Accommodating students with disabilities in large-scale testing: A comparison of differential item functioning (DIF) identified across disability types

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 121-138

  Bolt, Sara E ^a   Ysseldyke, Jim ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Differential item functioning; Large scale assessment; Students with disabilities; Test accommodations

Indexed keywords

EID: 42449142388     PISSN: 07342829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0734282907307703     Document Type: Article

References (47)

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., Rock, D.A., & Jirele, T. (1987). GRE score level, test completion, and reliability for visually impaired, physically handicapped, and nonhandicapped groups. The Journal of Special Education, 21 (3). 9-21.
3. Bennett, R.E., Rock, D.A., & Kaplan, B.A. (1987). SAT differential item performance for nine handicapped groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24 (1). 41-55.
4. Bennett, R.E., Rock, D.A., & Novatkoski, I. (1989). Differential item functioning on the SAT-M Braille edition. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26 (1). 67-79.
5. Bolt, S.E., & Thurlow, M.L. (2004). Five of the most commonly allowed accommodations in state policy: Synthesis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 141-152.
6. Bolt, S.E., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2006). Comparing DIF across math and reading/language arts tests for students receiving a read-aloud accommodation. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 329-355.
7. Braden, J., & Niebling, B. (2006). Using the joint standards to evaluate validity evidence for intelligence tests. In Flanagan, D. P., & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.). Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (2 nd ed.; pp. 615-630). New York: Guilford.
8. Buist-Bouwman, M.A., DeGraaf, R., Vollebergh, W.A.M., Alonso, J., Bruffaerts, R., Ormel, J., & the ESEMeD/MHEDEA2000 Investigators. (2006). Functional disability of mental disorders and comparision with physical disorders: a study among the general population of six European countries. ACTA Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 113, 492-500.
9. Clapper, A.T., Morse, A.B., Lazarus, S.S., Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2005). 2003 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 56). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis56.html
10. CTB / McGraw-Hill (1997). Handbook of instructional objectives for the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) Survey Form A. Monterey, CA: Author.
11. CTB / McGraw-Hill (2001). TerraNova® technical report. Monterey, CA: Author.
12. Elbaum, B., Arquelles, M., Campbell, Y., & Saley, M., (2004). Effects of student reads-aloud accommodation on the performance of students with and without disabilities on a test of reading comprehension. Exceptionality, 12, 2, 71-87.
13. Embretson, S., & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Epps, S., Ysseldyke, J., & McGue, M. (1984). "I know one when I see one"-differentiating LD and non-LD students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 89-101.
15. Farina, A., Thaw, J., Felner, R.D., & Hust, B.E. (1976). Some interpersonal consequences of being mentally ill or mentally retarded. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 80, 414-422.
16. Fichten, C.S. (1988). Students with physical disabilities in higher education: Attitudes and beliefs that affect integration. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with disabilities (pp. 171-186). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
17. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C.L., & Karns, K.M. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29 (1). 65-85.
18. Gajria, M., Salend, S.J., & Hemrick, M.A. (1994). Teacher acceptability of testing modifications for mainstreamed students. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9 (4). 236-234.
19. Gresham, F.M., MacMillan, D.L., & Bocian, K.M. (1996). Learning disabilities, low achievement, and mild retardation: More alike than different? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29 (6). 570-581.
20. Huynh, H., & Barton, K. (2006). Performance of students with disabilities under regular and oral administration of a high stakes reading examination. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 21-39.
21. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 195-17, 105th Cong., 1st session.
22. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), Pub. L. 108-446, 20 U.S.C.
23. Jayanthi, M., Epstein, M.H., Polloway, E.A., & Bursuck, W.D. (1996). A national survey of general education teachers' perceptions of testing adaptations. The Journal of Special Education, 30 (1). 99-115.
24. Johnstone, C.J. (2003). Improving validity of large-scale tests: Universal design and student performance (Technical Report 37). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 17, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical37.htm
25. Lewis, D., Green, D.R., & Miller, L. (1999, June). Using differential item functioning analyses to assess the validity of testing accommodated students with disabilities. Paper presented at the National Conference on Large-Scale Assessment, Snowbird, UT.
26. McKevitt, B.B., & Elliott, S.N. (2003). Effects and perceived consequences of using read-aloud and teacher-recommended testing accommodations on a reading achievement test. School Psychology Review, 32 (4). 583-600.
27. Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment. Educational Measurement, 14, 5-8.
28. Olson, J.F., & Goldstein, A.A. (1996). Increasing the inclusion of students with disabilities and limited English proficient students in NAEP (NCES 96-894). Focus on NAEP, 2 (1). Retrieved August 17, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs96/web/96894.asp
29. Phillips, S.E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7 (2). 93-120.
30. Phillips, S.E. (2002). Legal issues affecting special populations in large-scale testing programs. In G. Tindal & T. Haladyna (Eds.), Large scale assessment programs for all students (pp. 109-148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Pomplun, M., & Omar, M.H. (2000). Score comparability of a state mathematics assessment across students with and without reading accommodations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (1). 21-29.
32. Premeaux, S.F. (2001). Impact of applicant disability on selection: The role of disability type, physical attractiveness, and proximity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16 (2). 291-298.
33. Rogers, W.T. (1983). Use of separate answer sheets with hearing impaired and deaf school age students. Journal of Special Education, 7 (1). 63-72.
34. Roussos, L.A., & Stout, W.F. (1996). Simulation studies of the effects of small sample size and studied item parameters on SIBTEST and Mantel-Haenszel Type I error performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33 (2). 215-230.
35. Schulte, A.G., Elliott, S.N., & Kratochwill, T.R. (2001). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations on students' standardized achievement test scores. School Psychology Review, 30 (4). 527-547.
36. Sireci, S., Scarpati, S., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457-490.
37. Social Security Administration (2007). Disability evaluation under social security. Retrieved on March 25, 2007, from http://www.ssa.gov/disability/ professionals/bluebook/112.00-MentalDisorders-Childhood.htm#112. 02%200rganic%20Mental%20Disorders
38. Stanovich, K.E. (1999). The sociometrics of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 350-361.
39. Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIF v. 2.0b: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item-response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory.
40. Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Technical Report 34). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 17, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/ OnlinePubs/Technical34.htm
41. Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved November 2, 2002, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.html
42. Thurlow, M.L., Moen, R., & Altman, J. (2006). Annual performance reports: 2003-2004 state assessment data. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
43. Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64 (4). 439-450.
44. U.S. Department of Education (2003). Including special-needs students in the NAEP reading assessment (NCES 2003-467). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
45. Wainer, H. (1993). Model-based standardized measurement of an item's differential impact. In P.W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 123-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. Ysseldyke, J.E., Algozzine, R., Shinn, M., & Irvine, P. (1982). Similarities and differences between low achievers and students classified learning disabled. Journal of Special Education, 16, 73-85.
47. Zenisky, A.L., Hambleton, R.K., & Robin, F. (2003). Detection of differential item functioning in large-scale state assessments: A study evaluating a two-stage approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63 (1). 51-64.