59 04 17 3.06 .53 0.52 R 04 18 2.45 .79 0.76 04 20 3.06 .79 0.75 04 22 2.36 .61 0.57 05 17 2.68 .79 0.75 05 18 1.31 .55 0.49 R 05 20 2.08 .80 0.73 05 22 1.28 .57 0.45 R 06 17 2.09 .63 0.56 06 18 2.79 .76 0.70 06 20 1.38 .69 0.51 06 22 2.21 .74 0.65 07 17 2.25 .66 0.61 07 18 2.76 .73 0.68 07 20 2.11 .71 0.63 07 22 2.30 .54 0.49 R

Science 01/03/05/07* 25 3.16 .67 0.63 OP 26 2.38 .79 0.69 OP 27 2.61 .84 0.80 OP 28 2.34 .75 0.69

01/03/05/07* 29 2.79 .65 0.62 OP 30 2.54 .79 0.72

01/03/05/07* 31 2.29 .74 0.69 OP 32 2.71 .77 0.69

01/03/05/07* 33 2.50 .66 0.62 01/03/05/07* 34 2.57 .71 0.68 01/03/05/07* 35 2.90 .70 0.67 01/03/05/07* 36 2.36 .74 0.70 02/04/06/08* 25 2.35 .60 0.57 02/04/06/08* 29 2.25 .62 0.57 02/04/06/08* 31 2.21 .60 0.55 02/04/06/08* 33 2.46 .65 0.61 02/04/06/08* 34 2.75 .68 0.63 02/04/06/08* 35 2.05 .65 0.59 02/04/06/08* 36 2.78 .66 0.61

*This task appeared on more than one field-test form.



Table A.5 2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level V 2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level V


Level V Content Version Task Number AIS Polyserial Pearson Flag English-Language Arts 01/07* 1 2.73 .43 0.41 R

OP 2 2.00 .82 0.72 OP 3 2.70 .78 0.75 OP 4 2.65 .86 0.84 OP 5 2.88 .85 0.83 OP 6 2.96 .77 0.76

01/07* 7 2.92 .71 0.70 OP 8 3.09 .81 0.79

01/07* 9 2.07 .74 0.64 01/07* 10 3.40 .76 0.72 H

OP 11 2.99 .81 0.80 OP 12 2.60 .88 0.85

02/08* 1 3.05 .55 0.52 R 02/08* 7 3.31 .70 0.66 H 02/08* 9 2.15 .68 0.60 02/08* 10 2.93 .73 0.72

03 1 2.88 .69 0.64 03 7 2.81 .75 0.73 03 9 2.71 .63 0.59 03 10 2.95 .76 0.72 04 1 2.38 .62 0.59 04 7 2.55 .70 0.69 04 9 3.12 .76 0.73 04 10 2.18 .76 0.70 05 1 3.27 .73 0.70 H

05/06* 7/10 2.85 .85 0.84 05 9 2.60 .80 0.78 05 10 1.91 .74 0.63 06 1 2.91 .63 0.59 06 7 3.62 .70 0.58 H 06 9 2.69 .62 0.59

Mathematics OP 13 2.77 .81 0.70 01/07* 14 2.97 .73 0.69

OP 15 2.58 .75 0.63 OP 16 3.04 .84 0.74 OP 17 2.67 .83 0.69

01/07* 18 2.35 .73 0.69 OP 19 2.18 .86 0.62

01/07* 20 2.75 .82 0.76 OP 21 2.16 .87 0.76

01/07* 22 2.17 .71 0.67



2007 CAPA Task Statistics: Level V Flag Values: A = Low Average Task Score • R = Low Correlation with Criterion • O = High Percent of Omits/Not Responding • H = High Average Task Score

Level V Content Version Task Number AIS Polyserial Pearson Flag OP 23 1.76 .86 0.79 OP 24 2.10 .82 0.78

02/08* 14 2.83 .64 0.58 02/08* 18 2.32 .74 0.71 02/08* 20 2.89 .67 0.60 02/08* 22 3.00 .74 0.67

03 14 2.66 .75 0.70 03 18 2.93 .69 0.60 03 20 2.82 .77 0.70 03 22 2.64 .61 0.55 04 14 2.26 .64 0.56 04 18 2.49 .82 0.79 04 20 2.11 .70 0.66 04 22 2.78 .77 0.70 05 14 2.84 .63 0.59 05 18 2.18 .75 0.69 05 20 2.82 .78 0.72 05 22 2.63 .69 0.63 06 14 2.18 .68 0.64 06 18 2.97 .74 0.68 06 20 3.04 .80 0.72 06 22 2.93 .76 0.68

Science OP 25 2.23 .80 0.73 OP 26 2.15 .78 0.72 OP 27 3.21 .83 0.80 H

01/03/05/07* 28 2.38 .72 0.65 01/03/05/07* 29 2.56 .72 0.69

OP 30 2.75 .85 0.82 01/03/05/07* 31 3.12 .74 0.72

OP 32 3.25 .84 0.81 H 01/03/05/07* 33 3.01 .76 0.75 01/03/05/07* 34 2.72 .67 0.63 01/03/05/07* 35 2.56 .73 0.71 01/03/05/07* 36 1.93 .70 0.59 02/04/06/08* 28 2.32 .57 0.53 R 02/04/06/08* 29 3.02 .71 0.69 02/04/06/08* 31 2.17 .66 0.60 02/04/06/08* 33 2.62 .71 0.67 02/04/06/08* 34 2.20 .64 0.56 02/04/06/08* 35 3.18 .75 0.71 02/04/06/08* 36 2.75 .66 0.59

*This task appeared on more than one field-test form.


Documents

California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA ...California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) The CAPA is an individually administered performance assessment that is used