ePIPS and InCAS

Report
Introduction to the ePIPS and
InCAS Assessments
Dr Chris Jellis
Research Associate
CEM
[email protected]
What Will We Cover?
• The ePIPS and InCAS Assessments
– Differences and similarities
• ePIPS and InCAS Feedback
– Differences and similarities
What are ePIPS and InCAS?
• Computerised assessments for Primary age
children
• Provide an adaptive test
• Modular approach
• Child friendly environment
• “You do the test, we do the rest”
Assessment Modules
• Reading
–
–
–
–
Word Recognition
Word Decoding
Comprehension
Spelling (InCAS only)
• General Maths
– Mental Arithmetic (InCAS only)
• Developed Ability
– Picture Vocabulary
– Non Verbal
• Attitudes
Developed Abilities Module
• Provides a measure of general ability
• Picture Vocabulary
• Non Verbal Ability
Reading Module
• Provides diagnostic information about reading
ability
• Word Recognition
• Word Decoding
• Comprehension
• Spelling (InCAS only)
Mathematics Modules
• Provides diagnostic information about maths
ability
• General Mathematics
• Mental Arithmetic (InCAS only)
– Consists of four subtests, one for each arithmetic
operation.
Mental Arithmetic
• Progression through the subtests is
dependent on pupil responses.
o
o
o
o
Addition (all pupils)
Subtraction (If addition age > 5)
Multiplication (If subtraction age > 7)
Division (If multiplication age > 8)
Attitudes
• Mathematics
• Reading
• School
ePIPS Feedback
•
•
•
•
Standardised Scores Table
Grades Table
Value Added Scatter Plot
Key Stage Chances
Year 3 Scores Table
Predictors
picture
non verbal
Attainment
class
name
vocabulary
ability
context
prior
maths
reading
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
Susan
Luke
John
Andrew
Sarah
Helen
Vicky
Harry
Kate
Christine
Stephen
Karen
Roger
Scott
Daniel
Michael
Christopher
Faye
Chloe
Callum
Andrew
Brian
Nicole
David
Amanda
72
38
47
50
49
46
45
56
52
55
56
53
50
53
58
55
*
59
50
55
56
61
58
61
75
42
61
45
57
42
45
44
34
44
49
49
61
33
60
52
60
*
67
71
67
69
47
63
70
70
60
49
46
52
46
45
45
47
48
51
53
56
42
56
54
57
*
62
57
60
61
54
57
64
71
*
43
*
46
47
42
45
45
42
50
*
46
35
45
52
53
55
63
*
53
59
52
*
59
71
41
43
35
44
51
45
51
48
52
47
45
52
56
56
61
61
61
53
58
55
56
67
63
65
61
33
32
42
37
34
44
43
46
43
50
52
48
45
49
48
50
53
62
58
65
64
53
63
62
66
Standardised Scores
• Mean of 50, Standard Deviation of 10
•
•
•
•
•
Between 40 and 60 – Average (68%)
Between 30 and 40 – Below average (14%)
Below 30 – well below average (2%)
Between 60 and 70 – Above average (14%)
Above 70 – Well above average (2%)
Year 3 Grades Table
Achievement
maths
Attitudes
reading
value added
value added
name
grade
context
prior
grade
context
prior
maths
reading
school
Susan
D
--
*
E
--
*
Luke
D
-
0
E
--
--











































































John
E
--
*
D
-
*
Andrew
C
-
0
E
--
--
Sarah
C
0
0
E
--
--
Helen
C
0
0
C
0
0
Vicky
C
+
+
D
0
0
Harry
C
0
0
C
0
0
Kate
C
0
+
D
-
0
Christine
C
0
0
C
0
0
Stephen
C
-
*
C
0
*
Karen
C
0
+
C
-
0
Roger
C
++
++
C
0
+
Scott
C
0
++
C
-
0
Daniel
B
+
++
C
-
0
Michael
B
+
+
C
-
0
Christopher
B
*
+
C
*
0
Faye
C
-
-
B
0
0
Chloe
B
0
*
B
0
*
Callum
C
0
0
A
+
++
Andrew
C
0
0
A
0
+
Brian
A
++
++
C
0
0
Nicole
B
+
*
A
+
*
David
A
0
+
B
0
+
Amanda
B
-
0
A
0
0
Grade Boundaries
Grade
%age
A
10%
B
15%
C
50%
D
15%
E
10%
Year 3 Scatter Plot
75
Attainment Score
25
3030
3535
4040
4545
5050
5555
6060
6565
7070
70
70
65
65
60
60
55
55
50
50
45
45
40
40
35
35
30
30
25
2
25
25
30
35
40
45
50
Context Score
55
60
65
70
75
Predicted Key Stage 2 Levels
Keystage Two Chances (%)
class
name
Year Group Average
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
EXAMPLE
Susan
Luke
John
Andrew
Sarah
Helen
Vicky
Harry
Kate
Christine
Stephen
Karen
Roger
Scott
Daniel
Michael
Christopher
Faye
Chloe
Callum
Andrew
Brian
Nicole
David
Amanda
<2
1
2
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
-
Maths level
3
4
5
30 48 21
49
59
59
52
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
28
40
23
23
18
16
12
14
11
11
14
9
6
4
43
33
33
41
41
43
45
47
49
51
52
54
49
55
55
55
54
52
53
51
51
53
49
43
39
6
3
3
5
5
6
7
8
10
11
13
17
10
21
21
26
29
35
32
38
38
32
41
50
56
>6
0

1
1
1
2
4
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
English level
3
4
5
29 51 18
48
59
59
51
51
48
45
42
39
36
33
27
39
22
22
17
15
12
14
10
10
14
9
6
4
45
35
35
43
43
45
48
50
52
54
56
58
52
60
60
60
59
57
58
56
56
58
54
48
43
5
2
2
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
14
8
18
18
23
25
31
28
34
34
28
37
46
53

0

1
-
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
Science Level
3
4
5
23 54 22
40
52
52
43
43
40
37
34
31
28
26
21
31
16
16
13
11
8
10
7
7
10
6
4
3
52
42
42
50
50
52
54
56
58
59
60
61
58
61
61
59
58
55
57
53
53
57
51
44
38
7
3
3
6
6
7
8
9
11
12
14
18
11
22
22
28
30
36
33
39
39
33
43
52
58

0
1
1
1
1
1
InCAS Feedback
•
•
•
•
Age equivalent scores
Age differences
Box and whisker plots
Diagnostic
Maths versus Reading
General Ability Scores
Remediating Reading Problems
Remediating Maths Problems
r
Attitudes
Standardised Scores
Mean = 100, sd = 15
Comparing InCAS and PIPS
• PIPS
• Standardised scores are
more difficult to
understand, but good
for comparing children
and groups
• InCAS
• Age scores are clearer,
but with no standard
deviation, it is difficult
to tell what the range is
InCAS can be diagnostic
PIPS is good for value added
75
70
65
End of Yer Standardised Reading Score
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
InCAS can show progress
PIPS has IDEAS+ software
D oing better than expec ted, how ever they are
D oing better than expec ted and this m ay have
no longer as far ahead as they us ed to be
been a c ons is tent c harac teris tic over tim e
P robably on trac k before, they have m ade
exc ellent progres s and have now m oved
further ahead
5
D oing as w ell as expec ted. How ever, they
P robably underac hieving before, how ever they
O n trac k and is probably a c ons is tent
have m oved from a pos ition w here they w ere
have m ade exc ellent progres s and are now on
c harac teris tic over tim e
ahead of s im ilar c hildren
trac k.
10
10
-5
P robably on trac k before but has fallen behind
Underac hieving and this m ay have been a
and is now underac hieving
c ons is tent c harac teris tic over tim e
m ade good progres s but they s till have s om e
-5
5
P rio r V a lu e -a d d e d
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
c atc hing up to do
-1 5
-1 5
8
P robably underac hieving before. T hey have
15
M ath s C o n text V A M ean S co re
C o n c u rre n t V a lu e -a d d e d
15
0
0
Y ear Tw o
Y ear Thr ee End
Y ear Four
Y ear Fiv e End
Y ear Six
-2
-2
-4
-4
-6
-6
-8
-8
-10
-10
Y e ar G ro u p
Administration
• InCAS
– Administer at any time of
year
– CD (installed on school
network)
– Group assessment
– Feedback
• Within 24 hours
• PIPS
– Fixed assessment periods
– Pencil and paper or CD
(installed on school network)
– Group assessment
– Feedback
• Approx 6 weeks for pencil
and paper
• Quicker for CD
So, which do you choose?
• To establish a baseline (particularly in the
early years) and show progress - PIPS
• If the group is not average – InCAS
• If you need diagnostic information – InCAS
• Some schools do both
Thank You For Your Time!
Dr Chris Jellis
Research Associate
CEM, Durham University

similar documents