Alternate assessments of modified achievement standards: More accessible and less difficult tests to advance assessment practices?

Journal of Disability Policy Studies

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 140-152

  Elliott, Stephen N ^a   Kettler, Ryan J ^a   Roach, Andrew T ^b  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accessibility; Alternate assessments; Item modifications

Indexed keywords

EID: 56749156838     PISSN: 10442073     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1044207308327472     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Adedi, J., Leon, S., & Kao, J.C. (2007). Examining differential distractor functioning in reading assessments for students with disabilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment.
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
3. Beddow, P.A., Kettler, R.J., & Elliott, S.N. (2007). Item accessibility and modification guide. Unpublished instrument, Peabody College at Vanderbilt University.
4. Bolt, S.E., & Roach, A.T. (in press). Inclusive assessment and accountability: A practical guide to accommodations for students with diverse needs. New York: Guilford.
5. Butler, A.C., Karpicke, J.D., & Roediger, H.L. (2007). The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13 (4). 273-281.
6. Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design. Retrieved on July 15, 2007, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud
7. Compton, E., & Elliott, S.N. (2007). Consortium for Alternate Assessment Validity and Experimental Studies (CAAVES) project. Boise: Idaho Department of Education, funded by U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
8. Elliott, S.N., Kettler, R.J., Roach, A.T., Beddow, P.A., III, Compton, L., & Rodriguez, M.C. (2008, June). Modified alternate assessment: Design strategies and experimental results. Symposium presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Student Assessment, Orlando, FL.
9. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 148-157.
10. Fumarlo, L., & Russell, M. (2006). Examining the utility of a prototype assessment for assessing students in the gap (Technology Assessment Study Collaborative Report). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
11. Haladyna, T.M., Downing, S.M., & Rodriguez, M.C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15 (3). 309-334.
12. Herman, J.L., Klein, D., & Abedi, J. (2000). Assessing students' opportunity to learn: Teacher and student perspectives. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19, 16-24.
13. Hollenbeck, K. (2005). Validity issues and decisions about testing accommodations. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31, 7-17.
14. Hollenbeck, K., Rozek-Tedesco, M., & Finzel, A. (2000, April). Defining valid accommodations as a function of setting, task, and response. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Council of Exceptional Children, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
15. Johnstone, C.J. (2003, December). Improving validity of large-scale tests: Universal design and student performance (Tech. Rep. No. 37). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
16. Karger, J. (2004). Access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities: The role of the IEP. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ ncac-iep.html
17. Kettler, R.J., Elliott, S.N., & Albers, C.A. (2008). Structured teacher ratings to identify students who need help: Validation of the Brief Academic Competence Evaluation Screening System. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 260-273.
18. Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58 (1). 79-97.
19. Lewis, D.M., Mitzel, H.C., & Green, D.R. (1996, June). Standard setting: A bookmark approach. In D. R. Green (Chair). IRT-based standard-setting procedures utilizing behavioral anchoring. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Large Scale Assessment, Phoenix, AZ.
20. Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America's classrooms. Baltimore: Brookes.
21. Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2006). Fostering achievement and motivation with bug-related tutoring feedback in a computer-based training for written subtraction. Learning and Instruction, 16, 310-322.
22. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1999). Linkage of the IEP to the general education curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Project FORUM at NASDSE.
23. National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2006). Using systematic item selection methods to improve universal design of assessments (Policy Directions No. 18). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
24. Plake, B.S. (2008). Standard setters: Stand up and take a stand! Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27 (1). 3-9.
25. Rigney, S. (2008, June). Lessons from the initial review of state alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards. Symposium presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Student Assessment, Orlando, FL.
26. Rodriguez, M. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24 (2) 3-13.
27. Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., Anderson, M.E., & Miller, N.A. (2005). Considerations for the development and review of universally designed assessments (Tech. Rep. No. 42). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
28. U.S. Department of Education. (2005, August). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author.
29. U.S. Department of Education. (2007 b, July). Standards and assessments peer review guidance. Washington, DC: Author.
30. Yeh, S.S. (2006). High stakes testing: Can rapid assessment reduce the pressure ? Teachers College Record, 108 (4). 621-661.
31. Yell, M.L. (1998). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
32. Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., & Shin, H. (1995). Opportunity-to-learn standards (Policy Direction No. 4). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://education.umn. edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy4.html
33. Zigmond, N. (2008, January). Who are the 2% students... eligible to be judged as proficient based on modified grade-level academic achievement standards? Paper presented at the General Supervision Enhancement Grants Kick-Off Meeting, Washington, DC.