Growth on NWEA's MAP tests with initial high scores

[kcab]

I'm wondering if any of you have experience using NWEA's computerized MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) tests with high academic achievement children. Specifically, NWEA publishes expected growth numbers, which I'm guessing are more valid for students scoring near the norm group mean than for kids who are testing farther out. Does anyone have any information about what to expect for growth when kids start out scoring in the upper percentile ranges?

Also, any observations about substantial declines in scores? My child's pattern is generally saw-toothed in one area, though the lows are still high values for her grade level. Anyone know if that is that odd, or just sort of normal variation? I'm basically not sure whether to worry or not. Also, I may have more data to hand and thus see trends earlier than her teacher since I have results from earlier years when my child was in a different school district.

I know it's a long-shot that anyone here has info, but thanks for any feedback. I've called NWEA, haven't managed to reach anyone other than voice mail yet.

Thanks!

[Melissae Stiles]

I have been dealing with this in a big way. MAP as our main diagnostic tool for preassessment. With the way my gifted students' scores vacillate-- I cringe when we use it as a preassessment tool. The test itself may be valid, but the way students take it is not. I've had long conversations with my students about MAP. They feel pressured to finish by other students, inadvertently even by teachers, and even the schedule. (They want to get to PE, etc). If they accidentally get an easier question wrong, it knocks them back to a lower category of questions. It is my assumption that it would be difficult to get back into those upper 90's percentile scores.
Of course, this all assumes the student cares about the test...some of my high school students are getting antagonistic about testing. We are just going to see this trend grow year after year I'm afraid.
Sorry for the rant...this has been a major frustration of mine.
I'm very interested to hear what others have to say and their experience with MAP. If anyone knows how to get that growth graph that compares an individual student to his/her peer group...Send me the directions!! Thanks.

[kcab]

Interesting, interesting! And a relief to hear that it's not just my child. I bet time pressure is part of what is happening with my daughter. I know she had to return to finish up at least two areas last spring and this fall all of her tests were completed in the originally allotted time. I'm wondering if part of the saw-tooth is that teachers are more likely to emphasize that kids can take their time in the spring since they want to see progress. Hmmm.

I can see how this would play havoc if using MAP to select for gifted programs.

[Melissae Stiles]

As a parent, I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into the scores. There is just too many variables... Maybe if you see a downward trend over a few testing seasons.

[Nancy Bosch]

I'm a gifted teacher and use MAP as part of our assessment process, but just a small part. The beauty of the MAP test vs. ITBS is that is has no ceiling---the bright kids can just go and go! Also, after looking at MAP scores for identified gifted and non identifed students, I feel it only discriminates at the 99%ile. I could explain that further if you are interested. Also there is a lot of flucuation from test to test....it's a snapshot of that kid on that day.

[kcab]

Yes, that's one of the things I like about MAP too.

I'm guessing that by "it only discriminates at the 99%ile" you mean that previously non-identified students scoring in the 99th %ile should then be considered gifted? Though I can think of a few other meanings, so maybe a short explanation is useful.

I was surprised by the degree of variation. I've seen a fairly smooth progression in math, until this last test. Reading and Language Usage have been more variable. Anyway, this is starting to sound like not a big deal, probably just a reflection of how engaged she was by the tests this fall. Thanks for the feedback.

[Nancy Bosch]

Here is an example from our district, a large suburban one. 2.3% of third graders score in the 99th%---by 6th grade 17.3% score at the 95%ile or above. Is a kiddo at the 99%ile gifted--not necessarily; do all identifed gifted kiddos score in the 99%ile? No, but usually will score in the 99%ile in either reading or math. I have several students who scored in the 99%ile in both but one of them took 4 1/2 hours to take the test when the average is about an hour. So not only is she smart---she is damn persistent! Iv'e also seen 15 percentage point variance from Spring to Fall testing.

There is growth noted at the upper range as the RIT score in the 99%ile can go from say 235-260. You've tapped out my MAP knowledge! N

[kcab]

You've tapped out my MAP knowledge!

I'm so glad you've shared it though! Our current school district only started giving MAP tests a year ago, so they don't have a lot of experience to help me with questions like this one.

[Cindy Sheets]

I'm also using the MAP scores to as part of the data in the identification process. We looked at all of our already identified students, then their scores. While most were in the upper 90's (percentiles) we had kids with scores as low as 75 on a test or in one area. I find the scores very difficult to assess - other than giving an approximation that they are continuing to learn skills. I'm still trying to understand the lexiles and RIT scores and how that fits into the picture. And if a student get an 90% but that's the highest in the grade, what does that mean?

[kcab]

And if a student get an 90% but that's the highest in the grade, what does that mean?

I'm not the expert here, but one thing I believe is that it could mean there is a mismatch between the terms used in the classroom and in the test. Or, that there is an expectation in the test that certain terms will be understood at a given achievement level. I'm probably not expressing this well, I'll give an example.

During one test session my daughter did not understand what the word "thesis" meant. Perhaps she should have known the word but she did not. She was confronted with a sequence of questions beginning with "what is the thesis of this" and ending with "what is the meaning of the word "thesis"". ( I heard lots about this on the walk home that day.) My assumption is that this would probably reduce a score over that which would have been attained with a different initial question.

I've also heard a teacher say that one thing she learned from her students' tests was that she needed to use certain words in the classroom. If I remember correctly , the word "autobiography" was one that she saw as a stumbling block for several students.

[James Shaeffer]

About the idea that students can just go and go...

This may be more true for math than for reading. However, both Math and Reading MAP tests require students to answer questions about concepts to which they have not yet been introduced. For example, a 7th grader might get a question about a type of logic called "Syllogistic Logic" on the Reading test (which is on there). That is something I can guarantee most middle schools who use the MAP do not include in their curriculum. Because of this, I would argue there really is a ceiling since the reading MAP test, at least in MN, requires very obscure literary terms and philosophy after a certain point.

On the state test, a 6th grader could technically be proficient on the 10th grade reading test, since it is more of a true reading comprehension test based on fiction, non-fiction and vocabulary in context.
I don't know if the same could be said for the MAP test since it is based on Language Arts standards, not just reading exclusively. They may score as high as a 10th grader will now and again if they get a few extra questions right, but because of the specific terms like "paradox" and "Strawman" and Greek roots out of context, it seems there is more of a ceiling since terms are taught at specific grade levels, and students wouldn't and shouldn't know what they are.

The testing specialists from the district told me they are supposed to get those questions wrong ( 50%). I have a personal conflict with that too since it goes against the middle school philosophy. To me, that feels like a ceiling.

[Tina McIver]

Because we've seen such variation in the scores, we are only using this as a "tool" for preassessment, which sounds like what others are doing. It is not our academic piece and we, in our co-op, are still relying on the WJ for documenting the academic side of things for identification.

There is a sheet that you can get from the NWEA that shows what they consider to be gifted cutoff scores, but once again, we've seen such variation that we really aren't putting a whole lot of stock in them for the identification piece.

[Nancy Bosch]

I find the cutoffs for both gifted and pre-algebra low on the NWEA handout.