Each year, Nevada students in grades 3, 4, 5, and 7 participate in testing as part of the Nevada assessment program. Students in grades 3 and 5 take the Nevada Criterion Referenced Assessment (Nevada CRT) while students in grades 4 and 7 take the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). These tests serve as an important measure of student achievement for the state's accountability system. Results from these assessments are used to make state-level decisions concerning education, to meet "Adequate Yearly Progress" (AYP) reporting requirements of the "No Child Left Behind Act" (NCLB), and to inform schools and school districts of their performance. The Nevada Department of Education has developed scales that are used to assign students to one of four performance levels on the Nevada CRT. These are, from the lowest cut score to the highest: "developing," "approaches," "meets," and "exceeds." For purposes of NCLB, the "meets" level is considered the level that represents satisfactory performance. Students taking the Iowa Test of Basic Skills are also assigned to one of four levels. These levels simply reflect the four quartiles reported in the ITBS norms. Many students who attend school in Nevada also take tests developed in cooperation with the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA). These tests report student performance on a single, cross-grade scale, which NWEA calls the RIT scale. This study investigated the relationship between the scales used for the Nevada state assessments and the RIT scales used to report performance on NWEA tests. The study determined RIT score equivalents for Nevada CRT and ITBS performance levels in reading and mathematics. Nevada CRT test records for more than 2,000 students were included in this study. Three methods generated an estimate of RIT cut scores that could be used to project Nevada CRT performance levels. Rasch SOS methods generally produced the most accurate cut score estimates. Accuracy of predicting Nevada CRT passing performance was above 84% for all grades when using the best methodology. Type I errors ranged from about 8% to 14% when the best methodology was employed. (Contains 16 tables and figures.)