Attachment-E_K-3_Scoring_Rubric.docx
DOCX document 93 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Assessments: Literacy Screening Tool for K-3
- Solicitation number
- 2000018472
- Issued by
- Minnesota
About this file
This file is a scoring rubric for evaluating Grade K-3 Universal and Dyslexia Literacy Screener tools submitted in response to a Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) solicitation administered by the Minnesota Department of Administration. The rubric establishes a two-phase evaluation process for literacy screening tools designed to serve kindergarten through third-grade students across Minnesota's Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV) Program. Phase I requires vendors to verify that their tools meet eleven mandatory specifications, including assessment of required literacy skills (RAN, phonemic awareness, letter sounds, decoding, and reading fluency depending on grade level), administration capability within 15 minutes or less, secure data submission and storage capacity, compliance with an April 2027 data dictionary deadline, ability to screen at least three times annually, administration by staff without specific licensure requirements, and documentation of validity, reliability, and normative data collected within the past 15 years. Tools that satisfy all Phase I criteria advance to Phase II evaluation, which assesses three major competency areas: Purpose and Utility (assessment use, ease of score interpretation, and breadth of skills assessed), Psychometric Rigor (validity evidence, reliability evidence, norm group composition, criterion-referenced standards, measurement models, and bias analysis), and Administration and Scoring (ease of use, integrated dashboard functionality, standardized protocols, multilingual supports, and accommodations guidance).
Phase II scoring is based on a detailed point system across multiple indicators within each section, with points awarded based on rating scales that range from zero to five depending on the indicator. The rubric emphasizes contemporary evidence, requiring validity and reliability data collected within the last five years for optimal scoring and normative data representative of demographic diversity and geographic regions across the United States. Specific scoring sections assign points for features such as progress monitoring capability, diagnostic capacity, curriculum alignment, Minnesota approval status, meaningful score presentation, instructional recommendations, and assessment of oral language, listening comprehension, reading comprehension, vocabulary, spelling, and morphology. The rubric requires vendors to demonstrate clear administration guidelines, provide culturally responsive content reviewed for bias, offer training and ongoing professional development, and supply parent-friendly reports along with detailed technical documentation.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attach_F_Price_Schedule.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Sample_Contract.pdf | ||
| Addendum-One.pdf | ||
| Assessments__Literacy_Screening_Tool_for_K-3.pdf | ||
| RFP_attachments.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP.pdf | ||
| Attachment-D_Specifications.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Attachment E
Grade K-3 Universal and Dyslexia Literacy Screener Rubric Name of Tool(s): _______________________________________ Verification of Phase I Required Criteria (Specification Sections 1-11)
| Grade Levels: Kindergarten | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 (Required specification 1.5) |
| Required Criteria | Met/Not Met/NA | Notes |
Kindergarten Skills: RAN, Phonemic Awareness, Letter Sounds, Decoding with Nonsense Words Grade 1 Skills: Phonemic Awareness, Decoding with Nonsense Words, Reading Fluency Rate and Accuracy Grade 2 Skills: Decoding with Nonsense Words, Reading Fluency Rate and Accuracy Grade 3 Skills: Decoding with Nonsense Words, Reading Fluency Rate and Accuracy Tool includes distinct subtests that measure required skills.
If individually administered, all required subtests can be completed in 15 minutes or less.
Student data can be submitted to MDE by both the vendor, securely, and/or the district through the download of a spreadsheet in the vendor dashboard.
Student data reports both individual subtest scores for each student and rank or risk level.
Tool can collect and store data for all required district, school and student identifiers.
Contractor agrees to obtain data sharing agreements with each district Contract can comply with April 2027 deadline for data dictionary or can provide a data dictionary to MDE in time to meet MNIT requirements for database development Tool can screen for literacy skills at least 3 times per year including fall, winter and spring.
Tool can be administered by a wide range of staff. Specific licensure is NOT required.
Manuals or documents detailing administration and technical adequacy are provided Documentation provides evidence of multiple types of validity and reliability including external criterion validity.
Validity and reliability studies were conducted within the past 15 years.
Normative data was collected within the past 15 years.
All Required Criteria Met for Grades Selected Yes, tool moves to Phase II No, tool removed from further consideration
Phase II Sections, Indicators and Score Section 1: Purpose and Utility Indicators of Purpose and Utility Score Possible Points
1.1 Assessment Use
1.2 Ease of Use of Scores
1.3 Preferred Skills Assessed
Section 2: Psychometric Rigor
| Indicators of Psychometric Rigor |
| Score |
Possible Points
2.1 Evidence of Validity
2.2 Evidence of Reliability
2.3 Norm Group Composition and Use
2.4 Evidence for Criterion-Referenced Standard Setting and/or Benchmarks
2.5 Evidence of Measurement Model and Item Scaling
2.6 Psychometric Bias
Section 3: Administration and Scoring
| Indicators of Administration and Scoring |
| Score |
Possible Points
3.1 Ease of Use
3.2 Integrated Dashboard
3.3 Standardized Protocols for Data Interpretation
3.4 Multilingual Supports
3.5 Accommodations Supports
Total Phase II Points: _______________________ Total Phase II Possible Points: ____________
Ratings by Sections and Indicators Section 1: Purpose and Utility
| Indicators of 1.1 Assessment Use |
| Rating Scale |
| Score |
| Notes |
| 1.1.1 Is the test designed to be used as a progress monitoring tool? |
| No = 0 |
Yes = 1 to 5 Points awarded per required subtest
| 1.1.2 Does the test have diagnostic capacity? |
| No = 0 |
Yes = 1
| 1.1.3 Tool is aligned to an evidence-based curriculum. |
| No = 0 |
| 1.1.4 Tool is currently approved for use in Minnesota. |
| No = 0 |
Total Points for Section 1.1
____Total Possible Points
| Indicators of 1.2 Ease of Use of Scores |
| Ratings |
| Score |
| Notes |
| 1.2.1 Are the scores presented in meaningful metrics? (e.g. percentiles, benchmarks) |
| No = 0 |
Yes = 1 -5
| 1.2.2 To what degree are the scores presented with useful tools that support easy interpretation. (e.g. tier level color coding) |
| Scores are difficult to use for interpretation = 0 |
Scores provide adequate ease of interpretation = 1 Scores are easy to use for interpretation = 2
| 1.2.3 To what degree does the tool offer instructional recommendations that align with the purposes of the test and can be meaningfully interpreted. |
| Weak recommendations, not aligned to test purpose and interpretation = 0 |
Adequate recommendations, aligned to test purpose and interpretation = 1 Strong recommendations aligned to test purpose and interpretation= 2
| 1.2.4 Dashboard or tool visuals are easy to understand and logically displayed. |
| No = 0 |
| 1.2.5 Does the test provide clear guidance to monitor progress across the academic year based on initial testing information obtained at the beginning of the year? |
| No = 0 |
Total Points for Section 1.2
____Total Possible Points
| Indicators 1.3 Preferred Skills Assessed |
| Ratings |
| Score |
| Notes |
| 1.3.1 Includes assessment of oral language |
| No = 0 |
Yes = 1 -3 per grade K-2
Weight = x 5
| 1.3.2 Includes assessment of listening comprehension |
| No = 0 |
Yes = 1 -3 per grade K-2
| 1.3.3 Includes assessment of reading comprehension |
| No = 0 |
Yes = 1 – 2 per grade 2-3
Weight = x 2
| 1.3.4 Includes assessment of vocabulary |
| No = 0 |
Yes = 1 – 2
| 1.3.5 Includes assessment of spelling |
| No = 0 |
Yes = 1 – 2
| 1.3.6 Includes assessment of morphology |
| No = 0 |
Yes = 1- 2
Total Points for Section 1.3
____Total Possible Points
Section 2: Psychometric Rigor
| Indicators of 2.1 Evidence of Validity |
| Ratings |
| Score |
| Notes |
| 2.1.1 To what degree does the measure clearly define the purposes of the assessment. |
| No definition=0 |
Weak definition = 1 Moderate definition = 2 Strong definition = 3
| 2.1.2 To what degree does the technical manual offer evidence of content related validity. (e.g. table of specifications, content expertise review). |
| No evidence = 0 |
Weak evidence = 1 Moderate evidence = 2 Strong evidence = 3
| 2.1.3 To what degree does the technical manual offer evidence of criterion related validity. (e.g. evidence supporting concurrent validity, predictive validity). |
| No evidence = 0 |
Weak evidence =1
| 2.1.4 To what degree does the technical manual offer evidence of internal validity. (e.g. factor analysis). |
| No evidence = 0 |
Weak evidence= 1
| 2.1.5 To what degree does the technical manual offer evidence of construct validity. (e.g. theoretical foundation, evidence of convergent and divergent validity) |
| No evidence = 0 |
Weak evidence= 1
| 2.1.6 Test content shows statistical differentiation among grades/levels. |
| No = 0 |
| 2.1.7 Is validity data based on a recent sample? |
| Data collected 10-14 years ago=0 |
Data collected 8 to 9 years ago =1 Data collected 6 to 7 years ago =2 Data collected within the last 5 years =3
| 2.1.8 Is validity data based on a demographically representative sample? |
| Only one group represented = 0 |
2-3 groups represented =1 4 - 5 groups represented =2 6 or more groups represented=3
| 2.1.9 Is validity data based on a US regionally representative sample? |
| Only one region represented = 0 |
2-3 regions represented =1 4-5 regions represented =2 6 or more regions represented=3
Total Points for Section 2.1
____Total Possible Points
| Indicators of 2.2 Evidence of Reliability |
| Ratings |
| Score |
| Notes |
| 2.2.1 Reports measures of reliability for each required subtest and grade level. |
| No = 0 |
Yes = 1 to 11 Points awarded per required subtest per grade
| 2.2.2 To what degree does the technical manual offer evidence of adequate test-retest reliability. |
| No evidence = 0 |
Weak evidence =1
| 2.2.3 To what degree does the technical manual offer evidence of adequate parallel forms reliability. |
| No evidence = 0 |
Weak evidence =1 Moderate evidence = 2
N/A if not applicable
| 2.2.4 To what degree does the technical manual offer evidence of adequate internal consistency reliability. (e.g Cronbach’s alpha, KR-20, KR-21). |
| No evidence = 0 |
Weak evidence =1
| 2.2.5 To what degree does the technical manual offer evidence of adequate item-level reliability. |
| No evidence = 0 |
Weak evidence =1 Moderate evidence = 2
N/A if not applicable
| 2.2.6 Are standard errors reported? |
| No = 0; and 0 in 2.2.8 |
| 2.2.7 To what degree do reports of standard errors show adequately low rates of error. |
| Evidence of high error rates = 0 |
Evidence of average error rates = 1 Evidence of low error rates = 2
| 2.2.8 Are inter-rater reliability rates reported for subtests that require raters? |
| No = 0 |
N/A if no subtests require raters
| 2.2.9 To what degree does the technical manual offer evidence of adequate inter-rater reliability for subtests that require raters. |
| No evidence = 0 |
Weak evidence =1 Moderate evidence = 2
N/A if no subtests require raters
| 2.2.10 Is reliability data based on a recent sample? |
| Data collected 10-14 years ago=0 |
Data collected 8 to 9 years ago =1 Data collected 6 to 7 years ago =2
| 2.2.11 Is reliability data based on demographically representative sample? |
| Only one group represented = 0 |
2-3 groups represented =1
| 2.2.12 Is reliability data based on a US regionally representative sample? |
| Only one region represented = 0 |
2-3 regions represented =1
Total Points for Section 2.2
____Total Possible Points
| Indicators of 2.3 Norm Group Composition and Use |
| Ratings |
| Score |
| Notes |
| 2.3.1 Current normative data is based on a recent sample. |
| Data collected 10-14 years ago=0 |
Data collected 8 to 9 years ago =1 Data collected 6 to 7 years ago =2
Points awarded per required grade; max 12
| 2.3.2 Is normative data based on a demographically representative sample representative of Minnesota? |
| Only one group represented = 0 |
2-3 groups represented =1
| 2.3.3 Is normative data based on a US regionally representative sample? |
| Only one region represented = 0 |
2-3 regions represented =1
| 2.3.4 Reports expected rates of growth for subtests with grade level norms. |
| No = 0 |
Total Points for Section 2.3
____Total Possible Points
| Indicators of 2.4 Evidence for Criterion-Referenced Standard |
| Ratings |
| Score |
| Notes |
| 2.4.1 Tool uses criteria-referenced standards to classify performance based on the use of the test (e.g. benchmark goals, growth expectations). |
| No = 0 |
| 2.4.2 Tool produces scores that show mastery of skills measured. |
| No = 0 |
| 2.4.3 Tool produces scores that allow students to “test out” of further screening when mastery has been achieved. |
| No = 0 |
Total Points for Section 2.4
____Total Possible Points
| Indicators of 2.5 Evidence of Measurement Model and Item Scaling |
| Ratings |
| Score |
| Notes |
| 2.5.1 Item or subtest level analysis are provided in the technical manual. |
| No = 0 |
Total Points for Section 2.5
____Total Possible Points
| Indicators of 2.6 Psychometric Bias |
| Ratings |
| Score |
| Notes |
| 2.6.1 Content of test materials is culturally responsive and represents a variety of identities, cultures, and values. |
| No = 0 |
| 2.6.2 Content has been reviewed by collaborative teams that represent key targeted communities for bias. |
| No = 0 |
| 2.6.3 Does the technical manual report differential item functioning statistics based on identified groups the test may be biased towards? (e.g. special education eligible, sex, language status, race. etc.) |
| No= 0 |
per group represented; max 10
Total Points for Section 2.6
____Total Possible Points
Section 3: Administration and Scoring
| Indicators of 3.1 Ease of Use |
| Ratings |
| Score |
| Notes |
| 3.1.1 The vendor provides user friendly training and the potential for ongoing professional development. |
| No = 0 |
| 3.1.2 Scoring procedures are clear and accessible. |
| No = 0 |
| 3.1.3 If test is computerized, estimated time to complete administration and scoring of required subtests is reasonable and developmentally appropriate. |
| Over 90 minutes = 0 |
90 to 60 minutes = 1 59 to 31 minutes = 2 30 minutes or less = 3
Total Points for Section 3.1
____Total Possible Points
| Indicators of 3.2 Integrated Dashboard |
| Ratings |
| Score |
| Notes |
| 3.2.1 Required technology assets are clearly defined and easy to integrate. (e.g. requiring tablets, internet, API connections.). |
| No = 0 |
| 3.2.2 Dashboard visuals are easy to understand and logically displayed. |
| No = 0 |
Total Points for Section 3.2
____Total Possible Points
| Indicators of 3.3 Standardized Protocols for Data Interpretation |
| Ratings |
| Score |
| Notes |
| 3.3.1 Are the administration guidelines clear? |
| No = 0 |
Moderately = 1 Very clear = 2
| 3.3.2 Are the administration guidelines standardized (fully or partially scripted)? |
| No = 0 |
Partially = 1 Fully = 2
| 3.3.3 Are the administration guidelines easy to implement? |
| No = 0 |
Very = 2
| 3.3.4 Reports are easy to read. |
| No = 0 |
| 3.3.5 Reports are easy interpret. |
| No = 0 |
| 3.3.6 Reports provide sufficient detail to support deep understanding of student performance profiles. |
| No = 0 |
Limited = 1 Sufficient = 2 Detailed = 3
| 3.3.7 Does the tool provide a report appropriate for parents and guardians. |
| No = 0 |
Basic report = 1 Detailed report =2 Detailed report with home activities = 3
Total Points for Section 3.3
____Total Possible Points
| Indicators of 3.4 Multilingual Supports |
| Ratings |
| Score |
| Notes |
| 3.4.1 Is the test available in a language other than English? |
| No = 0 |
Yes, one other = 1 Yes, two others = 2 Yes, more than two others = 3
| 3.4.2 To what degree does the test manual provide guidance for multilingual learners? |
| No support = 0 |
Weak support = 1 Moderate support = 2 Strong support = 3
Total Points for Section 3.4
____Total Possible Points
| Indicators of 3.5 Accommodations Supports |
| Ratings |
| Score |
| Notes |
| 3.5.1 Does the test manual define accommodations and adequately distinguish accommodations from modifications? |
| No definition=0 |
Defines accommodations only = 1 Defines accommodations and distinguishes from modifications = 2
| 3.5.2 Does the test manual provide guidance on how accommodations can be made that maintain the rigor of the test while supporting children with disabilities using the assessment? |
| No support = 0 |
Weak support = 1 Moderate support = 2 Strong support = 3
Total Points for Section 3.5
____Total Possible Points
Link to documents provided in survey Administration manual:
Technical manual also provided in survey for documentation of validity, reliability and classification accuracy:
| Communications Plan for <insert name of plan> | 1 |
| 2026 Review | 1 |
image2.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .