Scaling early reading alternate assessments with statewide measures

Exceptional Children

Volumn 73, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 184-201

  Yovanoff, Paul ^a   Tindal, Gerald ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846165806     PISSN: 00144029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/001440290707300204     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. 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.
2. Bennett, R. E. (1993). On the meanings of constructed response. In R. E. Bennett & W. C. Ward (Eds.), Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement: Issues in constructed response, performance testing, and portfolio assessment (pp. 1-28). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Bennett, R. E., & Ward, W. C. (1993). Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement: Issues in constructed response, performance testing, and portfolio assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Berk, R. A. (1986). A consumer's guide to setting performance standards on criterion-referenced tests. Review of Educational Research, 56, 137-172.
5. Boomsma, A., van Duijn, M. A. J., & Snijders, T. A. B. Eds. (2001). Essays on item response theory. New York: Springer.
6. Browder, D., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 211-223.
7. Cizek, G. J. (Ed.). (2001). Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Ford, A., Davern, L., & Schnorr, R. (2001). Learners with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 214-222.
10. Gibbons, R. D., & Hedeker, D. R. (1992). Fullinformation item bi-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 57, 423-436.
11. Gierl, M. J. (2005). Using dimensionality-based DIF analyses to identify and interpret constructs that elicit group differences. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice, 24, 3-14.
12. Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2-5. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 24, 41-44.
13. Hintz, J. M., Owen, S. V., Shapiro, E. S., & Daly, E. J. (2000). Generalizability of oral reading fluency measures: Application of G theory to curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Quarterly, 15(1), 52-68.
14. Hintz, J. M., & Petitte, H. A. P. (2001). The generalizability of CBM oral reading fluency measures across general and special education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 158-170.
15. Holland, P. & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Hanzel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. Brau (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Kampfer, S., Horvath, L., Kleinhert, H., & Kearns, J. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of one state's alternate assessment: Implications for practice and preparation. Exceptional Children, 67, 361-374.
18. Kane, M., Crooks, T., & Cohen, A. (1999). Validating measures of performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18, 5-17.
19. Kim, S., & Cohen, A. S. (1998). A comparison of linking and concurrent calibration under item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 131-143.
20. Kleinhert, H., Kearns, J., & Kennedy, S. (1997). Accountability for all students: Kentucky's alternate portfolio assessment for students with moderate and severe cognitive disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 24, 88-101.
21. Kleinhert, H., & Kearns, J. F. (1999). A validation study of the performance indicators and learner outcomes of Kentucky's alternate assessment for students with significant disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 24, 100-110.
22. Kleinhert, H., Kennedy, S., & Kearns, J. (1999). The impact of alternate assessments: A statewide teacher survey. Journal of Special Education, 33, 93-102.
23. Kolen, M. J. (1981). Comparison of traditional and item response methods for equating tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19, 1-11.
24. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (1995). Test equating: Methods and practices. New York: Springer-Verlag.
25. Koretz, D. M., Bertenthal, M. W., & Green, B. F. (Eds.), (1999). Embedding questions. The pursuit of common, measure in uncommon tests. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26. Levine, M. V., & Drasgow, F. (1983). Appropriateness measurement: Validating studies and variable ability models. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 109-131). New York: Academic Press.
27. Li, M. F., & Olejnik, S. (1977). The power of the Rasch person-fit statistics in detecting unusual response patterns. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 215-231.
28. Linacre, M. (2005). WINSTEPS (Version 3.55) [Computer software]. Chicago: MESA Press.
29. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21.
30. Little, R. J. A., & Schenker, N. (1995). Missing data. In G- Arminger, C. C. Clogg, & M. E. Sobel (Eds.), Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 339-369). New York: Plenum.
31. Livingston, A., & Zieky, M. J. (1982). Passing scores: A manual far setting standards of performance on educational and occupational tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
32. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33. MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19-40.
34. Masters, G., & Wright, B. D. (1984). The essential process in a family of measurement models, Psychometrika, 49, 529-544.
35. Meijer, R. R., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Methodological review: Evaluating person fit, Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 107-135.
36. Messick, S. (1996). Validity of performance assessment. In G. W. Phillips (Ed.), Technical issues in large-scale performance assessment (pp. 1-18). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
37. Muraki, E., Hombo, C. M., & Yong-Won Lee. (2000). Equating and linking of performance assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 325-337.
38. Nandakumar, R. (1993). Assessing essential unidimensionality for real data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 29-38.
39. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut.
40. Robinson, S. P. (1993). The politics of multiple-choice versus free-response assessment. In R. E. Bennett & W. C. Ward (Eds.), Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement: Issues in constructed response, performance testing, and portfolio assessment (pp. 313-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Rosa, K., Swygert, K. A., Nelson, L., & Thissen, D. (2001). Item response theory applied to combinations of multiple-choice and constructed-response items - scale scores for patterns of summed scores. In, D. Thissen & H. Wainer (Eds.), Test scoring (pp. 253-292). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42. Smith, R. M. (2000). Fit analysis in latent trait measurement models. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1, 199-218.
43. Stocking, M. L., & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201-210.
44. Thissen, D., Nelson, L., Rosa, K., & McLeod, L. D. (2001). Item response theory for items scored in more than two categories. In D. Thissen & H. Wainer (Eds.), Test scoring (pp. 141-186), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45. Thissen, D., & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (2001). Test scoring. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46. Thissen, D., Wainer, H., & Wang, X. (1994). Are tests comprising both multiple-choice and free-response items necessarily less unidimensional than multiplechoice tests? An analysis of two tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 113-123.
47. Tindal, G. (2005). Alignment of alternate assessments using the Webb system. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
48. Tindal, G., Glasgow, A., Gall, J., VanLoo, D., & Chow, E. (2002). Oregon Extended Assessment: Technical adequacy analysis summary. Salem: Oregon Department of Education.
49. Tindal, G., McDonald, M., Tedesco, M., Glasgow, A., Almond, P., Crawford, L. et al. (2003). Alternate assessments in reading and math: Development and validation for students with significant disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 481-494.
50. Tindal, J., & Haladyna, T. M. (Eds.). (2002). Largescale assessment programs for all students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51. Townsend, R., Zhang, L., Vesterman, B., Wise, L., Tindal, G., Winter, P. et al. (2004, June). Meeting alignment challenges: A computer-based alignment analysis tool with models for analyzing vertical alignment and alternate assessments. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Conference on Large-Scale Assessment, Boston, MA.
52. Traub, R. E., & Fisher, C. W. (1977). On the equivalence of constructed-response and multiple choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 355-369.
53. Turner, M., Baldwin, L., Kleinhert, H., & Kearns, J. (2000). The relation of a statewide alternate assessmentfor students with severe disabilities to other measures of instructional effectiveness. Journal of Special Education, 34, 69-76.
54. U.S. Department of Education. Title I - Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Final Rule. Fed. Reg. 68,236 (Dec. 9, 2003).
55. U.S. Department of Education. Title I - Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged: Final Rule. 68 Fed. Reg. 68,699 (Dec. 9, 2003).
56. U.S. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
57. Vale, D. C. (1986). Linking item parameters onto a common scale. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 333-344.
58. van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.
59. Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
60. Wilson, D. T., Wood, R., & Gibbons, R. (2003). TESTFACT: Test scoring, item statistics, and item factor analysis (Version 4.0.2) [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
61. Ysseldyke, J. E., & Olsen, K. R. (1997). Putting alternate assessments into practice: What to measure and possible sources of data. Exceptional Children, 65, 175-185.