In response to test-based accountability (No Child Left Behind, 2001), schools and districts across the country are adopting a variety of supplemental assessments aimed at improving student performance. These interim assessments are administered more than once during the school year for the following purposes: 1) predicting student performance on summative accountability tests, 2) identifying student strengths and weaknesses, 3) tracking student progress toward "proficiency," or 4) identifying students for remedial instruction. Vendors claim these assessments can improve teaching and learning, although critics contend they do not possess a number of attributes theorized to facilitate formative use of results, including particular assessment features, instructional practices, and school-level supports. To date, empirical evidence on interim assessments is scarce. Thus, this study collected the first empirical evidence on the use of interim assessments in reading and math in Iowa elementary schools. Elementary school administrators completed a survey regarding their school or district's use of interim assessments. Respondents provided basic descriptive information and also indicated how teachers use assessment results to modify teaching and learning and the types of professional development opportunities available. A companion teacher survey designed to capture teachers' use of assessment information to improve teaching and learning was constructed. This draft teacher survey was pilot-tested with a small sample of teachers in order to improve its clarity by identifying areas of ambiguity. Feedback generated from these interviews was used to revise the teacher survey. Study results suggest widespread use of interim assessments among respondents, particularly for the improvement of reading skills and primarily for instructional and remediation purposes. These reading assessments appeared to exhibit many of the characteristics deemed essential for formative use of assessment results. However, both survey and interview results suggested teachers have little autonomy for deciding when assessments will be administered. Results also suggest there is much room for improvement in teachers' formative use of assessment results, as one of the most important aspects of formative use (responding to results by modifying instruction and identifying alternative pedagogies) may also be the least used by classroom teachers and the most neglected with respect to professional development.

The purpose of this nonexperimental, quantitative study was to determine if there is a significant correlation among teacher-assigned grades (TAG), district checkpoint scores (CP), and student scale-scores on TNReady tests. The focus was on 1,445 seventh and eighth grade students who were enrolled at a middle school in northeast Tennessee during the academic years of 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, specifically for the content areas of English Language Arts and mathematics. The second purpose of this study was to examine any moderating effects of the categorical variable, students with disabilities (SWD) status, on the correlations among the district and state assessments and students’ final teacher-assigned grades in math and English Language Arts. Sixteen research questions served as the framework of the study. Data were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation coefficients. Results of the analysis revealed that there were significant correlations among teacher-assigned grades, district checkpoint scores, and student-scale scores on TNReady tests for both math and English Language Arts for seventh and eighth grade students at this middle school during the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years. These correlations were all positive and strong for the general population for both years and both content areas with the values of r ranging between .61 and .89. In general, the results suggest that high scores in any area are associated with high scores in the other two areas. These positive high correlations for the overall population acknowledge the efforts of the school and district to align its teaching practices and district assessments with one another along with the state assessments. The study also concluded that there were not significant effects of the categorical variable of students with disabilities status (SWD) on the correlations.

The purpose of the present correlational, ex post facto study was to evaluate the predictive ability and academic achievement criterion outcomes of two district-developed interim mathematics assessment programs for a sample of 5,801 grade 6 students in a large urban school district. Average scores for both interim assessment types were statistically significantly more related to 2013 FCAT 2.0 scores (r = .75 and .72; p < .001) than all other predictors (i.e., student demographics, Florida school grade, and student course GPA) except for 2012 FCAT 2.0 scores (r = .78; p < .001). Further, the newer interim assessment program with an instructional purpose and curriculum-based sequencing had slightly stronger overall predictive power (rs = .88) and a higher criterion mean score (M = 218.08) than the older, state-test mirror interim assessment program (rs = .85; M = 215.47). Regression models by prior year FCAT 2.0 Achievement Level yielded some predictor ranking discrepancies by prior achievement level. Although not statistically significant at the .01 level, groups of students with a more moderate total number of interim assessments outperformed groups with all or nothing. Overall, the two types of interim assessment programs evaluated in the present study were good predictors of the state high-stakes test, 2012 Grade 6 Mathematics FCAT 2.0. However, more research must be done to identify with certainty whether or not the act of taking the interim tests and receiving feedback contributes to improved student learning.