How do Literably's leveling criteria compare to F&P's leveling criteria?

  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% accuracy

90-94% accuracy and <5/7 comp.

95-100% accuracy and <4/7 comp.

<95% accuracy

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.

Have more questions? Submit a request


Please sign in to leave a comment.