Testing students with special needs: A model for understanding the interaction between assessment and student characteristics in a universally designed environment

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 3-16

  Ketterlin Geller, Leanne R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Accommodations; Cognitive models; Test development; Universal design; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 50849093869     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2008.00124.x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Altman, C., Dolan, R., Emick, J., Hall, T., Henderson, B., Johnstone, C., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Lewis, P., Thurlow, M., & Tindal, G. (2006). Definition of universal design. In C. J. Johnstone (Ed. Universal design of assessment summit. Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
2. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC : American Psychological Association.
3. Bhola, D. S., Impara, J. C., & Buckendahl, C. W. (2003). Aligning tests with states' content standards: Methods and issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22 (3 21 29.
4. Bielinski, J., Sheinker, A., & Ysseldyke, J. (2003). Varied opinions on how to report accommodated test scores: Findings based on CTB/McGraw-Hill's framework for classifying accommodations (Synthesis Report 49). Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes (http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis49.html accessed July 30, 2007).
5. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York : David McKay.
6. Borsboom, D., & Mellenbergh, G. J. (2007). Test validity in cognitive assessment. In J. P. Leighton & M. J. Gierl (Eds. Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications (pp. 85 115). New York : Cambridge University Press.
7. Center for Universal Design (1997). What is universal design? NC State University: The Center for Universal Design.
8. Chipman, S. F., Nichols, P. D., & Brennan, R. L. (1995). Introduction. In P. D. Nichols, S. F. Chipman, & R. L. Brennan (Eds. Cognitively diagnostic assessment (pp. 1 18). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
9. Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effects of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3 (7 http://www.jtla.org).
10. Downing, S. M. (2006). Twelve steps for effective test development. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds. Handbook of Test Development (pp. 3 25). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Downing, S. M., & Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Validity threats: Overcoming interference with proposed interpretations of assessment data. Medical Education, 38, 327 333.
12. Embretson, S., & Gorin, J. (2001). Improving construct validity with cognitive psychology principles. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38 (4 343 368.
13. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S. B., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. M. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgment of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29 (1 65 85.
14. Gierl, M. J., Leighton, J. P., & Hunka, S. M. (2007). Using the Attribute Hierarchy Method to make diagnostic inferences about examinees' cognitive skills. In J. P. Leighton & M. J. Gierl (Eds. Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications (pp. 242 274). New York : Cambridge University Press.
15. Gorin, J. S. (2007a). Test construction and diagnostic testing. In J. P. Leighton & M. J. Gierl (Eds. Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and Applications (pp. 173 201). New York : Cambridge University Press.
16. Gorin, J. S. (2007b). Test design with cognition in mind. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25 (4 21 35.
17. Haladyna, T., & Downing, S. M. (2004). Construct irrelevant variance in high stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23 (1 6 16.
18. Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M. A., & Tindal, G. (2002). An oral versus a standard administration of a large-scale math test. Journal of Special Education, 36 (1 39 47.
19. 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.
20. Johnstone, C., Thurlow, M., Moore, M., & Altman, J. (2006). Using Systematic item selection methods to improve universal design of assessments (Policy Directions 18). Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
21. Ketterlin-Geller, L. R. (2005). Knowing what all students know: Procedures for developing universally designed assessments. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4 (2 http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol4/ 2).
22. Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., & Tindal, G. (2008). Embedded technology: Increasing accessibility for all students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22 (4 1 15.
23. Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Yovanoff, P., & Tindal, G. (2007). Developing a new paradigm for accommodations research. Exceptional Children, 73 (3 331 347.
24. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 42, 212 218.
25. Lane, S. (2004). Validity of high-stakes assessment: Are students engaged in complex thinking? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23 (3 6 14.
26. 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 (4 6 15.
27. Leighton, J. P., & Gierl, M. J. (2007a). Defining and evaluating models of cognition used in educational measurement to make inferences about examinee's thinking processes. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26 (2 3 16.
28. Leighton, J. P., & Gierl, M. J. (2007b). Why cognitive diagnostic assessment? In J. P. Leighton & M. J. Gierl (Eds. Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment for Education: Theory and Applications (pp. 3 18). New York : Cambridge University Press.
29. Mace, R. L., Hardie, G. J., & Place, J. P. (1991). Accessible environments: Toward universal design. In W. E. Preiser, J. C. Vischer, & E. T. White (Eds. Design intervention: Toward a more humane architecture (pp. 155 176). New York : Van Nostrand Reinhold.
30. Marion, S. F., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). A validity framework for evaluating the technical quality of alternate assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25 (4 47 57.
31. Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18 (2 5 11.
32. Nichols, P., & Sugrue, B. (1999). The lack of fidelity between cognitively complex constructs and conventional test development practice. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18 (2 18 29.
33. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
34. Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22 (4 197 203.
35. Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457 490.
36. Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. NC State University: The Center for Universal Design.
37. Tatsuoka, K. K., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1986). Diagnosis of cognitive errors by statistical pattern recognition methods. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Nashville, TN.
38. Tatsuoka, K. K., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1997). Computerized cognitive diagnostic adaptive testing: Effect of remedial instruction as empirical validation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34 (1 3 20.
39. 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.
40. Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., Thurlow, M. L., & Altman, J. R. (2005). 2005 State special education outcomes: Steps forward in a decade of change. Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
41. Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. (1999). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. Lexington, KY : Mid-South Regional Resource Center.
42. Tindal, G., Nolet, V., & Blake, G. (1992). Research, consultation, & teaching program training module No. 3: Focus of teaching and learning in content classes. Eugene, OR : University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching.
43. Wainer, H. (1997). Visual revelations: Graphical tales of fate and deception from Napoleon Bonaparte to Ross Perot. New York : Copernicus.
44. Webb, N. L. (2005). Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
45. Webb, N. (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.
46. Yang, X., & Embretson, S. E. (2007). Construct validity and cognitive diagnostic assessment. In J. P. Leighton & M. J. Gierl (Eds. Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment for Education: Theory and Applications (pp. 119 145). New York : Cambridge University Press.