Benchmarks and Composite Score

Acadience Reading K–6 provides two types of scores at each benchmark assessment period: (a) a raw score for each

individual measure and (b) a composite score (the Reading Composite Score). Each of the scores is interpreted relative to

benchmarks and cut points for risk to determine if a student’s score is at or above the benchmark, below the benchmark,

or below the cut point for risk (well below the benchmark).

Benchmarks and Cut Points for Risk

Acadience Reading benchmarks are empirically derived, criterion-referenced target scores that represent adequate

reading skill for a particular grade and time of year. Benchmarks and cut points for risk are provided for the Reading

Composite Score as well as for the individual Acadience Reading measures. Benchmarks and cut points for Acadience

Reading are based on research that examines the predictive validity of a score on a measure at a particular point in time,

compared to later Acadience Reading measures and external outcome assessments.

A benchmark indicates a level of skill at which students are likely to score above the 40th percentile on any high-quality

reading assessment and achieve the next Acadience Reading benchmark or reading outcome. Thus, for students who

achieve a benchmark and are receiving effective, research-based instruction from a core classroom curriculum, the odds

are in their favor of achieving later reading outcomes.

Conversely, the cut points for risk indicate a level of skill below which students are unlikely to achieve subsequent reading

outcomes without receiving additional, targeted instructional support. For students who have scores below the cut point for

risk, the probability of achieving later benchmarks is low unless intensive support is provided.

The Acadience Reading benchmarks and cut points for risk provide three primary benchmark status levels that describe

students’ performance: (a) At or Above Benchmark, (b) Below Benchmark, and (c) Well Below Benchmark. These levels

are based on the overall likelihood of achieving specied benchmarks on subsequent Acadience Reading assessments or

external measures of reading achievement.

At or Above Benchmark. For students who score at or above the benchmark, the overall likelihood of achieving

subsequent reading benchmarks is approximately 80% to 90%. These students are likely to need effective core

instruction to meet subsequent early literacy and/or reading benchmarks. Within this range, the likelihood of achieving

subsequent benchmarks is lower for students whose scores are right at the benchmark and increases as scores

increase above the benchmark (see Table 1). A score at or above the benchmark indicates that the odds are in the

student’s favor of achieving the next benchmark, but it is not a guarantee. For example, if students at or above the

benchmark have an 85% chance of meeting the next benchmark, that means that 15% of students in the At or Above

Benchmark range may not achieve the subsequent benchmark. Some students who achieve scores at or above the

benchmark may still need supplemental support to achieve the next benchmark. It is important to attend to other

indicators of risk when planning support for students, such as attendance, behavior, motivation, vocabulary and

language skills, and other related skill areas.

To assist in setting ambitious goals for students, the At or Above Benchmark level is subdivided into At Benchmark and

Above Benchmark levels.

At Benchmark. In the At Benchmark range, the overall likelihood of achieving subsequent early literacy and/or

reading benchmarks is 70% to 85%. Some of these students, especially those with scores near the benchmark,

may require monitoring and/or strategic support on specic component skills.

Above Benchmark. In the Above Benchmark range, the overall likelihood of achieving subsequent early literacy

and/or reading benchmarks is 90% to 99%. While all students with scores in this range will likely benet from core

support, some students with scores in this range may benet from instruction on more advanced skills.

reading k–6

Benchmarks and Composite Score

Below Benchmark. Between the benchmark and cut point for risk is a range of scores where students’ future

performance is more difficult to predict. For students with scores in this range, the overall likelihood of achieving

subsequent early literacy and/or reading benchmarks is approximately 40% to 60%. In this range, a student’s future

performance is harder to predict. These students are likely to need strategic support to ensure their achievement of future

benchmarks. Strategic support generally consists of carefully targeted supplemental support in specic skill areas in which

students are having difficulty. To ensure that the greatest number of students achieve later reading success, it is best for

students with scores in this range to be monitored regularly to ensure that they are making adequate progress and to

receive increased or modied support if necessary to achieve subsequent reading benchmarks.

Well Below Benchmark. For students who score below the cut point for risk, the overall likelihood of achieving

subsequent early literacy and/or reading benchmarks is low, approximately 10% to 20%. These students are identied

as likely to need intensive support. Intensive support refers to interventions that incorporate something more or

something different from the core curriculum or supplemental support.

Intensive support might entail:

• delivering instruction in a smaller group or individually,

• providing more instructional time or more practice,

• presenting smaller skill steps in the instructional hierarchy,

• providing more explicit modeling and instruction, and/or

• providing greater scaffolding and practice.

Because students who need intensive support are likely to have individual needs, we recommend that their progress be

monitored frequently and their intervention modied dynamically to ensure adequate progress.

To gain a better understanding of what Acadience Reading results mean in a local context, districts and schools can

examine the linkages between the Acadience Reading benchmarks and cut points for risk and their own outcome

assessments, such as state-level criterion-referenced tests. By comparing Acadience Reading measures to an outcomes

assessment (e.g., Buck & Torgesen, 2003; Wilson, 2005), and by calculating conditional probabilities (e.g., “80% of

students at benchmark on Acadience Reading ORF at the end of third grade met the Procient level on the state criterion-

referenced test”), schools can determine how the Acadience Reading benchmarks compare to their own external criteria.

The Acadience Reading benchmarks and cut points for risk, along with a brief description of how the Acadience Reading

benchmarks were developed, are described in the sections below.

Table 1 summarizes the design specications for achieving later reading outcomes and provides descriptions for the likely

need for support for each of the benchmark status levels. It is important to note that while there is an overall likelihood for

each benchmark status level, within each level the likelihood of achieving later reading outcomes increases as students’

scores increase. This is illustrated in the rst column of Table 1.

Development of Benchmarks

The Acadience Reading benchmarks, cut points for risk, and Composite Score were developed based upon data collected

in a study conducted during the 2009–2010 school year. The benchmarks are based on research that examined the

predictive probability of a score on a measure at a particular point in time, compared to later Acadience Reading measures

and external measures of reading prociency and achievement. The external criterion measure of reading prociency was

the Group Reading and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE; Williams, 2001). The 40th percentile on the GRADE assessment

was used as an indicator that the students had adequate early literacy and/or reading skills for their grade. Data for the

study were collected in thirteen elementary and middle schools in ve states. Data collection included administering the

Acadience Reading measures to participating students in grades K–6 in addition to the GRADE. Participants in the study

were 3,816 students across grades K–6 from general education classrooms who were receiving English language reading

instruction, including students with disabilities and students who were English language learners, provided they had the

response capabilities to participate. The study included both students who were struggling in reading and those who

were typically achieving. A subset of the total sample participated in the GRADE assessment (n = 1,306 across grades

K–6). Additional information about the study can be found in DIBELS Next®

: Findings from the Benchmark Goals Study,

available from www.acadiencelearning.org.

Acadience

Reading K–6 is the new name for the DIBELS Next

assessment. Acadience is a registered trademark of Acadience Learning Inc. The DIBELS Next copyrighted content is owned by

Acadience Learning Inc. The DIBELS

and DIBELS Next registered trademark was sold by Acadience Learning Inc. to the University of Oregon (UO) and is now owned by the UO.

Table 1. Student Performance Interpretations

Benchmark

Status

Benchmark Status

Including Above

Benchmark What It Means

>99%

95%

90%

80%

70%

60%

55%

50%

45%

40%

30%

20%

10%

<5%

At or Above

Benchmark

overall likelihood

of achieving

subsequent

early literacy

benchmarks:

80% to 90%

Above Benchmark

overall likelihood

of achieving

subsequent early

literacy benchmarks:

90% to 99%

For students with scores in this range, the odds of achieving subsequent early

literacy/reading benchmarks are very good. The higher above the benchmark,

the better the odds.

These students likely need effective core instruction to meet subsequent early

literacy/reading goals. Some students may benefit from instruction on more

advanced skills.

At Benchmark

overall likelihood

of achieving

subsequent early

literacy benchmarks:

70% to 85%

For students with scores in this range, the odds are in favor of achieving

subsequent early literacy/reading benchmarks. The higher above the

benchmark, the better the odds.

These students likely need effective core instruction to meet subsequent early

literacy/reading benchmarks. Some students may require monitoring and

strategic support on specific component skills as needed.

Below

Benchmark

overall likelihood

of achieving

subsequent

early literacy

benchmarks:

40% to 60%

Below Benchmark

overall likelihood

of achieving

subsequent early

literacy benchmarks:

40% to 60%

For students with scores in this range, the overall odds of achieving subsequent

early literac

y/reading benchmarks are approximately even, and hard to predict.

Within this range, the closer students’ scores are to the benchmark, the better

the odds; the closer students’ scores are to the cut point, the lower the odds.

These students likely need core instruction coupled with strategic support,

targeted to their individual needs, to meet subsequent early literacy/reading

benchmarks. For some students whose scores are close to the benchmark,

effective core instruction may be sufficient; students whose scores are close to

the cut point may require more intensive support.

Well Below

Benchmark

overall likelihood

of achieving

subsequent

early literacy

benchmarks:

10% to 20%

Well Below

Benchmark

overall likelihood

of achieving

subsequent early

literacy benchmarks:

10% to 20%

For students with scores in this range, the overall odds of achieving

subsequent early literacy/reading benchmarks are low.

These students likely need intensive support in addition to effective

core instruction. They may also need support on prerequisite skills (i.e.,

below grade level) depending upon the grade level and how far below the

benchmark their skills are.

Likelihood of

Meeting Later

Reading

Benchmarks

The addition of the Above Benchmark status level has not changed the benchmarks. A benchmark is still the point at which the odds are in the student’s favor of meeting later reading benchmarks

(approximately 60% likelihood or higher). The higher above the benchmark the student scores, the better the odds. For students who are already at benchmark, the Above Benchmark status level also

provides a higher benchmark to aim for. “Overall likelihood” refers to the approximate percentage of students within the category who achieve later benchmarks, although the exact percentage varies by

grade, year, and measure.Instructional decisions should be made based on students’ patterns of performance across all measures, in addition to other available information on student skills, such as

diagnostic assessment or in-class work. Acadience is a registered trademark of Acadience Learning Inc. www.acadiencelearning.org

Reading Composite Score

The Reading Composite Score (RCS) is a combination of multiple Acadience Reading scores and provides the best overall

estimate of students’ early literacy skills and/or reading prociency. Most data management services will calculate the RCS

for you, provided that all required measures necessary for calculating it have been administered. To calculate the RCS

yourself, see the Reading Composite Score Worksheets at the end of this document.

Benchmarks and cut points for risk for the RCS are based on the same logic and procedures as the benchmarks for the

individual Acadience Reading measures. However, because the RCS provides the best overall estimate of a student’s skills,

it should generally be interpreted rst. If a student earns a RCS that is at or above the benchmark, the odds are in the

student’s favor of reaching later important reading outcomes. Some students who score At or Above Benchmark on the RCS

may still need additional support in one of the essential early literacy and reading skills, as indicated by a Below Benchmark

score on an individual Acadience Reading measure (FSF, PSF, NWF, ORF, or Maze). This potential need for additional

support is especially true for a student whose RCS is close to the benchmark.

The Acadience Reading measures that are used to calculate the RCS vary by grade and time of year. As such, the RCS

is not comparable across different grades and does not provide a direct measure of growth across grades. For grades K

through 2, the RCS is also not comparable across different times of year and should not be used as an indicator of growth

within a grade. However, because the logic and procedures used to establish benchmarks are consistent across grades

and times of year, the percent of students at different benchmark status levels can be compared, even though the mean

scores are not comparable.

References

Buck, J., & Torgesen, J. (2003). The relationship between performance on a measure of Oral Reading Fluency and

performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. (FCRR Technical Report #1) Tallahassee, FL: Florida

Center for Reading Research.

Williams, K.T. (2001). Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE). New York: Pearson.

Wilson, J. (2005). The relationship of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Reading Fluency to

performance on Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS). Tempe, AZ: Tempe School District No. 3.

Acadience

Reading: Summary of Benchmarks and Cut Points for Risk

38 156 152 129 177 208 202 256 287 289 349 405 341 383 446 386 411 466 435 461 478

26 122 119 113 130 155 141 190 238 220 285 330 290 330 391 357 372 415 344 358 380

13 85 89 97 100 111 109 145 180 180 235 280 245 290 330 258 310 340 280 285 324

16 43

10 30

5 20

44 56 47

20 40 40

10 25 25

Correct

Letter

Sounds

28 40 34 59 81 72

17 28 27 43 58 54

8 15 18 33 47 35

4 17 25 21

Whole

Words

Read

1 8 13 13

0 3 6 6

34 67 68 91 104 90 105 118 104 121 133 121 133 143 139 141 151

Words

Correct

23 47 52 72 87 70 86 100 90 103 115 111 120 130 107 109 120

16 32 37 55 65 55 68 80 70 79 95 96 101 105 90 92 95

Accuracy

86% 97% 96% 99% 99% 98% 99% 99% 98% 99% 100% 99% 99% 100% 99% 99% 100%

78% 90% 90% 96% 97% 95% 96% 97% 96% 97% 98% 98% 98% 99% 97% 97% 98%

68% 82% 81% 91% 93% 89% 92% 94% 93% 94% 95% 95% 96% 97% 94% 94% 96%

Retell

17 25 31 39 33 40 46 36 39 46 40 46 52 43 48 50

15 16 21 27 20 26 30 27 30 33 33 36 36 27 29 32

0 8 13 18 10 18 20 14 20 24 22 25 25 16 18 24

Retell

Quality of

Response

2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3

1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2

11 16 23 18 20 28 21 21 28 27 30 30

8 11 19 15 17 24 18 20 24 18 19 21

5 7 14 10 12 20 12 13 18 14 14 15

Beg

Mid

End

Beg

Mid

End

Beg

Mid

End

Beg

Mid

End

Beg

Mid

End

Beg

Mid

End

Beg

Mid

End

Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade

Third Grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade Sixth Grade

Note: There is no benchmark for Letter Naming Fluency (LNF).

Acadience is a registered trademark of Acadience Learning Inc. This page is adapted from a chart developed by Cache County School District.

Reading Composite Score: A combination of multiple Acadience Reading scores, which provides the best overall

estimate of the student’s reading prociency. For information on how to calculate the composite score, see the

Acadience Reading Composite Score worksheets on pages 21–27.

ABOVE BENCHMARK (small blue number in each box): Students scoring above the benchmark are highly

likely to achieve important reading outcomes (approximately 90% to 99%). These scores are identied as Above

Benchmark. While students scoring Above Benchmark are likely to need Core Support, some may benet from

instruction on more advanced skills.

BENCHMARK (large bold number in the middle of the box): Students scoring at or above the benchmark have the

odds in their favor (approximately 80% to 90%) of achieving later important reading outcomes. These scores are

identied as At or Above Benchmark and the students are likely to need Core Support.

CUT POINT FOR RISK (small red number in each box): Students scoring below the cut point for risk are unlikely

(approximately 10%–20%) to achieve subsequent benchmarks without receiving additional, targeted instructional

support. These scores are identied as Well Below Benchmark and the students are likely to need Intensive Support.

Scores below the benchmark and at or above the cut point for risk are identied as Below Benchmark. In this

range, a student’s future performance is harder to predict, and these students are likely to need Strategic Support.

Reading Composite Score

First Sound Fluency (FSF)

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF)

Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF)

Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)

Maze Adjusted Score

Kindergarten Benchmarks and Cut Points for Risk

Acadience

Reading

Measure

Benchmark

Status Likely Need for Support

Beginning

of Year

Middle

of Year

End

of Year

Reading

Composite

Score

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

38 + 156 + 152 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

26 - 37 122 - 155 119 - 151

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

13 - 25 85 - 121 89 - 118

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 12 0 - 84 0 - 88

FSF

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

16 + 43 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

10 - 15 30 - 42

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

5 - 9 20 - 29

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 4 0 - 19

PSF

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

44 + 56 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

20 - 43 40 - 55

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

10 - 19 25 - 39

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 9 0 - 24

NWF-CLS

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

28 + 40 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

17 - 27 28 - 39

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

8 - 16 15 - 27

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 7 0 - 14

The benchmark is the number that is bold. The cut point for risk is the number that is italicized.

Some students may benet from instruction on more advanced skills.

Some students may require monitoring and strategic support on component skills.

First Grade Benchmarks and Cut Points for Risk

Acadience

Reading

Measure

Benchmark

Status Likely Need for Support

Beginning

of Year

Middle

of Year

End

of Year

Reading

Composite

Score

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

129 + 177 + 208 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

113 - 128 130 - 176 155 - 207

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

97 - 112 100 - 129 111 - 154

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 96 0 - 99 0 - 110

PSF

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

47 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

40 - 46

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

25 - 39

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 24

NWF-CLS

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

34 + 59 + 81 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

27 - 33 43 - 58 58 - 80

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

18 - 26 33 - 42 47 - 57

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 17 0 - 32 0 - 46

NWF-WWR

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

4 + 17 + 25 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

1 - 3 8 - 16 13 - 24

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

0 3 - 7 6 - 12

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 2 0 - 5

ORF

Words

Correct

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

34 + 67 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

23 - 33 47 - 66

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

16 - 22 32 - 46

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 15 0 - 31

ORF

Accuracy

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

86% + 97% +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

78% - 85% 90% - 96%

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

68% - 77% 82% - 89%

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0% - 67% 0% - 81%

Retell

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

17 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

15 - 16

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

0 - 14

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

The benchmark is the number that is bold. The cut point for risk is the number that is italicized.

Some students may benet from instruction on more advanced skills.

Some students may require monitoring and strategic support on component skills.

Second Grade Benchmarks and Cut Points for Risk

Acadience

Reading

Measure

Benchmark

Status Likely Need for Support

Beginning

of Year

Middle

of Year

End

of Year

Reading

Composite

Score

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

202 + 256 + 287 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

141 - 201 190 - 255 238 - 286

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

109 - 140 145 - 189 180 - 237

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 108 0 - 144 0 - 179

NWF-CLS

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

72 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

54 - 71

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

35 - 53

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 34

NWF-WWR

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

21 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

13 - 20

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

6 - 12

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 5

ORF

Words

Correct

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

68 + 91 + 104 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

52 - 67 72 - 90 87 - 103

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

37 - 51 55 - 71 65 - 86

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 36 0 - 54 0 - 64

ORF

Accuracy

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

96% + 99% + 99% +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

90% - 95% 96% - 98% 97% - 98%

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

81% - 89% 91% - 95% 93% - 96%

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0% - 80% 0% - 90% 0% - 92%

Retell

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

25 + 31 + 39 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

16 - 24 21 - 30 27 - 38

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

8 - 15 13 - 20 18 - 26

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 7 0 - 12 0 - 17

Retell

Quality of

Response

At or Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

2 + 2 +

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

1 1

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

The benchmark is the number that is bold. The cut point for risk is the number that is italicized.

Some students may benet from instruction on more advanced skills.

Some students may require monitoring and strategic support on component skills.

Third Grade Benchmarks and Cut Points for Risk

Acadience

Reading

Measure

Benchmark

Status Likely Need for Support

Beginning

of Year

Middle

of Year

End

of Year

Reading

Composite

Score

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

289 + 349 + 405 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

220 - 288 285 - 348 330 - 404

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

180 - 219 235 - 284 280 - 329

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 179 0 - 234 0 - 279

ORF

Words

Correct

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

90 + 105 + 118 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

70 - 89 86 - 104 100 - 117

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

55 - 69 68 - 85 80 - 99

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 54 0 - 67 0 - 79

ORF

Accuracy

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

98% + 99% + 99% +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

95% - 97% 96% - 98% 97% - 98%

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

89% - 94% 92% - 95% 94% - 96%

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0% - 88% 0% - 91% 0% - 93%

Retell

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

33 + 40 + 46 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

20 - 32 26 - 39 30 - 45

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

10 - 19 18 - 25 20 - 29

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 9 0 - 17 0 - 19

Retell

Quality of

Response

At or Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

2 + 2 + 3 +

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

1 1 2

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

Maze

Adjusted

Score

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

11 + 16 + 23 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

8 - 10 11 - 15 19 - 22

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

5 - 7 7 - 10 14 - 18

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 4 0 - 6 0 - 13

The benchmark is the number that is bold. The cut point for risk is the number that is italicized.

Some students may benet from instruction on more advanced skills.

Some students may require monitoring and strategic support on component skills.

Fourth Grade Benchmarks and Cut Points for Risk

Acadience

Reading

Measure

Benchmark

Status Likely Need for Support

Beginning

of Year

Middle

of Year

End

of Year

Reading

Composite

Score

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

341 + 383 + 446 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

290 - 340 330 - 382 391 - 445

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

245 - 289 290 - 329 330 - 390

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 244 0 - 289 0 - 329

ORF

Words

Correct

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

104 + 121 + 133 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

90 - 103 103 - 120 115 - 132

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

70 - 89 79 - 102 95 - 114

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 69 0 - 78 0 - 94

ORF

Accuracy

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

98% + 99% + 100% +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

96% - 97% 97% - 98% 98% - 99%

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

93% - 95% 94% - 96% 95% - 97%

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0% - 92% 0% - 93% 0% - 94%

Retell

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

36 + 39 + 46 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

27 - 35 30 - 38 33 - 45

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

14 - 26 20 - 29 24 - 32

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 13 0 - 19 0 - 23

Retell

Quality of

Response

At or Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

2 + 2 + 3 +

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

1 1 2

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

Maze

Adjusted

Score

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

18 + 20 + 28 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

15 - 17 17 - 19 24 - 27

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

10 - 14 12 - 16 20 - 23

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 9 0 - 11 0 - 19

The benchmark is the number that is bold. The cut point for risk is the number that is italicized.

Some students may benet from instruction on more advanced skills.

Some students may require monitoring and strategic support on component skills.

Fifth Grade Benchmarks and Cut Points for Risk

Acadience

Reading

Measure

Benchmark

Status Likely Need for Support

Beginning

of Year

Middle

of Year

End

of Year

Reading

Composite

Score

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

386 + 411 + 466 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

357 - 385 372 - 410 415 - 465

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

258 - 356 310 - 371 340 - 414

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 257 0 - 309 0 - 339

ORF

Words

Correct

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

121 + 133 + 143 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

111 - 120 120 - 132 130 - 142

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

96 - 110 101 - 119 105 - 129

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 95 0 - 100 0 - 104

ORF

Accuracy

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

99% + 99% + 100%

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

98% 98% 99%

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

95% - 97% 96% - 97% 97% - 98%

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0% - 94% 0% - 95% 0% - 96%

Retell

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

40 + 46 + 52 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

33 - 39 36 - 45 36 - 51

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

22 - 32 25 - 35 25 - 35

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 21 0 - 24 0 - 24

Retell

Quality of

Response

At or Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

2 + 3 + 3 +

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

1 2 2

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

1 1

Maze

Adjusted

Score

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

21 + 21 + 28 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

18 - 20 20 24 - 27

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

12 - 17 13 - 19 18 - 23

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 11 0 - 12 0 - 17

The benchmark is the number that is bold. The cut point for risk is the number that is italicized.

Some students may benet from instruction on more advanced skills.

Some students may require monitoring and strategic support on component skills.

Sixth Grade Benchmarks and Cut Points for Risk

Acadience

Reading

Measure

Benchmark

Status Likely Need for Support

Beginning

of Year

Middle

of Year

End

of Year

Reading

Composite

Score

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

435 + 461 + 478 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

344 - 434 358 - 460 380 - 477

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

280 - 343 285 - 357 324 - 379

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 279 0 - 284 0 - 323

ORF

Words

Correct

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

139 + 141 + 151 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

107 - 138 109 - 140 120 - 150

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

90 - 106 92 - 108 95 - 119

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 89 0 - 91 0 - 94

ORF

Accuracy

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

99% + 99% + 100%

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

97% - 98% 97% - 98% 98% - 99%

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

94% - 96% 94% - 96% 96% - 97%

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0% - 93% 0% - 93% 0% - 95%

Retell

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

43 + 48 + 50 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

27 - 42 29 - 47 32 - 49

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

16 - 26 18 - 28 24 - 31

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 15 0 - 17 0 - 23

Retell

Quality of

Response

At or Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

2 + 2 + 3 +

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

1 1 2

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

Maze

Adjusted

Score

Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

27 + 30 + 30 +

At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Support

18 - 26 19 - 29 21 - 29

Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support

14 - 17 14 - 18 15 - 20

Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support

0 - 13 0 - 13 0 - 14

The benchmark is the number that is bold. The cut point for risk is the number that is italicized.

Some students may benet from instruction on more advanced skills.

Some students may require monitoring and strategic support on component skills.

Kindergarten Percentage of Students Who Meet Later Outcomes on the Reading Composite

Score Based On Benchmark Status on Individual Acadience Reading Measures

Acadience

Reading

Measure

Benchmark

Status

Percent of students

At or Above

Benchmark on

middle-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

beginning-of-year

status

Percent of students

Above

Benchmark on

middle-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

beginning-of-year

status

Percent of students

At or Above

Benchmark on

end-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

middle-of-year

status

Percent of students

Above

Benchmark on

end-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

middle-of-year

status

Reading

Composite

Score

At or Above Benchmark 85% 58% 93% 59%

Above Benchmark 91% 67% 98% 77%

At Benchmark 70% 35% 85% 32%

Below Benchmark 54% 24% 56% 13%

Well Below Benchmark 32% 12% 18% 3%

FSF

At or Above Benchmark 83% 57% 86% 52%

Above Benchmark 88% 64% 93% 65%

At Benchmark 69% 36% 80% 41%

Below Benchmark 56% 26% 54% 19%

Well Below Benchmark 42% 18% 22% 5%

PSF

At or Above Benchmark – – 86% 52%

Above Benchmark – – 94% 66%

At Benchmark – – 79% 38%

Below Benchmark – – 53% 18%

Well Below Benchmark – – 26% 7%

NWF

Correct

Letter

Sounds

At or Above Benchmark – – 87% 53%

Above Benchmark – – 96% 72%

At Benchmark – – 78% 31%

Below Benchmark – – 47% 11 %

Well Below Benchmark – – 18% 4%

Note: This table shows the percent of students that are on track on the Reading Composite Score at the middle and end of the year

based on the student’s Acadience Reading measure score at the beginning and middle of the year. N = 441,923 students who had

Acadience Reading data for the 2013–2014 school year. Data exported from mCLASS

, VPORT

, and Acadience Data Management.

First Grade Percentage of Students Who Meet Later Outcomes on the Reading Composite

Score Based On Benchmark Status on Individual Acadience Reading Measures

Acadience

Reading

Measure

Benchmark

Status

Percent of students

At or Above

Benchmark on

middle-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

beginning-of-year

status

Percent of students

Above

Benchmark on

middle-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

beginning-of-year

status

Percent of students

At or Above

Benchmark on

end-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

middle-of-year

status

Percent of students

Above

Benchmark on

end-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

middle-of-year

status

Reading

Composite

Score

At or Above Benchmark 87% 68% 92% 66%

Above Benchmark 93% 79% 99% 85%

At Benchmark 74% 44% 75% 20%

Below Benchmark 59% 29% 36% 5%

Well Below Benchmark 28% 11% 7% 1%

PSF

At or Above Benchmark 77% 56% – –

Above Benchmark 79% 59% – –

At Benchmark 74% 52% – –

Below Benchmark 64% 43% – –

Well Below Benchmark 36% 21% – –

NWF

Correct

Letter

Sounds

At or Above Benchmark 85% 66% 86% 63%

Above Benchmark 91% 77% 95% 81%

At Benchmark 68% 37% 67% 28%

Below Benchmark 49% 22% 43% 12%

Well Below Benchmark 22% 8% 18% 4%

NWF

Whole

Words

Read

At or Above Benchmark 83% 64% 83% 59%

Above Benchmark 92% 78% 96% 80%

At Benchmark 66% 36% 63% 25%

Below Benchmark 37% 16% 36% 10%

Well Below Benchmark – – 17% 5%

ORF

Words

Correct

At or Above Benchmark 91% 66%

Above Benchmark 98% 83%

At Benchmark 74% 24%

Below Benchmark 35% 6%

Well Below Benchmark 7% 1%

ORF

Accuracy

At or Above Benchmark 91% 67%

Above Benchmark 97% 80%

At Benchmark 74% 27%

Below Benchmark 43% 10%

Well Below Benchmark 9% 2%

Note: This table shows the percent of students that are on track on the Reading Composite Score at the middle and end of the year

based on the student’s Acadience Reading measure score at the beginning and middle of the year. N = 452,530 students who had

Acadience Reading data for the 2013–2014 school year. Data exported from mCLASS

, VPORT

, and Acadience Data Management.

Second Grade Percentage of Students Who Meet Later Outcomes on the Reading Composite

Score Based On Benchmark Status on Individual Acadience Reading Measures

Acadience

Reading

Measure

Benchmark

Status

Percent of students

At or Above

Benchmark on

middle-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

beginning-of-year

status

Percent of students

Above

Benchmark on

middle-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

beginning-of-year

status

Percent of students

At or Above

Benchmark on

end-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

middle-of-year

status

Percent of students

Above

Benchmark on

end-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

middle-of-year

status

Reading

Composite

Score

At or Above Benchmark 93% 64% 91% 64%

Above Benchmark 99% 83% 98% 84%

At Benchmark 85% 36% 77% 28%

Below Benchmark 46% 8% 35% 7%

Well Below Benchmark 11 % 1% 8% 1%

NWF

Correct

Letter

Sounds

At or Above Benchmark 92% 66% – –

Above Benchmark 96% 76% – –

At Benchmark 82% 46% – –

Below Benchmark 61% 26% – –

Well Below Benchmark 37% 13% – –

NWF

Whole

Words

Read

At or Above Benchmark 90% 64% – –

Above Benchmark 96% 76% – –

At Benchmark 80% 43% – –

Below Benchmark 57% 23% – –

Well Below Benchmark 36% 13% – –

ORF Words

Correct

At or Above Benchmark 96% 71% 94% 69%

Above Benchmark 99% 84% 98% 84%

At Benchmark 90% 42% 85% 40%

Below Benchmark 64% 15% 54% 15%

Well Below Benchmark 16% 2% 12% 2%

ORF

Accuracy

At or Above Benchmark 92% 63% 91% 65%

Above Benchmark 98% 79% 96% 77%

At Benchmark 82% 37% 81% 44%

Below Benchmark 45% 11% 44% 14%

Well Below Benchmark 11 % 2% 11% 4%

Retell

At or Above Benchmark 89% 63% 84% 60%

Above Benchmark 94% 74% 91% 72%

At Benchmark 80% 41% 71% 37%

Below Benchmark 62% 22% 48% 18%

Well Below Benchmark 33% 9% 24% 8%

Note: This table shows the percent of students that are on track on the Reading Composite Score at the middle and end of the year

based on the student’s Acadience Reading measure score at the beginning and middle of the year. N = 394,821 students who had

Acadience Reading data for the 2013–2014 school year. Data exported from mCLASS

, VPORT

, and Acadience Data Management.

Third Grade Percentage of Students Who Meet Later Outcomes on the Reading Composite

Score Based On Benchmark Status on Individual Acadience Reading Measures

Acadience

Reading

Measure

Benchmark

Status

Percent of students

At or Above

Benchmark on

middle-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

beginning-of-year

status

Percent of students

Above

Benchmark on

middle-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

beginning-of-year

status

Percent of students

At or Above

Benchmark on

end-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

middle-of-year

status

Percent of students

Above

Benchmark on

end-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

middle-of-year

status

Reading

Composite

Score

At or Above Benchmark 90% 62% 93% 64%

Above Benchmark 98% 82% 99% 84%

At Benchmark 76% 29% 83% 29%

Below Benchmark 43% 9% 46% 7%

Well Below Benchmark 12% 2% 9% 1%

ORF

Words

Correct

At or Above Benchmark 91% 64% 92% 65%

Above Benchmark 97% 82% 98% 83%

At Benchmark 79% 35% 83% 36%

Below Benchmark 49% 12% 50% 11%

Well Below Benchmark 14% 2% 12% 2%

ORF

Accuracy

At or Above Benchmark 87% 60% 85% 57%

Above Benchmark 94% 75% 92% 69%

At Benchmark 78% 42% 76% 39%

Below Benchmark 46% 16% 38% 11%

Well Below Benchmark 10% 3% 8% 2%

Retell

At or Above Benchmark 79% 53% 82% 55%

Above Benchmark 89% 68% 91% 69%

At Benchmark 65% 32% 69% 34%

Below Benchmark 39% 14% 46% 16%

Well Below Benchmark 22% 8% 25% 7%

Maze

Adjusted

Score

At or Above Benchmark 89% 65% 90% 65%

Above Benchmark 94% 76% 96% 78%

At Benchmark 78% 43% 80% 44%

Below Benchmark 58% 23% 58% 22%

Well Below Benchmark 29% 9% 26% 7%

Note: This table shows the percent of students that are on track on the Reading Composite Score at the middle and end of the year

based on the student’s Acadience Reading measure score at the beginning and middle of the year. N = 303,928 students who had

Acadience Reading data for the 2013–2014 school year. Data exported from mCLASS

, VPORT

, and Acadience Data Management.

Fourth Grade Percentage of Students Who Meet Later Outcomes on the Reading Composite

Score Based On Benchmark Status on Individual Acadience Reading Measures

Acadience

Reading

Measure

Benchmark

Status

Percent of students

At or Above

Benchmark on

middle-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

beginning-of-year

status

Percent of students

Above

Benchmark on

middle-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

beginning-of-year

status

Percent of students

At or Above

Benchmark on

end-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

middle-of-year

status

Percent of students

Above

Benchmark on

end-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

middle-of-year

status

Reading

Composite

Score

At or Above Benchmark 91% 68% 91% 65%

Above Benchmark 97% 84% 98% 83%

At Benchmark 76% 32% 77% 29%

Below Benchmark 45% 11% 45% 8%

Well Below Benchmark 9% 2% 9% 1%

ORF

Words

Correct

At or Above Benchmark 92% 72% 90% 66%

Above Benchmark 97% 82% 97% 82%

At Benchmark 79% 41% 76% 33%

Below Benchmark 54% 19% 42% 11%

Well Below Benchmark 12% 2% 7% 1%

ORF

Accuracy

At or Above Benchmark 82% 60% 80% 55%

Above Benchmark 89% 69% 88% 66%

At Benchmark 68% 39% 67% 35%

Below Benchmark 46% 20% 36% 12%

Well Below Benchmark 12% 4% 7% 2%

Retell

At or Above Benchmark 79% 58% 81% 57%

Above Benchmark 86% 68% 88% 66%

At Benchmark 63% 37% 66% 36%

Below Benchmark 40% 18% 45% 20%

Well Below Benchmark 17% 6% 19% 7%

Maze

Adjusted

Score

At or Above Benchmark 89% 68% 88% 67%

Above Benchmark 94% 78% 95% 79%

At Benchmark 73% 39% 75% 41%

Below Benchmark 47% 19% 50% 20%

Well Below Benchmark 14% 4% 18% 5%

Note: This table shows the percent of students that are on track on the Reading Composite Score at the middle and end of the year

based on the student’s Acadience Reading measure score at the beginning and middle of the year. N = 114,567 students who had

Acadience Reading data for the 2013–2014 school year. Data exported from mCLASS

, VPORT

, and Acadience Data Management.

Fifth Grade Percentage of Students Who Meet Later Outcomes on the Reading Composite

Score Based On Benchmark Status on Individual Acadience Reading Measures

Acadience

Reading

Measure

Benchmark

Status

Percent of students

At or Above

Benchmark on

middle-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

beginning-of-year

status

Percent of students

Above

Benchmark on

middle-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

beginning-of-year

status

Percent of students

At or Above

Benchmark on

end-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

middle-of-year

status

Percent of students

Above

Benchmark on

end-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

middle-of-year

status

Reading

Composite

Score

At or Above Benchmark 92% 76% 90% 68%

Above Benchmark 96% 84% 96% 82%

At Benchmark 75% 41% 73% 32%

Below Benchmark 37% 13% 35% 9%

Well Below Benchmark 3% 1% 3% 1%

ORF

Words

Correct

At or Above Benchmark 91% 76% 91% 72%

Above Benchmark 95% 83% 95% 81%

At Benchmark 75% 46% 76% 42%

Below Benchmark 56% 26% 47% 18%

Well Below Benchmark 16% 5% 8% 2%

ORF

Accuracy

At or Above Benchmark 80% 63% 76% 55%

Above Benchmark 89% 76% 88% 74%

At Benchmark 76% 57% 71% 48%

Below Benchmark 42% 22% 38% 18%

Well Below Benchmark 11 % 4% 10% 4%

Retell

At or Above Benchmark 76% 59% 75% 55%

Above Benchmark 82% 67% 83% 66%

At Benchmark 60% 39% 59% 34%

Below Benchmark 42% 23% 39% 19%

Well Below Benchmark 18% 9% 17% 7%

Maze

Adjusted

Score

At or Above Benchmark 86% 69% 91% 74%

Above Benchmark 91% 78% 92% 77%

At Benchmark 67% 41% 77% 48%

Below Benchmark 45% 22% 52% 25%

Well Below Benchmark 15% 6% 14% 4%

Note: This table shows the percent of students that are on track on the Reading Composite Score at the middle and end of the year

based on the student’s Acadience Reading measure score at the beginning and middle of the year. N = 98,565 students who had

Acadience Reading data for the 2013–2014 school year. Data exported from mCLASS

, VPORT

, and Acadience Data Management.

Sixth Grade Percentage of Students Who Meet Later Outcomes on the Reading Composite

Score Based On Benchmark Status on Individual Acadience Reading Measures

Acadience

Reading

Measure

Benchmark

Status

Percent of students

At or Above

Benchmark on

middle-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

beginning-of-year

status

Percent of students

Above

Benchmark on

middle-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

beginning-of-year

status

Percent of students

At or Above

Benchmark on

end-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

middle-of-year

status

Percent of students

Above

Benchmark on

end-of-year

Reading Composite

Score based on

middle-of-year

status

Reading

Composite

Score

At or Above Benchmark 93% 54% 94% 55%

Above Benchmark 99% 82% 100% 83%

At Benchmark 85% 20% 87% 21%

Below Benchmark 32% 2% 35% 1%

Well Below Benchmark 3% 0% 3% 0%

ORF

Words

Correct

At or Above Benchmark 92% 55% 93% 56%

Above Benchmark 99% 80% 99% 80%

At Benchmark 85% 26% 85% 27%

Below Benchmark 44% 3% 50% 5%

Well Below Benchmark 8% 0% 11% 1%

ORF

Accuracy

At or Above Benchmark 86% 49% 86% 50%

Above Benchmark 92% 61% 94% 66%

At Benchmark 83% 45% 83% 43%

Below Benchmark 46% 12% 46% 10%

Well Below Benchmark 9% 2% 10% 1%

Retell

At or Above Benchmark 85% 50% 86% 51%

Above Benchmark 93% 65% 95% 68%

At Benchmark 75% 33% 76% 31%

Below Benchmark 52% 15% 49% 10%

Well Below Benchmark 26% 5% 21% 3%

Maze

Adjusted

Score

At or Above Benchmark 89% 51% 90% 53%

Above Benchmark 98% 77% 99% 78%

At Benchmark 78% 24% 81% 27%

Below Benchmark 36% 4% 43% 6%

Well Below Benchmark 13% 2% 12% 1%

Note: This table shows the percent of students that are on track on the Reading Composite Score at the middle and end of the year

based on the student’s Acadience Reading measure score at the beginning and middle of the year. N = 32,337 students who had

Acadience Reading data for the 2013–2014 school year. Data exported from mCLASS

, VPORT

, and Acadience Data Management.

Percent of Students Who Met Outcomes on the GRADE

Acadience

Reading

Measure

End-of-Year

Benchmark Status

Likelihood of Being on Track on the GRADE by Grade Level

K 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reading

Composite

Score

At or Above Benchmark 74% 90% 89% 90% 84% 87% 93%

Below Benchmark 50% 48% 45% 48% 58% 45% 45%

Well Below Benchmark 36% 10% 14% 7% 3% 7% 13%

FSF

At or Above Benchmark 70%

Below Benchmark 56%

Well Below Benchmark 50%

PSF

At or Above Benchmark 74% 83%

Below Benchmark 63% 59%

Well Below Benchmark 20% 32%

NWF

Correct

Letter

Sounds

At or Above Benchmark 90%

Below Benchmark 42%

Well Below Benchmark 10%

NWF

Whole

Words

Read

At or Above Benchmark 89%

Below Benchmark 36%

Well Below Benchmark 13%

ORF

Words

Correct

At or Above Benchmark 87% 89% 89% 85% 83% 90%

Below Benchmark 62% 43% 50% 59% 57% 64%

Well Below Benchmark 14% 18% 3% 11% 25%

ORF

Accuracy

At or Above Benchmark 88% 87% 75% 82% 90%

Below Benchmark 39% 38% 54% 55% 69%

Well Below Benchmark 26% 19% 6% 16% 30%

Retell

At or Above Benchmark 86% 86% 83% 86% 90%

Below Benchmark 56% 48% 53% 39% 60%

Well Below Benchmark 19% 20% 12% 20% 25%

Retell

Quality of

Response

At or Above Benchmark 81% 87% 87% 83% 92%

Below Benchmark 41% 60% 52% 38% 68%

Well Below Benchmark 15% 19% 11% 25%

Maze

Adjusted

Score

At or Above Benchmark 90% 80% 82% 90%

Below Benchmark 48% 65% 61% 57%

Well Below Benchmark 14% 14% 20% 20%

Note: This table shows the likelihood of being on track on the GRADE assessment administered at the end of the year, based on the

student’s individual end-of-year Acadience Reading measure benchmark status. The 40th percentile for the GRADE assessment was

used to indicate whether the student was on track.

The Acadience Reading Composite Score is used to interpret student results for Acadience Reading. Most data management services

will calculate the composite score for you. If you do not use a data management service or if your data management service does not

calculate it, you can use this worksheet to calculate the composite score.

Name: _____________________________________ Class: _____________________________________

Kindergarten Reading Composite Score Worksheet

reading k–6

Beginning of Year Benchmark

FSF Score = ___________________ [1]

LNF Score = ___________________ [2]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–2) =

Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

Middle of Year Benchmark

FSF Score = ___________________ [1]

LNF Score = ___________________ [2]

PSF Score = ___________________ [3]

NWF CLS Score = ___________________ [4]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–4) =

Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

End of Year Benchmark

LNF Score = ___________________ [1]

PSF Score = ___________________ [2]

NWF CLS Score = ___________________ [3]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–3) =

Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

The Acadience Reading Composite Score is used to interpret student results for Acadience Reading. Most data management services

will calculate the composite score for you. If you do not use a data management service or if your data management service does not

calculate it, you can use this worksheet to calculate the composite score.

Name: _____________________________________ Class: _____________________________________

First Grade Reading Composite Score Worksheet

reading k–6

Middle of Year

ORF Accuracy

Percent

Accuracy

Value

0% – 49% 0

50% – 52% 2

53% – 55% 8

56% – 58% 14

59% – 61% 20

62% – 64% 26

65% – 67% 32

68% – 70% 38

71% – 73% 44

74% – 76% 50

77% – 79% 56

80% – 82% 62

83% – 85% 68

86% – 88% 74

89% – 91% 80

92% – 94% 86

95% – 97% 92

98% – 100% 98

End of Year

ORF Accuracy

Percent

Accuracy

Value

0% – 64% 0

65% – 66% 3

67% – 68% 9

69% – 70% 15

71% – 72% 21

73% – 74% 27

75% – 76% 33

77% – 78% 39

79% – 80% 45

81% – 82% 51

83% – 84% 57

85% – 86% 63

87% – 88% 69

89% – 90% 75

91% – 92% 81

93% – 94% 87

95% – 96% 93

97% – 98% 99

99% – 100% 105

Middle of Year Benchmark

NWF CLS Score = ___________________ [1]

NWF WWR Score = ___________________ [2]

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [3]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [4]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–4)

Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

End of Year Benchmark

NWF WWR Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [1]

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [2]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [3]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–3)

Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

Beginning of Year Benchmark

LNF Score = ___________________ [1]

PSF Score = ___________________ [2]

NWF CLS Score = ___________________ [3]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–3)

Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

The Acadience Reading Composite Score is used to interpret student results for Acadience Reading. Most data management services

will calculate the composite score for you. If you do not use a data management service or if your data management service does not

calculate it, you can use this worksheet to calculate the composite score.

Name: _____________________________________ Class: _____________________________________

Second Grade Reading Composite Score Worksheet

reading k–6

End of Year Benchmark

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]

Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [3]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–3)

If ORF is below 40 and Retell is not administered, use 0 for the Retell value only for calculating the Acadience

Reading Composite Score. Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

Middle of Year Benchmark

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]

Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [3]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–3)

If ORF is below 40 and Retell is not administered, use 0 for the Retell value only for calculating the Acadience

Reading Composite Score. Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

Beginning of Year Benchmark

NWF WWR Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [1]

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [2]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [3]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–3)

Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

Beginning of Year

ORF Accuracy

Percent

Accuracy

Value

0% – 64% 0

65% – 66% 3

67% – 68% 9

69% – 70% 15

71% – 72% 21

73% – 74% 27

75% – 76% 33

77% – 78% 39

79% – 80% 45

81% – 82% 51

83% – 84% 57

85% – 86% 63

87% – 88% 69

89% – 90% 75

91% – 92% 81

93% – 94% 87

95% – 96% 93

97% – 98% 99

99% – 100% 105

Middle and End of Year

ORF Accuracy

Percent

Accuracy

Value

0% – 85% 0

86% 8

87% 16

88% 24

89% 32

90% 40

91% 48

92% 56

93% 64

94% 72

95% 80

96% 88

97% 96

98% 104

99% 112

100% 120

The Acadience Reading Composite Score is used to interpret student results for Acadience Reading. Most data management services

will calculate the composite score for you. If you do not use a data management service or if your data management service does not

calculate it, you can use this worksheet to calculate the composite score.

Name: _____________________________________ Class: _____________________________________

Third Grade Reading Composite Score Worksheet

reading k–6

Beginning of Year Benchmark

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]

Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]

Maze Adjusted Score ___________ x 4 = ___________________ [3]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [4]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–4)

If ORF is below 40 and Retell is not administered, use 0 for the Retell value only for calculating the Acadience

Reading Composite Score. Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

Middle of Year Benchmark

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]

Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]

Maze Adjusted Score ___________ x 4 = ___________________ [3]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [4]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–4)

If ORF is below 40 and Retell is not administered, use 0 for the Retell value only for calculating the Acadience

Reading Composite Score. Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

End of Year Benchmark

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]

Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]

Maze Adjusted Score ___________ x 4 = ___________________ [3]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [4]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–4)

If ORF is below 40 and Retell is not administered, use 0 for the Retell value only for calculating the Acadience

Reading Composite Score. Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

Beginning, Middle, and

End of Year

ORF

Accuracy

Percent

Accuracy

Value

0% – 85% 0

86% 8

87% 16

88% 24

89% 32

90% 40

91% 48

92% 56

93% 64

94% 72

95% 80

96% 88

97% 96

98% 104

99% 112

100% 120

The Acadience Reading Composite Score is used to interpret student results for Acadience Reading. Most data management services

will calculate the composite score for you. If you do not use a data management service or if your data management service does not

calculate it, you can use this worksheet to calculate the composite score.

Name: _____________________________________ Class: _____________________________________

Fourth Grade Reading Composite Score Worksheet

reading k–6

Beginning of Year Benchmark

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]

Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]

Maze Adjusted Score ___________ x 4 = ___________________ [3]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [4]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–4)

If ORF is below 40 and Retell is not administered, use 0 for the Retell value only for calculating the Acadience

Reading Composite Score. Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

Middle of Year Benchmark

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]

Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]

Maze Adjusted Score ___________ x 4 = ___________________ [3]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [4]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–4)

If ORF is below 40 and Retell is not administered, use 0 for the Retell value only for calculating the Acadience

Reading Composite Score. Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

End of Year Benchmark

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]

Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]

Maze Adjusted Score ___________ x 4 = ___________________ [3]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [4]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–4)

If ORF is below 40 and Retell is not administered, use 0 for the Retell value only for calculating the Acadience

Reading Composite Score. Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

Beginning, Middle, and

End of Year

ORF

Accuracy

Percent

Accuracy

Value

0% – 85% 0

86% 8

87% 16

88% 24

89% 32

90% 40

91% 48

92% 56

93% 64

94% 72

95% 80

96% 88

97% 96

98% 104

99% 112

100% 120

The Acadience Reading Composite Score is used to interpret student results for Acadience Reading. Most data management services

will calculate the composite score for you. If you do not use a data management service or if your data management service does not

calculate it, you can use this worksheet to calculate the composite score.

Name: _____________________________________ Class: _____________________________________

Fifth Grade Reading Composite Score Worksheet

reading k–6

Beginning of Year Benchmark

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]

Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]

Maze Adjusted Score ___________ x 4 = ___________________ [3]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [4]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–4)

If ORF is below 40 and Retell is not administered, use 0 for the Retell value only for calculating the Acadience

Reading Composite Score. Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

Middle of Year Benchmark

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]

Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]

Maze Adjusted Score ___________ x 4 = ___________________ [3]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [4]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–4)

If ORF is below 40 and Retell is not administered, use 0 for the Retell value only for calculating the Acadience

Reading Composite Score. Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

End of Year Benchmark

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]

Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]

Maze Adjusted Score ___________ x 4 = ___________________ [3]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [4]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–4)

If ORF is below 40 and Retell is not administered, use 0 for the Retell value only for calculating the Acadience

Reading Composite Score. Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

Beginning, Middle, and

End of Year

ORF

Accuracy

Percent

Accuracy

Value

0% – 85% 0

86% 8

87% 16

88% 24

89% 32

90% 40

91% 48

92% 56

93% 64

94% 72

95% 80

96% 88

97% 96

98% 104

99% 112

100% 120

The Acadience Reading Composite Score is used to interpret student results for Acadience Reading. Most data management services

will calculate the composite score for you. If you do not use a data management service or if your data management service does not

calculate it, you can use this worksheet to calculate the composite score.

Name: _____________________________________ Class: _____________________________________

Sixth Grade Reading Composite Score Worksheet

reading k–6

Beginning of Year Benchmark

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]

Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]

Maze Adjusted Score ___________ x 4 = ___________________ [3]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [4]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–4)

If ORF is below 40 and Retell is not administered, use 0 for the Retell value only for calculating the Acadience

Reading Composite Score. Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

Middle of Year Benchmark

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]

Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]

Maze Adjusted Score ___________ x 4 = ___________________ [3]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [4]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–4)

If ORF is below 40 and Retell is not administered, use 0 for the Retell value only for calculating the Acadience

Reading Composite Score. Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

End of Year Benchmark

ORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]

Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]

Maze Adjusted Score ___________ x 4 = ___________________ [3]

ORF Accuracy Percent: _________ %

100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))

Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [4]

Acadience Reading Composite Score (add values 1–4)

If ORF is below 40 and Retell is not administered, use 0 for the Retell value only for calculating the Acadience

Reading Composite Score. Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.

Beginning, Middle, and

End of Year

ORF

Accuracy

Percent

Accuracy

Value

0% – 85% 0

86% 8

87% 16

88% 24

89% 32

90% 40

91% 48

92% 56

93% 64

94% 72

95% 80

96% 88

97% 96

98% 104

99% 112

100% 120