Universal design and multimethod approaches to item review

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 25-36

  Johnstone, Christopher J ^a,b   Thompson, Sandra J ^a   Bottsford Miller, Nicole A ^a,c   Thurlow, Martha L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b International Initiatives and Relations

^c Alamance Burlington Schools   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Disability; Large scale assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 40749096003     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2008.00112.x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2001). Validity of standardized achievement tests for English language learners. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Seattle, WA.
2. Acrey, C., Johnstone, C., & Milligan, C. (2005). Unlocking the potential of at-risk learners by using elements of universal design. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38 (2 22 32.
3. AERA, APA, NCME (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education) (1999). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC : American Educational Research Association.
4. Alder, M., & Ziglio, E. (Eds. 1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. Bristol, PA : Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
5. Baranowski, R. A. (2006). Item editing and editorial review. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds. Handbook of test development (pp. 349 358). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Belch. H. (2005). Retention and students with disabilities. Journal of College Student Retention Research: Therapy and Practice, 6 (1 3 22.
7. Branch, J. L 2000). Investigating the information-seeking processes of adolescents: The value of using think-alouds and think afters. Library and Information Science Research, 22 (4 371 392.
8. CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology) (2004). CAST Products. Downloaded from the World Wide Web July 30, 2004. http://www.cast.org/products/.
9. Center for Universal Design (n.d.). What is universal design? Retrieved March 6, 2002, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/univ_design/udhistory. htm.
10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. College Board (2004). Differential item functioning. Retrieved September 29, 2004, from the World Wide Web : http://www.collegeboard.com/ap/techman/ chap4/differential.htm.
12. De Ayala, R. J., & Kelley, H. P. (1997). MEC Item Analysis. Austin, TX : University of Texas Measurement and Evaluation Center. Retrieved from the World Wide Web October 4, 2004. http://www.utexas. edu/academic/mec/scan/ scanitem.html.
13. Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & Strangman, N. (2005). 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, 3 (7 4 32. http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/jtla/journal/v3n7.shtml.
14. Downing, S. M., & Haladyna, T. M. (1997). Test item development: Validity evidence from quality assurance procedures. Applied Measurement in Education, 10 (1 61 82.
15. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A 1995). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
16. Field, S., Sarver, M. D., & Shaw, S. (2003). Self-determination: A key to success in postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24 (6 339 349.
17. Fontein, M. E., Knipers, B., & Grobe, S. J. (1993). A description of think aloud method and protocol analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 3 (4 430 441.
18. Fuhrman, S. H., & Elmore, R. (Eds 2004). Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York : Teachers College Press.
19. Geisinger, K. F., & Carlson, J. F. (1992). Assessing language-minority students. Washington, DC : ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement, and Evaluation (ERIC Document No. ED 356232).
20. Grise, P., Beattie, S., & Algozzine, B. (1982). Assessment of minimum competency in fifth grade learning disabled students: Test modifications make a difference. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 35 40.
21. Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2004). Construct irrelevant variance in high stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23 (1 17 27.
22. Henriques, D. B. (2003). Rising demands for testing push limits of its accuracy. New York Times On-Line, September 2, 2003. Downloaded from the World Wide Web September, 2003. http://www.nytimes.com.
23. Iwarsson, S., & Stahl, A 2003). Accessibility, usability and universal design - positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disability Rehabilitation, 25 (2 57 66.
24. Johnstone, C. J., Thompson, S. J., Moen, R. E., Bolt, S., & Kato, K. (2005). Analyzing results of large-scale assessments to ensure universal design (Technical Report 41). Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
25. Johnstone, C. J., Bottsford-Miller, N. A., & Thompson, S. J. (2006). Using the think aloud method (cognitive labs) to evaluate test design for students with disabilities and English language learners. Minneapolis, MN : National Center on Educational Outcomes.
26. Ketterlin-Geller, L. R. (2005). Knowing what all students know: Procedures for developing universally designed assessments. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4 (1). http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/ jtla/journal/pdf/v4n2_jtla.pdf.
27. Leighton, J. P. (2004). Avoiding misconception, misuse, and missed opportunities: The collection of verbal reports in educational achievement testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23, 6 15.
28. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31 (6 3 16.
29. Linn, R. L., & Harnsisch, D. L. (1981). Interactions between item content and group membership on achievement test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18 (2 109 118.
30. Marion, S. (2006). The life of an ELA item. Retrieved May 18, 2006 from the World Wide Web : http://www.nciea.org.
31. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed. Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13 103). New York : Macmillan.
32. Messick, S. (1996). Standards-based score interpretation: Establishing valid grounds for valid inferences. In Proceedings of the joint conference on standard setting for large scale assessments, Sponsored by National Assessment Governing Board and The National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC : Government Printing Office.
33. National Research Council (2004). Keeping score for all: The effects of inclusion and accommodation policies on large-scale educational assessments. Washington, DC : National Academies Press.
34. Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator's call to action. Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
35. Popham, W. J., & Lindheim, E. (1980). The practical side of criterion-referenced test development. NCME Measurement in Education, 10 (4 1 8.
36. Renzagalia, A., Karvonen, M., Drasgow, E., & Stoxen, C. C. (2003). Promoting a lifetime of inclusion. Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 18 (3 140 149.
37. Smith, S. J., & Meyen, E. L. (2003). Applications of online instruction: An overview for teachers, students with mild disabilities, and their parents. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35 (6 1 15.
38. Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments: Synthesis Report 44. Minneapolis, MN : National Center on Educational Outcomes.
39. Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., Anderson, M. E., & Miller, N. A. (2005). Considerations for the development and review of universally designed assessments: Technical Report 42. Minneapolis, MN : National Center on Educational Outcomes.
40. Van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The think-aloud method: A practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. San Diego, CA : Academic Press.
41. Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states. Washington, DC : National Institute for Science Education and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
42. Webb, N. L. (2006). Identifying content for student achievement tests. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds. Handbook of test development (pp. 155 180). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. Wise, L. L., Becker, D. E., Harris, C. D., Taylor, L. R., Johnstone, C. J., Miller, N. A., Thompson, S. J., Sun, S., Shen, X., Butler, F. L., Wang, X., Koger, L. E., Moody, R., Deatz, R., Koger, M., Dickinson, E., Gensberg, S., Hilton, R. A., Kelley, N. L., & Stevens, C. (2005). Independent evaluation of California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE): 2005 Evaluation Report. Prepared for California Department of Education. Alexandria, VA : Human Resource Research Organization.
44. Zieky, M. (2006). Fairness reviews in assessment. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds. Handbook of test development (pp. 359 376). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.