Predictive Utility and Classification Accuracy of Oral Reading Fluency and the Measures of Academic Progress for the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam

Abstract

This study examined the predictive validity and classification accuracy of two commonly used universal screening measures relative to a statewide achievement test. Results indicated that second-grade performance on oral reading fluency and the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), together with special education status, explained 68% of the variance in third-grade standardized test performance (N = 399). Six methods of dichotomous risk classification were also explored to predict whether students would pass or fail the state test. A random sample of half of the participants was used to establish locally appropriate risk cut-scores, holding sensitivity constant at .95; the cut-scores were then cross-validated on the remaining participants. Cross-validation reflected sensitivity of above .90 for all methods, with MAP Language Usage and two multi-screener methods demonstrating the strongest overall technical adequacy for risk classification. The limitations and implications of these findings are discussed.