This study examined the predictive validity and classification accuracy of two commonly used universal screening measures relative to a statewide achievement test. Results indicated that second-grade performance on oral reading fluency and the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), together with special education status, explained 68% of the variance in third-grade standardized test performance (N = 399). Six methods of dichotomous risk classification were also explored to predict whether students would pass or fail the state test. A random sample of half of the participants was used to establish locally appropriate risk cut-scores, holding sensitivity constant at 0.95; the cut-scores were then cross-validated on the remaining participants. Cross-validation reflected sensitivity of above 0.90 for all methods, with MAP Language Usage and two multi-screener methods demonstrating the strongest overall technical adequacy for risk classification. The limitations and implications of these findings are discussed.