Interim and Smarter Concordance Table Examples
Jennifer Paul (OEAA). Three pages, landscape. Two alternative drafts — “Example 1” and “Example 2” — of a Smarter Balanced Interim ↔︎ M-STEP concordance table. This is the artifact the committee gave layout feedback on in Session 1 — Using the Smarter Balanced Interim Assessment.
What the table contains
ELA and Math side by side, grades 3–7, performance levels 1–4. Each cell gives the lowest and highest Smarter Balanced scale score and the corresponding lowest and highest M-STEP scale score. Grade 3 ELA, for example, maps SBAC 2112–2363 to M-STEP 1203–1279 at Performance Level 1; grade 7 Math maps SBAC 2632–2777 to M-STEP 1716–1752 at Performance Level 4.
How the two examples differ
Only in framing text. Example 1 leads with the worked example the minutes quote:
As an example, a 3rd grade student scoring a 2112 on the Smarter Balanced Comprehensive Interim ELA test (Performance Level 1) could score a 1203 (Performance Level 1) on the M-STEP ELA assessment.
Example 2 opens more loosely — “roughly predictive of how a student may score” — and defers the worked example to a second page.
Both carry the same caveat: “a concordance table such as this is not a perfect prediction.”
Unresolved placeholder
Both examples end their narrative with:
Additional blueprint information can be found at XXXXXX.
The placeholder was still unfilled at the time of presentation.
What the committee said about it
The word could drew a direct question — “What does ‘could’ mean?” — answered as “student would most likely score, or something along those lines.” That imprecision, in a document whose entire job is to communicate a probabilistic mapping to non-psychometricians, is the substance of Move key takeaway and performance level to the top of the concordance document and Publish the concordance formula, not just the table.