# What is a “RIT” Score?

When a student completes an NWEA MAP assessment, he or she receives a series of RIT scores as a result. So, what is a “RIT” and what do the scores mean?

“RIT” is an abbreviation for “Rausch Unit.” The difficulty and complexity of each MAP assessment question is measured using the RIT scale. A student’s RIT score indicates the level at which the student was answering questions correctly 50% of the time.

#### Distinguishing Features of RIT Scores:

**RIT Scores Indicate a Student’s Instructional Level**- The student’s RIT score indicates the level at which the student was answering questions correctly 50% of the time. These are the skills that the student should be working on in class right now. DesCartes: A Continuum of Learning match specific skills to RIT scores, so instruction can be planned at an appropriate level for each student.
- Note: For most MAP users, DesCartes was replaced with the
**Learning Continuum**in 2014. The Learning Continuum works in a similar way but is more interactive and with statements that have been rewritten.

**The RIT Scale is an Equal Interval scale**- The RIT scale in consistent, just like a ruler. One inch is always one inch, and one RIT is always one RIT. A student who grows from 165 to 170 shows the same amount of instructional growth as a student who goes from a 280 to 285 — 5 RIT points of growth.
- Because the RIT score is consistent, it can be used to accurately measure a student’s growth over a period of time.

**RIT Scores are Completely Independent of Grade Level**- There are “typical” RIT scores for each grade level, but every student is different. The RIT scale allows for students to be accurately measured regardless of their grade level.
- If a 3rd grade student earns a 210 on the Reading MAP assessment, and a 8th grader also earns a 210 on the Reading MAP assessment, these two students are at the same instructional level.

#### Common Questions:

**What RIT Scores might I see for my students?**

- As a teacher it is helpful to have a general idea of what RIT scores are typical for Math, Reading, and Language Usage for the grade level of your students.

- Keep in mind that these scores are averages. You would not want to use these numbers to set goals or expectations for your students, but they provide some perspective about how each student, or the class as a whole, is performing.

**What amount of RIT score growth is “normal”?**

- Every student is unique, but we can look at the results from NWEA’s norm study to get an idea for how much RIT growth a student might show over a year.

- Generally speaking, students starting with a lower RIT score tend to show greater amounts of growth, and students starting with a higher RIT score tend to show less growth. (The most important thing? All students can grow!)

- NWEA calculates projected growth for individual students based on their grade level and starting RIT score for each subject. These targets can be very useful for goal-setting with students. Projected growth is available on the Student Goal Setting Worksheets and on the Achievement Status and Growth Report.

Material from DesCartes: A Continuum of Learning is provided by courtesy of Northwest Evaluation Association and may not be republished, rewritten, or redistributed. All rights reserved.

Sr. Lynda Snyder says

I appreciate the clarity and brevity of this description of the RIT score.

wuestion@google.com says

What is the sample for the norms? Nationwide? Same question for the percentile rankings.

For the Teachers says

The sample for each grade level norm is based on 72,000-153,000 students from a pool of 10.2 million students in 49 states. The norms and more info about how they were calculated is available here: https://www.nwea.org/content/uploads/2015/08/2015-MAP-Normative-Data-NOV15.pdf

FAQs with additional information and which also address the percentiles are available here: https://www.nwea.org/content/uploads/2015/12/2015-MAP-Norms-FAQ-NOV15.pdf

Melanie Gould says

So, we would not use the norm chart for, say, a fifth grade class, and expect that all students meet the 10 point average growth for math 2015 norms, Is that correct? Typically, if a student starts well below grade level mean in the fall- perhaps we will see that growth and more. Maybe. But, what about kids scoring in the 222 or 226 range or even greater? Would we still use 5th grade normative data to measure growth?

For the Teachers says

There are separate norms for growth that you can use. Each student will have their own amount of projected growth based on their fall RIT score. (The projected growth is based on the norms from other students at the same grade level, testing in the same subject and season and with the same starting RIT score.) You can see projected growth for each student on the Achievement Status and Growth Report and on the Student Profile Report. Particularly in Reading and Language, a 5th grader starting at 226 or higher will likely have a smaller growth projection, and a student starting well below grade level mean will have a larger growth projection.

The 10 points of growth we see on the norm chart is an average, so not something we’d expect every student to meet – some will be above and some below, and that’s okay.

With my students, I had some of my students who started with lower scores grow 15-20 points from fall to spring, and they were so excited (as was I!) And I had some students who started with much higher scores who grew 2-3 points, which was their projected growth. They were all worth celebrating! 🙂

j says

“a 5th grader starting at 226 or higher will likely have a smaller growth projection, and a student starting well below grade level mean will have a larger growth projection”

I accept and agree with the idea that each child will be on their own trajectory. I guess that’s why I have a problem with the statement quoted above. I’ve heard similar things from teachers when discussing all of my children (all identified as advanced learners). The implications behind the thinking is that the student has leveled out as they near the upper end of the grade-level range. (If you’re already in the 99 percentile, where can you go?)

I’ve always tried to support the notion that one nice thing about RITs is that they are independent of grade level (as you point out). So we should take the focus off the “norm” for the grade level and instead focus on action steps to get the student to the next level (whatever that is). This should counter the ceiling effect and introduce more equity into the evaluation process because effort put into each student is the same. And I believe this to be true of both ends of the spectrum. If we start to look at students below the norm in relation to a goal that is “the next step” rather than “at grade level,” we break the process into achievable, incremental steps. My fear is that by using the grade-level norm approach, we inadvertently create the ceiling effect by limiting our expectations to what the student should be doing rather than opening them up to what the student can do.

Thoughts?

For the Teachers says

I try to use the grade level norms as perspective – so I quickly know where each of my students is along the continuum – and not as an expectation because you’re absolutely right: using the norm as an expectation can be very limiting. We want the emphasis to be that every student can grow and make continual progress. The statement about the differences in growth projections you mention is based on what we see in the norms for Reading and Language – how students actually performed. We don’t see this pattern as much in the Math norms, however. In Math in the middle grades in particular we’re more likely to see the same or very similar growth projections for all of the students – again, simply because this is how other students actually performed.

Regarding the ceiling effect, I tend to think of it like this: With most skills, when you’re just starting off you are often able to learn a lot of basic skills very quickly. For example, if you’re learning to knit, you might learn how to hold the needles and cast on and off and form a row of stitches all within a single lesson – a large amount of growth quickly. But when you get into higher skill levels, like being able to knit a complex pattern, it will often take a lot longer to learn. It’s not that there’s a ceiling, it’s just that more complex skills are achieved more slowly.

In education, we see, for example, first graders learning to read, and the changes in their skill level over that year are palpable. They learn SO much and their reading ability often improves leaps and bounds. I taught seventh grade reading. Like the first graders, we worked on reading skills all year, but we would focus on skills like fact vs. opinion and plots and themes all year long. My students’ learning wasn’t as obvious as the first graders’ and their growth typically not as high simply because they were working on more intricate, complex skills that took more time to master.

Jennifer Hornkohl says

On a the Goal Setting Report, why would a student’s projected RIT be less than a RIT score that was already achieved?

For the Teachers says

Usually when I see that it’s because of the testing seasons the projected RIT is based on. For example, if – based on the fall score – the student’s projected RIT for spring was 210, and then he got a 212 on his winter assessment, if the report is still showing fall-to-spring projection, the 210 will still be showing as projected growth.