Evaluation of CAT/5
5
Wanda Clarke
Tom Neumann
Cece Schwennsen
Diana Weis
CAT/5
Name: California Achievement
Test, Fifth Edition (CAT/5)
4 Forms:
Complete Battery A and B
Survey A and B
Publisher:
Macmillan/McGraw-Hill, 1993
COST
Individual Booklets by grade level
$1.80-$2.82Ave $2.50
Answer Sheets
$1.20-$2.12Ave $1.60
Full Battery of ALL Tests
$78.60 / 30
Individual Tests
$18.00 / 25
Nature of Test
Purpose: this test is designed to evaluate
students knowledge and achievement in
the basic skills taught in schools in the
United States.
Population:
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
K……….K.0-K.9 (87 min.)
10………K.6-1.6 (88 min.)
11………1.6-2.2 (217 min.)
12………1.6-3.2 (292 min.)
13………2.6-4.2 (330 min.)
14 -21/22 3.6-12.9 (330 min)
Content and Appropriateness:
Areas measured:
reading
language arts
spelling
mathematics, study skills, science,
and social studies.
Content and Appropriateness:
Methods of Assessment
Selected response
Target to be assessed
Knowledge and understanding
Reasoning proficiency
Norms/standards:
Percentile Ranks
Stanine
Grade Equivalents
Norm Curve Equivalents
Anticipated Achievement Score
Standardization Sample:
Size: 261 public schools and 112 private
(Catholic or Non-Public)
Fall: 109825 students K-12
Winter: 4161 students.
Representation: enough information to
fit test to district needs
Procedures:
School ID
Secondary
Elementary
K-5, K-6, K-8, 7-8
94% of schools responded to demographic
survey
Schools identified by region
New England & Mid-East
Great Lakes & Plains
Southeast
Southwest & West
Schools identified by
community size:
Rural (farm or non-farm)
Town
Small City-Suburban
City-Urban
Large City-Inner City
Reliability
Total battery ranged from 0.94 - 0.98
Subtests had a median range of 0.88
Spring standardizations were higher.
CAT/5 uses a newer measure of the
KR-20.
Reliability is high when a large # are
involved and full battery is used.
Validity
Criterion-reference Scores
75% - students have mastery
50% - students have partial mastery
50% - is non-mastery
These % vary considerably based
Content
CTB used a broad comprehensive sample
of curriculum materials from across the
country to develop items.
Reviewer’s Comments
by Anthony J. Nitko, Professor of
Education, School of Education,
University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA
Reviewer’s Comments
Items & Content
Content Recency & Emphasis
Norming and Scaling
Validity and Reliability
Summary
Group Summary
Pros
95% of students complete test within time
allowed
Broad measurement of curriculum materials
Format optimal for Knowledge &
Understanding and Reasoning Proficiency
targets
Group Summary
Pros
Parallel test forms
Essay form available
Entire battery score provides accurate
measurement of student achievement
Group Summary
Cons
OUTDATED - created using 1980’s curriculum
Norming done in spring and fall of 1991
Subtest scores are not as accurate as
complete battery
Student scores in the mid-range are more
accurate than extreme scores