Building validity evidence for scores on a state-wide alternate assessment: A contrasting groups, multimethod approach

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 30-43

  Elliott, Stephen N ^a   Compton, Elizabeth ^b   Roach, Andrew T ^c  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Alternate assessment; Contrasting groups validity design; Inclusive assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248182019     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00092.x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC : Author.
2. Browder, D. M., Fallin, K., Davis, S., & Karvonen, M. (2003). Consideration of what may influence student outcomes on alternate assessment. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 255 270.
3. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validity by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81 105.
4. DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2000). Academic competence evaluation scales. San Antonio, TX : Psychological Corporation.
5. Elliott, S. N., & Roach, R. T. (in press). Alternate assessments of students with significant disabilities: Alternative approaches, common technical challenges. Applied Measurement in Education.
6. Idaho Department of Education (1999). Idaho Alternate Assessment. Boise, ID : Author.
7. Johnson, E., & Arnold, N. (2004). Validating an alternate assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 25 (5 266 275.
8. Kampfer, S. H., Horvath, L. S., Kleinert, H. L., & Kearns, J. F. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of one state's alternate assessment: Implications for practice and preparation. Exceptional Children, 67, 361 374.
9. Kane, M. (2002). Validating high-stakes testing programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21 (1 31 41.
10. Koretz, D., McCaffrey, D., Klein, S., Bell, R., & Stecher, B. (1993). The reliability of scores from the 1992 Vermont portfolio assessment program (CSE Technical Report 355). Los Angeles : NCRESST.
11. Meyer, L., Eichinger, J., & Downing, J. (1992). The program quality indicators (PQI): A checklist of most promising practices in educational programs for students with severe disabilities. Syracuse, NY : Syracuse University Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation.
12. Roach, A. T. (November 2003). Alignment of Idaho Academic Standards with the Idaho Alternate Assessment (IAA). Technical Report Completed for the Idaho Department of Education, Boise, ID.
13. Roach, A. T., Elliott, S. N., & Webb, N. (2005). Alignment of an alternate assessment with state academic standards: Evidence for the content validity of the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment Journal of Special Education, 38 (4 218 231.
14. Shinn, M. R. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement and its use in a problem-solving model. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds Best practices in school psychology III (pp. 547 567). Washington, DC : National Association of School Psychologists.
15. Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1985). Vineland adaptive behavior scales: Classroom edition. Circle Pines, MN : American Guidance Service.
16. Tindal, G., McDonald, M., Tedesco, M., Glasgow, A., Almond, P., Crawford, L., & Hollenbeck, K. (2003). Alternate assessments in reading and math: Development and validation for students with significant disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 481 494.
17. Turner, M. D., Baldwin, L., Kleinert, H. L., & Kearns, J. F. (2000). The relation of a statewide alternate assessment for students with severe disabilities to other measures of instructional effectiveness. Journal of Special Education, 34, 69 76.
18. U.S. Department of Education (April, 2004). Standards and assessments peer review guidance: Information and examples for meeting requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC Author.
19. Witt, J. C., Elliott, S. N., Daly, E. J., III., Gresham, F. M., & Kramer, J. J. (1998). Assessment of at-risk and special needs children (2nd ed Boston : McGraw-Hill.