LinkingtheVirginiaSOLAssessmentstoNWEA
MAPTests
March2016
Introduction
Northwest Evaluation Association™ (NWEA™) is committed to providing partners with useful
tools to help make inferences from the Measures of Academic Progress® (MAP®) interim
assessment scores. One important tool is the concordance table between MAP and state
summative assessments. Concordance tables have been used for decades to relate scores on
different tests measuring similar but distinct constructs. These tables, typically derived from
statisticallinkingprocedures,provideadirectlinkbetweenscoresondifferenttestsandserve
various purposes. Aside from describing how a score on one test relates to performance on
anothertest,theycanalsobeusedtoidentifybenchmarkscoresononetestcorrespondingto
performancecategoriesonanothertest,ortomaintaincontinuityofscoresonatestafterthe
test is redesigned or changed. Concordance tables are helpful for educators, parents,
administrators,researchers,andpolicymakerstoevaluateandformulateacademicstandingand
growth.
Recently,NWEAcompletedaconcordancestudytoconnectthescalesoftheVirginiaStandards
of Learning (SOL) reading and math tests with those of the MAP Reading and MAP for
Mathematicsassessments.Inthisreport,wepresentthe3rdthrough8thgradecutscoresonMAP
readingandmathematicsscalesthatcorrespondtothebenchmarksontheSOLreadingandmath
tests.InformationabouttheconsistencyrateofclassificationbasedontheestimatedMAPcut
scoresisalsoprovided,alongwithaseriesoftablesthatpredicttheprobabilityofreceivinga
Level2(i.e.,“Proficient”)orhigherperformancedesignationontheSOLassessments,basedon
theobservedMAPscorestakenduringthesameschoolyear.Adetaileddescriptionofthedata
andanalysismethodusedinthisstudyisprovidedintheAppendix.
OverviewofAssessments
SOLassessmentsincludeaseriesofachievementtestsalignedtotheVirginiaCommonCoreState
Standards in English reading, mathematics, science and history/social science. Starting from
spring2016,SOLtestswillbedeliveredinaComputerAdaptiveTesting(CAT)format.Foreach
gradeandsubject,therearetwocutscoresthatdistinguishbetweenperformancelevels:Level
1:Basic,Level2:ProficientandLevel3:Advanced.TheLevel2cutscoredemarkstheminimum
levelofperformanceconsideredtobe“Proficient”foraccountabilitypurposes.
MAPtestsareinterimassessmentsthatareadministeredintheformofaCAT.MAPtestsare
constructedtomeasurestudentachievementfromGradesKto12inmath,reading,language
usage,andscienceandalignedtotheVirginiaCommonCoreStateStandards.UnlikeSOL,MAP
assessmentsareverticallyscaledacrossgrades,afeaturethatsupportsdirectmeasurementof
Page2of23
academicgrowthandchange.MAPscoresarereportedonaRaschUnit(RIT)scalewitharange
from100to350.EachsubjecthasitsownRITscale.
ToaidinterpretationofMAPscores,NWEAperiodicallyconductsnormingstudiesofstudentand
schoolperformanceonMAP.Forexample,the2015RITScalenormingstudy(Thum&Hauser,
2015)employedmulti-levelgrowthmodelsonnearly500,000longitudinaltestscoresfromover
100,000studentsthatwereweightedtocreatelarge,nationallyrepresentativenormsformath,
reading,languageusage,andgeneralscience.
EstimatedMAPCutScoresAssociatedwithSOLReadinessLevels
Tables1to4reporttheSOLscaledscoresassociatedwitheachofthethreeperformancelevels,
aswellastheestimatedscorerangeontheMAPtestsassociatedwitheachSOLperformance
level.Specifically,Tables1and2applytoMAPscoresobtainedduringthespringtestingseason
forreadingandmath,respectively.Tables3and4applytoMAPteststakeninapriortesting
season(fallorwinter)forreadingandmath,respectively.Thetablesalsoreportthepercentile
rank(basedontheNWEA2015MAPNorms)associatedwitheachestimatedMAPcutscore.The
MAPcutscorescanbeusedtopredictstudents’mostprobableSOLperformancelevel,basedon
theirobservedMAPscores.Forexample,a6thgradestudentwhoobtainedaMAPmathscoreof
240inthespringtestingseasonislikelytobeattheveryhighendofLevel2(Proficient)onthe
SOL taken during that same testing season (see Table 2). Similarly, a 3rd grade student who
obtainedaMAPreadingscoreof210inthefalltestingseasonislikelytobeatLevel3(Advanced)
ontheSOLtakeninthespringof3rdgrade(seeTable3).
Page3of23
TABLE1.CONCORDANCEOFPERFORMANCELEVELSCORERANGESBETWEENSOL
ANDMAPREADING(WHENMAPISTAKENINSPRING)
SOL
Grade
Level1
Basic
Level2
Proficient
Level3
Advanced
3
0-399
400-499
500-600
4
0-399
400-499
500-600
5
0-399
400-499
500-600
6
0-399
400-499
500-600
7
0-399
400-499
500-600
8
0-399
400-499
500-600
MAP
Level1
Basic
Level2
Proficient
Level3
Advanced
Grade
RIT
%ile
RIT
%ile
RIT
%ile
3
100-198
1-49
199-214
50-85
215-350
86-99
4
100-204
1-46
205-220
47-83
221-350
84-99
5
100-209
1-43
210-226
44-84
227-350
85-99
6
100-213
1-43
214-231
44-85
232-350
86-99
7
100-216
1-45
217-235
46-87
236-350
88-99
8
100-220
1-51
221-242
52-92
243-350
93-99
Notes.1.%ile=percentile.
2.Boldednumbersindicatethecutscoresconsideredtobeatleast“proficient”foraccountabilitypurposes.
Page4of23
TABLE2.CONCORDANCEOFPERFORMANCELEVELSCORERANGESBETWEENSOL
ANDMAPMATH(WHENMAPISTAKENINSPRING)
SOL
Grade
Level1
Basic
Level2
Proficient
Level3
Advanced
3
0-399
400-499
500-600
4
0-399
400-499
500-600
5
0-399
400-499
500-600
6
0-399
400-499
500-600
7
0-399
400-499
500-600
8
0-399
400-499
500-600
MAP
Level1
Basic
Level2
Proficient
Level3
Advanced
Grade
RIT
%ile
RIT
%ile
RIT
%ile
3
100-202
1-47
203-216
48-82
217-350
83-99
4
100-207
1-34
208-223
35-74
224-350
75-99
5
100-217
1-40
218-233
41-77
234-350
78-99
6
100-218
1-34
219-245
35-88
246-350
89-99
7
100-228
1-49
229-250
50-89
251-350
90-99
8
100-228
1-44
229-255
45-90*
256-350
90*-99
Notes.1.%ile=percentile.
2.Boldednumbersindicatethecutscoresconsideredtobeatleast“proficient”foraccountabilitypurposes.
3.*reflectsoccasionaldeparturefromone-to-onecorrespondencebetweenRITsandpercentilesduetothelarger
rangeoftheRITscalerelativetothepercentilescale.
Page5of23
TABLE3.CONCORDANCEOFPERFORMANCELEVELSCORERANGESBETWEENSOL
ANDMAPREADING(WHENMAPISTAKENINFALLORWINTERPRIORTOSPRING
SOLTESTS)
Grade
Level1
Basic
SOL
Level2
Proficient
3
0-399
400-499
500-600
4
0-399
400-499
500-600
5
0-399
400-499
500-600
6
0-399
400-499
500-600
7
0-399
400-499
500-600
8
0-399
400-499
500-600
Level1
Basic
MAPFALL
Level2
Proficient
RIT
%ile
Level3
Advanced
RIT
%ile
Grade
Level3
Advanced
RIT
%ile
3
100-188
1-50
189-207
51-88
208-350
89-99
4
100-196
1-45
197-215
46-86
216-350
87-99
5
100-203
1-44
204-222
45-86
223-350
87-99
6
100-208
1-43
209-229
44-89
230-350
90-99
7
100-212
1-44
213-233
45-89
234-350
90-99
*
241-350
93*-99
8
100-217
1-50
RIT
%ile
218-240
51-93 MAPWINTER
Level2
Proficient
RIT
%ile
3
100-195
1-49
196-212
50-86
213-350
87-99
4
100-202
1-47
203-219
48-85
220-350
86-99
5
100-207
1-43
208-225
44-85
226-350
86-99
6
100-211
1-42
212-230
43-86
231-350
87-99
7
100-215
1-46
216-234
47-87
235-350
88-99
8
100-219
1-51
220-241
52-92
242-350
93-99
Level1
Basic
Grade
Level3
Advanced
RIT
%ile
Notes.1.%ile=percentile.
2.Boldednumbersindicatethecutscoresconsideredtobeatleast“proficient”foraccountabilitypurposes.
3.*reflectsoccasionaldeparturefromone-to-onecorrespondencebetweenRITsandpercentilesduetothelargerrangeof
theRITscalerelativetothepercentilescale.
Page6of23
TABLE4.CONCORDANCEOFPERFORMANCELEVELSCORERANGESBETWEENSOL
ANDMAPMATH(WHENMAPISTAKENINFALLORWINTERPRIORTOSPRINGSOL
TESTS)
Grade
Level1
Basic
SOL
Level2
Proficient
3
0-399
400-499
500-600
4
0-399
400-499
500-600
5
0-399
400-499
500-600
6
0-399
400-499
500-600
7
0-399
400-499
500-600
8
0-399
400-499
500-600
Level1
Basic
MAPFALL
Level2
Proficient
RIT
%ile
Level3
Advanced
RIT
%ile
Grade
Level3
Advanced
RIT
%ile
3
100-189
1-47
190-204
48-85
205-350
86-99
4
100-195
1-31
196-212
32-77
213-350
78-99
5
100-207
1-39
208-223
40-79
224-350
80-99
6
100-210
1-32
211-238
33-91
239-350
92-99
7
100-222
1-49
223-244
50-90
245-350
91-99
*
252-350
92*-99
8
100-223
1-43
RIT
%ile
224-251
44-92 MAPWINTER
Level2
Proficient
RIT
%ile
3
100-197
1-47
198-211
48-84
212-350
85-99
4
100-202
1-33
203-218
34-75
219-350
76-99
5
100-213
1-40
214-229
41-78
230-350
79-99
6
100-215
1-34
216-242
35-89
243-350
90-99
7
100-226
1-50
227-248
51-90
249-350
91-99
8
100-226
1-44
227-253
45-90
254-350
91-99
Level1
Basic
Grade
Level3
Advanced
RIT
%ile
Notes.1.%ile=percentile.
2.Boldednumbersindicatethecutscoresconsideredtobeatleast“proficient”foraccountabilitypurposes.
3.*reflectsoccasionaldeparturefromone-to-onecorrespondencebetweenRITsandpercentilesduetothelargerrangeof
theRITscalerelativetothepercentilescale.
Page7of23
ConsistencyRateofClassification
Consistencyrateofclassification(Pommerich,Hanson,Harris,&Sconing,2004),expressedinthe
formofaratebetween0and1,providesameanstomeasurethedeparturefromequityfor
concordances(Hansonetal.,2001).Thisindexcanalsobeusedasanindicatorforthepredictive
validityoftheMAPtests,i.e.,howaccuratelytheMAPscorescanpredictastudent’sproficiency
statusintheSOLtest.Foreachpairofconcordantscores,aclassificationisconsideredconsistent
iftheexamineeisclassifiedintothesameperformancecategoryregardlessofthetestusedfor
making a decision. Consistency rate provided in this report can be calculated as, for the
“proficient”performancecategoryconcordantscores,thepercentageofexamineeswhoscore
atorabovebothconcordantscoresplusthepercentageofexamineeswhoscorebelowboth
concordantscoresoneachtest.Higherconsistencyrateindicatesstrongercongruencebetween
SOLandMAPscores.TheresultsinTable5demonstratethatonaverageMAPreadingscorescan
consistentlyclassifystudents’proficiency(Level2orhigher)statusonSOLreadingtest84%of
thetimeandMAPmathscorescanconsistentlyclassifystudentsonSOLmathtest84%ofthe
time. Those numbers are high suggesting that both MAP reading and math tests are great
predictorsofthestudents’proficiencystatusontheSOLtests.
TABLE5.CONSISTENCYRATEOFCLASSIFICATIONFORMAPANDSOLLEVEL2
EQUIPERCENTILECONCORDANCES
Reading
Grade
3
4
5
6
7
8
Math
False
False
Consistency
Consistency
Rate
Rate
Positives Negatives
Positives Negatives
0.84
0.08
0.08
0.83
0.09
0.08
0.83
0.11
0.06
0.86
0.07
0.07
0.83
0.08
0.09
0.84
0.08
0.08
0.82
0.10
0.08
0.86
0.07
0.07
0.84
0.08
0.08
0.82
0.09
0.09
0.85
0.10
0.05
0.81
0.09
0.10
ProficiencyProjection
Proficiencyprojectiontellshowlikelyastudentisclassifiedas“proficient”onSOLtestsbasedon
his/herobservedMAPscores.Theconditionalgrowthnormsprovidedinthe2015MAPNorms
were used to calculate this information (Thum & Hauser, 2015). The results of proficiency
Page8of23
projectionandcorrespondingprobabilityofachieving“proficient”ontheSOLtestsarepresented
inTables6to8.ThesetablesestimatetheprobabilityofscoringatLevel2oraboveonSOLinthe
springandthepriorfallorwintertestingseason.Forexample,ifa3rdgradestudentobtaineda
MAPmathscoreof195inthefall,theprobabilityofobtainingaLevel2orhigherSOLscorein
the spring of 3rd grade is 78%. Table 6 presents the estimated probability of meeting Level 2
benchmark when MAP is taken in the spring, whereas Tables 7 and 8 present the estimated
probabilityofmeetingLevel2benchmarkwhenMAPistakeninthefallorwinterpriortotaking
theSOLtests.
Page9of23
TABLE6.PROFICIENCYPROJECTIONANDPROBABILITYFORPASSINGSOLLEVEL2
(PROFICIENT)WHENMAPISTAKENINTHESPRING
Reading
Grade
Start
%ile
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
Math
ProjectedProficiency
RIT
Spring CutScore Level2 Prob.
174
179
183
186
188
191
193
195
197
199
201
202
204
207
209
211
214
218
223
181
187
190
193
196
198
200
202
204
206
208
210
212
214
216
218
221
225
230
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.03
0.11
0.27
0.50
0.73
0.83
0.94
0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.06
0.17
0.38
0.62
0.83
0.94
0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
Start
%ile
RIT
Spring
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
181
186
189
192
194
196
198
200
202
203
205
207
209
211
213
215
218
221
226
189
194
198
201
203
206
208
210
212
213
215
217
219
221
224
226
229
233
238
ProjectedProficiency
CutScore Level2 Prob.
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.04
0.15
0.37
0.50
0.75
0.92
0.98
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.04
0.25
0.50
0.75
0.92
0.96
0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
Page10of23
TABLE6.(CONTINUED)
Reading
Grade
5
6
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
Math
ProjectedProficiency
RIT
Spring CutScore Level2 Prob.
188
193
197
199
202
204
206
208
210
212
214
216
217
220
222
224
227
231
236
192
197
201
203
206
208
210
212
214
216
218
219
221
223
226
228
231
235
240
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
214
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.03
0.11
0.27
0.50
0.73
0.89
0.97
0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.03
0.11
0.27
0.50
0.73
0.89
0.94
0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
ProjectedProficiency
RIT
Spring CutScore Level2 Prob.
195
201
205
208
210
213
215
217
219
221
223
225
228
230
232
235
238
242
248
198
204
208
211
214
217
219
221
223
225
227
230
232
234
237
239
243
247
253
218
218
218
218
218
218
218
218
218
218
218
218
218
218
218
218
218
218
218
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.15
0.37
0.63
0.85
0.96
0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.25
0.50
0.75
0.92
0.98
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
Page11of23
TABLE6.(CONTINUED)
Reading
Grade
7
8
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
ProjectedProficiency
RIT
Spring CutScore Level2 Prob.
193
199
202
205
208
210
212
214
216
218
220
222
224
226
228
231
234
238
243
194
200
204
207
209
212
214
216
218
220
222
224
226
228
231
233
236
240
246
Note.%ile=percentile
Math
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
221
221
221
221
221
221
221
221
221
221
221
221
221
221
221
221
221
221
221
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.06
0.17
0.38
0.62
0.83
0.94
0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.06
0.17
0.38
0.62
0.83
0.94
0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
ProjectedProficiency
RIT
Spring CutScore Level2 Prob.
199
206
210
214
217
219
222
224
226
229
231
233
235
238
241
244
247
251
258
199
206
211
215
218
221
224
226
229
231
233
236
238
241
244
247
251
255
262
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.04
0.15
0.50
0.75
0.92
0.98
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.15
0.50
0.75
0.92
0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
>0.99
Page12of23
ABLE7.PROFICIENCYPROJECTIONANDPROBABILITYFORPASSINGSOLREADING
LEVEL2(PROFICIENT)WHENMAPISTAKENINTHEFALLORWINTERPRIORTO
SPRINGSOLTESTS
Grade
3
4
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
RIT
Fall
162
168
172
175
178
180
182
184
186
188
190
192
194
197
199
202
205
209
214
173
178
182
185
188
190
192
194
196
198
200
202
204
206
209
211
214
218
224
ProjectedProficiency
CutScore Level2 Prob.
199
No
<0.01
199
No
0.01
199
No
0.03
199
No
0.05
199
No
0.10
199
No
0.16
199
No
0.20
199
No
0.29
199
No
0.39
199
No
0.44
199
Yes
0.56
199
Yes
0.66
199
Yes
0.71
199
Yes
0.84
199
Yes
0.90
199
Yes
0.94
199
Yes
0.97
199
Yes
0.99
199
Yes
>0.99
205
No
<0.01
205
No
0.01
205
No
0.03
205
No
0.07
205
No
0.12
205
No
0.18
205
No
0.27
205
No
0.33
205
No
0.44
205
Yes
0.56
205
Yes
0.62
205
Yes
0.73
205
Yes
0.82
205
Yes
0.88
205
Yes
0.93
205
Yes
0.96
205
Yes
0.98
205
Yes
>0.99
205
Yes
>0.99
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
RIT
ProjectedProficiency
Winter CutScore Level2 Prob.
171
199
No
<0.01
176
199
No
<0.01
180
199
No
<0.01
183
199
No
0.01
185
199
No
0.03
188
199
No
0.09
190
199
No
0.13
192
199
No
0.22
194
199
No
0.35
196
199
Yes
0.50
198
199
Yes
0.65
199
199
Yes
0.72
201
199
Yes
0.83
204
199
Yes
0.94
206
199
Yes
0.96
208
199
Yes
0.98
211
199
Yes
>0.99
215
199
Yes
>0.99
221
199
Yes
>0.99
179
205
No
<0.01
184
205
No
<0.01
188
205
No
<0.01
191
205
No
0.02
194
205
No
0.06
196
205
No
0.12
198
205
No
0.22
200
205
No
0.35
202
205
No
0.42
204
205
Yes
0.58
205
205
Yes
0.65
207
205
Yes
0.78
209
205
Yes
0.88
211
205
Yes
0.94
214
205
Yes
0.98
216
205
Yes
0.99
219
205
Yes
>0.99
223
205
Yes
>0.99
228
205
Yes
>0.99
Page13of23
TABLE7.(CONTINUED)
Grade
5
6
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
RIT
Fall
181
186
190
193
195
198
200
202
204
206
208
210
212
214
216
218
221
225
231
186
192
196
198
201
203
205
207
209
211
213
215
217
219
221
224
226
230
236
ProjectedProficiency
Cut-Score Level2 Prob.
210
No
<0.01
210
No
0.01
210
No
0.04
210
No
0.09
210
No
0.15
210
No
0.23
210
No
0.33
210
No
0.44
210
Yes
0.50
210
Yes
0.62
210
Yes
0.72
210
Yes
0.81
210
Yes
0.85
210
Yes
0.91
210
Yes
0.95
210
Yes
0.96
210
Yes
0.99
210
Yes
>0.99
210
Yes
>0.99
214
No
<0.01
214
No
0.01
214
No
0.06
214
No
0.07
214
No
0.16
214
No
0.23
214
No
0.33
214
No
0.39
214
Yes
0.50
214
Yes
0.61
214
Yes
0.72
214
Yes
0.77
214
Yes
0.84
214
Yes
0.90
214
Yes
0.93
214
Yes
0.97
214
Yes
0.99
214
Yes
>0.99
214
Yes
>0.99
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
RIT
ProjectedProficiency
Winter Cut-Score Level2 Prob.
186
210
No
<0.01
191
210
No
<0.01
195
210
No
0.01
197
210
No
0.03
200
210
No
0.09
202
210
No
0.12
204
210
No
0.22
206
210
No
0.35
208
210
Yes
0.50
210
210
Yes
0.65
212
210
Yes
0.78
214
210
Yes
0.88
215
210
Yes
0.91
218
210
Yes
0.97
220
210
Yes
0.98
222
210
Yes
0.99
225
210
Yes
>0.99
229
210
Yes
>0.99
234
210
Yes
>0.99
190
214
No
<0.01
196
214
No
<0.01
199
214
No
0.01
202
214
No
0.03
204
214
No
0.06
207
214
No
0.17
209
214
No
0.28
211
214
No
0.42
212
214
Yes
0.50
214
214
Yes
0.65
216
214
Yes
0.72
218
214
Yes
0.83
220
214
Yes
0.91
222
214
Yes
0.96
224
214
Yes
0.98
226
214
Yes
0.99
229
214
Yes
>0.99
233
214
Yes
>0.99
238
214
Yes
>0.99
Page14of23
TABLE7.(CONTINUED)
Grade
7
8
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
RIT
Fall
189
195
199
202
204
206
209
211
213
214
216
218
220
222
225
227
230
234
240
191
197
201
204
207
209
211
213
215
217
219
221
223
225
228
230
234
237
243
ProjectedProficiency
Cut-Score Level2 Prob.
217
No
<0.01
217
No
0.01
217
No
0.04
217
No
0.07
217
No
0.12
217
No
0.19
217
No
0.28
217
No
0.39
217
Yes
0.50
217
Yes
0.56
217
Yes
0.61
217
Yes
0.72
217
Yes
0.81
217
Yes
0.88
217
Yes
0.93
217
Yes
0.96
217
Yes
0.99
217
Yes
>0.99
217
Yes
>0.99
221
No
<0.01
221
No
0.01
221
No
0.03
221
No
0.06
221
No
0.10
221
No
0.16
221
No
0.22
221
No
0.26
221
No
0.35
221
No
0.45
221
Yes
0.55
221
Yes
0.60
221
Yes
0.69
221
Yes
0.78
221
Yes
0.84
221
Yes
0.90
221
Yes
0.96
221
Yes
0.98
221
Yes
>0.99
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
RIT
ProjectedProficiency
Winter Cut-Score Level2 Prob.
192
217
No
<0.01
198
217
No
<0.01
201
217
No
<0.01
204
217
No
0.02
207
217
No
0.06
209
217
No
0.12
211
217
No
0.22
213
217
No
0.28
215
217
No
0.42
217
217
Yes
0.58
219
217
Yes
0.72
221
217
Yes
0.83
223
217
Yes
0.91
225
217
Yes
0.96
227
217
Yes
0.98
230
217
Yes
>0.99
232
217
Yes
>0.99
236
217
Yes
>0.99
242
217
Yes
>0.99
194
221
No
<0.01
199
221
No
<0.01
203
221
No
<0.01
206
221
No
0.01
209
221
No
0.02
211
221
No
0.05
213
221
No
0.10
215
221
No
0.18
217
221
No
0.29
219
221
No
0.43
221
221
Yes
0.57
223
221
Yes
0.71
225
221
Yes
0.82
227
221
Yes
0.90
229
221
Yes
0.95
232
221
Yes
0.98
235
221
Yes
0.99
239
221
Yes
>0.99
244
221
Yes
>0.99
Note.%ile=percentile
Page15of23
TABLE8.PROFICIENCYPROJECTIONANDPROBABILITYFORPASSINGSOLMATH
LEVEL2(PROFICIENT)WHENMAPISTAKENINTHEFALLORWINTERPRIORTO
SPRINGSOLTESTS
Grade
3
4
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
RIT
Fall
169
174
177
179
182
184
185
187
189
190
192
194
195
197
199
201
204
207
212
179
184
188
190
193
195
197
198
200
202
204
205
207
209
211
214
216
220
225
ProjectedProficiency
CutScore Level2 Prob.
203
No
<0.01
203
No
0.01
203
No
0.03
203
No
0.06
203
No
0.14
203
No
0.17
203
No
0.22
203
No
0.32
203
No
0.44
203
Yes
0.50
203
Yes
0.62
203
Yes
0.73
203
Yes
0.78
203
Yes
0.86
203
Yes
0.89
203
Yes
0.94
203
Yes
0.98
203
Yes
0.99
203
Yes
>0.99
208
No
<0.01
208
No
0.03
208
No
0.11
208
No
0.17
208
No
0.32
208
No
0.44
208
Yes
0.56
208
Yes
0.62
208
Yes
0.73
208
Yes
0.83
208
Yes
0.89
208
Yes
0.89
208
Yes
0.94
208
Yes
0.97
208
Yes
0.99
208
Yes
>0.99
208
Yes
>0.99
208
Yes
>0.99
208
Yes
>0.99
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
RIT
ProjectedProficiency
Winter CutScore Level2 Prob.
176
203
No
<0.01
181
203
No
<0.01
184
203
No
<0.01
187
203
No
0.01
189
203
No
0.03
191
203
No
0.07
193
203
No
0.14
195
203
No
0.26
197
203
No
0.42
198
203
Yes
0.50
200
203
Yes
0.66
202
203
Yes
0.80
203
203
Yes
0.86
205
203
Yes
0.93
207
203
Yes
0.97
209
203
Yes
0.99
212
203
Yes
>0.99
215
203
Yes
>0.99
220
203
Yes
>0.99
185
208
No
<0.01
190
208
No
<0.01
194
208
No
0.03
197
208
No
0.10
199
208
No
0.20
201
208
No
0.34
203
208
Yes
0.50
205
208
Yes
0.66
207
208
Yes
0.80
209
208
Yes
0.90
211
208
Yes
0.95
212
208
Yes
0.97
214
208
Yes
0.99
216
208
Yes
>0.99
218
208
Yes
>0.99
221
208
Yes
>0.99
223
208
Yes
>0.99
227
208
Yes
>0.99
232
208
Yes
>0.99
Page16of23
TABLE8.(CONTINUED)
Grade
5
6
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
RIT
Fall
187
193
196
199
202
204
206
208
210
211
213
215
217
219
221
224
227
230
236
192
198
202
205
207
209
212
214
216
218
220
222
224
226
228
231
234
238
243
ProjectedProficiency
Cut-Score Level2 Prob.
218
No
<0.01
218
No
0.01
218
No
0.04
218
No
0.09
218
No
0.19
218
No
0.28
218
No
0.38
218
Yes
0.50
218
Yes
0.62
218
Yes
0.67
218
Yes
0.77
218
Yes
0.85
218
Yes
0.91
218
Yes
0.95
218
Yes
0.97
218
Yes
0.99
218
Yes
>0.99
218
Yes
>0.99
218
Yes
>0.99
219
No
<0.01
219
No
0.03
219
No
0.09
219
No
0.19
219
No
0.28
219
No
0.38
219
Yes
0.56
219
Yes
0.67
219
Yes
0.77
219
Yes
0.85
219
Yes
0.91
219
Yes
0.95
219
Yes
0.97
219
Yes
0.99
219
Yes
0.99
219
Yes
>0.99
219
Yes
>0.99
219
Yes
>0.99
219
Yes
>0.99
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
RIT
ProjectedProficiency
Winter Cut-Score Level2 Prob.
192
218
No
<0.01
198
218
No
<0.01
201
218
No
<0.01
204
218
No
0.02
207
218
No
0.07
209
218
No
0.15
211
218
No
0.27
213
218
No
0.42
215
218
Yes
0.58
217
218
Yes
0.73
219
218
Yes
0.85
221
218
Yes
0.93
223
218
Yes
0.97
225
218
Yes
0.99
228
218
Yes
>0.99
230
218
Yes
>0.99
233
218
Yes
>0.99
237
218
Yes
>0.99
242
218
Yes
>0.99
196
219
No
<0.01
202
219
No
<0.01
205
219
No
0.01
209
219
No
0.07
211
219
No
0.15
214
219
No
0.34
216
219
Yes
0.50
218
219
Yes
0.66
220
219
Yes
0.80
222
219
Yes
0.89
224
219
Yes
0.95
226
219
Yes
0.98
228
219
Yes
0.99
230
219
Yes
>0.99
233
219
Yes
>0.99
236
219
Yes
>0.99
239
219
Yes
>0.99
243
219
Yes
>0.99
248
219
Yes
>0.99
Page17of23
TABLE8.(CONTINUED)
Grade
7
8
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
RIT
Fall
195
201
205
209
211
214
216
218
221
223
225
227
229
231
234
237
240
244
250
197
203
208
211
214
217
219
222
224
226
229
231
233
236
238
241
245
249
256
ProjectedProficiency
Cut-Score Level2 Prob.
229
No
<0.01
229
No
<0.01
229
No
<0.01
229
No
0.02
229
No
0.03
229
No
0.08
229
No
0.14
229
No
0.22
229
No
0.38
229
Yes
0.50
229
Yes
0.62
229
Yes
0.73
229
Yes
0.82
229
Yes
0.89
229
Yes
0.95
229
Yes
0.98
229
Yes
>0.99
229
Yes
>0.99
229
Yes
>0.99
229
No
<0.01
229
No
<0.01
229
No
0.02
229
No
0.04
229
No
0.10
229
No
0.18
229
No
0.26
229
No
0.40
229
Yes
0.50
229
Yes
0.60
229
Yes
0.74
229
Yes
0.82
229
Yes
0.88
229
Yes
0.92
229
Yes
0.96
229
Yes
0.98
229
Yes
>0.99
229
Yes
>0.99
229
Yes
>0.99
Start
%ile
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
RIT
ProjectedProficiency
Winter Cut-Score Level2 Prob.
198
229
No
<0.01
204
229
No
<0.01
208
229
No
<0.01
212
229
No
<0.01
215
229
No
0.01
217
229
No
0.02
220
229
No
0.07
222
229
No
0.15
224
229
No
0.26
226
229
No
0.42
228
229
Yes
0.58
230
229
Yes
0.74
233
229
Yes
0.90
235
229
Yes
0.95
238
229
Yes
0.99
240
229
Yes
>0.99
244
229
Yes
>0.99
248
229
Yes
>0.99
254
229
Yes
>0.99
199
229
No
<0.01
206
229
No
<0.01
210
229
No
<0.01
214
229
No
<0.01
217
229
No
0.02
220
229
No
0.08
222
229
No
0.16
225
229
No
0.35
227
229
Yes
0.50
229
229
Yes
0.65
231
229
Yes
0.79
234
229
Yes
0.92
236
229
Yes
0.96
239
229
Yes
0.99
241
229
Yes
>0.99
245
229
Yes
>0.99
248
229
Yes
>0.99
253
229
Yes
>0.99
259
229
Yes
>0.99
Note.%ile=percentile
Page18of23
SummaryandDiscussion
ThisstudyproducedasetofcutscoresonMAPreadingandmathtestsforGrades3to8that
correspond to each SOL performance level. By using matched score data from a sample of
studentsfromVirginia,thestudydemonstratesthatMAPscorescanaccuratelypredictwhether
astudentcouldbeproficientoraboveonthebasisofhis/herMAPscores.Thisstudyalsoused
the 2015 NWEA norming study results to project a student’s probability to meet proficiency
basedonthatstudent’spriorMAPscoresinfallandwinter.Theseresultswillhelpeducators
predictstudentperformanceinSOLtestsasearlyaspossibleandidentifythosestudentswhoare
atriskoffailingtomeetrequiredstandardssothattheycanreceivenecessaryresourcesand
assistancetomeettheirgoals.
Whileconcordancetablescanbehelpfulandinformative,theyhavegenerallimitations.First,the
concordance tables provide information about score comparability on different tests, but the
scorescannotbeassumedtobeinterchangeable.InthecaseforSOLandMAPtests,astheyare
notparallelincontent,scoresfromthesetwotestsshouldnotbedirectlycompared.Second,the
sampledatausedinthisstudywerecollectedfrom4schooldistrictsinVirginiaandthesample
sizeofgrade8wasmuchsmallerthanthoseofothergrades.Cautionsshouldbeexercisedwhen
generalizingtheresultstotesttakerswhodiffersignificantlyfromthissample.Finally,cautions
should also be exercised if the concorded scores are used for a subpopulation. NWEA will
continuetogatherinformationaboutSOLperformancefromotherschooldistrictsinVirginiato
enhancethequalityandgeneralizabilityofthestudy.
Page19of23
References
Hanson,B.A.,Harris,D.J.,Pommerich,M.,Sconing,J.A.,&Yi,Q.(2001).Suggestionsforthe
evaluationanduseofconcordanceresults.(ACTResearchReportNo.2001-1).IowaCity,
IA:ACT,Inc.
Kolen,M.J.,&Brennan,R.L.(2004).Testequating,scaling,andlinking.NewYork:Springer.
Pommerich,M.,Hanson,B.,Harris,D.,&Sconing,J.(2004).Issuesinconductinglinkagebetween
distincttests.AppliedPsychologicalMeasurement,28(4),247-273.
VirginiaEducationAgency(2015).TechnicalDigestfortheacademicyear2014-2015.Austin,TX:
TEAgency.
ThumY.M.,&Hauser,C.H.(2015).NWEA2015MAPNormsforStudentandSchoolAchievement
StatusandGrowth.NWEAResearchReport.Portland,OR:NWEA.
Page20of23
Appendix
DataandAnalysis
Data
Datausedinthisstudywerecollectedfrom4schooldistrictsinVirginia.Thesamplecontained
matchedSOLandMAPreadingscoresof7,388studentsinGrades3to8andmatchedSOLand
MAPmathscoresof7,625studentsinGrades3to8whocompletedbothMAPandSOLtestsin
thespringof2014.
Tounderstandthestatisticalcharacteristicsofthetestscores,descriptivestatisticsareprovided
in Table A1 below. As Table A1 indicates, the correlation coefficients between MAP and SOL
readingscoresrangefrom0.75to0.81,andthecorrelationcoefficientsbetweenMAPandSOL
math scores range from 0.76 to 0.81. In general, all these correlations indicate a strong
relationshipbetweenMAPandSOLtestscores.
TABLEA1.DESCRIPTIVESTATISTICSOFTHESAMPLEDATA
Subject
Grade
3
4
5
Reading
6
7
8
3
4
5
Math
6
7
8
N
1,573
1,573
1,556
1,249
1,179
258
1,550
1,550
1,522
1,229
1,052
722
r
0.76
0.76
0.75
0.77
0.75
0.81
0.79
0.81
0.79
0.76
0.77
0.79
Mean
435
437
435
429
433
413
423
453
445
429
414
411
SOL
SD
66.99
68.86
62.69
59.81
54.10
59.73
66.71
66.74
69.53
45.44
53.27
48.39
Min
208
243
221
244
285
249
257
289
239
308
263
264
Max
600
600
600
600
600
591
600
600
600
600
600
600
Mean
204
210
215
218
222
222
206
216
224
226
231
231
MAP
SD Min
12.69 148
12.52 147
12.10 149
12.51 154
12.30 158
16.38 155
10.63 155
11.40 159
12.66 176
13.63 174
13.68 149
16.09 164
Max
236
241
246
249
258
257
247
253
269
264
269
280
Page21of23
EquipercentileLinkingProcedure
The equipercentile procedure (e.g., Kolen & Brennan, 2004) was used to establish the
concordancerelationshipbetweenSOLandMAPscoresforgrades3to8inreadingandmath.
Thisprocedurematchesscoresonthetwoscalesthathavethesamepercentilerank(i.e.,the
proportionofscoresatorbeloweachscore).
Supposeweneedtoestablishtheconcordedscoresbetweentwotests.𝑥isascoreonTest𝑋
(e.g., SOL). Its equipercentile equivalent score on Test𝑌(e.g., MAP),𝑒& 𝑥 ,can be obtained
throughacumulative-distribution-basedlinkingfunctiondefinedinEquation(A1):
𝑒& 𝑥 = 𝐺 *+ [𝑃 𝑥 ]
(A1)
where𝑒& 𝑥 istheequipercentileequivalentofscoresonSOLonthescaleofMAP,𝑃 𝑥 isthe
percentilerankofagivenscoreonTest𝑋.𝐺 *+ istheinverseofthepercentilerankfunctionfor
scores on Test𝑌 which indicates the scores on Test𝑌 corresponding to a given percentile.
Polynomial loglinear pre-smoothing was applied to reduce irregularities of the frequency
distributionsaswellasequipercentilelinkingcurve.
ConsistencyrateofClassification
Consistency rate of classification accuracy, expressed in the form of a rate between 0 and 1,
measures the extent to which MAP scores (and the estimated MAP cut scores) accurately
predictedwhetherstudentsinthesamplewouldpass(i.e.,Level2orhigher)onSOLtests.
Tocalculateconsistencyrateofclassification,samplestudentsweredesignated“BelowSOLcut”
or“AtoraboveSOLcut”basedontheiractualSOLscores.Similarly,theywerealsodesignated
as “Below MAP cut” or “At or above MAP cut” based on their actual MAP scores. A 2-way
contingencytablewasthentabulated(seeTableA2),classifyingstudentsas“Proficient”onthe
basisofSOLcutscoreandconcordantMAPcutscore.Studentsclassifiedinthetruepositive(TP)
category were those predicted to be Proficient based on the MAP cut scores and were also
classifiedasProficientbasedontheSOLcutscores.Studentsclassifiedinthetruenegative(TN)
categorywerethosepredictedtobeNotProficientbasedontheMAPcutscoresandwerealso
classifiedasNotProficientbasedontheSOLcutscores.Studentsclassifiedinthefalsepositive
(FP) category were those predicted to be Proficient based on the MAP cut scores but were
classifiedasNotProficientbasedontheSOLcutscores.Studentsclassifiedinthefalsenegative
(FN)categorywerethosepredicatedtobeNotProficientbasedontheMAPcutscoresbutwere
classifiedasProficientbasedontheSOLcutscores.Theoverallconsistencyrateofclassification
wascomputedastheproportionofcorrectclassificationsamongtheentiresampleby(TP+TN)/
(TP+TN+FP+FN).
Page22of23
TABLEA2.DEFINITIONOFCONSISTENCYRATEFORSOLTOMAPCONCORDANCE
MAPScore
SOLScore
BelowSOLcut
AtorAboveSOLcut
BelowMAPcut
TrueNegarve
FalseNegarve
AtorAboveMAPcut
FalsePosirve
TruePosirve
Note.Shadedcellsaresummedtocomputetheconsistencyrate.
ProficiencyProjection
MAPconditionalgrowthnormsprovidestudent’sexpectedgainscoresacrosstestingseasons
(Thum&Hauser,2015).Thisinformationisutilizedtopredictastudent’sperformanceonthe
SOLbasedonthatstudent’sMAPscoresinpriorseasons(e.g.fallandwinter).Theprobabilityof
astudentachievingLevel2(Proficient)onSOL,basedonhis/herfallorwinterMAPscoreisgiven
inEquation(A2):
𝑃𝑟 𝐴𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙2𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑅𝐼𝑇𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑥) = Φ 𝑥+𝑔−𝑐
(𝐴2)
𝑆𝐷
where,Φisastandardizednormalcumulativedistribution,𝑥isthestudent’sRITscoreinfallor
winter,𝑔istheexpectedgrowthfromfallorwintertospringcorrespondingto𝑥,𝑐istheMAP
cut-scoreforspring,and𝑆𝐷istheconditionalstandarddeviationofgrowthfromfallorwinter
tospring.
FortheprobabilityofastudentachievingLevel2ontheSOLtests,basedonhis/herspringscore
𝑠,itcanbecalculatedbyEquation(A3):
𝑃𝑟 𝐴𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙2𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑅𝐼𝑇𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔) = Φ 𝑠−𝑐
(𝐴3)
𝑆𝐸
whereSEisthestandarderrorofmeasurementforMAPreadingormathtest.
Foundedbyeducatorsnearly40yearsago,NorthwestEvaluationAssociation(NWEA)isaglobalnot-for-profiteducationalservicesorganization
knownforourflagshipinterimassessment,MeasuresofAcademicProgress(MAP).Morethan7,800partnersinU.S.schools,schooldistricts,
educationagencies,andinternationalschoolstrustustoofferpre-kindergartenthroughgrade12assessmentsthataccuratelymeasurestudent
growthandlearningneeds,professionaldevelopmentthatfosterseducators’abilitytoacceleratestudentlearning,andresearchthatsupports
assessmentvalidityanddatainterpretation.Tobetterinforminstructionandmaximizeeverylearner’sacademicgrowth,educatorscurrently
useNWEAassessmentswithnearlyeightmillionstudents.
©NorthwestEvaluationAssociation2016.MeasuresofAcademicProgress,MAP,andPartneringtohelpallkidslearnare
registeredtrademarksofNorthwestEvaluationAssociationintheU.S.andinothercountries.NorthwestEvaluationAssociation
andNWEAaretrademarksofNorthwestEvaluationAssociationintheU.S.andinothercountries.Thenamesofother
companiesandtheirproductsmentionedarethetrademarksoftheirrespectiveowners.
Page23of23