Performance of students with disabilities under regular and oral administrations of a high-stakes reading examination

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 21-39

  Huynh, Huynh ^a   Barton, Karen E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b CTB MCGRAW HILL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 32644444041     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15324818ame1901_2     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Abedi, J. (1999, April). NAEP math test accommodations for students with limited English proficiency. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
2. Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992). Unintended effects of educational reform in New York. Educational Policy, 4, 397-414.
3. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
4. Barton, K. E., & Huynh, H. (2003). Patterns of errors made by students with disabilities on a reading test with oral administration. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 602-614.
5. Bennett, R. E., Rock, D. A., & Kaplan, B. A. (1987). SAT differential item performance for nine handicapped groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 44-55.
6. Camera, W. J., Copeland, T., & Rothschild, B. (1998). Effects of extended time on the SAT I: Reasoning test score growth for students with learning disabilities (College Board Report No. 98-7). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
7. Carver, R. (2000). The causes of high and low reading achievement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
9. Espin, C. A., & Sindelar, P. T. (1986). Auditory feedback and writing: Learning disabled and nondisabled students. Exceptional Children, 55, 45-51.
10. Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Psychometric issues in testing students with disabilities. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 121-140.
11. Harker, J. K., & Feldt, L. S. (1993). A comparison of achievement test performance of non-disabled students under silent reading and reading plus listening modes of administration. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 307-320.
12. Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2003). An experimental analysis of accommodation decisions on large-scale mathematics test. Exceptional Children, 69, 211-225.
13. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
14. Huynh, H. (1985). Assessing mastery through summative testing. In D. U. Levine (Ed.), Improving student achievement through mastery learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15. Huynh, H., & Casteel, J. (1983). Technical works for basic skills assessment programs [Report to the National Institute of Education]. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina College of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED230628)
16. Huynh, H., Gleaton, J., & Seaman, S. P. (1992). Technical documentation for the South Carolina High School Exit Examination of reading and mathematics (2nd ed.). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, College of Education.
17. Huynh, H., Meyer, J. P., & Gallant, D. J. (2004). Comparability of student performance between regular and oral administrations for a high-stakes mathematics test. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 38-57.
18. Huynh, H., Meyer, P., & Barton, K. (2000). Technical documentation for the 1999 Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests of English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades Three Through Eight. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Department of Education, Office of Assessment.
19. Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. Pub. L. No. 103-382, § 1115(b)(2) (1994).
20. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (1997).
21. Ingles, S. J. (1991, April). The problem of excluded baseline students in a school-based longitudinal study: Correcting national dropout estimates and accommodating eligibility change over time. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
22. Johnson, E. (2000). The effects of accommodations on performance assessments. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 261-267.
23. Joreskög, K., & Sorbön, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
24. Koretz, D. (1997). Assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky (CSE Technical Report 431). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
25. Kosciolek, S., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2000). Effects of a reading accommodation on the validity of a reading test (Technical Report 28). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED451643)
26. McGrew, K. S., Thurlow, M. L., & Spiegel, A. N. (1993). An investigation of the exclusion of students with disabilities in national data collection programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 339-352.
27. McKevitt, B. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2003). Effects and perceived consequences of using testing read-aloud and teacher-recommended testing accommodations on a standardized reading achievement test. School Psychology Review, 32, 583-600.
28. Meloy, L. L., Deville, C., & Frisbie, D. (2000, April). The effect of a reading accommodation on standardized test scores of learning disabled and non learning disabled students. Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED441008)
29. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
30. Olson, J., & Goldstein, A. (July 1997). The inclusion of students with disabilities and limited English proficient students in large-scale assessments: A summary of recent progress. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.
31. Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 93-120.
32. Pitoniak, M., & Royer, J. (2001). Testing accommodations for examinees with disabilities: A review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues. Review of Educational Research, 71, 53-104.
33. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §504 (1973).
34. Rock, D. A., Bennett, R. E., & Jirele, T. (1988). Factor structure of the Graduate Record Examination's general test in handicapped and non-handicapped groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 383-392.
35. Rock, D. A., Bennett, R. E., & Kaplan, B. A. (1987). Internal construct validity of a college admissions test across handicapped and non-handicapped groups. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 193-205.
36. SAS Institute. (1990). SAS/STAT user's guide, Version 6 (4th ed., Vol. 1). Cary, NC: Author.
37. Sireci, S. G., Li, S., & Scarpati, S. (2003). The effects of test accommodation on test performance: A review of literature (Research Report 485). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Center for Educational Assessment Research.
38. South Carolina Department of Education. (2001). Exit test administrator's manual Spring 2001. Columbia, SC: Author.
39. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
40. Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Silverstein, B. (1995). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 260-270.
41. Tindal, G. (1998, March). Models for understanding task comparability in accommodated testing. Council of Chief State School Officers State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards Assessing Special Education Students (ASES)-Study Group III. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
42. Tippets, E., & Michaels, H. (1997, March). Factor structure invariance of accommodated and non-accommodated performance assessments. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
43. Weston, T. (1999, April). The validity of oral presentation in testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
44. Weston, T. (2002, July). The validity of oral accommodation in testing: Washington, DC: National Assessment of Education Progress Validity Studies Panel.
45. Willingham, W. W. (1989). Standard testing conditions and standard score meaning for handicapped examinees. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 97-103.
46. Willingham, W. W., Rogosta, M., Bennett, R. E., Braun, H., Rock, D. A., & Powers, D. E. (1988). Testing handicapped people. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
47. Zuriff, G. E. (2000). Extra examination time for students with learning disabilities: An examination of the maximum potential thesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 31, 99-117.