Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities

Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment

Volumn 3, Issue 7, 2004, Pages

  Dolan, Robert P ^a   Hall, Tracey E ^a   Banerjee, Manju ^a   Chun, Euljung ^a   Strangman, Nicole ^a  

^a CAST ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 22944450628     PISSN: 15402525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2001). Validity of standardized achievement tests for English Language Learners. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington.
2. AERA, APA, & NCME. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. New York: AERA.
3. Allan, J. M., Bulla, N., & Goodman, S. A. (2003). TEST ACCESS: Guidelines for Computer Administered Testing. Louisville, Kentucky: American Printing House for the Blind.
4. Association of Test Publishers. (2002). Guidelines for Computer-Based Testing. Washington, DC.
5. Brown, P. B., & Augustine, A. (2000). Findings of the 1999-2000 screen reading field test. Delaware Department of Education.
6. Burk, M. (1999). Computerized test accommodations: A new approach for inclusion and success for students with disabilities. Washington, DC: A.U. Software, Inc.
7. Calhoon, M. B., Fuchs, L. S., & Hamlett, C. L. (2000). Effects of computer-based test accommodations on mathematics performance assessments for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(4), 271-281.
8. Clarkson, P. (1983). Types of errors made by Papua New Guinean students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14, 355-367.
9. Clements, M. A. (1980). Analyzing children's errors on written mathematics tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11, 1-21.
10. Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., et al. (1997). Principles of Universal Design. Retrieved January 11, 2005, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/univ_design/princ_overview.htm
11. Dawson, L., Venn, M. L., & Gunter, P. L. (2000). The effects of teacher versus computer reading models. Behavioral Disorders, 25(2), 105-113.
12. Dolan, R. P., & Hall, T. E. (2001). Universal Design for Learning: Implications for large-scale assessment. IDA Perspectives, 27(4), 22-25.
13. Dolan, R. P., & Rose, D. H. (2000). Accurate assessment through Universal Design for Learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4).
14. Ehri, L. C. (1994). Development of the ability to read words: Update. In R. B. Ruddell & M. R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 323-358). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
15. Elliot, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & McKevitt, B. (2001). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations on the scores of students with and without disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 3-24.
16. Elmore, R. F., & Rothman, R. (Eds.). (1999). Testing, Teaching, and Learning: A Guide for States and School Districts. Washington, DC.
17. Farmer, M. E., Klein, R., & Bryson, S. E. (1992). Computer-assisted reading: Effects of whole-word feedback on fluency and comprehension in readers with severe disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 13(2), 50-60.
18. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29(1), 65-85.
19. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1996). Addressing problems in attention, memory, and executive functioning: An example from self-regulated strategy development. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 349-365). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
20. Harker, J. K., & Feldt, L. S. (1993). A comparison of achievement test performance of nondisabled students under silent reading and reading plus listening modes of administration. Applied Measurement in Education, 6(4), 307-320.
21. Hebert, B. M., & Murdock, J. Y. (1994). Comparing three computer-aided instruction output modes to teach vocabulary words to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9(3), 136-141.
22. Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M. A., & Tindal, G. (2002). An oral versus a standard administration of a large-scale mathematics test. The Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 39-47.
23. Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M. A., Tindal, G., Heath, B., & Almond, P. (1999). Reading as an access to mathematics problem solving on multiple-choice tests for sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 93(2), 113-125.
24. Hollenbeck, K. (2002). Determining when test alterations are valid accommodations or modifications for large-scale assessment. In G. Tindal & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all students: validity, technical adequacy, and implementation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
25. Hollenbeck, K., Rozek-Tedesco, M. A., Tindal, G., & Glasgow, A. (2000). An exploratory study of student-paced versus teacher-paced accommodations for large-scale math tests. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(2), 27-36.
26. HumRRO. (2003). CATS Online: Logistic and Construct Evaluation of Computer Administered Assessment (No. FR-03-40). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.
27. Johnson, E. S. (2000). The effects of accommodations on performance assessments. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 261-267.
28. Johnstone, C. J. (2003). Improving validity of large-scale tests: Universal design and student performance (No. Technical Report 37). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Education Outcomes.
29. Landau, S., Russell, M., Gourgey, K., Erin, J., & Cowan, J. (2003). Use of the Talking Tactile Tablet in mathematics testing. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 97(2), 85-96.
30. Lazer, S. (2002). Personal communication.
31. Lee, D., & Tindal, G. (2000). Differential Item Functioning (DIP) as a Function of Test Accommodation. Delaware Department of Education.
32. Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, A. M. (1989). The alphabetic principle and learning to read. In D. Shankweiler & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle (Vol. viii, pp. 1-33).
33. Lundberg, I., & Olofsson, A. (1993). Can computer speech support reading comprehension? Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 283-293.
34. McCullough, C. S. (1995). Using computer technology to monitor student progress and remediate reading problems. School Psychology Review, 24(3), 426-439.
35. Meloy, L. L., Deville, C., & Frisbie, D. A. (2002). The effect of a read aloud accommodation on test scores of students with and without a learning disability in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 248-255.
36. MetaMetrics. (2004). Lexile Analyzer. Durham, NC: MetaMetrics, Inc.
37. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). NAEP Questions Tool. Retrieved September 1, 2002, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrls/
38. Newman, M. A. (1977). An analysis of sixth-grade pupils' errors on written mathematics tasks. In M. A. Clements & J. Foyster (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australia (Vol. 2, pp. 239-258). Melbourne: Swineburne Press.
39. Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Accessing the General Curriculum: Including Students with Disabilities in Standards-Based Reform. Thousand Oaks, CA:: Corwin Press.
40. Olson, J. F., & Goldstein, A. A. (1996). Increasing the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students in NAEP (No. Focus on NAEP v2 n1). Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
41. Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. ERIC/OSEP Topical Brief. (No. ED423654). Reston, VA: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Projects.
42. Parkes, J. T., Suen, H. K., Zimmaro, D. M., & Zappe, S. M. (1999). Structural knowledge as a pre-requisite to valid performance assessment scores. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
43. Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., Rappolt, G., & Strangman, N. M. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Press.
44. Salyers, F. (2002). Field study of Web-based core content tests goes statewide this fall. Kentucky Teacher.
45. Shepard, L., Taylor, G., & Betebenner, D. (1998). Inclusion of limited-English-proficient students in Rhode Island's grade 4 mathematics performance assessment (Technical Report No. 486). Los Angeles: CRESST/UCLA.
46. Sheskin, D. J. (2000). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
47. Sireci, S. G., Li, S., & Scarpati, S. (2003). The effects of test accommodation on test performance: A review of the literature (No. Center for Educational Assessment Research Report no. 485). Amherst, MA: School of Education, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
48. Stanovich, Keith E. Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21:10, 590-604.
49. Strangman, N. & Dalton, B. (2005). Using technology to support struggling readers. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of Special Education Technology Research and Practice. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc. (in press).
50. Swanson, L. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(6), 504-532.
51. Thompson, S. J., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (No. NCEO Technical Report 34). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
52. Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large-scale assessments (No. NCEO Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Education Outcomes.
53. Thompson, S. J., Thurlow, M. L., Quenemoen, R. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2002). Access to computer-based testing for students with disabilities (No. NCEO Synthesis Report 45). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Education Outcomes.
54. Thurlow, M. L., McGrew, K. S., Tindal, G., Thompson, S. J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Elliott, J. L. (2000). Assessment accommodations research: Considerations for design and analysis (No. Technical Report 26). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
55. Tindal, G. & Fuchs, L. (1999). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center/OSEP.
56. Tindal, G., Glasgow, A., Helwig, R., Hollenbeck, K., & Heath, B. (1998). Accommodations in large scale tests for students with disabilities: an investigation of reading math tests using video technology. Washington, DC: Unpublished manuscript with Council of Chief State School Officers.
57. Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenback, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64(4), 439-450.
58. Torgesen, J. K. (1993). Variations on theory in learning disabilities. In G. R. Lyon, D. B. Gray, J. F. Kavanagh & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Better understanding learning disabilities: New views from research and their implications for education and public policies (pp. 153-170). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
59. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Clarification of the role of the IEP team in selecting individual accommodations, modifications in administration, and alternate assessments for state and district-wide assessments of student achievement. Washington, DC.
60. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Students with Disabilities to Gain Improved Access to Learning (Press Release). Retrieved January 14, 2005, from www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/07/07272004.html
61. W3C (2004). Speech Synthesis Markup Language (SSML) Recommendations Version 1.0, from http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-synthesis/
62. W3C-WAI. (1999). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
63. Weston, T. J. (1999). The validity of oral presentation in testing. Montreal, CANADA: American Educational Research Association.
64. Weston, T. J. (2003). NAEP validity studies: The validity of oral accommodation in testing (No. 2003-06). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education - National Center for Education Statistics.
65. White, S. (2001). Assessing the Lexile Framework: Results of a Panel Meeting (No. Working Paper No. 2001-08). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
66. Zuriff, G. E. (2000). Extra examination time for students with learning disabilities: An examination of the maximum potential thesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(1), 99-117.