How do Literably's leveling criteria compare to F&P's leveling criteria? Follow
|Literably||F&P A-K||F&P L-Z|
|95% accuracy and 3/5 comp.||95% accuracy and 5/7 comp.||98% accuracy and 7/10 comp.|
|Instructional||90% accuracy and 3/5 comp.||
95% accuracy and 4/7 comp
90% accuracy and 5/7 comp.
98% accuracy and 5/10 comp
95% accuracy and 7/10 comp.
|Hard||<90% accuracy OR <3/5 comp.||
90-94% accuracy and <5/7 comp.
95-100% accuracy and <4/7 comp.
95-97% accuracy and <7/10 comp.
98-100% accuracy and <5/10 comp.
F&P raises accuracy expectations at Levels L-Z. So far, we have not found anything in our research or experience to justify this.
With F&P, a higher accuracy score can make up for a lower comprehension score. For example, to score "instructional" a student at Levels L-Z can read with 95% accuracy and 7/10 comprehension OR they can read with 98% accuracy and 5/10 comprehension. So far, we have not found anything in our research or experience to justify this.
F&P's comprehension score cutoffs are slightly higher than Literably's (e.g. 70% vs. 60% for independent). However, the comprehension sections also differ in kind. F&P's comprehension section is a "conversation" that is subjectively scored by the teacher on a rubric. Literably's comprehension section is multiple-choice. Because Literably's comprehension section does not allow for partial credit and prompting, we feel that a slightly lower cutoff is appropriate. This seems to be borne out in practice. When there is a difference between Literably and F&P, students tend to end up with a slightly lower reading level on Literably than they would on F&P. We suspect that this may be due to the lack of prompting on the oral reading component, and the lack of partial credit and prompting on the comprehension component.