World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment

Annual Technical Report for

ACCESS for ELLs® English Language Proficiency Test,
Series 302, 2013-2014 Administration

Annual Technical Report No. 10

Volume 1 of 3: Description, Validity, and Student Results

Prepared by:

Center for Applied Linguistics

CAL/WIDA Partnership Activities

Psychometrics/Research Team

May 30, 2015

© 2015 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System on behalf of the WIDA
Consortium.
The WIDA ACCESS for ELLs Technical Advisory Committee

This report has been reviewed by the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC), which is comprised of the following members:
• Jamal Abedi, Ph.D., Professor at the Graduate School of Education at the University of
California, Davis and a research partner at the National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST)
• Lyle Bachman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Applied Linguistics, University of California,
Los Angeles
• Akihito Kamata, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Education Policy and Leadership,
Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University.
• Timothy Kurtz, Hanover High School, Hanover, New Hampshire
• Carol Myford, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Educational Psychology at the University of
Illinois at Chicago.
• Elizabeth Peña, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders,
University of Texas at Austin.

More information on the TAC members can be found at the WIDA website
(www.wida.us/assessment/access/TAC/index.aspx).

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 ii Series 302 (2013-2014)

Executive Summary
This is the tenth annual technical report on ACCESS for ELLs. This technical report is produced
as a service to members and potential members of the WIDA Consortium. The technical
information herein is intended for use by those who have technical knowledge of test
construction and measurement procedures, as stated in Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological
Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014).
ACCESS for ELLs serves two purposes: 1) To assess reliably and validly the English language
development (ELD) of English language learners (ELLs) in Grades K–12 according to WIDA
2012 Amplification of the English Language Development Standards Kindergarten–Grade 12
(WIDA,2012b) To place students appropriately into proficiency levels described by the ELD
Standards. Results on ACCESS for ELLs are used by WIDA Consortium states for monitoring
the progress of students, for making decisions about exiting students from language support
services, and for accountability.
This report provides detailed information from the analysis of the tenth series of the test, Series
302. Series 302 was administered during the academic year 2013–2014 in 33 WIDA Consortium
states. Because the main focus of this report is on the technical quality of the test forms and not
on the performance of students, analyses in this report are aggregated across all participating
states.
Beginning with ACCESS Series 302 (operational year 2013-2014), the ACCESS Listening test
transitioned from a traditional test administrator-read script to a media-delivered format, played
either from CD or from streaming audio available online, for all grade level clusters except for
Kindergarten. For more information, please see the ACCESS for ELLs Series 302 Media-Based
Listening Field Test Technical Brief (Center for Applied Linguistics, forthcoming).

As in the previous annual technical reports, this report provides background to the test
(Chapter 1). The current report has been modified for Series 302 to introduce an argument-based
validation framework to support the use of ACCESS for ELLs and to contextualize the data so
that its interpretation and use are more transparent to stakeholders (Chapter 2). The rest of the
report consists of paired chapters. The first chapter within each pair contains text that explains
the data tables that follow in the second chapter. Information on the students who participated in
the operational administration is presented (Chapters 3 and 4), followed by an explanation of the
technical analyses conducted on each of the 44 test forms that constitute ACCESS for ELLs
(Chapter 5) and the tables and figures of results (Chapter 6). The final chapters explain (Chapter
7) and present (Chapter 8) technical analyses based on the domain scores and composite scores
by grade-level cluster. Note that Chapters 1–4 are in Volume 1, Chapters 5–6 are in Volume 2,
and Chapters 7–8 are in Volume 3.

Summary Highlights
This report presents a wealth of data documenting the technical properties of the 44 test forms of
ACCESS for ELLs Series 302, which is impossible to summarize here. In addition to
information on validity, the report presents information on reliability of test scores and the
accuracy and consistency of proficiency level classifications, including information on

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 iii Series 302 (2013-2014)

conditional standard errors of measurement for all scores and a separate table highlighting
conditional standard errors around the cut scores. The report also provides details on scaling and
the equating of the Series 302 test forms to those of Series 301. Item-level analyses include item
difficulty levels, fit of the items to the Rasch measurement model, and differential item
functioning (DIF) analyses for each item or assessment task. The annual analyses of the technical
properties of ACCESS for ELLs test forms are used in the continual refinement and
improvement of ACCESS for ELLs.
Here we would like to highlight the following results of this report.

Argument-based validation framework for ACCESS for ELLs

Starting with Series 301, Chapter 2 of the ACCESS for ELLs Annual Technical Report consists
of an argument-based framework for supporting the validity of ACCESS for ELLs. This
framework structures the information contained in this Annual Technical Report to support
assertions about data collected via the assessment (i.e., Assessment Records). Specifically, tables
and figures from this report are explicitly linked to claims related to Assessment Records through
an Assessment Use Argument (AUA), which allows stakeholders to better interpret and use
ACCESS for ELLs. A larger, forthcoming (as of 2015), validation framework for the complete
assessment from its inception to its consequences is currently under development by WIDA.

Demographic data
The Series 302 data set for analyses included the results of 1,372,806 students. The largest grade
was Kindergarten with 204,828 students, while the smallest was Grade 12 with 31,299 students.
Of the participating WIDA states, the largest was Illinois with 176,389 students, while the
smallest was Vermont with 1,533 students. Technical analyses in this report are based on the
performance of all students who were administered Series 302 of ACCESS for ELLs.

Reliability and accuracy data

For most test users, the Overall Composite proficiency score, based on performances in
Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing, is the major score used for making decisions about
gains in student proficiency and exiting from language support services, and for Annual
Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs). As explained by Keng, Miller, O’Malley, and
Turhan (2008), “the use of composite scores has become more widespread with federal testing
requirements under Title III of No Child Left Behind now calling for states to assess students
with limited English proficiency (LEP) annually from Kindergarten through 12th grade in the
four language domains of listening, speaking, reading and writing. A composite of the student’s
performance on each of these domains is calculated to represent the student’s overall English
language proficiency.” Results indicate that the reliability of the Overall Composite score for
Series 302, presented in Chapter 8 Table D, is very high across all grade-level clusters. For
Kindergarten it was .973; for Grades 1–2, .943; for Grades 3–5, .937; for Grades 6–8, .930; and
for Grades 9–12, .945. Likewise, as Table 0.1 shows, the accuracy of decisions about student
placement using the Overall Composite score around the proficiency level cut scores is very high
across the grade and proficiency levels. Because many WIDA Consortium states use the
proficiency level score of 5.0 as a criterion for exiting students from language support services,
the column headed 4/5 Cut (the proficiency level score of 5.0) is of particular interest.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 iv Series 302 (2013-2014)

Table 0.1
Accuracy of Overall Score at Cut Points (Proficiency Level Score)
1/2 Cut 2/3 Cut 3/4 Cut 4/5 Cut 5/6 Cut
Grade (2.0) (3.0) (4.0) (5.0) (6.0)
K (instructional) 0.976 0.959 0.950 0.953 0.950
K (accountability) 0.953 0.951 0.955 0.953 0.991
1 0.985 0.938 0.930 0.970 0.991
2 0.985 0.956 0.911 0.936 0.985
3 0.996 0.982 0.938 0.910 0.930
4 0.994 0.979 0.931 0.900 0.918
5 0.992 0.974 0.925 0.897 0.931
6 0.988 0.962 0.908 0.889 0.983
7 0.985 0.958 0.903 0.886 0.984
8 0.981 0.951 0.900 0.908 0.985
9 0.980 0.960 0.931 0.906 0.901
10 0.984 0.956 0.925 0.904 0.942
11 0.985 0.956 0.923 0.896 0.941
12 0.984 0.954 0.915 0.868 0.956

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 v Series 302 (2013-2014)

Overview of the Annual Technical Report
The multistate WIDA Consortium’s ACCESS for ELLs was first operationally administered in
2005 in three states: Alabama, Maine, and Vermont. Results of that administration were reported
in Annual Technical Report 1 (Series 100, 2004–2005).
Each year, the Center for Applied Linguistics refreshes a third to a half of all ACCESS for ELLs
test items. In academic year 2013–2014, Series 302 was administered in 33 WIDA Consortium
states. The 44 test forms in Listening, Reading, Writing, and Speaking across the grades from
Kindergarten to 12 constitute a test series. These test forms are grouped into five grade-level
clusters: Kindergarten, Grades 1–2, Grades 3–5, Grades 6–8, and Grades 9–12. Within each
grade-level cluster except Kindergarten, there are three overlapping tiers of test forms for
Listening, Reading, and Writing: A, B, and C. This report presents the results of research into the
technical properties of the 44 test forms (e.g., Grades 3–5, Reading, Tier C) that constitute Series
302. Data come from the 1,372,806 students who were administered the test operationally in the
winter and spring of 2014.
Because of the size of the complete report, it is presented in three volumes.
Volume I contains an executive summary, this overview, an annotated bibliography, and
Chapters 1 to 4. Chapter 1 provides background to the test. Readers unfamiliar with ACCESS for
ELLs should pay particular attention to this chapter. Chapter 2 presents an argument-based
approach for structuring the data contained in this report so that its interpretation and use are
more transparent to stakeholders. Chapters 3 and 4 present information on the students who
participated in the Series 302 (2013–2014) operational administration, including overall results.
Volume II contains Chapters 5 and 6. Chapter 5 presents background on the technical analyses
conducted on each of the test forms and explains how to understand the tables and figures of
results. Chapter 6 presents the results organized by
• Grade-level cluster (K, 1–2, 3–5, 6–8, 9–12)
• Domain (Listening, Reading, Writing, and Speaking, abbreviated List, Read, Writ, and
Spek, respectively)
• Tier (A, B, C)
Thus, all of the results for Kindergarten are presented before the results for Grades 1–2, and all
of the results for Listening (i.e., for tiers A, B, and C where applicable) are presented before
results for Reading.
Volume III contains Chapters 7 and 8. These chapters focus on results across tiers within grade-
level clusters, including the four composite scores (Oral Language, Literacy, Comprehension,
and Overall). Chapter 7 presents background on the technical analyses and explains how to
understand the tables and figures of results. Chapter 8 presents the results organized by
• Grade-level cluster (K, 1–2, 3–5, 6–8, 9–12)
• Score (Listening, Reading, Writing, Speaking, Oral Language Composite, Literacy
Composite, Comprehension Composite, and Overall Composite, abbreviated List,
Read, Writ, Spek, Oral, Litr, Cphn, and Over, respectively)

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 vi Series 302 (2013-2014)

Annotated Bibliography: 2013-2014
Technical Reports
This is a list of reports that describe the development of ACCESS for ELLs.

Center for Applied Linguistics (forthcoming). ACCESS for ELLs Series 302 Media-Based
Listening Field Test Technical Brief. (WIDA Consortium).
This report (forthcoming) provides detailed information on the conceptualization,
development, and field testing of ACCESS for ELLs Media-Based Listening Test.
Gottlieb, M., & Boals, T. (2005). Considerations in Reconfiguring Cohorts and Resetting Annual
Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) based on ACCESS for ELLs Data
(WIDA Consortium Technical Report No. 3).
This report is intended to assist states with the transition to a standards-based test and
determining their AMAOs using ACCESS for ELLs.
Gottlieb, M. & Kenyon, D.M. (2006). The Bridge Study between Tests of English Language
Proficiency and ACCESS for ELLs (WIDA Consortium Technical Report No. 2).
This report provides the background, procedures, and results of a study intended to
establish estimates of comparability between ACCESS for ELLs and four other
English language tests used by Consortium member states. Students in Illinois and
Rhode Island were administered ACCESS for ELLs along with one of the other four
tests, and results on the four tests were compared with results on ACCESS for ELLs.
Results allow states, districts, and schools to understand and report ACCESS for ELLs
scores and to establish continuity between previous tests and ACCESS for ELLs.
Kenyon, D. M. (2006). Development and Field Test of ACCESS for ELLs (WIDA Consortium
Technical Report No. 1).
This report provides detailed information on the conceptualization, development, and
field testing of ACCESS for ELLs. It also provides technical data on equating and
scaling procedures, standard setting and operational score reporting, analyses of
reliability and errors of measurement, and two initial validity studies.
Kenyon, D. M., Ryu, J.R. (Willow), & MacGregor, D. (2013). Setting Grade Level Cut Scores
for ACCESS for ELLs. (WIDA Consortium Technical Report No. 4).
This report describes the technical procedures and outcomes of the process to move
from grade-level-cluster cut scores to grade-level cut scores. Proposed cut scores were
determined mathematically and then reviewed and revised in a standard setting process
involving 75 teachers from 14 WIDA Consortium states.
MacGregor, D., Kenyon, D. M., Gibson, S., & Evans, E. (2009). Development and Field Test of
Kindergarten ACCESS for ELLs. (WIDA Consortium).
This report provides detailed information on the conceptualization, development, and
field testing of Kindergarten ACCESS for ELLs. It also provides technical data on
equating and scaling procedures, standard setting and operational score reporting, and
analyses of reliability and errors of measurement.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 vii Series 302 (2013-2014)

Annual Technical Reports for ACCESS for ELLs
Below is a list of annual technical reports for ACCESS for ACCESS for ELLs, listed by year of
publication. These reports provide extensive analysis of the results from the operational
administration of ACCESS for ELLs. They provide detailed information on student results
broken down by grade-level cluster, grade, and tier. They also provide detailed information on
test and item characteristics.
Kenyon, D. M., MacGregor, D., Ryu, J.R. (Willow), Cho, B., and Louguit, M. (2006). Annual
Technical Report for ACCESS for ELLs® English Language Proficiency Test, Series
100, 2004-2005 Administration. (WIDA Consortium Annual Technical Report No. 1).
Kenyon, D. M., MacGregor, D., Louguit, M. Cho, B., and Ryu, J.R. (Willow). (2007). Annual
Technical Report for ACCESS for ELLs® English Language Proficiency Test, Series
101, 2005-2006 Administration. (WIDA Consortium Annual Technical Report No. 2).
MacGregor, D., Louguit, M., Ryu, J.R. (Willow), Kenyon, D.M., and Li, D. (2008). Annual
Technical Report for ACCESS for ELLs® English Language Proficiency Test, Series
102, 2006-2007 Administration. (WIDA Consortium Annual Technical Report No. 3).
MacGregor, D., Louguit, M., Huang, X., and Kenyon, D.M. (2009). Annual Technical Report for
ACCESS for ELLs® English Language Proficiency Test, Series 103, 2007-2008
Administration. (WIDA Consortium Annual Technical Report No. 4).
MacGregor, D., Louguit, M., Yanosky, T., Fidelman, C. G., Pan, M., Huang, X., and Kenyon,
D.M. (2010). Annual Technical Report for ACCESS for ELLs® English Language
Proficiency Test, Series 200, 2008-2009 Administration. (WIDA Consortium Annual
Technical Report No. 5).
Yanosky, T., Yen, S., Louguit, M., MacGregor, D., Zhang, Y., and Kenyon, D.M. (2011).
Annual Technical Report for ACCESS for ELLs® English Language Proficiency Test,
Series 201, 2009-2010 Administration. (WIDA Consortium Annual Technical Report
No. 6).
Yanosky, T., Chong, A., Louguit, M., Olson, E., Choi, Y., MacGregor, D., Yen, S., Cameron, C.,
and Kenyon, D.M. (2012). Annual Technical Report for ACCESS for ELLs® English
Language Proficiency Test, Series 202, 2010-2011 Administration. (WIDA
Consortium Annual Technical Report No. 7).
Yanosky, T., Amos, M., Louguit, M., Olson, Cameron, C., Louguit, M., MacGregor, D., Yen, S.,
and Kenyon, D.M. (2013). Annual Technical Report for ACCESS for ELLs® English
Language Proficiency Test, Series 203, 2011-2012 Administration. (WIDA
Consortium Annual Technical Report No. 8).
Center for Applied Linguistics (2014). Annual Technical Report for ACCESS for ELLs®
English Language Proficiency Test, Series 301, 2012-2013 Administration. (WIDA
Consortium Annual Technical Report No. 9).

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 viii Series 302 (2013-2014)

Other Documentation

Bachman, L. F. (2005). Building and supporting a case for test use. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 2(1), 1–34.
This article describes how an argument for test use might be structured so as to provide
a clear linkage from test performance to interpretations and from interpretations to
uses.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
This book presents the Assessment Use Argument, which provides a framework for
justifying the intended uses of an assessment, as well as a guide for the design and
development of the assessment itself.
Bauman, J., Boals, T., Cranley, E., Gottlieb, M., and Kenyon, D.M. (2007). The Newly
Developed English Language Tests (World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment
– WIDA). In Abedi, Jamal (Ed.), English Language Proficiency Assessment in the
Nation: Current Status and Future Practice. Davis: University of California.
In this book chapter, the authors describe the test development process, from the
development of standards through the development of items, field testing, and
operationalization. They also report on validation of the test, accommodations, the test
administration and technical manuals, and score reporting.
Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. E., & Jamieson, J. (2010). Does an argument-based approach to
validity make a difference? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(1), 3–
13.
Drawing on experience between 2000 and 2007 in developing a validity argument for
the high-stakes Test of English as a Foreign Language™, this paper evaluates the
differences between the argument-based approach to validity as presented by Kane
(2006) and that described in the 1999 AERA/APA/NCME Standards for Educational
and Psychological Testing.
Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. & Jamieson, J. (Eds.) (2008). Building a validity argument for the
Test of English as a Foreign Language. London: Routledge.
This book uses the Test of English as a Foreign Language™ as a case study for
validating test design. It attempts to meet the standards of educational measurement
while also drawing on theory related to English language proficiency.
Cook, H. G. (2007). Alignment Study Report: The WIDA Consortium’s English Language
Proficiency Standards for English Language Learners in Kindergarten through Grade
12 to ACCESS for ELLs® Assessment. Madison, WI: WIDA Consortium.
In this report, the author describes a study to align the WIDA Standards to the
ACCESS for ELLs test. The study was designed to address two questions: how well
the test measures the proficiency levels described in the Standards, and how well the
different domains of each standard are addressed by the domains of the test. The author
concludes that overall ACCESS for ELLs is adequately aligned to the Standards.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 ix Series 302 (2013-2014)

Cook, H. G., Boals, T., Wilmes, C., and Santos, M. (2007). Issues in the Development of Annual
Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) for WIDA Consortium States.
Madison, WI: WIDA Consortium.
In this paper, the authors offer guidance to states in formulating Annual Measurable
Achievement Objectives for English language learners.
Fox, J. (2011). Test review: ACCESS for ELLs®. Language Testing 28 (3): 425-431.
The author provides a thorough review of ACCESS for ELLs, using the eight criteria
enumerated in Fairbairn and Fox (2009).
Gottlieb, M. (2004). English Language Proficiency Standards for English Language Learners in
Kindergarten through Grade 12: Framework for Large-Scale State and Classroom
Assessment. Madison, WI: WIDA Consortium.
These documents contain the WIDA Standards and describe the rationale behind and
development of the frameworks for large-scale state and classroom assessments. These
frameworks comprise English Language Development standards, language domains,
grade-level clusters, language proficiency levels and the model performance indicators
upon which ACCESS for ELLs is based. They are meant to guide curriculum
development, instruction, and assessment of English language learners.
Kane, M. (2006). Validation. In R. Brennan, (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th Edition), pp.
18-64. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.
This book chapter presents a conceptualization of test validity where evidence and
logical argument are brought together to evaluate claims and propositions about the
proposed uses and interpretations of test results.
Kenyon, D.M., MacGregor, D., Li, D., and Cook, H. G. (2011). Issues in vertical scaling of a K-
12 English language proficiency test. Language Testing 28 (3): 383-400.
In this article, the authors describe the procedure used to place ACCESS for ELLs
results on a vertical scale, and they discuss studies conducted to test the effectiveness
of that scale.
Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G., & Lukas, J. F. (2004). A Brief Introduction to Evidence-Centered
Design (CSE Report 632). CA: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing.
This paper provides an introduction to the basic ideas of Evidence Centered Design, an
approach to constructing educational assessments in terms of evidentiary arguments. It
includes some of the terminology and models that have been developed to implement
the approach.
National Research Council. (2011). Allocating federal funds for state programs for English
language learners. Panel to Review Alternative Data Sources for the Limited-English
Proficiency Allocation Formula under Title III, Part A, Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, Committee on National Statistics and Board on Testing and
Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 x Series 302 (2013-2014)

 This report includes detailed descriptions of six English language proficiency tests,
including ACCESS for ELLs, along with information about the reliability and validity
of the tests.
Parker, C. E., Louie, J., and O’Dwyer, L. (2009). New measures of English language proficiency
and their relationship to performance on large-scale content assessments (Issues &
Answers Report, REL 2009–No. 066). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands.
Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs, January 29, 2009.
This report describes a study investigating how well the domain tests on ACCESS for
ELLs predict performance on a content test. Results indicate that the Reading and
Writing tests are the strongest predictors.
Römhild, A., Kenyon, D. M., and MacGregor, D. (2011). Exploring domain-general and domain-
specific linguistic knowledge in the assessment of academic English language
proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8:213-228.
This article reports on a confirmatory factor analysis study conducted to model
domain-specific and domain-general variance on ACCESS for ELLs. The authors
found that, while domain-general linguistic knowledge represents the primary
dimension across almost all test forms, domain-specific knowledge becomes
increasingly salient as proficiency level increases.
WIDA Consortium. (2007). English Language Proficiency Standards and Resource Guide, 2007
Edition, PreKindergarten through Grade 12. Madison, Wisconsin: Board of Regents
of the University of Wisconsin System.
This document presents the second edition of the WIDA English Language
Development Standards, which were released in 2007. The second edition included the
addition of formative and summative frameworks for assessment and instruction, the
separation of Kindergarten into its own grade-level cluster, and the addition of the
sixth proficiency level, “Reaching”.
WIDA Consortium. (2012a). 2012 Amplification of the English Language Development
Standards Kindergarten–Grade 12. Madison, Wisconsin: Board of Regents of the
University of Wisconsin System.
This document describes the amplified Strands of Model Performance Indicators that
represent the WIDA English Language Development Standards. The amplification
reflects states’ content standards and the fluid and ongoing process of language
development.
WIDA Consortium (2012b). WIDA ACCESS for ELLs® Test Administration Manual. Retrieved
from www.wida.us/assessment/ACCESS/#about.
This document details the test administration procedures for ACCESS for ELLs.
WIDA Consortium. (2013). Interpretive Guide for Score Reports Spring 2013 (WIDA
Consortium). Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin
System.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 xi Series 302 (2013-2014)

 This report provides an overview on how ACCESS for ELLs is scored and how those
scores are reported. Part 1 gives a description of scores for 2014. Part 2 gives
suggestions on how states can use scores, as well as examples of score reports to
various stakeholders. Part 3 provides guidance on interpreting the reports.
Wolf, M., Kao, J., Griffin, N., Herman, J., Bachman, P., Chang, S., and Farnsworth, T. (2008).
Issues in assessing English language learners: English language proficiency measures
and accommodation uses—Practice review. Retrieved from the University of
California, Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing Web site: http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/rsearch.asp.
This paper describes the English language proficiency tests in use in school year 2006,
including ACCESS for ELLs, and provides a summary of validity evidence for the
tests.

Zieky, M. (1993). Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In
P.Holland & H. Wainer (EMS.), Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

This book chapter describes procedures for conducting DIF analysis.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 xii Series 302 (2013-2014)

 Table of Contents
Volume 1

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... iii

Summary Highlights ................................................................................................................. iii
Annotated Bibliography: 2013-2014 ........................................................................................... vii
Technical Reports .................................................................................................................... vii
Annual Technical Reports for ACCESS for ELLs ................................................................ viii
Other Documentation ............................................................................................................... ix
1. Description of ACCESS for ELLs English Language Proficiency Test .............................. 1
1.1 Purpose of ACCESS for ELLs ...................................................................................... 1
1.2 Format of ACCESS for ELLs........................................................................................ 1
1.2.1 Integration with the Standards .................................................................................... 1
1.2.2 Grade-level Clusters.................................................................................................... 2
1.2.3 Language Domains ..................................................................................................... 2
1.2.4 Language Proficiency Levels ...................................................................................... 2
1.2.5 Tiers ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Test Development ........................................................................................................... 5
1.3.1 Field Test .................................................................................................................... 5
1.3.2 Equating and Scaling .................................................................................................. 7
1.3.3 Standard Setting .......................................................................................................... 9
1.4 Ongoing Item Development ......................................................................................... 10
1.4.1 Item Writing and Editing .......................................................................................... 11
1.4.2 Item Content and Bias and Sensitivity Reviews ....................................................... 12
1.4.3 Item Field Testing ..................................................................................................... 12
1.4.4 Item Calibration and Analysis .................................................................................. 12
1.4.5 DIF Items .................................................................................................................. 12
1.5 Reporting of Results ..................................................................................................... 13
1.5.1 Scale Scores .............................................................................................................. 13
1.5.2 Language Proficiency Level Scores.......................................................................... 14
1.5.3 Results by English Language Development Standards ............................................ 19
1.6 Test Administration ...................................................................................................... 19
1.6.1 Test Administrator Training ..................................................................................... 19
1.6.2 Test Security ............................................................................................................. 19
1.6.3 Test Accommodations .............................................................................................. 20
1.7 Scoring.......................................................................................................................... 20
1.7.1 Listening and Reading .............................................................................................. 20
1.7.2 Writing ...................................................................................................................... 20
1.7.2.1 Scoring Procedures for Writing ............................................................................ 23

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 xiii Series 302 (2013-2014)

 1.7.3 Speaking .................................................................................................................... 25
1.7.3.1 Training Procedures for Scoring Speaking ........................................................... 26
2. An Assessment Use Argument for ACCESS for ELLs: Focus on Assessment Records ....... 28
2.1 The Generic Validation Framework for ACCESS ..................................................... 29
2.2 Focus on Assessment Records ..................................................................................... 30
2.2.1 Breakdown of Claims for the Assessment Records Produced in the ACCESS for
ELLs Assessment Program ................................................................................................... 31
2.3 Evidence for Assessment Records Claims of ACCESS for ELLs .............................. 33
2.4 Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence............................. 40
2.5 Visual Guide to Tables and Figures ............................................................................ 42
2.5.1 Chapter 4 Visual Guide to Tables and Figures ............................................................ 43
2.5.2 Chapter 6 Visual Guide to Tables and Figures ............................................................ 44
2.5.3 Chapter 8 Visual Guide to Tables and Figures ............................................................ 45
3. Descriptions of Student Results ........................................................................................... 46
3.1 Participation ................................................................................................................. 46
3.1.1 Grade-Level Cluster .................................................................................................. 46
3.1.2 Grade ......................................................................................................................... 46
3.1.3 Tier ............................................................................................................................ 46
3.2 Scale Score Results ...................................................................................................... 48
3.2.1 Mean Scale Scores Across Domain and Composite Scores Section ........................ 48
3.2.2 Correlations ............................................................................................................... 48
3.3 Proficiency Level Results ............................................................................................. 49
3.4 Mean Raw Score Results by Standards ....................................................................... 49
3.4.1 Comprehension Composite .......................................................................................... 49
3.4.2 Writing ......................................................................................................................... 50
3.4.3 Speaking ....................................................................................................................... 50
4. Student Results ..................................................................................................................... 51
4.1 Participation ................................................................................................................. 51
4.1.1 Participation by Grade-level Cluster......................................................................... 51
4.1.1.1 By State ............................................................................................................. 51
4.1.1.2 By Gender ......................................................................................................... 52
4.1.1.3 By Ethnicity ...................................................................................................... 52
4.1.2 Participation by Grade .............................................................................................. 53
4.1.2.1 By State ............................................................................................................. 53
4.1.2.2 By Gender ......................................................................................................... 54
4.1.2.3 By Ethnicity ...................................................................................................... 55
4.1.3 Participation by Tier ................................................................................................. 56
4.1.3.1 By Cluster by Domain (Test Form) .................................................................. 56
4.1.3.2 By Grade by Domain (Test Form) .................................................................... 57
4.1.3.3 By Cluster by Gender........................................................................................ 58
4.1.3.4 By Cluster by Ethnicity..................................................................................... 59

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 xiv Series 302 (2013-2014)

 4.2 Scale Score Results ...................................................................................................... 60
4.2.1 Mean Scale Scores by Grade-level Cluster Across Domain and Composite Scores 60
4.2.1.1 By Cluster ......................................................................................................... 60
4.2.1.2 By Cluster by Gender........................................................................................ 61
4.2.1.3 By Cluster by Ethnicity..................................................................................... 62
4.2.2 Mean Scale Scores by Grade Across Domain and Composite Scores...................... 65
4.2.2.1 By Grade ........................................................................................................... 65
4.2.2.2 By Grade by Gender ......................................................................................... 66
4.2.2.3 By Grade by Ethnicity ...................................................................................... 68
4.2.3 Correlations among Scale Scores by Grade-level Cluster ........................................ 73
4.3 Proficiency Level Results ............................................................................................. 75
4.3.1 Listening ................................................................................................................... 75
4.3.1.1 By Cluster by Tier ............................................................................................. 75
4.3.1.2 By Grade by Tier .............................................................................................. 76
4.3.1.3 By Grade ........................................................................................................... 78
4.3.2 Reading ..................................................................................................................... 79
4.3.2.1 By Cluster by Tier ............................................................................................. 79
4.3.2.2 By Grade by Tier .............................................................................................. 80
4.3.2.3 By Grade ........................................................................................................... 82
4.3.3 Writing ...................................................................................................................... 83
4.3.3.1 By Cluster by Tier ............................................................................................. 83
4.3.3.2 By Grade by Tier .............................................................................................. 84
4.3.3.3 By Grade ........................................................................................................... 86
4.3.4 Speaking .................................................................................................................... 87
4.3.4.1 By Cluster by Tier ............................................................................................. 87
4.3.4.2 By Grade by Tier .............................................................................................. 88
4.3.4.3 By Grade ........................................................................................................... 90
4.3.5 Oral Language Composite ........................................................................................ 91
4.3.5.1 By Cluster by Tier ............................................................................................. 91
4.3.5.2 By Grade by Tier .............................................................................................. 92
4.3.5.3 By Grade ........................................................................................................... 94
4.3.6 Literacy Composite ................................................................................................... 95
4.3.6.1 By Cluster by Tier ............................................................................................. 95
4.3.6.2 By Grade by Tier .............................................................................................. 96
4.3.6.3 By Grade ........................................................................................................... 98
4.3.7 Comprehension Composite .......................................................................................... 99
4.3.7.1 By Cluster by Tier ............................................................................................. 99
4.3.7.2 By Grade by Tier ............................................................................................ 100
4.3.7.3 By Grade ......................................................................................................... 102
4.3.8 Overall Composite .................................................................................................. 103
4.3.8.1 By Cluster by Tier ........................................................................................... 103
4.3.8.2 By Grade by Tier ............................................................................................ 104
4.3.8.3 By Grade ......................................................................................................... 106
4.4 Mean Raw Score Results by Standards ..................................................................... 107
4.4.1 Comprehension Composite ..................................................................................... 107
4.4.1.1 By Cluster ....................................................................................................... 107

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 xv Series 302 (2013-2014)

 4.4.1.2 By Grade ......................................................................................................... 109
4.4.2 Writing .................................................................................................................... 115
4.4.2.1 By Cluster ....................................................................................................... 115
4.4.2.2 By Grade ......................................................................................................... 116
4.4.3 Speaking .................................................................................................................. 119
4.4.3.1 By Cluster ....................................................................................................... 119
4.4.3.2 By Grade ......................................................................................................... 120

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 xvi Series 302 (2013-2014)

1. Description of ACCESS for ELLs English Language
Proficiency Test
1.1 Purpose of ACCESS for ELLs
The overarching purpose of Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-
State for English Language Learners (ACCESS for ELLs) is to assess the developing English
language proficiency of English language learners in Grades K–12 in the United States following
the English Language Development Standards (2012) of the multi-state WIDA Consortium. The
WIDA English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards (2004, 2007) were amplified in 2012 to
become English Language Development (ELD) Standards, hereafter referred to as ELD
Standards. The WIDA ELD Standards, aligned to state academic content standards, form the
core of the WIDA Consortium’s approach to instructing and testing English language learners
and describe six levels of developing English language proficiency. ACCESS for ELLs may thus
be described as a standards-based English language proficiency test designed to measure English
language learners’ social and academic language proficiency in English. It assesses social and
instructional English as well as the language associated with language arts, mathematics, science,
and social studies within the school context across the four language domains (Listening,
Reading, Writing, and Speaking).
Other major purposes of ACCESS for ELLs include:
• Identifying the English language proficiency level of students with respect to the
WIDA ELD Standards used in all member states of the WIDA Consortium,
• Identifying students who have attained English language proficiency,
• Assessing annual English language proficiency gains using a standards-based
assessment instrument,
• Providing districts with information that will help them to evaluate the effectiveness of
their ESL/bilingual programs and determine staffing requirements,
• Providing data for meeting federal and state statutory requirements with respect to
student assessment, and
• Providing information that enhances instruction and learning in programs for English
language learners.

1.2 Format of ACCESS for ELLs

1.2.1 Integration with the Standards
The design of ACCESS for ELLs, from the structure of the assessment system to the content of
each test booklet and item, is built upon the five foundational WIDA ELD Standards:
Standard 1 - English language learners communicate in English for Social and Instructional
purposes within the school setting.
Standard 2 - English language learners communicate information, ideas, and concepts necessary
for academic success in the content area of Language Arts.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 1 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Standard 3 - English language learners communicate information, ideas, and concepts necessary
for academic success in the content area of Mathematics.
Standard 4 - English language learners communicate information, ideas, and concepts necessary
for academic success in the content area of Science.
Standard 5 - English language learners communicate information, ideas, and concepts necessary
for academic success in the content area of Social Studies.
For practical purposes, the five Standards are abbreviated as follows in this report:
• Social and Instructional language: SI
• Language of English Language Arts: LA
• Language of Math: MA
• Language of Science: SC
• Language of Social Studies: SS
Every selected response item and every performance-based task on ACCESS for ELLs targets at
least one of these five Standards.

1.2.2 Grade-level Clusters

The WIDA ELD Standards describe developing English language proficiency by five grade-level
clusters. These are PreK-K, 1–2, 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12. Test booklets follow this grade-level
clustering.

1.2.3 Language Domains

The WIDA ELD Standards describe developing English language proficiency for each of the
four language domains: Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing. Thus, there is a section of
the ACCESS for ELLs test assessing each of these four language domains.

1.2.4 Language Proficiency Levels

The WIDA ELD Standards describe the continuum of language development with five language
proficiency levels that are fully delineated in the Standards document. These levels are
“Entering,” “Emerging,” “Developing,” “Expanding,” and “Bridging.” There is also a final exit
stage known as Level 6, “Reaching,” that describes students who have progressed across the
entire WIDA English language proficiency continuum. These levels are shown graphically in
Figure 1.2.4A.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 2 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Figure 1.2.4A. The language proficiency levels of the WIDA ELD Standards

These language proficiency levels are thoroughly embedded in the WIDA ELD Standards in a
two-pronged fashion.
First, they appear in the performance definitions. According to the WIDA ELD Standards, the
performance definitions provide a global overview of the stages of the language acquisition
process. As such, they complement the model performance indicators (PIs, see below) for each
language proficiency level. Being general definitions applicable across the PIs, the performance
definitions are not explicitly replicated within the PIs. The performance definitions are based on
three criteria. The first is students’ increasing comprehension and production of the technical
language required for success in the academic content areas. The second criterion is students’
demonstration of oral interaction or writing of increasing linguistic complexity. The final
criterion is the increasing development of phonological, syntactic, and semantic understanding in
receptive skills or control in usage in productive language skills.
Second, the language proficiency levels of the WIDA ELD Standards are fully embedded in the
accompanying PIs, which exemplify the Standards. The PIs describe the expectations for ELL
students for each of the five Standards, at five different grade-level clusters, across four
language domains, and at the five language proficiency levels. That is, within each
combination of standard, grade-level cluster, and language domain is a PI at each of the five
language proficiency levels. Proficiency Level 6, Reaching, represents the end of the continuum
rather than another level of language proficiency. The sequence of these five PIs together
describes a logical progression and accumulation of skills on the path from the lowest level of
English language proficiency to full English language proficiency for academic success. These
groupings of five PIs in logical progression are called a “strand.”
ACCESS for ELLs is based on the 80 strands, containing 400 individual PIs, within the WIDA
ELD Standards. (The Standards and the accompanying model PIs are available at the WIDA web
site, (www.wida.us.) Each selected-response item or performance-based task on ACCESS for
ELLs is carefully developed, reviewed, piloted, and field tested to ensure that it allows students
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 3 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
to demonstrate accomplishment of the targeted PI. (See the sample items at the WIDA web site
for examples.)

1.2.5 Tiers
Obviously, test items and tasks suitable for allowing Entering (Level 1) or Emerging (Level 2)
students to demonstrate accomplishment of the PIs at their level of language proficiency (i.e.,
that allow them to demonstrate what they can do) will not allow Expanding (Level 4) or Bridging
(Level 5) students to demonstrate the full extent of their language proficiency. Likewise, items
and tasks developed to allow Expanding (Level 4) and Bridging (Level 5) students to
demonstrate accomplishment of the PIs at their level would be far too challenging for Entering
(Level 1) or Emerging (Level 2) students. Items that are far too easy for test takers may be
boring and lead to inattentiveness on the part of students. Likewise, items that are far too difficult
for test takers may be frustrating, discouraging them from giving their best performance. But
more importantly, a test is a measure, and items that are too easy or too hard for a student add
very little to the accuracy or quality of the measurement of that student’s proficiency. Tests need
to be at the right difficulty level for individual test takers.
The solution to making ACCESS for ELLs appropriate to the proficiency level of individual
students across the wide range of proficiencies described in the WIDA ELD Standards is to
present the test items in three overlapping tiers for each grade-level cluster: A, B, and C. Figure
1.2.5A shows how the different tiers map to the language proficiency levels.

Figure 1.2.5A. Tier structure of ACCESS for ELLs

Thus, Tier A has items and tasks designed to allow students at the lowest language proficiency
levels (Levels 1 and 2) to demonstrate meeting the WIDA ELD Standards at their language
proficiency levels, and it includes some items targeted to Language Proficiency Level 3.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 4 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Likewise, Tier C has items and tasks designed to allow students at the highest language
proficiency levels (Levels 4 and 5) to demonstrate meeting the WIDA ELD Standards at their
language proficiency levels, while also containing some items targeted to Language Proficiency
Level 3. In this test design, the tiers overlap: while Tier A and Tier C would share little in
common, Tier B is composed of tasks from both Tiers A (Level 2) and C (Level 4), as well as
tasks from Level 3. This overlap of tiers ensures that all of the PIs from the WIDA ELD
Standards appear on the assessment; however, each test booklet does not need to contain an
unduly large number of test items. The overlap also ensures that the entire language proficiency
range is covered. Finally, the overlap ensures that the assessment is horizontally equated; that is,
common items and tasks across tiers ensure that each tier is measuring to a common language
proficiency scale. Thus, a test booklet at any given tier is primarily composed of items and tasks
that span three targeted language proficiency levels. (Note that in order to assure that students are
accurately measured to Level 6, Tier C also includes some items that are slightly more difficult
than Language Proficiency Level 5. The Tier structure only applies to the Grade 1-12 Listening,
Reading, and Writing portions of ACCESS for ELLs. Kindergarten (PreK-K) does not have tiers
because it is an adaptive assessment.
The individually administered Speaking portion of the assessment for each grade-level cluster is
designed as an adaptive measure. In each of its three parts, the test administrator begins with a
task that allows students to demonstrate meeting the performance level expectations of the PIs at
Level 1 and then presents continually more challenging tasks (tasks at Level 2, then Level 3, and
so on). Within each part, the administrator stops presenting additional tasks when the student can
no longer demonstrate meeting the expectations of the tasks. Table 1.2.5A summarizes the main
points in the above discussion and illustrates the number of unique components in ACCESS for
ELLs.

Table 1.2.5A
Unique Components in ACCESS for ELLs
List/Read/Write Speak
Grade-Level Tier A Tier B Tier C (adaptive)
Clusters
9-12 x x x x
6-8 x x x x
3-5 x x x x
1-2 x x x x
K x (adaptive)

1.3 Test Development

1.3.1 Field Test
In 2004 the field test of ACCESS for ELLs was conducted. The purpose of the field test was to
collect extensive data on items and forms in order to equate forms both horizontally (i.e., across
tiers within the same grade-level clusters) and vertically (i.e., across grade-level clusters), as well
as to judge the strength of individual items. The item pool for the field test consisted of 376
Listening items, 355 Reading items, and 51 Writing tasks. Two forms were used for each tier in
each grade-level cluster. For equating purposes, common items were used across tiers, as well as
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 5 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
across forms, within grade-level clusters for the Listening, Reading, and Writing tests. In
addition, common items were used across grade-level clusters for the Listening and Reading
tests.
Table 1.3.1A shows the number of students who participated in the field test by grade-level
cluster. 72.3% of the sample came from two states, Illinois and Wisconsin. Over half of the
students (61.8%) had Spanish as their native language. The only other sizable language group
was Hmong (13.8%). Indeed, of the 96 languages represented, only four languages (Spanish,
Hmong, English, and French) had more than 100 students in the field test sample.

Table 1.3.1A
Field Test for Listening, Reading and Writing: Students per Grade-level Cluster
Grade-Level Cluster Students
1-2 1,647
3-5 1,850
6-8 1,449
9-12 1,716
Total 6,662

A separate, individually administered field test was conducted for Speaking. One form was
developed for each grade-level cluster, using the adaptive design described in 1.2.5, for a total of
52 tasks. Field testing for Speaking was conducted in Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.
Table 1.3.1.B shows the number of students who participated in the Speaking field test by grade-
level cluster.

Table 1.3.1B
Speaking Field Test: Students per Grade-level Cluster
Grade-Level Cluster Students
1-2 103
3-5 159
6-8 136
9-12 125
Total 523

In addition, a separate field test was conducted in DC for the Kindergarten test. The final version
of the adaptive Kindergarten assessment was produced by first choosing the Listening and
Reading folders (i.e., sets of thematically related items) that contained items that were
empirically the easiest for first graders based on the data collected from the field test. These
folders were placed in the Kindergarten assessment in order from easiest to hardest. The
Speaking portion of the Kindergarten assessment was the same as that for the 1–2 grade-level
cluster, except it included only the SI and LA/SS folders, in order to reduce testing time. Special,
very simple writing tasks were adapted from the 1–2 grade-level cluster Tier A SI writing folder.
The adaptive administration of the Kindergarten assessment is similar to that of the Speaking
test. Thus, in any domain, if a student does not get at least two items in any folder (part) correct,
the administrator stops testing in that domain and moves on to the next domain. (The exception
is Speaking, which operates exactly as the standard ACCESS Speaking assessment.)
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 6 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
A total of 154 students participated in the Kindergarten field test. Of those, 55% were boys (84
students) and 45% were girls (70 students). 90.2% (139) of the students were Spanish speakers;
the only other language with more than one student was Vietnamese (3).

1.3.2 Equating and Scaling

If test results are to be meaningful, they need to be reported on a standard scale that is familiar to
test users and that keeps the same meaning whenever it is used. Scaling is the process of
developing such a scale. Equating, in the present context, is the process of putting all of the tests
onto the same scale, such that results mean the same regardless of which test items the test taker
takes.
Of particular challenge for ACCESS for ELLs and similar tests is the need to have a vertically
equated scale (i.e., one that can measure progress across the grade levels from K to 12), in
addition to the horizontal equating needed across the three tiers of ACCESS for ELLs within
each grade-level cluster.
For ACCESS for ELLs, a three-digit scale score was chosen for reporting purposes. The
reporting scale would have an interpretive center point across domains and composites. The
centering value was chosen as 350, which would represent the cut score between language
proficiency Levels 3 and 4 for the 3–5 grade-level cluster. As an additional defining
characteristic, the scale would have a lower bound of 100 (i.e., 250 points lower than the center
of 350) and an upper bound of 600 (i.e., 250 points higher than 350). In other words,
conceptually, students from grades K–2 with the lowest language proficiency in any domain
could go no lower than a scale score of 100, thus making 100 a lower bound. Conceptually,
students from the 9–12 grade-level cluster with the highest language proficiency in any domain
could go no higher than 600, thus making 600 a higher bound. Observed scores on all tests
should fall between these extremes.
It should be kept in mind that a scale score is an interpretation of a latent ability measure and not
a record of “points” earned on the test. In other words, 100 does not necessarily represent a score
of 0 at all grade-level clusters, nor does 600 represent a perfect score. In fact, due to the technical
nature of a vertical scale—and one of the criticisms of it—as one goes up the scale from grade
level to grade level (or grade-level cluster to grade-level cluster in the case of ACCESS for
ELLs), the scales adjust for the developmental growth. Thus, even if a student consistently gets a
score of 0 while moving from grade-level cluster to grade-level cluster, the student’s scale score
on a vertical scale would show an increase, even if very slight.
Thus, to interpret appropriately what the scale scores mean, a standard-setting study was
conducted (see Section 1.3.3). However, in this section, we focus on the creation of the ACCESS
for ELLs scale score.
The procedure for developing the scale was complex but involved a number of basic steps. These
steps were carried out separately for each of the four domains until the last stage, when the
separate domain scales were combined to form the composite scores. These steps, as conducted
following the field test administration, are briefly summarized here. They are explained more
fully in ACCESS for ELLs Technical Report 1, Development and Field Test of ACCESS for
ELLs, as well as in Kenyon et al. (2011).
Equating Design: As previously described in Section 1.3.1, within each grade-level cluster, the
Listening, Reading, and Writing test booklets were presented in three tiers (A, B, and C) and two
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 7 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
series (100 and 999), such that within each grade-level cluster, a different sample of test takers
took different test booklets. However, the booklets had common folders of items (in the case of
Listening and Reading) or common tasks on one or more test booklets for horizontal equating. In
addition, there were common folders that went across grade-level clusters for vertical equating.
Because of the adaptive design of the Speaking test, described in Section 1.3.1, there was only
one form per grade and thus no need for horizontal equating.
For both Writing and Speaking, there were no common items in the equating design that linked
the test booklets across different grade-level clusters. This was done intentionally as each task on
these performance-based assessments was more complex, involved, and time-consuming. In
addition, because these tasks targeted the WIDA Standards so closely, it would have been
developmentally inappropriate to ask students to perform on tasks outside of their grade-level
cluster. Thus, student performances on the Reading items were used as a scaling test for the
Writing tasks, and performances on the Listening items were used as a scaling test for the
Speaking tasks.
Creating the Data Matrix: The tests were scored, and the matrix of responses—every student’s
response to every Listening or Reading item or Writing or Speaking task—was the raw input into
the scaling procedure.
Developing the Logit Scale: A calibration of the ability of the students and items using Rasch
procedures was then applied to these data matrices, putting the difficulty of the items or tasks
and the ability of the students onto one common interval linear scale. As described in ACCESS
for ELLs Technical Report 1, Development and Field Test of the ACCESS for ELLs®, the steps of
the common rating scale used to score the Writing items were also calibrated. The units of this
scale are called logits, and by default the scale is usually centered at 0 (representing the average
item difficulty for the ACCESS for ELLs items being calibrated). Theoretically, the logit scale
runs from minus infinity to plus infinity, although in practice most tests run from about -4 logits
to +4 logits.
Transforming the Logit Scale to the Reporting Scale: The logit scale has both negative
numbers and decimals, which makes it confusing for many users. Therefore, scores on the logit
scale were then transformed onto a reporting scale by means of a linear transformation of the
logit scores—in this case, the ACCESS score scale. There is a separate scale for each of the four
domains: Listening, Reading, Writing, and Speaking.
Creating the Composite Scores: The scores on the four reporting scales were then combined, in
predetermined proportions, to create four composite scores:
• Oral Language Composite (50% Listening + 50% Speaking)
• Literacy Composite (50% Reading + 50% Writing)
• Comprehension Composite (30% Listening + 70% Reading)
• Overall Composite (15% Listening + 15% Speaking + 35% Reading + 35% Writing).

The Comprehension Composite score (based on performances in Listening and Reading) and the
Overall Composite score (based on performances in all four domains) were created with Series
100. Beginning with Series 101, the Oral Language Composite score (based on performances in
Listening and Speaking) and Literacy Composite score (based on performances in Reading and
Writing) were added.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 8 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
1.3.3 Standard Setting
In order to interpret appropriately what the scale scores mean, a standard-setting study was
conducted. The standard-setting study was held in Madison, WI between April 20 and 27, 2005.
The purpose of the study was not to set new standards on WIDA ACCESS for ELLs per se.
Rather, the purpose was to use the WIDA ELD 1Standards together with empirical information
from the field test data to conduct a defensible and replicable approach to determine the
relationship between student performances on the four domains of the ACCESS for ELLs and
the language proficiency levels defined by the WIDA ELD Standards. The following is a brief
summary of the Standard Setting study. For a fuller description, see ACCESS for ELLs
Technical Report 1, Development and Field Test of ACCESS for ELLs®.
Four panels were convened, one for each major grade-level cluster: 1–2, 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12. On
each panel were 20–22 teachers or administrators who were deemed qualified to participate in
the study by the WIDA office, then located at the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
For Listening and Reading, a bookmarking procedure was used. Panelists were given books with
all items within their grade-level cluster arranged by empirical difficulty, from least difficult to
most difficult. After discussing the model performance indicators and the performance level
descriptions from the WIDA ELD Standards, panelists were asked to read through the items and
place a bookmark at the item that they determined a student at Language Proficiency Level 1
would have a 50% chance of answering a question correctly. They were then asked to repeat this
procedure for all levels up to Level 5. During this procedure, panelists were encouraged to work
independently.
After the initial round of bookmarking, the results were compiled and discussed with the
panelists as a group. The panelists then were given the opportunity to reconsider and adjust their
bookmarking, if they so chose. These results were compiled and presented to the WIDA
management team, who used this data to help determine the final cut scores.
For Writing and Speaking, a modified body of work method was used. For Writing, the panelists
were presented a book of portfolios from their grade-level cluster. Each portfolio consisted of all
of the writings from the test of one student. The portfolios were chosen from students from each
tier, and an attempt was made to choose students whose performances did not vary widely from
one task to another. Within each grade-level cluster, portfolios were presented in ascending
order; that is, the first portfolio represented a student’s work that had received the lowest total
raw score across the four pieces of writing, and the last portfolio presented was that of a student
with a very high total raw score on the four pieces of writing.
After discussing the model performance indicators and the performance level descriptions as a
group, the panelists were asked to read the portfolios and, working independently, make a
judgment as to the probability that the work represents the work of a student at a given WIDA
language proficiency level. For example, if they felt the portfolio represented the work of a
student at Language Proficiency Level 3, they would write 100% under the column “3” on their
paper. If they felt that it was a borderline performance between Levels 2 and 3, they would write
50% under “2” and 50% under “3”. They were allowed to indicate up to two language

1
Note: The 2005 ACCESS for ELLs field test and standard setting were based on the 2004 WIDA ELP standards.
The WIDA English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards (2004, 2007) were amplified in 2012 to become English
Language Development (ELD) Standards (WIDA, 2012). In this section, the standards are referred to as ELD
standards for consistency.
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 9 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
proficiency levels and a range in 10-point increments (i.e., 50/50, 60/40, 70/30, 80/20, or 90/10),
or to indicate 100 under one language proficiency level. The results were compiled and discussed
with the panelists as a group. The panelists then were given the opportunity to reconsider and
adjust their bookmarking, if they so chose. The final results were analyzed by CAL using a
logistic regression procedure to determine the points along the underlying writing proficiency
continuum at which at least 50% of the panelists would be expected to agree that the writing
represents the work of the next higher proficiency level than the current proficiency level. The
results from this analysis were used to set the cut scores for the language proficiency levels.
The procedure for Speaking was similar, with the panelists listening to portfolios and recording
their judgments.

1.4 Ongoing Item Development

To keep ACCESS for ELLs secure, as well as to incorporate a program of continual refinement
to the assessment (e.g., using colored illustrations), new items are being developed and field
tested every year. In fact, one third to one half of the items is replaced yearly. The intent of the
ongoing item development is to replace completely all items or tasks in each test form over a
three-year period.
The schedule for refreshing items in the ACCESS for ELLs is illustrated in Table 1.4A. This
table applies to all grade-level clusters except K, which was redesigned for Series 200 and is not
refreshed annually. As can be seen from this table, for the Listening and Reading tests, all of the
LA and MA items are replaced in alternating years, while the SC, SS, and SI items are replaced
in a three-year cycle. For Series 302, all of the items on the Listening were refreshed, so Reading
was not refreshed.

Beginning with Series 302, the Listening test transitioned from a traditional test administrator-
read script to a media-delivered format, played either from CD or from streaming audio available
online, for all grade level clusters except for Kindergarten. For more information, please see the
ACCESS for ELLs Series 302 Media-Based Listening Field Test Technical Brief (Center for
Applied Linguistics, forthcoming).

For Speaking, the SI task is replaced yearly, while the MS and LS tasks are replaced in
alternating years. New items are field tested on separate forms during the operational
administration of ACCESS for ELLs.
Table 1.4A also reflects a change in the Writing test that took effect starting with Series 201. In
that series, the separate Math and Science folders were replaced with a combined Language of
Math/Language of Science folder. Starting with that series, while the IT task will continue to be
replaced yearly, the MS and LA tasks will be replaced in a two-year cycle for Tier A, and the
MS and SI tasks will be replaced in a two-year cycle for Tiers B and C.
From Table 1.4A, we see that between Series 101 and Series 100, the IT Writing task and the
MA/SC Speaking task were replaced. In the Listening and Reading portion of the test, various
item folders were replaced following analysis of the field test and operational Series 100.
Because ACCESS for ELLs was so new, it was decided that it was most important to be able to
improve and/or replace weaker items across all five Standards than to choose only two Standards
to be replaced.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 10 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 1.4A
Schedule for Refreshing ACCESS for ELLs Items

Test Year Listening Reading Writing Writing Speaking

Series Tier A Tiers B &C
LA/ SC/SS/ LA/ SC/SS/ SI/LA/ SI/MA/ IT SI LS/
MA SI MA SI MA/SC SC MS
100 04-05

101 05-06 Various Various Various Various - IT MS

102 06-07 MA SI LA SC - MA IT SI LS

103 07-08 LA SC MA SS - SC IT SI MS

200 08-09 Some MA Some SS Some LA Some SI - SI IT SI LS

201 09-10 Various + Various + Various + Various + - - IT SI MS

Remaining Remaining Remaining Remaining
MA SS LA SI
202 10-11 LA SI MA SC MS MS IT SI LS

203 11-12 MA SC LA SS LA SI IT SI MS

301 12-13 LA SS MA SI MS MS IT SI LS

302 13-14 MA SI - - - - IT SI MS

303 14-15 MA SC LA* SC* LA SI IT SI LS

Social and Instructional language (SI); Language of English Language Arts (LA); Language of Math (MA); Language of Science
(SC); Language of Social Studies (SS); Integrated Language of Science, Language of Language Arts, and Language of Social
Studies (IT); Language of Math and Language of Science (MS); Language of English Language Arts and Language of Social
Studies (LS)

*Reading not refreshed for 302 because of full refreshment of 302 Listening. New specs for 303 are LA & SC.

The following paragraphs describe annual procedures currently in place that influence the
development of future items.

1.4.1 Item Writing and Editing

The initial item writing is done by participants in an online item writing course conducted by
CAL. An internal review of the items generated by that course is conducted, and items are
chosen for further development based on how well they fit the Standards and PIs, and how
different they are in terms of content from the previous year’s items. Those items chosen are
refined within CAL before undergoing an item content and bias and sensitivity reviews (see
Section 1.4.2). Afterward, some items require further revision at CAL before being sent to
MetriTech and WIDA central office for final review. Once returned to CAL, they are prepared
for the field test.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 11 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
1.4.2 Item Content and Bias and Sensitivity Reviews
After items are internally refined, they are reviewed by two panels: a content review panel and a
bias and sensitivity review panel. The panels consist of educators from the WIDA Consortium
states. Items are first submitted to the content review panel to assure that the content is accessible
and relevant to students in the grade-level cluster, and that each item or assessment task matches
the model performance indicators from the WIDA ELD Standards that it is intended to assess.
After the items are revised based on the comments from the panel members, they are submitted
to the bias and sensitivity review panel, which inspects the items for potential bias. For the bias
and sensitivity review panel, panelists represent a wide variety of language backgrounds and
ethnicities. Based on their recommendations, the items are revised as necessary.

1.4.3 Item Field Testing

All new items are field tested in conjunction with the current year’s operational administration.
Larger districts from across the WIDA Consortium states are invited to participate on a rotating
schedule, and only districts that accept the invitation actually participate in the field test. Field
testing occurs in WIDA states across the country immediately after the operational test is
administered. Each participating student is administered items in only one domain. The field test
is designed to take no more than 15 minutes on the part of any student participant.
For Listening and Reading, several forms of new items are prepared for each grade-level cluster,
each containing two folders of new items and one folder of anchor items, in order to understand
the difficulty of the new items in relation to the ACCESS for ELLs score scale. Thus, there are a
total of three folders (9 items) per form. Within each form, an effort is made to alternate
Standards. Thus, one form of the Listening field test might have two MA and one SI folders,
while the other form has one MA and two SI folders. For Writing, four tasks are prepared per
grade-level cluster: one task at each tier for the year’s standard, and one IT task. Students are
presented with just one task, when possible at the appropriate tier. For Speaking, two folders of
tasks are prepared per grade-level cluster, and each student is presented with both folders.

1.4.4 Item Calibration and Analysis

After the items are field tested, the results are analyzed using a Rasch model to determine their
difficulty measure on the ACCESS for ELLs score scale. Items are also analyzed as to all aspects
of their functioning (e.g., fit statistics) to determine whether they may be included in the next
year’s operational form. Only folders of items meeting all technical requirements are placed into
the operational form.

1.4.5 DIF Items

Starting with Series 203, two phases of analysis (Phase I and Phase II) for differential item
functioning (DIF) are conducted on the operational form while operational testing is still
ongoing, in addition to the DIF analysis conducted for the Annual Technical Report. Each item is
categorized into three levels of DIF: A, B, or C (Zieky, 1993). An item exhibiting A level DIF
shows little or no bias toward a particular group, and an item exhibiting C level DIF is
considered to display bias and should be closely examined by test developers.

Phase I is conducted at the same time as equating (see Section 1.3.2) using two sources of data:
one, all student data available a week before the equating sample is pulled, called Early Return;
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 12 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
two, the equating sample, called Equating Sample. During Phase I analysis, only ethnicity DIF
(Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) is investigated. In this phase, items that show high levels of DIF in
both data sets are investigated by a team of content experts to determine if any construct-
irrelevant factors can be identified that may contribute to DIF. Items which are identified as
having construct-irrelevant sources of DIF will not be scored operationally. Two items were
identified as having a C-level ethnicity DIF favoring Hispanics in the Early Return data but a A-
level DIF favoring Hispanics for the Equating Sample; therefore, no further action was required.
For Series 302, no items were unscored because of DIF in Phase I.

Phase II is conducted using all student data available in early May. During Phase II analysis,
ethnicity and gender DIF were investigated. As with Phase I, items that show high levels of DIF
are investigated by a team of content experts to determine if any construct-irrelevant factors can
be identified that may contribute to DIF. Items which are identified as having construct-
irrelevant sources of DIF will be removed from the test in the next operational year. For Series
302, one listening item was identified as having C-level ethnicity based DIF, favoring Hispanics;
one reading item was identified as having C-level ethnicity based DIF, favoring Non-Hispanics.

For the Annual Technical Report, an ethnicity and gender DIF analysis is conducted using all
student data. For Series 302, five items showed DIF. Out of 270 Listening items, two (0.7%)
showed C-level DIF based on ethnicity, favoring Hispanics. Out of 342 Reading items, one
(0.3%) showed C-level DIF based on ethnicity, favoring Non-Hispanics. Out of 43 Writing tasks,
one (2.3%) showed C-level DIF based on ethnicity, favoring Non-Hispanics. Out of 62 Speaking
items, one (1.6%) showed C-level DIF based on ethnicity, favoring Hispanics. These items are
thoroughly analyzed by the Psychometrics/Research team at CAL to determine the potential
sources of DIF. In terms of DIF by ethnicity (Hispanics versus Non-Hispanics), special attention
is paid to the presence of Spanish-English cognates or false cognates that may affect student
performance. That information is provided to the test development team, which makes necessary
revisions to continuing items and keeps a record of such cognates for future reference. The test
development team uses this information to guide the item development and review process for
future items.

For information on the procedures used to calculate DIF, see Section 5.1.4.

1.5 Reporting of Results

1.5.1 Scale Scores
ACCESS for ELLs scores are reported as both scale scores and proficiency level scores. Scores
are given for all four language domains. In addition, four composite scores are given: Oral
Language Composite (based on performances in Listening and Speaking), Literacy Composite
(based on performances in Reading and Writing), Comprehension Composite (based on
performances in Listening and Reading), and Overall Composite (based on performances in all
four domains).
Raw scores are converted to scale scores through processes called equating and scaling (see
section 1.3.2 for details). These processes allow us to report scores on a standard scale that is
familiar to test users and that remains constant across test forms and grade-level clusters. Scale
scores range from 100 to 600. Beginning with Series 102, the center point of the scale, 350,
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 13 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
which formerly represented the cut score between Language Proficiency Levels 3 and 4 for the
3–5 grade-level cluster, represents the same cut score for Grade 5 only.
The scores for the four composite scores are calculated using the following weights:
• Oral Language Composite (50% Listening + 50% Speaking)
• Literacy Composite (50% Reading + 50% Writing)
• Comprehension Composite (30% Listening + 70% Reading)
• Overall Composite (15% Listening + 15% Speaking + 35% Reading + 35% Writing).

Figure 1.5.1A depicts the weighting for each of the composite scores. As shown, the Overall
Composite is computed using scores from all four domains. Each of the other three composites is
shown with the weighting of domains, in terms of the weighting used for the Overall Composite.
As the diagram shows, more weighting is given to the literacy skills than to the oral skills for the
Overall Composite

Figure 1.5.1A. Domain Composites

1.5.2 Language Proficiency Level Scores

In addition to the ACCESS scale scores, users of ACCESS also receive proficiency level scores.
These scores are interpretive; that is, they interpret a student’s scale score in terms of the results
of the standard setting study. The cut scores between proficiency levels are presented in Tables
1.5.2A–H and reflect the adoption of the grade-level cut scores for Series 102 and beyond, as
well as the Instructional and Accountability cut scores adapted for Kindergarten for Series 200
and beyond.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 14 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 1.5.2A
Cut Scores (Listening)
Grades Domain Cut
1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6
K (Instructional) List 175 204 240 279 322
K (Accountability) List 229 251 278 286 308
1 List 238 267 295 305 330
2 List 247 281 311 324 350
3 List 255 295 325 340 367
4 List 264 307 338 355 383
5 List 274 318 350 368 397
6 List 283 328 359 380 409
7 List 293 337 368 390 418
8 List 302 345 375 399 426
9 List 312 352 381 406 432
10 List 322 358 386 412 436
11 List 332 363 389 416 438
12 List 343 366 391 418 439

Table 1.5.2B
Cut Scores (Reading)
Grades Domain Cut
1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6
K (Instructional) Read 121 159 204 228 255
K (Accountability) Read 238 251 261 274 295
1 Read 253 269 283 294 314
2 Read 267 286 303 312 331
3 Read 279 302 320 328 347
4 Read 291 316 336 343 360
5 Read 302 328 350 355 372
6 Read 312 340 360 366 382
7 Read 321 349 369 375 391
8 Read 329 358 376 382 398
9 Read 336 364 381 387 402
10 Read 341 370 383 390 406
11 Read 346 374 384 392 407
12 Read 350 376 385 393 408

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 15 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 1.5.2C
Cut Scores (Writing)
Grades Domain Cut
1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6
K (Instructional) Writ 145 218 244 269 326
K (Accountability) Writ 225 259 295 323 350
1 Writ 238 272 308 336 362
2 Writ 251 285 320 348 373
3 Writ 264 297 330 360 384
4 Writ 275 308 340 371 394
5 Writ 287 319 350 381 403
6 Writ 298 329 361 391 412
7 Writ 308 339 371 399 420
8 Writ 318 348 381 408 428
9 Writ 327 356 389 415 435
10 Writ 336 363 397 422 441
11 Writ 344 370 404 428 447
12 Writ 352 377 410 434 452

Table 1.5.2D
Cut Scores (Speaking)
Grades Domain Cut
1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6
K (Instructional) Spek 256 285 308 342 365
K (Accountability) Spek 269 314 343 366 383
1 Spek 278 318 344 367 385
2 Spek 286 322 345 368 386
3 Spek 293 326 346 369 389
4 Spek 299 329 348 371 391
5 Spek 305 333 350 374 394
6 Spek 310 337 353 377 397
7 Spek 314 340 358 380 400
8 Spek 317 344 361 384 404
9 Spek 319 347 366 388 407
10 Spek 321 351 371 393 412
11 Spek 322 354 377 399 416
12 Spek 3232 357 384 405 421

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 16 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 1.5.2E
Cut Scores (Oral Language Composite)
Grades Domain Cut
1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6
K (Instructional) Oral 216 245 274 311 344
K (Accountability) Oral 249 283 311 326 346
1 Oral 258 293 320 336 358
2 Oral 267 302 328 346 368
3 Oral 274 311 336 355 378
4 Oral 282 318 343 363 387
5 Oral 290 326 350 371 396
6 Oral 297 333 356 379 403
7 Oral 304 339 363 385 409
8 Oral 310 345 368 392 415
9 Oral 316 350 374 397 420
10 Oral 322 355 379 403 424
11 Oral 327 359 383 408 427
12 Oral 333 362 388 412 430

Table 1.5.2F
Cut Scores (Literacy Composite)
Grades Domain Cut
1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6
K (Instructional) Litr 133 189 224 249 291
K (Accountability) Litr 232 255 278 299 323
1 Litr 246 271 296 315 338
2 Litr 259 286 312 330 352
3 Litr 272 300 325 344 366
4 Litr 283 312 338 357 377
5 Litr 295 324 350 368 388
6 Litr 305 335 361 379 397
7 Litr 315 344 370 387 406
8 Litr 324 353 379 395 413
9 Litr 332 360 385 401 419
10 Litr 339 367 390 406 424
11 Litr 345 372 394 410 427
12 Litr 351 377 398 414 430

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 17 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Table 1.5.2G
Cut Scores (Comprehension Composite)
Grades Domain Cut
1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6
K (Instructional) Cphn 138 173 215 244 276
K (Accountability) Cphn 235 251 266 278 299
1 Cphn 249 268 287 297 319
2 Cphn 261 285 305 316 337
3 Cphn 272 300 322 332 353
4 Cphn 283 313 337 347 367
5 Cphn 294 325 350 359 380
6 Cphn 303 336 360 370 390
7 Cphn 313 345 369 380 399
8 Cphn 321 354 376 387 406
9 Cphn 329 360 381 393 411
10 Cphn 335 366 384 397 415
11 Cphn 342 371 386 399 416
12 Cphn 348 373 387 401 417

Table 1.5.2H
Cut Scores (Overall Composite)
Grades Domain Cut
1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6
K (Instructional) Over 158 206 239 268 307
K (Accountability) Over 237 263 288 307 329
1 Over 249 277 303 321 344
2 Over 261 290 316 335 357
3 Over 272 303 328 347 369
4 Over 283 314 340 359 380
5 Over 293 324 350 369 390
6 Over 302 334 359 379 399
7 Over 311 342 368 386 407
8 Over 319 350 375 394 414
9 Over 327 357 382 400 419
10 Over 333 363 387 405 424
11 Over 340 368 391 409 427
12 Over 3465 372 395 413 430

A proficiency level score consists of a two-digit decimal number (e.g., 4.5). The first digit
represents the student’s overall language proficiency level range based on the student’s scale
score. A score of 4.5 indicates that the student is in language proficiency Level 4. The number to
the right of the decimal is an indication of the proportion of the range between cut scores that the
student’s scale score represents. A score of 4.5 tells us that the student’s scale score is halfway
between the cut scores for Levels 4 and 5.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 18 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Unlike ACCESS scale scores, which form an interval scale and are continuous across the grades
from K to 12, ACCESS proficiency level scores are, of course, dependent upon which grade a
student was in when ACCESS for ELLs was taken. See, for example, the Listening cut scores in
Table 1.5.2A. If a child is in Grade 2 and receives a 350 in Listening, that would be a proficiency
level score of 6.0; if the child is in Grade 5 and receives a 350 in Listening, that would be 4.0; if
the child is in Grade 8 and receives a 350 in Listening, that would be a 3.2; and if a child is in
Grade 12 and receives a 350 in Listening, that would be a 2.3. (Note that grade-level-cluster cut
scores were used to interpret performances on ACCESS for ELLs for Series 100 and 101.
Beginning with Series 102, grade-level cut scores were used.)
Note that because the width between cut scores varies, proficiency level scores should not be
considered as forming an interval scale. That is, it cannot be assumed to be the same distance
between proficiency level scores of 1.5 and 2.5 as between 2.5 and 3.5. Only scale scores should
be used as interval measures. Proficiency level scores are interval within a grade and level (e.g.,
it is the same distance in grade 3 between 3.1 and 3.2 as between 3.7 and 3.8), but they do not
form an interval scale across language proficiency levels.

1.5.3 Results by English Language Development Standards

To provide a more complete picture of a student’s performance, raw scores are reported by ELD
Standards.
For Comprehension (combined Listening and Reading), the five ELD scores (Social and
Instructional language, Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies) are reported as
number correct out of maximum possible (e.g., 3 of 8). It should be noted that the absolute
number of items that a student sees in any given language proficiency area varies by tier.
For Speaking, ELD scores are reported as raw numbers based on the number of tasks that the
student met or exceeded in that standard. The maximum score for Social and Instructional
language is 3; the maximum for Language Arts/Social Studies and for Mathematics/Science is 5.
For Writing tasks, three ELD ratings are reported for each of the three or four tasks on the form.
The three ratings are for Linguistic Complexity, Vocabulary Usage, and Language Control. Each
of these scores can range from 0 to 6.

1.6 Test Administration

1.6.1 Test Administrator Training
To prepare individuals to serve as test administrators, test administrator training for Series 302
was conducted through an online course hosted at www.wida.us. Three certifications were
offered to participants: a group test administration certification pertaining to the Listening,
Reading, and Writing portions of ACCESS for ELLs; a certification for the Speaking test; and a
certification for the Kindergarten test. In order to receive a certification, participants had to pass
a quiz.

1.6.2 Test Security

Every effort is made to keep the test secure at all levels of development and administration. CAL
and MetriTech follow policies and procedures regarding the security of the test, and every

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 19 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
individual involved in the administration of the test from the district to the classroom level is
trained in issues of test security.

1.6.3 Test Accommodations

As a test of developing English language proficiency designed for English language learners,
there are no special test accommodations for this group of students. However, if a student also
has an IEP, to the extent possible and practical, the recommendations in the student’s IEP are to
be followed. The extent to which this was successfully accomplished was a local decision during
the administration of Series 302.
The WIDA Consortium for the first time ever during the 2011–2012 testing cycle has made
available an alternate assessment for ACCESS for ELLs: Alternate ACCESS for ELLs (Alternate
ACCESS). Alternate ACCESS is intended only for English language learners who have
cognitive disabilities that are severe enough to prevent meaningful participation in the ACCESS
for ELLs with accommodations. The results of the Alternate ACCESS operational administration
will appear in a separate technical report (forthcoming).
The recommendations regarding physical disabilities, such as deafness or blindness, are available
on the WIDA website (http://www.wida.us/get.aspx?id=289) but are being clarified for more
standardization.

1.7 Scoring
Test booklets are returned to MetriTech, where they are electronically scanned in preparation for
scoring. Listening, Reading, and Writing are scored by Metritech. Speaking is locally scored by
the test administrator. Details of the scoring methods are described below.

1.7.1 Listening and Reading

In the case of the Listening and Reading tests, all items are selected-response and thus are
dichotomously scored as correct or incorrect. Students have entered their answers directly into
the test booklets, so each page is scanned into an electronic database.

1.7.2 Writing
Students’ responses to the Writing tasks are centrally scored at MetriTech by raters who are
trained to follow the WIDA Consortium’s Writing Rubric (see 1.7.2.1). The rubric reflects the
Performance Level Descriptions of the WIDA ELD Standards and is presented in Table 1.7.2A.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 20 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 1.7.2A
Performance Level Descriptions of the WIDA ELD Standards
At the given level of English language proficiency, English language learners will process,
understand, produce or use:

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 21 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
The Writing rubric contains expectations for three aspects of Writing that play an important role
in determining proficiency level: Linguistic Complexity, Vocabulary Usage, and Language
Control. Table 1.7.2B presents the WIDA Consortium’s Writing Rubric.
Table 1.7.2B
WIDA Consortium’s Writing Rubric for Grades 1-12

In addition to training in the generic rubric, training is provided to scorers as to expectations for
each grade level and for each Writing task. For example, exceptional vocabulary usage in the 1–
2 grade-level cluster would not be so exceptional at the 9–12 grade-level cluster. The amount of
writing and sophistication of thought at each performance level generally increases with moving
up the grade-level clusters. Thus, a single generic rubric rooted in the WIDA ELD Standards lies
at the core of the scoring of Writing, but developmental differences between grade-level clusters
are part of the additional training that each rater receives.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 22 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Scorers are provided anchor papers for each task. Training sets are also created, as well as
calibration sets with which scorers are tested during the operational training session. Raters
failing to meet standards on the calibration sets are removed from scoring.
In applying the rubric, the following method of scoring Writing is used. First, the Metritech rater
determines the language proficiency level that best characterizes the Writing sample (e.g., Level
3). Then, the rater considers whether in any category the Writing displayed any particular
weakness (i.e., was lower in one of the three) or displayed any particular strength (i.e., was
higher in one of the three categories). Finally, the rater awards three scores, one for each
category: a 3-3-3 represents a solid Level 3 writing sample; a 3-3-2 is a low Level 3 writing
sample that is a little weaker than expected in its language control; while a 3-4-3 is a high Level
3 writing sample that is a little stronger than expected in its vocabulary usage. The final score is
the sum of the three scores; i.e., 9 for a solid Level 3 paper, 8 for a low Level 3 paper, and 10 for
a high Level 3 paper.
In calculating an Overall Composite raw score for Writing, results from the different tasks are
given different weights. These weights are intended to reflect the amount of writing that each
task may be expected to produce. The weightings for the different tasks are as follows:
• Kindergarten: 1-1-1-1-2-1
• Grades 1–2 Tier A form: 1-1-1-3
• Grades 1–12 Tier B and C forms: 1-2-3
• Grades 3–12 Tier A forms: 1-1-1

For example, for all grades on Tier B and C tests the three tasks are given weights of 1, 2, and 3.
Thus, a student who receives scores of 6, 5, and 4 on the three Writing tasks for that test would
have an overall writing raw score of 28 ((6*1) +(5*2) + (4*3)).

1.7.2.1 Scoring Procedures for Writing

Scoring of ACCESS for ELLs is handled at the MetriTech scoring facilities in Illinois.
All constructed-response scoring for ACCESS for ELLs is performed utilizing a proprietary on-
line scoring system (MTscore). As with all aspects of ACCESS for ELLs, MetriTech’s top
concern is security of student data and the items and forms eliciting student responses. Some of
the strict security measures implemented as part of MTscore include:
• All students’ identifying or biographical data (including name, ID number, gender, etc.)
will be stripped from scorer images and will not be included in data transferred into
MTscore
• Students’ constructed responses will have an untraceable, non-identifying index number
• Item and student response images will be available only through MTscore and cannot be
accessed by any outside network or saved on any media
• No image or portion of student response image can be printed, with the exception of
Master Scorers only needing to print student responses in cases of alert papers.
• Score session access restrictions, requiring scorer login during predetermined times and
dates only

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 23 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
With scoring centers located near several universities, MetriTech has a large pool of qualified
scoring applicants from which to choose. Applicants must possess a minimum of a bachelor’s
degree and pass proprietary pre-employment tests found to predict performance. Many have
backgrounds in education and are active or retired teachers.
Applicants are required to attend a pre-employment testing session where they review their
already completed online application, answer additional questions specific to the project for
which they are applying, and complete a series of proprietary pre-employment screening tests
that reliably predict scorer performance. Hiring criteria include, but are not limited to,
completion of at least a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university; work
experience, particularly teaching or education-related experience; and test scores.
Lead scoring staff members include master scorers and trainers (already on staff at the start of
each project), as well as table leaders and senior scorers for each content area (usually assigned
to specific projects based on their content qualifications and background). Before scorer training
begins, group leaders and senior scorers are trained by master scoring staff so that they are
familiar with the rubrics, annotated anchor papers (originally provided by CAL and augmented
by senior MetriTech staff each year), training sets, calibration sets, and scoring procedures.
MetriTech master scoring staff has been working with scoring protocols for various programs
and states for an average of seven years. This core group works closely with the CAL
development staff, augmenting originally supplied training materials for each year of ACCESS
scoring.
Each potential reader has been selected to train on a particular grade-span. The training process
starts with an on-line training session, where each reader will review the rubrics, the elements of
analytic scoring, and anchor papers. Each score point on each rubric is defined, and approved
examples of student work that meet the criteria for each score point are presented and analyzed.
Following this presentation, the readers work through selected modules of sample papers. Each
paper in a training module has already been reviewed and scored by the master reader. As the
readers finish the training module, their recorded scores and rationales for their scoring are
systematically scored. Discrepancies are noted and feedback and additional modules are
presented to the reader to provide further training. Finally, each reader is given a post-test
module containing sample student responses. The readers score these modules independently,
and the final scores that they assign are compared with those assigned by the master reader.
Readers need to reach the criterion of 70% exact agreement with the master reader’s score to
complete training and to be approved to score live test material. This process is repeated for each
scorer selected for training. Training sessions utilizing one-on-one on-line interactive modular
trainings supported by printed training manuals and master trainer Q&A provide readers by
grade-cluster and typically include eight hours of material.
How scorers are supervised during the scoring process.
Group Leaders
• Prioritize work assignments for the scorers in their group for each shift
• Assign scorers work for each shift
• Review completed scoring for their group
• Track scorer attendance

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 24 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 • Monitor decorum within their group
Room Leaders
• Coordinate all Group Leaders on a shift
• Prioritize work assignments for the room for each shift
• Track scorer productivity on each shift
• Monitor decorum for the room
Master Scorers and Trainers
• Complete quality control/scoring checks on all employees on a daily basis, at pre-
determined rates
• Provide written as well as verbal one-on-one feedback to scorers on a daily basis
• Provide retraining as needed
• Recommend scorer reassignment as needed
For the ACCESS for ELLs constructed-response scoring, papers from each scorer are randomly
directed to the group leader for re-checking. If a group leader finds that a scorer’s rates fall
below the expected standard, the scorer is directed to retraining.
To monitor that the scoring rubric is being applied consistently across scoring sessions, specially
prepared calibration sets are routed to each scorer daily. To the scorer, the calibration student
images look like regular student responses. However, master scorers have already reviewed each
response in these sets, and the master scorer has created a key of expected scores for each
sample. Once the scorer completes the set, the scores that he or she assigned are immediately
checked against the master key by the system. This approach allows for the immediate detection
and correction of scorer drift. Exact agreement levels between the active and master scorer must
exceed the standards established for the project (80% exact agreement) or the scorer is locked
out of the system until they have successfully completed a retraining with the master scorer.
Twenty percent of all constructed-response items are blindly re-scored by another reader to
provide overall inter-rater reliability. This information is kept for future analysis, reporting in the
technical report, and reporting to the master scorer, allowing another avenue of feedback to the
individual scorers.

1.7.3 Speaking
The Speaking test is administered individually to each test taker. Each task is immediately scored
by the administrator while the test is being given. The administration and scoring procedure were
designed together to be quite simple to implement. As described previously, the Speaking tasks
are designed around the PIs to allow students to demonstrate mastery of the performance level
for which the task is designed. After administering each task and listening to the student’s
responses, the administrator decides whether the student’s performance exceeds, meets, or
approaches task-level expectations. Specifically, the possible ratings are defined as follows:
Exceeds: The student’s performance exceeds task-level expectations in quantity and/or quality.
Meets: The student’s performance meets task-level expectations in quantity and quality.
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 25 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Approaches: The student’s performance approaches task-level expectations, but falls short in
quantity and/or quality.
No Response: The student’s performance is quite inadequate: there is no response, the response
is incomprehensible or in a language other than English, or the student is unable to understand
the task directions.
Operationally, a score of 1 is given for every task that either meets or exceeds expectations, and
a 0 is given for any task that is rated as approaches or no response. The sum of those scores is the
total Speaking raw score for that student.
Table 1.7.3A presents the WIDA Consortium’s Speaking Rubric, which summarizes the
expectations for each task level on the Speaking assessment. These expectations are drawn from
the performance level descriptions of the WIDA ELD Standards and are divided into three
components (Linguistic Complexity, Vocabulary Usage, and Language Control). The training for
test administrators consists of familiarizing them with the tasks at each level and listening to
responses to those tasks, determining whether they meet the task-level expectations or not.

1.7.3.1 Training Procedures for Scoring Speaking

The Speaking Test is the only portion of ACCESS for ELLs that the test administrator scores.
Test administrators must complete the Speaking Test module of the online ACCESS for ELLs
Test Administrator Training and the accompanying quiz. The training focuses on developing the
test administrator’s ability to conduct the test using standardized testing procedures and to score
the test reliably. Test administrators are provided training on test administration procedures such
as navigating the test, scores and ratings. To reliably score the test, test administrators are then
trained on the Speaking Rubric of the WIDA Consortium (see Table 1.7.3A). Test administrators
must study the rubric thoroughly to understand each of the requirements for speech,
demonstrating proficiency at each of the different levels. Speaking Rubric training is
accomplished by listening to online ACCESS for ELLs Test Administrator Training speech
samples. Each sample presents a task targeted at a particular proficiency level to allow test
administrators to evaluate the responses against the three criteria described in the rubric for the
task. Scores and rationales that are provided for each sample demonstrate how and why a
particular score is assigned. To be considered certified to administer the ACCESS for ELLs
Grades 1–12 Speaking test, test administrators will then need to take the Speaking test quiz that
accompanies the training test module.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 26 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 1.7.3A
WIDA Consortium’s Speaking Rubric

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 27 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
2. An Assessment Use Argument for ACCESS for ELLs:
Focus on Assessment Records
Validity is “the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores for
proposed uses of tests” (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological
Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education [AERA, APA, & NCME], 2014,
p. 11). Evaluations of test validity assess whether there is evidence that supports the
appropriateness and adequacy of the interpretations and decisions made about test takers on the
basis of their performance on a test. This chapter contextualizes the information presented in this
Annual Technical Report within an argument-based approach to addressing validity (Bachman &
Palmer, 2010; Chapelle, Enright, & Jamieson, 2008; Kane, 2002, 2013; Mislevy, Almond, &
Lukas, 2004) for ACCESS for ELLs.
A fully developed validation framework, including an Assessment Use Argument (AUA)
(Bachman & Palmer, 2010), consists of several steps (described in Section 2.1 below) that
connect test design and administration to intended and actual score interpretation and
consequences. This chapter begins the process of developing a complete validation framework
for ACCESS for ELLs. This argument-based structure organizes the information in this Annual
Technical Report to support claims about Assessment Records (i.e., test scores and proficiency
level descriptions collected via ACCESS for ELLs). Specifically, tables and figures from this
report are explicitly linked to questions related assessment data. Chapelle, Enright, & Jamieson
(2010) support using such a structure to present information to assessment users because “based
on an analysis of four points of comparison—framing the intended score interpretation, outlining
the essential research, structuring research results into a validity argument, and challenging the
validity argument—we conclude that an argument-based approach to validity introduces some
new and useful concepts and practices” (p.3). A larger, though yet undocumented (as of 2014),
validity argument for the complete assessment from its inception to its consequences is currently
under development by WIDA.
The complete validity argument that will be employed to support the use of ACCESS for ELLs
will show the path from test design to test taker performance to the uses and interpretations of
test scores and the subsequent consequences of test use. This framework is structured around
assertions, or claims, about the assessment. The claims are presented as a series of statements
that connect some aspect of the assessment process to the intended purposes of the assessment.
Evidence for each claim is then organized by the action that is used to ensure each claim, and it
includes results from analyses of test data, outside documentation, and other resources. In the
complete validation argument, this process of identifying evidence to support claims will
encompass the entire testing process, from the commencement of the test design to the
consequences of test use (Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Llosa, 2008); Figure 2A shows the process
by which evidence supports validation actions, which are used to establish larger claims about
ACCESS for ELLs.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 28 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Figure 2A: General Argument Structure for Assessment Validation (simplified from Toulmin, 2003)

2.1 The Generic Validation Framework for ACCESS

The generic validation framework that will be applied to the entire ACCESS for ELLs testing
process was developed at the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) and is hereafter referred to as
CAL’s Validation Framework. CAL’s Validation Framework, shown in Figure 2.1A, combines
models for both test development (i.e., Evidence-Centered Design [Mislevy, Almond, & Lukas,
2004]) and assessment validation (i.e., Bachman and Palmer’s (2010) AUA) to cover the
assessment development and implementation process from initial conceptualization to the score
interpretations and consequences of using the assessment. This framework constantly looks both
forward and backward; for example, during the initial Plan step (Step 7), test developers state the
anticipated decisions and consequences of implementing the assessment program, which are
investigated in the Decisions step (Step 2) and Consequences step (Step 1). Because each
subsequent step depends upon the strength of the step below it, the steps are numbered from 7 to
1, with Consequences being the culmination of the previous steps. This structure highlights the
fact that any weakness in a lower step affects the steps above it.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 29 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Figure 2.1A: CAL’s Validation Framework (based on Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Mislevy, Almond, & Lukas, 2004)

In CAL’s Validation Framework, the Plan step involves an examination of possible decisions
states might make and consequences that might result from the assessment. This leads to the
consideration of several models during the Design step, where specifications that answer such
critical questions as “What are we measuring?” and “How do we measure it?” are developed
(Mislevy, Almond, & Lukas, 2004). The subsequent steps of the validation framework highlight
the trialing, implementation, and use of the assessment results, beginning with test takers’
performance on the assessment (Assessment Performance) and continuing through the collection
of test scores (Assessment Records), interpretations of those test scores (Interpretations),
decisions made based on the test scores (Decisions), and the consequences of test use
(Consequences).
The WIDA Consortium is using CAL’s Validation Framework to present a complete validity
argument, which will be updated as needed, for ACCESS for ELLs. To date, information related
to Step 4, Assessment Records, has been explored and is found in this chapter.

2.2 Focus on Assessment Records

Although the complete validation framework for ACCESS for ELLs contains seven steps (see
Figure 2.1A), the data presented in this document cover the Assessment Records step, which is
part of Bachman and Palmer’s (2010) AUA. By focusing on Assessment Records (i.e., test
scores and proficiency level descriptions), the information in the Annual Technical Report will
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 30 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
be used to support claims related to the quality and consistency of the assessment data gathered
and analyzed using ACCESS for ELLs. The claims in this step of the AUA all pertain to the
general question “How do we know that the reported language domain scores and composite
scores on ACCESS for ELLs are consistent and dependable?” Other questions about the
development, administration, and outcomes of ACCESS for ELLs will be evaluated in a
forthcoming document, currently in development by WIDA.
The diagram in Figure 2.2A shows a visual representation of an argument-based approach for
supporting claims related to Assessment Records. The figure shows how the Assessment
Records step, Step 4 of the complete validation framework, will fit in the generic validation
framework and be expanded into a series of claims and corresponding actions in this chapter of
the Annual Technical Report. Evidence in the form of data from this report or other sources will
be presented to support these claims as they relate to ACCESS for ELLs.

Figure 2.2A: Structure of the Argument-Based Approach Supporting Step 4 Contained in this Chapter

2.2.1 Breakdown of Claims for the Assessment Records Produced in the

ACCESS for ELLs Assessment Program
The general Assessment Records step, Step 4 of the complete ACCESS for ELLs validation
framework, is broken down into the following six claims:

C4.6. All test takers are provided comparable opportunities to demonstrate their English
Language Proficiency.
C4.5. All tasks and items are scored consistently for all test takers.
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 31 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 C4.4. Test items/tasks work appropriately together to measure each test taker’s English
Language Proficiency.
C4.3. The same scale scores obtained by test takers in different years retain the same meaning.
C4.2. ACCESS for ELLs measures English Language Proficiency for all test takers in a fair
and unbiased manner.
C4.1. Test takers are classified appropriately according to the proficiency levels defined in the
WIDA English Language Development Standards.

As shown in Figure 2.2.1A, these claims depend upon each other, again moving from (C4.6) up
to (C4.1). Within this organizational structure, each successive claim builds upon the previous
one(s) (e.g., ratings are only useful to test developers and stakeholders if all test takers are
provided comparable opportunities to demonstrate their proficiency). In the next section, these
claims are broken down even further into actions that are taken to ensure the consistency and
reliability of the assessment records.

Figure 2.2.1A: Progression of Claims for Step 4: Assessment Records

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 32 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
2.3 Evidence for Assessment Records Claims of ACCESS for ELLs
In this section, evidence in the form of data or other sources (e.g., Test Administration Manuals,
other information within this report, etc.) is connected to each of the Assessment Records claims
via the actions taken to ensure those claims. This section denotes the tables, figures, and external
sources that provide evidence related to each action. A summary table of the information
presented in this section, including hyperlinks to the detailed description of each table or figure
in Chapters 5 and 7 of this Annual Technical Report, is contained in Section 2.4. Information on
how to navigate the tables and figures throughout this report is presented in Section 2.5.
Because these claims relate to Step 4 of the overall validation framework, their numbering
begins with 4. The second number (after the decimal) denotes the level of the claim within
Step 4. This numbering system is used in anticipation of the development of more complete
documentation of a validity argument for ACCESS for ELLs, which will be completed by
WIDA. Individual actions to ensure each claim are denoted by the final letter (a, b, c, and so on).

Claim 4.6 - All test takers are provided comparable opportunities to demonstrate
their English Language Proficiency.

Action 4.6a: Well-specified procedures were developed for test administrators so that they are
able to administer the test consistently.
Evidence: Procedures for administering the test and producing reported scores are documented in
the ACCESS for ELLs Test Administration Manual (WIDA, 2012a).

Action 4.6b: Test administrators document and report any irregularities that may occur so that
appropriate action may be taken.
Evidence: Test administration procedures are documented in the ACCESS for ELLs Test
Administration Manual (WIDA, 2012a).

Claim 4.5 – All items and tasks are scored consistently for all test takers.

Action 4.5a: Raters of performance-based tasks undergo thorough training so that they know how
to score appropriately.
Evidence: Section 1.7 of this report specifies the scoring procedure for ACCESS for ELLs, with
Section 1.7.2 providing information on the Writing domain and Section 1.7.3 explicating the
procedure for Speaking tasks. Raters of Writing tasks are trained by MetriTech to follow the
Writing rubric (see Table 1.7.2B). Since Speaking tasks are scored locally, raters are trained
through an online program on the WIDA website to follow the Speaking rubric (see Table
1.7.3A).

Action 4.5b: Listening and Reading items are scored electronically using a carefully checked
key.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 33 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Evidence: Section 1.7 of this report specifies the scoring procedure for ACCESS for ELLs.
Listening and Reading items are dichotomous and are scored electronically by MetriTech (see
Section 1.7.1).

Action 4.5c: Raters of performance-based tasks are certified, demonstrating that they can score
appropriately.
Evidence: Section 1.7 of this report specifies the scoring procedure for ACCESS for ELLs.
Writing tasks are centrally scored at MetriTech, and all raters are pre-screened and subsequently
trained (see Section 1.7.2). Speaking is scored by the test administrator after the completion of
training on test administration and on the Speaking rubric (see Section 1.7.3).

Action 4.5d: Raters of Writing tasks are monitored daily to ensure that they are scoring
appropriately.
Evidence: MetriTech provides Raters of Writing tasks with specially prepared calibration sets
each day to monitor that the scoring rubric is being applied consistently across scoring sessions
(see Section 1.7.2.1).

Action 4.5e: Scoring data for Writing tasks are analyzed for rater agreement to understand how
closely raters agree.
Evidence: Interrater reliability is calculated for each of the three or four Writing tasks. The
percentage of agreement between two raters is calculated in terms of three features (i.e.,
Linguistic Complexity, Vocabulary Usage, and Language Control). When the two raters agree on
a score, this is counted as exact agreement. If the two raters provide feature scores that differ by
one point, this is counted as adjacent agreement (see Table 6F for percentages of exact and
adjacent agreement).
Claim 4.4 - Test items/tasks work appropriately together to measure each test
taker’s English Language Proficiency.

Action 4.4a: For each test form (e.g., Reading 6–8B), item and task analyses are performed and
psychometric properties of the items and tasks are evaluated to confirm that scores are internally
consistent.
Evidence: Reliability and accuracy information based on Classical Test Theory is calculated for
each test form (i.e., for each tier within each grade-level cluster). This information includes
Cronbach’s alpha, which is a measure of internal consistency. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is
widely used as an estimate of reliability and expresses how well the items on a test appear to
work together to measure the same construct (see Table 6F).

Action 4.4b: For each domain and composite score across tiers, item and task analyses are
performed and psychometric properties of the items and tasks are evaluated to confirm that
scores are internally consistent.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 34 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Evidence: A single reliability estimate, a stratified Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, Schonemann, &
McKie, 1965), is calculated across the three tiers for each domain. Cronbach’s alpha indicates
the extent to which items work together to measure the same construct. The stratified Cronbach’s
alpha is an average reliability, and it is used when test takers are administered several related
subtests but are then evaluated based on a composite of those subtest scores. Table 8D presents
the data used to calculate an estimate of the reliability of the composite scores using a stratified
Cronbach’s alpha.

Action 4.4c: Analyses of Rasch model fit statistics are conducted to show that individual tasks
perform appropriately.
Evidence: The Complete Items Properties table includes information on the Rasch fit statistics
for each test item (see Table 6H). These statistics, called outfit mean square and infit mean
square statistics, are calculated by comparing the observed empirical data with the values that the
Rasch model expects test takers to produce. Infit and outfit statistics indicate any consistently
unusual performance in relation to the item’s difficulty measure by measuring the degree to
which examinees’ responses to items deviate from expected responses. Both statistics have an
expected value of 1.0. Items with infit and outfit mean square statistics between 0.5 and 1.5 are
considered “productive for measurement” (Linacre, 2002). Values between 1.5 and 2.0 are
“unproductive for construction of measurement, but not degrading.” Values greater than 2.0
might “distort or degrade the measurement system.” Values below 0.5 are “less productive for
measurement, but not degrading.” Infit helps ensure that test takers within range of the targeted
proficiency level perform as expected. It is not as sensitive to outliers as Outfit. Outfit can be
skewed if test takers with extreme (i.e., high-level or low-level) proficiency do not perform as
expected. High infit is a bigger threat to validity, but is more difficult to explain than high outfit
(Linacre, 2002). The infit and outfit mean square statistics are part of the evaluation criteria used
to select the items and tasks that appear on the final operational forms.

Claim 4.3 - The same scale scores obtained by test takers in different years retain
the same meaning.

Action 4.3a: A sufficient number of items and tasks are used as anchor items across adjacent
years to maintain a consistent scale from year to year.
Evidence: Each year, while a certain percentage of items on each ACCESS for ELLs test form is
refreshed, a number of items and tasks are retained from the previous year’s assessment. These
retained “anchor items” ensure that performances on the newer form may be interpreted in the
same frame of reference as the previous year. For Listening and Reading, a majority of test items
are anchor items, while one of three Writing tasks and one of three Speaking folders are retained
annually as anchor tasks. Table 6E displays information on the anchor items for each test form.

Action 4.3b: New items and tasks are calibrated with anchor items to ensure that their difficulty
measures are on the same consistent scale that is used from year to year.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 35 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Evidence: Both new and previously used items and tasks (i.e., anchor items) are included on each
test form (see Table 6H for a list of new and anchored test items/tasks).

Action 4.3c: The same scaling equation is applied from year to year to ensure that scale scores
are obtained consistently over time.
Evidence: The scaling equation table is used to convert a test taker’s ability measure, which is
calculated based on test performance using Rasch modeling, into an ACCESS for ELLs scale
score (see Table 6D). The same equation is used across all tiers and grade-level clusters within
each domain.

Claim 4.2 - ACCESS for ELLs measures English Language Proficiency for all test
takers in a fair and unbiased manner.

Action 4.2a: Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses are conducted to determine whether
any items or tasks may be biased against certain subgroups.
Evidence: The Item/Task Analysis Summary provides a summary of the findings of the DIF
analyses, which look for measurement bias in test items (see Table 6G). Analyses search for bias
in contrasting groups based on gender (male versus female) and ethnicity (Hispanic versus non-
Hispanic). This table shows the number of items that favored one group or the other at all levels
of DIF.
The Complete Items Properties table includes more detailed information on the DIF analyses,
showing the degree of measurement bias for each item and which group is favored (ATR Table
6H). Each item is categorized into three levels of DIF: A, B, or C (Zieky, 1993). An item
exhibiting A level DIF shows little or no evidence of bias toward a particular group, an item
exhibiting B level DIF is displays a moderate amount of bias, and an item exhibiting C level DIF
is considered to display considerable evidence for potential bias and should be closely examined
by test developers to identify any construct irrelevant factors that may contribute to DIF.
Action 4.2b: Items that show evidence of DIF are carefully reviewed so that any that indicate
bias are not used for scoring and are removed from future test forms.
Evidence: As described in Chapter 1.4.5 (DIF Items), ethnicity and gender DIF analyses are
conducted using all test taker data. Information on DIF is gathered at different points in the
testing cycle and is provided to the test development team. The test development team uses this
information to guide the item development and review process for future items.

Claim 4.1 - Test takers are classified appropriately according to the proficiency
levels defined in the WIDA English Language Development Standards.

Action 4.1a: Distributions of scale scores and proficiency levels for each domain are analyzed to
confirm that ACCESS for ELLs effectively measures the performance of test takers across the
range of English Language Proficiency levels as defined by the WIDA English Language
Development (ELD) Standards.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 36 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Evidence: The distribution of test takers’ raw scores on ACCESS for ELLs, organized by
individual test form (e.g., Reading 3–5B), shows the extent to which ACCESS for ELLs
effectively measures the performance of test takers across the range of ELD abilities that each
form was designed to assess (see Table 6A; see Figure 6A).
The distribution of test takers’ scale scores on ACCESS for ELLs, organized by test form (e.g.,
Reading 3–5B), shows that ACCESS for ELLs effectively measures the performance of test
takers across the range of ELD abilities that each form was designed to assess (see Table 6B; see
Figure 6B).
The proficiency level distribution of test takers’ scores on ACCESS for ELLs, organized by
individual test form (e.g., Reading 3–5B), shows that ACCESS for ELLs effectively measures
the performance of test takers across the range of proficiency levels that each form was designed
to assess (see Table 6C; see Figure 6C).
The Raw Score to Proficiency Level Score table shows the interpretive proficiency level score
associated with each raw score (see Table 6J). This distribution of scores shows that ACCESS
for ELLs effectively measures the performance of test takers across the range of proficiency
levels that each form was designed to assess.
The Test Characteristic Curve for each test form graphically shows the relationship between test
takers’ ability measure (which is calculated based on test performance using Rasch modeling) on
the horizontal axis and the expected raw scores on the vertical axis (see Figure 6D). Five vertical
lines indicate the five cut scores for the highest grade in the cluster, dividing the figure into six
sections for each of the six WIDA proficiency levels. The curve shows that higher expected raw
scores are required to be placed into higher language proficiency levels.

Action 4.1b: Distributions of scale scores and proficiency levels, organized by grade-level
cluster, are analyzed to confirm that ACCESS for ELLs effectively measures the performance of
test takers across the range of English Language Proficiency levels as defined by the WIDA
English Language Development (ELD) Standards.
Evidence: The distribution of test takers’ scale scores on ACCESS for ELLs, organized by grade-
level cluster, shows that ACCESS for ELLs effectively measures the performance of test takers
across the range of ELD abilities as described by the WIDA ELD Standards (see Table 8A; see
Figure 8A).
The proficiency level distribution of test takers’ scores on ACCESS for ELLs, organized by
grade-level cluster, shows that ACCESS for ELLs effectively measures the performance of test
takers across the range of proficiency levels as defined by the WIDA ELD Standards (see Table
8B; see Figure 8B).
The Test Characteristic Curve reflects test takers’ mean raw scores by domain on ACCESS for
ELLs across the entire test for Kindergarten and across the three tiers for the other grade-level
clusters (see Figure 8C). It also graphically illustrates how the tiers differ in difficulty, showing
that ACCESS for ELLs effectively captures a range of ELD ability levels. Tier A is represented
by a dotted curve, Tier B by a light solid curve, and Tier C by a dark solid curve. As shown, Tier
B is more difficult than Tier A, and Tier C is more difficult than Tier B.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 37 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Action 4.1c: For each test form, analyses are run to confirm that English Language Proficiency is
measured with high precision at the cut points pertinent to each tier.
Evidence: The Test Information Function graphically shows how well the test is measuring
across the ability measure spectrum, which is calculated based on test performance using Rasch
modeling (see Figure 6E). High values indicate more accuracy in measurement. Test forms for
different tiers are designed to measure most accurately at certain proficiency levels (i.e., PL1
through PL3 for Tier A, PL2 through PL4 for Tier B, and PL3 and up for Tier C), and the
expected peak of the distribution occurs within the desired range of the cut scores.
In the Raw Score to Scale Score Conversion Chart, the proficiency level associated with each
raw score shows the distribution of proficiency level scores associated with each raw score/scale
score for each grade in the cluster, along with the percentage of test takers in that grade who
scored at that raw score/scale score/proficiency level score (see Table 6I). Additionally, this table
presents the conditional standard error for each scale score, along with the upper and lower
bound of the scale scores within this standard error of measurement. This value indicates how
accurately or precisely the test is measuring test takers at a particular ability level by estimating
the error measurement at each score point. Because there is usually more information about test
takers with scores in the middle of the score distribution on each form, the conditional standard
error values are usually smallest and scores are more reliable in that region of the score
distribution.

Action 4.1d: Across domains, analyses are run to confirm that English Language Proficiency is
measured with high precision at the cut points pertinent to each tier.
Evidence: The conditional standard error of measurement provides information on how precisely
test takers’ performances on ACCESS for ELLs are measured at the cut points between language
proficiency levels. These cut points are critical because they are the points at which decisions are
made about test taker placements. Because the cut points depend on the grade level, information
for each domain is provided for each grade level within the cluster. From Table 8C, it is possible
to examine how well the different tiers measure the English Language Proficiency of test takers
at the appropriate proficiency level cut scores (i.e., PL1 through PL3 for Tier A, PL2 through
PL4 for Tier B, and PL3 and up for Tier C).
The Test Information Function reflects the precision of measurement by graphically presenting
the standard error of measurement across tiers for grade-level clusters (see Figure 8D). Tier A is
represented by a dotted curve, Tier B by a light solid curve, and Tier C by a dark solid curve. As
shown, Tier B is more difficult than Tier A, and Tier C is more difficult than Tier B. As in
Figure C, the cut scores at the highest grade in each cluster are indicated by vertical lines. These
lines make it easy to see that the test forms for different tiers measure most accurately at the
proficiency levels they are meant to capture.

Action 4.1e: Classification and accuracy analyses are conducted by grade level to confirm that
proficiency level classifications are reliable for all domain and composite scores.
Evidence: Information related to the accuracy of test takers’ proficiency-level classifications is
presented in multiple ways (see Table 8E). A separate table is provided for each grade level in a
cluster. The table provides overall indices related to the accuracy and consistency of
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 38 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
classification. These indices indicate the percent of all test takers who would be classified into
the same language proficiency level by both the administered test and either the true score
distribution (accuracy) or a parallel test (consistency). Cohen’s kappa, which is a statistical
measure of interrater agreement between two raters that takes chance agreement between raters
into account, is also presented. A kappa value of 1 indicates complete agreement between the
two raters, while a kappa value of 0 indicates no agreement other than what would be expected
by chance. Table 8E also shows accuracy and consistency information conditional on level and
provides indices of classification accuracy and consistency at the cut points.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 39 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
2.4 Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 2.4A
Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Claim Actions Evidence
6. All test takers are a. Well-specified procedures were developed for a. Test Administration Manual
provided comparable test administrators so that they are able to
opportunities to administer the test consistently.
demonstrate their
English Language b. Test administrators document and report any b. Test Administration Manual
Proficiency. irregularities that may occur so that
appropriate action may be taken.
5. All items and tasks a. Raters of performance-based tasks undergo a. Chapter 1.7.2 (Scoring - Writing);
are scored thorough training so that they know how to Chapter 1.7.3 (Scoring - Speaking)
consistently for all score appropriately.
test takers.

b. Listening and Reading items are scored b. Chapter 1.7.1 (Scoring - Listening
electronically onsite at MetriTech. and Reading)

c. Raters are of performance-based tasks are c. Chapter 1.7.2 (Scoring - Writing);

certified, demonstrating that they can score Chapter 1.7.3 (Scoring - Speaking)
appropriately.

d. Raters of Writing tasks are monitored daily to d. Chapter 1.7.2.1 (Scoring Procedures
ensure that they are scoring appropriately. for Writing)

e. Scoring data for Writing tasks are analyzed for e. Table 6F (Reliability)
rater agreement to understand how closely
raters agree.
4. Test items/tasks a. For each test form (e.g., Reading 6-8B), item a. Table 6F (Reliability)
work appropriately and task analyses are performed and
together to measure psychometric properties of the items and tasks
each test taker’s are evaluated to confirm that scores are
English Language internally consistent.
Proficiency.
b. For each domain and composite score across b. Table 8D (Reliability)
tiers, item and task analyses are performed and
psychometric properties of the items and tasks
are evaluated to confirm that scores are
internally consistent.

c. Analyses of Rasch model fit statistics are c. Table 6H (Complete Item Analysis)
conducted to show that individual tasks
perform appropriately

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 40 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
3. The same scale a. A sufficient number of items and tasks are a. Table 6E (Equating Summary)
scores obtained by used as anchor items across adjacent years to
test takers in different maintain a consistent scale from year to year.
years retain the same
meaning. b. New items and tasks are calibrated with b. Table 6D (Scaling Equation)
anchor items to ensure that their difficulty
measures are on the same consistent scale that
is used from year to year.

c. The same scaling equation is applied from c. Table 6H (Complete Item Analysis)
year to year to ensure that scale scores are
obtained consistently over time.
2. ACCESS for ELLs a. Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses a. Table 6H (Complete Item Analysis);
measures English are conducted to determine whether any items Table 6G (Item/Task Analysis
Language Proficiency or tasks are biased against certain subgroups. Summary)
for all test takers in a
fair and unbiased b. Items that show evidence of DIF are carefully b. Chapter 1.4.5 (DIF Items)
manner. reviewed so that any that indicate bias are not
used for scoring and are removed from future
test forms.
1. Test takers are a. Distributions of scale scores and proficiency a. Figure 6A (Raw Scores) & Table 6A
classified levels for each domain are analyzed to confirm (Raw Score Descriptive Statistics);
appropriately that ACCESS for ELLs effectively measures Figure 6B (Scale Scores) & Table 6B
according to the the performance of test takers across the range (Scale Score Descriptive Statistics);
proficiency levels of English Language Proficiency levels as Figure 6C (Proficiency Level) &
defined in the WIDA defined by the WIDA English Language Table 6C (Proficiency Level
English Language Development Standards. Distribution);
Development Table 6J (Raw Score to Proficiency
Standards. Level Score Conversion Chart);
Figure 6D (Test Characteristic
Curve)

b. Distributions of scale scores and proficiency b. Figure 8A (Scale Scores) & Table 8A
levels, organized by grade-level cluster, are (Scale Score Descriptive Statistics);
analyzed to confirm that ACCESS for ELLs Figure 8B (Proficiency Level) &
effectively measures the performance of test Table 8B (Proficiency Level
takers across the range of English Language Distribution);
Proficiency levels as defined by the WIDA Figure 8C (Test Characteristic
English Language Development Standards. Curve)

c. For each test form, analyses are run to confirm c. Figure 6E (Test Information
that English Language Proficiency is Function);
measured with high precision at the cut points Table 6I (Raw Score to Scale Score
pertinent to each tier. Conversion Chart)

d. Across domains, analyses are run to confirm d. Table 8C (Conditional Standard

that English Language Proficiency is Error of Measurement) & Figure 8D
measured with high precision at the cut points (Test Information Function)
pertinent to each tier.

e. Classification and accuracy analyses are e. Table 8E (Accuracy and Consistency

conducted by grade-level to confirm that of Classification Indices)
proficiency level classifications are reliable for
all domain and composite scores.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 41 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
2.5 Visual Guide to Tables and Figures
This section provides navigational support for the tables and figures contained in the ACCESS
for ELLs Annual Technical Report. The Visual Guide to Tables and Figures, shown in Figures
2.5.1 through 2.5.3, serves as a resource to quickly identify which table and/or figure to look for
when seeking specific information based on grade, grade-level cluster, tier, and demographic
characteristics, such as state, gender, and ethnicity and race, as well as domains and domain
composites.

To use the Visual Guide to Tables and Figures as a navigational tool, click on the links in
Figures 2.5.1 through 2.5.3 to navigate to the selected tables and figures in the Annual Technical
Report. A link is provided at the end of each section in Chapters 4, 6, and 8. Detailed
descriptions of the information in each of the tables and figures is included in the preceding
chapters (i.e., Chapter 5 contains information on tables and figures in Chapter 6, and Chapter 7
contains information on tables and figures in Chapter 8). These descriptions may be accessed
through links in Table 2.4A Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence.

Figure 2.5.1 displays the tables in Chapter 4 that provide information on participation, scale
score, and proficiency level results, as well as results by standard. The key in the upper left
corner of the figure describes the tables contained in each section of the chapter. For example,
tables in Section 4.1 contain information about participation. To find specific information in
Chapter 4, select the Grade or Grade Cluster tab, Domain or Tier tab, and then choose from three
categories: Demographic Characteristics, Domain Composites, or Domains. Within each of these
categories, several additional options organize information so that individual tables can be
accessed. For example, to find a table that displays information on the number of female Grade 2
students who completed the Speaking section, refer to Figure 2.5.1 and complete the following
steps: one, select Grade; two, select Domains; three, select Demographic Characteristics; four,
select Gender. The information is found in Table 4.2.2.2. Click on 4.2.2.2 to go to the
appropriate table in Chapter 4.

Figure 2.5.2 displays the sections in Chapter 6 that contains analyses for each ACCESS for
ELLs test form by grade-level cluster, tier, and domain. The key above the figure describes
specific information in each table and figure. For example, to find the Reliability table for Grade-
level Cluster 9–12C in the Reading domain, refer to Figure 2.5.2 and complete the following
steps: one, select Grade Cluster 9–12; two, select Tier C; three, select Reading under Domains.
Information for 9–12C Reading is shown in section 6.5.2.3. Finally, look at the key that explains
that reliability information is located in table F. The result is Table 6.5.2.3F. Click on 6.5.2.3 to
go to the appropriate section, and then locate Table F.

Figure 2.5.3 displays the sections in Chapter 8 that contain analyses across tiers, organized by
grade-level cluster, domain composites, and domains. The key above the figure describes the
specific information in each table and figure. For example, to find the Conditional Standard Error
of Measurement table for Grade-level Cluster 6–8 in the Writing domain, refer to Figure 2.5.3
and complete the following steps: one, select Grade Cluster 6–8; two, select Domain; three,
select Writing. Information for 6–8 Writing is shown in section 8.5.3. Finally, look at the key
and find Conditional Standard of Error Measurement table. The result is 8.5.3C. Click on 8.5.3
to go to the appropriate section, and then locate Table C.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 42 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
2.5.1 Chapter 4 Visual Guide to Tables and Figures

4.1.2.1 4.1.1.1

4.2.2.2 4.1.2.2 4.1.3.3 4.2.1.2 4.1.1.2

4.2.2.3 4.1.2.3 4.1.3.4 4.2.1.3 4.1.1.3

4.3.8.2 4.3.8.3 4.3.8.1

4.3.5.2 4.3.5.3 4.3.5.1

4.3.6.2 4.3.6.3 4.3.6.1

4.3.7.2 4.3.7.3 4.3.7.1 4.4.1.1

4.2.1.1
4.1.3.2 4.2.2.1 4.1.3.1
4.2.3

4.3.1.2 4.3.1.3 4.3.1.1

4.3.2.2 4.3.2.3 4.3.2.1

4.3.3.3
4.3.3.2 4.3.3.1 4.4.2.1
4.4.2.2
4.3.4.3
4.3.4.2 4.3.4.1 4.4.3.1
4.4.3.2

Figure 2.5.1 Chapter 4 Visual Guide to Tables and Figures

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 43 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
2.5.2 Chapter 6 Visual Guide to Tables and Figures

6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.1.4

6.2.1.1 6.2.2.1 6.2.3.1

6.2.1.2 6.2.2.2 6.2.3.2 6.2.4

6.2.1.3 6.2.2.3 6.2.3.3

6.3.1.1 6.3.2.1 6.3.3.1

6.3.1.2 6.3.2.2 6.3.3.2 6.3.4

6.3.1.3 6.3.2.3 6.3.3.3

6.4.1.1 6.4.2.1 6.4.3.1

6.4.1.2 6.4.2.2 6.4.3.2 6.4.4

6.4.1.3 6.4.2.3 6.4.3.3

6.5.1.1 6.5.2.1 6.5.3.1

6.5.1.2 6.5.2.2 6.5.3.2 6.5.4

6.5.1.3 6.5.2.3 6.5.3.3

Figure 2.5.2 Chapter 6 Visual Guide to Tables and Figures

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 44 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
2.5.3 Chapter 8 Visual Guide to Tables and Figures

8.1.8 8.2.8 8.3.8 8.4.8 8.5.8

8.1.5 8.2.5 8.3.5 8.4.5 8.5.5

8.1.6 8.2.6 8.3.6 8.4.6 8.5.6

8.1.7 8.2.7 8.3.7 8.4.7 8.5.7

8.1.1 8.2.1 8.3.1 8.4.1 8.5.1

8.1.2 8.2.2 8.3.2 8.4.2 8.5.2

8.1.3 8.2.3 8.3.3 8.4.3 8.5.3

8.1.4 8.2.4 8.3.4 8.4.4 8.5.4

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 45 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
3. Descriptions of Student Results
Chapter 3 provides a description of the tables that appear in Chapter 4.

3.1 Participation
Participation in ACCESS for ELLs is shown in three ways: grade-level cluster; grade, and tier.

3.1.1 Grade-Level Cluster

Section 4.1.1 gives information on participation by grade-level cluster.
Table 4.1.1.1 shows participation across the 33 WIDA states that participated in the operational
testing program in 2013–2014. The first row shows the grade-level cluster, the next 33 rows
show the number of students in that grade-level cluster who took the test, by state, and the final
row shows the total number of participants across all 33 states.
Table 4.1.1.2 shows participation by cluster by gender across all 33 states combined, while Table
4.1.1.3 shows participation by cluster by ethnicity across all 33 states.

3.1.2 Grade
Section 4.1.2 gives similar data as in the previous section, but broken out by grade rather than by
grade-level cluster.

3.1.3 Tier
Finally, Section 4.1.3 gives participation by tier.
Table 4.1.3.1 shows this information by cluster, tier, and domain. Because, for example,
Listening in the 1–2 grade-level cluster for Tier A represents a specific test form, this table
indicates how many students took each test form. Note that because Speaking is not administered
by tiers, the total number shows how many took that cluster’s Speaking test.
Table 4.1.3.2 shows the same information, but by grade rather than by grade-level cluster.
Table 4.1.3.3 shows the breakdown by grade-level cluster and tier for gender. When reviewing
data on DIF in Chapter 6, it may be useful to refer to these tables to understand the size of the
comparison groups on each form.
Table 4.1.3.4 shows the same information for ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic). Consortium
member states use the Census Bureau categories for student ethnicity. Again, this data may be
useful when reviewing analyses of DIF in tables G and H in Chapter 6.
Note that in some circumstances there was a mismatch between a student’s reported grade and
the reported cluster of the test the student took (for example, a student who was reported to be in
Kindergarten but who was administered a test in the 1–2 grade-level cluster). In all, 334 students
were administered a test form from a cluster other than the grade in which they were reported to
be. Table 3.1 below shows the number of students in each grade who were administered out-of-
grade-level tests, and the test form that they were administered. The data for these students was
eliminated from all analyses in this report.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 46 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Table 3.1
Students Excluded from Analysis due to Grade/Cluster Mismatch
Grade/Cluster
Tier K 1-2A 1-2B 1-2C 3-5A 3-5B 3-5C 6-8A 6-8B 6-8C 9-12A 9-12B 9-12C Total
K 204828 40 23 13 4 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 86
1 0 67768 91448 42800 6 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 18
2 0 18120 103131 66995 8 18 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 35
3 0 20 37 18 13034 75190 76614 0 1 0 0 0 0 76
4 0 3 3 2 8988 42700 53966 0 0 1 1 0 0 10
5 0 3 2 1 7817 31611 43950 3 22 8 0 0 0 39
6 0 0 1 0 13 12 8 8129 28233 38105 0 1 0 35
7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8034 28386 39044 1 0 0 4
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8108 26393 36746 2 9 3 14
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 3 16050 29108 35826 15
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7366 20272 23567 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4150 15895 19135 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2373 12564 16362 2
Total 0 66 66 34 31 42 21 7 33 13 6 11 4 334

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 47 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
(Note that the apparent number of Kindergarten students reported as taking tests in the higher
grade-level clusters is at least in part spurious. In some states, when a grade level has not been
defined for a student before the identification labels for the operational test are sent out, the
“Grade” field is filled in with a placeholder of 0, the same code that is used for Kindergarten. If
that information is never updated, the grade for the operational data is recorded as Kindergarten.
Thus, many of the students who are reported here as Kindergarten students taking tests from
higher grade-level clusters may in fact be students for whom the grade level was never defined.)

3.2 Scale Score Results

3.2.1 Mean Scale Scores Across Domain and Composite Scores Section
4.2.1 shows mean (average) scale scores by grade-level cluster across the eight scores awarded
on ACCESS, first for the four domains (Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing) and then for
the four composites (Oral Language, Literacy, Comprehension, and Overall). In this section,
under each average, the number of students in each group is also given.
Table 4.2.1.1 shows mean scale scores by grade-level cluster, while Table 4.2.1.2 shows the
same information broken down by gender, and Table 4.2.1.3 shows the same information broken
down by ethnicity and race. In 2010, the Census Bureau introduced a new approach to reporting
race and ethnicity. Previously, race and ethnicity had been a single category with six values
(Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander/Hawaiian, Black/African American, American Indian/Alaskan
Native, White - Non Hispanic, and Multi-racial/Other). Under the new approach, ethnicity has
become a binary category (Hispanic or Non-Hispanic), with five categories for race (American
Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Black/African American, Pacific Islander/Hawaiian, and White)
that are not mutually exclusive. Thus, for example, Student A may be labeled as Hispanic for
ethnicity and Asian for race, while Student B may be labeled as Non-Hispanic for ethnicity and
both American Indian/Alaskan Native and Black/African American for race. Starting with Series
202, students who are labeled as Hispanic are included in the Hispanic (Of Any Race) category,
regardless of how many racial categories that they are included in. Students who are identified
as one of the racial categories (e.g., Asian) and have not been identified as Hispanic are
identified in only one racial category; if they are identified in more than one racial category, and
have not been identified as Hispanic, then they are labeled Non-Hispanic Multi-racial.
Section 4.2.2 shows the mean scale scores broken down by grade rather than by grade-level
cluster. Table 4.2.2.1 shows mean scale scores by grade, while Table 4.2.2.2 shows the same
information broken down by gender, and Table 4.2.2.3 shows the same information broken down
by ethnicity and race.

3.2.2 Correlations
Tables 4.2.3A through 4.2.3E show correlations among the four domain scale scores by grade-
level clusters across all tiers, as well as the number of students included in each correlation.
Table 4.2.3A shows the results for Kindergarten, Table 4.2.3B shows the results for the 1–2
grade-level cluster, Table 4.2.3C shows the results for the 3–5 grade-level cluster, Table 4.2.3D
shows the results for the 6–8 grade-level cluster, and Table 4.2.3E shows the results for the 9–12
grade-level cluster. Beginning with Series 101, caps were placed on students taking Tier A and
Tier B test forms in Listening and Reading. This capping of scores may raise the correlation
between those two scores, while decreasing the correlation of those two scores with Speaking
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 48 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
and Writing. Note, all correlations in Tables 4.2.3A through 4.2.3E are significant at the 0.01
level (2-tailed).

3.3 Proficiency Level Results

Proficiency level results show the distribution of students falling into the six language
proficiency levels outlined by the WIDA ELD Standards. The results are presented in eight
subsections by count and percentage:
4.3.1 – Listening
4.3.2 – Reading
4.3.3 – Writing
4.3.4 – Speaking
4.3.5 – Oral Language Composite
4.3.6 – Literacy Composite
4.3.7 – Comprehension Composite
4.3.8 – Overall Composite
Within each section, results are first presented by grade-level cluster and tier in Section 4.3.*.1
(note that the * indicates a subsection variable). Tables 4.3.*.1A shows the number of students
who were classified into each language proficiency level, while Table 4.3.*.1B shows the
percent of students (within each row) classified into each language proficiency category. These
tables clearly show the effect of the capping of scores on Tier A and Tier B for Listening and
Reading.
Following the presentation by tier and cluster, results are presented by grade and tier in Section
4.3.*.2. Again, the first table in this section shows the number of students classified into each
language proficiency level, while the second table shows the results in terms of percentages
within each row.
Finally, in Section 4.3.*.3, results are presented by grade alone, that is, without the tiers. Again,
the first table shows the number of students classified into each language proficiency level, while
the second table shows the results in terms of percentages within each row.

3.4 Mean Raw Score Results by Standards

The tables in this section show information on mean raw score results by the five WIDA ELD
Standards. These results are in terms of raw scores (i.e., the number of correct responses in
Listening/Reading or Speaking or the points on the Writing rubric). Note that scores for
Kindergarten students were not categorized by Standard; therefore, these tables include
information only for grades 1–12.

3.4.1 Comprehension Composite

Section 4.4.1 shows the results for Comprehension (combined Listening and Reading items). The
first section (4.4.1.1) shows results by grade-level cluster, while the second section (4.4.1.2)
shows the results by grade. Within each table, the third column shows the Standard (Social and
Instructional Language, Language of Language Arts, Language of Math, Language of Science,
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 49 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
and Language of Social Studies). The fourth column shows the maximum possible raw score by
Standard, the fifth column shows the mean raw score, and the sixth column shows the mean raw
score as a percentage of the maximum.

3.4.2 Writing
Section 4.4.2 shows the results for Writing. Again, the first section (4.4.2.1) shows results by
grade-level cluster, while the second section (4.4.2.2) shows the results by grade. Within each
table, the third column shows the Standard (Social and Instructional Language, Language of
Language Arts/Social Studies, and Language of Mathematics/Science). The next three columns
show the mean raw scores (out of a maximum of 6) of the three sub scores for the Writing test:
Linguistic Complexity, Vocabulary Usage, and Language Control. The seventh column shows
the total mean raw score for each Standard (out of a maximum of 18). The final column shows
the mean raw score as a percentage of the maximum possible score.

3.4.3 Speaking
Finally, Section 4.4.3 presents the results for Speaking. As in the previous sections, the first
section (4.4.3.1) shows results by grade-level cluster, while the second section (4.4.3.2) shows
the results by grade. Note that the Speaking assessment itself is adaptive but not tiered. Student
results are categorized here by tier according to the tier of the group-administered assessment
that they took. Within each table, the third column shows the Standard (Social and Instructional
Language, Language of Language Arts/Social Studies, and Language of Mathematics/Science).
The fourth column shows the maximum possible score, the fifth columns shows the mean raw
score, and the sixth column shows the mean raw score as a percentage of the maximum possible
score.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 50 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4. Student Results
4.1 Participation
4.1.1 Participation by Grade-level Cluster

4.1.1.1 By State
Table 4.1.1.1
‌Participation by Cluster by State‌ S302
Cluster
S tate K 1-2 3-5 6-8 9-12 Total
AK 1,569 3,560 4,063 2,924 2,884 15,000
AL 3,762 6,298 3,651 2,105 1,972 17,788
CO 12,525 25,972 30,932 21,189 16,576 107,194
DC 1,149 1,793 1,194 852 1,024 6,012
DE 1,792 2,915 1,854 888 923 8,372
GA 17,917 33,137 23,045 10,822 8,223 93,144
HI 2,456 3,947 3,777 2,985 3,477 16,642
IL 30,799 60,513 45,318 22,284 17,475 176,389
KY 3,280 6,244 5,038 2,898 2,712 20,172
MA 10,003 18,876 19,031 12,608 13,678 74,196
MD 10,110 17,921 13,922 7,573 7,919 57,445
ME 522 1,021 1,273 1,161 1,280 5,257
MI 10,503 19,024 21,483 14,936 15,522 81,468
MN 8,608 16,237 18,901 13,223 11,123 68,092
MO 4,618 7,788 7,423 4,399 3,556 27,784
MP 63 255 543 534 222 1,617
MS 1,312 2,391 2,376 1,357 1,034 8,470
MT 321 790 1,135 697 478 3,421
NC 14,123 27,576 25,140 15,990 13,632 96,461
ND 418 718 830 684 764 3,414
NH 407 1,085 1,092 715 897 4,196
NJ 11,768 19,239 12,843 7,940 10,816 62,606
NM 6,433 13,595 15,266 11,187 8,919 55,400
NV 9,663 20,134 20,690 12,804 7,866 71,157
OK 7,291 13,057 11,260 6,797 5,275 43,680
PA 4,754 10,926 12,025 9,989 11,995 49,689
RI 1,228 2,464 2,589 1,646 1,869 9,796
SD 662 1,107 1,157 826 853 4,605
UT 5,559 10,916 8,207 5,718 5,526 35,926
VA 14,803 27,739 23,153 13,731 15,813 95,239
VT 196 366 392 227 352 1,533
WI 5,792 11,932 13,497 9,005 7,616 47,842
WY 422 726 770 484 397 2,799
Total 204,828 390,262 353,870 221,178 202,668 1,372,806

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 51 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.1.1.2 By Gender
Table 4.1.1.2
‌Participation by Cluster by Gender S302
Gender
Cluster F M Missing Total
Count 96,381 107,416 1,031 204,828
K
% within Cluster 47.1% 52.4% 0.5% 100.0%
Count 183,929 203,920 2,413 390,262
1-2
% within Cluster 47.1% 52.3% 0.6% 100.0%
Count 161,237 188,972 3,661 353,870
3-5
% within Cluster 45.6% 53.4% 1.0% 100.0%
Count 97,779 121,107 2,292 221,178
6-8
% within Cluster 44.2% 54.8% 1.0% 100.0%
Count 89,173 111,305 2,190 202,668
9-12
% within Cluster 44.0% 54.9% 1.1% 100.0%
Count 628,499 732,720 11,587 1,372,806
Total
% within Cluster 45.8% 53.4% 0.8% 100.0%

4.1.1.3 By Ethnicity
Table 4.1.1.3
‌Participation by Cluster by Ethnicity S302
Hispanic/Non-Hispanic
Cluster Hispanic Other Missing Total
Count 137,915 63,871 3,042 204,828
K
% within Cluster 67.3% 31.2% 1.5% 100.0%
Count 269,735 115,964 4,563 390,262
1-2
% within Cluster 69.1% 29.7% 1.2% 100.0%
Count 242,064 107,037 4,769 353,870
3-5
% within Cluster 68.4% 30.2% 1.3% 100.0%
Count 146,739 70,573 3,866 221,178
6-8
% within Cluster 66.3% 31.9% 1.7% 100.0%
Count 121,693 76,619 4,356 202,668
9-12
% within Cluster 60.0% 37.8% 2.1% 100.0%
Count 918,146 434,064 20,596 1,372,806
Total
% within Cluster 66.9% 31.6% 1.5% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 52 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.1.2 Participation by Grade

4.1.2.1 By State
Table 4.1.2.1
‌Participation by Grade by State‌ S302
Grade

State K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
AK 1,569 1,797 1,763 1,614 1,374 1,075 1,005 1,032 887 1,012 720 573 579 15,000
AL 3,762 3,434 2,864 2,075 924 652 614 706 785 944 467 352 209 17,788
CO 12,525 12,914 13,058 12,212 9,801 8,919 7,658 7,246 6,285 5,529 4,152 3,391 3,504 107,194
DC 1,149 994 799 559 356 279 292 253 307 560 197 123 144 6,012
DE 1,792 1,624 1,291 1,018 484 352 299 286 303 465 225 135 98 8,372
GA 17,917 17,589 15,548 12,871 5,947 4,227 3,540 3,781 3,501 4,418 1,841 1,120 844 93,144
HI 2,456 2,074 1,873 1,895 997 885 819 1,026 1,140 1,602 799 560 516 16,642
IL 30,799 31,002 29,511 25,508 11,678 8,132 6,917 7,782 7,585 8,053 4,111 3,116 2,195 176,389
KY 3,280 3,298 2,946 2,475 1,479 1,084 936 1,033 929 1,085 738 504 385 20,172
MA 10,003 9,742 9,134 7,895 5,946 5,190 4,379 4,316 3,913 5,018 3,435 3,005 2,220 74,196
MD 10,110 9,430 8,491 7,266 3,763 2,893 2,554 2,682 2,337 3,991 2,022 999 907 57,445
ME 522 544 477 505 423 345 347 414 400 394 331 288 267 5,257
MI 10,503 9,732 9,292 8,191 7,150 6,142 5,577 4,941 4,418 4,646 4,480 3,325 3,071 81,468
MN 8,608 8,265 7,972 7,470 6,259 5,172 4,660 4,530 4,033 3,969 2,676 2,464 2,014 68,092
MO 4,618 3,992 3,796 3,315 2,276 1,832 1,528 1,481 1,390 1,336 972 705 543 27,784
MP 63 115 140 276 134 133 206 165 163 151 33 18 20 1,617
MS 1,312 1,282 1,109 1,040 766 570 516 457 384 462 300 168 104 8,470
MT 321 362 428 407 410 318 262 229 206 187 130 94 67 3,421
NC 14,123 13,968 13,608 12,951 6,782 5,407 5,222 5,383 5,385 6,728 3,284 2,071 1,549 96,461
ND 418 389 329 373 246 211 246 236 202 263 189 175 137 3,414
NH 407 511 574 593 276 223 228 234 253 349 227 179 142 4,196
NJ 11,768 10,475 8,764 6,459 3,679 2,705 2,513 2,650 2,777 3,615 3,120 2,421 1,660 62,606
NM 6,433 6,967 6,628 6,253 5,139 3,874 3,681 3,769 3,737 3,885 2,245 1,573 1,216 55,400
NV 9,663 10,261 9,873 9,172 6,414 5,104 4,676 4,516 3,612 2,824 1,876 1,648 1,518 71,157
OK 7,291 6,997 6,060 5,355 3,327 2,578 2,353 2,229 2,215 2,409 1,261 917 688 43,680
PA 4,754 5,396 5,530 4,834 3,821 3,370 3,310 3,404 3,275 3,907 3,246 2,561 2,281 49,689
RI 1,228 1,338 1,126 1,098 839 652 555 565 526 637 534 391 307 9,796
SD 662 580 527 539 329 289 276 268 282 334 233 163 123 4,605
UT 5,559 5,918 4,998 2,869 2,817 2,521 2,100 1,834 1,784 1,543 1,615 1,363 1,005 35,926
VA 14,803 14,438 13,301 11,730 6,747 4,676 4,220 4,596 4,915 7,228 3,836 3,142 1,607 95,239
VT 196 193 173 202 100 90 70 77 80 108 89 92 63 1,533
WI 5,792 6,027 5,905 5,416 4,750 3,331 2,750 3,175 3,080 3,184 1,706 1,476 1,250 47,842
WY 422 368 358 402 221 147 158 168 158 148 115 68 66 2,799
Total 204,828 202,016 188,246 164,838 105,654 83,378 74,467 75,464 71,247 80,984 51,205 39,180 31,299 1,372,806

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 53 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.1.2.2 By Gender
Table 4.1.2.2
‌Participation by Grade by Gender S302
Gender
Grade F M Missing Total
Count 96,381 107,416 1,031 204,828
K
% within Grade 47.1% 52.4% 0.5% 100.0%
Count 95,146 105,468 1,402 202,016
1
% within Grade 47.1% 52.2% 0.7% 100.0%
Count 88,783 98,452 1,011 188,246
2
% within Grade 47.2% 52.3% 0.5% 100.0%
Count 76,740 86,591 1,507 164,838
3
% within Grade 46.6% 52.5% 0.9% 100.0%
Count 47,511 57,027 1,116 105,654
4
% within Grade 45.0% 54.0% 1.1% 100.0%
Count 36,986 45,354 1,038 83,378
5
% within Grade 44.4% 54.4% 1.2% 100.0%
Count 32,757 40,644 1,066 74,467
6
% within Grade 44.0% 54.6% 1.4% 100.0%
Count 33,339 41,475 650 75,464
7
% within Grade 44.2% 55.0% 0.9% 100.0%
Count 31,683 38,988 576 71,247
8
% within Grade 44.5% 54.7% 0.8% 100.0%
Count 34,392 45,683 909 80,984
9
% within Grade 42.5% 56.4% 1.1% 100.0%
Count 22,430 28,241 534 51,205
10
% within Grade 43.8% 55.2% 1.0% 100.0%
Count 17,700 21,075 405 39,180
11
% within Grade 45.2% 53.8% 1.0% 100.0%
Count 14,651 16,306 342 31,299
12
% within Grade 46.8% 52.1% 1.1% 100.0%
Count 628,499 732,720 11,587 1,372,806
Total
% within Grade 45.8% 53.4% 0.8% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 54 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.1.2.3 By Ethnicity
Table 4.1.2.3
‌Participation by Grade by Ethnicity S302
Hispanic/Non-Hispanic
Grade Hispanic Other Missing Total
Count 137,915 63,871 3,042 204,828
K
% within Grade 67.3% 31.2% 1.5% 100.0%
Count 139,362 60,097 2,557 202,016
1
% within Grade 69.0% 29.7% 1.3% 100.0%
Count 130,373 55,867 2,006 188,246
2
% within Grade 69.3% 29.7% 1.1% 100.0%
Count 114,418 48,304 2,116 164,838
3
% within Grade 69.4% 29.3% 1.3% 100.0%
Count 71,817 32,386 1,451 105,654
4
% within Grade 68.0% 30.7% 1.4% 100.0%
Count 55,829 26,347 1,202 83,378
5
% within Grade 67.0% 31.6% 1.4% 100.0%
Count 49,476 23,694 1,297 74,467
6
% within Grade 66.4% 31.8% 1.7% 100.0%
Count 50,397 23,798 1,269 75,464
7
% within Grade 66.8% 31.5% 1.7% 100.0%
Count 46,866 23,081 1,300 71,247
8
% within Grade 65.8% 32.4% 1.8% 100.0%
Count 52,380 26,592 2,012 80,984
9
% within Grade 64.7% 32.8% 2.5% 100.0%
Count 30,577 19,653 975 51,205
10
% within Grade 59.7% 38.4% 1.9% 100.0%
Count 21,793 16,603 784 39,180
11
% within Grade 55.6% 42.4% 2.0% 100.0%
Count 16,943 13,771 585 31,299
12
% within Grade 54.1% 44.0% 1.9% 100.0%
Count 918,146 434,064 20,596 1,372,806
Total
% within Grade 66.9% 31.6% 1.5% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 55 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.1.3 Participation by Tier

4.1.3.1 By Cluster by Domain (Test Form)

Table 4.1.3.1
‌Participation by Cluster by Tier by Domain S302
Domain
Cluster Listening Reading Writing Speaking
K Tier - 204,694 204,696 204,695 204,695
A 85,814 85,814 85,796 85,767
Tier B 194,463 194,455 194,419 194,369
1-2
C 109,741 109,727 109,703 109,720
Total 390,018 389,996 389,918 389,856
A 29,801 29,798 29,776 29,783
Tier B 149,400 149,393 149,366 149,346
3-5
C 174,440 174,438 174,398 174,378
Total 353,641 353,629 353,540 353,507
A 24,231 24,234 24,227 24,211
Tier B 82,801 82,798 82,761 82,710
6-8
C 113,712 113,714 113,682 113,611
Total 220,744 220,746 220,670 220,532
A 29,646 29,662 29,636 29,613
Tier B 76,791 76,841 76,740 76,687
9-12
C 93,536 93,623 93,462 93,366
Total 199,973 200,126 199,838 199,666

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 56 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.1.3.2 By Grade by Domain (Test Form)
Table 4.1.3.2
‌Participation by Grade by Tier by Domain S302
Domain
Grade Listening Reading Writing Speaking
K Tier - 204,694 204,696 204,695 204,695
A 67,720 67,723 67,709 67,677
Tier B 91,390 91,381 91,365 91,336
1
C 42,772 42,760 42,756 42,764
Total 201,882 201,864 201,830 201,777
A 18,094 18,091 18,087 18,090
Tier B 103,073 103,074 103,054 103,033
2
C 66,969 66,967 66,947 66,956
Total 188,136 188,132 188,088 188,079
A 13,017 13,012 12,999 13,006
Tier B 75,144 75,143 75,128 75,123
3
C 76,578 76,575 76,564 76,555
Total 164,739 164,730 164,691 164,684
A 8,979 8,979 8,974 8,970
Tier B 42,670 42,666 42,663 42,656
4
C 53,939 53,941 53,931 53,929
Total 105,588 105,586 105,568 105,555
A 7,805 7,807 7,803 7,807
Tier B 31,586 31,584 31,575 31,567
5
C 43,923 43,922 43,903 43,894
Total 83,314 83,313 83,281 83,268
A 8,119 8,119 8,112 8,107
Tier B 28,182 28,181 28,170 28,154
6
C 38,065 38,068 38,054 38,033
Total 74,366 74,368 74,336 74,294
A 8,020 8,021 8,021 8,021
Tier B 28,312 28,314 28,296 28,285
7
C 38,976 38,983 38,971 38,951
Total 75,308 75,318 75,288 75,257
A 8,092 8,094 8,094 8,083
Tier B 26,307 26,303 26,295 26,271
8
C 36,671 36,663 36,657 36,627
Total 71,070 71,060 71,046 70,981
A 15,914 15,918 15,906 15,894
Tier B 28,723 28,755 28,715 28,700
9
C 35,485 35,508 35,465 35,419
Total 80,122 80,181 80,086 80,013
A 7,297 7,297 7,290 7,293
Tier B 20,068 20,075 20,059 20,034
10
C 23,285 23,298 23,274 23,233
Total 50,650 50,670 50,623 50,560
A 4,103 4,111 4,110 4,107
Tier B 15,695 15,702 15,686 15,679
11
C 18,846 18,870 18,826 18,810
Total 38,644 38,683 38,622 38,596
A 2,332 2,336 2,330 2,319
Tier B 12,305 12,309 12,280 12,274
12
C 15,920 15,947 15,897 15,904
Total 30,557 30,592 30,507 30,497
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 57 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.1.3.3 By Cluster by Gender
Table 4.1.3.3
‌Participation by Cluster by Tier by Gender S302
Gender
Cluster Tier F M Missing Total
Count 96,381 107,416 1,031 204,828
K -
% within Tier 47.1% 52.4% 0.5% 100.0%
Count 38,715 46,380 793 85,888
A
% within Tier 45.1% 54.0% 0.9% 100.0%
Count 91,147 102,564 868 194,579
1-2 B
% within Tier 46.8% 52.7% 0.4% 100.0%
Count 54,067 54,976 752 109,795
C
% within Tier 49.2% 50.1% 0.7% 100.0%
Count 13,280 15,948 611 29,839
A
% within Tier 44.5% 53.4% 2.0% 100.0%
Count 66,075 82,278 1,148 149,501
3-5 B
% within Tier 44.2% 55.0% 0.8% 100.0%
Count 81,882 90,746 1,902 174,530
C
% within Tier 46.9% 52.0% 1.1% 100.0%
Count 10,783 12,947 541 24,271
A
% within Tier 44.4% 53.3% 2.2% 100.0%
Count 35,626 46,894 492 83,012
6-8 B
% within Tier 42.9% 56.5% 0.6% 100.0%
Count 51,370 61,266 1,259 113,895
C
% within Tier 45.1% 53.8% 1.1% 100.0%
Count 12,368 17,012 559 29,939
A
% within Tier 41.3% 56.8% 1.9% 100.0%
Count 34,152 43,080 607 77,839
9-12 B
% within Tier 43.9% 55.3% 0.8% 100.0%
Count 42,653 51,213 1,024 94,890
C
% within Tier 44.9% 54.0% 1.1% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 58 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.1.3.4 By Cluster by Ethnicity
Table 4.1.3.4
‌Participation by Cluster by Tier by Ethnicity S302
Hispanic/Non-Hispanic
Cluster Tier Hispanic Other Missing Total
Count 137,915 63,871 3,042 204,828
K -
% within Tier 67.3% 31.2% 1.5% 100.0%
Count 62,323 22,281 1,284 85,888
A
% within Tier 72.6% 25.9% 1.5% 100.0%
Count 139,218 53,049 2,312 194,579
1-2 B
% within Tier 71.5% 27.3% 1.2% 100.0%
Count 68,194 40,634 967 109,795
C
% within Tier 62.1% 37.0% 0.9% 100.0%
Count 17,358 11,394 1,087 29,839
A
% within Tier 58.2% 38.2% 3.6% 100.0%
Count 103,927 43,607 1,967 149,501
3-5 B
% within Tier 69.5% 29.2% 1.3% 100.0%
Count 120,779 52,036 1,715 174,530
C
% within Tier 69.2% 29.8% 1.0% 100.0%
Count 14,277 8,886 1,108 24,271
A
% within Tier 58.8% 36.6% 4.6% 100.0%
Count 52,345 29,285 1,382 83,012
6-8 B
% within Tier 63.1% 35.3% 1.7% 100.0%
Count 80,117 32,402 1,376 113,895
C
% within Tier 70.3% 28.4% 1.2% 100.0%
Count 18,745 9,953 1,241 29,939
A
% within Tier 62.6% 33.2% 4.1% 100.0%
Count 43,832 32,425 1,582 77,839
9-12 B
% within Tier 56.3% 41.7% 2.0% 100.0%
Count 59,116 34,241 1,533 94,890
C
% within Tier 62.3% 36.1% 1.6% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 59 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.2 Scale Score Results
4.2.1 Mean Scale Scores by Grade-level Cluster Across Domain and
Composite Scores

4.2.1.1 By Cluster
Table 4.2.1.1
Mean Scale Scores by Cluster S302
Cluster List Read Writ S pek Oral Litr Cphn Over
M ean 269.99 192.18 210.63 302.51 286.48 201.65 215.52 226.90
K
N 203,841 203,853 203,840 203,827 203,823 203,837 203,837 203,809
M ean 311.79 296.51 276.02 346.38 329.35 286.56 301.17 299.16
1-2
N 388,944 388,669 388,786 388,802 388,584 388,428 388,557 388,056
M ean 357.86 338.60 345.45 357.86 358.12 342.28 344.52 346.83
3-5
N 352,289 351,942 352,025 352,105 351,940 351,617 351,832 351,277
M ean 384.46 358.42 354.70 372.24 378.64 356.82 366.31 363.16
6-8
N 219,478 219,320 219,327 219,219 218,979 219,028 219,163 218,525
M ean 385.46 375.73 397.54 380.05 383.05 386.92 378.73 385.57
9-12
N 197,907 198,037 197,712 197,615 196,703 197,316 197,563 196,059

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 60 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 4.2.1.2 By Cluster by Gender
Table 4.2.1.2
Mean Scale Scores by Cluster by Gender S302
Cluster Gender List Read Writ S pek Oral Litr Cphn Over
M ean 273.79 195.70 216.67 306.29 290.26 206.43 219.11 231.37
F
N 95,911 95,914 95,908 95,907 95,905 95,908 95,909 95,899
M ean 266.61 189.15 205.37 299.21 283.14 197.51 212.39 223.00
K M
N 106,900 106,908 106,901 106,890 106,888 106,898 106,898 106,880
M ean 266.77 179.18 194.14 293.99 280.58 186.87 205.50 214.87
M issing
N 1,030 1,031 1,031 1,030 1,030 1,031 1,030 1,030
M ean 312.83 297.86 278.65 347.66 330.50 288.54 302.43 300.89
F
N 183,366 183,264 183,316 183,309 183,210 183,162 183,214 182,999
M ean 310.86 295.32 273.65 345.29 328.34 284.78 300.05 297.61
1-2 M
N 203,321 203,147 203,213 203,231 203,117 203,010 203,086 202,802
M ean 310.75 293.74 275.94 341.41 326.30 285.17 298.90 297.30
M issing
N 2,257 2,258 2,257 2,262 2,257 2,256 2,257 2,255
M ean 358.23 339.55 348.75 357.95 358.35 344.40 345.30 348.38
F
N 160,656 160,531 160,559 160,575 160,502 160,405 160,477 160,255
M ean 357.38 337.69 342.54 357.75 357.83 340.37 343.73 345.41
3-5 M
N 188,280 188,057 188,112 188,174 188,085 187,858 188,002 187,669
M ean 366.94 344.45 350.64 358.95 363.17 347.80 351.33 352.19
M issing
N 3,353 3,354 3,354 3,356 3,353 3,354 3,353 3,353
M ean 385.45 359.81 358.61 370.65 378.33 359.47 367.57 364.91
F
N 97,139 97,090 97,087 97,028 96,933 96,982 97,021 96,773
M ean 383.62 357.29 351.56 373.52 378.86 354.69 365.27 361.74
6-8 M
N 120,355 120,248 120,262 120,223 120,078 120,070 120,161 119,785
M ean 386.54 358.95 353.62 372.89 380.05 356.57 367.29 363.40
M issing
N 1,984 1,982 1,978 1,968 1,968 1,976 1,981 1,967
M ean 385.68 377.49 401.52 378.83 382.54 389.77 380.03 387.41
F
N 87,303 87,377 87,260 87,128 86,770 87,110 87,183 86,543
M ean 385.45 374.31 394.41 381.19 383.62 384.67 377.75 384.17
9-12 M
N 108,752 108,806 108,604 108,639 108,100 108,358 108,530 107,686
M ean 376.29 375.38 393.34 370.58 373.78 384.63 375.71 381.11
M issing
N 1,852 1,854 1,848 1,848 1,833 1,848 1,850 1,830

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 61 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.2.1.3 By Cluster by Ethnicity

Table 4.2.1.3
Mean Scale Scores by Cluster by Ethnicity S302
Cluster Ethnicity List Read Writ S pek Oral Litr Cphn Over
Non-Hispanic M ean 280.02 219.99 233.95 309.54 295.01 227.24 237.98 247.36
Asian N 27,047 27,046 27,044 27,047 27,046 27,042 27,045 27,042
Non-Hispanic M ean 260.69 182.03 202.85 303.97 282.56 192.68 205.66 219.45
Pacific Islander N 1,891 1,892 1,892 1,891 1,891 1,892 1,891 1,891
Non-Hispanic M ean 277.75 205.70 223.69 317.81 298.02 214.95 227.31 239.67
Black N 8,944 8,943 8,943 8,942 8,942 8,943 8,943 8,941
Hispanic (Of M ean 265.40 184.23 203.60 298.12 281.99 194.16 208.57 220.31
Any Race) N 137,415 137,423 137,413 137,404 137,402 137,413 137,414 137,395
K
Non-Hispanic M ean 269.89 181.82 192.49 300.37 285.35 187.39 208.23 216.58
American Indian N 3,539 3,540 3,540 3,539 3,538 3,540 3,539 3,538
Non-Hispanic M ean 304.73 223.73 238.55 336.70 320.95 231.40 248.11 258.14
M ulti-racial N 967 969 969 966 966 969 967 966
Non-Hispanic M ean 284.48 204.71 225.05 315.90 300.41 215.14 228.63 240.51
White N 20,220 20,220 20,219 20,220 20,220 20,218 20,220 20,218
M ean 264.83 190.13 204.94 296.52 280.88 197.77 212.55 222.53
M issing
N 3,818 3,820 3,820 3,818 3,818 3,820 3,818 3,818
Non-Hispanic M ean 316.21 304.57 284.22 349.09 332.91 294.69 308.13 305.91
Asian N 48,036 48,015 48,009 48,000 47,982 47,984 48,004 47,940
Non-Hispanic M ean 305.25 292.39 277.01 341.87 323.86 284.97 296.36 296.42
Pacific Islander N 3,467 3,460 3,464 3,459 3,458 3,457 3,458 3,449
Non-Hispanic M ean 312.16 297.97 277.24 351.51 332.10 287.90 302.27 300.92
Black N 17,362 17,349 17,354 17,358 17,347 17,336 17,343 17,321
Hispanic (Of M ean 310.61 294.56 274.06 344.70 327.92 284.60 299.45 297.36
Any Race) N 269,122 268,915 269,035 269,048 268,896 268,763 268,840 268,519
1-2
Non-Hispanic M ean 308.16 292.64 271.65 340.18 324.46 282.45 297.36 294.84
American Indian N 7,091 7,085 7,073 7,089 7,079 7,066 7,079 7,050
Non-Hispanic M ean 322.42 305.90 282.07 363.99 343.49 294.27 310.90 308.83
M ulti-racial N 1,675 1,676 1,676 1,674 1,672 1,676 1,674 1,671
Non-Hispanic M ean 316.37 301.00 279.99 354.45 335.66 290.79 305.67 304.02
White N 36,073 36,055 36,065 36,060 36,047 36,041 36,046 36,013
M ean 306.01 292.61 273.84 341.87 324.22 283.53 296.68 295.50
M issing
N 6,118 6,114 6,110 6,114 6,103 6,105 6,113 6,093

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 62 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Cluster Ethnicity List Read Writ S pek Oral Litr Cphn Over
Non-Hispanic M ean 363.03 344.70 350.87 355.15 359.34 348.03 350.35 351.23
Asian N 42,185 42,169 42,157 42,168 42,156 42,139 42,159 42,113
Non-Hispanic M ean 352.54 335.61 346.15 352.08 352.54 341.14 340.85 344.39
Pacific Islander N 3,453 3,455 3,448 3,452 3,450 3,448 3,450 3,443
Non-Hispanic M ean 358.28 337.81 344.21 359.38 359.09 341.27 344.08 346.43
Black N 18,777 18,735 18,753 18,768 18,757 18,715 18,728 18,700
Hispanic (Of M ean 356.72 337.43 344.56 357.99 357.61 341.25 343.35 345.96
Any Race) N 241,418 241,163 241,268 241,288 241,168 240,955 241,089 240,697
3-5
Non-Hispanic M ean 350.03 332.90 338.50 350.71 350.65 336.00 338.18 340.19
American Indian N 8,534 8,533 8,514 8,525 8,517 8,508 8,528 8,495
Non-Hispanic M ean 370.69 345.57 350.27 371.96 371.59 348.15 353.25 354.98
M ulti-racial N 1,248 1,249 1,249 1,248 1,248 1,249 1,248 1,248
Non-Hispanic M ean 362.43 342.22 348.31 363.27 363.10 345.52 348.42 350.59
White N 29,727 29,694 29,704 29,713 29,706 29,673 29,689 29,659
M ean 355.38 336.32 341.72 351.58 353.75 339.28 342.19 343.44
M issing
N 6,947 6,944 6,932 6,943 6,938 6,930 6,941 6,922
Non-Hispanic M ean 386.68 364.63 359.36 367.24 377.23 362.26 371.31 366.54
Asian N 27,373 27,375 27,360 27,362 27,348 27,347 27,360 27,315
Non-Hispanic M ean 377.38 353.63 352.95 369.36 373.67 353.56 360.88 359.43
Pacific Islander N 2,453 2,455 2,449 2,459 2,449 2,446 2,451 2,441
Non-Hispanic M ean 383.88 358.59 353.26 373.13 378.82 356.19 366.24 362.77
Black N 14,241 14,210 14,235 14,235 14,216 14,198 14,200 14,172
Hispanic (Of M ean 384.71 357.20 353.98 373.33 379.30 355.85 365.52 362.67
Any Race) N 145,998 145,874 145,893 145,778 145,623 145,682 145,773 145,319
6-8
Non-Hispanic M ean 376.67 353.72 351.37 370.17 373.70 352.83 360.67 358.88
American Indian N 6,619 6,615 6,600 6,600 6,583 6,591 6,608 6,552
Non-Hispanic M ean 393.59 366.17 358.96 380.69 387.34 362.84 374.45 369.98
M ulti-racial N 647 647 647 645 644 645 647 642
Non-Hispanic M ean 386.38 362.38 357.45 375.50 381.22 360.17 369.66 366.27
White N 17,472 17,466 17,465 17,466 17,454 17,451 17,455 17,431
M ean 371.73 353.11 349.05 356.19 364.31 351.35 358.81 355.07
M issing
N 4,675 4,678 4,678 4,674 4,662 4,668 4,669 4,653

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 63 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Cluster Ethnicity List Read Writ S pek Oral Litr Cphn Over
Non-Hispanic M ean 388.72 381.22 401.80 376.92 383.11 391.78 383.57 389.00
Asian N 31,283 31,292 31,289 31,250 31,177 31,249 31,243 31,112
Non-Hispanic M ean 383.89 372.63 398.52 386.64 385.67 385.94 376.20 385.78
Pacific Islander N 2,384 2,399 2,381 2,385 2,354 2,377 2,377 2,338
Non-Hispanic M ean 382.64 375.85 396.96 379.04 381.12 386.68 377.96 384.81
Black N 17,062 17,082 17,055 17,047 16,985 17,026 17,027 16,922
Hispanic (Of M ean 384.07 373.93 396.34 379.90 382.28 385.43 377.06 384.29
Any Race) N 118,990 119,066 118,831 118,812 118,170 118,551 118,764 117,734
9-12
Non-Hispanic M ean 390.97 372.10 398.23 384.52 388.03 385.49 377.83 386.04
American Indian N 5,021 5,014 4,995 4,971 4,947 4,985 5,009 4,926
Non-Hispanic M ean 396.45 383.40 403.18 391.39 394.19 393.79 387.31 393.65
M ulti-racial N 605 606 606 606 604 604 605 602
Non-Hispanic M ean 394.43 380.87 400.85 390.81 392.88 391.12 385.03 391.45
White N 17,496 17,499 17,501 17,488 17,446 17,475 17,476 17,421
M ean 370.57 369.91 388.00 360.18 365.76 379.27 370.18 375.04
M issing
N 5,066 5,079 5,054 5,056 5,020 5,049 5,062 5,004

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 64 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.2.2 Mean Scale Scores by Grade Across Domain and Composite
Scores

4.2.2.1 By Grade
Table 4.2.2.1
M ean Scale Scores by Grade S302
Grade List Read Writ S pek Oral Litr Cphn Over
M ean 269.99 192.18 210.63 302.51 286.48 201.65 215.52 226.90
K
N 203,841 203,853 203,840 203,827 203,823 203,837 203,837 203,809
M ean 299.11 283.48 266.82 337.37 318.47 275.44 288.17 288.11
1
N 201,336 201,177 201,249 201,244 201,132 201,059 201,119 200,853
M ean 325.40 310.49 285.90 356.05 341.02 298.49 315.11 311.00
2
N 187,608 187,492 187,537 187,558 187,452 187,369 187,438 187,203
M ean 349.43 331.68 340.82 355.70 352.84 336.47 337.18 341.21
3
N 164,211 164,072 164,071 164,141 164,066 163,916 164,030 163,789
M ean 360.74 340.84 346.85 358.06 359.63 344.14 346.95 348.57
4
N 105,153 105,032 105,084 105,094 105,043 104,940 104,998 104,822
M ean 370.90 349.48 352.81 361.87 366.65 351.43 355.99 355.77
5
N 82,925 82,838 82,870 82,870 82,831 82,761 82,804 82,666
M ean 377.12 351.16 349.34 369.61 373.63 350.51 359.00 357.25
6
N 73,891 73,817 73,833 73,805 73,741 73,722 73,777 73,582
M ean 385.15 358.84 355.17 372.59 379.15 357.27 366.83 363.63
7
N 74,881 74,844 74,840 74,819 74,722 74,744 74,773 74,562
M ean 391.41 365.56 359.80 374.63 383.33 362.95 373.39 368.85
8
N 70,706 70,659 70,654 70,595 70,516 70,562 70,613 70,381
M ean 381.43 372.59 394.61 376.09 379.05 383.90 375.34 382.26
9
N 79,568 79,602 79,499 79,452 79,128 79,349 79,449 78,900
M ean 385.08 374.91 396.88 379.28 382.45 386.19 378.04 384.87
10
N 50,140 50,148 50,096 50,051 49,875 49,998 50,057 49,719
M ean 389.92 379.46 400.95 383.57 387.04 390.50 382.67 389.27
11
N 38,200 38,245 38,170 38,164 37,978 38,092 38,136 37,857
M ean 391.12 380.63 402.05 387.37 389.60 391.62 383.88 390.85
12
N 29,999 30,042 29,947 29,948 29,722 29,877 29,921 29,583

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 65 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.2.2.2 By Grade by Gender
Table 4.2.2.2
Mean Scale Scores by Grade by Gender S302
S cale Gender List Read Writ S pek Oral Litr Cphn Over
M ean 273.79 195.70 216.67 306.29 290.26 206.43 219.11 231.37
F
N 95,911 95,914 95,908 95,907 95,905 95,908 95,909 95,899
M ean 266.61 189.15 205.37 299.21 283.14 197.51 212.39 223.00
K M
N 106,900 106,908 106,901 106,890 106,888 106,898 106,898 106,880
M ean 266.77 179.18 194.14 293.99 280.58 186.87 205.50 214.87
M issing
N 1,030 1,031 1,031 1,030 1,030 1,031 1,030 1,030
M ean 300.26 284.74 269.20 338.87 319.78 277.26 289.40 289.78
F
N 94,848 94,786 94,822 94,804 94,761 94,740 94,763 94,651
M ean 298.05 282.36 264.64 336.08 317.30 273.79 287.07 286.61
1 M
N 105,143 105,045 105,082 105,095 105,026 104,974 105,011 104,858
M ean 300.17 282.78 268.96 333.35 316.97 276.20 288.02 288.22
M issing
N 1,345 1,346 1,345 1,345 1,345 1,345 1,345 1,344
M ean 326.30 311.92 288.78 357.07 341.98 300.63 316.38 312.80
F
N 88,518 88,478 88,494 88,505 88,449 88,422 88,451 88,348
M ean 324.59 309.20 283.31 355.15 340.17 296.55 313.95 309.39
2 M
N 98,178 98,102 98,131 98,136 98,091 98,036 98,075 97,944
M ean 326.34 309.90 286.25 353.23 340.06 298.40 314.94 310.69
M issing
N 912 912 912 917 912 911 912 911
M ean 350.02 332.69 344.19 356.44 353.50 338.65 338.06 342.92
F
N 76,520 76,477 76,474 76,506 76,471 76,426 76,457 76,382
M ean 348.72 330.67 337.74 355.03 352.15 334.43 336.26 339.58
3 M
N 86,303 86,207 86,209 86,247 86,207 86,102 86,185 86,019
M ean 361.38 338.73 346.53 356.50 359.20 342.85 345.67 347.56
M issing
N 1,388 1,388 1,388 1,388 1,388 1,388 1,388 1,388
M ean 361.36 341.95 350.31 357.85 359.83 346.42 347.92 350.24
F
N 47,331 47,277 47,303 47,297 47,277 47,237 47,260 47,181
M ean 360.17 339.86 343.90 358.21 359.43 342.17 346.09 347.13
4 M
N 56,806 56,739 56,765 56,779 56,750 56,687 56,722 56,625
M ean 363.37 343.82 350.89 359.94 361.85 347.64 349.86 351.66
M issing
N 1,016 1,016 1,016 1,018 1,016 1,016 1,016 1,016
M ean 371.29 350.74 356.20 361.25 366.54 353.75 356.99 357.37
F
N 36,805 36,777 36,782 36,772 36,754 36,742 36,760 36,692
M ean 370.42 348.36 349.98 362.38 366.66 349.46 355.06 354.40
5 M
N 45,171 45,111 45,138 45,148 45,128 45,069 45,095 45,025
M ean 378.88 353.49 356.38 361.46 370.41 355.21 361.19 359.52
M issing
N 949 950 950 950 949 950 949 949

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 66 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 S cale Gender List Read Writ S pek Oral Litr Cphn Over
M ean 378.22 352.40 353.39 368.13 373.43 353.14 360.20 359.02
F
N 32,547 32,517 32,525 32,509 32,488 32,484 32,500 32,430
M ean 376.10 350.12 346.04 370.79 373.72 348.34 357.97 355.76
6 M
N 40,406 40,362 40,374 40,368 40,325 40,305 40,340 40,224
M ean 382.36 353.33 350.79 369.65 376.45 352.38 362.11 359.42
M issing
N 938 938 934 928 928 933 937 928
M ean 386.23 360.43 359.25 370.85 378.82 360.10 368.27 365.50
F
N 33,119 33,117 33,109 33,099 33,056 33,078 33,083 33,001
M ean 384.22 357.52 351.88 373.95 379.37 354.97 365.62 362.08
7 M
N 41,209 41,175 41,179 41,171 41,117 41,114 41,138 41,012
M ean 389.13 362.39 356.24 376.44 382.95 359.56 370.49 366.32
M issing
N 553 552 552 549 549 552 552 549
M ean 392.11 366.82 363.35 373.05 382.88 365.35 374.47 370.38
F
N 31,473 31,456 31,453 31,420 31,389 31,420 31,438 31,342
M ean 390.84 364.54 356.96 375.91 383.68 361.02 372.51 367.61
8 M
N 38,740 38,711 38,709 38,684 38,636 38,651 38,683 38,549
M ean 391.56 365.82 356.05 375.04 383.62 361.17 373.58 367.67
M issing
N 493 492 492 491 491 491 492 490
M ean 382.87 374.90 399.50 376.52 379.97 387.47 377.38 385.04
F
N 33,845 33,864 33,827 33,768 33,642 33,777 33,802 33,559
M ean 380.60 370.90 391.05 376.02 378.60 381.29 373.91 380.31
9 M
N 44,902 44,916 44,853 44,866 44,675 44,753 44,827 44,530
M ean 367.80 370.44 387.62 362.12 365.32 379.32 369.70 374.84
M issing
N 821 822 819 818 811 819 820 811
M ean 384.26 376.33 400.52 377.13 380.96 388.70 378.78 386.16
F
N 22,040 22,051 22,028 21,987 21,933 21,997 22,017 21,887
M ean 385.79 373.73 394.00 381.07 383.71 384.17 377.44 383.84
10 M
N 27,671 27,668 27,639 27,635 27,516 27,572 27,612 27,407
M ean 381.71 378.02 396.34 374.10 378.14 387.44 379.20 384.49
M issing
N 429 429 429 429 426 429 428 425
M ean 389.25 380.68 404.05 381.08 385.44 392.64 383.32 390.28
F
N 17,308 17,331 17,310 17,300 17,215 17,273 17,285 17,169
M ean 390.61 378.44 398.37 385.76 388.50 388.71 382.16 388.47
11 M
N 20,566 20,587 20,536 20,536 20,440 20,495 20,525 20,367
M ean 382.32 379.29 398.59 377.27 380.24 389.18 380.22 386.14
M issing
N 326 327 324 328 323 324 326 321
M ean 390.21 381.60 404.80 384.26 387.61 393.47 384.28 391.53
F
N 14,110 14,131 14,095 14,073 13,980 14,063 14,079 13,928
M ean 392.03 379.74 399.60 390.26 391.50 389.96 383.54 390.27
12 M
N 15,613 15,635 15,576 15,602 15,469 15,538 15,566 15,382
M ean 386.00 381.37 399.52 382.33 384.47 390.69 382.83 388.58
M issing
N 276 276 276 273 273 276 276 273

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 67 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.2.2.3 By Grade by Ethnicity
Table 4.2.2.3
Mean Scale Scores by Grade by Ethnicity S302
Grade Ethnicity List Read Writ S pek Oral Litr Cphn Over
Non-Hispanic M ean 280.02 219.99 233.95 309.54 295.01 227.24 237.98 247.36
Asian N 27,047 27,046 27,044 27,047 27,046 27,042 27,045 27,042
Non-Hispanic M ean 260.69 182.03 202.85 303.97 282.56 192.68 205.66 219.45
Pacific Islander N 1,891 1,892 1,892 1,891 1,891 1,892 1,891 1,891
Non-Hispanic M ean 277.75 205.70 223.69 317.81 298.02 214.95 227.31 239.67
Black N 8,944 8,943 8,943 8,942 8,942 8,943 8,943 8,941
Hispanic (Of M ean 265.40 184.23 203.60 298.12 281.99 194.16 208.57 220.31
Any Race) N 137,415 137,423 137,413 137,404 137,402 137,413 137,414 137,395
K
Non-Hispanic M ean 269.89 181.82 192.49 300.37 285.35 187.39 208.23 216.58
American Indian N 3,539 3,540 3,540 3,539 3,538 3,540 3,539 3,538
Non-Hispanic M ean 304.73 223.73 238.55 336.70 320.95 231.40 248.11 258.14
M ulti-racial N 967 969 969 966 966 969 967 966
Non-Hispanic M ean 284.48 204.71 225.05 315.90 300.41 215.14 228.63 240.51
White N 20,220 20,220 20,219 20,220 20,220 20,218 20,220 20,218
M ean 264.83 190.13 204.94 296.52 280.88 197.77 212.55 222.53
M issing
N 3,818 3,820 3,820 3,818 3,818 3,820 3,818 3,818
Non-Hispanic M ean 304.16 291.83 275.91 341.54 323.09 284.16 295.51 295.60
Asian N 25,105 25,087 25,094 25,083 25,075 25,078 25,084 25,054
Non-Hispanic M ean 292.97 279.06 268.01 334.01 313.73 273.81 283.25 285.52
Pacific Islander N 1,821 1,817 1,818 1,816 1,816 1,815 1,817 1,811
Non-Hispanic M ean 300.03 285.52 268.60 344.74 322.63 277.35 289.87 290.69
Black N 8,790 8,780 8,784 8,788 8,781 8,773 8,777 8,765
Hispanic (Of M ean 297.63 281.42 264.59 334.96 316.52 273.30 286.30 286.03
Any Race) N 139,025 138,920 138,969 138,967 138,892 138,838 138,879 138,698
1
Non-Hispanic M ean 296.11 280.90 262.45 333.94 315.30 271.98 285.45 284.78
American Indian N 3,601 3,596 3,595 3,601 3,594 3,588 3,593 3,579
Non-Hispanic M ean 310.06 292.17 273.39 356.23 333.39 283.06 297.49 297.93
M ulti-racial N 887 888 888 888 886 888 886 885
Non-Hispanic M ean 304.26 287.56 270.87 346.83 325.75 279.51 292.56 293.16
White N 18,721 18,706 18,721 18,721 18,711 18,702 18,701 18,690
M ean 295.11 281.10 265.95 334.66 315.11 273.84 285.30 286.01
M issing
N 3,386 3,383 3,380 3,380 3,377 3,377 3,382 3,371

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 68 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Grade Ethnicity List Read Writ S pek Oral Litr Cphn Over
Non-Hispanic M ean 329.40 318.52 293.33 357.35 343.65 306.21 321.94 317.20
Asian N 22,931 22,928 22,915 22,917 22,907 22,906 22,920 22,886
Non-Hispanic M ean 318.84 307.12 286.94 350.55 335.07 297.31 310.88 308.47
Pacific Islander N 1,646 1,643 1,646 1,643 1,642 1,642 1,641 1,638
Non-Hispanic M ean 324.59 310.72 286.09 358.46 341.81 298.71 314.99 311.40
Black N 8,572 8,569 8,570 8,570 8,566 8,563 8,566 8,556
Hispanic (Of M ean 324.48 308.60 284.19 355.11 340.09 296.68 313.51 309.46
Any Race) N 130,097 129,995 130,066 130,081 130,004 129,925 129,961 129,821
2
Non-Hispanic M ean 320.60 304.73 281.16 346.63 333.91 293.25 309.63 305.22
American Indian N 3,490 3,489 3,478 3,488 3,485 3,478 3,486 3,471
Non-Hispanic M ean 336.33 321.37 291.86 372.77 354.87 306.91 325.97 321.10
M ulti-racial N 788 788 788 786 786 788 788 786
Non-Hispanic M ean 329.45 315.48 289.84 362.68 346.36 302.95 319.81 315.73
White N 17,352 17,349 17,344 17,339 17,336 17,339 17,345 17,323
M ean 319.51 306.86 283.59 350.78 335.50 295.52 310.77 307.25
M issing
N 2,732 2,731 2,730 2,734 2,726 2,728 2,731 2,722
Non-Hispanic M ean 355.31 337.60 347.41 354.62 355.23 342.72 343.10 346.30
Asian N 19,362 19,360 19,345 19,350 19,345 19,342 19,355 19,328
Non-Hispanic M ean 344.70 329.59 342.20 349.43 347.28 336.09 334.25 339.28
Pacific Islander N 1,635 1,634 1,630 1,635 1,633 1,630 1,633 1,629
Non-Hispanic M ean 350.25 330.62 340.02 357.48 354.10 335.53 336.66 340.94
Black N 8,072 8,056 8,058 8,063 8,061 8,048 8,054 8,042
Hispanic (Of M ean 347.95 330.49 339.60 355.38 351.94 335.26 335.90 340.09
Any Race) N 114154 114050 114077 114120 114060 113951 114021 113857
3
Non-Hispanic M ean 338.85 324.04 330.47 345.47 342.47 327.48 328.66 331.77
American Indian N 3,331 3,333 3,325 3,327 3,324 3,324 3,331 3,320
Non-Hispanic M ean 363.15 338.68 345.86 371.25 367.48 342.48 346.20 349.79
M ulti-racial N 619 620 620 619 619 620 619 619
Non-Hispanic M ean 355.19 335.64 344.63 361.95 358.84 340.36 341.67 345.71
White N 14,065 14,049 14,048 14,055 14,053 14,035 14,048 14,030
M ean 350.43 331.30 339.05 352.12 351.57 335.41 337.23 340.09
M issing
N 2,973 2,970 2,968 2,972 2,971 2,966 2,969 2,964
Non-Hispanic M ean 365.94 347.16 352.10 355.10 360.75 349.91 352.95 352.96
Asian N 12,601 12,594 12,595 12,598 12,595 12,587 12,592 12,581
Non-Hispanic M ean 354.77 337.62 347.13 353.26 354.26 342.63 342.87 345.89
Pacific Islander N 1,013 1,012 1,010 1,012 1,012 1,010 1,012 1,009
Non-Hispanic M ean 359.69 338.86 344.64 359.23 359.70 342.05 345.27 347.16
Black N 5,812 5,794 5,805 5,811 5,807 5,787 5,792 5,782
Hispanic (Of M ean 360.10 339.93 346.27 358.39 359.48 343.39 346.12 348.00
Any Race) N 71,623 71,534 71,592 71,577 71,540 71,482 71,509 71,390
4
Non-Hispanic M ean 351.26 334.09 339.83 351.60 351.66 337.32 339.40 341.43
American Indian N 2,838 2,837 2,825 2,836 2,834 2,824 2,836 2,821
Non-Hispanic M ean 373.56 348.27 351.64 373.48 373.76 350.24 355.97 357.02
M ulti-racial N 361 361 361 361 361 361 361 361
Non-Hispanic M ean 364.25 343.93 349.08 362.64 363.67 346.80 350.18 351.64
White N 8,775 8,769 8,773 8,772 8,769 8,766 8,766 8,759
M ean 352.98 335.73 340.78 350.79 352.11 338.51 341.07 342.41
M issing
N 2,130 2,131 2,123 2,127 2,125 2,123 2,130 2,119

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 69 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Grade Ethnicity List Read Writ S pek Oral Litr Cphn Over
Non-Hispanic M ean 374.06 355.11 355.92 356.22 365.38 355.79 360.87 358.43
Asian N 10,222 10,215 10,217 10,220 10,216 10,210 10,212 10,204
Non-Hispanic M ean 365.66 345.25 352.88 355.98 361.06 349.43 351.69 352.84
Pacific Islander N 805 809 808 805 805 808 805 805
Non-Hispanic M ean 369.85 348.41 350.62 362.68 366.59 349.80 354.92 354.61
Black N 4,893 4,885 4,890 4,894 4,889 4,880 4,882 4,876
Hispanic (Of M ean 370.37 348.44 352.54 362.81 366.86 350.77 355.10 355.38
Any Race) N 55,641 55,579 55,599 55,591 55,568 55,522 55,559 55,450
5
Non-Hispanic M ean 364.31 343.98 348.20 357.03 360.96 346.40 350.14 350.57
American Indian N 2,365 2,363 2,364 2,362 2,359 2,360 2,361 2,354
Non-Hispanic M ean 384.27 357.85 358.61 371.55 378.19 358.47 365.87 364.18
M ulti-racial N 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268
Non-Hispanic M ean 374.91 353.48 354.82 366.77 371.10 354.44 359.99 359.20
White N 6,887 6,876 6,883 6,886 6,884 6,872 6,875 6,870
M ean 366.12 345.12 347.12 351.61 359.17 346.41 351.49 350.03
M issing
N 1,844 1,843 1,841 1,844 1,842 1,841 1,842 1,839
Non-Hispanic M ean 378.42 356.27 354.40 363.66 371.31 355.59 362.95 360.12
Asian N 8,843 8,845 8,843 8,841 8,834 8,838 8,841 8,827
Non-Hispanic M ean 369.48 347.86 348.18 364.48 367.26 348.26 354.38 353.78
Pacific Islander N 826 826 822 825 825 822 826 821
Non-Hispanic M ean 375.66 350.69 347.20 369.41 372.85 349.20 358.22 356.09
Black N 4,671 4,660 4,667 4,667 4,661 4,656 4,658 4,648
Hispanic (Of M ean 377.50 350.15 348.58 370.88 374.44 349.62 358.42 356.87
Any Race) N 49,237 49,176 49,201 49,174 49,131 49,118 49,149 49,021
6
Non-Hispanic M ean 370.14 347.71 345.79 367.38 369.05 347.02 354.47 353.47
American Indian N 2,316 2,315 2,306 2,310 2,306 2,304 2,313 2,294
Non-Hispanic M ean 383.88 357.91 352.83 375.44 379.62 355.55 365.73 362.50
M ulti-racial N 211 211 212 211 210 211 211 210
Non-Hispanic M ean 378.96 354.61 352.00 372.58 376.04 353.58 361.96 360.12
White N 6,060 6,055 6,057 6,059 6,056 6,050 6,053 6,045
M ean 369.30 348.39 346.12 358.58 364.25 347.53 354.76 352.36
M issing
N 1,727 1,729 1,725 1,718 1,718 1,723 1,726 1,716
Non-Hispanic M ean 387.19 364.85 359.40 367.08 377.39 362.39 371.65 366.67
Asian N 9,243 9,245 9,240 9,242 9,237 9,236 9,237 9,226
Non-Hispanic M ean 376.54 352.63 352.22 367.59 372.43 352.74 360.08 358.55
Pacific Islander N 816 819 818 820 815 817 816 814
Non-Hispanic M ean 384.55 359.18 354.03 372.93 379.04 356.87 366.86 363.31
Black N 4,796 4,783 4,798 4,797 4,789 4,781 4,778 4,770
Hispanic (Of M ean 385.57 357.65 354.51 373.97 380.05 356.34 366.11 363.24
Any Race) N 50,144 50,123 50,112 50,081 50,017 50,051 50,075 49,913
7
Non-Hispanic M ean 375.12 353.19 351.44 369.45 372.57 352.63 359.87 358.36
American Indian N 2,235 2,232 2,229 2,230 2,226 2,225 2,230 2,215
Non-Hispanic M ean 392.05 365.55 359.62 382.50 387.54 362.96 373.60 370.17
M ulti-racial N 235 235 235 235 235 234 235 234
Non-Hispanic M ean 387.15 363.28 358.08 375.50 381.60 360.93 370.57 366.93
White N 5,884 5,882 5,879 5,882 5,877 5,877 5,878 5,869
M ean 371.19 354.06 350.05 354.22 363.07 352.33 359.32 355.37
M issing
N 1,528 1,525 1,529 1,532 1,526 1,523 1,524 1,521

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 70 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Grade Ethnicity List Read Writ S pek Oral Litr Cphn Over
Non-Hispanic M ean 394.04 372.38 364.04 370.81 382.71 368.49 378.94 372.54
Asian N 9,287 9,285 9,277 9,279 9,277 9,273 9,282 9,262
Non-Hispanic M ean 386.26 360.52 358.53 376.09 381.46 359.79 368.33 366.07
Pacific Islander N 811 810 809 814 809 807 809 806
Non-Hispanic M ean 391.25 365.71 358.40 376.97 384.43 362.33 373.46 368.75
Black N 4,774 4,767 4,770 4,771 4,766 4,761 4,764 4,754
Hispanic (Of M ean 391.40 364.15 359.10 375.22 383.62 361.89 372.40 368.20
Any Race) N 46,617 46,575 46,580 46,523 46,475 46,513 46,549 46,385
8
Non-Hispanic M ean 385.67 361.02 357.51 374.08 380.15 359.53 368.48 365.51
American Indian N 2,068 2,068 2,065 2,060 2,051 2,062 2,065 2,043
Non-Hispanic M ean 405.59 375.56 364.69 384.11 395.25 370.40 384.58 377.68
M ulti-racial N 201 201 200 199 199 200 201 198
Non-Hispanic M ean 393.71 369.93 362.73 378.68 386.50 366.59 377.12 372.30
White N 5,528 5,529 5,529 5,525 5,521 5,524 5,524 5,517
M ean 375.27 357.83 351.52 355.42 365.72 354.94 363.19 358.02
M issing
N 1,420 1,424 1,424 1,424 1,418 1,422 1,419 1,416
Non-Hispanic M ean 387.92 380.49 401.04 378.51 383.47 391.03 382.84 388.56
Asian N 10,632 10,642 10,640 10,629 10,605 10,630 10,624 10,589
Non-Hispanic M ean 382.79 370.65 396.30 385.49 384.52 383.85 374.43 383.99
Pacific Islander N 1,059 1,066 1,058 1,064 1,046 1,054 1,055 1,038
Non-Hispanic M ean 378.58 373.39 393.70 375.03 377.09 383.82 375.03 381.60
Black N 5,876 5,882 5,883 5,867 5,852 5,875 5,868 5,839
Hispanic (Of M ean 380.35 370.97 393.64 375.40 378.17 382.61 373.88 381.10
Any Race) N 51,569 51,575 51,488 51,476 51,244 51,371 51,478 51,066
9
Non-Hispanic M ean 388.33 368.12 395.70 382.78 385.78 382.24 374.26 383.10
American Indian N 1,953 1,952 1,949 1,939 1,931 1,946 1,951 1,927
Non-Hispanic M ean 393.65 381.73 400.95 391.09 392.56 392.03 385.17 391.94
M ulti-racial N 240 241 241 241 240 240 240 239
Non-Hispanic M ean 387.99 377.04 397.44 385.46 387.00 387.50 380.44 387.16
White N 5893 5895 5896 5893 5881 5891 5888 5876
M ean 358.81 363.00 379.66 347.80 353.58 371.64 361.82 366.03
M issing
N 2,346 2,349 2,344 2,343 2,329 2,342 2,345 2,326
Non-Hispanic M ean 386.84 379.63 400.32 373.75 380.55 390.25 381.88 387.12
Asian N 7,855 7,853 7,855 7,848 7,834 7,842 7,842 7,817
Non-Hispanic M ean 384.93 373.54 400.16 388.82 387.10 387.14 377.09 387.00
Pacific Islander N 607 609 605 607 602 605 605 597
Non-Hispanic M ean 382.90 374.94 396.07 378.68 381.02 385.79 377.38 384.11
Black N 4,323 4,326 4,321 4,316 4,304 4,313 4,314 4,288
Hispanic (Of M ean 383.52 373.04 395.67 379.34 381.71 384.64 376.27 383.58
Any Race) N 30,017 30,025 29,989 29,954 29,829 29,921 29,966 29,729
10
Non-Hispanic M ean 392.25 373.42 398.55 384.53 388.73 386.31 379.16 386.82
American Indian N 1,298 1,296 1,293 1,284 1,280 1,289 1,296 1,275
Non-Hispanic M ean 398.30 385.66 404.32 394.08 396.47 395.26 389.52 395.40
M ulti-racial N 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
Non-Hispanic M ean 394.03 379.87 400.08 388.69 391.59 390.26 384.21 390.45
White N 4,765 4,764 4,763 4,767 4,759 4,759 4,761 4,752
M ean 374.53 371.29 389.94 365.05 370.01 380.97 372.31 377.40
M issing
N 1,097 1,097 1,092 1,097 1,089 1,091 1,095 1,083

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 71 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Grade Ethnicity List Read Writ S pek Oral Litr Cphn Over
Non-Hispanic M ean 391.05 383.15 403.46 377.06 384.35 393.58 385.59 390.64
Asian N 7,092 7,094 7,092 7,081 7,071 7,086 7,085 7,059
Non-Hispanic M ean 384.40 374.38 399.05 383.95 384.66 387.09 377.65 386.20
Pacific Islander N 419 422 419 417 414 419 419 413
Non-Hispanic M ean 385.81 378.35 399.98 380.91 383.61 389.47 380.65 387.52
Black N 3,709 3,714 3,707 3,711 3,696 3,700 3,702 3,683
Hispanic (Of M ean 388.78 377.92 399.97 384.61 387.00 389.24 381.25 388.37
Any Race) N 21,229 21,261 21,211 21,221 21,087 21,161 21,192 21,015
11
Non-Hispanic M ean 393.96 375.15 399.74 385.13 389.74 387.83 380.81 388.11
American Indian N 954 953 945 943 937 943 950 929
Non-Hispanic M ean 396.06 380.41 403.01 387.35 391.95 391.92 385.15 391.71
M ulti-racial N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Non-Hispanic M ean 399.28 384.31 403.85 394.71 397.23 394.33 388.87 395.01
White N 3,800 3,798 3,802 3,795 3,783 3,790 3,791 3,773
M ean 383.08 377.63 397.94 371.98 378.05 388.12 379.37 385.10
M issing
N 896 902 893 895 889 892 896 884
Non-Hispanic M ean 389.92 382.36 403.21 378.15 384.40 393.05 384.73 390.35
Asian N 5,704 5,703 5,702 5,692 5,667 5,691 5,692 5,647
Non-Hispanic M ean 384.99 375.37 402.31 390.08 388.31 389.26 378.60 389.10
Pacific Islander N 299 302 299 297 292 299 298 290
Non-Hispanic M ean 386.14 378.75 400.72 384.77 385.85 390.01 381.06 388.63
Black N 3,154 3,160 3,144 3,153 3,133 3,138 3,143 3,112
Hispanic (Of M ean 390.78 379.76 401.42 389.12 390.26 390.87 383.16 390.48
Any Race) N 16,175 16,205 16,143 16,161 16,010 16,098 16,128 15,924
12
Non-Hispanic M ean 391.79 375.97 402.07 387.97 390.37 389.30 380.80 389.52
American Indian N 816 813 808 805 799 807 812 795
Non-Hispanic M ean 400.94 386.94 407.29 391.41 396.68 397.89 391.24 397.11
M ulti-racial N 86 86 86 86 85 85 86 84
Non-Hispanic M ean 401.44 385.57 404.92 399.68 400.90 395.51 390.45 396.93
White N 3,038 3,042 3,040 3,033 3,023 3,035 3,036 3,020
M ean 387.14 380.54 399.78 378.36 383.72 390.47 382.67 388.44
M issing
N 727 731 725 721 713 724 726 711

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 72 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.2.3 Correlations among Scale Scores by Grade-level Cluster

Table 4.2.3A
Correlations Among Scale Scores: K S302
Listening Reading Writing Speaking
Pearson Correlation 1 .537 .555 .783
Listening
N 203,841 203,837 203,824 203,823
Pearson Correlation 1 .720 .496
Reading
N 203,853 203,837 203,823
Pearson Correlation 1 .553
Writing
N 203,840 203,813
Pearson Correlation 1
Speaking
N 203,827

Table 4.2.3B
Correlations Among Scale Scores: 1-2 S302
Listening Reading Writing Speaking
Pearson Correlation 1 .688 .569 .497
Listening
N 388,944 388,557 388,626 388,584
Pearson Correlation 1 .671 .447
Reading
N 388,669 388,428 388,302
Pearson Correlation 1 .467
Writing
N 388,786 388,461
Pearson Correlation 1
Speaking
N 388,802

Table 4.2.3C
Correlations Among Scale Scores: 3-5 S302
Listening Reading Writing Speaking
Pearson Correlation 1 .727 .611 .484
Listening
N 352,289 351,832 351,878 351,940
Pearson Correlation 1 .676 .472
Reading
N 351,942 351,617 351,579
Pearson Correlation 1 .509
Writing
N 352,025 351,709
Pearson Correlation 1
Speaking
N 352,105

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 73 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 4.2.3D
Correlations Among Scale Scores: 6-8 S302
Listening Reading Writing Speaking
Pearson Correlation 1 .672 .518 .564
Listening
N 219,478 219,163 219,123 218,979
Pearson Correlation 1 .593 .479
Reading
N 219,320 219,028 218,791
Pearson Correlation 1 .470
Writing
N 219,327 218,869
Pearson Correlation 1
Speaking
N 219,219

Table 4.2.3E
Correlations Among Scale Scores: 9-12 S302
Listening Reading Writing Speaking
Pearson Correlation 1 .700 .648 .600
Listening
N 197,907 197,563 197,133 196,703
Pearson Correlation 1 .694 .530
Reading
N 198,037 197,316 196,711
Pearson Correlation 1 .597
Writing
N 197,712 196,576
Pearson Correlation 1
Speaking
N 197,615

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 74 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3 Proficiency Level Results
4.3.1 Listening

4.3.1.1 By Cluster by Tier

Table 4.3.1.1A
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Count): Listening S302
Listening Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 24,626 11,794 20,693 32,677 62,805 51,246 203,841
K (accountability) - 51,112 20,746 17,932 11,923 32,179 69,949 203,841
A 6,345 11,393 21,368 46,277 n/a n/a 85,383
1-2 B 967 2,783 8,754 8,427 173,061 n/a 193,992
C 456 2,920 17,081 10,457 29,631 49,024 109,569
A 2,267 8,556 8,057 10,364 n/a n/a 29,244
3-5 B 753 6,116 21,657 21,837 98,554 n/a 148,917
C 259 1,627 13,043 16,456 46,912 95,831 174,128
A 5,666 9,476 4,678 3,931 n/a n/a 23,751
6-8 B 986 10,662 18,978 21,744 30,003 n/a 82,373
C 251 695 8,043 18,368 40,420 45,577 113,354
A 13,996 10,413 2,561 2,107 n/a n/a 29,077
9-12 B 2,893 9,402 20,146 19,391 24,225 n/a 76,057
C 1,287 3,986 14,401 29,040 24,490 19,569 92,773

Table 4.3.1.1B
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Percent): Listening S302
Listening Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 12.1% 5.8% 10.2% 16.0% 30.8% 25.1% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 25.1% 10.2% 8.8% 5.8% 15.8% 34.3% 100.0%
A 7.4% 13.3% 25.0% 54.2% n/a n/a 100.0%
1-2 B 0.5% 1.4% 4.5% 4.3% 89.2% n/a 100.0%
C 0.4% 2.7% 15.6% 9.5% 27.0% 44.7% 100.0%
A 7.8% 29.3% 27.6% 35.4% n/a n/a 100.0%
3-5 B 0.5% 4.1% 14.5% 14.7% 66.2% n/a 100.0%
C 0.1% 0.9% 7.5% 9.5% 26.9% 55.0% 100.0%
A 23.9% 39.9% 19.7% 16.6% n/a n/a 100.0%
6-8 B 1.2% 12.9% 23.0% 26.4% 36.4% n/a 100.0%
C 0.2% 0.6% 7.1% 16.2% 35.7% 40.2% 100.0%
A 48.1% 35.8% 8.8% 7.2% n/a n/a 100.0%
9-12 B 3.8% 12.4% 26.5% 25.5% 31.9% n/a 100.0%
C 1.4% 4.3% 15.5% 31.3% 26.4% 21.1% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 75 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.1.2 By Grade by Tier
Table 4.3.1.2A
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Count): Listening S302
Listening Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 24,626 11,794 20,693 32,677 62,805 51,246 203,841
K (accountability) - 51,112 20,746 17,932 11,923 32,179 69,949 203,841
A 4,076 7,378 17,731 38,308 n/a n/a 67,493
1 B 569 1,874 3,972 4,022 80,709 n/a 91,146
C 247 1,283 9,165 4,588 11,235 16,179 42,697
A 2,269 4,015 3,637 7,969 n/a n/a 17,890
2 B 398 909 4,782 4,405 92,352 n/a 102,846
C 209 1,637 7,916 5,869 18,396 32,845 66,872
A 574 3,328 3,803 5,094 n/a n/a 12,799
3 B 260 2,851 11,149 6,756 53,928 n/a 74,944
C 105 506 4,445 3,448 19,283 48,681 76,468
A 704 2,700 2,363 3,025 n/a n/a 8,792
4 B 244 1,798 5,931 8,507 26,038 n/a 42,518
C 94 578 3,719 6,189 17,031 26,232 53,843
A 989 2,528 1,891 2,245 n/a n/a 7,653
5 B 249 1,467 4,577 6,574 18,588 n/a 31,455
C 60 543 4,879 6,819 10,598 20,918 43,817
A 1,218 3,140 1,987 1,592 n/a n/a 7,937
6 B 202 2,876 6,589 7,043 11,305 n/a 28,015
C 55 177 3,212 5,685 14,516 14,294 37,939
A 1,888 3,213 1,649 1,117 n/a n/a 7,867
7 B 322 3,564 7,565 7,664 9,042 n/a 28,157
C 118 226 3,158 5,609 15,787 13,959 38,857
A 2,560 3,123 1,042 1,222 n/a n/a 7,947
8 B 462 4,222 4,824 7,037 9,656 n/a 26,201
C 78 292 1,673 7,074 10,117 17,324 36,558
A 7,018 6,560 876 1,289 n/a n/a 15,743
9 B 540 3,178 7,540 6,755 10,514 n/a 28,527
C 264 705 3,423 9,577 13,387 7,942 35,298
A 3,371 2,445 931 395 n/a n/a 7,142
10 B 666 2,299 5,573 4,669 6,688 n/a 19,895
C 264 1,139 4,034 7,906 5,261 4,499 23,103
A 2,188 954 588 254 n/a n/a 3,984
11 B 721 2,482 3,093 5,263 3,984 n/a 15,543
C 313 849 3,202 6,095 4,187 4,027 18,673
A 1,419 454 166 169 n/a n/a 2,208
12 B 966 1,443 3,940 2,704 3,039 n/a 12,092
C 446 1,293 3,742 5,462 1,655 3,101 15,699

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 76 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 4.3.1.2B
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Percent): Listening S302
Listening Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 12.1% 5.8% 10.2% 16.0% 30.8% 25.1% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 25.1% 10.2% 8.8% 5.8% 15.8% 34.3% 100.0%
A 6.0% 10.9% 26.3% 56.8% n/a n/a 100.0%
1 B 0.6% 2.1% 4.4% 4.4% 88.5% n/a 100.0%
C 0.6% 3.0% 21.5% 10.7% 26.3% 37.9% 100.0%
A 12.7% 22.4% 20.3% 44.5% n/a n/a 100.0%
2 B 0.4% 0.9% 4.6% 4.3% 89.8% n/a 100.0%
C 0.3% 2.4% 11.8% 8.8% 27.5% 49.1% 100.0%
A 4.5% 26.0% 29.7% 39.8% n/a n/a 100.0%
3 B 0.3% 3.8% 14.9% 9.0% 72.0% n/a 100.0%
C 0.1% 0.7% 5.8% 4.5% 25.2% 63.7% 100.0%
A 8.0% 30.7% 26.9% 34.4% n/a n/a 100.0%
4 B 0.6% 4.2% 13.9% 20.0% 61.2% n/a 100.0%
C 0.2% 1.1% 6.9% 11.5% 31.6% 48.7% 100.0%
A 12.9% 33.0% 24.7% 29.3% n/a n/a 100.0%
5 B 0.8% 4.7% 14.6% 20.9% 59.1% n/a 100.0%
C 0.1% 1.2% 11.1% 15.6% 24.2% 47.7% 100.0%
A 15.3% 39.6% 25.0% 20.1% n/a n/a 100.0%
6 B 0.7% 10.3% 23.5% 25.1% 40.4% n/a 100.0%
C 0.1% 0.5% 8.5% 15.0% 38.3% 37.7% 100.0%
A 24.0% 40.8% 21.0% 14.2% n/a n/a 100.0%
7 B 1.1% 12.7% 26.9% 27.2% 32.1% n/a 100.0%
C 0.3% 0.6% 8.1% 14.4% 40.6% 35.9% 100.0%
A 32.2% 39.3% 13.1% 15.4% n/a n/a 100.0%
8 B 1.8% 16.1% 18.4% 26.9% 36.9% n/a 100.0%
C 0.2% 0.8% 4.6% 19.4% 27.7% 47.4% 100.0%
A 44.6% 41.7% 5.6% 8.2% n/a n/a 100.0%
9 B 1.9% 11.1% 26.4% 23.7% 36.9% n/a 100.0%
C 0.7% 2.0% 9.7% 27.1% 37.9% 22.5% 100.0%
A 47.2% 34.2% 13.0% 5.5% n/a n/a 100.0%
10 B 3.3% 11.6% 28.0% 23.5% 33.6% n/a 100.0%
C 1.1% 4.9% 17.5% 34.2% 22.8% 19.5% 100.0%
A 54.9% 23.9% 14.8% 6.4% n/a n/a 100.0%
11 B 4.6% 16.0% 19.9% 33.9% 25.6% n/a 100.0%
C 1.7% 4.5% 17.1% 32.6% 22.4% 21.6% 100.0%
A 64.3% 20.6% 7.5% 7.7% n/a n/a 100.0%
12 B 8.0% 11.9% 32.6% 22.4% 25.1% n/a 100.0%
C 2.8% 8.2% 23.8% 34.8% 10.5% 19.8% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 77 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.1.3 By Grade
Table 4.3.1.3A
Proficiency Level by Grade (Count): Listening S302
Listening Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 24,626 11,794 20,693 32,677 62,805 51,246 203,841
K (accountability) 51,112 20,746 17,932 11,923 32,179 69,949 203,841
1 4,892 10,535 30,868 46,918 91,944 16,179 201,336
2 2,876 6,561 16,335 18,243 110,748 32,845 187,608
3 939 6,685 19,397 15,298 73,211 48,681 164,211
4 1,042 5,076 12,013 17,721 43,069 26,232 105,153
5 1,298 4,538 11,347 15,638 29,186 20,918 82,925
6 1,475 6,193 11,788 14,320 25,821 14,294 73,891
7 2,328 7,003 12,372 14,390 24,829 13,959 74,881
8 3,100 7,637 7,539 15,333 19,773 17,324 70,706
9 7,822 10,443 11,839 17,621 23,901 7,942 79,568
10 4,301 5,883 10,538 12,970 11,949 4,499 50,140
11 3,222 4,285 6,883 11,612 8,171 4,027 38,200
12 2,831 3,190 7,848 8,335 4,694 3,101 29,999

Table 4.3.1.3B
Proficiency Level by Grade (Percent): Listening S302
Listening Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 12.1% 5.8% 10.2% 16.0% 30.8% 25.1% 100.0%
K (accountability) 25.1% 10.2% 8.8% 5.8% 15.8% 34.3% 100.0%
1 2.4% 5.2% 15.3% 23.3% 45.7% 8.0% 100.0%
2 1.5% 3.5% 8.7% 9.7% 59.0% 17.5% 100.0%
3 0.6% 4.1% 11.8% 9.3% 44.6% 29.6% 100.0%
4 1.0% 4.8% 11.4% 16.9% 41.0% 24.9% 100.0%
5 1.6% 5.5% 13.7% 18.9% 35.2% 25.2% 100.0%
6 2.0% 8.4% 16.0% 19.4% 34.9% 19.3% 100.0%
7 3.1% 9.4% 16.5% 19.2% 33.2% 18.6% 100.0%
8 4.4% 10.8% 10.7% 21.7% 28.0% 24.5% 100.0%
9 9.8% 13.1% 14.9% 22.1% 30.0% 10.0% 100.0%
10 8.6% 11.7% 21.0% 25.9% 23.8% 9.0% 100.0%
11 8.4% 11.2% 18.0% 30.4% 21.4% 10.5% 100.0%
12 9.4% 10.6% 26.2% 27.8% 15.6% 10.3% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 78 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.2 Reading

4.3.2.1 By Cluster by Tier

Table 4.3.2.1A
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Count): Reading S302
Reading Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 44,927 28,198 39,920 17,097 20,656 53,055 203,853
K (accountability) - 136,612 14,186 9,412 10,849 32,794 0 203,853
A 20,639 20,757 16,980 26,948 n/a n/a 85,324
1-2 B 2,772 7,977 33,604 28,812 120,726 n/a 193,891
C 1,444 4,440 16,953 14,111 29,797 42,709 109,454
A 9,265 9,527 4,175 6,202 n/a n/a 29,169
3-5 B 2,858 15,465 36,434 13,600 80,382 n/a 148,739
C 661 4,241 22,564 17,162 56,469 72,937 174,034
A 9,353 9,416 2,900 2,060 n/a n/a 23,729
6-8 B 3,800 21,123 29,125 5,607 22,636 n/a 82,291
C 1,488 20,293 36,822 15,335 21,116 18,246 113,300
A 11,232 10,882 3,455 3,537 n/a n/a 29,106
9-12 B 9,437 29,538 13,788 6,258 17,051 n/a 76,072
C 1,598 13,021 14,112 12,626 20,505 30,997 92,859

Table 4.3.2.1B
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Percent): Reading S302
Reading Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 22.0% 13.8% 19.6% 8.4% 10.1% 26.0% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 67.0% 7.0% 4.6% 5.3% 16.1% 0.0% 100.0%
A 24.2% 24.3% 19.9% 31.6% n/a n/a 100.0%
1-2 B 1.4% 4.1% 17.3% 14.9% 62.3% n/a 100.0%
C 1.3% 4.1% 15.5% 12.9% 27.2% 39.0% 100.0%
A 31.8% 32.7% 14.3% 21.3% n/a n/a 100.0%
3-5 B 1.9% 10.4% 24.5% 9.1% 54.0% n/a 100.0%
C 0.4% 2.4% 13.0% 9.9% 32.4% 41.9% 100.0%
A 39.4% 39.7% 12.2% 8.7% n/a n/a 100.0%
6-8 B 4.6% 25.7% 35.4% 6.8% 27.5% n/a 100.0%
C 1.3% 17.9% 32.5% 13.5% 18.6% 16.1% 100.0%
A 38.6% 37.4% 11.9% 12.2% n/a n/a 100.0%
9-12 B 12.4% 38.8% 18.1% 8.2% 22.4% n/a 100.0%
C 1.7% 14.0% 15.2% 13.6% 22.1% 33.4% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 79 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.2.2 By Grade by Tier
Table 4.3.2.2A
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Count): Reading S302
Reading Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 44,927 28,198 39,920 17,097 20,656 53,055 203,853
K (accountability) - 136,612 14,186 9,412 10,849 32,794 0 203,853
A 14,711 16,370 14,832 21,554 n/a n/a 67,467
1 B 1,642 2,562 15,264 17,879 53,726 n/a 91,073
C 778 1,578 7,254 7,083 11,510 14,434 42,637
A 5,928 4,387 2,148 5,394 n/a n/a 17,857
2 B 1,130 5,415 18,340 10,933 67,000 n/a 102,818
C 666 2,862 9,699 7,028 18,287 28,275 66,817
A 2,812 4,716 2,106 3,126 n/a n/a 12,760
3 B 664 4,488 17,361 5,752 46,621 n/a 74,886
C 184 953 4,827 4,793 29,796 35,873 76,426
A 3,065 2,857 1,032 1,818 n/a n/a 8,772
4 B 1,166 5,812 9,982 5,648 19,836 n/a 42,444
C 244 1,074 7,425 9,001 14,114 21,958 53,816
A 3,388 1,954 1,037 1,258 n/a n/a 7,637
5 B 1,028 5,165 9,091 2,200 13,925 n/a 31,409
C 233 2,214 10,312 3,368 12,559 15,106 43,792
A 2,138 3,826 1,151 811 n/a n/a 7,926
6 B 1,001 5,776 11,188 1,962 8,048 n/a 27,975
C 354 5,457 14,100 6,390 6,520 5,095 37,916
A 3,108 2,966 1,124 666 n/a n/a 7,864
7 B 1,291 7,271 10,507 1,850 7,218 n/a 28,137
C 532 7,263 12,179 6,052 6,964 5,853 38,843
A 4,107 2,624 625 583 n/a n/a 7,939
8 B 1,508 8,076 7,430 1,795 7,370 n/a 26,179
C 602 7,573 10,543 2,893 7,632 7,298 36,541
A 6,219 6,002 2,001 1,525 n/a n/a 15,747
9 B 2,382 9,946 7,692 1,717 6,802 n/a 28,539
C 298 3,492 5,588 4,817 7,704 13,417 35,316
A 2,518 2,816 741 1,069 n/a n/a 7,144
10 B 2,416 9,077 2,560 2,052 3,787 n/a 19,892
C 345 3,638 4,397 3,260 4,658 6,814 23,112
A 1,503 1,451 465 581 n/a n/a 4,000
11 B 2,299 5,816 1,984 1,785 3,657 n/a 15,541
C 491 3,223 2,222 2,535 3,878 6,355 18,704
A 992 613 248 362 n/a n/a 2,215
12 B 2,340 4,699 1,552 704 2,805 n/a 12,100
C 464 2,668 1,905 2,014 4,265 4,411 15,727

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 80 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 4.3.2.2B
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Percent): Reading S302
Reading Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 22.0% 13.8% 19.6% 8.4% 10.1% 26.0% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 67.0% 7.0% 4.6% 5.3% 16.1% 0.0% 100.0%
A 21.8% 24.3% 22.0% 31.9% n/a n/a 100.0%
1 B 1.8% 2.8% 16.8% 19.6% 59.0% n/a 100.0%
C 1.8% 3.7% 17.0% 16.6% 27.0% 33.9% 100.0%
A 33.2% 24.6% 12.0% 30.2% n/a n/a 100.0%
2 B 1.1% 5.3% 17.8% 10.6% 65.2% n/a 100.0%
C 1.0% 4.3% 14.5% 10.5% 27.4% 42.3% 100.0%
A 22.0% 37.0% 16.5% 24.5% n/a n/a 100.0%
3 B 0.9% 6.0% 23.2% 7.7% 62.3% n/a 100.0%
C 0.2% 1.2% 6.3% 6.3% 39.0% 46.9% 100.0%
A 34.9% 32.6% 11.8% 20.7% n/a n/a 100.0%
4 B 2.7% 13.7% 23.5% 13.3% 46.7% n/a 100.0%
C 0.5% 2.0% 13.8% 16.7% 26.2% 40.8% 100.0%
A 44.4% 25.6% 13.6% 16.5% n/a n/a 100.0%
5 B 3.3% 16.4% 28.9% 7.0% 44.3% n/a 100.0%
C 0.5% 5.1% 23.5% 7.7% 28.7% 34.5% 100.0%
A 27.0% 48.3% 14.5% 10.2% n/a n/a 100.0%
6 B 3.6% 20.6% 40.0% 7.0% 28.8% n/a 100.0%
C 0.9% 14.4% 37.2% 16.9% 17.2% 13.4% 100.0%
A 39.5% 37.7% 14.3% 8.5% n/a n/a 100.0%
7 B 4.6% 25.8% 37.3% 6.6% 25.7% n/a 100.0%
C 1.4% 18.7% 31.4% 15.6% 17.9% 15.1% 100.0%
A 51.7% 33.1% 7.9% 7.3% n/a n/a 100.0%
8 B 5.8% 30.8% 28.4% 6.9% 28.2% n/a 100.0%
C 1.6% 20.7% 28.9% 7.9% 20.9% 20.0% 100.0%
A 39.5% 38.1% 12.7% 9.7% n/a n/a 100.0%
9 B 8.3% 34.9% 27.0% 6.0% 23.8% n/a 100.0%
C 0.8% 9.9% 15.8% 13.6% 21.8% 38.0% 100.0%
A 35.2% 39.4% 10.4% 15.0% n/a n/a 100.0%
10 B 12.1% 45.6% 12.9% 10.3% 19.0% n/a 100.0%
C 1.5% 15.7% 19.0% 14.1% 20.2% 29.5% 100.0%
A 37.6% 36.3% 11.6% 14.5% n/a n/a 100.0%
11 B 14.8% 37.4% 12.8% 11.5% 23.5% n/a 100.0%
C 2.6% 17.2% 11.9% 13.6% 20.7% 34.0% 100.0%
A 44.8% 27.7% 11.2% 16.3% n/a n/a 100.0%
12 B 19.3% 38.8% 12.8% 5.8% 23.2% n/a 100.0%
C 3.0% 17.0% 12.1% 12.8% 27.1% 28.0% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 81 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.2.3 By Grade
Table 4.3.2.3A
Proficiency Level by Grade (Count): Reading S302
Reading Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 44,927 28,198 39,920 17,097 20,656 53,055 203,853
K (accountability) 136,612 14,186 9,412 10,849 32,794 0 203,853
1 17,131 20,510 37,350 46,516 65,236 14,434 201,177
2 7,724 12,664 30,187 23,355 85,287 28,275 187,492
3 3,660 10,157 24,294 13,671 76,417 35,873 164,072
4 4,475 9,743 18,439 16,467 33,950 21,958 105,032
5 4,649 9,333 20,440 6,826 26,484 15,106 82,838
6 3,493 15,059 26,439 9,163 14,568 5,095 73,817
7 4,931 17,500 23,810 8,568 14,182 5,853 74,844
8 6,217 18,273 18,598 5,271 15,002 7,298 70,659
9 8,899 19,440 15,281 8,059 14,506 13,417 79,602
10 5,279 15,531 7,698 6,381 8,445 6,814 50,148
11 4,293 10,490 4,671 4,901 7,535 6,355 38,245
12 3,796 7,980 3,705 3,080 7,070 4,411 30,042

Table 4.3.2.3B
Proficiency Level by Grade (Percent): Reading S302
Reading Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 22.0% 13.8% 19.6% 8.4% 10.1% 26.0% 100.0%
K (accountability) 67.0% 7.0% 4.6% 5.3% 16.1% 0.0% 100.0%
1 8.5% 10.2% 18.6% 23.1% 32.4% 7.2% 100.0%
2 4.1% 6.8% 16.1% 12.5% 45.5% 15.1% 100.0%
3 2.2% 6.2% 14.8% 8.3% 46.6% 21.9% 100.0%
4 4.3% 9.3% 17.6% 15.7% 32.3% 20.9% 100.0%
5 5.6% 11.3% 24.7% 8.2% 32.0% 18.2% 100.0%
6 4.7% 20.4% 35.8% 12.4% 19.7% 6.9% 100.0%
7 6.6% 23.4% 31.8% 11.4% 18.9% 7.8% 100.0%
8 8.8% 25.9% 26.3% 7.5% 21.2% 10.3% 100.0%
9 11.2% 24.4% 19.2% 10.1% 18.2% 16.9% 100.0%
10 10.5% 31.0% 15.4% 12.7% 16.8% 13.6% 100.0%
11 11.2% 27.4% 12.2% 12.8% 19.7% 16.6% 100.0%
12 12.6% 26.6% 12.3% 10.3% 23.5% 14.7% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 82 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.3 Writing

4.3.3.1 By Cluster by Tier

Table 4.3.3.1A
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Count): Writing S302
Writing Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 36,149 60,841 34,266 28,805 38,130 5,649 203,840
K (accountability) - 119,172 40,889 25,262 12,868 5,649 0 203,840
A 11,849 54,991 18,534 0 1 0 85,375
1-2 B 13,720 85,270 93,667 1,251 1 0 193,909
C 2,667 21,936 73,696 11,159 43 1 109,502
A 3,727 7,522 11,201 6,506 218 1 29,175
3-5 B 1,782 10,591 44,693 85,068 6,653 53 148,840
C 361 2,034 13,244 110,455 46,309 1,607 174,010
A 4,493 8,027 9,442 1,735 30 2 23,729
6-8 B 4,037 12,607 45,557 19,731 390 3 82,325
C 1,955 9,078 68,680 33,087 468 5 113,273
A 3,991 8,656 14,473 1,902 45 1 29,068
9-12 B 3,864 4,983 25,079 34,648 6,998 411 75,983
C 1,812 1,864 13,041 41,755 30,897 3,292 92,661

Table 4.3.3.1B
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Percent): Writing S302
Writing Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 17.7% 29.8% 16.8% 14.1% 18.7% 2.8% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 58.5% 20.1% 12.4% 6.3% 2.8% 0.0% 100.0%
A 13.9% 64.4% 21.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
1-2 B 7.1% 44.0% 48.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
C 2.4% 20.0% 67.3% 10.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
A 12.8% 25.8% 38.4% 22.3% 0.7% 0.0% 100.0%
3-5 B 1.2% 7.1% 30.0% 57.2% 4.5% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.2% 1.2% 7.6% 63.5% 26.6% 0.9% 100.0%
A 18.9% 33.8% 39.8% 7.3% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
6-8 B 4.9% 15.3% 55.3% 24.0% 0.5% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.7% 8.0% 60.6% 29.2% 0.4% 0.0% 100.0%
A 13.7% 29.8% 49.8% 6.5% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%
9-12 B 5.1% 6.6% 33.0% 45.6% 9.2% 0.5% 100.0%
C 2.0% 2.0% 14.1% 45.1% 33.3% 3.6% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 83 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.3.2 By Grade by Tier
Table 4.3.3.2A
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Count): Writing S302
Writing Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 36,149 60,841 34,266 28,805 38,130 5,649 203,840
K (accountability) - 119,172 40,889 25,262 12,868 5,649 0 203,840
A 8,045 41,655 17,787 0 1 0 67,488
1 B 8,283 44,277 37,824 707 1 0 91,092
C 1,656 11,473 25,425 4,101 13 1 42,669
A 3,804 13,336 747 0 0 0 17,887
2 B 5,437 40,993 55,843 544 0 0 102,817
C 1,011 10,463 48,271 7,058 30 0 66,833
A 1,169 2,883 4,554 3,982 168 1 12,757
3 B 672 4,888 17,131 46,798 5,376 43 74,908
C 141 657 4,768 43,355 26,437 1,048 76,406
A 1,224 2,468 3,440 1,610 36 0 8,778
4 B 522 3,329 13,836 23,815 983 6 42,491
C 111 796 3,481 35,493 13,534 400 53,815
A 1,334 2,171 3,207 914 14 0 7,640
5 B 588 2,374 13,726 14,455 294 4 31,441
C 109 581 4,995 31,607 6,338 159 43,789
A 708 2,904 3,246 1,040 20 1 7,919
6 B 1,170 3,743 13,623 9,226 239 1 28,002
C 648 2,574 18,512 15,870 307 1 37,912
A 1,551 2,578 3,204 523 7 1 7,864
7 B 1,387 3,920 15,450 7,262 119 2 28,140
C 722 2,755 24,577 10,670 111 1 38,836
A 2,234 2,545 2,992 172 3 0 7,946
8 B 1,480 4,944 16,484 3,243 32 0 26,183
C 585 3,749 25,591 6,547 50 3 36,525
A 2,232 4,803 7,318 1,340 33 1 15,727
9 B 940 1,611 6,324 14,667 4,687 283 28,512
C 409 500 2,492 9,710 19,693 2,456 35,260
A 865 2,019 3,854 387 10 0 7,135
10 B 1,148 1,354 6,418 9,476 1,404 80 19,880
C 425 489 3,077 11,725 6,847 518 23,081
A 501 1,022 2,336 138 2 0 3,999
11 B 919 973 6,159 6,724 712 35 15,522
C 398 398 3,402 11,114 3,109 228 18,649
A 393 812 965 37 0 0 2,207
12 B 857 1,045 6,178 3,781 195 13 12,069
C 580 477 4,070 9,206 1,248 90 15,671

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 84 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 4.3.3.2B
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Percent): Writing S302
Writing Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 17.7% 29.8% 16.8% 14.1% 18.7% 2.8% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 58.5% 20.1% 12.4% 6.3% 2.8% 0.0% 100.0%
A 11.9% 61.7% 26.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
1 B 9.1% 48.6% 41.5% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
C 3.9% 26.9% 59.6% 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
A 21.3% 74.6% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
2 B 5.3% 39.9% 54.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.5% 15.7% 72.2% 10.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
A 9.2% 22.6% 35.7% 31.2% 1.3% 0.0% 100.0%
3 B 0.9% 6.5% 22.9% 62.5% 7.2% 0.1% 100.0%
C 0.2% 0.9% 6.2% 56.7% 34.6% 1.4% 100.0%
A 13.9% 28.1% 39.2% 18.3% 0.4% 0.0% 100.0%
4 B 1.2% 7.8% 32.6% 56.0% 2.3% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.2% 1.5% 6.5% 66.0% 25.1% 0.7% 100.0%
A 17.5% 28.4% 42.0% 12.0% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%
5 B 1.9% 7.6% 43.7% 46.0% 0.9% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.2% 1.3% 11.4% 72.2% 14.5% 0.4% 100.0%
A 8.9% 36.7% 41.0% 13.1% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0%
6 B 4.2% 13.4% 48.7% 32.9% 0.9% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.7% 6.8% 48.8% 41.9% 0.8% 0.0% 100.0%
A 19.7% 32.8% 40.7% 6.7% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
7 B 4.9% 13.9% 54.9% 25.8% 0.4% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.9% 7.1% 63.3% 27.5% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0%
A 28.1% 32.0% 37.7% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
8 B 5.7% 18.9% 63.0% 12.4% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.6% 10.3% 70.1% 17.9% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
A 14.2% 30.5% 46.5% 8.5% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%
9 B 3.3% 5.7% 22.2% 51.4% 16.4% 1.0% 100.0%
C 1.2% 1.4% 7.1% 27.5% 55.9% 7.0% 100.0%
A 12.1% 28.3% 54.0% 5.4% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
10 B 5.8% 6.8% 32.3% 47.7% 7.1% 0.4% 100.0%
C 1.8% 2.1% 13.3% 50.8% 29.7% 2.2% 100.0%
A 12.5% 25.6% 58.4% 3.5% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
11 B 5.9% 6.3% 39.7% 43.3% 4.6% 0.2% 100.0%
C 2.1% 2.1% 18.2% 59.6% 16.7% 1.2% 100.0%
A 17.8% 36.8% 43.7% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
12 B 7.1% 8.7% 51.2% 31.3% 1.6% 0.1% 100.0%
C 3.7% 3.0% 26.0% 58.7% 8.0% 0.6% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 85 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.3.3 By Grade
Table 4.3.3.3A
Proficiency Level by Grade (Count): Writing S302
Writing Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 36,149 60,841 34,266 28,805 38,130 5,649 203,840
K (accountability) 119,172 40,889 25,262 12,868 5,649 0 203,840
1 17,984 97,405 81,036 4,808 15 1 201,249
2 10,252 64,792 104,861 7,602 30 0 187,537
3 1,982 8,428 26,453 94,135 31,981 1,092 164,071
4 1,857 6,593 20,757 60,918 14,553 406 105,084
5 2,031 5,126 21,928 46,976 6,646 163 82,870
6 2,526 9,221 35,381 26,136 566 3 73,833
7 3,660 9,253 43,231 18,455 237 4 74,840
8 4,299 11,238 45,067 9,962 85 3 70,654
9 3,581 6,914 16,134 25,717 24,413 2,740 79,499
10 2,438 3,862 13,349 21,588 8,261 598 50,096
11 1,818 2,393 11,897 17,976 3,823 263 38,170
12 1,830 2,334 11,213 13,024 1,443 103 29,947

Table 4.3.3.3B
Proficiency Level by Grade (Percent): Writing S302
Writing Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 17.7% 29.8% 16.8% 14.1% 18.7% 2.8% 100.0%
K (accountability) 58.5% 20.1% 12.4% 6.3% 2.8% 0.0% 100.0%
1 8.9% 48.4% 40.3% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
2 5.5% 34.5% 55.9% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
3 1.2% 5.1% 16.1% 57.4% 19.5% 0.7% 100.0%
4 1.8% 6.3% 19.8% 58.0% 13.8% 0.4% 100.0%
5 2.5% 6.2% 26.5% 56.7% 8.0% 0.2% 100.0%
6 3.4% 12.5% 47.9% 35.4% 0.8% 0.0% 100.0%
7 4.9% 12.4% 57.8% 24.7% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0%
8 6.1% 15.9% 63.8% 14.1% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
9 4.5% 8.7% 20.3% 32.3% 30.7% 3.4% 100.0%
10 4.9% 7.7% 26.6% 43.1% 16.5% 1.2% 100.0%
11 4.8% 6.3% 31.2% 47.1% 10.0% 0.7% 100.0%
12 6.1% 7.8% 37.4% 43.5% 4.8% 0.3% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 86 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.4 Speaking

4.3.4.1 By Cluster by Tier

Table 4.3.4.1A
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Count): Speaking S302
Speaking Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 47,008 16,092 31,076 34,064 22,635 52,952 203,827
K (accountability) - 47,008 47,168 34,064 22,635 52,952 0 203,827
A 18,932 30,606 13,802 5,141 3,658 13,208 85,347
1-2 B 7,889 39,061 39,135 19,772 17,716 70,325 193,898
C 1,499 8,893 13,748 9,641 10,576 65,200 109,557
A 14,926 7,166 2,867 1,113 811 2,347 29,230
3-5 B 9,034 31,055 33,191 17,558 15,577 42,432 148,847
C 3,618 17,324 27,975 21,930 24,741 78,440 174,028
A 12,653 4,911 2,789 1,545 523 1,325 23,746
6-8 B 3,759 9,173 16,851 18,296 9,133 25,055 82,267
C 1,466 4,543 13,536 23,871 16,236 53,554 113,206
A 18,440 4,779 2,503 1,285 532 1,513 29,052
9-12 B 7,673 10,819 13,106 10,991 7,316 26,066 75,971
C 2,245 4,409 10,136 13,026 11,697 51,079 92,592

Table 4.3.4.1B
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Percent): Speaking S302
Speaking Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 23.1% 7.9% 15.2% 16.7% 11.1% 26.0% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 23.1% 23.1% 16.7% 11.1% 26.0% 0.0% 100.0%
A 22.2% 35.9% 16.2% 6.0% 4.3% 15.5% 100.0%
1-2 B 4.1% 20.1% 20.2% 10.2% 9.1% 36.3% 100.0%
C 1.4% 8.1% 12.5% 8.8% 9.7% 59.5% 100.0%
A 51.1% 24.5% 9.8% 3.8% 2.8% 8.0% 100.0%
3-5 B 6.1% 20.9% 22.3% 11.8% 10.5% 28.5% 100.0%
C 2.1% 10.0% 16.1% 12.6% 14.2% 45.1% 100.0%
A 53.3% 20.7% 11.7% 6.5% 2.2% 5.6% 100.0%
6-8 B 4.6% 11.2% 20.5% 22.2% 11.1% 30.5% 100.0%
C 1.3% 4.0% 12.0% 21.1% 14.3% 47.3% 100.0%
A 63.5% 16.4% 8.6% 4.4% 1.8% 5.2% 100.0%
9-12 B 10.1% 14.2% 17.3% 14.5% 9.6% 34.3% 100.0%
C 2.4% 4.8% 10.9% 14.1% 12.6% 55.2% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 87 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.4.2 By Grade by Tier
Table 4.3.4.2A
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Count): Speaking S302
Speaking Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 47,008 16,092 31,076 34,064 22,635 52,952 203,827
K (accountability) - 47,008 47,168 34,064 22,635 52,952 0 203,827
A 12,401 26,010 11,295 4,205 2,968 10,577 67,456
1 B 3,750 23,312 19,287 9,069 7,789 27,888 91,095
C 643 5,161 6,585 4,156 4,077 22,071 42,693
A 6,531 4,596 2,507 936 690 2,631 17,891
2 B 4,139 15,749 19,848 10,703 9,927 42,437 102,803
C 856 3,732 7,163 5,485 6,499 43,129 66,864
A 5,858 3,787 1,298 478 339 1,025 12,785
3 B 4,063 17,954 17,376 8,593 7,483 19,450 74,919
C 1,374 8,945 13,159 9,631 10,663 32,665 76,437
A 4,830 1,840 821 332 258 702 8,783
4 B 3,012 8,006 9,248 5,171 4,601 12,454 42,492
C 1,375 5,224 8,759 7,095 7,795 23,571 53,819
A 4,238 1,539 748 303 214 620 7,662
5 B 1,959 5,095 6,567 3,794 3,493 10,528 31,436
C 869 3,155 6,057 5,204 6,283 22,204 43,772
A 3,657 1,923 1,043 654 181 468 7,926
6 B 1,048 2,997 5,659 7,550 2,939 7,796 27,989
C 501 1,650 4,729 9,990 5,385 15,635 37,890
A 4,452 1,218 1,001 628 170 407 7,876
7 B 1,430 2,332 5,277 7,299 3,146 8,638 28,122
C 524 1,065 3,962 9,291 5,614 18,365 38,821
A 4,544 1,770 745 263 172 450 7,944
8 B 1,281 3,844 5,915 3,447 3,048 8,621 26,156
C 441 1,828 4,845 4,590 5,237 19,554 36,495
A 10,938 1,836 1,250 809 239 653 15,725
9 B 2,624 2,404 4,117 6,005 3,040 10,312 28,502
C 672 783 2,616 6,381 4,520 20,253 35,225
A 4,304 1,477 616 214 148 386 7,145
10 B 2,382 3,549 3,725 2,084 1,789 6,335 19,864
C 577 1,341 3,010 2,666 3,021 12,427 23,042
A 2,145 930 402 159 80 272 3,988
11 B 1,554 2,865 2,989 1,636 1,384 5,108 15,536
C 512 1,179 2,484 2,185 2,266 10,014 18,640
A 1,053 536 235 103 65 202 2,194
12 B 1,113 2,001 2,275 1,266 1,103 4,311 12,069
C 484 1,106 2,026 1,794 1,890 8,385 15,685

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 88 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 4.3.4.2B
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Percent): Speaking S302
Speaking Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 23.1% 7.9% 15.2% 16.7% 11.1% 26.0% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 23.1% 23.1% 16.7% 11.1% 26.0% 0.0% 100.0%
A 18.4% 38.6% 16.7% 6.2% 4.4% 15.7% 100.0%
1 B 4.1% 25.6% 21.2% 10.0% 8.6% 30.6% 100.0%
C 1.5% 12.1% 15.4% 9.7% 9.5% 51.7% 100.0%
A 36.5% 25.7% 14.0% 5.2% 3.9% 14.7% 100.0%
2 B 4.0% 15.3% 19.3% 10.4% 9.7% 41.3% 100.0%
C 1.3% 5.6% 10.7% 8.2% 9.7% 64.5% 100.0%
A 45.8% 29.6% 10.2% 3.7% 2.7% 8.0% 100.0%
3 B 5.4% 24.0% 23.2% 11.5% 10.0% 26.0% 100.0%
C 1.8% 11.7% 17.2% 12.6% 14.0% 42.7% 100.0%
A 55.0% 20.9% 9.3% 3.8% 2.9% 8.0% 100.0%
4 B 7.1% 18.8% 21.8% 12.2% 10.8% 29.3% 100.0%
C 2.6% 9.7% 16.3% 13.2% 14.5% 43.8% 100.0%
A 55.3% 20.1% 9.8% 4.0% 2.8% 8.1% 100.0%
5 B 6.2% 16.2% 20.9% 12.1% 11.1% 33.5% 100.0%
C 2.0% 7.2% 13.8% 11.9% 14.4% 50.7% 100.0%
A 46.1% 24.3% 13.2% 8.3% 2.3% 5.9% 100.0%
6 B 3.7% 10.7% 20.2% 27.0% 10.5% 27.9% 100.0%
C 1.3% 4.4% 12.5% 26.4% 14.2% 41.3% 100.0%
A 56.5% 15.5% 12.7% 8.0% 2.2% 5.2% 100.0%
7 B 5.1% 8.3% 18.8% 26.0% 11.2% 30.7% 100.0%
C 1.3% 2.7% 10.2% 23.9% 14.5% 47.3% 100.0%
A 57.2% 22.3% 9.4% 3.3% 2.2% 5.7% 100.0%
8 B 4.9% 14.7% 22.6% 13.2% 11.7% 33.0% 100.0%
C 1.2% 5.0% 13.3% 12.6% 14.3% 53.6% 100.0%
A 69.6% 11.7% 7.9% 5.1% 1.5% 4.2% 100.0%
9 B 9.2% 8.4% 14.4% 21.1% 10.7% 36.2% 100.0%
C 1.9% 2.2% 7.4% 18.1% 12.8% 57.5% 100.0%
A 60.2% 20.7% 8.6% 3.0% 2.1% 5.4% 100.0%
10 B 12.0% 17.9% 18.8% 10.5% 9.0% 31.9% 100.0%
C 2.5% 5.8% 13.1% 11.6% 13.1% 53.9% 100.0%
A 53.8% 23.3% 10.1% 4.0% 2.0% 6.8% 100.0%
11 B 10.0% 18.4% 19.2% 10.5% 8.9% 32.9% 100.0%
C 2.7% 6.3% 13.3% 11.7% 12.2% 53.7% 100.0%
A 48.0% 24.4% 10.7% 4.7% 3.0% 9.2% 100.0%
12 B 9.2% 16.6% 18.8% 10.5% 9.1% 35.7% 100.0%
C 3.1% 7.1% 12.9% 11.4% 12.0% 53.5% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 89 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.4.3 By Grade
Table 4.3.4.3A
Proficiency Level by Grade (Count): Speaking S302
Speaking Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 47,008 16,092 31,076 34,064 22,635 52,952 203,827
K (accountability) 47,008 47,168 34,064 22,635 52,952 0 203,827
1 16,794 54,483 37,167 17,430 14,834 60,536 201,244
2 11,526 24,077 29,518 17,124 17,116 88,197 187,558
3 11,295 30,686 31,833 18,702 18,485 53,140 164,141
4 9,217 15,070 18,828 12,598 12,654 36,727 105,094
5 7,066 9,789 13,372 9,301 9,990 33,352 82,870
6 5,206 6,570 11,431 18,194 8,505 23,899 73,805
7 6,406 4,615 10,240 17,218 8,930 27,410 74,819
8 6,266 7,442 11,505 8,300 8,457 28,625 70,595
9 14,234 5,023 7,983 13,195 7,799 31,218 79,452
10 7,263 6,367 7,351 4,964 4,958 19,148 50,051
11 4,211 4,974 5,875 3,980 3,730 15,394 38,164
12 2,650 3,643 4,536 3,163 3,058 12,898 29,948

Table 4.3.4.3B
Proficiency Level by Grade (Percent): Speaking S302
Speaking Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 23.1% 7.9% 15.2% 16.7% 11.1% 26.0% 100.0%
K (accountability) 23.1% 23.1% 16.7% 11.1% 26.0% 0.0% 100.0%
1 8.3% 27.1% 18.5% 8.7% 7.4% 30.1% 100.0%
2 6.1% 12.8% 15.7% 9.1% 9.1% 47.0% 100.0%
3 6.9% 18.7% 19.4% 11.4% 11.3% 32.4% 100.0%
4 8.8% 14.3% 17.9% 12.0% 12.0% 34.9% 100.0%
5 8.5% 11.8% 16.1% 11.2% 12.1% 40.2% 100.0%
6 7.1% 8.9% 15.5% 24.7% 11.5% 32.4% 100.0%
7 8.6% 6.2% 13.7% 23.0% 11.9% 36.6% 100.0%
8 8.9% 10.5% 16.3% 11.8% 12.0% 40.5% 100.0%
9 17.9% 6.3% 10.0% 16.6% 9.8% 39.3% 100.0%
10 14.5% 12.7% 14.7% 9.9% 9.9% 38.3% 100.0%
11 11.0% 13.0% 15.4% 10.4% 9.8% 40.3% 100.0%
12 8.8% 12.2% 15.1% 10.6% 10.2% 43.1% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 90 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.5 Oral Language Composite

4.3.5.1 By Cluster by Tier

Table 4.3.5.1A
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Count): Oral S302
Oral Language Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 29,747 18,588 24,444 41,756 45,977 43,311 203,823
K (accountability) - 51,598 29,375 33,562 17,908 28,069 43,311 203,823
A 11,305 21,318 31,714 8,565 12,372 0 85,274
1-2 B 1,821 9,002 59,496 37,141 86,351 0 193,811
C 598 3,383 13,116 15,331 35,904 41,167 109,499
A 8,285 9,772 7,050 1,896 2,195 0 29,198
3-5 B 1,761 10,930 37,649 43,908 54,537 0 148,785
C 499 3,017 14,673 28,869 57,223 69,676 173,957
A 10,390 6,767 3,874 1,649 1,024 0 23,704
6-8 B 1,670 8,283 17,127 28,130 26,969 0 82,179
C 482 1,005 6,366 20,153 38,503 46,587 113,096
A 16,354 7,830 2,692 1,331 727 0 28,934
9-12 B 3,167 11,033 15,884 19,721 25,809 0 75,614
C 1,506 2,739 9,730 22,616 31,411 24,153 92,155

Table 4.3.5.1B
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Percent): Oral S302
Oral Language Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 14.6% 9.1% 12.0% 20.5% 22.6% 21.2% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 25.3% 14.4% 16.5% 8.8% 13.8% 21.2% 100.0%
A 13.3% 25.0% 37.2% 10.0% 14.5% 0.0% 100.0%
1-2 B 0.9% 4.6% 30.7% 19.2% 44.6% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.5% 3.1% 12.0% 14.0% 32.8% 37.6% 100.0%
A 28.4% 33.5% 24.1% 6.5% 7.5% 0.0% 100.0%
3-5 B 1.2% 7.3% 25.3% 29.5% 36.7% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.3% 1.7% 8.4% 16.6% 32.9% 40.1% 100.0%
A 43.8% 28.5% 16.3% 7.0% 4.3% 0.0% 100.0%
6-8 B 2.0% 10.1% 20.8% 34.2% 32.8% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.4% 0.9% 5.6% 17.8% 34.0% 41.2% 100.0%
A 56.5% 27.1% 9.3% 4.6% 2.5% 0.0% 100.0%
9-12 B 4.2% 14.6% 21.0% 26.1% 34.1% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.6% 3.0% 10.6% 24.5% 34.1% 26.2% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 91 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.5.2 By Grade by Tier
Table 4.3.5.2A
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Count): Oral S302
Oral Language Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 29,747 18,588 24,444 41,756 45,977 43,311 203,823
K (accountability) - 51,598 29,375 33,562 17,908 28,069 43,311 203,823
A 7,278 16,702 26,494 6,957 9,978 0 67,409
1 B 1,009 5,353 32,356 17,304 35,034 0 91,056
C 276 1,896 6,752 6,244 12,444 15,055 42,667
A 4,027 4,616 5,220 1,608 2,394 0 17,865
2 B 812 3,649 27,140 19,837 51,317 0 102,755
C 322 1,487 6,364 9,087 23,460 26,112 66,832
A 2,925 4,645 3,420 805 982 0 12,777
3 B 694 5,310 20,769 22,342 25,774 0 74,889
C 190 1,175 5,793 12,445 22,323 34,474 76,400
A 2,554 2,865 2,111 587 655 0 8,772
4 B 565 2,955 10,322 12,684 15,948 0 42,474
C 163 982 5,276 9,021 17,472 20,883 53,797
A 2,806 2,262 1,519 504 558 0 7,649
5 B 502 2,665 6,558 8,882 12,815 0 31,422
C 146 860 3,604 7,403 17,428 14,319 43,760
A 2,895 2,468 1,446 705 402 0 7,916
6 B 430 2,410 5,532 10,408 9,188 0 27,968
C 125 365 2,062 7,251 13,726 14,328 37,857
A 3,589 2,128 1,295 518 328 0 7,858
7 B 565 2,886 6,161 8,886 9,590 0 28,088
C 177 298 2,291 7,031 12,412 16,567 38,776
A 3,906 2,171 1,133 426 294 0 7,930
8 B 675 2,987 5,434 8,836 8,191 0 26,123
C 180 342 2,013 5,871 12,365 15,692 36,463
A 9,155 4,252 1,213 603 440 0 15,663
9 B 899 3,216 4,682 7,992 11,579 0 28,368
C 412 504 2,156 6,751 12,871 12,403 35,097
A 3,825 1,990 829 275 201 0 7,120
10 B 860 3,457 4,099 4,935 6,453 0 19,804
C 356 614 2,645 5,774 8,518 5,044 22,951
A 2,156 1,082 384 261 86 0 3,969
11 B 710 2,419 3,993 3,699 4,642 0 15,463
C 332 800 2,307 5,368 5,362 4,377 18,546
A 1,218 506 266 192 0 0 2,182
12 B 698 1,941 3,110 3,095 3,135 0 11,979
C 406 821 2,622 4,723 4,660 2,329 15,561

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 92 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 4.3.5.2B
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Percent): Oral S302
Oral Language Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 14.6% 9.1% 12.0% 20.5% 22.6% 21.2% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 25.3% 14.4% 16.5% 8.8% 13.8% 21.2% 100.0%
A 10.8% 24.8% 39.3% 10.3% 14.8% 0.0% 100.0%
1 B 1.1% 5.9% 35.5% 19.0% 38.5% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.6% 4.4% 15.8% 14.6% 29.2% 35.3% 100.0%
A 22.5% 25.8% 29.2% 9.0% 13.4% 0.0% 100.0%
2 B 0.8% 3.6% 26.4% 19.3% 49.9% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.5% 2.2% 9.5% 13.6% 35.1% 39.1% 100.0%
A 22.9% 36.4% 26.8% 6.3% 7.7% 0.0% 100.0%
3 B 0.9% 7.1% 27.7% 29.8% 34.4% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.2% 1.5% 7.6% 16.3% 29.2% 45.1% 100.0%
A 29.1% 32.7% 24.1% 6.7% 7.5% 0.0% 100.0%
4 B 1.3% 7.0% 24.3% 29.9% 37.5% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.3% 1.8% 9.8% 16.8% 32.5% 38.8% 100.0%
A 36.7% 29.6% 19.9% 6.6% 7.3% 0.0% 100.0%
5 B 1.6% 8.5% 20.9% 28.3% 40.8% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.3% 2.0% 8.2% 16.9% 39.8% 32.7% 100.0%
A 36.6% 31.2% 18.3% 8.9% 5.1% 0.0% 100.0%
6 B 1.5% 8.6% 19.8% 37.2% 32.9% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.3% 1.0% 5.4% 19.2% 36.3% 37.8% 100.0%
A 45.7% 27.1% 16.5% 6.6% 4.2% 0.0% 100.0%
7 B 2.0% 10.3% 21.9% 31.6% 34.1% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.5% 0.8% 5.9% 18.1% 32.0% 42.7% 100.0%
A 49.3% 27.4% 14.3% 5.4% 3.7% 0.0% 100.0%
8 B 2.6% 11.4% 20.8% 33.8% 31.4% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.5% 0.9% 5.5% 16.1% 33.9% 43.0% 100.0%
A 58.4% 27.1% 7.7% 3.8% 2.8% 0.0% 100.0%
9 B 3.2% 11.3% 16.5% 28.2% 40.8% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.2% 1.4% 6.1% 19.2% 36.7% 35.3% 100.0%
A 53.7% 27.9% 11.6% 3.9% 2.8% 0.0% 100.0%
10 B 4.3% 17.5% 20.7% 24.9% 32.6% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.6% 2.7% 11.5% 25.2% 37.1% 22.0% 100.0%
A 54.3% 27.3% 9.7% 6.6% 2.2% 0.0% 100.0%
11 B 4.6% 15.6% 25.8% 23.9% 30.0% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.8% 4.3% 12.4% 28.9% 28.9% 23.6% 100.0%
A 55.8% 23.2% 12.2% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
12 B 5.8% 16.2% 26.0% 25.8% 26.2% 0.0% 100.0%
C 2.6% 5.3% 16.8% 30.4% 29.9% 15.0% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 93 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.5.3 By Grade
Table 4.3.5.3A
Proficiency Level by Grade (Count): Oral S302
Oral Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 29,747 18,588 24,444 41,756 45,977 43,311 203,823
K (accountability) 51,598 29,375 33,562 17,908 28,069 43,311 203,823
1 8,563 23,951 65,602 30,505 57,456 15,055 201,132
2 5,161 9,752 38,724 30,532 77,171 26,112 187,452
3 3,809 11,130 29,982 35,592 49,079 34,474 164,066
4 3,282 6,802 17,709 22,292 34,075 20,883 105,043
5 3,454 5,787 11,681 16,789 30,801 14,319 82,831
6 3,450 5,243 9,040 18,364 23,316 14,328 73,741
7 4,331 5,312 9,747 16,435 22,330 16,567 74,722
8 4,761 5,500 8,580 15,133 20,850 15,692 70,516
9 10,466 7,972 8,051 15,346 24,890 12,403 79,128
10 5,041 6,061 7,573 10,984 15,172 5,044 49,875
11 3,198 4,301 6,684 9,328 10,090 4,377 37,978
12 2,322 3,268 5,998 8,010 7,795 2,329 29,722

Table 4.3.5.3B
Proficiency Level by Grade (Percent): Oral S302
Oral Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 14.6% 9.1% 12.0% 20.5% 22.6% 21.2% 100.0%
K (accountability) 25.3% 14.4% 16.5% 8.8% 13.8% 21.2% 100.0%
1 4.3% 11.9% 32.6% 15.2% 28.6% 7.5% 100.0%
2 2.8% 5.2% 20.7% 16.3% 41.2% 13.9% 100.0%
3 2.3% 6.8% 18.3% 21.7% 29.9% 21.0% 100.0%
4 3.1% 6.5% 16.9% 21.2% 32.4% 19.9% 100.0%
5 4.2% 7.0% 14.1% 20.3% 37.2% 17.3% 100.0%
6 4.7% 7.1% 12.3% 24.9% 31.6% 19.4% 100.0%
7 5.8% 7.1% 13.0% 22.0% 29.9% 22.2% 100.0%
8 6.8% 7.8% 12.2% 21.5% 29.6% 22.3% 100.0%
9 13.2% 10.1% 10.2% 19.4% 31.5% 15.7% 100.0%
10 10.1% 12.2% 15.2% 22.0% 30.4% 10.1% 100.0%
11 8.4% 11.3% 17.6% 24.6% 26.6% 11.5% 100.0%
12 7.8% 11.0% 20.2% 26.9% 26.2% 7.8% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 94 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.6 Literacy Composite

4.3.6.1 By Cluster by Tier

Table 4.3.6.1A
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Count): Literacy S302
Literacy Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 35,756 50,231 37,594 25,398 41,480 13,378 203,837
K (accountability) - 130,672 24,411 24,653 16,739 7,362 0 203,837
A 14,422 40,333 30,528 1 0 0 85,284
1-2 B 3,770 41,938 141,538 6,522 1 0 193,769
C 1,080 12,036 41,307 33,761 18,698 2,493 109,375
A 5,056 10,071 9,198 4,723 52 0 29,100
3-5 B 1,460 10,991 46,374 82,937 6,863 1 148,626
C 301 911 16,158 57,529 74,659 24,333 173,891
A 6,265 9,640 6,796 978 9 0 23,688
6-8 B 2,795 17,396 42,224 19,417 352 1 82,185
C 885 10,954 59,272 31,887 8,517 1,640 113,155
A 6,172 12,513 8,620 1,686 26 0 29,017
9-12 B 4,007 13,933 27,815 23,782 6,253 27 75,817
C 1,166 3,011 15,659 28,418 30,496 13,732 92,482

Table 4.3.6.1B
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Percent): Literacy S302
Literacy Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 17.5% 24.6% 18.4% 12.5% 20.3% 6.6% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 64.1% 12.0% 12.1% 8.2% 3.6% 0.0% 100.0%
A 16.9% 47.3% 35.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
1-2 B 1.9% 21.6% 73.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.0% 11.0% 37.8% 30.9% 17.1% 2.3% 100.0%
A 17.4% 34.6% 31.6% 16.2% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%
3-5 B 1.0% 7.4% 31.2% 55.8% 4.6% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.2% 0.5% 9.3% 33.1% 42.9% 14.0% 100.0%
A 26.4% 40.7% 28.7% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
6-8 B 3.4% 21.2% 51.4% 23.6% 0.4% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.8% 9.7% 52.4% 28.2% 7.5% 1.4% 100.0%
A 21.3% 43.1% 29.7% 5.8% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
9-12 B 5.3% 18.4% 36.7% 31.4% 8.2% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.3% 3.3% 16.9% 30.7% 33.0% 14.8% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 95 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.6.2 By Grade by Tier
Table 4.3.6.2A
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Count): Literacy S302
Literacy Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 35,756 50,231 37,594 25,398 41,480 13,378 203,837
K (accountability) - 130,672 24,411 24,653 16,739 7,362 0 203,837
A 9,558 32,337 25,543 1 0 0 67,439
1 B 1,764 21,038 64,581 3,631 1 0 91,015
C 570 5,997 17,610 11,653 5,845 930 42,605
A 4,864 7,996 4,985 0 0 0 17,845
2 B 2,006 20,900 76,957 2,891 0 0 102,754
C 510 6,039 23,697 22,108 12,853 1,563 66,770
A 1,352 4,327 4,216 2,779 45 0 12,719
3 B 445 3,928 19,574 45,675 5,208 0 74,830
C 111 183 3,185 18,513 40,755 13,620 76,367
A 1,590 3,150 2,754 1,259 5 0 8,758
4 B 429 3,547 13,706 23,439 1,287 1 42,409
C 118 295 5,157 21,574 20,092 6,537 53,773
A 2,114 2,594 2,228 685 2 0 7,623
5 B 586 3,516 13,094 13,823 368 0 31,387
C 72 433 7,816 17,442 13,812 4,176 43,751
A 1,239 3,324 2,756 581 6 0 7,906
6 B 599 5,066 13,762 8,308 211 0 27,946
C 212 2,955 19,653 11,707 2,777 566 37,870
A 2,165 3,124 2,265 298 2 0 7,854
7 B 955 5,761 14,383 6,888 108 1 28,096
C 312 3,691 20,084 11,176 2,967 564 38,794
A 2,861 3,192 1,775 99 1 0 7,928
8 B 1,241 6,569 14,079 4,221 33 0 26,143
C 361 4,308 19,535 9,004 2,773 510 36,491
A 3,462 6,715 4,366 1,132 20 0 15,695
9 B 991 3,594 10,104 9,685 4,060 13 28,447
C 269 583 3,836 9,101 14,167 7,251 35,207
A 1,333 3,127 2,246 411 6 0 7,123
10 B 1,102 3,980 7,428 6,017 1,307 9 19,843
C 247 757 4,177 7,534 7,527 2,790 23,032
A 770 1,746 1,367 111 0 0 3,994
11 B 949 3,371 5,639 4,816 705 4 15,484
C 275 722 3,745 6,409 5,192 2,271 18,614
A 607 925 641 32 0 0 2,205
12 B 965 2,988 4,644 3,264 181 1 12,043
C 375 949 3,901 5,374 3,610 1,420 15,629

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 96 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 4.3.6.2B
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Percent): Literacy S302
Literacy Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 17.5% 24.6% 18.4% 12.5% 20.3% 6.6% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 64.1% 12.0% 12.1% 8.2% 3.6% 0.0% 100.0%
A 14.2% 47.9% 37.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
1 B 1.9% 23.1% 71.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.3% 14.1% 41.3% 27.4% 13.7% 2.2% 100.0%
A 27.3% 44.8% 27.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
2 B 2.0% 20.3% 74.9% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.8% 9.0% 35.5% 33.1% 19.2% 2.3% 100.0%
A 10.6% 34.0% 33.1% 21.8% 0.4% 0.0% 100.0%
3 B 0.6% 5.2% 26.2% 61.0% 7.0% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.1% 0.2% 4.2% 24.2% 53.4% 17.8% 100.0%
A 18.2% 36.0% 31.4% 14.4% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
4 B 1.0% 8.4% 32.3% 55.3% 3.0% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.2% 0.5% 9.6% 40.1% 37.4% 12.2% 100.0%
A 27.7% 34.0% 29.2% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
5 B 1.9% 11.2% 41.7% 44.0% 1.2% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.2% 1.0% 17.9% 39.9% 31.6% 9.5% 100.0%
A 15.7% 42.0% 34.9% 7.3% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
6 B 2.1% 18.1% 49.2% 29.7% 0.8% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.6% 7.8% 51.9% 30.9% 7.3% 1.5% 100.0%
A 27.6% 39.8% 28.8% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
7 B 3.4% 20.5% 51.2% 24.5% 0.4% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.8% 9.5% 51.8% 28.8% 7.6% 1.5% 100.0%
A 36.1% 40.3% 22.4% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
8 B 4.7% 25.1% 53.9% 16.1% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.0% 11.8% 53.5% 24.7% 7.6% 1.4% 100.0%
A 22.1% 42.8% 27.8% 7.2% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
9 B 3.5% 12.6% 35.5% 34.0% 14.3% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.8% 1.7% 10.9% 25.8% 40.2% 20.6% 100.0%
A 18.7% 43.9% 31.5% 5.8% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
10 B 5.6% 20.1% 37.4% 30.3% 6.6% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.1% 3.3% 18.1% 32.7% 32.7% 12.1% 100.0%
A 19.3% 43.7% 34.2% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
11 B 6.1% 21.8% 36.4% 31.1% 4.6% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.5% 3.9% 20.1% 34.4% 27.9% 12.2% 100.0%
A 27.5% 42.0% 29.1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
12 B 8.0% 24.8% 38.6% 27.1% 1.5% 0.0% 100.0%
C 2.4% 6.1% 25.0% 34.4% 23.1% 9.1% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 97 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.6.3 By Grade
Table 4.3.6.3A
Proficiency Level by Grade (Count): Literacy S302
Literacy Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 35,756 50,231 37,594 25,398 41,480 13,378 203,837
K (accountability) 130,672 24,411 24,653 16,739 7,362 0 203,837
1 11,892 59,372 107,734 15,285 5,846 930 201,059
2 7,380 34,935 105,639 24,999 12,853 1,563 187,369
3 1,908 8,438 26,975 66,967 46,008 13,620 163,916
4 2,137 6,992 21,617 46,272 21,384 6,538 104,940
5 2,772 6,543 23,138 31,950 14,182 4,176 82,761
6 2,050 11,345 36,171 20,596 2,994 566 73,722
7 3,432 12,576 36,732 18,362 3,077 565 74,744
8 4,463 14,069 35,389 13,324 2,807 510 70,562
9 4,722 10,892 18,306 19,918 18,247 7,264 79,349
10 2,682 7,864 13,851 13,962 8,840 2,799 49,998
11 1,994 5,839 10,751 11,336 5,897 2,275 38,092
12 1,947 4,862 9,186 8,670 3,791 1,421 29,877

Table 4.3.6.3B
Proficiency Level by Grade (Percent): Literacy S302
Literacy Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 17.5% 24.6% 18.4% 12.5% 20.3% 6.6% 100.0%
K (accountability) 64.1% 12.0% 12.1% 8.2% 3.6% 0.0% 100.0%
1 5.9% 29.5% 53.6% 7.6% 2.9% 0.5% 100.0%
2 3.9% 18.6% 56.4% 13.3% 6.9% 0.8% 100.0%
3 1.2% 5.1% 16.5% 40.9% 28.1% 8.3% 100.0%
4 2.0% 6.7% 20.6% 44.1% 20.4% 6.2% 100.0%
5 3.3% 7.9% 28.0% 38.6% 17.1% 5.0% 100.0%
6 2.8% 15.4% 49.1% 27.9% 4.1% 0.8% 100.0%
7 4.6% 16.8% 49.1% 24.6% 4.1% 0.8% 100.0%
8 6.3% 19.9% 50.2% 18.9% 4.0% 0.7% 100.0%
9 6.0% 13.7% 23.1% 25.1% 23.0% 9.2% 100.0%
10 5.4% 15.7% 27.7% 27.9% 17.7% 5.6% 100.0%
11 5.2% 15.3% 28.2% 29.8% 15.5% 6.0% 100.0%
12 6.5% 16.3% 30.7% 29.0% 12.7% 4.8% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 98 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.7 Comprehension Composite

4.3.7.1 By Cluster by Tier

Table 4.3.7.1A
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Count): Comprehension S302
Comprehension Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 25,081 30,698 43,899 29,078 30,330 44,751 203,837
K (accountability) - 120,340 14,043 14,430 13,518 25,262 16,244 203,837
A 10,391 23,289 30,315 21,285 n/a n/a 85,280
1-2 B 1,393 3,083 32,275 43,076 114,006 n/a 193,833
C 499 2,560 14,327 15,359 35,404 41,295 109,444
A 4,744 11,712 7,478 5,207 n/a n/a 29,141
3-5 B 890 9,118 37,231 33,343 68,114 n/a 148,696
C 257 1,113 15,253 18,246 62,063 77,063 173,995
A 7,642 10,240 4,431 1,391 n/a n/a 23,704
6-8 B 1,217 16,036 31,877 18,351 14,748 n/a 82,229
C 364 4,247 27,849 20,784 36,308 23,678 113,230
A 12,065 11,721 4,111 1,136 n/a n/a 29,033
9-12 B 4,461 21,858 22,397 15,256 11,925 n/a 75,897
C 1,102 6,373 16,936 19,683 25,277 23,262 92,633

Table 4.3.7.1B
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Percent): Comprehension S302
Comprehension Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 12.3% 15.1% 21.5% 14.3% 14.9% 22.0% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 59.0% 6.9% 7.1% 6.6% 12.4% 8.0% 100.0%
A 12.2% 27.3% 35.5% 25.0% n/a n/a 100.0%
1-2 B 0.7% 1.6% 16.7% 22.2% 58.8% n/a 100.0%
C 0.5% 2.3% 13.1% 14.0% 32.3% 37.7% 100.0%
A 16.3% 40.2% 25.7% 17.9% n/a n/a 100.0%
3-5 B 0.6% 6.1% 25.0% 22.4% 45.8% n/a 100.0%
C 0.1% 0.6% 8.8% 10.5% 35.7% 44.3% 100.0%
A 32.2% 43.2% 18.7% 5.9% n/a n/a 100.0%
6-8 B 1.5% 19.5% 38.8% 22.3% 17.9% n/a 100.0%
C 0.3% 3.8% 24.6% 18.4% 32.1% 20.9% 100.0%
A 41.6% 40.4% 14.2% 3.9% n/a n/a 100.0%
9-12 B 5.9% 28.8% 29.5% 20.1% 15.7% n/a 100.0%
C 1.2% 6.9% 18.3% 21.2% 27.3% 25.1% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 99 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.7.2 By Grade by Tier
Table 4.3.7.2A
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Count): Comprehension S302
Comprehension Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 25,081 30,698 43,899 29,078 30,330 44,751 203,837
K (accountability) - 120,340 14,043 14,430 13,518 25,262 16,244 203,837
A 6,765 18,250 25,773 16648 n/a n/a 67,436
1 B 1,002 1,274 13,373 25,386 50,017 n/a 91,052
C 310 880 6,125 6,973 14,848 13,495 42,631
A 3,626 5,039 4,542 4637 n/a n/a 17,844
2 B 391 1,809 18,902 17,690 63,989 n/a 102,781
C 189 1,680 8,202 8,386 20,556 27,800 66,813
A 1,125 5,270 3,768 2,587 n/a n/a 12,750
3 B 273 2,679 15,218 16,825 39,874 n/a 74,869
C 109 165 2,277 5,312 28,119 40,429 76,411
A 1,491 3,687 2,036 1,547 n/a n/a 8,761
4 B 283 3,034 12,542 9,945 16,628 n/a 42,432
C 94 314 5,814 7,155 19,057 21,371 53,805
A 2,128 2,755 1,674 1,073 n/a n/a 7,630
5 B 334 3,405 9,471 6,573 11,612 n/a 31,395
C 54 634 7,162 5,779 14,887 15,263 43,779
A 1,656 3,733 1,953 579 n/a n/a 7,921
6 B 202 4,111 11,540 6,576 5,533 n/a 27,962
C 99 910 9,878 7,608 12,464 6,935 37,894
A 2,705 3,309 1,412 426 n/a n/a 7,852
7 B 395 5,590 11,337 6,364 4,421 n/a 28,107
C 144 1,509 10,016 6,900 12,015 8,230 38,814
A 3,281 3,198 1,066 386 n/a n/a 7,931
8 B 620 6,335 9,000 5,411 4,794 n/a 26,160
C 121 1,828 7,955 6,276 11,829 8,513 36,522
A 6,697 6,294 2,089 639 n/a n/a 15,719
9 B 880 6,471 10,543 5,506 5,069 n/a 28,469
C 273 1,151 5,834 6,876 10,990 10,137 35,261
A 2,650 3,095 1,151 236 n/a n/a 7,132
10 B 987 6,285 6,000 3,727 2,864 n/a 19,863
C 233 1,662 4,964 4,976 6,228 4,999 23,062
A 1,609 1,647 572 151 n/a n/a 3,979
11 B 1,193 5,298 3,187 3,552 2,278 n/a 15,508
C 257 1,818 3,188 4,421 4,363 4,602 18,649
A 1,109 685 299 110 n/a n/a 2,203
12 B 1,401 3,804 2,667 2,471 1,714 n/a 12,057
C 339 1,742 2,950 3,410 3,696 3,524 15,661

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 100 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 4.3.7.2B
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Percent): Comprehension S302
Comprehension Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 12.3% 15.1% 21.5% 14.3% 14.9% 22.0% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 59.0% 6.9% 7.1% 6.6% 12.4% 8.0% 100.0%
A 10.0% 27.1% 38.2% 24.7% n/a n/a 100.0%
1 B 1.1% 1.4% 14.7% 27.9% 54.9% n/a 100.0%
C 0.7% 2.1% 14.4% 16.4% 34.8% 31.7% 100.0%
A 20.3% 28.2% 25.5% 26.0% n/a n/a 100.0%
2 B 0.4% 1.8% 18.4% 17.2% 62.3% n/a 100.0%
C 0.3% 2.5% 12.3% 12.6% 30.8% 41.6% 100.0%
A 8.8% 41.3% 29.6% 20.3% n/a n/a 100.0%
3 B 0.4% 3.6% 20.3% 22.5% 53.3% n/a 100.0%
C 0.1% 0.2% 3.0% 7.0% 36.8% 52.9% 100.0%
A 17.0% 42.1% 23.2% 17.7% n/a n/a 100.0%
4 B 0.7% 7.2% 29.6% 23.4% 39.2% n/a 100.0%
C 0.2% 0.6% 10.8% 13.3% 35.4% 39.7% 100.0%
A 27.9% 36.1% 21.9% 14.1% n/a n/a 100.0%
5 B 1.1% 10.8% 30.2% 20.9% 37.0% n/a 100.0%
C 0.1% 1.4% 16.4% 13.2% 34.0% 34.9% 100.0%
A 20.9% 47.1% 24.7% 7.3% n/a n/a 100.0%
6 B 0.7% 14.7% 41.3% 23.5% 19.8% n/a 100.0%
C 0.3% 2.4% 26.1% 20.1% 32.9% 18.3% 100.0%
A 34.4% 42.1% 18.0% 5.4% n/a n/a 100.0%
7 B 1.4% 19.9% 40.3% 22.6% 15.7% n/a 100.0%
C 0.4% 3.9% 25.8% 17.8% 31.0% 21.2% 100.0%
A 41.4% 40.3% 13.4% 4.9% n/a n/a 100.0%
8 B 2.4% 24.2% 34.4% 20.7% 18.3% n/a 100.0%
C 0.3% 5.0% 21.8% 17.2% 32.4% 23.3% 100.0%
A 42.6% 40.0% 13.3% 4.1% n/a n/a 100.0%
9 B 3.1% 22.7% 37.0% 19.3% 17.8% n/a 100.0%
C 0.8% 3.3% 16.5% 19.5% 31.2% 28.7% 100.0%
A 37.2% 43.4% 16.1% 3.3% n/a n/a 100.0%
10 B 5.0% 31.6% 30.2% 18.8% 14.4% n/a 100.0%
C 1.0% 7.2% 21.5% 21.6% 27.0% 21.7% 100.0%
A 40.4% 41.4% 14.4% 3.8% n/a n/a 100.0%
11 B 7.7% 34.2% 20.6% 22.9% 14.7% n/a 100.0%
C 1.4% 9.7% 17.1% 23.7% 23.4% 24.7% 100.0%
A 50.3% 31.1% 13.6% 5.0% n/a n/a 100.0%
12 B 11.6% 31.6% 22.1% 20.5% 14.2% n/a 100.0%
C 2.2% 11.1% 18.8% 21.8% 23.6% 22.5% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 101 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.7.3 By Grade
Table 4.3.7.3A
Proficiency Level by Grade (Count): Comprehension S302
Comprehension Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 25,081 30,698 43,899 29,078 30,330 44,751 203,837
K (accountability) 120,340 14,043 14,430 13,518 25,262 16,244 203,837
1 8,077 20,404 45,271 49,007 64,865 13,495 201,119
2 4,206 8,528 31,646 30,713 84,545 27,800 187,438
3 1,507 8,114 21,263 24,724 67,993 40,429 164,030
4 1,868 7,035 20,392 18,647 35,685 21,371 104,998
5 2,516 6,794 18,307 13,425 26,499 15,263 82,804
6 1,957 8,754 23,371 14,763 17,997 6,935 73,777
7 3,244 10,408 22,765 13,690 16,436 8,230 74,773
8 4,022 11,361 18,021 12,073 16,623 8,513 70,613
9 7,850 13,916 18,466 13,021 16,059 10,137 79,449
10 3,870 11,042 12,115 8,939 9,092 4,999 50,057
11 3,059 8,763 6,947 8,124 6,641 4,602 38,136
12 2,849 6,231 5,916 5,991 5,410 3,524 29,921

Table 4.3.7.3B
Proficiency Level by Grade (Percent): Comprehension S302
Comprehension Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 12.3% 15.1% 21.5% 14.3% 14.9% 22.0% 100.0%
K (accountability) 59.0% 6.9% 7.1% 6.6% 12.4% 8.0% 100.0%
1 4.0% 10.1% 22.5% 24.4% 32.3% 6.7% 100.0%
2 2.2% 4.5% 16.9% 16.4% 45.1% 14.8% 100.0%
3 0.9% 4.9% 13.0% 15.1% 41.5% 24.6% 100.0%
4 1.8% 6.7% 19.4% 17.8% 34.0% 20.4% 100.0%
5 3.0% 8.2% 22.1% 16.2% 32.0% 18.4% 100.0%
6 2.7% 11.9% 31.7% 20.0% 24.4% 9.4% 100.0%
7 4.3% 13.9% 30.4% 18.3% 22.0% 11.0% 100.0%
8 5.7% 16.1% 25.5% 17.1% 23.5% 12.1% 100.0%
9 9.9% 17.5% 23.2% 16.4% 20.2% 12.8% 100.0%
10 7.7% 22.1% 24.2% 17.9% 18.2% 10.0% 100.0%
11 8.0% 23.0% 18.2% 21.3% 17.4% 12.1% 100.0%
12 9.5% 20.8% 19.8% 20.0% 18.1% 11.8% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 102 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.8 Overall Composite

4.3.8.1 By Cluster by Tier

Table 4.3.8.1A
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Count): Overall S302
Overall Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 28,669 41,422 40,481 36,103 43,506 13,628 203,809
K (accountability) - 108,070 32,479 29,796 19,836 11,866 1,762 203,809
A 10,171 35,943 38,921 122 0 0 85,157
1-2 B 1,603 20,388 122,352 49,220 17 0 193,580
C 389 4,881 30,572 39,444 29,432 4,601 109,319
A 6,102 10,070 8,917 3,822 135 0 29,046
3-5 B 859 8,816 44,265 79,344 15,204 0 148,488
C 192 664 11,764 48,616 79,469 33,038 173,743
A 7,956 8,780 5,607 1,279 11 0 23,633
6-8 B 1,313 12,243 35,405 30,846 2,170 0 81,977
C 318 2,905 30,883 50,791 24,572 3,446 112,915
A 9,643 12,176 5,767 1,222 42 0 28,850
9-12 B 2,628 12,216 25,408 24,990 10,081 14 75,337
C 835 2,136 12,591 29,239 32,837 14,234 91,872

Table 4.3.8.1B
Proficiency Level by Cluster by Tier (Percent): Overall S302
Overall Proficiency Range
Cluster Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 14.1% 20.3% 19.9% 17.7% 21.3% 6.7% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 53.0% 15.9% 14.6% 9.7% 5.8% 0.9% 100.0%
A 11.9% 42.2% 45.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
1-2 B 0.8% 10.5% 63.2% 25.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.4% 4.5% 28.0% 36.1% 26.9% 4.2% 100.0%
A 21.0% 34.7% 30.7% 13.2% 0.5% 0.0% 100.0%
3-5 B 0.6% 5.9% 29.8% 53.4% 10.2% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.1% 0.4% 6.8% 28.0% 45.7% 19.0% 100.0%
A 33.7% 37.2% 23.7% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
6-8 B 1.6% 14.9% 43.2% 37.6% 2.6% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.3% 2.6% 27.4% 45.0% 21.8% 3.1% 100.0%
A 33.4% 42.2% 20.0% 4.2% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
9-12 B 3.5% 16.2% 33.7% 33.2% 13.4% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.9% 2.3% 13.7% 31.8% 35.7% 15.5% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 103 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.8.2 By Grade by Tier
Table 4.3.8.2A
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Count): Overall S302
Overall Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 28,669 41,422 40,481 36,103 43,506 13,628 203,809
K (accountability) - 108,070 32,479 29,796 19,836 11,866 1,762 203,809
A 6,224 28,518 32,494 106 0 0 67,342
1 B 957 10,892 61,866 17,210 6 0 90,931
C 187 2,615 14,904 13,940 9,225 1,709 42,580
A 3,947 7,425 6,427 16 0 0 17,815
2 B 646 9,496 60,486 32,010 11 0 102,649
C 202 2,266 15,668 25,504 20,207 2,892 66,739
A 1,814 4,455 4,299 2,021 110 0 12,699
3 B 259 3,161 20,013 40,919 10,425 0 74,777
C 79 167 2,644 15,709 38,945 18,769 76,313
A 1,999 3,059 2,581 1,079 15 0 8,733
4 B 292 2,904 13,315 22,528 3,321 0 42,360
C 67 238 4,291 17,451 23,098 8,584 53,729
A 2,289 2,556 2,037 722 10 0 7,614
5 B 308 2,751 10,937 15,897 1,458 0 31,351
C 46 259 4,829 15,456 17,426 5,685 43,701
A 1,984 2,984 2,255 656 8 0 7,887
6 B 255 3,484 11,343 11,733 1,085 0 27,900
C 75 785 9,955 17,919 7,823 1,238 37,795
A 2,715 2,898 1,847 376 2 0 7,838
7 B 439 4,091 12,467 10,185 828 0 28,010
C 112 979 10,971 16,486 8,998 1,168 38,714
A 3,257 2,898 1,505 247 1 0 7,908
8 B 619 4,668 11,595 8,928 257 0 26,067
C 131 1,141 9,957 16,386 7,751 1,040 36,406
A 5,577 6,337 2,951 711 37 0 15,613
9 B 646 3,120 8,603 10,139 5,752 8 28,268
C 209 416 2,729 8,741 15,112 7,812 35,019
A 2,053 3,240 1,486 313 5 0 7,097
10 B 691 3,564 6,811 6,243 2,429 4 19,742
C 176 492 3,289 7,835 8,203 2,885 22,880
A 1,205 1,749 874 137 0 0 3,965
11 B 621 3,052 5,358 4,942 1,428 2 15,403
C 200 528 3,156 6,684 5,697 2,224 18,489
A 808 850 456 61 0 0 2,175
12 B 670 2,480 4,636 3,666 472 0 11,924
C 250 700 3,417 5,979 3,825 1,313 15,484

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 104 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Table 4.3.8.2B
Proficiency Level by Grade by Tier (Percent): Overall S302
Overall Proficiency Range
Grade Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) - 14.1% 20.3% 19.9% 17.7% 21.3% 6.7% 100.0%
K (accountability) - 53.0% 15.9% 14.6% 9.7% 5.8% 0.9% 100.0%
A 9.2% 42.3% 48.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
1 B 1.1% 12.0% 68.0% 18.9% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.4% 6.1% 35.0% 32.7% 21.7% 4.0% 100.0%
A 22.2% 41.7% 36.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
2 B 0.6% 9.3% 58.9% 31.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.3% 3.4% 23.5% 38.2% 30.3% 4.3% 100.0%
A 14.3% 35.1% 33.9% 15.9% 0.9% 0.0% 100.0%
3 B 0.3% 4.2% 26.8% 54.7% 13.9% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.1% 0.2% 3.5% 20.6% 51.0% 24.6% 100.0%
A 22.9% 35.0% 29.6% 12.4% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%
4 B 0.7% 6.9% 31.4% 53.2% 7.8% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.1% 0.4% 8.0% 32.5% 43.0% 16.0% 100.0%
A 30.1% 33.6% 26.8% 9.5% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
5 B 1.0% 8.8% 34.9% 50.7% 4.7% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.1% 0.6% 11.1% 35.4% 39.9% 13.0% 100.0%
A 25.2% 37.8% 28.6% 8.3% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
6 B 0.9% 12.5% 40.7% 42.1% 3.9% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.2% 2.1% 26.3% 47.4% 20.7% 3.3% 100.0%
A 34.6% 37.0% 23.6% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
7 B 1.6% 14.6% 44.5% 36.4% 3.0% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.3% 2.5% 28.3% 42.6% 23.2% 3.0% 100.0%
A 41.2% 36.6% 19.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
8 B 2.4% 17.9% 44.5% 34.3% 1.0% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.4% 3.1% 27.3% 45.0% 21.3% 2.9% 100.0%
A 35.7% 40.6% 18.9% 4.6% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%
9 B 2.3% 11.0% 30.4% 35.9% 20.3% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.6% 1.2% 7.8% 25.0% 43.2% 22.3% 100.0%
A 28.9% 45.7% 20.9% 4.4% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
10 B 3.5% 18.1% 34.5% 31.6% 12.3% 0.0% 100.0%
C 0.8% 2.2% 14.4% 34.2% 35.9% 12.6% 100.0%
A 30.4% 44.1% 22.0% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
11 B 4.0% 19.8% 34.8% 32.1% 9.3% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.1% 2.9% 17.1% 36.2% 30.8% 12.0% 100.0%
A 37.1% 39.1% 21.0% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
12 B 5.6% 20.8% 38.9% 30.7% 4.0% 0.0% 100.0%
C 1.6% 4.5% 22.1% 38.6% 24.7% 8.5% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 105 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.3.8.3 By Grade
Table 4.3.8.3A
Proficiency Level by Grade (Count): Overall S302
Overall Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 28,669 41,422 40,481 36,103 43,506 13,628 203,809
K (accountability) 108,070 32,479 29,796 19,836 11,866 1,762 203,809
1 7,368 42,025 109,264 31,256 9,231 1,709 200,853
2 4,795 19,187 82,581 57,530 20,218 2,892 187,203
3 2,152 7,783 26,956 58,649 49,480 18,769 163,789
4 2,358 6,201 20,187 41,058 26,434 8,584 104,822
5 2,643 5,566 17,803 32,075 18,894 5,685 82,666
6 2,314 7,253 23,553 30,308 8,916 1,238 73,582
7 3,266 7,968 25,285 27,047 9,828 1,168 74,562
8 4,007 8,707 23,057 25,561 8,009 1,040 70,381
9 6,432 9,873 14,283 19,591 20,901 7,820 78,900
10 2,920 7,296 11,586 14,391 10,637 2,889 49,719
11 2,026 5,329 9,388 11,763 7,125 2,226 37,857
12 1,728 4,030 8,509 9,706 4,297 1,313 29,583

Table 4.3.8.3B
Proficiency Level by Grade (Percent): Overall S302
Overall Proficiency Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
K (instructional) 14.1% 20.3% 19.9% 17.7% 21.3% 6.7% 100.0%
K (accountability) 53.0% 15.9% 14.6% 9.7% 5.8% 0.9% 100.0%
1 3.7% 20.9% 54.4% 15.6% 4.6% 0.9% 100.0%
2 2.6% 10.2% 44.1% 30.7% 10.8% 1.5% 100.0%
3 1.3% 4.8% 16.5% 35.8% 30.2% 11.5% 100.0%
4 2.2% 5.9% 19.3% 39.2% 25.2% 8.2% 100.0%
5 3.2% 6.7% 21.5% 38.8% 22.9% 6.9% 100.0%
6 3.1% 9.9% 32.0% 41.2% 12.1% 1.7% 100.0%
7 4.4% 10.7% 33.9% 36.3% 13.2% 1.6% 100.0%
8 5.7% 12.4% 32.8% 36.3% 11.4% 1.5% 100.0%
9 8.2% 12.5% 18.1% 24.8% 26.5% 9.9% 100.0%
10 5.9% 14.7% 23.3% 28.9% 21.4% 5.8% 100.0%
11 5.4% 14.1% 24.8% 31.1% 18.8% 5.9% 100.0%
12 5.8% 13.6% 28.8% 32.8% 14.5% 4.4% 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 106 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.4 Mean Raw Score Results by Standards
4.4.1 Comprehension Composite

4.4.1.1 By Cluster
Table 4.4.1.1
Mean Raw Score by Cluster by Tier by Standard: Comprehension S302
Maximum Percent of
Cluster Tier Standard Score Mean Score Maximum
Social Instructional Language 12 7.77 64.74%
Language of Language Arts 9 5.97 66.34%
A Language of Math 9 5.27 58.54%
Language of Science 6 4.16 69.33%
Language of Social Studies 6 3.66 60.97%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.51 75.15%
Language of Language Arts 12 7.36 61.33%
1-2 B Language of Math 12 7.49 62.43%
Language of Science 9 6.65 73.89%
Language of Social Studies 9 6.25 69.47%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.89 81.53%
Language of Language Arts 12 8.86 73.83%
C Language of Math 12 6.95 57.94%
Language of Science 9 5.71 63.46%
Language of Social Studies 9 6.24 69.35%
Social Instructional Language 12 7.10 59.15%
Language of Language Arts 9 4.03 44.76%
A Language of Math 9 4.79 53.18%
Language of Science 6 3.22 53.60%
Language of Social Studies 6 3.26 54.33%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.81 80.09%
Language of Language Arts 12 7.73 64.38%
3-5 B Language of Math 12 6.89 57.42%
Language of Science 9 5.25 58.32%
Language of Social Studies 9 5.42 60.22%
Social Instructional Language 6 3.73 62.17%
Language of Language Arts 12 7.71 64.27%
C Language of Math 12 5.10 42.49%
Language of Science 9 5.05 56.06%
Language of Social Studies 9 4.33 48.12%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 107 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Maximum Percent of
Cluster Tier Standard Score Mean Score Maximum
Social Instructional Language 12 5.97 49.77%
Language of Language Arts 9 4.59 50.95%
A Language of Math 9 4.67 51.89%
Language of Science 6 3.56 59.32%
Language of Social Studies 6 3.08 51.26%
Social Instructional Language 6 3.93 65.43%
Language of Language Arts 12 8.50 70.81%
6-8 B Language of Math 12 7.15 59.62%
Language of Science 9 4.78 53.10%
Language of Social Studies 9 5.50 61.06%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.22 70.35%
Language of Language Arts 12 8.01 66.75%
C Language of Math 12 7.34 61.14%
Language of Science 9 5.55 61.65%
Language of Social Studies 9 4.54 50.41%
Social Instructional Language 12 5.84 48.67%
Language of Language Arts 9 5.17 57.45%
A Language of Math 9 4.87 54.07%
Language of Science 6 3.32 55.41%
Language of Social Studies 6 3.67 61.21%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.33 72.21%
Language of Language Arts 12 8.08 67.35%
9-12 B Language of Math 12 7.22 60.14%
Language of Science 9 4.91 54.57%
Language of Social Studies 9 5.18 57.61%
Social Instructional Language 6 3.79 63.13%
Language of Language Arts 12 7.44 61.98%
C Language of Math 12 7.40 61.68%
Language of Science 9 5.18 57.55%
Language of Social Studies 9 4.75 52.81%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 108 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.4.1.2 By Grade
Table 4.4.1.2
Mean Raw Score by Grade by Tier by Standard: Comprehension S302
Maximum Percent of
Grade Tier Standard Score Mean Score Maximum
Social Instructional Language 12 7.72 64.30%
Language of Language Arts 9 5.88 65.34%
A Language of Math 9 5.17 57.49%
Language of Science 6 4.14 69.01%
Language of Social Studies 6 3.61 60.23%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.19 69.84%
Language of Language Arts 12 6.57 54.75%
1 B Language of Math 12 6.64 55.32%
Language of Science 9 6.03 66.98%
Language of Social Studies 9 5.58 62.02%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.48 74.75%
Language of Language Arts 12 7.85 65.44%
C Language of Math 12 6.07 50.58%
Language of Science 9 5.11 56.80%
Language of Social Studies 9 5.41 60.13%
Social Instructional Language 12 7.96 66.35%
Language of Language Arts 9 6.31 70.09%
A Language of Math 9 5.62 62.47%
Language of Science 6 4.23 70.54%
Language of Social Studies 6 3.82 63.72%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.79 79.86%
Language of Language Arts 12 8.06 67.17%
2 B Language of Math 12 8.25 68.74%
Language of Science 9 7.20 80.02%
Language of Social Studies 9 6.85 76.08%
Social Instructional Language 6 5.15 85.86%
Language of Language Arts 12 9.50 79.19%
C Language of Math 12 7.52 62.63%
Language of Science 9 6.09 67.72%
Language of Social Studies 9 6.77 75.25%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 109 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Maximum Percent of
Grade Tier Standard Score Mean Score Maximum
Social Instructional Language 12 6.92 57.63%
Language of Language Arts 9 3.81 42.30%
A Language of Math 9 4.58 50.87%
Language of Science 6 3.06 51.00%
Language of Social Studies 6 3.03 50.50%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.64 77.37%
Language of Language Arts 12 7.26 60.51%
3 B Language of Math 12 6.52 54.30%
Language of Science 9 4.95 55.02%
Language of Social Studies 9 5.11 56.76%
Social Instructional Language 6 3.53 58.77%
Language of Language Arts 12 7.31 60.88%
C Language of Math 12 4.66 38.80%
Language of Science 9 4.73 52.59%
Language of Social Studies 9 3.96 44.03%
Social Instructional Language 12 7.13 59.39%
Language of Language Arts 9 4.10 45.50%
A Language of Math 9 4.87 54.11%
Language of Science 6 3.25 54.21%
Language of Social Studies 6 3.33 55.57%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.89 81.49%
Language of Language Arts 12 7.95 66.25%
4 B Language of Math 12 7.06 58.85%
Language of Science 9 5.39 59.85%
Language of Social Studies 9 5.54 61.57%
Social Instructional Language 6 3.76 62.66%
Language of Language Arts 12 7.75 64.59%
C Language of Math 12 5.18 43.13%
Language of Science 9 5.07 56.39%
Language of Social Studies 9 4.35 48.37%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 110 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Maximum Percent of
Grade Tier Standard Score Mean Score Maximum
Social Instructional Language 12 7.37 61.40%
Language of Language Arts 9 4.32 48.01%
A Language of Math 9 5.04 55.94%
Language of Science 6 3.43 57.23%
Language of Social Studies 6 3.56 59.31%
Social Instructional Language 6 5.08 84.66%
Language of Language Arts 12 8.53 71.06%
5 B Language of Math 12 7.55 62.90%
Language of Science 9 5.77 64.13%
Language of Social Studies 9 6.00 66.63%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.05 67.49%
Language of Language Arts 12 8.37 69.79%
C Language of Math 12 5.78 48.13%
Language of Science 9 5.55 61.70%
Language of Social Studies 9 4.94 54.93%
Social Instructional Language 12 5.84 48.69%
Language of Language Arts 9 4.47 49.64%
A Language of Math 9 4.51 50.07%
Language of Science 6 3.47 57.84%
Language of Social Studies 6 2.97 49.43%
Social Instructional Language 6 3.76 62.62%
Language of Language Arts 12 8.16 68.04%
6 B Language of Math 12 6.79 56.56%
Language of Science 9 4.53 50.29%
Language of Social Studies 9 5.09 56.52%
Social Instructional Language 6 3.93 65.51%
Language of Language Arts 12 7.23 60.29%
C Language of Math 12 6.81 56.77%
Language of Science 9 5.14 57.10%
Language of Social Studies 9 3.94 43.78%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 111 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Maximum Percent of
Grade Tier Standard Score Mean Score Maximum
Social Instructional Language 12 5.98 49.83%
Language of Language Arts 9 4.58 50.86%
A Language of Math 9 4.67 51.91%
Language of Science 6 3.57 59.52%
Language of Social Studies 6 3.05 50.90%
Social Instructional Language 6 3.93 65.52%
Language of Language Arts 12 8.52 71.04%
7 B Language of Math 12 7.17 59.72%
Language of Science 9 4.81 53.44%
Language of Social Studies 9 5.51 61.25%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.25 70.86%
Language of Language Arts 12 8.05 67.11%
C Language of Math 12 7.35 61.26%
Language of Science 9 5.56 61.77%
Language of Social Studies 9 4.56 50.62%
Social Instructional Language 12 6.10 50.80%
Language of Language Arts 9 4.71 52.37%
A Language of Math 9 4.83 53.70%
Language of Science 6 3.64 60.60%
Language of Social Studies 6 3.21 53.45%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.10 68.35%
Language of Language Arts 12 8.82 73.53%
8 B Language of Math 12 7.53 62.78%
Language of Science 9 5.02 55.76%
Language of Social Studies 9 5.91 65.70%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.49 74.82%
Language of Language Arts 12 8.77 73.09%
C Language of Math 12 7.87 65.55%
Language of Science 9 5.96 66.24%
Language of Social Studies 9 5.14 57.06%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 112 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Maximum Percent of
Grade Tier Standard Score Mean Score Maximum
Social Instructional Language 12 5.52 46.01%
Language of Language Arts 9 4.94 54.86%
A Language of Math 9 4.70 52.22%
Language of Science 6 3.19 53.21%
Language of Social Studies 6 3.56 59.32%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.38 73.04%
Language of Language Arts 12 8.10 67.51%
9 B Language of Math 12 7.12 59.32%
Language of Science 9 4.86 54.04%
Language of Social Studies 9 5.16 57.37%
Social Instructional Language 6 3.89 64.85%
Language of Language Arts 12 7.57 63.11%
C Language of Math 12 7.43 61.90%
Language of Science 9 5.20 57.82%
Language of Social Studies 9 4.74 52.64%
Social Instructional Language 12 6.05 50.44%
Language of Language Arts 9 5.36 59.57%
A Language of Math 9 5.00 55.58%
Language of Science 6 3.45 57.55%
Language of Social Studies 6 3.77 62.85%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.28 71.30%
Language of Language Arts 12 7.96 66.35%
10 B Language of Math 12 7.15 59.60%
Language of Science 9 4.85 53.90%
Language of Social Studies 9 5.12 56.91%
Social Instructional Language 6 3.75 62.43%
Language of Language Arts 12 7.33 61.10%
C Language of Math 12 7.27 60.60%
Language of Science 9 5.08 56.44%
Language of Social Studies 9 4.66 51.80%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 113 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Maximum Percent of
Grade Tier Standard Score Mean Score Maximum
Social Instructional Language 12 6.44 53.63%
Language of Language Arts 9 5.55 61.71%
A Language of Math 9 5.18 57.59%
Language of Science 6 3.56 59.34%
Language of Social Studies 6 3.90 65.00%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.33 72.23%
Language of Language Arts 12 8.17 68.10%
11 B Language of Math 12 7.40 61.66%
Language of Science 9 5.02 55.79%
Language of Social Studies 9 5.26 58.50%
Social Instructional Language 6 3.73 62.21%
Language of Language Arts 12 7.43 61.92%
C Language of Math 12 7.49 62.46%
Language of Science 9 5.26 58.43%
Language of Social Studies 9 4.85 53.85%
Social Instructional Language 12 6.30 52.52%
Language of Language Arts 9 5.49 61.03%
A Language of Math 9 5.02 55.74%
Language of Science 6 3.40 56.74%
Language of Social Studies 6 3.74 62.26%
Social Instructional Language 6 4.30 71.74%
Language of Language Arts 12 8.12 67.67%
12 B Language of Math 12 7.32 60.98%
Language of Science 9 4.98 55.32%
Language of Social Studies 9 5.23 58.15%
Social Instructional Language 6 3.68 61.39%
Language of Language Arts 12 7.30 60.82%
C Language of Math 12 7.42 61.83%
Language of Science 9 5.18 57.55%
Language of Social Studies 9 4.81 53.42%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 114 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.4.2 Writing

4.4.2.1 By Cluster
Table 4.4.2.1
Mean Raw Score by Cluster by Tier by Standard: Writing S302
Mean Raw Score
Linguistic Vocabulary Language Percent of
Cluster Tier Standard Complexity Usage Control Total Maximum
A Social Instructional Language 5.18 4.81 4.24 14.23 19.76%
Social Instructional Language 1.18 1.92 1.20 4.30 23.88%
B Language of Math / Science 2.37 2.23 1.92 6.52 36.24%
1-2 Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 2.48 2.31 1.74 6.54 36.32%
Social Instructional Language 2.72 2.45 2.08 7.25 40.26%
C Language of Math / Science 2.85 2.73 2.19 7.76 43.13%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 2.94 2.63 2.19 7.75 43.07%
Social Instructional Language 2.05 1.88 1.54 5.47 30.38%
A Language of Math / Science 2.12 2.22 1.73 6.06 33.69%
Language of Language Arts 2.14 1.91 1.64 5.70 31.68%
Social Instructional Language 2.96 3.12 2.46 8.53 47.41%
3-5 B Language of Math / Science 2.94 3.06 2.56 8.55 47.50%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 2.84 2.30 2.29 7.43 41.25%
Social Instructional Language 3.23 3.45 2.78 9.46 52.58%
C Language of Math / Science 3.12 2.97 2.67 8.76 48.68%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.13 2.58 2.61 8.32 46.22%
Social Instructional Language 2.23 1.94 1.81 5.98 33.21%
A Language of Math / Science 2.12 1.67 1.74 5.53 30.70%
Language of Language Arts 2.29 2.07 1.73 6.10 33.88%
Social Instructional Language 3.30 2.92 2.68 8.90 49.43%
6-8 B Language of Math / Science 3.18 3.32 2.65 9.15 50.85%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.18 2.65 2.56 8.38 46.58%
Social Instructional Language 3.63 3.12 3.01 9.76 54.25%
C Language of Math / Science 3.66 3.73 3.06 10.45 58.05%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.55 2.98 2.91 9.45 52.48%
Social Instructional Language 2.17 2.03 1.85 6.05 33.61%
A Language of Math / Science 2.23 2.05 1.69 5.98 33.20%
Language of Language Arts 2.42 2.16 1.76 6.34 35.22%
Social Instructional Language 3.52 2.93 3.01 9.45 52.50%
9-12 B Language of Math / Science 3.35 2.96 2.84 9.15 50.86%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.29 3.17 2.72 9.18 50.99%
Social Instructional Language 3.82 3.24 3.39 10.45 58.07%
C Language of Math / Science 3.36 3.64 3.04 10.04 55.78%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.73 3.61 3.17 10.52 58.45%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 115 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.4.2.2 By Grade
Table 4.4.2.2
Mean Raw Score by Grade by Tier by Standard: Writing S302
Mean Raw Score
Linguistic Vocabulary Language Percent of
Grade Tier Standard Complexity Usage Control Total Maximum
A Social Instructional Language 5.13 4.76 4.15 14.04 19.50%
Social Instructional Language 1.21 1.88 1.11 4.19 23.27%
B Language of Math / Science 2.12 2.04 1.69 5.86 32.53%
1 Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 2.15 2.06 1.44 5.65 31.38%
Social Instructional Language 2.51 2.22 1.82 6.55 36.38%
C Language of Math / Science 2.51 2.53 1.87 6.91 38.39%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 2.60 2.38 1.85 6.82 37.91%
A Social Instructional Language 5.39 4.99 4.55 14.93 20.74%
Social Instructional Language 1.16 1.96 1.28 4.40 24.42%
B Language of Math / Science 2.60 2.40 2.12 7.11 39.52%
2 Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 2.78 2.54 2.01 7.33 40.71%
Social Instructional Language 2.85 2.61 2.24 7.69 42.74%
C Language of Math / Science 3.07 2.85 2.39 8.31 46.15%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.15 2.78 2.41 8.35 46.37%
Social Instructional Language 1.98 1.80 1.45 5.23 29.05%
A Language of Math / Science 2.06 2.15 1.65 5.85 32.53%
Language of Language Arts 2.07 1.86 1.56 5.49 30.49%
Social Instructional Language 2.86 2.99 2.34 8.19 45.52%
3 B Language of Math / Science 2.87 2.93 2.46 8.26 45.86%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 2.71 2.16 2.16 7.03 39.08%
Social Instructional Language 3.13 3.33 2.67 9.12 50.66%
C Language of Math / Science 3.02 2.91 2.57 8.50 47.20%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 2.99 2.41 2.48 7.89 43.85%
Social Instructional Language 2.05 1.89 1.55 5.49 30.51%
A Language of Math / Science 2.13 2.22 1.74 6.09 33.83%
Language of Language Arts 2.16 1.92 1.67 5.74 31.88%
Social Instructional Language 3.00 3.18 2.51 8.68 48.23%
4 B Language of Math / Science 2.97 3.12 2.60 8.68 48.24%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 2.89 2.35 2.33 7.57 42.08%
Social Instructional Language 3.25 3.47 2.79 9.50 52.80%
C Language of Math / Science 3.14 2.97 2.68 8.80 48.88%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.15 2.60 2.62 8.37 46.50%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 116 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Mean Raw Score
Linguistic Vocabulary Language Percent of
Grade Tier Standard Complexity Usage Control Total Maximum
Social Instructional Language 2.17 2.00 1.67 5.84 32.44%
A Language of Math / Science 2.23 2.31 1.84 6.39 35.48%
Language of Language Arts 2.26 2.01 1.75 6.01 33.41%
Social Instructional Language 3.13 3.34 2.67 9.15 50.81%
5 B Language of Math / Science 3.06 3.28 2.73 9.07 50.40%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.07 2.57 2.52 8.16 45.31%
Social Instructional Language 3.40 3.63 2.98 10.01 55.64%
C Language of Math / Science 3.29 3.06 2.84 9.19 51.04%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.33 2.85 2.82 9.00 50.00%
Social Instructional Language 2.17 1.88 1.75 5.80 32.23%
A Language of Math / Science 2.05 1.62 1.67 5.34 29.65%
Language of Language Arts 2.25 2.05 1.70 6.00 33.32%
Social Instructional Language 3.18 2.83 2.54 8.55 47.49%
6 B Language of Math / Science 3.03 3.17 2.52 8.71 48.40%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.01 2.49 2.41 7.91 43.94%
Social Instructional Language 3.46 3.01 2.83 9.30 51.67%
C Language of Math / Science 3.48 3.59 2.88 9.94 55.23%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.34 2.77 2.70 8.81 48.97%
Social Instructional Language 2.23 1.93 1.80 5.95 33.07%
A Language of Math / Science 2.12 1.67 1.74 5.54 30.75%
Language of Language Arts 2.29 2.07 1.72 6.08 33.75%
Social Instructional Language 3.31 2.92 2.68 8.92 49.55%
7 B Language of Math / Science 3.19 3.35 2.67 9.21 51.18%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.19 2.65 2.57 8.41 46.72%
Social Instructional Language 3.64 3.12 3.02 9.79 54.40%
C Language of Math / Science 3.67 3.75 3.07 10.49 58.29%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.56 2.98 2.92 9.47 52.62%
Social Instructional Language 2.30 2.01 1.87 6.18 34.34%
A Language of Math / Science 2.19 1.71 1.80 5.71 31.70%
Language of Language Arts 2.35 2.10 1.77 6.22 34.56%
Social Instructional Language 3.43 3.01 2.81 9.25 51.37%
8 B Language of Math / Science 3.31 3.46 2.78 9.56 53.11%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.34 2.81 2.71 8.87 49.26%
Social Instructional Language 3.79 3.24 3.18 10.22 56.77%
C Language of Math / Science 3.84 3.85 3.23 10.93 60.70%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.76 3.20 3.11 10.07 55.97%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 117 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Mean Raw Score
Linguistic Vocabulary Language Percent of
Grade Tier Standard Complexity Usage Control Total Maximum
Social Instructional Language 2.06 1.95 1.75 5.77 32.04%
A Language of Math / Science 2.08 1.93 1.57 5.58 31.01%
Language of Language Arts 2.26 2.05 1.62 5.94 33.00%
Social Instructional Language 3.50 2.89 3.02 9.41 52.30%
9 B Language of Math / Science 3.35 2.93 2.87 9.15 50.86%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.29 3.15 2.73 9.16 50.89%
Social Instructional Language 3.84 3.22 3.44 10.49 58.30%
C Language of Math / Science 3.40 3.68 3.09 10.17 56.53%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.76 3.63 3.22 10.60 58.91%
Social Instructional Language 2.25 2.09 1.93 6.28 34.87%
A Language of Math / Science 2.36 2.14 1.79 6.28 34.90%
Language of Language Arts 2.55 2.25 1.86 6.66 37.00%
Social Instructional Language 3.49 2.90 2.97 9.35 51.93%
10 B Language of Math / Science 3.32 2.94 2.81 9.07 50.40%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.23 3.12 2.66 9.01 50.03%
Social Instructional Language 3.80 3.21 3.36 10.38 57.65%
C Language of Math / Science 3.33 3.61 3.00 9.93 55.17%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.70 3.58 3.14 10.42 57.91%
Social Instructional Language 2.37 2.17 2.02 6.56 36.44%
A Language of Math / Science 2.50 2.26 1.90 6.66 37.01%
Language of Language Arts 2.68 2.35 1.98 7.01 38.94%
Social Instructional Language 3.55 2.97 3.03 9.55 53.08%
11 B Language of Math / Science 3.39 3.00 2.86 9.25 51.36%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.34 3.23 2.75 9.32 51.78%
Social Instructional Language 3.84 3.28 3.37 10.49 58.26%
C Language of Math / Science 3.38 3.65 3.03 10.06 55.89%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.75 3.64 3.17 10.56 58.68%
Social Instructional Language 2.31 2.09 1.98 6.38 35.43%
A Language of Math / Science 2.45 2.18 1.87 6.49 36.08%
Language of Language Arts 2.64 2.26 1.97 6.88 38.24%
Social Instructional Language 3.55 2.99 3.02 9.57 53.15%
12 B Language of Math / Science 3.37 2.97 2.83 9.17 50.96%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.34 3.24 2.75 9.32 51.78%
Social Instructional Language 3.81 3.28 3.34 10.43 57.96%
C Language of Math / Science 3.32 3.58 2.97 9.88 54.87%
Language of Language Arts / Social Studies 3.71 3.60 3.12 10.43 57.95%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 118 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.4.3 Speaking

4.4.3.1 By Cluster
Table 4.4.3.2
Mean Raw Score by Cluster by Tier by Standard: Speaking S302
Maximum Mean Raw Percentage of
Cluster Tier Standard Score Score Maximum
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.35 78.46%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 2.87 57.47%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 2.41 48.27%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.84 94.72%
1-2 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 3.98 79.53%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.57 71.44%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.93 97.68%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.50 90.01%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 4.24 84.82%
Social and Instructional Language 3 1.72 57.27%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 2.01 40.21%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 1.62 32.39%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.82 93.96%
3-5 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 3.73 74.52%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.49 69.81%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.92 97.36%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.24 84.82%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 4.10 81.95%
Social and Instructional Language 3 1.69 56.24%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 1.80 35.93%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 1.46 29.30%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.83 94.24%
6-8 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 3.97 79.48%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.55 70.91%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.93 97.55%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.44 88.88%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 4.11 82.21%
Social and Instructional Language 3 1.65 55.00%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 1.63 32.61%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 1.47 29.33%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.77 92.17%
9-12 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 3.83 76.56%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.44 68.77%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.90 96.73%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.50 89.99%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 4.16 83.23%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 119 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
4.4.3.2 By Grade
Table 4.4.3.1
Mean Raw Score by Grade by Tier by Standard: Speaking S302
Maximum Mean Raw Percent of
Grade Tier Standard Score Score Maximum
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.40 80.05%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 2.93 58.66%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 2.47 49.42%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.80 93.47%
1 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 3.79 75.90%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.39 67.75%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.90 96.79%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.33 86.66%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 4.05 80.90%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.18 72.52%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 2.65 53.03%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 2.20 43.96%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.87 95.82%
2 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.14 82.74%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.74 74.72%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.95 98.25%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.61 92.14%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 4.37 87.33%
Social and Instructional Language 3 1.77 58.98%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 2.06 41.23%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 1.62 32.46%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.81 93.75%
3 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 3.65 73.04%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.39 67.87%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.92 97.31%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.18 83.62%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 4.03 80.60%
Social and Instructional Language 3 1.68 56.05%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 1.97 39.47%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 1.60 32.03%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.82 93.94%
4 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 3.76 75.14%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.53 70.61%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.92 97.21%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.23 84.59%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 4.08 81.53%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 120 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Maximum Mean Raw Percent of
Grade Tier Standard Score Score Maximum
Social and Instructional Language 3 1.67 55.81%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 1.97 39.38%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 1.63 32.69%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.84 94.51%
5 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 3.86 77.20%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.67 73.36%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.93 97.62%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.36 87.19%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 4.24 84.81%
Social and Instructional Language 3 1.73 57.81%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 1.86 37.24%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 1.52 30.42%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.82 93.91%
6 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 3.91 78.29%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.47 69.46%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.91 97.09%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.34 86.80%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.97 79.45%
Social and Instructional Language 3 1.67 55.64%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 1.76 35.22%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 1.43 28.67%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.83 94.31%
7 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 3.98 79.60%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.55 71.07%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.93 97.66%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.45 89.09%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 4.12 82.34%
Social and Instructional Language 3 1.66 55.25%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 1.77 35.33%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 1.44 28.79%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.84 94.51%
8 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.03 80.63%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.61 72.29%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.94 97.93%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.54 90.83%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 4.25 84.94%
Social and Instructional Language 3 1.50 50.07%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 1.46 29.12%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 1.32 26.32%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.78 92.76%
9 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 3.94 78.86%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.53 70.68%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.92 97.31%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.58 91.65%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 4.24 84.73%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 121 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 Maximum Mean Raw Percent of
Grade Tier Standard Score Score Maximum
Social and Instructional Language 3 1.74 58.00%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 1.72 34.30%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 1.55 30.97%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.74 91.38%
10 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 3.72 74.33%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.34 66.73%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.90 96.65%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.49 89.74%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 4.14 82.86%
Social and Instructional Language 3 1.88 62.77%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 1.91 38.12%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 1.69 33.83%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.77 92.20%
11 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 3.77 75.34%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.38 67.68%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.90 96.58%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.45 88.90%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 4.12 82.43%
Social and Instructional Language 3 1.97 65.55%
A Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 2.07 41.41%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 1.84 36.83%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.76 92.04%
12 B Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 3.82 76.39%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 3.45 69.02%
Social and Instructional Language 3 2.87 95.76%
C Language of Language Arts/Social Studies 5 4.40 87.95%
Language of Mathematics/Science 5 4.07 81.36%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 122 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment

Annual Technical Report for

ACCESS for ELLs English Language Proficiency Test,
Series 302, 2013-2014 Administration

Annual Technical Report No. 10

Volume 2 of 3: Analyses of Test Forms

Prepared by:

Center for Applied Linguistics

CAL/WIDA Partnership Activities

Psychometrics/Research Team

May 30, 2015

 Table of Contents

Volume 2
5. Analyses of Test Forms: Overview ........................................................................................ 123
5.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 123
5.1.1 Measurement Models Used..................................................................................... 123
5.1.2 Sampling ................................................................................................................. 125
5.1.3 Equating and Scaling .............................................................................................. 125
5.1.4 DIF Analyses .......................................................................................................... 125
5.1.4.1 Dichotomous Items ............................................................................................. 126
5.1.4.2 Polytomous Items................................................................................................ 126
5.2 Descriptions ................................................................................................................ 128
5.2.1 Raw Score Information (Figure A and Table A) .................................................... 128
5.2.2 Scale Score Information (Figure B and Table B) ................................................... 128
5.2.3 Proficiency Level Information (Figure C and Table C).......................................... 129
5.2.4 Scaling Equation Table (Table D) .......................................................................... 130
5.2.5 Equating Summary (Table E) ................................................................................. 130
5.2.6 Test Characteristic Curve (Figure D) ...................................................................... 131
5.2.7 Test Information Function (Figure E) ..................................................................... 131
5.2.8 Reliability (Table F) ................................................................................................ 132
5.2.9 Item/Task Analysis Summary (Table G) ................................................................ 133
5.2.10 Complete Item Analysis Table (Table H) ............................................................... 134
5.2.11 Complete Raw Score to Scale Score Conversion Chart (Table I) .......................... 135
5.2.12 Raw Score to Proficiency Level Score Conversion Table (Table J) ...................... 136
6. Analyses of Test Forms: Results ........................................................................................... 138
6.1 Grade: K ..................................................................................................................... 138
6.1.1 Listening K.............................................................................................................. 138
6.1.2 Reading K ............................................................................................................... 144
6.1.3 Writing K ................................................................................................................ 151
6.1.4 Speaking K .............................................................................................................. 157
6.2 Grades: 1–2 ................................................................................................................ 163
6.2.1 Listening 1-2 ........................................................................................................... 163
6.2.1.1 Listening 1-2 A ............................................................................................... 163
6.2.1.2 Listening 1-2 B ............................................................................................... 170
6.2.1.3 Listening 1-2 C ............................................................................................... 177
6.2.2 Reading 1-2 ............................................................................................................. 184
6.2.2.1 Reading 1-2 A ................................................................................................. 184
6.2.2.2 Reading 1-2 B ................................................................................................. 191
6.2.2.3 Reading 1-2 C ................................................................................................. 198
6.2.3 Writing 1-2 .............................................................................................................. 205
6.2.3.1 Writing 1-2 A .................................................................................................. 205
6.2.3.2 Writing 1-2 B .................................................................................................. 213
6.2.3.3 Writing 1-2 C .................................................................................................. 222
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 i Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 6.2.4 Speaking 1-2 ........................................................................................................... 231
6.3 Grades: 3–5 ................................................................................................................ 237
6.3.1 Listening 3-5 ........................................................................................................... 237
6.3.1.1 Listening 3-5 A ............................................................................................... 237
6.3.1.2 Listening 3-5 B ............................................................................................... 244
6.3.1.3 Listening 3-5 C ............................................................................................... 251
6.3.2 Reading 3-5 ............................................................................................................. 258
6.3.2.1 Reading 3-5 A ................................................................................................. 258
6.3.2.2 Reading 3-5 B ................................................................................................. 265
6.3.2.3 Reading 3-5 C ................................................................................................. 272
6.3.3 Writing 3-5 .............................................................................................................. 279
6.3.3.1 Writing 3-5 A .................................................................................................. 279
6.3.3.2 Writing 3-5 B .................................................................................................. 286
6.3.3.3 Writing 3-5 C .................................................................................................. 295
6.3.4 Speaking 3-5 ........................................................................................................... 304
6.4 Grades: 6–8 ................................................................................................................ 310
6.4.1 Listening 6-8 ........................................................................................................... 310
6.4.1.1 Listening 6-8 A ............................................................................................... 310
6.4.1.2 Listening 6-8 B ............................................................................................... 317
6.4.1.3 Listening 6-8 C ............................................................................................... 324
6.4.2 Reading 6-8 ............................................................................................................. 331
6.4.2.1 Reading 6-8 A ................................................................................................. 331
6.4.2.2 Reading 6-8 B ................................................................................................. 338
6.4.2.3 Reading 6-8 C ................................................................................................. 345
6.4.3 Writing 6-8 .............................................................................................................. 352
6.4.3.1 Writing 6-8 A .................................................................................................. 352
6.4.3.2 Writing 6-8 B .................................................................................................. 359
6.4.3.3 Writing 6-8 C .................................................................................................. 368
6.4.4 Speaking 6-8 ........................................................................................................... 377
6.5 Grades: 9–12 .............................................................................................................. 383
6.5.1 Listening 9-12 ......................................................................................................... 383
6.5.1.1 Listening 9-12 A ............................................................................................. 383
6.5.1.2 Listening 9-12 B ............................................................................................. 391
6.5.1.3 Listening 9-12 C ............................................................................................. 398
6.5.2 Reading 9-12 ........................................................................................................... 405
6.5.2.1 Reading 9-12 A ............................................................................................... 405
6.5.2.2 Reading 9-12 B ............................................................................................... 412
6.5.2.3 Reading 9-12 C ............................................................................................... 419
6.5.3 Writing 9-12 ............................................................................................................ 426
6.5.3.1 Writing 9-12 A ................................................................................................ 426
6.5.3.2 Writing 9-12 B ................................................................................................ 433
6.5.3.3 Writing 9-12 C ................................................................................................ 442
6.5.4 Speaking 9-12 ......................................................................................................... 451

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 ii Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
5. Analyses of Test Forms: Overview
This chapter contains two parts. The first part provides some background on the technical
measurement and statistical tools used to analyze ACCESS for ELLs. The second part explains
the results that are presented for each test form in Chapter 6.

5.1 Background
5.1.1 Measurement Models Used
The measurement model that forms the basis of the analysis for the development of ACCESS for
ELLs is the Rasch measurement model (Wright & Stone, 1979). Additional information on its
use in the development of the test is available in WIDA Technical Report 1, Development and
Field Test of ACCESS for ELLs (Kenyon, 2006). The test was developed using Rasch
measurement principles, and in that sense the Rasch model guided all decisions throughout the
development of the assessment and was not just a tool for the statistical analysis of the data.
Thus, for example, data based on Rasch fit statistics guided the inclusion, revision, or deletion of
items during the development and field testing of the test forms, and will continue to guide the
refinement and further development of the test.
For Listening, Reading, and Speaking, the dichotomous Rasch model was used as the
measurement model. Mathematically, the measurement model may be presented as

log( P ni1 ) = B n - D i
P ni 0
where
Pni1 = probability of a correct response “1” by person “n” on item “i”
Pni0 = probability of an incorrect response “0” by person “n” on item “i”
Bn = ability of person “n”
Di = difficulty of item “i”
When the probability of a person getting a correct answer equals the probability of a person
getting an incorrect answer (i.e., 50% probability of getting it right and 50% probability of
getting it wrong), Pni1/Pni0 is equal to 1. The log of 1 is 0. This is the point at which a person’s
ability equals the difficulty of an item. For example, a person whose ability is 1.56 on the Rasch
logit scale encountering an item whose difficulty is 1.56 on the Rasch logit scale would have a
50% probability of answering that question correctly.
For the Writing tasks, a Rasch Rating Scale model was used. Mathematically, this can be
represented as

log( P nik ) = B n - D i - F k
P nik -1
where

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 123 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Pnik = probability of person “n” on task “i” receiving a rating at level “k” on the rating scale
Pnik-1 = probability of person “n” on task “i” receiving a rating at level “k - 1” on the rating scale
(i.e., the next lowest rating)
Bn = ability of person “n”
Di = difficulty of task “i”
Fk = calibration of step “k” on the rating scale
All Rasch analyses were conducted using the Rasch measurement software program Winsteps
(Linacre, 2006). Rasch statistics are presented in several of the tables that follow. When speaking
of the measure of examinee ability, we use the term ability measure (rather than theta used
commonly when discussing models based on Item Response Theory). When speaking of the
measure of how hard an item was, we use the term item difficulty measure (rather than the b
parameter used commonly when discussing models based on IRT). Step measures refer to the
calibration of the steps in the Rasch Rating Scale model presented above. All three measures
(ability, difficulty, and step) are expressed in terms of Rasch logits, which then are converted
into scores on the ACCESS for ELLs score scale for reporting purposes (see Technical Report 1
for more details).
Rasch model standard errors also appear in the tables. These are an indication of the precision
with which the measures have been estimated. Unlike the Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)
based on classical test theory, which posits the same SEM for all persons, regardless of where on
the ability distribution they are, Rasch model standard errors are conditional on the individual’s
ability measure. All things being equal, if a person gets few items correct or few items incorrect,
the standard error of that person’s measure will be greater than if a person gets a moderate
number of items correct. In addition, for ability measures, standard errors are a function of the
number of items on a test form as well as the distribution and quality of the items (i.e., their fit to
the Rasch model).
Also included in some of the tables are fit statistics for the Rasch model. These statistics are
calculated by comparing the observed empirical data with the data that would be expected to be
produced by the Rasch model. Of the several statistics available, the mean square fit statistics
were used to flag items in the development of ACCESS for ELLs that needed to be deleted or
revised and are presented in the appropriate tables. Outfit mean square statistics are influenced
by outliers. For example, a difficult item that for some reason some low ability examinees get
correct will have a high outfit mean square statistic that indicates that the item may not be
measuring the same thing as other items on the test. Infit mean square statistics are influenced by
more aberrant response patterns and generally indicate a more serious measurement problem.
The expectation for both of these statistics is 1.00 and values near 1.00 are not of great concern.
Values less than 1.00 indicate that the observations are too predictable and thus redundant, but
are not of great concern. High values are more of a concern.
Linacre (2002, Autumn), the author of the Winsteps program, provides more guidance on how to
interpret these statistics for test items. He writes:
• values greater than 2.0 “distort or degrade the measurement system”
• values between 1.5 and 2.0 are “unproductive for construction of measurement, but not
degrading”

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 124 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 • values between 0.5 and 1.5 should be considered “productive for measurement”
• values below 0.5 Linacre calls “less productive for measurement, but not degrading”
Linacre also states in this guidance that infit problems are more serious to the construction of
measurement than are outfit problems.
Because conservative guidelines were followed in the development of ACCESS for ELLs, the
vast majority of items and tasks on the test forms have mean square fit statistics in the range of
0.75 and 1.25, and fit the range that is “productive for measurement” according to the guidelines
above.

5.1.2 Sampling
The results presented in most of the tables in Chapter 6 are based on the full data set of all
students who were administered operational Series 302 of ACCESS for ELLs in the academic
year 2013–2014. Exceptions are Tables E, G, H, and I. The equating summary tables (Table E)
use data from a sample of about 1,000 students rather than the entire population of students,
because the equating was done in the midst of the operational scoring. The item or task analysis
summary tables (Table G), the complete item analysis tables (Table H), and the raw score to
scale score conversion tables (Table I) use item and task difficulties from this equating.

5.1.3 Equating and Scaling

Complete information on the horizontal and vertical scaling of ACCESS for ELLs scores is
provided in Technical Report 1, Development and Field Test of ACCESS for ELLs®. In brief, this
scaling was accomplished during the field test based on an elaborate common item design, both
across tiers and across grade-level clusters, which spanned two series of complete test forms.
Concurrent calibration was used to determine item difficulty measures. These item difficulty
measures were used to create the ACCESS for ELLs scale scores used for reporting results on
the test. Table D in Section 6 for each form provides the equation for converting Rasch ability
measures in logits to ACCESS for ELLs scale scores.
The operational test forms in Series 302 represent a partial refreshment of Series 301. That is,
while many items were common on both forms, certain folders on Series 301 were replaced with
new items (see Chapter 1.4). Thus, to place results on Series 302 onto the ACCESS for ELLs
scale score, items that were not revised or otherwise changed were anchored to the difficulty
values from Series 301, which itself had been anchored to Series 203. Table E in Section 6 for
each test form provides explicit information on the anchor items used for equating Series 302
results to those of Series 301.

5.1.4 DIF Analyses

Differential item analyses (DIF) attempt to investigate whether performances on items were
influenced by factors extraneous to English language proficiency (i.e., the construct being
measured on the test). In other words, it attempts to find items that may be functioning
differently for different groups based on criteria irrelevant to what is being tested. The
performance of students on the ACCESS for ELLs items was compared by dividing students into
two different groupings: first, males versus females; second, students of Hispanic ethnic
background versus students of all other backgrounds. (For both analyses, students for whom
gender or ethnicity was missing were excluded.) Two commonly used procedures for detecting

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 125 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
DIF were used: one for dichotomously scored items (Listening, Reading, and Speaking) and one
for polytomously scored items (Writing).

5.1.4.1 Dichotomous Items

Following procedures originally proposed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS), the Mantel-
Haenszel Chi-square statistic was used for dichotomous items. This procedure compares item-
level performances of students in the two groups (e.g., males versus females) who are divided
into subgroups based on their performance on the total test. It is assumed that, if there is no DIF,
at any ability level (based on performance on the total test), a similar percentage of students in
each group should get the item correct. The Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square statistic is used to
check the probability that the two groups performed the same on each item across the ability
groupings. The statistic is transformed into a scale called the “M-H delta” scale. This scale is
symmetrical around zero, with a delta zero interpreted as indicating that neither group is favored.
A positive result indicates that one group is favored; a negative result indicates that the other
group is favored.
Because DIF is measured on a continuous scale, and because most items are likely to show some
degree of DIF, it is useful to have guidelines to determine when the level of DIF is worrying. We
follow the guidance provided by ETS to classify items into DIF levels as follows:
• A (no DIF), when the absolute value of delta was less than 1.0
• B (weak DIF), when the absolute value of delta was between 1.0 and 1.5
• C (strong DIF), when the absolute value of the delta was greater than 1.5
The software program EZDIF (Waller, n.d.) was used to run the DIF analyses for all forms
containing dichotomous items. For each test form, the greatest number of ability level groupings
is used; however, for many test forms, students scoring some of the lowest and highest raw
scores need to be grouped together in order to have enough cases in each cell for the statistics to
be appropriately calculated. (Note that this software program uses a two-step purification
process; that is, items with C-level DIF in the first pass are removed from the matching variable
in the second stage, and the DIF is then recalculated for the remaining items.)

(For information on procedures for dealing with items with C-level DIF, see Section 1.4.5.)

5.1.4.2 Polytomous Items

For polytomous items (i.e., the Writing tasks), a similar approach is used. It is based on the
Mantel Chi-square statistic and the standardized mean difference following procedures again
developed by ETS. As with dichotomous items, the underlying assumption is that students who
performed similarly overall on the test should perform similarly on the individual tasks. To test
this assumption, students are placed into 6 groups based on their total raw score on the Writing
test. We determined these categories by calculating what the total raw score of a student scoring
WIDA Proficiency Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 in each category would be. For example, a student
consistently scoring 1 would have a total score of 18 on a Tier B or Tier C form. A student
consistently scoring 2 would score a 36.
To divide the students into performance groups in this way, cut points were made halfway
between the above totals, such that students in Group 1 would have a total score of 0 to 27;

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 126 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
Group 2 totaled 28 to 45; Group 3 totaled 46 to 63; Group 4 totaled 64 to 81; and Group 5 totaled
82 to 108. (Note that Group 5 contained students scoring in the 6 range. These two groups were
combined because there are so few students in that category.)
For each Writing task, performance was similarly categorized according to the scoring rubric.
Thus, raw scores of 0 to 4 were category 1 (i.e., up to a score totaling 4, such as 2-1-1, which is a
high 1 but not yet a 2); the raw scores of 5 to 7 were category 2; the raw scores of 8 to 10 were
category 3; the raw scores of 11 to 13 were category 4; the raw scores of 14 to 16 were category
5; and the raw scores of 17 to 18 were category 6. (The only exception to this was Kindergarten
Writing tasks, where there was much smaller spread of scores on the Writing tasks. In such
cases, total raw scores were used to determine categories.)
Following formulae provided by Zwick, Donoghue, and Grima (1993), an Excel spreadsheet was
programmed to take cross-tabulated data output by SPSS and calculate the Mantel statistic and
determine its probability of significance. This statistic gives an indication of the probability that
observed differences are the result of chance but does not indicate how significant that difference
is. To indicate how significant the difference is, the standardized mean difference (SMD)
between the performances of the two groups being compared is calculated. The standardized
mean difference compares the means of the two groups, adjusting for differences in the
distribution of the two groups being compared across the values of the matching variable. To
standardize the outcome, this difference is divided by the standard deviation (SD) of the item for
the total group. This calculation is also programmed into the Excel spreadsheet.
Following guidance proposed by ETS, polytomously scaled items are classified into DIF levels
as follows:
• AA (no DIF), when the Mantel Chi-square statistic is not significant; or, when it is
significant and the absolute value of (SMD/SD) is less than or equal to .17
• BB (weak DIF), when the Mantel Chi-square statistic is significant and the absolute value
of (SMD/SD) is greater than .17 but less than or equal to .25
• CC (strong DIF), when the Mantel Chi-square statistic is significant and the absolute
value of (SMD/SD) is greater than .25

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 127 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
5.2 Descriptions
The following paragraphs describe the tables that follow and are repeated for each test form in
each domain.

5.2.1 Raw Score Information (Figure A and Table A)

Figure A and Table A relate to the raw scores on each test form. Listening, Reading, and
Speaking were scored dichotomously (i.e., right or wrong). Thus, the highest possible score was
the number of items on the test form. Each Writing task, however, could be awarded up to 18
points. Additionally, certain Writing tasks are weighted because of their potential to elicit higher
levels of writing ability. For cluster 1–2, Tier A has a weight of 3 for the fourth task. For clusters
1–2, 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12, Tiers B and C have a weight of 2 for the second task and a weight of 3
for the third task. Thus, the maximum number of points on each Writing test form varies from 54
for the Tier A forms for clusters 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12 to 108 for the Tier B and C forms and
cluster 1–2 Tier A (see Chapter 1.7.2).

For each test form, Figure A shows the distribution of the raw scores. The horizontal axis shows
the raw scores. The vertical axis shows the number of students (count). Each bar shows how
many students were awarded each raw score.
Table A shows, by each grade in the cluster and by total for the cluster:
• The number of students in the analyses (the number of students who were not absent,
invalid, refused, exempt, or in the wrong cluster)
• The minimum observed raw score
• The maximum observed raw score
• The mean (average) raw score
• The standard deviation (std. dev.) of the raw scores

5.2.2 Scale Score Information (Figure B and Table B)

Figure B and Table B relate to the ACCESS for ELLs scale scores on each test form. For each
test form, raw scores were converted to vertically-equated scale scores. (The raw score to scale
score conversion table for each test form is given as the last table―Table I―in each section.)
Thus, for each test form, Figure B shows the distribution of the scale scores. The horizontal axis
shows the scale scores based on performances on the test form. To provide full perspective, it
extends somewhat below and above the range of possible or observed scale scores. The vertical
axis shows the number of students (count). Each bar shows how many students were awarded
each scale score.
Table B shows, by each grade in the cluster and by total for the cluster:
• Number of students in the analyses
• The minimum observed scale score
• The maximum observed scale score
• The mean (average) scale score

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 128 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 • The standard deviation (std. dev.) of the scale scores
Note that scale scores for Tier A and Tier B in Listening and Reading are capped. Within each
grade, the highest possible scale score for Tier A is the scale score corresponding to the cut score
for Proficiency Level 4 (i.e., proficiency level score of 4.0). For Tier B, the highest possible scale
score within each grade is the score corresponding to the cut score for Proficiency Level 5 (i.e.,
proficiency level score of 5.0). Because of these grade-level cut scores, the scale score associated
with a given proficiency level score increases by grade level within a cluster, and so the cap also
increases by grade level. For example, for Listening 3–5A, the scale score is capped at 325 for
Grade 3, 338 for Grade 4, and 350 for Grade 5 (see Table 6.3.1.1B). Thus, a third grade student
with a raw score of 18 (out of 18) on that test will have a scale score of 325, a fourth grader with
the same raw score will have a scale score of 338, and a fifth grader with the same raw score will
have a scale score of 350. However, all three students would have a proficiency level score of
4.0. For more information, see WIDA Technical Report 1, Development and Field Test of
ACCESS for ELLs (Kenyon, 2006).
Also note that, because the scale is vertically equated, the range of scale scores moves up the
scale from one cluster to the next. Thus, a second grade student with a raw score of 0 on the
Listening Tier A test would have a scale score of 108, while a fifth grade student with a raw
score of 0 on the Listening Tier A test would have a scale score of 120.
Similarly, scale scores at the lower end may be truncated so that the lowest achievable
proficiency level score is 1.0. Again, this results in a lower minimum scale score for students in
lower grade levels within a grade-level cluster.
The influence of these cuts will also be noticed in Figure B, as well as in many other tables
throughout the report.

5.2.3 Proficiency Level Information (Figure C and Table C)

Figure C and Table C provide information on the proficiency level distribution of the students
who took the test form based on their performance. Thus, for each test form, Figure C shows the
information graphically for the cluster as a whole. The horizontal axis shows the six WIDA
Proficiency Levels. The vertical axis shows the percent of students. Each bar shows the percent
of students who were placed into each Proficiency Level in the domain being tested on this test
form.
Each row of Table C shows, by each grade in the cluster and by total for the cluster:
• The WIDA Proficiency Level designation (1 to 6)
• The number of students (count) whose performance on the test form placed them into that
Proficiency Level in the domain being tested
• The percent of students, out of the total number of students taking the form (by grade or
by total for the cluster), who were placed into that Proficiency Level in the domain being
tested
(Note that for some domains for Kindergarten and Tier A tests, it was not possible to place into
all proficiency levels. Figure C and Table C also clearly show the effect of the scoring cap on
Tiers A and B.)

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 129 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
For Kindergarten this information is provided for scores based on both the Accountability cut
scores and the Instructional cut scores.

5.2.4 Scaling Equation Table (Table D)

For each test form, Table D provides the scaling equation for that domain. This equation is used
to convert an examinee’s ability measure into the scale score. Because ACCESS for ELLs is
vertically equated (see 5.1.3 above), though each domain has its own equation, the same equation
is used across all tiers and grade-level clusters within each domain.

5.2.5 Equating Summary (Table E)

Each year a certain percentage of items on each ACCESS for ELLs test form are refreshed. A
post-equating procedure known as common item equating is used to equate results on new forms
to the older forms. This means that the difficulty measure of items appearing on the new form
that are the same as those on the older form are kept constant across both forms. Thus,
performances on the newer form may be interpreted in the same frame of reference.
Many items appearing on ACCESS for ELLs Series 302 also appeared on Series 301. All items
common to both forms were anchored in the first equating run. After the first equating run, some
items that were originally anchored proved to have changed in their difficulty measure. This
change is measured by the “Displacement” statistic. This statistic shows the difference between
the difficulty value of the anchored item and what its difficulty value would have been had it not
been anchored. For Listening and Reading items, and for Writing and Speaking tasks, if this
value was large (i.e., usually above .30 or below -.30), that item was unanchored in the final
equating run (i.e., it was treated as if it were a new item).
Table E presents a summary of the common item equating procedures. The first section of the
table compares the current test (i.e., the Series 302 version of that test form) to the previous
year’s test (i.e., the Series 301 version of that test form). The number of items, the average item
difficulty, the standard deviation of the item difficulty values, as well as the difficulty value of
the easiest and hardest item on each test form is presented. These values are in terms of logits
used in the Rasch measurement model.
The second section of the table presents information on the anchoring items. The total number of
possible anchors (i.e., all common items) is shown, as well as the standard deviation of those
items. Next, the number of items that were actually anchored (i.e., in general, those items whose
displacement values were below .30 or above -.30) in the final equating run is shown, again with
the average item difficulty and standard deviation. Finally, the percentage of items that served as
anchors and the average displacement value is given. Generally speaking, the greater the number
of tasks anchored and the closer the average displacement is to 0.00, the more trustworthy the
equating results will be.
The final section of Table E shows the location of the anchor items or tasks, both by order on the
test form and by order of difficulty. It is desirable that the anchored items appear throughout the
test form in order to ensure that no systematic bias affects performance on them (e.g., if they all
appear at the end of a test form, there may be a fatigue effect). It is also desirable that the anchor
items represent a wide range of difficulties across the entire spectrum of the item difficulty
values on a test form. The greater the representation across the difficulty range, the more
trustworthy the equating results will be. This section also provides information on displacement;

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 130 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
that is, the difference between the difficulty value of the anchored item and what that difficulty
value would have been had the item not been anchored. Smaller displacement statistics indicate
more consistency between the item’s difficulty value on the Series 302 test form and on the
Series 301 test form. Typically, random displacements of less than 0.5 logits are unlikely to have
much impact on measurement in a test instrument (Linacre, n.d.).
Note that for the Writing tasks, this table also provides the anchored step measures for the total
score on each task. For the ACCESS Writing tasks, a rating scale model is used (see 5.1.1
above). Because a single generic rubric based on the generic WIDA Performance Level
definitions is used to score all of the Writing tasks across all of the grade-level clusters, we
modeled a rating scale that has the same step difficulty values across all Writing tasks across all
grade-level clusters. Thus, these values are the same for every Writing task on ACCESS. These
constant step difficulty values help to provide anchors in the calibration of new Writing tasks
onto the common WIDA score scale each year.
Note that because the Kindergarten test form was newly created for Series 200, it was not
equated to the Series 103 test. Therefore, Table E is not included for Kindergarten. For technical
details on the Kindergarten test, see MacGregor, Kenyon, Gibson, and Evans, (2009). In
addition, in the other grade-level clusters, scores for the Speaking test are based on a content
analysis rather than on equating to previous forms; therefore, Table E is included only to verify
that the raw score to scale score conversion remains within reasonable parameters.
Note that for Series 302, no equating was performed for Writing Tiers A for all grade clusters.
Also, no equating was performed for all Reading grade clusters. The results of the unequated
tests needed for certain tables were taken from the results of Series 301.

5.2.6 Test Characteristic Curve (Figure D)

For each test form, Figure D graphically shows the relationship between the ability measure (in
logits) on the horizontal axis and the expected raw score on the vertical axis. Five vertical lines
indicate the five cut scores for the highest grade in the cluster for the test form, dividing the
figure into six sections for each of the WIDA proficiency levels (Levels 1–6) for the domain
being tested. (Note that for some domains for Kindergarten and Tier A tests, it was not possible
to place into all six language proficiency levels. As would be expected, higher raw scores are
required to be placed into higher language proficiency levels. The relative width of each section
between the cut score lines, however, gives an indication of how many items on that form must
be answered correctly (or points on the Writing section must be earned) to be placed into a
WIDA language Proficiency Level.

5.2.7 Test Information Function (Figure E)

With the Rasch measurement model, as with any measurement model following Item Response
Theory (IRT), the relationship between the ability measure (in logits) and the accuracy of test
scores can be modeled. It is recognized that tests measure most accurately when the abilities of
the examinees and the difficulty of the items are most appropriate for each other. If a test is too
difficult for an examinee (i.e., the examinee scores close to zero), or if the test is too easy for an
examinee (i.e., the examinee “tops out”), accurate measurement of the examinee’s ability cannot
be made. The test information function shows graphically how well the test is measuring across

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 131 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
the ability measure spectrum. High values indicate more accuracy in measurement. Thus, for
each test form, Figure E shows the relationship between the ability measure (in logits) on the
horizontal axis and measurement accuracy, represented as the Fisher information value (which is
the inverse squared of the standard error), on the vertical axis. The test information function,
then, reflects the conditional standard error of measurement.
Again, as in Figure D, five vertical lines in Figure E indicate the five cut scores for the highest
grade in the cluster for the test form, dividing the figure into six sections for each of the WIDA
language proficiency levels (1–6) for the domain being tested. (Note that for some domains for
Kindergarten and Tier A tests, it was not possible to place into all six language proficiency
levels. Note also that, although Listening and Reading scores on Tiers A and B were capped, all
5 horizontal lines indicating the cut points remain in this figure.) It is important that each test
form measure most accurately in the areas for which it is primarily used to make classification
decisions. In other words, optimally the test information function should be high for the cuts
between 1/2 and 2/3 for Tier A test forms; between 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 for Tier B test forms; and
between 3/4, 4/5, and 5/6 for Tier C test forms.

5.2.8 Reliability (Table F)

In contrast to Figure E, which is based on the Rasch measurement model, Table F presents
reliability and accuracy information based on Classical Test Theory. It shows:
• The number of students
• The number of items
• Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (as a measure of internal consistency)
• The classical standard error of measurement (SEM) in terms of raw scores
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is widely used as an estimate of reliability, particularly of the
internal consistency of test items. It expresses how well the items on a test appear to measure the
same construct. Conceptually, it may be thought of as the correlation obtained between
performances on two halves of the test, if every possibility of dividing the test items in two were
attempted. Thus, Cronbach’s alpha may be low if some items are measuring something other
than what the majority of the items are measuring. As with any reliability index, it is affected by
the number of test items (or test score points that may be awarded). That is, all things being
equal, the greater the number of items, the higher the reliability.

Cronbach’s alpha is also affected by the distribution of ability within the group of students
tested. All things being equal, the greater the heterogeneity of abilities within the group of
students tested (i.e., the more widely the scores are distributed), the higher the reliability. In this
sense, Cronbach’s alpha is sample dependent. It is widely recognized that reliability can be as
much a function of the test as of the sample of students tested. That is, the exact same test can
produce widely disparate reliability indices based on ability distribution of the group of students
tested. Because ACCESS for ELLs is a tiered test (that is, because each form in Tier A, B, or C
targets only a certain range of the entire ability distribution), results for reliability on any one
form, particularly for the shorter Listening test, may at times be lower than typically expected.

The formula for Cronbach’s alpha is

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 132 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
  n

n  ∑ σ i2 
α= 1 − i =1 2 
n −1  σt 
 

where
n = number of items i
σi2 = variance of score on item i
σt2 = variance of total score
Table F also presents the standard error of measurement (SEM) based on classical test theory.
Unlike IRT, in this approach, SEM is seen as a constant across the spread of test scores (ability
continuum). Thus, it is not conditional on ability being measured. It is, however, a function of
two statistics: the reliability of the test and the (observed) standard deviation of the test scores. It
is calculated as
SEM = SD 1 − reliability

Traditionally, SEM has been used to create a band around an examinee’s observed score, with
the assertion in the view of classical test theory, that the examinee’s true score (i.e., what the
examinee’s score would be if it could be measured without error) would lie with a certain degree
of probability within this band. Statistically speaking, then, there is an expectation that an
examinee’s true score has a 68% probability of lying within the band extending from the
observed score minus 1 SEM to the observed score plus 1 SEM.

For the Writing tests (except Kindergarten, which is scored by the test administrator),
information on inter-rater reliability is also provided in Table F. This portion of the table shows,
for each of the three or four Writing tasks, the percent of agreement between two raters in terms
of the three features being rated: Linguistic Complexity (LX), Vocabulary Usage (VU), and
Language Control (LC). In this part of the table, the first column shows the Writing task (i.e., the
first, second, third, or fourth, if applicable). The second column shows the number of Writing
papers that were double scored. This number is generally 25% of all papers scored, chosen at
random during the operational scoring process. The next column shows the feature, while the
following columns show the rates of agreement: exact, adj (adjacent), and total sum of exact and
adjacent. When the two raters agreed on the score, an exact agreement was counted. If the two
raters were different in that feature by one point, an adjacent agreement was counted.

5.2.9 Item/Task Analysis Summary (Table G)

Table G provides a summary of the analyses of the items (for Listening and Reading) or the tasks
(for Writing and Speaking). The top part of the table gives an item or task summary. The first
column in this part states the type of item (MC for multiple choice or ECR for extended
constructed response). The next column shows the number of items or tasks on the test form. The
next column gives the average item or task difficulty value in logits. For the multiple-choice
items, the next column shows the average p-value. This is the average percent of correct items.
The last two columns give information on the Rasch model fit statistics (see 5.1.1). The first is

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 133 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
the average infit mean square statistic; the second is the average outfit mean square statistic.
Optimally, these values should be close to 1.00.
The next section of Table G provides a summary of the findings of the DIF analyses (see 5.1.4).
The first column gives the DIF level: A, B, or C for dichotomous items or AA, BB, or CC for
polytomous tasks (i.e., Writing tasks). The next major columns show the contrasting groups in
the DIF analyses: either male versus female (Male/Female) or Hispanic versus other ethnicities
(Hispanic/Other). Even though DIF may be negligible (category A or AA), this table shows the
number of items that were favoring one group or the other at all levels of DIF. Optimally, even
when items are all in category A or AA, there should be roughly an even number of items
favoring each of the two groups to ensure that there is no systematic biasing test effect across
items.
For the Writing tasks, the last part of this table shows the distribution of the raw scores on each
task by total score category. (Recall that the total score for a task equals the sum of three feature
scores, which are scored from 1 to 6, for a maximum total of 18; however, papers that are written
in languages other than English or are totally incomprehensible may receive a score of 0, while
papers that demonstrate the ability to copy or write a few words in English may be awarded a
score of 1. The total score of 2 is impossible to achieve.)

5.2.10 Complete Item Analysis Table (Table H)

Table H presents results of the analyses of all of the items or tasks on the test form. The first
column provides a descriptive name of the item or task. The item or task names vary slightly
across domains and grade-level clusters, but they usually consist of characters that represent the
domain (e.g., “R” for Reading), the grade-level cluster (e.g., “g91” for Grades 9–12), the tier
(e.g., C, if applicable), the unique number in the item database (e.g., 3820), the WIDA Standard
(e.g., “MA” for the Language of Mathematics), the language proficiency level targeted (e.g.,
“p3”), the thematic folder name (e.g., “Cafeteria”), and the test series (e.g., 302). Note that for
Writing, “IT” stands for the “integrated” task, which requires more extensive writing and that
integrates Model Performance Indicators for WIDA ELD Standards SI, LA, and SS. Also, note
that for some Speaking and Kindergarten tasks, the naming system is a bit simpler, e.g.,
“1.S_A1_K_302”, which contains the item order, domain, the folder, the proficiency level, the
grade-level cluster, and the test series.
The second column in Table H presents the item difficulty in logits, while the third column
indicates whether that item served as a common item (except for Kindergarten), anchoring the
measurement scale to the results of the field test. For dichotomously scored items (Listening,
Reading, and Speaking), the fourth column shows the p-value (percent of correct answers on that
item or, in the case of Speaking, percent of students meeting the expectations of that task). The
next two columns show the Rasch fit statistics for the item or task, while the following columns
show the results of the two DIF analyses for that item or task. These last columns are interpreted
just as in Table G.
Note that in previous years, many of the Speaking tasks had high outfit values. This was
especially true for the easier tasks that appeared early in a folder. An investigation into the
response patterns to the Speaking test revealed a number of cases where either the test was
administered incorrectly or one or more ratings were wrongly recorded. As explained in 1.2.5, if
a student cannot meet the expectations of a task in a folder, the remaining tasks in that folder are
not administered, and are assigned a score of 0. However, we found many cases in which

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 134 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
students received a score of 0 for one task in a folder, and a score of 1 for a later task in that
same folder. As a result, it appears that some students who would be expected to meet the
expectations of certain low-level tasks did not meet those expectations; the existence of these
outliers would increase the outfit value. Because these patterns indicate that either the test
administrator did not follow the administration procedures, or that one or more responses were
incorrectly recorded, we removed these responses from the data set when analyzing fit for the
Speaking test. Table 5.2.10 shows how many such cases were removed from the analysis for
each cluster.
Table 5.2.10
Rate of Speaking responses removed from fit analysis S302
Cluster No. of responses No. of responses removed Percent of responses removed
1-2 388,802 15,829 4.1%
3-5 352,105 17,787 5.1%
6-8 219,219 5,977 2.7%
9-12 197,615 7,169 3.6%
Removing these items from the analysis helped to lower the outfit value for many of the
Speaking items. However, there are still some items with high outfit values. We continue to
investigate potential sources for these high outfit values.
Note also that the Kindergarten test used a new format starting with Series 200 (2008-2009). It
was equated to Series 103 through a separate study, reported on in MacGregor, Kenyon, Gibson,
and Evans (2009). Thus, the column labeled “Anchored?” is not included in Table H for the
Kindergarten test.

5.2.11 Complete Raw Score to Scale Score Conversion Chart (Table I)

The next table in this section, Table I, presents the raw score to scale score conversion table for
the test form. The first column shows all possible raw scores. The next one to four columns show
the corresponding scale score for each grade level in the grade-level cluster. Note that for
Listening and Reading items on Tier A, these have been capped to the scale score that represents
the Proficiency Level score of 4.0. On Tier B, these have been capped to the scale score
representing the Proficiency Level score of 5.0.
The next column shows the conditional standard error (i.e., from the Rasch analysis) in the
metric of the scale score. The last two columns show a lower bound (i.e., the scale score minus
one standard error) and an upper bound (i.e., the scale score plus one standard error) around the
scale score. In some cases the resulting lower bound is below 100, which has been set as the
lowest score on the scale. In those cases, the lower bound has been set at 100.
As can be clearly seen from the table, on any dichotomously scored test form, standard errors are
very large at the lowest and highest ends of the raw score scale. Because of this phenomenon and
because the scale scores are combined to form composite scores, the top scale scores for the
Listening and Reading forms were often adjusted for an end-of-scale effect on Tier C by
allowing the top scale scores to increase only at the same rate as the preceding scale scores. If
they were not adjusted, their effect in the composite scores might be excessive.
Thus, if the scale scores towards the high end of the raw score scale were increasing with each
raw score by 9 scale points before the group of adjusted scores, then each of the adjusted scores
would increase by only 9 scale points each. Because the lower and upper bounds were calculated

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 135 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
based on the original logit scores, these adjusted scores do not fall in the middle of the range;
they fall toward the lower end of the range, but they always fall within the range. In other words,
the adjusted scale score is a very possible observed score for that number of raw score points
obtained.
Because on Tiers A and B the highest possible scores have been capped before the escalation of
scale scores due to large standard errors at the highest end of the raw score scale inflates them,
there has been no need to make any other adjustment to the scale scores for these tiers at the
extreme high end of the raw score range. Since the point at which scale scores are capped
depends on the proficiency level associated with the score, the caps take effect at lower scores
for lower grades within a cluster. In this case the scores have been marked in Table I as capped,
and the standard error, and low and high bound for the capped scale score, has been repeated in
the final rows of the table. In addition, at the lower end of the raw score scale, scale scores are
truncated when necessary so that the lowest scale score given is the scale score corresponding to
a proficiency level score of 1.0. As with the adjusted scores, the standard error and the lower and
upper bounds reported in Table I reflect the true scale score, not the truncated score.

5.2.12 Raw Score to Proficiency Level Score Conversion Table (Table J)

The final table, Table J, shows the interpretive Proficiency Level score associated with each raw
score. (Note that in previous annual technical reports, some of this information was included in
Table I; however, with the grade-level cut scores in effect, we have put this information in a
separate table for ease of reading.) The first column in Table J shows the raw score. The
remaining columns show the Proficiency Level score associated with each raw score/scale score
for each grade in the grade-level cluster, along with the percentage of students in that grade who
scored at that raw score/scale score/proficiency level score.

There are two things to note about this table. First, unlike scale scores, which are determined
psychometrically and have a one-to-one correspondence to raw scores regardless of the grade
level of the student, Proficiency Level scores are interpretations of the scale score. In Series 100
and 101, cut scores between proficiency levels were determined at the grade-level cluster level;
thus, for example, in the 3–5 grade-level cluster, a given scale score was associated with the
same Proficiency Level score for students in Grades 3, 4, and 5. Such a system, however, fails to
take into account that older children can be expected to perform better on the test due to general
cognitive growth over and above growth in English language proficiency. This effect can clearly
be seen in Tables A and B, where average scores on any test form tend to rise, albeit slightly, by
grade level. In order words, we would expect a fifth grader to perform better on the 3–5 grade-
level cluster test form than a third grader at the same underlying level of English proficiency. To
account for this effect, the WIDA Consortium adopted grade-level cut scores beginning with
Series 102 so that, for any given raw score/scale score, the Proficiency Level score now
associated with it differs according to the grade level of the student. (For details on how grade-
level cut scores were determined, see Kenyon et al., 2013.) The effect of this for Table J is to
require a separate column for each grade.

Second, because scale scores are capped on Listening and Reading for Tiers A and B at the scale
score corresponding to the proficiency level score of 4.0 (for Tier A) and 5.0 (for Tier B),
beginning with Series 102, this capped score is now dependent on the grade level (rather than

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 136 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
dependent on the grade-level cluster level). These differences in the cap are also shown in Table
J on Tiers A and B for Listening and Reading.
For Kindergarten the Proficiency Level scores are provided based on both the Accountability cut
scores and the Instructional cut scores.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 137 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
6. Analyses of Test Forms: Results

Chapter 6 contains proprietary test information and is not publicly available. State educational agencies (SEAs) may
request this information; please contact us at [email protected].

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 138 Series 302 (2013-2014)

 World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment

Annual Technical Report for

ACCESS for ELLs English Language Proficiency Test,
Series 302, 2013-2014 Administration

Annual Technical Report No. 10

Volume 3 of 3: Analyses Across Tiers

Prepared by:

Center for Applied Linguistics

CAL/WIDA Partnership Activities

Psychometrics/Research Team

May 30, 2015

 Table of Contents

Volume 3

7. Analysis Across Tiers: Overview ........................................................................................... 457

7.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 457
7.1.1 Reliability of Composites ....................................................................................... 457
7.1.2 Accuracy and Consistency of Classification....................................................... 457
7.2 Descriptions ................................................................................................................ 458
7.2.1 Scale Score Information (Figure A and Table A) ................................................... 458
7.2.2 Proficiency Level Information (Figure B and Table B).......................................... 459
7.2.3 Conditional Standard Error of Measurement (Table C and Figures C and D) ....... 459
7.2.4 Reliability Information (Table D) ........................................................................... 460
7.2.5 Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Tables (Table E) ............................... 461
8. Analysis Across Tiers: Results............................................................................................... 462
8.1 Grade: K ..................................................................................................................... 462
8.1.1 Listening K.............................................................................................................. 462
8.1.2 Reading K ............................................................................................................... 466
8.1.3 Writing K ................................................................................................................ 470
8.1.4 Speaking K .............................................................................................................. 474
8.1.5 Oral Language Composite K .................................................................................. 478
8.1.6 Literacy Composite K ............................................................................................. 481
8.1.7 Comprehension Composite K ................................................................................. 484
8.1.8 Overall Composite K .............................................................................................. 487
8.2 Grades: 1–2 ................................................................................................................ 490
8.2.1 Listening 1-2 ........................................................................................................... 490
8.2.2 Reading 1-2 ............................................................................................................. 494
8.2.3 Writing 1-2 .............................................................................................................. 498
8.2.4 Speaking 1-2 ........................................................................................................... 502
8.2.5 Oral Language Composite 1-2 ................................................................................ 506
8.2.6 Literacy Composite 1-2........................................................................................... 509
8.2.7 Comprehension Composite 1-2............................................................................... 512
8.2.8 Overall Composite 1-2 ............................................................................................ 515
8.3 Grades: 3–5 ................................................................................................................ 518
8.3.1 Listening 3-5 ........................................................................................................... 518
8.3.2 Reading 3-5 ............................................................................................................. 524
8.3.3 Writing 3-5 .............................................................................................................. 530
8.3.4 Speaking 3-5 ........................................................................................................... 535
8.3.5 Oral 3-5 ................................................................................................................... 540
8.3.6 Literacy Composite 3-5........................................................................................... 543
8.3.7 Comprehension Composite 3-5............................................................................... 546
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 i Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
 8.3.8 Overall Composite 3-5 ............................................................................................ 549
8.4 Grades: 6–8 ................................................................................................................ 552
8.4.1 Listening 6-8 ........................................................................................................... 552
8.4.2 Reading 6-8 ............................................................................................................. 557
8.4.3 Writing 6-8 .............................................................................................................. 563
8.4.4 Speaking 6-8 ........................................................................................................... 568
8.4.5 Oral Language Composite 6-8 ................................................................................ 573
8.4.6 Literacy Composite 6-8........................................................................................... 576
8.4.7 Comprehension Composite 6-8............................................................................... 579
8.4.8 Overall Composite 6-8 ............................................................................................ 582
8.5 Grades: 9–12 .............................................................................................................. 585
8.5.1 Listening 9-12 ......................................................................................................... 585
8.5.2 Reading 9-12 ........................................................................................................... 590
8.5.3 Writing 9-12 ............................................................................................................ 596
8.5.4 Speaking 9-12 ......................................................................................................... 601
8.5.5 Oral Language Composite 9-12 .............................................................................. 607
8.5.6 Literacy Composite 9-12......................................................................................... 611
8.5.7 Comprehension Composite 9-12............................................................................. 615
8.5.8 Overall Composite 9-12 .......................................................................................... 619
References .................................................................................................................................. 623
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 627

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 ii Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
7. Analysis Across Tiers: Overview
7.1 Background
7.1.1 Reliability of Composites
Four composite scores are reported for ACCESS for ELLs: Oral Language Composite (Oral),
Literacy Composite (Litr), Comprehension Composite (Cphn), and Overall Composite (Over).
To estimate the reliability of these composite scores, a stratified Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
(e.g., Kamata, Turhan, & Darandari, 2003, April; Kane & Case, 2004; Rudner, 2001) is
computed, weighted by the contribution of each domain score into the composite. Specifically,
the formula is
2 2
∑kj =1 w j σ j (1− ρ j )
α =1−
c σ c2

where
k = number of components j
wj = weight of component j
σj2 = variance of component j
σc2 = variance of composite
ρj = reliability coefficient of component j.
The data to compute the stratified Cronbach’s alpha is provided in the appropriate tables in
Chapter 8.

7.1.2 Accuracy and Consistency of Classification

For each domain across tiers, as well as for the four composite scores, we have produced tables
that indicate estimates of the accuracy and consistency of classification of examinees into the
WIDA ACCESS for ELLs language Proficiency Levels based on their performances on the test.
It is important to know the reliability of any student’s test score and the degree of precision with
which it has been measured (i.e., the estimate of the invariant standard error of measure [SEM]
of classical test theory and the estimate of the variable conditional standard error of the Rasch
measurement model). However, because decisions about students are ultimately made on the
basis of their classification into language proficiency levels on the basis of their performance on
ACCESS for ELLs, it is important to know how well these classifications are made. The
analyses that we used make use of the methods outlined and implemented in Livingston and
Lewis (1995) and Young and Yoon (1998) as implemented in the software program BB-CLASS
(Brennan, 2004) (cf. also Lee, Hanson, & Brennan, 2002).
In the approach of Livingston and Lewis (1995), the accuracy of a decision is the extent to which
decisions made on the basis of the administered test (i.e., the observed scores) would agree with
the decisions that would be made if each student could somehow be tested with all possible
parallel forms of the assessments; that is, decisions based on the examinees’ “true score.” On the

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 457 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
other hand, the consistency of a decision is the extent to which decisions made on the basis of the
administered test would agree with the decisions that would be made if the students had taken a
different but parallel form of the test. Thus, in every analysis of classification, two parallel
analyses are made: accuracy (that is, vis-à-vis “true scores”) and consistency (that is, vis-à-vis a
second form).
In terms of classifications around a single cut point, students can be misclassified in one of two
ways. Students who were below the Proficiency Level cut score (based on their “true score”), but
were classified on the basis of the assessment as being above the cut score, are considered to be
false positives. Students who were above the proficiency cut score (based on their “true score”),
but were classified as being below a cut score, are considered to be false negatives. All other
students are considered to be accurately placed either above or below the cut score.
True scores are, of course, unknown. The approach taken by Livingston and Lewis (1995) and
implemented here uses information about the reliability of the test, the cut scores, and the
observed distribution of scores. Then, using a four-parameter beta distribution, we modeled the
distribution of the true scores and of scores on a parallel form. Overall accuracy and consistency
indices are produced by comparing the percentage of students classified across all categories the
same way by both the observed distribution and modeled distribution. These indices indicate the
percent of all students who would be classified into the same language Proficiency Level by both
the administered test and either the true score distribution (accuracy) or a parallel test
(consistency). (Our tables also provide an estimate of Cohen’s kappa statistic, which is a very
conservative estimate of the overall classification since it corrects for chance.)
We also look at accuracy and consistency conditional on the language Proficiency Level . These
indices examine the percent of students classified by both tests into a level divided by all
students classified into that level according either to the true score distribution (accuracy) or
based on a parallel test (consistency).
Finally, we look at what may be the most important set of indices, which are the indices at the
cut points. That is, at every cut point, using the true score distribution (e.g., accuracy), we
provide the percent of students who are consistently placed above and below the cut score, as
well as those who are false positives and false negatives. For consistency, only the percent of
students classified consistently above and below the cut score is calculated. Thus, for example, to
evaluate the degree of confidence that one can have in a decision made based on the Overall
Composite score as to whether students are being accurately classified into WIDA language
proficiency level 5 (“bridging”) or not, one can look at the accuracy index provided in the table
for the cut score 4/5.

7.2 Descriptions
7.2.1 Scale Score Information (Figure A and Table A)
Figure A and Table A relate to the ACCESS for ELLs scale scores that were achieved by
students in the grade-level cluster. Figure A shows the distribution of the scale scores. The
horizontal axis shows the full range of all scale scores observed for the grade-level cluster. To
provide a full perspective, it extends somewhat below and above the range of observed scale
scores. The vertical axis shows the number of students (count). Each bar shows how many
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 458 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
students were awarded each scale score. Note that for Listening and Reading, the effects of
capping the scores for Tier A and Tier B can often be clearly detected in this figure.
Table A shows, by each grade in the cluster and by total for the cluster:
• Number of students in the analyses (the number students who were not absent, invalid,
refused, exempt, or in the wrong cluster)
• Minimum observed scale score
• Maximum observed scale score
• The mean (average) scale score
• The standard deviation (std. dev.) of the scale scores

7.2.2 Proficiency Level Information (Figure B and Table B)

Figure B and Table B provide information on the proficiency level distribution of the students in
the grade-level cluster. Figure B shows the distribution of the proficiency levels. The horizontal
axis shows the six WIDA proficiency levels. The vertical axis shows the percent of students.
Each bar shows the percent of students who were placed into each language proficiency level.
Each row of Table B shows, by each grade in the cluster and by total for the cluster:
• The WIDA Proficiency Level designation (1 to 6)
• The number of students (count) whose performance on the test form placed them into that
proficiency level in the domain being tested (the number students who were not absent,
invalid, refused, exempt, or in the wrong cluster)
• The percent of students, out of the total number of students taking the form within a
grade or within the total of students in the grade-level cluster, who were placed into that
Proficiency Level in the domain being tested
For Kindergarten, this information is provided for scores based on both the Accountability cut
scores and the Instructional cut scores.

7.2.3 Conditional Standard Error of Measurement (Table C and Figures C

and D)
Table C and Figures C and D provide information across the three overlapping tier forms within
a grade-level cluster and on the comparative conditional standard error of measurement. (Note
that this information applies only to the domain scores; this information is not applicable to the
composite scores.)
Table C presents information on the conditional standard error of measurement at the most
important points at which decisions are made about students on the basis of performances on
ACCESS for ELLs, the cut points between Language Proficiency levels. Because the cut points
depend on the grade level, information is provided for each grade level within the cluster. The
leftmost column shows the cut (e.g., 1/2, which is the cut score between level 1 and level 2). The
next column shows the grade level. The next column shows the cut score in the scale score
metric (e.g., 305). In the last column(s), the corresponding conditional standard error of
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 459 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
measurement is given for each cut score in the scale score metric. For Kindergarten, the SEMs
are provided in separate tables for the accountability and instructional cut scores. For each of the
other grade-level clusters, the SEMs for the cut scores are provided in one table for the Tiers (A,
B, and C).
From this table it is possible to examine how well the different tiers are targeted for making
decisions about students at the various cut scores. For example, Tier A is intended for students at
the lowest end of the language proficiency continuum. Optimally, Tier A forms should have the
lowest conditional SEM of any Tier at the 1/2 cut point, and a relatively low one at the 2/3 cut
point. At the other end, Tier C forms should optimally have the lowest conditional SEM at the
5/6 cut point, and also a relatively low one at the 4/5 cut point. Tier B should have low SEM in
the mid range. Information from this table provides easily comparable information on how well
the three Tier forms are targeted to provide the most accurate measure to place their intended
examinees into the language proficiency levels that they target. (Note that because of the capping
of scores on Tiers A and B, there is no information given for some of the cuts.)
Figure C shows the test characteristic curve across the entire test for Kindergarten and across the
three tiers for the other grade-level clusters. It shows graphically how the tiers differ in difficulty.
Tier A is represented by a dotted curve, Tier B by a light solid curve, and Tier C by a dark solid
curve. Note that not all tiers have the same number of items. Thus, some curves for Listening and
Reading in this figure may not end at the top horizontal line. Five vertical lines in the graphic
indicate the cut scores at the highest grade in each cluster only.
Figure D compares the test information function across the entire test for Kindergarten and
across the three tiers for the other grade-level clusters. This figure reflects the “SEM” columns in
Table C. Again, Tier A is represented by a dotted curve, Tier B by a light solid curve, and Tier C
by a dark solid curve. As in Figure C, the cut scores at the highest grade in each cluster are
indicated by vertical lines. These lines make it easy to see which form measures most accurately
at which cut score.

7.2.4 Reliability Information (Table D)

In order to produce accuracy and consistency of classification tables, it was necessary to produce
a single reliability estimate across the three tiers. For the domains, this was a weighted reliability
estimate (Cronbach’s alpha). In other words, it is the average reliability weighted by the number
of students who were administered that tier form. Thus, Table D, based on the information from
Table F in Chapter 6, provides the number of students and the reliability estimate for each tier.
The final column presents the weighted reliability, an estimate of the reliability of the scale
scores across the tiers.
For the composite scores, Table D presents the data used to calculate an estimate of the
reliability of the composite using stratified Cronbach’s alpha (see Chapter 7.1.1). The first
column shows the components forming the composite, the second column the weight of the
composite in the total score, the third the variance of the scale scores, and the fourth the
reliability of the composite. (Note that these are the weighted reliabilities across the tiers.) Unlike
the weighted composite, which is an average, the stratified alpha reflects the fact that there are
two or four measures being combined into one single measure. Thus, the reliability of the
composite score will be higher than the reliability of any single subscore within the composite.
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 460 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
7.2.5 Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Tables (Table E)
Table E presents three rows of information related to the accuracy and consistency of placement
into Proficiency Level categories based on WIDA ACCESS (see Chapter 7.1.2). With the
adoption of grade-level cut scores with Series 102, placement within a Proficiency Level now
depends on the grade level of the student. Therefore, we provide a separate table for each grade
level in a grade-level cluster. The first row provides overall indices related to the accuracy and
consistency of classification, as well as Cohen’s kappa. The second row of information shows
accuracy and consistency information conditional on level. The third provides indices of
classification accuracy and consistency at the cut points. These indices are perhaps the most
important of all when using any of these as an absolute cut-point (i.e., asking the question which
students have reached level six and which have not). Note that the consistency is generally
higher at the cut points than over the levels. For practical purposes, the primary score used for
such decisions are the Overall Composite scores.
Note that because of the scoring caps now imposed on Tier A and Tier B in Listening and
Reading, in several cases only a very small percentage of test takers get placed into Proficiency
Level 6. This outcome, combined with the range of observed scale scores, (which may be very
close to the 5/6 cut), and the reliability of the test, means that the accuracy conditional on level
for level 6 cannot be estimated. In such cases a hyphen (-) has been placed in the table. For
Writing, this result can also occur for both levels 5 and 6.
For Kindergarten, these tables are provided for both the Accountability cut scores and the
Instructional cut scores.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 461 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Summary of Assessment Records Claims, Actions, and Evidence
8. Analysis Across Tiers: Results
8.1 Grade: K
8.1.1 Listening K

Figure 8.1.1A
Scale Scores: List K S302

15,000
Count

10,000

5,000 Table 8.1.1A

Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: List K S302
0
95 125 155 185 215 245 275 305 335 365 No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
Scale Score
203,841 100 363 269.99 70.70

Table 8.1.1Bi
Proficiency Level Distribution: List K S302
Figure 8.1.1Bi (Accountability)
Proficiency Level: List K S302 Level Count Percent
(Accountability) 1 51,112 25.1%
40.0%
2 20,746 10.2%
30.0%
3 17,932 8.8%
Percent

20.0%
4 11,923 5.8%
10.0%
5 32,179 15.8%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 69,949 34.3%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,841 100.0%

Table 8.1.1Bii
Proficiency Level Distribution: List K S302
Figure 8.1.1Bii (Instructional)
Proficiency Level: List K S302 Level Count Percent
(Instructional) K1 24,626 12.1%
40.0%
K2 11,794 5.8%
30.0%
K3 20,693 10.2%
Percent

20.0%
K4 32,677 16.0%
10.0%
K5 62,805 30.8%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 K6 51,246 25.1%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,841 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 462 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.1Ci
Conditional Standard Error of
Measurement at Cut Scores: List K
S302 (Accountability)

Proficiency
Level Cut Score SEM

1/2 229 17.28

2/3 251 18.41

3/4 278 20.66

4/5 286 21.42

5/6 308 24.80

Table 8.1.1Cii
Conditional Standard Error of
Measurement at Cut Scores: List K
S302 (Instructional)

Proficiency
Level Cut Score SEM

1/2 175 17.28

2/3 204 16.91

3/4 240 17.66

4/5 279 20.66

5/6 322 27.43

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 463 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.1.1D
Test Characteristic Curve: List K S302

30

27
Expected Raw Score

24

21

18

15

12

0
-11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Ability Measure

Figure 8.1.1D
Test Information Function: List K S302
5

4
Information

0
-11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 464 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.1D
Reliability: List K S302
Tiers No. of Students Reliability
- 203,841 0.934

Table 8.1.1E
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: List (Grade K) S302
(Accountability)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.679 0.614 0.495
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.872 0.817
2 0.469 0.351
3 0.327 0.247
4 0.211 0.155
5 0.474 0.363
6 0.824 0.770
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.941 0.033 0.026 0.918
2/3 0.930 0.027 0.043 0.902
3/4 0.916 0.049 0.035 0.883
4/5 0.907 0.045 0.048 0.874
5/6 0.899 0.035 0.066 0.860

Table 8.1.1E
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: List (Grade K) S302
(Instructional)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.677 0.574 0.462
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.886 0.811
2 0.442 0.325
3 0.526 0.401
4 0.566 0.446
5 0.702 0.580
6 0.734 0.656
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.969 0.013 0.018 0.955
2/3 0.959 0.020 0.021 0.940
3/4 0.940 0.030 0.030 0.914
4/5 0.916 0.042 0.042 0.882
5/6 0.884 0.040 0.077 0.838

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 465 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.1.2 Reading K

Figure 8.1.2A
Scale Scores: Read K S302
30,000
25,000
20,000
Count

15,000
10,000
5,000 Table 8.1.2A
0 Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Read K S302
95 125 155 185 215 245 275 No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
Scale Score
203,853 100 290 192.18 66.09

Table 8.1.2Bi
Proficiency Level Distribution: Read K S302
Figure 8.1.2Bi (Accountability)
Proficiency Level: Read K S302 Level Count Percent
(Accountability) 1 136,612 67.0%
80.0%
2 14,186 7.0%
60.0%
3 9,412 4.6%
Percent

40.0%
4 10,849 5.3%
20.0%
5 32,794 16.1%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 0 0.0%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,853 100.0%

Table 8.1.2Bii
Proficiency Level Distribution: Read K S302
Figure 8.1.2Bii (Instructional)
Proficiency Level: Read K S302 Level Count Percent
(Instructional) K1 44,927 22.0%
30.0%
25.0%
K2 28,198 13.8%
20.0% K3 39,920 19.6%
Percent

15.0%
10.0% K4 17,097 8.4%
5.0% K5 20,656 10.1%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 K6 53,055 26.0%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,853 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 466 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.2Ci
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement
at Cut Scores: Read K S302 (Accountability)

Proficiency Level Cut Score SEM

1/2 238 15.08

2/3 251 16.90

3/4 261 18.98

4/5 274 22.10

5/6 295 30.68

Table 8.1.2Cii
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement
at Cut Scores: Read K S302 (Instructional)

Proficiency Level Cut Score SEM

1/2 121 14.04

2/3 159 13.52

3/4 204 13.00

4/5 228 14.04

5/6 255 17.68

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 467 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.1.2C
Test Characteristic Curve: Read K S302

30
27
Expected Raw Score

24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
-14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1

Ability Measure

Figure 8.1.2D
Test Information Function: Read K S302
5
4.5
4
3.5
Information

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 468 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.2D
Reliability: Read K S302
Tiers No. of Students Reliability
- 203,853 0.947

Table 8.1.2E
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Read (Grade K) S302
(Accountability)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.821 0.787 0.583
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.943 0.929
2 0.337 0.252
3 0.240 0.176
4 0.293 0.213
5 0.872 0.772
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.934 0.039 0.027 0.910
2/3 0.937 0.032 0.031 0.913
3/4 0.943 0.029 0.028 0.919
4/5 0.948 0.033 0.019 0.926

Table 8.1.2E
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Read (Grade K) S302
(Instructional)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.771 0.699 0.603
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.902 0.835
2 0.574 0.459
3 0.700 0.589
4 0.388 0.289
5 0.922 0.881
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.944 0.020 0.036 0.922
2/3 0.940 0.033 0.026 0.915
3/4 0.936 0.029 0.034 0.910
4/5 0.940 0.032 0.028 0.914

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 469 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.1.3 Writing K

Figure 8.1.3A
Scale Scores: Writ K S302
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
Count

15,000
10,000
Table 8.1.3A
5,000
0
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Writ K S302
95 125 155 185 215 245 275 305 335 No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
Scale Score
203,840 100 339 210.63 65.58

Table 8.1.3Bi
Proficiency Level Distribution: Writ K S302
Figure 8.1.3Bi (Accountability)
Proficiency Level: Writ K S302 Level Count Percent
(Accountability) 1 119,172 58.5%
80.0%
2 40,889 20.1%
60.0%
3 25,262 12.4%
Percent

40.0%
4 12,868 6.3%
20.0%
5 5,649 2.8%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 0 0.0%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,840 100.0%

Table 8.1.3Bii
Proficiency Level Distribution: Writ K S302
Figure 8.1.3Bii (Instructional)
Proficiency Level: Writ K S302 Level Count Percent
(Instructional) K1 36,149 17.7%
40.0%
K2 60,841 29.8%
30.0%
K3 34,266 16.8%
Percent

20.0%
K4 28,805 14.1%
10.0%
K5 38,130 18.7%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 K6 5,649 2.8%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,840 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 470 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.3Ci
Conditional Standard Error of
Measurement at Cut Scores: Writ K
S302 (Accountability)

Proficiency
Level Cut Score SEM

1/2 225 18.35

2/3 259 19.90

3/4 295 26.43

4/5 323 33.90

5/6 350 38.87

Table 8.1.3Cii
Conditional Standard Error of
Measurement at Cut Scores: Writ K
S302 (Instructional)

Proficiency
Level Cut Score SEM
1/2 145 31.10

2/3 218 18.04

3/4 244 19.28

4/5 269 20.83

5/6 326 34.52

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 471 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.1.3C
Test Characteristic Curve: Writ K S302

17
16
15
Expected Raw Score

14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Ability Measure

Figure 8.1.3D
Test Information Function: Writ K S302
4
3.5
3
Information

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 472 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.3D
Reliability: Writ K S302
Tiers No. of Students Reliability
- 203,840 0.922

Table 8.1.3E
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Writ (Grade K) S302
(Accountability)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.740 0.689 0.482
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.941 0.914
2 0.610 0.465
3 0.386 0.344
4 - 0.259
5 - 0.139
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.922 0.034 0.044 0.893
2/3 0.902 0.021 0.077 0.863
3/4 0.909 0.091 0.000 0.898
4/5 0.972 0.028 0.000 0.971

Table 8.1.3E
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Writ (Grade K) S302
(Instructional)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.680 0.588 0.476
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.865 0.792
2 0.791 0.707
3 0.515 0.388
4 0.365 0.281
5 0.245 0.603
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.955 0.025 0.020 0.935
2/3 0.916 0.041 0.043 0.885
3/4 0.898 0.031 0.071 0.860
4/5 0.879 0.045 0.077 0.832

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 473 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.1.4 Speaking K

Figure 8.1.4A
Scale Scores: Spek K S302
50,000

40,000

30,000
Count

20,000

10,000 Table 8.1.4A

0 Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Spek K S302
95 125 155 185 215 245 275 305 335 365 No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
Scale Score
203,827 100 375 302.51 69.67

Table 8.1.4Bi
Proficiency Level Distribution: Spek K S302
Figure 8.1.4Bi (Accountability)
Proficiency Level: Spek K S302 Level Count Percent
(Accountability) 1 47,008 23.1%
30.0%
25.0%
2 47,168 23.1%
20.0% 3 34,064 16.7%
Percent

15.0%
10.0% 4 22,635 11.1%
5.0% 5 52,952 26.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 0 0.0%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,827 100.0%

Table 8.1.4Bii
Proficiency Level Distribution: Spek K S302
Figure 8.1.4Bii (Instructional)
Proficiency Level: Spek K S302 Level Count Percent
(Instructional) K1 47,008 23.1%
30.0%
25.0%
K2 16,092 7.9%
20.0% K3 31,076 15.2%
Percent

15.0%
10.0% K4 34,064 16.7%
5.0% K5 22,635 11.1%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 K6 52,952 26.0%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,827 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 474 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.4Ci
Conditional Standard Error of
Measurement at Cut Scores: Spek K
S302 (Accountability)

Proficiency
Level Cut Score SEM
1/2 269 18.68

2/3 314 16.27

3/4 343 20.89

4/5 366 31.33

5/6 383 44.99

Table 8.1.4Cii
Conditional Standard Error of
Measurement at Cut Scores: Spek K
S302 (Instructional)

Proficiency
Level Cut Score SEM
1/2 256 20.89

2/3 285 17.07

3/4 308 16.27

4/5 342 20.49

5/6 365 30.53

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 475 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.1.4C
Test Characteristic Curve: Spek K S302

10
Expected Raw Score

0
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Ability Measure

Figure 8.1.4D
Test Information Function: Spek K S302
2

1.5
Information

0.5

0
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 476 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.4D
Reliability: Spek K S302
Tiers No. of Students Reliability
- 203,827 0.894

Table 8.1.4E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Spek (Grade K) S302
(Accountability)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.468 0.451 0.321
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.830 0.760
2 0.662 0.533
3 0.377 0.260
4 0.212 0.194
5 - 0.563
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.928 0.041 0.031 0.900
2/3 0.891 0.032 0.077 0.850
3/4 0.865 0.046 0.089 0.786
4/5 0.740 0.260 0.000 0.755

Table 8.1.4E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Spek (Grade K) S302
(Instructional)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.652 0.563 0.419
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.871 0.797
2 0.312 0.234
3 0.474 0.357
4 0.360 0.264
5 0.794 0.721
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.938 0.029 0.033 0.910
2/3 0.914 0.047 0.039 0.883
3/4 0.888 0.031 0.081 0.850
4/5 0.859 0.061 0.080 0.790

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 477 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.1.5 Oral Language Composite K

Figure 8.1.5A
Scale Scores: Oral K S302

10,000
8,000
Count

6,000
4,000
Table 8.1.5A
2,000
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Oral K S302
0
95 125 155 185 215 245 275 305 335 365 No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
Scale Score
203,823 100 369 286.48 66.28

Table 8.1.5Bi
Proficiency Level Distribution: Oral K S302
Figure 8.1.5Bi (Accountability)
Proficiency Level: Oral K S302 Level Count Percent
(Accountability) 1 51,598 25.3%
30.0%
25.0%
2 29,375 14.4%
20.0% 3 33,562 16.5%
Percent

15.0%
10.0% 4 17,908 8.8%
5.0% 5 28,069 13.8%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 43,311 21.2%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,823 100.0%

Table 8.1.5Bii
Proficiency Level Distribution: Oral K S302
Figure 8.1.5Bii (Instructional)
Proficiency Level: Oral K S302 Level Count Percent
(Instructional) K1 29,747 14.6%
25.0%
K2 18,588 9.1%
20.0%
K3 24,444 12.0%
Percent

15.0%
10.0% K4 41,756 20.5%
5.0%
K5 45,977 22.6%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 K6 43,311 21.2%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,823 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 478 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.5C
n/a

Figure 8.1.5C
n/a

Figure 8.1.5D
n/a

Table 8.1.5D
Oral Composite Reliability: Oral K S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Listening 0.50 4997.123 0.934
Speaking 0.50 4852.854 0.894
Oral 4393.165 0.952

Table 8.1.5E
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Oral (Grade K) S302
(Accountability)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.628 0.546 0.447
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.908 0.862
2 0.633 0.514
3 0.609 0.488
4 0.338 0.226
5 0.359 0.297
6 0.728 0.625
Indices at
Cut Points Accuracy
False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.955 0.023 0.021 0.936
2/3 0.935 0.030 0.035 0.910
3/4 0.927 0.025 0.047 0.899
4/5 0.924 0.027 0.049 0.881
5/6 0.857 0.101 0.042 0.827

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 479 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.5E
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Oral (Grade K) S302
(Instructional)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.660 0.559 0.459
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.883 0.821
2 0.578 0.451
3 0.560 0.443
4 0.695 0.575
5 0.546 0.447
6 0.708 0.615
Indices at
Cut Points Accuracy
False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.968 0.017 0.015 0.954
2/3 0.951 0.023 0.026 0.931
3/4 0.938 0.028 0.034 0.914
4/5 0.929 0.024 0.047 0.899
5/6 0.868 0.075 0.057 0.829

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 480 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.1.6 Literacy Composite K

Figure 8.1.6A
Scale Scores: Litr K S302

15,000
Count

10,000

5,000
Table 8.1.6A
0 Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Litr K S302
95 125 155 185 215 245 275 305 No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
Scale Score
203,837 100 315 201.65 61.11

Table 8.1.6Bi
Proficiency Level Distribution: Litr K S302
Figure 8.1.6Bi (Accountability)
Proficiency Level: Litr K S302 Level Count Percent
(Accountability) 1 130,672 64.1%
80.0%
2 24,411 12.0%
60.0%
3 24,653 12.1%
Percent

40.0%
4 16,739 8.2%
20.0%
5 7,362 3.6%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 0 0.0%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,837 100.0%

Table 8.1.6Bii
Proficiency Level Distribution: Litr K S302
Figure 8.1.6Bii (Instructional)
Proficiency Level: Litr K S302 Level Count Percent
(Instructional) K1 35,756 17.5%
30.0%
25.0%
K2 50,231 24.6%
20.0% K3 37,594 18.4%
Percent

15.0%
10.0% K4 25,398 12.5%
5.0% K5 41,480 20.3%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 K6 13,378 6.6%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,837 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 481 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.6C
n/a

Figure 8.1.6C
n/a

Figure 8.1.6D
n/a

Table 8.1.6D
Literacy Composite Reliability: Litr K S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Reading 0.50 4368.024 0.947
Writing 0.50 4299.672 0.922
Literacy 3733.607 0.962

Table 8.1.6E
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Litr (Grade K) S302
(Accountability)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.797 0.747 0.542
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.961 0.943
2 0.562 0.434
3 0.513 0.399
4 0.452 0.390
5 - 0.264
6 - 0.000
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.947 0.025 0.028 0.925
2/3 0.942 0.024 0.034 0.918
3/4 0.933 0.034 0.033 0.906
4/5 0.964 0.036 0.000 0.955
5/6 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 482 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.6E
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Litr (Grade K) S302
(Instructional)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.747 0.671 0.594
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.917 0.870
2 0.835 0.769
3 0.730 0.624
4 0.575 0.450
5 0.650 0.619
6 - 0.410
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.969 0.014 0.017 0.956
2/3 0.952 0.025 0.024 0.932
3/4 0.944 0.024 0.032 0.922
4/5 0.946 0.023 0.032 0.922
5/6 0.934 0.066 0.000 0.926

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 483 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.1.7 Comprehension Composite K

Figure 8.1.7A
Scale Scores: Cphn K S302
6,000
5,000
4,000
Count

3,000
2,000
1,000 Table 8.1.7A
0
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Cphn K S302
95 125 155 185 215 245 275 305 No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
Scale Score
203,837 100 312 215.52 60.34

Table 8.1.7Bi
Proficiency Level Distribution: Cphn K S302
Figure 8.1.7Bi (Accountability)
Proficiency Level: Cphn K S302 Level Count Percent
(Accountability) 1 120,340 59.0%
80.0%
2 14,043 6.9%
60.0%
3 14,430 7.1%
Percent

40.0%
4 13,518 6.6%
20.0%
5 25,262 12.4%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 16,244 8.0%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,837 100.0%

Table 8.1.7Bii
Proficiency Level Distribution: Cphn K S302
Figure 8.1.7Bii (Instructional)
Proficiency Level: Cphn K S302 Level Count Percent
(Instructional) K1 25,081 12.3%
25.0%
K2 30,698 15.1%
20.0%
K3 43,899 21.5%
Percent

15.0%
10.0% K4 29,078 14.3%
5.0%
K5 30,330 14.9%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 K6 44,751 22.0%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,837 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 484 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.7C
n/a

Figure 8.1.7C
n/a

Figure 8.1.7D
n/a

Table 8.1.7D
Comprehension Composite Reliability: Cphn K S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Listening 0.30 4997.123 0.934
Reading 0.70 4368.024 0.947
Comprehension 3641.051 0.961

Table 8.1.7E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Cphn (Grade K) S302
(Accountability)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.763 0.708 0.529
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.961 0.943
2 0.391 0.285
3 0.392 0.285
4 0.350 0.257
5 0.560 0.462
6 0.671 0.531
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.949 0.023 0.028 0.928
2/3 0.950 0.025 0.024 0.928
3/4 0.946 0.029 0.025 0.923
4/5 0.941 0.031 0.028 0.918
5/6 0.945 0.032 0.023 0.925

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 485 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.7E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Cphn (Grade K) S302
(Instructional)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.767 0.678 0.610
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.894 0.830
2 0.757 0.659
3 0.775 0.686
4 0.635 0.514
5 0.631 0.511
6 0.884 0.832
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.972 0.013 0.016 0.960
2/3 0.955 0.021 0.023 0.937
3/4 0.946 0.024 0.030 0.924
4/5 0.949 0.024 0.028 0.927
5/6 0.944 0.032 0.025 0.920

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 486 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.1.8 Overall Composite K

Figure 8.1.8A
Scale Scores: Over K S302
4,000

3,000
Count

2,000

1,000 Table 8.1.8A

0
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Over K S302
95 125 155 185 215 245 275 305 335 No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
Scale Score
203,809 100 331 226.90 57.10

Table 8.1.8Bi
Proficiency Level Distribution: Over K S302
Figure 8.1.8Bi (Accountability)
Proficiency Level: Over K S302 Level Count Percent
(Accountability) 1 108,070 53.0%
60.0%
50.0%
2 32,479 15.9%
40.0% 3 29,796 14.6%
Percent

30.0%
20.0% 4 19,836 9.7%
10.0% 5 11,866 5.8%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 1,762 0.9%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,809 100.0%

Table 8.1.8Bii
Proficiency Level Distribution: Over K S302
Figure 8.1.8Bii (Instructional)
Proficiency Level: Over K S302 Level Count Percent
(Instructional) K1 28,669 14.1%
25.0%
K2 41,422 20.3%
20.0%
K3 40,481 19.9%
Percent

15.0%
10.0% K4 36,103 17.7%
5.0%
K5 43,506 21.3%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 K6 13,628 6.7%
Proficiency Level
Total 203,809 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 487 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.8C
n/a

Figure 8.1.8C
n/a

Figure 8.1.8D
n/a

Table 8.1.8D
Overall Composite Reliability: Over K S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Listening 0.15 4997.123 0.934
Reading 0.35 4368.024 0.947
Speaking 0.15 4852.854 0.894
Writing 0.35 4299.672 0.922
Overall Composite 3260.417 0.973

Table 8.1.8E
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Over (Grade K) S302
(Accountability)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.807 0.747 0.616
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.956 0.936
2 0.704 0.593
3 0.680 0.561
4 0.533 0.444
5 0.253 0.477
6 - 0.149
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.953 0.023 0.024 0.933
2/3 0.951 0.023 0.026 0.931
3/4 0.955 0.021 0.024 0.935
4/5 0.953 0.035 0.011 0.941
5/6 0.991 0.009 0.000 0.991

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 488 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.1.8E
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Over (Grade K) S302
(Instructional)
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.787 0.710 0.645
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.921 0.878
2 0.835 0.768
3 0.776 0.684
4 0.726 0.621
5 0.738 0.681
6 0.710 0.551
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.976 0.011 0.013 0.966
2/3 0.959 0.021 0.020 0.941
3/4 0.950 0.023 0.027 0.929
4/5 0.953 0.021 0.026 0.933
5/6 0.950 0.038 0.012 0.938

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 489 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.2 Grades: 1–2
8.2.1 Listening 1-2

Figure 8.2.1A Figure 8.2.1B

Scale Scores: List 1-2 S302 Proficiency Level: List 1-2 S302
60.0%
80,000 50.0%
60,000 40.0%

Percent
Count

30.0%
40,000
20.0%
20,000
10.0%
0 0.0%
99 129 159 189 219 249 279 309 339 369 399 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.2.1A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: List 1-2 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
1 201,336 104 397 299.11 27.35
2 187,608 108 397 325.40 28.51
Total 388,944 104 397 311.79 30.85

Table 8.2.1B
Proficiency Level Distribution: List 1-2 S302
Grade 1 Grade 2 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 4,892 2.4% 2,876 1.5% 7,768 2.0%
2 10,535 5.2% 6,561 3.5% 17,096 4.4%
3 30,868 15.3% 16,335 8.7% 47,203 12.1%
4 46,918 23.3% 18,243 9.7% 65,161 16.8%
5 91,944 45.7% 110,748 59.0% 202,692 52.1%
6 16,179 8.0% 32,845 17.5% 49,024 12.6%
Total 201,336 100.0% 187,608 100.0% 388,944 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 490 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.1C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at Cut Scores: List 1-2 S302

Proficiency SEM
Level Grade Cut Score Tier A Tier B Tier C

1 238 19.16 19.91 19.16

1/2
2 247 19.16 19.54 18.79

1 267 19.91 19.16 18.03

2/3
2 281 21.04 19.16 18.41

1 295 22.92 19.54 18.79

3/4
2 311 25.55 20.29 19.91

1 305 n/a 19.91 19.16

4/5
2 324 n/a 21.42 21.04

1 330 n/a n/a 21.79

5/6
2 350 n/a n/a 24.80

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 491 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.2.1C
Test Characteristic Curve: List 1-2ABC S302

21

18
Expected Raw Score

15

12 A
B
9 C

0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Ability Measure

Figure 8.2.1D
Test Information Function: List 1-2ABC S302

4
Information

3 A
B
2 C

0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 492 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.1D
Weighted Reliability: List 1-2 S302 g
Tiers No. of Students Reliability Reliability
A 85,383 0.781
B 193,992 0.672 0.688
C 109,569 0.645

Table 8.2.1E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: List (Grade 1) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.534 0.395 0.160
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.808 0.615
2 0.534 0.342
3 0.429 0.274
4 0.354 0.271
5 0.604 0.561
6 - 0.141
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.987 0.003 0.010 0.981
2/3 0.962 0.013 0.025 0.939
3/4 0.853 0.077 0.070 0.770
4/5 0.740 0.097 0.163 0.658
5/6 0.920 0.080 0.000 0.847

Table 8.2.1E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: List (Grade 2) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.598 0.439 0.149
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.816 0.618
2 0.548 0.371
3 0.444 0.257
4 0.217 0.135
5 0.675 0.659
6 - 0.265
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.991 0.002 0.007 0.988
2/3 0.975 0.007 0.017 0.962
3/4 0.923 0.036 0.042 0.866
4/5 0.840 0.086 0.074 0.748
5/6 0.825 0.175 0.000 0.731

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 493 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.2.2 Reading 1-2

Figure 8.2.2A Figure 8.2.2B

Scale Scores: Read 1-2 S302 Proficiency Level: Read 1-2 S302
50.0%
60,000
50,000 40.0%

40,000 30.0%

Percent
Count

30,000
20.0%
20,000
10.0%
10,000
0 0.0%
136 166 196 226 256 286 316 346 376 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.2.2A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Read 1-2 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
1 201,177 141 395 283.48 24.82
2 187,492 150 395 310.49 25.84
Total 388,669 141 395 296.51 28.69

Table 8.2.2B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Read 1-2 S302
Grade 1 Grade 2 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 17,131 8.5% 7,724 4.1% 24,855 6.4%
2 20,510 10.2% 12,664 6.8% 33,174 8.5%
3 37,350 18.6% 30,187 16.1% 67,537 17.4%
4 46,516 23.1% 23,355 12.5% 69,871 18.0%
5 65,236 32.4% 85,287 45.5% 150,523 38.7%
6 14,434 7.2% 28,275 15.1% 42,709 11.0%
Total 201,177 100.0% 187,492 100.0% 388,669 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 494 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.2C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at Cut Scores: Read 1-2 S302*
Proficiency SEM
Level Grade Cut Score Tier A Tier B Tier C
1/2 1 253 11.96 15.34 14.30
2 267 11.44 13.00 12.74
2/3 1 269 11.44 12.74 12.48
2 286 11.70 11.18 11.18
3/4 1 283 11.70 11.44 11.44
2 303 13.00 10.66 10.92
4/5 1 294 n/a 10.92 10.92
2 312 n/a 10.66 10.92
5/6 1 314 n/a n/a 11.18
2 331 n/a n/a 11.96
* No equating was performed for S302

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 495 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.2.2C
Test Characteristic Curve: Read 1-2ABC S302

27
24
Expected Raw Score

21
18
A
15
B
12
C
9
6
3
0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Ability Measure

Figure 8.2.2D
Test Information Function: Read 1-2ABC S302

5
Information

4
A
3 B

2 C

0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 496 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.2D
Weighted Reliability: Read 1-2 S302 g
Tiers No. of Students Reliability Reliability
A 85,324 0.801
B 193,891 0.838 0.828
C 109,454 0.832

Table 8.2.2E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Read (Grade 1) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.544 0.428 0.272
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.814 0.671
2 0.482 0.340
3 0.473 0.354
4 0.433 0.339
5 0.596 0.527
6 - 0.239
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.964 0.015 0.021 0.946
2/3 0.923 0.036 0.041 0.886
3/4 0.860 0.064 0.076 0.806
4/5 0.825 0.073 0.102 0.761
5/6 0.928 0.072 0.000 0.889

Table 8.2.2E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Read (Grade 2) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.576 0.459 0.291
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.802 0.592
2 0.453 0.307
3 0.484 0.349
4 0.259 0.199
5 0.737 0.651
6 0.624 0.474
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.976 0.006 0.018 0.966
2/3 0.944 0.026 0.030 0.913
3/4 0.878 0.067 0.055 0.822
4/5 0.828 0.110 0.061 0.771
5/6 0.892 0.043 0.065 0.838

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 497 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.2.3 Writing 1-2

Figure 8.2.3A Figure 8.2.3B

Scale Scores: Writ 1-2 S302 Proficiency Level: Writ 1-2 S302
60.0%

15,000 50.0%
40.0%

Percent
Count

10,000 30.0%
20.0%
5,000
10.0%
0 0.0%
198 228 258 288 318 348 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.2.3A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Writ 1-2 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
1 201,249 203 365 266.82 20.66
2 187,537 209 363 285.90 21.44
Total 388,786 203 365 276.02 23.10

Table 8.2.3B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Writ 1-2 S302
Grade 1 Grade 2 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 17,984 8.9% 10,252 5.5% 28,236 7.3%
2 97,405 48.4% 64,792 34.5% 162,197 41.7%
3 81,036 40.3% 104,861 55.9% 185,897 47.8%
4 4,808 2.4% 7,602 4.1% 12,410 3.2%
5 15 0.0% 30 0.0% 45 0.0%
6 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0%
Total 201,249 100.0% 187,537 100.0% 388,786 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 498 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.3C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at Cut Scores: Writ 1-2 S302*

Proficiency SEM
Level Grade Cut Score Tier A Tier B Tier C

1 238 7.15 6.84 6.53

1/2
2 251 6.84 7.46 7.46

1 272 7.77 8.09 8.40

2/3
2 285 8.40 8.09 8.40

1 308 8.09 7.77 7.77

3/4
2 320 7.77 7.46 7.46

1 336 n/a 6.84 6.84

4/5
2 348 n/a 6.53 6.53

1 362 n/a n/a 6.53

5/6
2 373 n/a n/a 7.46
* No equating was performed for Writing Tier A S302

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 499 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.2.3C
Test Characteristic Curve: Writ 1-2ABC S302

110
100
Expected Raw Score

90
80
70
60 A
50
B
40
C
30
20
10
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ability Measure

Figure 8.2.3D
Test Information Function: Writ 1-2ABC S302

25

20
Information

15
A
10 B
C
5

0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 500 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.3D
Weighted Reliability: Writ 1-2 S302 g
Tiers No. of Students Reliability Reliability
A 85,375 0.896
B 193,909 0.926 0.925
C 109,502 0.945

Table 8.2.3E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Writ (Grade 1) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.863 0.815 0.686
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.851 0.750
2 0.881 0.838
3 0.846 0.812
4 0.791 0.458
5 - 1.000
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.970 0.013 0.018 0.956
2/3 0.917 0.040 0.043 0.883
3/4 0.977 0.023 0.000 0.975
4/5 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000

Table 8.2.3E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Writ (Grade 2) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.864 0.816 0.668
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.831 0.727
2 0.865 0.805
3 0.866 0.847
4 - 0.300
5 - 1.000
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.981 0.009 0.010 0.972
2/3 0.923 0.036 0.041 0.892
3/4 0.959 0.041 0.000 0.953
4/5 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 501 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.2.4 Speaking 1-2

Figure 8.2.4A Figure 8.2.4B

Scale Scores: Spek 1-2 S302 Proficiency Level: Spek 1-2 S302
50.0%
140,000
120,000 40.0%
100,000
30.0%

Percent
Count

80,000
60,000 20.0%
40,000
10.0%
20,000
0 0.0%
168 198 228 258 288 318 348 378 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.2.4A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Spek 1-2 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
1 201,244 173 391 337.37 47.84
2 187,558 174 391 356.05 42.90
Total 388,802 173 391 346.38 46.47

Table 8.2.4B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Spek 1-2 S302
Grade 1 Grade 2 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 16,794 8.3% 11,526 6.1% 28,320 7.3%
2 54,483 27.1% 24,077 12.8% 78,560 20.2%
3 37,167 18.5% 29,518 15.7% 66,685 17.2%
4 17,430 8.7% 17,124 9.1% 34,554 8.9%
5 14,834 7.4% 17,116 9.1% 31,950 8.2%
6 60,536 30.1% 88,197 47.0% 148,733 38.3%
Total 201,244 100.0% 187,558 100.0% 388,802 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 502 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.4C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at
Cut Scores: Spek 1-2 S302*

Proficiency
Level Grade Cut Score SEM
1 278 20.89
1/2
2 286 19.88

1 318 18.28
2/3
2 322 18.28

1 344 19.08
3/4
2 345 19.08

1 367 20.08
4/5
2 368 20.08

1 385 20.69
5/6
2 386 20.69
*No equating was performed for S302

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 503 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.2.4C
Test Characteristic Curve: Spek 1-2 S302

13
12
11
Expected Raw Score

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Ability Measure

Figure 8.2.4D
Test Information Function: Spek 1-2 S302

1.5
Information

0.5

0
-11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 504 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.4D
Reliability: Spek 1-2 S302
Tiers No. of Students Reliability
-- 388,802 0.891

Table 8.2.4E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Spek (Grade 1) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.610 0.519 0.409
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.599 0.467
2 0.717 0.623
3 0.530 0.427
4 0.366 0.249
5 0.277 0.207
6 0.947 0.883
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.938 0.043 0.020 0.908
2/3 0.888 0.047 0.064 0.853
3/4 0.921 0.024 0.055 0.884
4/5 0.949 0.028 0.023 0.916
5/6 0.890 0.098 0.011 0.873

Table 8.2.4E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Spek (Grade 2) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.653 0.582 0.441
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.687 0.542
2 0.576 0.468
3 0.561 0.465
4 0.370 0.269
5 0.305 0.223
6 0.955 0.906
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.964 0.021 0.015 0.945
2/3 0.922 0.039 0.039 0.897
3/4 0.918 0.023 0.060 0.888
4/5 0.945 0.026 0.029 0.910
5/6 0.880 0.103 0.017 0.856

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 505 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.2.5 Oral Language Composite 1-2

Figure 8.2.5A Figure 8.2.5B

Scale Scores: Oral 1-2 S302 Proficiency Level: Oral 1-2 S302
40.0%
35.0%
40,000
30.0%
30,000 25.0%

Percent
Count

20.0%
20,000 15.0%
10,000 10.0%
5.0%
0 0.0%
134 164 194 224 254 284 314 344 374 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.2.5A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Oral 1-2 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
1 201,132 139 394 318.47 32.54
2 187,452 141 394 341.02 30.79
Total 388,584 139 394 329.35 33.65

Table 8.2.5B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Oral 1-2 S302
Grade 1 Grade 2 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 8,563 4.3% 5,161 2.8% 13,724 3.5%
2 23,951 11.9% 9,752 5.2% 33,703 8.7%
3 65,602 32.6% 38,724 20.7% 104,326 26.8%
4 30,505 15.2% 30,532 16.3% 61,037 15.7%
5 57,456 28.6% 77,171 41.2% 134,627 34.6%
6 15,055 7.5% 26,112 13.9% 41,167 10.6%
Total 201,132 100.0% 187,452 100.0% 388,584 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 506 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.5C
n/a

Figure 8.2.5C
n/a

Figure 8.2.5D
n/a

Table 8.2.5D
Oral Composite Reliability: Oral 1-2 S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Listening 0.50 950.266 0.688
Speaking 0.50 2155.715 0.891
Oral 1131.001 0.882
*Variances from students who had results in all four domains

Table 8.2.5E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Oral (Grade 1) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.630 0.516 0.379
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.838 0.717
2 0.665 0.528
3 0.773 0.665
4 0.366 0.272
5 0.637 0.574
6 - 0.300
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.984 0.006 0.010 0.976
2/3 0.939 0.033 0.029 0.911
3/4 0.885 0.035 0.080 0.841
4/5 0.882 0.063 0.054 0.828
5/6 0.925 0.075 0.000 0.898

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 507 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.5E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Oral (Grade 2) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.631 0.514 0.347
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.877 0.777
2 0.578 0.431
3 0.775 0.654
4 0.448 0.326
5 0.643 0.611
6 - 0.328
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.991 0.003 0.006 0.987
2/3 0.967 0.020 0.013 0.950
3/4 0.916 0.024 0.059 0.887
4/5 0.889 0.047 0.064 0.834
5/6 0.861 0.139 0.000 0.813

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 508 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.2.6 Literacy Composite 1-2

Figure 8.2.6A Figure 8.2.6B

Scale Scores: Litr 1-2 S302 Proficiency Level: Litr 1-2 S302
60.0%

8,000 50.0%
40.0%
6,000

Percent
Count

30.0%
4,000
20.0%
2,000 10.0%
0 0.0%
167 197 227 257 287 317 347 377 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.2.6A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Litr 1-2 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
1 201,059 172 369 275.44 19.98
2 187,369 180 376 298.49 21.47
Total 388,428 172 376 286.56 23.70

Table 8.2.6B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Litr 1-2 S302
Grade 1 Grade 2 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 11,892 5.9% 7,380 3.9% 19,272 5.0%
2 59,372 29.5% 34,935 18.6% 94,307 24.3%
3 107,734 53.6% 105,639 56.4% 213,373 54.9%
4 15,285 7.6% 24,999 13.3% 40,284 10.4%
5 5,846 2.9% 12,853 6.9% 18,699 4.8%
6 930 0.5% 1,563 0.8% 2,493 0.6%
Total 201,059 100.0% 187,369 100.0% 388,428 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 509 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.6C
n/a

Figure 8.2.6C
n/a

Figure 8.2.6D
n/a

Table 8.2.6D
Literacy Composite Reliability: Litr 1-2 S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Reading 0.50 822.466 0.828
Writing 0.50 532.856 0.925
Literacy 561.317 0.919

Table 8.2.6E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Litr (Grade 1) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.813 0.740 0.590
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.795 0.699
2 0.802 0.721
3 0.880 0.840
4 0.527 0.407
5 0.763 0.673
6 - 0.997
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.975 0.012 0.013 0.966
2/3 0.910 0.049 0.042 0.875
3/4 0.945 0.023 0.032 0.922
4/5 0.978 0.021 0.001 0.978
5/6 0.995 0.005 0.000 0.999

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 510 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.6E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Litr (Grade 2) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.794 0.715 0.560
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.827 0.724
2 0.752 0.648
3 0.891 0.851
4 0.562 0.451
5 0.745 0.642
6 - 0.872
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.984 0.006 0.010 0.978
2/3 0.928 0.040 0.032 0.898
3/4 0.923 0.027 0.050 0.890
4/5 0.964 0.030 0.006 0.955
5/6 0.992 0.008 0.000 0.993

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 511 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.2.7 Comprehension Composite 1-2

Figure 8.2.7A Figure 8.2.7B

Scale Scores: Cphn 1-2 S302 Proficiency Level: Cphn 1-2 S302
50.0%
60,000
50,000 40.0%
40,000 30.0%

Percent
Count

30,000
20.0%
20,000
10,000 10.0%

0 0.0%
125 155 185 215 245 275 305 335 365 395 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.2.7A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Cphn 1-2 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
1 201,119 130 396 288.17 23.06
2 187,438 137 396 315.11 24.50
Total 388,557 130 396 301.17 27.31

Table 8.2.7B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Cphn 1-2 S302
Grade 1 Grade 2 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 8,077 4.0% 4,206 2.2% 12,283 3.2%
2 20,404 10.1% 8,528 4.5% 28,932 7.4%
3 45,271 22.5% 31,646 16.9% 76,917 19.8%
4 49,007 24.4% 30,713 16.4% 79,720 20.5%
5 64,865 32.3% 84,545 45.1% 149,410 38.5%
6 13,495 6.7% 27,800 14.8% 41,295 10.6%
Total 201,119 100.0% 187,438 100.0% 388,557 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 512 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.7C
n/a

Figure 8.2.7C
n/a

Figure 8.2.7D
n/a

Table 8.2.7D
Comprehension Composite Reliability: Cphn 1-2 S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Listening 0.30 950.266 0.688
Reading 0.70 822.466 0.828
Comprehension 745.518 0.871
*Variances from students who had results in all four domains

Table 8.2.7E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Cphn (Grade 1) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.623 0.510 0.363
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.798 0.651
2 0.655 0.505
3 0.605 0.486
4 0.526 0.420
5 0.662 0.584
6 0.632 0.388
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.982 0.007 0.011 0.973
2/3 0.946 0.023 0.031 0.922
3/4 0.879 0.066 0.055 0.831
4/5 0.858 0.059 0.083 0.807
5/6 0.942 0.045 0.013 0.918

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 513 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.7E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Cphn (Grade 2) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.656 0.540 0.377
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.875 0.733
2 0.539 0.387
3 0.641 0.495
4 0.411 0.313
5 0.763 0.683
6 0.680 0.532
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.990 0.002 0.009 0.986
2/3 0.969 0.016 0.015 0.951
3/4 0.908 0.046 0.046 0.867
4/5 0.865 0.076 0.059 0.814
5/6 0.908 0.043 0.050 0.864

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 514 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.2.8 Overall Composite 1-2

Figure 8.2.8A Figure 8.2.8B

Scale Scores: Over 1-2 S302 Proficiency Level: Over 1-2 S302
60.0%
8,000
50.0%
6,000 40.0%

Percent
Count

4,000 30.0%
20.0%
2,000
10.0%
0 0.0%
157 187 217 247 277 307 337 367 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.2.8A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Over 1-2 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
1 200,853 162 376 288.11 21.19
2 187,203 168 380 311.00 22.06
Total 388,056 162 380 299.16 24.46

Table 8.2.8B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Over 1-2 S302
Grade 1 Grade 2 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 7,368 3.7% 4,795 2.6% 12,163 3.1%
2 42,025 20.9% 19,187 10.2% 61,212 15.8%
3 109,264 54.4% 82,581 44.1% 191,845 49.4%
4 31,256 15.6% 57,530 30.7% 88,786 22.9%
5 9,231 4.6% 20,218 10.8% 29,449 7.6%
6 1,709 0.9% 2,892 1.5% 4,601 1.2%
Total 200,853 100.0% 187,203 100.0% 388,056 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 515 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.8C
n/a

Figure 8.2.8C
n/a

Figure 8.2.8D
n/a

Table 8.2.8D
Overall Composite Reliability: Over 1-2 S302

Component Weight Variance Reliability

Listening 0.15 950.266 0.688
Reading 0.35 822.466 0.828
Speaking 0.15 2155.715 0.891
Writing 0.35 532.856 0.925
Overall Composite 598.100 0.943
*Variances from students who had results in all four domains

Table 8.2.8E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Over (Grade 1) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.829 0.765 0.636
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.787 0.763
2 0.820 0.741
3 0.896 0.860
4 0.674 0.573
5 0.723 0.591
6 - 0.995
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.985 0.008 0.007 0.983
2/3 0.938 0.035 0.028 0.915
3/4 0.930 0.031 0.040 0.905
4/5 0.970 0.024 0.006 0.966
5/6 0.991 0.009 0.000 0.995

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 516 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.2.8E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Over (Grade 2) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.802 0.734 0.617
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.679 0.809
2 0.767 0.658
3 0.883 0.834
4 0.748 0.674
5 0.718 0.599
6 - 0.997
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.985 0.010 0.005 0.989
2/3 0.956 0.028 0.016 0.946
3/4 0.911 0.039 0.050 0.884
4/5 0.936 0.042 0.022 0.922
5/6 0.985 0.015 0.000 0.992

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 517 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.3 Grades: 3–5
8.3.1 Listening 3-5

Figure 8.3.1A Figure 8.3.1B

Scale Scores: List 3-5 S302 Proficiency Level: List 3-5 S302
60,000 50.0%

50,000 40.0%
40,000 30.0%

Percent
Count

30,000
20.0%
20,000
10,000 10.0%

0 0.0%
107 137 167 197 227 257 287 317 347 377 407 437 467 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.3.1A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: List 3-5 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
3 164,211 112 469 349.43 34.80
4 105,153 116 469 360.74 36.54
5 82,925 120 469 370.90 38.07
Total 352,289 112 469 357.86 37.15

Table 8.3.1B
Proficiency Level Distribution: List 3-5 S302
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 939 0.6% 1,042 1.0% 1,298 1.6% 3,279 0.9%
2 6,685 4.1% 5,076 4.8% 4,538 5.5% 16,299 4.6%
3 19,397 11.8% 12,013 11.4% 11,347 13.7% 42,757 12.1%
4 15,298 9.3% 17,721 16.9% 15,638 18.9% 48,657 13.8%
5 73,211 44.6% 43,069 41.0% 29,186 35.2% 145,466 41.3%
6 48,681 29.6% 26,232 24.9% 20,918 25.2% 95,831 27.2%
Total 164,211 100.0% 105,153 100.0% 82,925 100.0% 352,289 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 518 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.1C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at Cut Scores: List 3-5 S302

Proficiency SEM
Level Grade Cut Score Tier A Tier B Tier C

3 255 22.54 22.17 27.05

1/2
4 264 21.79 21.42 25.17

5 274 20.66 20.66 23.29

3 295 19.54 19.54 20.66

2/3 4 307 19.16 19.16 19.54

5 318 19.54 19.16 18.79

3 325 19.54 19.16 18.41

3/4
4 338 20.29 19.16 18.03

5 350 21.42 19.91 18.03

3 340 n/a 19.54 18.03

4/5
4 355 n/a 20.29 18.41
5 368 n/a 21.42 18.79

3 367 n/a n/a 18.41

5/6
4 383 n/a n/a 19.54

5 397 n/a n/a 20.66

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 519 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.3.1C
Test Characteristic Curve: List 3-5ABC S302

21

18
Expected Raw Score

15
A
12 B

9 C

0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ability Measure

Figure 8.3.1D
Test Information Function: List 3-5ABC S302

4.5
4
3.5
A
Information

3
B
2.5
C
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 520 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 521 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.1D
Weighted Reliability: List 3-5 S302
No. of Weighted
Tiers Students Reliability Reliability
A 29,244 0.761
B 148,917 0.663 0.657
C 174,128 0.634

Table 8.3.1E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: List (Grade 3) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.537 0.428 0.213
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.711 0.258
2 0.509 0.270
3 0.414 0.267
4 0.183 0.137
5 0.616 0.540
6 0.677 0.544
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.994 0.000 0.005 0.993
2/3 0.962 0.007 0.031 0.939
3/4 0.883 0.051 0.066 0.818
4/5 0.811 0.120 0.069 0.739
5/6 0.806 0.101 0.093 0.734

Table 8.3.1E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: List (Grade 4) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.505 0.393 0.186
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.744 0.396
2 0.524 0.303
3 0.381 0.249
4 0.313 0.237
5 0.555 0.485
6 0.607 0.464
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.992 0.001 0.007 0.988
2/3 0.959 0.011 0.029 0.933
3/4 0.880 0.058 0.062 0.817
4/5 0.795 0.100 0.105 0.726
5/6 0.804 0.099 0.097 0.729
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 522 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.1E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: List (Grade 5) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.483 0.378 0.182
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.764 0.447
2 0.486 0.295
3 0.415 0.284
4 0.341 0.260
5 0.486 0.421
6 0.625 0.468
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.988 0.002 0.010 0.983
2/3 0.953 0.015 0.032 0.924
3/4 0.868 0.059 0.073 0.808
4/5 0.794 0.088 0.119 0.723
5/6 0.802 0.117 0.081 0.730

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 523 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.3.2 Reading 3-5

Figure 8.3.2A Figure 8.3.2B

Scale Scores: Read 3-5 S302 Proficiency Level: Read 3-5 S302
50,000 50.0%

40,000 40.0%

30,000 30.0%

Percent
Count

20,000 20.0%

10,000 10.0%

0 0.0%
153 183 213 243 273 303 333 363 393 423 453 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.3.2A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Read 3-5 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
3 164,072 158 448 331.68 25.63
4 105,032 166 448 340.84 27.35
5 82,838 175 448 349.48 29.27
Total 351,942 158 448 338.60 27.98

Table 8.3.2B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Read 3-5 S302
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 3,660 2.2% 4,475 4.3% 4,649 5.6% 12,784 3.6%
2 10,157 6.2% 9,743 9.3% 9,333 11.3% 29,233 8.3%
3 24,294 14.8% 18,439 17.6% 20,440 24.7% 63,173 17.9%
4 13,671 8.3% 16,467 15.7% 6,826 8.2% 36,964 10.5%
5 76,417 46.6% 33,950 32.3% 26,484 32.0% 136,851 38.9%
6 35,873 21.9% 21,958 20.9% 15,106 18.2% 72,937 20.7%
Total 164,072 100.0% 105,032 100.0% 82,838 100.0% 351,942 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 524 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.2C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at Cut Scores: Read 3-5 S302*
Proficiency SEM
Level Grade Cut Score Tier A Tier B Tier C
3 279 12.48 15.34 22.88
1/2
4 291 11.96 13.52 19.24
5 302 11.70 12.48 16.38
3 302 11.70 12.48 16.38
2/3 4 316 11.96 11.44 14.04
5 328 12.48 10.92 12.48
3 320 11.96 11.18 13.52
3/4
4 336 13.00 10.92 11.70
5 350 14.56 11.18 10.92
3 328 n/a 10.92 12.48
4/5
4 343 n/a 10.92 11.18
5 355 n/a 11.44 10.66
3 347 n/a n/a 10.92
5/6
4 360 n/a n/a 10.66
5 372 n/a n/a 10.66
* No equating was performed for S302

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 525 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.3.2C
Test Characteristic Curve: Read 3-5ABC S302

25
Expected Raw Score

20
A
15 B
C
10

0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ability Measure

Figure 8.3.2D
Test Information Function: Read 3-5ABC S302

5
Information

4
A
3
B
2 C

0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 526 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.2D
Weighted Reliability: Read 3-5 S302

Weighted
Tiers No. of Students Reliability Reliability
A 29,169 0.838
B 148,739 0.805 0.779
C 174,034 0.748

Table 8.3.2E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Read (Grade 3) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.567 0.450 0.260
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.770 0.540
2 0.526 0.348
3 0.490 0.341
4 0.182 0.134
5 0.691 0.605
6 0.597 0.478
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.986 0.004 0.010 0.980
2/3 0.953 0.020 0.028 0.926
3/4 0.885 0.053 0.062 0.829
4/5 0.840 0.093 0.067 0.777
5/6 0.832 0.063 0.105 0.768

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 527 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.2E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Read (Grade 4) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.505 0.400 0.240
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.795 0.608
2 0.549 0.380
3 0.446 0.329
4 0.297 0.229
5 0.507 0.432
6 0.599 0.463
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.977 0.007 0.016 0.967
2/3 0.936 0.026 0.038 0.902
3/4 0.851 0.079 0.069 0.792
4/5 0.809 0.080 0.112 0.749
5/6 0.836 0.075 0.090 0.772

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 528 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.2E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Read (Grade 5) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.516 0.408 0.251
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.789 0.592
2 0.509 0.358
3 0.515 0.401
4 0.151 0.118
5 0.534 0.449
6 0.593 0.447
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.969 0.009 0.022 0.954
2/3 0.916 0.038 0.046 0.873
3/4 0.829 0.086 0.085 0.767
4/5 0.813 0.095 0.092 0.751
5/6 0.853 0.069 0.078 0.793

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 529 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.3.3 Writing 3-5

Figure 8.3.3A Figure 8.3.3B

Scale Scores: Writ 3-5 S302 Proficiency Level: Writ 3-5 S302
70.0%
14,000 60.0%
12,000 50.0%
10,000

Percent
40.0%
Count

8,000
30.0%
6,000
4,000 20.0%
2,000 10.0%
0 0.0%
210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.3.3A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Writ 3-5 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
3 164,071 215 409 340.82 25.58
4 105,084 221 427 346.85 25.47
5 82,870 227 456 352.81 25.34
Total 352,025 215 456 345.45 25.95

Table 8.3.3B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Writ 3-5 S302
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 1,982 1.2% 1,857 1.8% 2,031 2.5% 5,870 1.7%
2 8,428 5.1% 6,593 6.3% 5,126 6.2% 20,147 5.7%
3 26,453 16.1% 20,757 19.8% 21,928 26.5% 69,138 19.6%
4 94,135 57.4% 60,918 58.0% 46,976 56.7% 202,029 57.4%
5 31,981 19.5% 14,553 13.8% 6,646 8.0% 53,180 15.1%
6 1,092 0.7% 406 0.4% 163 0.2% 1,661 0.5%
Total 164,071 100.0% 105,084 100.0% 82,870 100.0% 352,025 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 530 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.3C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at Cut Scores: Writ 3-5 S302*

Proficiency SEM
Level Grade Cut Score Tier A Tier B Tier C

3 264 10.88 7.77 11.82

1/2
4 275 9.02 6.53 8.09

5 287 9.64 6.84 6.53

3 297 11.19 7.77 6.53

2/3 4 308 11.82 8.40 7.46

5 319 11.82 8.40 8.40

3 330 11.51 8.09 8.40

3/4
4 340 11.51 8.09 8.40
5 350 11.19 7.77 8.09

3 360 n/a 7.46 7.77

4/5
4 371 n/a 7.15 7.77
5 381 n/a 6.84 7.15

3 384 n/a n/a 7.15

5/6
4 394 n/a n/a 6.84
5 403 n/a n/a 6.53
* No equating was performed for Writing Tier A S302

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 531 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.3.3C
Test Characteristic Curve: Writ 3-5ABC S302

100
Expected Raw Score

90
80
70
60
A
50
B
40
C
30
20
10
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ability Measure

Figure 8.3.3D
Test Information Function: Writ 3-5ABC S302

25

20
Information

15
A
10 B
C
5

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 532 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.3D
Weighted Reliability: Writ 3-5 S302
Weighted
Tiers No. of Students Reliability Reliability
A 29,175 0.918
B 148,840 0.935 0.924
C 174,010 0.915

Table 8.3.3E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Writ (Grade 3) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.742 0.670 0.461
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.785 0.756
2 0.811 0.716
3 0.799 0.702
4 0.826 0.750
5 0.481 0.426
6 - 0.973
Indices at Accuracy
False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.995 0.003 0.002 0.994
2/3 0.983 0.008 0.009 0.977
3/4 0.949 0.024 0.027 0.928
4/5 0.834 0.070 0.097 0.774
5/6 0.993 0.007 0.000 0.994

Table 8.3.3E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Writ (Grade 4) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.779 0.717 0.507
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.747 0.784
2 0.812 0.715
3 0.839 0.749
4 0.762 0.758
5 - 0.304
6 - 1.000
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.992 0.005 0.003 0.993
2/3 0.978 0.012 0.010 0.973
3/4 0.944 0.022 0.034 0.924
4/5 0.858 0.142 0.000 0.828
5/6 0.996 0.004 0.000 0.999

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 533 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.3E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Writ (Grade 5) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.820 0.766 0.588
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.837 0.835
2 0.768 0.658
3 0.868 0.785
4 0.808 0.792
5 - 0.198
6 - 1.000
Indices at Accuracy
False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.992 0.004 0.003 0.992
2/3 0.977 0.013 0.010 0.968
3/4 0.929 0.023 0.048 0.903
4/5 0.918 0.082 0.000 0.903
5/6 0.998 0.002 0.000 1.000

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 534 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.3.4 Speaking 3-5

Figure 8.3.4A Figure 8.3.4B

Scale Scores: Spek 3-5 S302 Proficiency Level: Spek 3-5 S302
120,000 40.0%
35.0%
100,000
30.0%
80,000 25.0%

Percent
Count

60,000 20.0%
40,000 15.0%
10.0%
20,000 5.0%
0 0.0%
170 200 230 260 290 320 350 380 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.3.4A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Spek 3-5 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
3 164,141 175 403 355.70 44.80
4 105,094 176 403 358.06 45.60
5 82,870 177 403 361.87 46.17
Total 352,105 175 403 357.86 45.43

Table 8.3.4B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Spek 3-5 S302
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 11,295 6.9% 9,217 8.8% 7,066 8.5% 27,578 7.8%
2 30,686 18.7% 15,070 14.3% 9,789 11.8% 55,545 15.8%
3 31,833 19.4% 18,828 17.9% 13,372 16.1% 64,033 18.2%
4 18,702 11.4% 12,598 12.0% 9,301 11.2% 40,601 11.5%
5 18,485 11.3% 12,654 12.0% 9,990 12.1% 41,129 11.7%
6 53,140 32.4% 36,727 34.9% 33,352 40.2% 123,219 35.0%
Total 164,141 100.0% 105,094 100.0% 82,870 100.0% 352,105 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 535 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.4C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at
Cut Scores: Spek 3-5 S302

Proficiency
Level Grade Cut Score SEM

3 293 19.08
1/2
4 299 19.48

5 305 19.68

3 326 20.89
2/3
4 329 21.09

5 333 21.49

3 346 22.29
3/4
4 348 22.49
5 350 22.69

3 369 24.90
4/5
4 371 25.31

5 374 25.71

3 389 27.31
5/6
4 391 27.52

5 394 27.52

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 536 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.3.4C
Test Characteristic Curve: Spek 3-5 S302

13
12
11
Expected Raw Score

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ability Measure

Figure 8.3.4D
Test Information Function: Spek 3-5 S302

1.5
Information

0.5

0
-11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 537 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.4D
Reliability: Spek 3-5 S302

Tiers No. of Students Reliability

-- 352,105 0.891

Table 8.3.4E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Spek (Grade 3) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.603 0.512 0.397
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.650 0.493
2 0.614 0.506
3 0.519 0.431
4 0.353 0.261
5 0.379 0.274
6 0.915 0.844
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.955 0.028 0.017 0.930
2/3 0.890 0.050 0.060 0.857
3/4 0.890 0.029 0.082 0.851
4/5 0.930 0.033 0.037 0.887
5/6 0.903 0.073 0.023 0.872

Table 8.3.4E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Spek (Grade 4) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.591 0.501 0.380
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.718 0.576
2 0.524 0.420
3 0.513 0.426
4 0.360 0.269
5 0.350 0.247
6 0.901 0.825
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.954 0.027 0.019 0.929
2/3 0.898 0.050 0.052 0.868
3/4 0.890 0.029 0.082 0.854
4/5 0.923 0.033 0.044 0.877
5/6 0.884 0.087 0.029 0.844

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 538 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.4E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Spek (Grade 5) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.576 0.480 0.345
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.716 0.578
2 0.475 0.378
3 0.505 0.420
4 0.347 0.259
5 0.297 0.206
6 0.886 0.812
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.956 0.027 0.018 0.932
2/3 0.905 0.049 0.046 0.879
3/4 0.893 0.026 0.082 0.862
4/5 0.926 0.031 0.043 0.879
5/6 0.848 0.115 0.037 0.792

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 539 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.3.5 Oral 3-5

Figure 8.3.5A Figure 8.3.5B

Scale Scores: Oral 3-5 S302 Proficiency Level: Oral 3-5 S302
35.0%
25,000 30.0%
20,000 25.0%

Percent
20.0%
Count

15,000
15.0%
10,000
10.0%
5,000 5.0%
0 0.0%
139 169 199 229 259 289 319 349 379 409 439 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.3.5A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Oral 3-5 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
3 164,066 144 436 352.84 34.11
4 105,043 146 436 359.63 35.50
5 82,831 149 436 366.65 36.84
Total 351,940 144 436 358.12 35.62

Table 8.3.5B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Oral 3-5 S302
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 3,809 2.3% 3,282 3.1% 3,454 4.2% 10,545 3.0%
2 11,130 6.8% 6,802 6.5% 5,787 7.0% 23,719 6.7%
3 29,982 18.3% 17,709 16.9% 11,681 14.1% 59,372 16.9%
4 35,592 21.7% 22,292 21.2% 16,789 20.3% 74,673 21.2%
5 49,079 29.9% 34,075 32.4% 30,801 37.2% 113,955 32.4%
6 34,474 21.0% 20,883 19.9% 14,319 17.3% 69,676 19.8%
Total 164,066 100.0% 105,043 100.0% 82,831 100.0% 351,940 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 540 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.5C
n/a

Figure 8.3.5C
n/a

Figure 8.3.5D
n/a

Table 8.3.5D
Oral Composite Reliability: Oral 3-5 S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Listening 0.50 1377.820 0.657
Speaking 0.50 2058.602 0.891
Oral 1266.567 0.863

Table 8.3.5E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Oral (Grade 3) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.612 0.497 0.358
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.824 0.657
2 0.586 0.429
3 0.619 0.487
4 0.506 0.402
5 0.596 0.492
6 0.727 0.604
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.989 0.003 0.008 0.984
2/3 0.956 0.023 0.022 0.933
3/4 0.896 0.044 0.060 0.857
4/5 0.870 0.056 0.074 0.819
5/6 0.885 0.057 0.058 0.838

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 541 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.5E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Oral (Grade 4) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.591 0.475 0.326
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.836 0.690
2 0.557 0.405
3 0.609 0.475
4 0.507 0.397
5 0.588 0.492
6 0.649 0.517
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.986 0.004 0.009 0.980
2/3 0.957 0.023 0.020 0.935
3/4 0.902 0.040 0.058 0.865
4/5 0.869 0.052 0.078 0.818
5/6 0.860 0.071 0.069 0.809

Table 8.3.5E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Oral (Grade 5) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.581 0.468 0.308
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.844 0.714
2 0.561 0.415
3 0.558 0.425
4 0.500 0.384
5 0.616 0.538
6 0.560 0.424
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.983 0.006 0.011 0.976
2/3 0.955 0.022 0.022 0.934
3/4 0.910 0.037 0.052 0.876
4/5 0.869 0.054 0.077 0.816
5/6 0.847 0.082 0.071 0.797

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 542 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.3.6 Literacy Composite 3-5

Figure 8.3.6A Figure 8.3.6B

Scale Scores: Litr 3-5 S302 Proficiency Level: Litr 3-5 S302
8,000 50.0%

40.0%
6,000
30.0%

Percent
Count

4,000
20.0%
2,000
10.0%

0 0.0%
182 212 242 272 302 332 362 392 422 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.3.6A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Litr 3-5 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
3 163,916 187 422 336.47 23.14
4 104,940 194 433 344.14 24.14
5 82,761 201 436 351.43 25.19
Total 351,617 187 436 342.28 24.68

Table 8.3.6B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Litr 3-5 S302
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 1,908 1.2% 2,137 2.0% 2,772 3.3% 6,817 1.9%
2 8,438 5.1% 6,992 6.7% 6,543 7.9% 21,973 6.2%
3 26,975 16.5% 21,617 20.6% 23,138 28.0% 71,730 20.4%
4 66,967 40.9% 46,272 44.1% 31,950 38.6% 145,189 41.3%
5 46,008 28.1% 21,384 20.4% 14,182 17.1% 81,574 23.2%
6 13,620 8.3% 6,538 6.2% 4,176 5.0% 24,334 6.9%
Total 163,916 100.0% 104,940 100.0% 82,761 100.0% 351,617 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 543 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.6C
n/a

Figure 8.3.6C
n/a

Figure 8.3.6D
n/a

Table 8.3.6D
Literacy Composite Reliability: Litr 3-5 S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Reading 0.50 781.583 0.779
Writing 0.50 672.252 0.924
Literacy 608.817 0.908
*Variances from students who had results in all four domains

Table 8.3.6E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Litr (Grade 3) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.705 0.617 0.471
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.846 0.725
2 0.759 0.636
3 0.698 0.575
4 0.808 0.723
5 0.606 0.556
6 0.714 0.472
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.995 0.002 0.003 0.993
2/3 0.979 0.009 0.012 0.970
3/4 0.926 0.041 0.033 0.893
4/5 0.885 0.036 0.079 0.842
5/6 0.919 0.079 0.002 0.914

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 544 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.6E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Litr (Grade 4) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.691 0.596 0.444
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.863 0.763
2 0.752 0.632
3 0.724 0.607
4 0.802 0.708
5 0.520 0.455
6 - 0.336
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.993 0.003 0.005 0.990
2/3 0.974 0.012 0.014 0.962
3/4 0.915 0.044 0.041 0.878
4/5 0.870 0.034 0.095 0.821
5/6 0.938 0.062 0.000 0.932

Table 8.3.6E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Litr (Grade 5) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.688 0.588 0.445
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.881 0.794
2 0.695 0.566
3 0.763 0.659
4 0.743 0.641
5 0.513 0.439
6 - 0.334
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.989 0.004 0.007 0.985
2/3 0.964 0.018 0.017 0.948
3/4 0.899 0.047 0.054 0.858
4/5 0.885 0.037 0.078 0.837
5/6 0.950 0.050 0.000 0.946

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 545 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.3.7 Comprehension Composite 3-5

Figure 8.3.7A Figure 8.3.7B

Scale Scores: Cphn 3-5 S302 Proficiency Level: Cphn 3-5 S302
40,000 40.0%
35.0%
30,000 30.0%
25.0%

Percent
Count

20,000 20.0%
15.0%
10,000 10.0%
5.0%
0 0.0%
139 169 199 229 259 289 319 349 379 409 439 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.3.7A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Cphn 3-5 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
3 164,030 144 454 337.18 26.39
4 104,998 151 454 346.95 27.94
5 82,804 159 454 355.99 29.73
Total 351,832 144 454 344.52 28.70

Table 8.3.7B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Cphn 3-5 S302
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 1,507 0.9% 1,868 1.8% 2,516 3.0% 5,891 1.7%
2 8,114 4.9% 7,035 6.7% 6,794 8.2% 21,943 6.2%
3 21,263 13.0% 20,392 19.4% 18,307 22.1% 59,962 17.0%
4 24,724 15.1% 18,647 17.8% 13,425 16.2% 56,796 16.1%
5 67,993 41.5% 35,685 34.0% 26,499 32.0% 130,177 37.0%
6 40,429 24.6% 21,371 20.4% 15,263 18.4% 77,063 21.9%
Total 164,030 100.0% 104,998 100.0% 82,804 100.0% 351,832 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 546 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.7C
n/a

Figure 8.3.7C
n/a

Figure 8.3.7D
n/a

Table 8.3.7D
Comprehension Composite Reliability: Cphn 3-5 S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Listening 0.30 1377.820 0.657
Reading 0.70 781.583 0.779
Comprehension 822.711 0.845
*Variances from students who had results in all four domains

Table 8.3.7E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Cphn (Grade 3) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.634 0.524 0.356
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.781 0.548
2 0.653 0.471
3 0.533 0.388
4 0.379 0.286
5 0.691 0.606
6 0.739 0.624
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.994 0.001 0.005 0.992
2/3 0.970 0.011 0.019 0.954
3/4 0.908 0.051 0.041 0.863
4/5 0.856 0.074 0.070 0.805
5/6 0.877 0.056 0.067 0.824

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 547 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.7E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Cphn (Grade 4) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.597 0.485 0.334
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.801 0.613
2 0.624 0.454
3 0.594 0.462
4 0.398 0.309
5 0.609 0.516
6 0.701 0.570
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.990 0.003 0.007 0.986
2/3 0.959 0.018 0.023 0.937
3/4 0.882 0.061 0.057 0.835
4/5 0.847 0.066 0.086 0.795
5/6 0.881 0.055 0.063 0.830

Table 8.3.7E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Cphn (Grade 5) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.587 0.477 0.332
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.826 0.656
2 0.592 0.435
3 0.593 0.471
4 0.356 0.276
5 0.595 0.502
6 0.708 0.564
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.985 0.004 0.012 0.978
2/3 0.949 0.024 0.027 0.922
3/4 0.870 0.068 0.062 0.820
4/5 0.846 0.068 0.086 0.793
5/6 0.891 0.056 0.053 0.842

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 548 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.3.8 Overall Composite 3-5

Figure 8.3.8A Figure 8.3.8B

Scale Scores: Over 3-5 S302 Proficiency Level: Over 3-5 S302
7,000 40.0%
6,000 35.0%
5,000 30.0%
25.0%

Percent
4,000
Count

20.0%
3,000
15.0%
2,000 10.0%
1,000 5.0%
0 0.0%
169 199 229 259 289 319 349 379 409 439 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.3.8A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Over 3-5 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
3 163,789 174 426 341.21 24.49
4 104,822 179 433 348.57 25.59
5 82,666 185 436 355.77 26.81
Total 351,277 174 436 346.83 26.05

Table 8.3.8B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Over 3-5 S302
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 2,152 1.3% 2,358 2.2% 2,643 3.2% 7,153 2.0%
2 7,783 4.8% 6,201 5.9% 5,566 6.7% 19,550 5.6%
3 26,956 16.5% 20,187 19.3% 17,803 21.5% 64,946 18.5%
4 58,649 35.8% 41,058 39.2% 32,075 38.8% 131,782 37.5%
5 49,480 30.2% 26,434 25.2% 18,894 22.9% 94,808 27.0%
6 18,769 11.5% 8,584 8.2% 5,685 6.9% 33,038 9.4%
Total 163,789 100.0% 104,822 100.0% 82,666 100.0% 351,277 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 549 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.8C
n/a

Figure 8.3.8C
n/a

Figure 8.3.8D
n/a

Table 8.3.8D
Overall Composite Reliability: Over 3-5 S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Listening 0.15 1377.820 0.657
Reading 0.35 781.583 0.779
Speaking 0.15 2058.602 0.891
Writing 0.35 672.252 0.924
Overall Composite 678.626 0.937

Table 8.3.8E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Over (Grade 3) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.756 0.665 0.548
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.897 0.816
2 0.764 0.655
3 0.751 0.643
4 0.818 0.739
5 0.695 0.621
6 0.774 0.626
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.996 0.001 0.003 0.994
2/3 0.982 0.009 0.009 0.974
3/4 0.938 0.033 0.028 0.912
4/5 0.910 0.031 0.059 0.874
5/6 0.930 0.052 0.018 0.909

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 550 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.3.8E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Over (Grade 4) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.722 0.642 0.515
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.900 0.832
2 0.759 0.651
3 0.761 0.656
4 0.825 0.744
5 0.592 0.546
6 - 0.451
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.994 0.002 0.004 0.992
2/3 0.979 0.011 0.010 0.969
3/4 0.931 0.037 0.032 0.901
4/5 0.900 0.028 0.073 0.862
5/6 0.918 0.082 0.000 0.915

Table 8.3.8E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Over (Grade 5) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.720 0.635 0.509
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.904 0.841
2 0.735 0.623
3 0.766 0.662
4 0.808 0.720
5 0.584 0.529
6 - 0.409
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.992 0.003 0.006 0.989
2/3 0.974 0.014 0.012 0.963
3/4 0.925 0.038 0.037 0.893
4/5 0.897 0.029 0.074 0.858
5/6 0.931 0.069 0.000 0.928

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 551 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.4 Grades: 6–8
8.4.1 Listening 6-8

Figure 8.4.1A Figure 8.4.1B

Scale Scores: List 6-8 S302 Proficiency Level: List 6-8 S302
35.0%
30.0%
15,000
25.0%

Percent
20.0%
Count

10,000
15.0%
5,000 10.0%
5.0%
0 0.0%
119 149 179 209 239 269 299 329 359 389 419 449 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.4.1A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: List 6-8 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
6 73,891 124 473 377.12 41.48
7 74,881 128 473 385.15 44.36
8 70,706 132 473 391.41 46.32
Total 219,478 124 473 384.46 44.45

Table 8.4.1B
Proficiency Level Distribution: List 6-8 S302
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 1,475 2.0% 2,328 3.1% 3,100 4.4% 6,903 3.1%
2 6,193 8.4% 7,003 9.4% 7,637 10.8% 20,833 9.5%
3 11,788 16.0% 12,372 16.5% 7,539 10.7% 31,699 14.4%
4 14,320 19.4% 14,390 19.2% 15,333 21.7% 44,043 20.1%
5 25,821 34.9% 24,829 33.2% 19,773 28.0% 70,423 32.1%
6 14,294 19.3% 13,959 18.6% 17,324 24.5% 45,577 20.8%
Total 73,891 100.0% 74,881 100.0% 70,706 100.0% 219,478 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 552 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.1C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at Cut Scores: List 6-8 S302

Proficiency SEM
Level Grade Cut Score Tier A Tier B Tier C

6 283 21.04 19.54 23.67

1/2
7 293 20.66 18.79 21.79

8 302 20.29 18.41 20.66

6 328 20.29 18.03 18.41

2/3 7 337 20.66 18.41 18.03

8 345 21.04 18.79 17.66

6 359 22.17 19.54 17.66

3/4
7 368 23.29 20.29 18.03

8 375 24.05 21.04 18.03

6 380 n/a 21.79 18.41

4/5
7 390 n/a 23.29 19.16
8 399 n/a 24.42 19.91

6 409 n/a n/a 21.04

5/6
7 418 n/a n/a 22.54

8 426 n/a n/a 23.67

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 553 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.4.1C
Test Characteristic Curve: List 6-8ABC S302

22
20
Expected Raw Score

18
16
14 A
12 B
10 C
8
6
4
2
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ability Measure

Figure 8.4.1D
Test Information Function: List 6-8ABC S302

4
Information

3 A
B
2 C

0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 554 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.1D
Weighted Reliability: List 6-8 S302 g
Tiers No. of Students Reliability Reliability
A 23,751 0.750
B 82,373 0.663 0.645
C 113,354 0.611

Table 8.4.1E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: List (Grade 6) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.446 0.343 0.155
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.671 0.376
2 0.519 0.331
3 0.406 0.286
4 0.314 0.242
5 0.480 0.425
6 0.512 0.353
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.984 0.004 0.012 0.974
2/3 0.930 0.023 0.047 0.895
3/4 0.848 0.058 0.093 0.784
4/5 0.777 0.096 0.128 0.698
5/6 0.810 0.124 0.067 0.739

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 555 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.1E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: List (Grade 7) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.427 0.328 0.148
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.683 0.418
2 0.489 0.321
3 0.396 0.280
4 0.303 0.234
5 0.458 0.409
6 0.462 0.322
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.977 0.007 0.016 0.963
2/3 0.920 0.027 0.053 0.882
3/4 0.841 0.056 0.102 0.777
4/5 0.773 0.090 0.137 0.692
5/6 0.805 0.134 0.061 0.730

Table 8.4.1E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: List (Grade 8) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.400 0.326 0.150
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.699 0.456
2 0.508 0.344
3 0.268 0.184
4 0.353 0.265
5 0.378 0.341
6 0.556 0.406
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.968 0.009 0.023 0.952
2/3 0.912 0.023 0.064 0.875
3/4 0.861 0.060 0.078 0.793
4/5 0.772 0.094 0.133 0.690
5/6 0.768 0.180 0.052 0.709

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 556 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.4.2 Reading 6-8

Figure 8.4.2A Figure 8.4.2B

Scale Scores: Read 6-8 S302 Proficiency Level: Read 6-8 S302
35.0%
8,000 30.0%
25.0%
6,000

Percent
20.0%
Count

4,000 15.0%
10.0%
2,000
5.0%
0 0.0%
178 208 238 268 298 328 358 388 418 448 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.4.2A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Read 6-8 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
6 73,817 183 458 351.16 24.27
7 74,844 191 458 358.84 26.35
8 70,659 200 458 365.56 28.63
Total 219,320 183 458 358.42 27.09

Table 8.4.2B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Read 6-8 S302
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 3,493 4.7% 4,931 6.6% 6,217 8.8% 14,641 6.7%
2 15,059 20.4% 17,500 23.4% 18,273 25.9% 50,832 23.2%
3 26,439 35.8% 23,810 31.8% 18,598 26.3% 68,847 31.4%
4 9,163 12.4% 8,568 11.4% 5,271 7.5% 23,002 10.5%
5 14,568 19.7% 14,182 18.9% 15,002 21.2% 43,752 19.9%
6 5,095 6.9% 5,853 7.8% 7,298 10.3% 18,246 8.3%
Total 73,817 100.0% 74,844 100.0% 70,659 100.0% 219,320 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 557 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.2C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at Cut Scores: Read 6-8 S302*
Proficiency SEM
Level Grade Cut Score Tier A Tier B Tier C
6 312 11.96 13.78 15.60
1/2
7 321 11.70 12.74 14.04
8 329 11.70 11.96 12.74
6 340 11.70 11.18 11.70
2/3 7 349 12.22 10.92 11.18
8 358 12.74 10.92 10.92
6 360 13.00 10.92 10.92
3/4
7 369 13.78 10.92 10.66
8 376 14.82 11.44 10.92
6 366 n/a 10.92 10.66
4/5
7 375 n/a 11.18 10.92
8 382 n/a 11.70 10.92
6 382 n/a n/a 10.92
5/6
7 391 n/a n/a 11.44
8 398 n/a n/a 11.96
* No equating was performed for S302

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 558 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.4.2C
Test Characteristic Curve: Read 6-8ABC S302

27
24
Expected Raw Score

21
18
15
A
12 B
9 C
6
3
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ability Measure

Figure 8.4.2D
Test Information Function: Read 6-8ABC S302

5
A
Information

4 B

3 C

0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 559 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 560 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.2D
Weighted Reliability: Read 6-8 S302 g
Tiers No. of Students Reliability Reliability
A 23,729 0.775
B 82,291 0.780 0.770
C 113,300 0.761

Table 8.4.2E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Read (Grade 6) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.497 0.400 0.223
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.730 0.549
2 0.686 0.527
3 0.578 0.465
4 0.205 0.170
5 0.412 0.338
6 - 0.177
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.974 0.012 0.014 0.958
2/3 0.887 0.042 0.071 0.840
3/4 0.790 0.077 0.133 0.717
4/5 0.794 0.092 0.114 0.727
5/6 0.931 0.069 0.000 0.897

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 561 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.2E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Read (Grade 7) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.500 0.399 0.236
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.727 0.540
2 0.657 0.514
3 0.533 0.434
4 0.210 0.166
5 0.422 0.343
6 - 0.252
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.961 0.016 0.022 0.940
2/3 0.869 0.051 0.080 0.817
3/4 0.814 0.084 0.102 0.747
4/5 0.824 0.083 0.093 0.759
5/6 0.922 0.078 0.000 0.884

Table 8.4.2E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Read (Grade 8) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.490 0.392 0.241
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.736 0.559
2 0.648 0.514
3 0.467 0.369
4 0.140 0.108
5 0.443 0.368
6 0.536 0.310
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.950 0.021 0.029 0.924
2/3 0.857 0.056 0.087 0.803
3/4 0.825 0.076 0.099 0.757
4/5 0.827 0.092 0.081 0.760
5/6 0.898 0.095 0.007 0.858

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 562 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.4.3 Writing 6-8

Figure 8.4.3A Figure 8.4.3B

Scale Scores: Writ 6-8 S302 Proficiency Level: Writ 6-8 S302
60.0%
8,000 50.0%

6,000 40.0%

Percent
Count

30.0%
4,000
20.0%
2,000
10.0%
0 0.0%
228 258 288 318 348 378 408 438 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.4.3A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Writ 6-8 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
6 73,833 233 416 349.34 23.45
7 74,840 239 440 355.17 23.13
8 70,654 245 438 359.80 23.10
Total 219,327 233 440 354.70 23.62

Table 8.4.3B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Writ 6-8 S302
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 2,526 3.4% 3,660 4.9% 4,299 6.1% 10,485 4.8%
2 9,221 12.5% 9,253 12.4% 11,238 15.9% 29,712 13.5%
3 35,381 47.9% 43,231 57.8% 45,067 63.8% 123,679 56.4%
4 26,136 35.4% 18,455 24.7% 9,962 14.1% 54,553 24.9%
5 566 0.8% 237 0.3% 85 0.1% 888 0.4%
6 3 0.0% 4 0.0% 3 0.0% 10 0.0%
Total 73,833 100.0% 74,840 100.0% 70,654 100.0% 219,327 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 563 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.3C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at Cut Scores: Writ 6-8 S302*

Proficiency SEM
Level Grade Cut Score Tier A Tier B Tier C

6 298 9.02 7.15 7.77

1/2
7 308 9.64 8.09 8.40

8 318 11.19 8.40 8.40

6 329 11.82 8.40 8.40

2/3 7 339 12.13 8.09 8.09

8 348 11.82 8.09 8.09

6 361 11.51 7.77 7.46

3/4
7 371 11.19 7.46 7.15
8 381 10.57 7.15 6.84

6 391 n/a 6.84 6.53

4/5
7 399 n/a 6.53 6.53
8 408 n/a 6.53 6.53

6 412 n/a n/a 6.84

5/6
7 420 n/a n/a 8.09
8 428 n/a n/a 9.95
* No equating was performed for Writing Tier A S302

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 564 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.4.3C
Test Characteristic Curve: Writ 6-8ABC S302

100
Expected Raw Score

90
80 A
70
B
60
50 C
40
30
20
10
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ability Measure

Figure 8.4.3D
Test Information Function: Writ 6-8ABC S302

25

20
Information

15
A
10 B
C
5

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 565 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.3D
Weighted Reliability: Writ 6-8 S302 g
Tiers No. of Students Reliability Reliability
A 23,729 0.889
B 82,325 0.936 0.920
C 113,273 0.915

Table 8.4.3E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Writ (Grade 6) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.812 0.739 0.585
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.859 0.767
2 0.796 0.698
3 0.848 0.764
4 0.774 0.719
5 - 0.000
6 - 1.000
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.989 0.005 0.006 0.985
2/3 0.959 0.019 0.021 0.942
3/4 0.871 0.047 0.082 0.819
4/5 0.992 0.008 0.000 0.992
5/6 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 566 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.3E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Writ (Grade 7) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.766 0.692 0.482
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.899 0.834
2 0.791 0.693
3 0.835 0.760
4 0.608 0.523
5 - -
6 - 1.000
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.988 0.005 0.007 0.983
2/3 0.961 0.019 0.020 0.944
3/4 0.820 0.069 0.111 0.767
4/5 0.997 0.003 0.000 0.997
5/6 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000

Table 8.3.3E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Writ (Grade 8) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.798 0.732 0.491
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.885 0.815
2 0.826 0.738
3 0.786 0.791
4 - 0.311
5 - -
6 - 1.000
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.985 0.007 0.008 0.979
2/3 0.955 0.019 0.026 0.936
3/4 0.858 0.142 0.000 0.817
4/5 0.999 0.001 0.000 0.999
5/6 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 567 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.4.4 Speaking 6-8

Figure 8.4.4A Figure 8.4.4B

Scale Scores: Spek 6-8 S302 Proficiency Level: Spek 6-8 S302
40.0%
70,000 35.0%
60,000 30.0%
50,000 25.0%

Percent
Count

40,000 20.0%
30,000 15.0%
20,000 10.0%
10,000 5.0%
0 0.0%
173 203 233 263 293 323 353 383 413 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.4.4A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Spek 6-8 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
6 73,805 178 416 369.61 47.71
7 74,819 179 416 372.59 48.65
8 70,595 180 416 374.63 49.97
Total 219,219 178 416 372.24 48.81

Table 8.4.4B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Spek 6-8 S302
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 5,206 7.1% 6,406 8.6% 6,266 8.9% 17,878 8.2%
2 6,570 8.9% 4,615 6.2% 7,442 10.5% 18,627 8.5%
3 11,431 15.5% 10,240 13.7% 11,505 16.3% 33,176 15.1%
4 18,194 24.7% 17,218 23.0% 8,300 11.8% 43,712 19.9%
5 8,505 11.5% 8,930 11.9% 8,457 12.0% 25,892 11.8%
6 23,899 32.4% 27,410 36.6% 28,625 40.5% 79,934 36.5%
Total 73,805 100.0% 74,819 100.0% 70,595 100.0% 219,219 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 568 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.4C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at
Cut Scores: Spek 6-8 S302

Proficiency
Level Grade Cut Score SEM

6 310 22.09
1/2
7 314 22.29

8 317 22.69

6 337 23.50
2/3
7 340 23.50

8 344 23.70

6 353 23.50
3/4
7 358 23.30
8 361 23.30

6 377 22.69
4/5
7 380 22.29

8 384 22.09

6 397 21.49
5/6
7 400 21.49

8 404 21.49

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 569 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.4.4C
Test Characteristic Curve: Spek 6-8 S302

13
12
11
Expected Raw Score

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-13-12-11-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ability Measure

Figure 8.4.4D
Test Information Function: Spek 6-8 S302
2

1.5
Information

0.5

0
-13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 570 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.4D
Reliability: Spek 6-8 S302
Tiers No. of Students Reliability
-- 219,219 0.904

Table 8.4.4E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Spek (Grade 6) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.563 0.456 0.322
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.725 0.576
2 0.405 0.299
3 0.453 0.370
4 0.552 0.455
5 0.250 0.179
6 0.804 0.710
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.966 0.022 0.012 0.944
2/3 0.913 0.054 0.034 0.882
3/4 0.874 0.047 0.079 0.842
4/5 0.876 0.022 0.102 0.827
5/6 0.872 0.064 0.063 0.802

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 571 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.4E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Spek (Grade 7) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.566 0.454 0.310
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.798 0.667
2 0.334 0.239
3 0.457 0.368
4 0.553 0.442
5 0.226 0.171
6 0.791 0.700
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.968 0.018 0.014 0.949
2/3 0.929 0.046 0.025 0.902
3/4 0.888 0.046 0.066 0.859
4/5 0.872 0.021 0.108 0.824
5/6 0.844 0.081 0.076 0.760

Table 8.4.4E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Spek (Grade 8) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.533 0.434 0.291
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.718 0.595
2 0.445 0.356
3 0.526 0.443
4 0.320 0.228
5 0.225 0.175
6 0.805 0.732
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.957 0.029 0.014 0.934
2/3 0.908 0.050 0.042 0.884
3/4 0.891 0.022 0.087 0.864
4/5 0.910 0.021 0.069 0.852
5/6 0.800 0.135 0.066 0.731

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 572 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.4.5 Oral Language Composite 6-8

Figure 8.4.5A Figure 8.4.5B

Scale Scores: Oral 6-8 S302 Proficiency Level: Oral 6-8 S302
35.0%
8,000
30.0%
6,000 25.0%

Percent
20.0%
Count

4,000
15.0%
10.0%
2,000
5.0%
0 0.0%
146 176 206 236 266 296 326 356 386 416 446 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.4.5A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Oral 6-8 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
6 73,741 151 445 373.63 39.11
7 74,722 154 445 379.15 41.12
8 70,516 156 445 383.33 42.98
Total 218,979 151 445 378.64 41.26

Table 8.4.5B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Oral 6-8 S302
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 3,450 4.7% 4,331 5.8% 4,761 6.8% 12,542 5.7%
2 5,243 7.1% 5,312 7.1% 5,500 7.8% 16,055 7.3%
3 9,040 12.3% 9,747 13.0% 8,580 12.2% 27,367 12.5%
4 18,364 24.9% 16,435 22.0% 15,133 21.5% 49,932 22.8%
5 23,316 31.6% 22,330 29.9% 20,850 29.6% 66,496 30.4%
6 14,328 19.4% 16,567 22.2% 15,692 22.3% 46,587 21.3%
Total 73,741 100.0% 74,722 100.0% 70,516 100.0% 218,979 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 573 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.5C
n/a

Figure 8.4.5C
n/a

Figure 8.4.5D
n/a

Table 8.4.5D
Oral Composite Reliability: Oral 6-8 S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Listening 0.50 1972.790 0.645
Speaking 0.50 2377.192 0.904
Oral 1700.473 0.863
*Variances from students who had results in all four domains

Table 8.4.5E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Oral (Grade 6) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.554 0.447 0.290
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.840 0.713
2 0.555 0.405
3 0.489 0.364
4 0.571 0.447
5 0.524 0.453
6 0.571 0.441
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.982 0.007 0.012 0.973
2/3 0.954 0.023 0.023 0.932
3/4 0.909 0.042 0.050 0.874
4/5 0.856 0.047 0.097 0.803
5/6 0.831 0.093 0.076 0.781

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 574 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.5E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Oral (Grade 7) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.536 0.436 0.283
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.845 0.722
2 0.514 0.373
3 0.503 0.380
4 0.523 0.398
5 0.488 0.423
6 0.590 0.468
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.978 0.008 0.014 0.968
2/3 0.951 0.025 0.024 0.927
3/4 0.907 0.040 0.053 0.872
4/5 0.859 0.045 0.096 0.805
5/6 0.813 0.109 0.078 0.764

Table 8.4.5E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Oral (Grade 8) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.525 0.429 0.277
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.838 0.716
2 0.507 0.372
3 0.468 0.349
4 0.506 0.378
5 0.479 0.420
6 0.581 0.458
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.974 0.010 0.016 0.962
2/3 0.945 0.027 0.028 0.921
3/4 0.908 0.038 0.054 0.873
4/5 0.859 0.050 0.092 0.800
5/6 0.806 0.121 0.073 0.759

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 575 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.4.6 Literacy Composite 6-8

Figure 8.4.6A Figure 8.4.6B

Scale Scores: Litr 6-8 S302 Proficiency Level: Litr 6-8 S302
5,000 60.0%
50.0%
4,000
40.0%
3,000

Percent
Count

30.0%
2,000
20.0%
1,000 10.0%
0 0.0%
203 233 263 293 323 353 383 413 443 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.4.6A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Litr 6-8 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
6 73,722 208 436 350.51 20.98
7 74,744 215 435 357.27 21.99
8 70,562 223 440 362.95 23.21
Total 219,028 208 440 356.82 22.63

Table 8.4.6B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Litr 6-8 S302
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 2,050 2.8% 3,432 4.6% 4,463 6.3% 9,945 4.5%
2 11,345 15.4% 12,576 16.8% 14,069 19.9% 37,990 17.3%
3 36,171 49.1% 36,732 49.1% 35,389 50.2% 108,292 49.4%
4 20,596 27.9% 18,362 24.6% 13,324 18.9% 52,282 23.9%
5 2,994 4.1% 3,077 4.1% 2,807 4.0% 8,878 4.1%
6 566 0.8% 565 0.8% 510 0.7% 1,641 0.7%
Total 73,722 100.0% 74,744 100.0% 70,562 100.0% 219,028 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 576 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.6C
n/a

Figure 8.4.6C
n/a

Figure 8.4.6D
n/a

Table 8.4.6D
Literacy Composite Reliability: Litr 6-8 S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Reading 0.50 733.056 0.770
Writing 0.50 556.239 0.920
Literacy 511.916 0.896
*Variances from students who had results in all four domains

Table 8.4.6E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Litr (Grade 6) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.754 0.673 0.504
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.660 0.698
2 0.787 0.679
3 0.831 0.752
4 0.650 0.583
5 - 0.201
6 - 0.999
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.983 0.011 0.006 0.984
2/3 0.937 0.033 0.030 0.919
3/4 0.863 0.054 0.083 0.818
4/5 0.952 0.048 0.000 0.946
5/6 0.992 0.008 0.000 0.999

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 577 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.6E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Litr (Grade 7) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.744 0.659 0.492
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.734 0.739
2 0.766 0.653
3 0.822 0.744
4 0.619 0.545
5 - 0.214
6 - 1.000
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.977 0.013 0.010 0.976
2/3 0.931 0.036 0.034 0.909
3/4 0.866 0.055 0.078 0.821
4/5 0.951 0.049 0.000 0.944
5/6 0.992 0.008 0.000 0.999

Table 8.4.6E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Litr (Grade 8) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.728 0.643 0.472
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.770 0.745
2 0.768 0.660
3 0.811 0.731
4 0.536 0.456
5 - 0.196
6 - 1.000
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.972 0.015 0.012 0.969
2/3 0.921 0.039 0.040 0.896
3/4 0.862 0.057 0.081 0.815
4/5 0.953 0.047 0.000 0.949
5/6 0.993 0.007 0.000 0.999

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 578 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.4.7 Comprehension Composite 6-8

Figure 8.4.7A Figure 8.4.7B

Scale Scores: Cphn 6-8 S302 Proficiency Level: Cphn 6-8 S302
35.0%
8,000 30.0%
6,000 25.0%

Percent
20.0%
Count

4,000 15.0%
10.0%
2,000
5.0%
0 0.0%
160 190 220 250 280 310 340 370 400 430 460 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.4.7A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Cphn 6-8 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
6 73,777 165 463 359.00 26.64
7 74,773 172 463 366.83 29.04
8 70,613 180 463 373.39 31.31
Total 219,163 165 463 366.31 29.61

Table 8.4.7B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Cphn 6-8 S302
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 1,957 2.7% 3,244 4.3% 4,022 5.7% 9,223 4.2%
2 8,754 11.9% 10,408 13.9% 11,361 16.1% 30,523 13.9%
3 23,371 31.7% 22,765 30.4% 18,021 25.5% 64,157 29.3%
4 14,763 20.0% 13,690 18.3% 12,073 17.1% 40,526 18.5%
5 17,997 24.4% 16,436 22.0% 16,623 23.5% 51,056 23.3%
6 6,935 9.4% 8,230 11.0% 8,513 12.1% 23,678 10.8%
Total 73,777 100.0% 74,773 100.0% 70,613 100.0% 219,163 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 579 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.7C
n/a

Figure 8.4.7C
n/a

Figure 8.4.7D
n/a

Table 8.4.7D
Comprehension Composite Reliability: Cphn 6-8 S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Listening 0.30 1972.790 0.645
Reading 0.70 733.056 0.770
Comprehension 876.066 0.834
*Variances from students who had results in all four domains

Table 8.4.7E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Cphn (Grade 6) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.557 0.456 0.300
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.781 0.611
2 0.668 0.513
3 0.673 0.558
4 0.393 0.305
5 0.498 0.431
6 0.597 0.347
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.987 0.005 0.008 0.980
2/3 0.934 0.031 0.034 0.903
3/4 0.847 0.063 0.090 0.794
4/5 0.843 0.057 0.101 0.782
5/6 0.907 0.091 0.002 0.882

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 580 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.7E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Cphn (Grade 7) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.545 0.442 0.297
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.792 0.630
2 0.648 0.501
3 0.646 0.533
4 0.373 0.287
5 0.471 0.397
6 0.625 0.395
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.979 0.008 0.013 0.969
2/3 0.922 0.036 0.042 0.888
3/4 0.851 0.061 0.088 0.798
4/5 0.852 0.059 0.089 0.791
5/6 0.899 0.088 0.013 0.870

Table 8.4.7E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Cphn (Grade 8) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.532 0.426 0.288
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.789 0.630
2 0.646 0.505
3 0.566 0.452
4 0.350 0.269
5 0.487 0.407
6 0.608 0.402
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.972 0.011 0.017 0.959
2/3 0.912 0.039 0.049 0.874
3/4 0.854 0.064 0.083 0.800
4/5 0.847 0.065 0.088 0.788
5/6 0.894 0.079 0.027 0.856

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 581 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.4.8 Overall Composite 6-8

Figure 8.4.8A Figure 8.4.8B

Scale Scores: Over 6-8 S302 Proficiency Level: Over 6-8 S302
40.0%
4,000 35.0%
30.0%
3,000 25.0%

Percent
Count

20.0%
2,000
15.0%
1,000 10.0%
5.0%
0 0.0%
186 216 246 276 306 336 366 396 426 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.4.8A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Over 6-8 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
6 73,582 191 439 357.25 23.91
7 74,562 197 438 363.63 25.38
8 70,381 203 439 368.85 26.97
Total 218,525 191 439 363.16 25.86

Table 8.4.8B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Over 6-8 S302
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 2,314 3.1% 3,266 4.4% 4,007 5.7% 9,587 4.4%
2 7,253 9.9% 7,968 10.7% 8,707 12.4% 23,928 10.9%
3 23,553 32.0% 25,285 33.9% 23,057 32.8% 71,895 32.9%
4 30,308 41.2% 27,047 36.3% 25,561 36.3% 82,916 37.9%
5 8,916 12.1% 9,828 13.2% 8,009 11.4% 26,753 12.2%
6 1,238 1.7% 1,168 1.6% 1,040 1.5% 3,446 1.6%
Total 73,582 100.0% 74,562 100.0% 70,381 100.0% 218,525 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 582 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.8C
n/a

Figure 8.4.8C
n/a

Figure 8.4.8D
n/a

Table 8.4.8D
Overall Composite Reliability: Over 6-8 S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Listening 0.15 1972.790 0.645
Reading 0.35 733.056 0.770
Speaking 0.15 2377.192 0.904
Writing 0.35 556.239 0.920
Overall Composite 668.610 0.930
*Variances from students who had results in all four domains

Table 8.4.8E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Over (Grade 6) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.745 0.662 0.519
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.788 0.814
2 0.771 0.664
3 0.832 0.748
4 0.739 0.672
5 0.512 0.402
6 - 0.982
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.988 0.007 0.005 0.988
2/3 0.962 0.022 0.016 0.949
3/4 0.908 0.037 0.055 0.876
4/5 0.889 0.066 0.045 0.854
5/6 0.983 0.017 0.000 0.987

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 583 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.4.8E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Over (Grade 7) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.728 0.640 0.503
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.818 0.819
2 0.753 0.643
3 0.828 0.743
4 0.700 0.616
5 0.524 0.424
6 - 0.984
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.985 0.008 0.007 0.984
2/3 0.958 0.024 0.018 0.943
3/4 0.903 0.039 0.058 0.868
4/5 0.886 0.064 0.050 0.848
5/6 0.984 0.016 0.000 0.988

Table 8.4.8E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Over (Grade 8) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.719 0.633 0.495
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.832 0.815
2 0.749 0.640
3 0.810 0.716
4 0.708 0.617
5 0.335 0.369
6 - 0.987
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.981 0.010 0.009 0.979
2/3 0.951 0.027 0.022 0.935
3/4 0.900 0.039 0.061 0.865
4/5 0.908 0.067 0.024 0.855
5/6 0.985 0.015 0.000 0.989

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 584 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.5 Grades: 9–12
8.5.1 Listening 9-12

Figure 8.5.1A Figure 8.5.1B

Scale Scores: List 9-12 S302 Proficiency Level: List 9-12 S302
30.0%
10,000 25.0%
8,000 20.0%

Percent
Count

6,000 15.0%
4,000 10.0%
2,000 5.0%
0 0.0%
131 161 191 221 251 281 311 341 371 401 431 461 491 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.5.1A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: List 9-12 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
9 79,568 136 499 381.43 50.87
10 50,140 140 499 385.08 46.50
11 38,200 144 499 389.92 45.23
12 29,999 148 499 391.12 45.82
Total 197,907 136 499 385.46 48.13

Table 8.5.1B
Proficiency Level Distribution: List 9-12 S302
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 7,822 9.8% 4,301 8.6% 3,222 8.4% 2,831 9.4% 18,176 9.2%
2 10,443 13.1% 5,883 11.7% 4,285 11.2% 3,190 10.6% 23,801 12.0%
3 11,839 14.9% 10,538 21.0% 6,883 18.0% 7,848 26.2% 37,108 18.8%
4 17,621 22.1% 12,970 25.9% 11,612 30.4% 8,335 27.8% 50,538 25.5%
5 23,901 30.0% 11,949 23.8% 8,171 21.4% 4,694 15.6% 48,715 24.6%
6 7,942 10.0% 4,499 9.0% 4,027 10.5% 3,101 10.3% 19,569 9.9%
Total 79,568 100.0% 50,140 100.0% 38,200 100.0% 29,999 100.0% 197,907 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 585 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.1C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at Cut Scores: List 9-12 S302

Proficiency SEM
Level Grade Cut Score Tier A Tier B Tier C

9 312 20.66 21.04 22.17

1/2 10 322 20.66 20.29 21.04

11 332 21.04 19.91 19.91

12 343 21.42 19.54 19.16

9 352 22.17 19.54 18.41

10 358 22.92 19.54 18.41

2/3
11 363 23.29 19.54 18.03
12 366 23.67 19.54 18.03

9 381 25.92 19.54 18.03

3/4 10 386 26.68 19.91 18.03

11 389 27.05 19.91 18.03

12 391 27.80 19.91 18.03

9 406 n/a 20.66 18.79

4/5 10 412 n/a 21.42 19.16

11 416 n/a 21.79 19.54

12 418 n/a 21.79 19.54

9 432 n/a n/a 21.04

5/6 10 436 n/a n/a 21.42

11 438 n/a n/a 21.79

12 439 n/a n/a 22.17

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 586 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.5.1C
Test Characteristic Curve: List 9-12ABC S302

20
Expected Raw Score

15

A
10 B
C

0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ability Measure

Figure 8.5.1D
Test Information Function: List 9-12ABC S302

4
Information

3 A
B
2 C

0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 587 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.1D
Weighted Reliability: List 9-12 S302 g
Tiers No. of Students Reliability Reliability
A 29,077 0.682
B 76,057 0.720 0.688
C 92,773 0.665

Table 8.5.1E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: List (Grade 9) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.410 0.316 0.155
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.819 0.684
2 0.511 0.327
3 0.289 0.186
4 0.287 0.261
5 0.437 0.396
6 - 0.149
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.957 0.016 0.028 0.938
2/3 0.899 0.023 0.078 0.853
3/4 0.817 0.048 0.134 0.716
4/5 0.681 0.169 0.150 0.630
5/6 0.900 0.100 0.000 0.822

Table 8.5.1E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: List (Grade 10) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.370 0.309 0.134
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.825 0.687
2 0.484 0.281
3 0.366 0.244
4 0.312 0.301
5 - 0.305
6 - 0.124
Indices at
Cut Points Accuracy
False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.964 0.013 0.022 0.947
2/3 0.902 0.022 0.076 0.853
3/4 0.768 0.041 0.192 0.667
4/5 0.672 0.328 0.000 0.631
5/6 0.910 0.090 0.000 0.855

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 588 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.1E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: List (Grade 11) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.398 0.308 0.126
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.826 0.692
2 0.477 0.256
3 0.318 0.206
4 0.359 0.348
5 - 0.265
6 - 0.138
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.966 0.013 0.021 0.950
2/3 0.902 0.017 0.081 0.854
3/4 0.778 0.035 0.187 0.670
4/5 0.681 0.319 0.000 0.626
5/6 0.895 0.105 0.000 0.840

Table 8.5.1E-4
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: List (Grade 12) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.368 0.295 0.109
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.860 0.694
2 0.367 0.165
3 0.377 0.284
4 0.319 0.311
5 - 0.183
6 - 0.125
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.964 0.011 0.025 0.943
2/3 0.884 0.014 0.102 0.826
3/4 0.673 0.021 0.306 0.599
4/5 0.740 0.260 0.000 0.643
5/6 0.897 0.103 0.000 0.848

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 589 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.5.2 Reading 9-12

Figure 8.5.2A Figure 8.5.2B

Scale Scores: Read 9-12 S302 Proficiency Level: Read 9-12 S302
30.0%
8,000
25.0%
6,000 20.0%

Percent
Count

15.0%
4,000
10.0%
2,000
5.0%
0 0.0%
203 233 263 293 323 353 383 413 443 473 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.5.2A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Read 9-12 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
9 79,602 208 468 372.59 32.55
10 50,148 216 468 374.91 30.92
11 38,245 224 468 379.46 30.85
12 30,042 233 468 380.63 31.45
Total 198,037 208 468 375.73 31.82

Table 8.5.2B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Read 9-12 S302
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 8,899 11.2% 5,279 10.5% 4,293 11.2% 3,796 12.6% 22,267 11.2%
2 19,440 24.4% 15,531 31.0% 10,490 27.4% 7,980 26.6% 53,441 27.0%
3 15,281 19.2% 7,698 15.4% 4,671 12.2% 3,705 12.3% 31,355 15.8%
4 8,059 10.1% 6,381 12.7% 4,901 12.8% 3,080 10.3% 22,421 11.3%
5 14,506 18.2% 8,445 16.8% 7,535 19.7% 7,070 23.5% 37,556 19.0%
6 13,417 16.9% 6,814 13.6% 6,355 16.6% 4,411 14.7% 30,997 15.7%
Total 79,602 100.0% 50,148 100.0% 38,245 100.0% 30,042 100.0% 198,037 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 590 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.2C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at Cut Scores: Read 9-12 S302*

Proficiency SEM
Level Grade Cut Score Tier A Tier B Tier C

9 336 11.96 11.70 14.82

1/2 10 341 11.70 11.44 14.04

11 346 11.70 11.18 13.26

12 350 11.70 10.92 12.74

9 364 11.96 10.92 11.44

10 370 12.48 10.92 10.92

2/3
11 374 12.74 11.18 10.66

12 376 13.00 11.18 10.66

9 381 13.52 11.44 10.40

3/4 10 383 13.78 11.70 10.40

11 384 13.78 11.70 10.40

12 385 14.04 11.70 10.40

9 387 n/a 11.96 10.40

4/5 10 390 n/a 12.22 10.40

11 392 n/a 12.48 10.40

12 393 n/a 12.48 10.40

9 402 n/a n/a 10.66

5/6 10 406 n/a n/a 10.92

11 407 n/a n/a 10.92

12 408 n/a n/a 11.18

* No equating was performed for S302

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 591 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.5.2C
Test Characteristic Curve: Read 9-12ABC S302

27
24
Expected Raw Score

21
18
15 A
12 B
9 C
6
3
0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ability Measure

Figure 8.5.2D
Test Information Function: Read 9-12ABC S302

5
Information

4
A
3 B

2 C

0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 592 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 593 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.2D
Weighted Reliability: Read 9-12 S302 g
Tiers No. of Students Reliability Reliability
A 29,106 0.794
B 76,072 0.816 0.800
C 92,859 0.789

Table 8.5.2E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Read (Grade 9) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.491 0.397 0.265
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.752 0.597
2 0.630 0.499
3 0.379 0.294
4 0.203 0.154
5 0.369 0.298
6 0.635 0.463
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.942 0.026 0.032 0.913
2/3 0.866 0.052 0.083 0.814
3/4 0.839 0.078 0.083 0.777
4/5 0.834 0.074 0.092 0.773
5/6 0.868 0.082 0.050 0.818

Table 8.5.2E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Read (Grade 10) 302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.488 0.396 0.258
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.715 0.554
2 0.691 0.568
3 0.299 0.231
4 0.256 0.193
5 0.365 0.294
6 0.627 0.422
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.940 0.030 0.030 0.909
2/3 0.850 0.055 0.096 0.795
3/4 0.838 0.076 0.086 0.776
4/5 0.841 0.066 0.094 0.779
5/6 0.886 0.083 0.032 0.843

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 594 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.2E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Read (Grade 11) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.493 0.399 0.266
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.737 0.577
2 0.644 0.519
3 0.250 0.190
4 0.252 0.193
5 0.400 0.320
6 0.642 0.471
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.939 0.028 0.033 0.908
2/3 0.855 0.059 0.086 0.801
3/4 0.840 0.075 0.085 0.779
4/5 0.836 0.075 0.089 0.774
5/6 0.874 0.075 0.051 0.823

Table 8.5.2E-4
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Read (Grade 12) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.475 0.384 0.247
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.751 0.605
2 0.633 0.501
3 0.245 0.184
4 0.189 0.144
5 0.434 0.365
6 0.510 0.358
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.937 0.031 0.032 0.905
2/3 0.851 0.054 0.095 0.798
3/4 0.834 0.061 0.106 0.770
4/5 0.823 0.076 0.101 0.755
5/6 0.856 0.087 0.058 0.803

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 595 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.5.3 Writing 9-12

Figure 8.5.3A Figure 8.5.3B

Scale Scores: Writ 9-12 S302 Proficiency Level: Writ 9-12 S302
7,000 50.0%
6,000
40.0%
5,000
30.0%

Percent
4,000
Count

3,000 20.0%
2,000
10.0%
1,000
0 0.0%
246 276 306 336 366 396 426 456 486 516 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.5.3A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Writ 9-12 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
9 79,499 251 473 394.61 33.76
10 50,096 257 494 396.88 30.82
11 38,170 263 500 400.95 29.00
12 29,947 269 519 402.05 29.45
Total 197,712 251 519 397.54 31.64

Table 8.5.3B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Writ 9-12 S302
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 3,581 4.5% 2,438 4.9% 1,818 4.8% 1,830 6.1% 9,667 4.9%
2 6,914 8.7% 3,862 7.7% 2,393 6.3% 2,334 7.8% 15,503 7.8%
3 16,134 20.3% 13,349 26.6% 11,897 31.2% 11,213 37.4% 52,593 26.6%
4 25,717 32.3% 21,588 43.1% 17,976 47.1% 13,024 43.5% 78,305 39.6%
5 24,413 30.7% 8,261 16.5% 3,823 10.0% 1,443 4.8% 37,940 19.2%
6 2,740 3.4% 598 1.2% 263 0.7% 103 0.3% 3,704 1.9%
Total 79,499 100.0% 50,096 100.0% 38,170 100.0% 29,947 100.0% 197,712 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 596 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.3C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at Cut Scores: Writ 9-12 S302*

Proficiency SEM
Level Grade Cut Score Tier A Tier B Tier C

9 327 9.02 6.53 6.53

1/2 10 336 10.26 7.46 6.84

11 344 11.19 8.09 7.77

12 352 11.82 8.40 8.40

9 356 12.13 8.40 8.40

10 363 12.13 8.40 8.40

2/3
11 370 11.82 8.40 8.40

12 377 11.51 8.09 8.09

9 389 11.19 8.09 8.09

3/4 10 397 11.19 7.77 7.77

11 404 10.88 7.46 7.77

12 410 10.57 7.15 7.46

9 415 n/a 7.15 7.15

4/5 10 422 n/a 6.84 7.15

11 428 n/a 6.53 6.84

12 434 n/a 6.53 6.53

9 435 n/a n/a 6.53

5/6 10 441 n/a n/a 6.53

11 447 n/a n/a 6.22

12 452 n/a n/a 6.53

* No equating was performed for Writing Tier A S302

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 597 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.5.3C
Test Characteristic Curve: Writ 9-12ABC S302

100
90
Expected Raw Score

80
70
60
A
50
40 B

30 C
20
10
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ability Measure

Figure 8.5.3D
Test Information Function: Writ 9-12ABC S302
25

20
Information

15
A
10 B
C
5

0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 598 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.3D
Weighted Reliability: Writ 9-12 S302 g
Tiers No. of Students Reliability Reliability
A 29,068 0.867
B 75,983 0.936 0.916
C 92,661 0.915

Table 8.5.3E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Writ (Grade 9) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.676 0.567 0.417
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.840 0.746
2 0.735 0.614
3 0.774 0.668
4 0.632 0.494
5 0.631 0.576
6 - 0.089
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.986 0.007 0.007 0.979
2/3 0.966 0.015 0.019 0.951
3/4 0.934 0.023 0.043 0.907
4/5 0.822 0.071 0.107 0.755
5/6 0.966 0.034 0.000 0.952

Table 8.5.3E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Writ (Grade 10) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.695 0.607 0.437
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.875 0.797
2 0.717 0.591
3 0.819 0.713
4 0.633 0.618
5 - 0.354
6 - 0.038
Indices at
Cut Points Accuracy
False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.987 0.006 0.007 0.982
2/3 0.969 0.015 0.016 0.955
3/4 0.916 0.026 0.058 0.882
4/5 0.823 0.177 0.000 0.787
5/6 0.988 0.012 0.000 0.986

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 599 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.3E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Writ (Grade 11) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.749 0.655 0.470
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.895 0.831
2 0.688 0.557
3 0.845 0.722
4 0.705 0.680
5 - 0.212
6 - 0.227
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.989 0.005 0.006 0.985
2/3 0.973 0.015 0.013 0.960
3/4 0.894 0.027 0.078 0.851
4/5 0.893 0.107 0.000 0.853
5/6 0.993 0.007 0.000 0.993

Table 8.5.3E-4
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Writ (Grade 12) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.723 0.633 0.430
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.892 0.830
2 0.742 0.619
3 0.819 0.621
4 0.664 0.638
5 - 0.091
6 - 0.000
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.987 0.007 0.006 0.982
2/3 0.970 0.013 0.016 0.958
3/4 0.816 0.030 0.154 0.747
4/5 0.948 0.052 0.000 0.933
5/6 0.997 0.003 0.000 0.997

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 600 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.5.4 Speaking 9-12

Figure 8.5.4A Figure 8.5.4B

Scale Scores: Spek 9-12 S302 Proficiency Level: Spek 9-12 S302
50.0%
70,000
60,000 40.0%
50,000 30.0%

Percent
Count

40,000
30,000 20.0%
20,000
10.0%
10,000
0 0.0%
176 206 236 266 296 326 356 386 416 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.5.4A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Spek 9-12 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
9 79,452 181 428 376.09 60.72
10 50,051 182 428 379.28 53.97
11 38,164 183 428 383.57 50.35
12 29,948 184 428 387.37 48.45
Total 197,615 181 428 380.05 55.52

Table 8.5.4B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Spek 9-12 S302
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 14,234 17.9% 7,263 14.5% 4,211 11.0% 2,650 8.8% 28,358 14.4%
2 5,023 6.3% 6,367 12.7% 4,974 13.0% 3,643 12.2% 20,007 10.1%
3 7,983 10.0% 7,351 14.7% 5,875 15.4% 4,536 15.1% 25,745 13.0%
4 13,195 16.6% 4,964 9.9% 3,980 10.4% 3,163 10.6% 25,302 12.8%
5 7,799 9.8% 4,958 9.9% 3,730 9.8% 3,058 10.2% 19,545 9.9%
6 31,218 39.3% 19,148 38.3% 15,394 40.3% 12,898 43.1% 78,658 39.8%
Total 79,452 100.0% 50,051 100.0% 38,164 100.0% 29,948 100.0% 197,615 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 601 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.4C
Conditional Standard Error of Measurement at
Cut Scores: Spek 9-12 S302

Proficiency
Level Grade Cut Score SEM

9 319 20.49

1/2 10 321 20.69

11 322 20.69
12 323 20.89

9 347 22.49

2/3 10 351 22.69

11 354 22.90
12 357 23.10

9 366 23.90

3/4 10 371 24.10

11 377 24.90
12 384 25.91

9 388 26.51

4/5 10 393 27.92

11 399 29.32
12 405 30.53

9 407 30.93

5/6 10 412 32.13

11 416 32.94
12 421 33.54

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 602 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
 Figure 8.5.4C
Test Characteristic Curve: Spek 9-12 S302

12
Expected Raw Score

10

0
-12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ability Measure

Figure 8.5.4D
Test Information Function: Spek 9-12 S302

1.5
Information

0.5

0
-12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ability Measure

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 603 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.4D
Reliability: Spek 9-12 S302
Tiers No. of Students Reliability
-- 197,615 0.924

Table 8.5.4E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Spek (Grade 9) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.656 0.574 0.444
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.885 0.809
2 0.319 0.231
3 0.377 0.293
4 0.505 0.402
5 0.259 0.179
6 0.858 0.790
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.956 0.020 0.024 0.934
2/3 0.932 0.041 0.027 0.904
3/4 0.906 0.045 0.049 0.877
4/5 0.900 0.027 0.073 0.862
5/6 0.896 0.047 0.057 0.836

Table 8.5.4E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Spek (Grade 10) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.659 0.578 0.463
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.817 0.722
2 0.508 0.405
3 0.497 0.403
4 0.361 0.268
5 0.359 0.248
6 0.914 0.859
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.949 0.027 0.023 0.926
2/3 0.914 0.043 0.044 0.886
3/4 0.910 0.027 0.063 0.879
4/5 0.934 0.028 0.037 0.898
5/6 0.912 0.057 0.031 0.874

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 604 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.4E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Spek (Grade 11) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.666 0.582 0.463
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.796 0.691
2 0.566 0.455
3 0.543 0.443
4 0.397 0.292
5 0.346 0.242
6 0.925 0.873
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.958 0.024 0.019 0.938
2/3 0.922 0.037 0.041 0.896
3/4 0.918 0.025 0.056 0.888
4/5 0.936 0.029 0.035 0.901
5/6 0.905 0.068 0.027 0.868

Table 8.5.4E-4
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Spek (Grade 12) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.640 0.535 0.407
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.789 0.683
2 0.607 0.490
3 0.579 0.475
4 0.432 0.307
5 0.272 0.186
6 0.905 0.847
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.965 0.020 0.015 0.949
2/3 0.933 0.030 0.037 0.910
3/4 0.928 0.024 0.048 0.901
4/5 0.938 0.027 0.035 0.901
5/6 0.853 0.113 0.033 0.796

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 605 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 606 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.5.5 Oral Language Composite 9-12

Figure 8.5.5A Figure 8.5.5B

Scale Scores: Oral 9-12 S302 Proficiency Level: Oral 9-12 S302
35.0%
8,000
30.0%
6,000 25.0%

Percent
20.0%
Count

4,000 15.0%
10.0%
2,000
5.0%
0 0.0%
154 184 214 244 274 304 334 364 394 424 454 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.5.5A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Oral 9-12 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
9 79,128 159 464 379.05 50.90
10 49,875 161 464 382.45 44.66
11 37,978 164 464 387.04 41.83
12 29,722 166 464 389.60 40.57
Total 196,703 159 464 383.05 46.37

Table 8.5.5B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Oral 9-12 S302
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 10,466 13.2% 5,041 10.1% 3,198 8.4% 2,322 7.8% 21,027 10.7%
2 7,972 10.1% 6,061 12.2% 4,301 11.3% 3,268 11.0% 21,602 11.0%
3 8,051 10.2% 7,573 15.2% 6,684 17.6% 5,998 20.2% 28,306 14.4%
4 15,346 19.4% 10,984 22.0% 9,328 24.6% 8,010 26.9% 43,668 22.2%
5 24,890 31.5% 15,172 30.4% 10,090 26.6% 7,795 26.2% 57,947 29.5%
6 12,403 15.7% 5,044 10.1% 4,377 11.5% 2,329 7.8% 24,153 12.3%
Total 79,128 100.0% 49,875 100.0% 37,978 100.0% 29,722 100.0% 196,703 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 607 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.5C
n/a

Figure 8.5.5C
n/a

Figure 8.5.5D
n/a

Table 8.5.5D
Oral Composite Reliability: Oral 9-12 S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Listening 0.50 2311.716 0.688
Speaking 0.50 3077.424 0.924
Oral 2149.264 0.889
*Variances from students who had results in all four domains

Table 8.5.5E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Oral (Grade 9) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.550 0.449 0.318
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.879 0.801
2 0.548 0.416
3 0.403 0.288
4 0.478 0.350
5 0.547 0.489
6 0.474 0.359
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.962 0.015 0.023 0.946
2/3 0.943 0.024 0.034 0.917
3/4 0.916 0.040 0.043 0.879
4/5 0.859 0.058 0.083 0.803
5/6 0.836 0.090 0.074 0.789

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 608 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.5E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Oral (Grade 10) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.580 0.456 0.324
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.844 0.746
2 0.608 0.478
3 0.521 0.396
4 0.493 0.368
5 0.576 0.523
6 - 0.263
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.966 0.015 0.019 0.951
2/3 0.935 0.028 0.037 0.909
3/4 0.907 0.036 0.057 0.869
4/5 0.854 0.062 0.083 0.793
5/6 0.899 0.101 0.000 0.843

Table 8.5.5E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Oral (Grade 11) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.558 0.448 0.310
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.834 0.730
2 0.603 0.471
3 0.584 0.457
4 0.511 0.382
5 0.510 0.463
6 - 0.282
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.971 0.014 0.015 0.957
2/3 0.936 0.029 0.035 0.911
3/4 0.904 0.032 0.064 0.867
4/5 0.845 0.062 0.093 0.775
5/6 0.885 0.115 0.000 0.844

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 609 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.5E-4
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Oral (Grade 12) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.547 0.442 0.290
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.814 0.710
2 0.620 0.487
3 0.632 0.489
4 0.462 0.369
5 0.500 0.449
6 - 0.165
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.973 0.015 0.012 0.959
2/3 0.938 0.026 0.036 0.916
3/4 0.896 0.026 0.079 0.855
4/5 0.791 0.089 0.120 0.722
5/6 0.922 0.078 0.000 0.890

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 610 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.5.6 Literacy Composite 9-12

Figure 8.5.6A Figure 8.5.6B

Scale Scores: Litr 9-12 S302 Proficiency Level: Litr 9-12 S302
30.0%
4,000
25.0%
3,000 20.0%

Percent
Count

2,000 15.0%
10.0%
1,000
5.0%
0 0.0%
225 255 285 315 345 375 405 435 465 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.5.6A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Litr 9-12 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
9 79,349 230 471 383.90 30.76
10 49,998 237 479 386.19 28.25
11 38,092 244 484 390.50 27.26
12 29,877 251 486 391.62 27.62
Total 197,316 230 486 386.92 29.18

Table 8.5.6B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Litr 9-12 S302
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 4,722 6.0% 2,682 5.4% 1,994 5.2% 1,947 6.5% 11,345 5.7%
2 10,892 13.7% 7,864 15.7% 5,839 15.3% 4,862 16.3% 29,457 14.9%
3 18,306 23.1% 13,851 27.7% 10,751 28.2% 9,186 30.7% 52,094 26.4%
4 19,918 25.1% 13,962 27.9% 11,336 29.8% 8,670 29.0% 53,886 27.3%
5 18,247 23.0% 8,840 17.7% 5,897 15.5% 3,791 12.7% 36,775 18.6%
6 7,264 9.2% 2,799 5.6% 2,275 6.0% 1,421 4.8% 13,759 7.0%
Total 79,349 100.0% 49,998 100.0% 38,092 100.0% 29,877 100.0% 197,316 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 611 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.6C
n/a

Figure 8.5.6C
n/a

Figure 8.5.6D
n/a

Table 8.5.6D
Literacy Composite Reliability: Litr 9-12 S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Reading 0.50 1010.989 0.800
Writing 0.50 996.222 0.916
Literacy 850.309 0.916
*Variances from students who had results in all four domains

Table 8.5.6E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Litr (Grade 9) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.636 0.535 0.416
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.834 0.733
2 0.751 0.636
3 0.691 0.577
4 0.613 0.487
5 0.537 0.484
6 - 0.366
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.980 0.010 0.010 0.970
2/3 0.948 0.022 0.030 0.927
3/4 0.909 0.041 0.050 0.873
4/5 0.885 0.043 0.072 0.837
5/6 0.908 0.092 0.000 0.892

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 612 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.6E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Litr (Grade 10) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.656 0.553 0.429
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.822 0.716
2 0.770 0.658
3 0.724 0.616
4 0.628 0.506
5 0.518 0.450
6 - 0.280
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.981 0.010 0.009 0.972
2/3 0.942 0.026 0.032 0.918
3/4 0.899 0.041 0.060 0.860
4/5 0.885 0.043 0.072 0.836
5/6 0.944 0.056 0.000 0.936

Table 8.5.6E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Litr (Grade 11) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.650 0.548 0.420
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.822 0.717
2 0.766 0.653
3 0.731 0.622
4 0.643 0.523
5 0.465 0.400
6 - 0.289
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.982 0.010 0.009 0.973
2/3 0.943 0.026 0.031 0.919
3/4 0.897 0.041 0.062 0.858
4/5 0.882 0.042 0.076 0.832
5/6 0.940 0.060 0.000 0.933

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 613 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.6E-4
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Litr (Grade 12) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.632 0.536 0.397
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.827 0.732
2 0.757 0.640
3 0.742 0.623
4 0.558 0.478
5 0.396 0.328
6 - 0.208
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.979 0.012 0.009 0.969
2/3 0.937 0.028 0.035 0.911
3/4 0.884 0.035 0.080 0.841
4/5 0.861 0.083 0.056 0.817
5/6 0.952 0.048 0.000 0.950

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 614 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.5.7 Comprehension Composite 9-12

Figure 8.5.7A Figure 8.5.7B

Scale Scores: Cphn 9-12 S302 Proficiency Level: Cphn 9-12 S302
25.0%
7,000
6,000 20.0%
5,000
15.0%

Percent
Count

4,000
3,000 10.0%
2,000
5.0%
1,000
0 0.0%
181 211 241 271 301 331 361 391 421 451 481 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.5.7A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Cphn 9-12 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
9 79,449 186 477 375.34 35.56
10 50,057 193 477 378.04 32.81
11 38,136 200 477 382.67 32.26
12 29,921 208 477 383.88 32.75
Total 197,563 186 477 378.73 34.01

Table 8.5.7B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Cphn 9-12 S302
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 7,850 9.9% 3,870 7.7% 3,059 8.0% 2,849 9.5% 17,628 8.9%
2 13,916 17.5% 11,042 22.1% 8,763 23.0% 6,231 20.8% 39,952 20.2%
3 18,466 23.2% 12,115 24.2% 6,947 18.2% 5,916 19.8% 43,444 22.0%
4 13,021 16.4% 8,939 17.9% 8,124 21.3% 5,991 20.0% 36,075 18.3%
5 16,059 20.2% 9,092 18.2% 6,641 17.4% 5,410 18.1% 37,202 18.8%
6 10,137 12.8% 4,999 10.0% 4,602 12.1% 3,524 11.8% 23,262 11.8%
Total 79,449 100.0% 50,057 100.0% 38,136 100.0% 29,921 100.0% 197,563 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 615 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.7C
n/a

Figure 8.5.7C
n/a

Figure 8.5.7D
n/a

Table 8.5.7D
Comprehension Composite Reliability: Cphn 9-12 S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Listening 0.30 2311.716 0.688
Reading 0.70 1010.989 0.800
Comprehension 1155.625 0.858
*Variances from students who had results in all four domains

Table 8.5.7E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Cphn (Grade 9) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.525 0.426 0.302
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.821 0.699
2 0.631 0.498
3 0.541 0.425
4 0.351 0.266
5 0.437 0.367
6 0.591 0.403
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.961 0.017 0.023 0.943
2/3 0.907 0.041 0.051 0.869
3/4 0.862 0.056 0.081 0.811
4/5 0.854 0.059 0.087 0.796
5/6 0.885 0.087 0.028 0.848

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 616 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.7E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Cphn (Grade 10) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.520 0.424 0.293
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.765 0.625
2 0.698 0.571
3 0.534 0.421
4 0.371 0.282
5 0.424 0.362
6 - 0.337
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.964 0.019 0.017 0.946
2/3 0.894 0.044 0.061 0.854
3/4 0.857 0.050 0.093 0.805
4/5 0.857 0.057 0.086 0.795
5/6 0.900 0.100 0.000 0.876

Table 8.5.7E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Cphn (Grade 11) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.497 0.414 0.286
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.749 0.609
2 0.710 0.581
3 0.425 0.328
4 0.439 0.336
5 0.380 0.327
6 3.214 0.388
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.962 0.021 0.017 0.941
2/3 0.892 0.042 0.066 0.852
3/4 0.863 0.055 0.082 0.811
4/5 0.852 0.050 0.098 0.792
5/6 0.879 0.121 0.000 0.857

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 617 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.7E-4
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Cphn (Grade 12) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.475 0.388 0.256
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.761 0.632
2 0.666 0.533
3 0.443 0.336
4 0.369 0.285
5 0.378 0.326
6 - 0.302
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.958 0.024 0.018 0.936
2/3 0.888 0.041 0.071 0.850
3/4 0.850 0.041 0.109 0.796
4/5 0.828 0.059 0.113 0.758
5/6 0.882 0.118 0.000 0.850

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 618 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
8.5.8 Overall Composite 9-12

Figure 8.5.8A Figure 8.5.8B

Scale Scores: Over 9-12 S302 Proficiency Level: Over 9-12 S302
30.0%
3,500
3,000 25.0%
2,500 20.0%

Percent
Count

2,000 15.0%
1,500
10.0%
1,000
500 5.0%
0 0.0%
203 233 263 293 323 353 383 413 443 473 1 2 3 4 5 6
Scale Score Proficiency Level

Table 8.5.8A
Scale Score Descriptive Statistics: Over 9-12 S302
Grade No. of Students Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev.
9 78,900 208 465 382.26 34.84
10 49,719 214 469 384.87 30.90
11 37,857 220 476 389.27 29.24
12 29,583 226 477 390.85 28.98
Total 196,059 208 477 385.57 32.15

Table 8.5.8B
Proficiency Level Distribution: Over 9-12 S302
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total
Level Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
1 6,432 8.2% 2,920 5.9% 2,026 5.4% 1,728 5.8% 13,106 6.7%
2 9,873 12.5% 7,296 14.7% 5,329 14.1% 4,030 13.6% 26,528 13.5%
3 14,283 18.1% 11,586 23.3% 9,388 24.8% 8,509 28.8% 43,766 22.3%
4 19,591 24.8% 14,391 28.9% 11,763 31.1% 9,706 32.8% 55,451 28.3%
5 20,901 26.5% 10,637 21.4% 7,125 18.8% 4,297 14.5% 42,960 21.9%
6 7,820 9.9% 2,889 5.8% 2,226 5.9% 1,313 4.4% 14,248 7.3%
Total 78,900 100.0% 49,719 100.0% 37,857 100.0% 29,583 100.0% 196,059 100.0%

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 619 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.8C
n/a

Figure 8.5.8C
n/a

Figure 8.5.8D
n/a

Table 8.5.8D
Overall Composite Reliability: Over 9-12 S302
Component Weight Variance Reliability
Listening 0.15 2311.716 0.688
Reading 0.35 1010.989 0.800
Speaking 0.15 3077.424 0.924
Writing 0.35 996.222 0.916
Overall Composite 1033.737 0.945

Table 8.5.8E-1
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Over (Grade 9) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.679 0.588 0.485
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.889 0.822
2 0.767 0.665
3 0.693 0.579
4 0.693 0.572
5 0.594 0.556
6 - 0.411
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.980 0.009 0.011 0.972
2/3 0.960 0.017 0.023 0.943
3/4 0.931 0.035 0.034 0.903
4/5 0.906 0.036 0.058 0.868
5/6 0.901 0.099 0.000 0.887

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 620 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.8E-2
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Over (Grade 10) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.711 0.618 0.512
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.858 0.777
2 0.805 0.713
3 0.747 0.645
4 0.719 0.601
5 0.601 0.544
6 - 0.316
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.984 0.008 0.008 0.976
2/3 0.956 0.020 0.025 0.937
3/4 0.925 0.034 0.042 0.894
4/5 0.904 0.035 0.061 0.862
5/6 0.942 0.058 0.000 0.936

Table 8.5.8E-3
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Over (Grade 11) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.703 0.611 0.500
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.849 0.768
2 0.803 0.708
3 0.768 0.669
4 0.725 0.603
5 0.548 0.492
6 - 0.307
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.985 0.008 0.007 0.978
2/3 0.956 0.020 0.024 0.938
3/4 0.923 0.032 0.045 0.893
4/5 0.896 0.035 0.069 0.851
5/6 0.941 0.059 0.000 0.938

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 621 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Table 8.5.8E-4
Accuracy and Consistency of Classification Indices: Over (Grade 12) S302
Overall Accuracy Consistency Kappa (k)
Indices 0.677 0.594 0.463
Conditional Level Accuracy Consistency
on Level 1 0.840 0.771
2 0.790 0.686
3 0.809 0.714
4 0.649 0.548
5 0.395 0.376
6 - 0.548
Indices at Accuracy
Cut Points False False
Cut Point Accuracy Positives Negatives Consistency
1/2 0.984 0.010 0.006 0.977
2/3 0.954 0.022 0.024 0.936
3/4 0.915 0.025 0.060 0.884
4/5 0.868 0.075 0.057 0.813
5/6 0.956 0.044 0.000 0.956

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 622 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National
Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and
psychological testing. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Bauman, J., Boals, T., Cranley, E., Gottlieb, M., and Kenyon, D.M. (2007). The Newly
Developed English Language Tests (World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment
– WIDA). In Abedi, Jamal (Ed.), English Language Proficiency Assessment in the
Nation: Current Status and Future Practice. Davis: University of California.
Brennan, R.L. (2004). BB-CLASS: a computer program that uses the beta-binomial model for
classification consistency and accuracy. [Computer Software]. Iowa City, IA: CASMA
Cook, H. G. (2007). Alignment Study Report: The WIDA Consortium’s English Language
Proficiency Standards for English Language Learners in Kindergarten through Grade
12 to ACCESS for ELLs® Assessment. Madison, WI: WIDA Consortium.
Cook, H. G., Boals, T., Wilmes, C., and Santos, M. (2007). Issues in the Development of Annual
Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) for WIDA Consortium States.
Madison, WI: WIDA Consortium.
Cronbach, L.J., Schonemann, P., & McKie, D. (1965). Alpha coefficients for stratified-parallel
tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25, 291-312.
Fairbairn, S., & Fox, J. (2009). Inclusive achievement testing for linguistically and culturally
diverse test takers: Essential considerations for test developers and decision makers.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(1), 10–24.
Fox, J. (2011). Test review: ACCESS for ELLs®. Language Testing 28 (3): 425-431.
Gottlieb, M. (2004). English Language Proficiency Standards for English Language Learners in
Kindergarten through Grade 12: Framework for Large-Scale State and Classroom
Assessment. Madison, WI: WIDA Consortium.
Gottlieb, M. (2012). ACCESS for ELLs® Interpretive Guide for Score Reports (WIDA
Consortium). Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin
System.
Gottlieb, M., and Boals, T. (2005). Considerations in Reconfiguring Cohorts and Resetting
Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) based on ACCESS for ELLs®
Data (WIDA Consortium Technical Report No. 3).
Gottlieb, M. and Kenyon, D.M. (2006). The Bridge Study between Tests of English Language
Proficiency and ACCESS for ELLs® (WIDA Consortium Technical Report No. 2).
Kane, M., & Case, S.M. (2004). The reliability and validity of weighted composite scores.
Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 221-240.
Kamata, A., Turhan, A., & Darandari, E. (2003, April). Estimating reliability for
multidimensional composite scale scores. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 623 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Keng, L., Miller, G.E., O’Malley, K. & Turhan, A. (2008). A Generalization of Stratified Alpha
that Allows for Correlated Measurement Errors between Subtests. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York
City, New York.
Kenyon, D.M. (2006). Development and Field Test of ACCESS for ELLs® (WIDA Consortium
Technical Report No. 1).
Kenyon, D.M., MacGregor, D., Li, D., and Cook, H. G. (2011). Issues in vertical scaling of a K-
12 English language proficiency test. Language Testing 28 (3): 383-400.
Kenyon, D.M., MacGregor, D., Louguit, M. Cho, B., and Ryu, J.R. (Willow), (2007). Annual
Technical Report for ACCESS for ELLs® English Language Proficiency Test, Series
101, 2005-2006 Administration (WIDA Consortium Annual Technical Report No. 2).
Kenyon, D.M., MacGregor, D., Ryu, J.R. (Willow), Cho, B., and Louguit, M. (2006). Annual
Technical Report for ACCESS for ELLs® English Language Proficiency Test, Series
100, 2004-2005 Administration (WIDA Consortium Annual Technical Report No. 1)
Kenyon, D.M., Ryu, J.R. (Willow), and MacGregor, D. (2013). Setting Grade Level Cut Scores
for ACCESS for ELLs®. (WIDA Consortium Technical Report No. 4).
Lee, W., Hanson, B.A., & Brennan, R.L. (2002). Estimating consistency and accuracy indices for
multiple classifications. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 412-432.
Linacre, J.M. (n.d). Displacement measures. Retrieved from
http://www.winsteps.com/winman/displacement.htm.
Linacre, J.M. (2002, Autumn). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean?
Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16, 878. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from
www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt162f.htm)
Linacre, J.M. (2006). Winsteps Rasch analysis ver. 3.60.1, date 02-02-2006 [Computer
Program]. www.winsteps.com
Livingston, S.A., & Lewis, C. (1995). Estimating the consistency and accuracy of classifications
based on test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 179-197.
MacGregor, D., Kenyon, D.M., Gibson, S., and Evans, E. (2009). Development and Field Test of
Kindergarten ACCESS for ELLs®. (WIDA Consortium).
MacGregor, D., Louguit, M., Yanosky, T., Fidelman, C. G., Pan, M., Huang, X., and Kenyon,
D.M. (2010). Annual Technical Report for ACCESS for ELLs® English Language
Proficiency Test, Series 200, 2008-2009 Administration (WIDA Consortium Annual
Technical Report No. 5).
MacGregor, D., Louguit, M., Huang, X., and Kenyon, D.M. (2009). Annual Technical Report for
ACCESS for ELLs® English Language Proficiency Test, Series 103, 2007-2008
Administration (WIDA Consortium Annual Technical Report No. 4).
MacGregor, D., Louguit, M., Ryu, J.R. (Willow), Kenyon, D.M., and Li, D. (2008). Annual
Technical Report for ACCESS for ELLs® English Language Proficiency Test, Series
102, 2006-2007 Administration (WIDA Consortium Annual Technical Report No. 3).
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 624 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Rudner, L. (2001, Spring). Informed test component weighting. Educational Measurement:
Issues and Practice, 20:1, 16-19.
National Research Council. (2011). Allocating federal funds for state programs for English
language learners. Panel to Review Alternative Data Sources for the Limited-English
Proficiency Allocation Formula under Title III, Part A, Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, Committee on National Statistics and Board on Testing and
Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
Parker, C. E., Louie, J., and O’Dwyer, L. (2009). New measures of English language proficiency
and their relationship to performance on large-scale content assessments (Issues &
Answers Report, REL 2009–No. 066). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands.
Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs, January 29, 2009.
Römhild, A., Kenyon, D. M., and MacGregor, D. (2011). Exploring domain-general and domain-
specific linguistic knowledge in the assessment of academic English language
proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8:213-228.
Waller, N.G. (n.d.). EZDIF: a computer program for detecting uniform and nonuniform
differential item functioning with the Mantel-Haenszel and logistic regression
procedures. [Computer Software]. Davis, CA: University of California – Davis.
Wang, H., Choi, I., Schmidgall, J., & Bachman, L. F. (2012). Review of Pearson Test of English
Academic: Building an assessment use argument. Language Testing, 29(4), 603-619.
WIDA Consortium. (2007). English Language Proficiency Standards and Resource Guide, 2007
Edition, PreKindergarten through Madison, Wisconsin: Board of Regents of the
University of Wisconsin System. Grade 12.
WIDA Consortium. (2012a). 2012 Amplification of the English Language Development
Standards Kindergarten–Grade 12. Madison, Wisconsin: Board of Regents of the
University of Wisconsin System.
WIDA Consortium (2012b). WIDA ACCESS for ELLs™ Test Administration Manual.
Retrieved from http://www.wida.us/assessment/ACCESS/#about.
WIDA Consortium. (2013). Interpretive Guide for Score Reports Spring 2013 (WIDA
Consortium). Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin
System.
Wright, B.D., & Stone, M.H. (1979). Best test design: Rasch measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA
Press.
Wolf, M., Kao, J., Griffin, N., Herman, J., Bachman, P., Chang, S., and Farnsworth, T. (2008).
Issues In Assessing English Language Learners: English Language Proficiency
Measures And Accommodation Uses. Practice Review (Part 2 Of 3). Los Angeles, CA:
CRESST Report 732, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing.
WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 625 Series 302 (2013-2014)
Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Yanosky, T., Amos, M., Louguit, M., Olson, Cameron, C., Louguit, M., MacGregor, D., Yen, S.,
and Kenyon, D.M. (2013). Annual Technical Report for ACCESS for ELLs® English
Language Proficiency Test, Series 203, 2011-2012 Administration (WIDA Consortium
Annual Technical Report No. 8).
Yanosky, T., Chong, A., Louguit, M., Olson, E., Choi, Y., MacGregor, D., Yen, S., Cameron, C.,
and Kenyon, D.M. (2012). Annual Technical Report for ACCESS for ELLs® English
Language Proficiency Test, Series 202, 2010-2011 Administration (WIDA Consortium
Annual Technical Report No. 7).
Yanosky, T., Yen, S., Louguit, M., MacGregor, D., Zhang, Y., and Kenyon, D.M. (2011).
Annual Technical Report for ACCESS for ELLs® English Language Proficiency Test,
Series 201, 2009-2010 Administration (WIDA Consortium Annual Technical Report
No. 6).
Young, M.J., & Yoon, B. (1998, April). Estimating the consistency and accuracy of
classifications in a standards-referenced assessment (CSE Tech. Rep. 475). Los
Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Graduate School of Education and
Information Studies.
Zieky, M. (1993). Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In P.
Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Zwick, R., Donoghue, J.R., & Grima, A. (1993). Assessment of differential item functioning for
performance tasks. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 233-251.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 626 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures
Acknowledgements
We would like to extend our appreciation to the many CAL staff members who have supported
this work, including:

Melissa Amos, M.S.

Catherine Cameron, M.A.
Deepak Ebenezer, M.S.
Simon Fong, B.A.
Dale Ingram, B.A.
Mohammed Louguit, Ph.D.
James Marcus, Ph.D.
Dorry M. Kenyon, Ph.D.
David MacGregor, Ph.D.
April Maddy, Ed.M.
Jennifer Renn, Ph.D.
Shauna Sweet, M.S.
Shu Jing Yen, Ph.D.
Xin Yu, M.A.

WIDA ACCESS Annual Tech Rpt 10 627 Series 302 (2013-2014)

Return to Visual Table of Tables and Figures