Alternate assessments in reading and math: Development and validation for students with significant disabilities

Exceptional Children

Volumn 69, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 481-494

  Tindal, Gerald ^a   Mcdonald, Marilee ^a   Tedesco, Marick ^a   Glasgow, Aaron ^a   Almond, Pat ^b   Crawford, Lindy ^c   Hollenbeck, Keith ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^b Oregon Department of State Lands   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^d Springfield Public Schools   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 7444225394     PISSN: 00144029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/001440290306900406     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bradley-Klug, K. L., Shapiro, E. S., Lutz, J. G., & DuPaul, G. J. (1998). Evaluation of oral reading rate as a curriculum-based measure within literature-based curriculum. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 183-197.
2. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
3. Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27-32.
4. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Bishop, N., & Hamlett, C. L. (1992). Classwide decision-making strategies with curriculum-based measurement, Diagnostique, 18(1), 39-52.
5. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecher, P. M. (1990). The role of skills analysis in curriculum-based measurement in math. School Psychology Review, 19(1), 6-22.
6. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Thompson, A., Roberts, P. H., Kubek, P., & Stecher, P. M. (1994). Technical features of a mathematics concepts and applications curriculum-based measurement system. Diagnostique, 19(4), 23-49.
7. Hartman, J. M., & Fuller, M. L. (1997). The development of curriculum-based measurement norms in literature-based classrooms. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 377-389.
8. Hintze, J. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (1997). Curriculum-based measurement and literature-based reading: Is curriculum-based measurement meeting the needs of changing reading curricula? Journal of School Psychology, 35, 351-375.
9. Howell, K. W., Fox, S. L., & Morehead, M. K. (1993). Curriculum-based assessment: Teaching and decision making (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.*
10. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et. seq. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 412 721)
11. Kane, M., Crooks, T., & Cohen, A. (1999). Validating measures of performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(2), 5-17.
12. Koretz, D., McCaffrey, D., Klein, S., Bell, R., & Stecher, B. (1993). The reliability of scores from the 1992 Vermont portfolio assessment program. (CSE Technical Report 355.) Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
13. Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessment: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford.*
14. Mehrens, W. A., & Clarizio, H. F. (1993). Curriculum-based measurement: Consequential and psychometric considerations. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 241-254.
15. Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 89-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validity of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.
17. Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and die validity of standards in performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(4), 5-8.
18. Nolet, V. (1992). Classroom-based measurement and portfolio assessment. Diagnostique, 18(1), 5-26.
19. Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. (1997). Using CBM to explore a consequential basis for the validity of a statewide performance assessment. Diagnostique, 22(3), 146-163.
20. Swain, K. D., & Allinder, R. M. (1996). The effects of repeated reading on two types of CBM: Computer maze and oral reading with second-grade students with learning disabilities. Diagnostique, 21(2), 51-66.
21. Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2000). State alternate assessments: Status of IDEA alternate assessment requirements take effect (Synthesis Report 35). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
22. Tindal, G. (1998). Models for understanding the task comparability in accommodated testing. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
23. Tindal, G., Hick, D., & Cole, C. (1993). The effect of curriculum on inferences of reading performance and improvement. Diagnostique, 18(1), 69-84.
24. Wesson, C. L., & King, R. P. (1992). The role of curriculum-based measurement in portfolio assessment. Diagnostique, 18(1), 27-37.
25. Yell, M. L., Deno, S. L., & Marston, D. B. (1992). Curriculum-based measures as formative evaluation. Diagnostique, 18(1), 99-112.