Examining equivalence of accommodations on a statewide elementary-level science test

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 144-163

  Kim, Do Hong ^a,b,c   Schneider, Christina ^a,b,c   Siskind, Theresa ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

^b South Carolina State Department of Education   (United States)

^c The University of North Carolina ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650480220     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957340902754619     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. AERA, APA, & NCME (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Barton, K. E., & Huynh, H. (2003). Patterns of errors made by students with disabilities on a reading test with oral administration. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 602-614. (Pubitemid 36977653)
3. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
4. 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, 65-85.
5. Hu, L., & Bender, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
6. Huynh, H., & Barton, K. (2006). Performance of students with disabilities under regular and oral administrations for a high-stakes reading examination. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 21-39. (Pubitemid 43242256)
7. Huynh,H.,Meyer,J.P.,&Gallant,D.(2004). Comparabilityofstudentperformancebetweenregularandoraladministrationsforahigh- stakesmathematicstest.AppliedMeasurementinEducation,17,39-57.(Pubitemid38202856)
8. Janson, I. B. (2002). The effects of testing accommodations on students' standardized test scores in a northeast Tennessee school system (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 557.
9. Johnstone, C. J., Airman, J., Thurlow, M. L., & Thompson, S. J. (2006). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 2002 through 2004 (Technical Report 45). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Tech45/.
10. Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.5.1 for Windows [Computer Software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
11. Koenig, J. A., & Bachman, L. F. (Eds.). (2004). Keeping score for all: The effects of Inclusion and accommodation policies on large-scale educational assessments. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
12. Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. (2000). Assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky: Inclusion, student performance, and validity. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 255-272.
13. Marsh, H. W. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: A multifaceted approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 5-34.
14. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performance as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.
15. Meloy, L. L., Deville, C., & Frisbie, D. (2000, April). The effect of reading accommodation on standardized test scores of learning disabled and non learning disabled students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
16. National Assessment of Educational Progress (n.d.). The NAEP glossary of terms. Retrieved February 19, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ glossary.asp.
17. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
18. Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 93-120.
19. Pomplun, M., & Omar, M. H. (2000). Score comparability of a state mathematics assessment across students with and without reading accommodations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,21-29.
20. Rock, D., Bennett, R. E., & Jirele, T. (1988). Factor structure of the Graduate Record Examinations' general test in handicapped and nonhandicapped groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,382-392.
21. Rock, D. A., Bennett, R. E., & Kaplan, B. A. (1987). Internal construct validity of a college admissions test across handicapped and non-handicapped groups. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 193-205.
22. Rock, D. A., Bennett, R. E., Kaplan, B. A., & Jirele, T. (1988). Construct validity. In W. W. Willingham, M. Ragosta, R. E. Bennett, H. Braun, D. A. Rock, & D. E. Powers (Eds.), Testing handicapped people (pp. 99-107). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
23. Sireci, S. G. (2004). Validity issues in accommodating NAEP reading tests. Center for Educational Assessment (Research Report No. 515), Amherst: School of Education, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
24. Sireci,S.G.,Scarpati,S.E.,&Li,S.(2005). Testaccommodationsforstudentswithdisabilities: Ananalysisoftheinteractionhypothesis.ReviewofEducationalResearch,75,457-490. (Pubitemid41811554)
25. South Carolina Department of Education (2006). Test administration manual: South Carolina Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests. Retrieved February 19, 2007, from http://www.ed.sc.gov/ agency/offices/assessment/publications/ documents/PACTTAM06.pdf.
26. South Carolina Department of Education (n.d.). Testing students with disabilities: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved November 3, 2007, from http://www.ed.sc.gov/agency/offices/assessment/ Programs/AMC/documents/IEPteam- FAQ-0307.pdf.
27. Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Technical Report 34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 29,2005, from http://education.umn.edu/ NCEO/OnlinePubs/ Technical34.htm.
28. Thurlow, M. L., McGrew, K. S., Tindal, G., Thompson, S. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Elliott, J. L. (2000). Assessment accommodations research: Considerations for design and analysis (Technical Report 26). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved February 19,2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical26.htm.
29. Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. (1999, January). A summary of research of test accommodations: What we know so far. Mid-South Regional Resource Center, University of Kentucky.
30. Trimble, S. (1998). Performance trends and use of accommodations on a statewide assessment: Students with disabilities in the KIRIS on-demand assessments from 1992-93 through 1995-96 (State Assessment Series, Maryland/Kentucky Report). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
31. U.S. Department of Education. (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. Retrieved December 20, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaprguidance.doc.
32. Willingham, W. W. (1989). Standard testing conditions and standard score meaning for handicapped examinees. Applied Measurement In Education, 2, 97-103.
33. Zenisky, A. L., & Sireci, S. G. (2007). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2005-2006 (Technical Report 47). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.