Differential item functioning analysis for accommodated versus nonaccommodated students

Educational Assessment

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 38-56

  Finch, Holmes ^a   Barton, Karen ^b   Meyer, Patrick ^c  

^a BALL STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CTB MCGRAW HILL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 68149148900     PISSN: 10627197     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10627190902816264     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Barton, K., & Finch, W. H. (2004, April). Using DIF analyses to examine bias and assumptions of unidimensionality across students with and without disabilities and students with accommodations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
2. Barton, K., & Huynh, H. (2003). Patterns of errors made by students with disabilities on a reading test with oral reading administration. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(4), 602-614.
3. Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., Freidebach, J., & Freidebach, M. (2001). Read-aloud accommodations: Effects on multiple-choice reading and math items (Tech. Rep. No. 31). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 2, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical 31.htm
4. Bolt, S. (2004, April). Using DIF analysis to examine several commonly-held beliefs about testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
5. Bolt, S., & Bielinski, J. (2002, April). The effects of the read aloud accommodation on math test items. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
6. Bolt, S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2007). Item-level effects of the read-aloud accommodation for students with reading disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(1), 15-27.
7. Cahalan-Laitusis, C., Cook, L., & Aicher, C. (2004, April). Examining test items for students with disabilities by testing accommodation. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
8. Cahalan-Laitusis, C., Cook, L. L., Cope, J. M., & Rizavi, S. (2004, April). Detecting item bias for students with disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
9. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L.A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Clauser, B. E., & Mazor, K. M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items (ITEMS Module). Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 31-44.
11. Cohen, A. S., Gregg, N., & Deng, M. (2005). The role of extended time and item content on a high-stakes mathematics test. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(4), 225-233.
12. CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2002). TerraNova, the second edition: CAT technical bulletin I. Monterey, CA: Author.
13. Jodoin, M. G., & Gierl, M. J. (2001). Evaluating Type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 329-349.
14. Kettler, R. J., Niebling, B. C., Mroch, A. A., Feldman, E. S., Newell, M. L., Elliott, S. N., et al. (2005). Effects of testing accommodations on math and reading scores: An experimental analysis of the performance of students with and without disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31(1), 37-48.
15. Lee, Y., & Klockars, A. J. (2005, April). The effects of sample size, test length, and inclusion criteria on the use of SIBTEST. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
16. Li, H., & Stout, W. (1996). A new procedure for detecting crossing DIF. Psychometrika, 61, 647-677.
17. Mazor, K. M., Clauser, B. E., & Hambleton, R. K. (1992). The effect of sample size on the functioning of the Mantel-Haenszel statistic. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 443-451.
18. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
19. Parshall, C. G., & Miller, T. R. (1995). Exact versus asymptotic Mantel-Haneszel DIF statistic: A comparison of performance under small sample conditions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32(3), 302-316.
20. Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93-120.
21. 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.
22. Shealy, R. T., & Stout, W. F. (1993). An item response theory model for test bias and differential test functioning. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 197-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S. E., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457-490.
24. Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001. (National Center on Educational Outcomes Rep. No. 34). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
25. 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.
26. Willingham, W. W., Ragosta, M., Bennett, R. E., Braun, H., Rock, D. A., & Powers, D. E. (1988). Testing handicapped people. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
27. Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning: Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.