Psychometric considerations for alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards

Peabody Journal of Education

Volumn 84, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 595-602

  Rodriguez, Michael C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 75249099313     PISSN: 0161956X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01619560903241143     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2. Cronbach, L. J. (1989). Construct validity after thirty years. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement, theory and public policy (pp. 147-171). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
3. Cronbach, L. J. (2004).My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 391-418.
4. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
5. Downing, S. M., & Haladyna, T.M. (1997). Test item development: Validity evidence from quality assurance procedures. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 61-82.
6. Egan, K. L., Ferrara, S., Schneider, M. C., & Barton, K. E. (2009/this issue). Writing performance level descriptors and setting performance standards for assessments of modified achievement standards: The role of innovation and importance of following conventional practice. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 552-577.
7. Gorin, J. S. (2007). Reconsidering issues in validity theory. Educational Researcher, 36, 456-462.
8. Graham, J. M. (2006). Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 930-944.
9. Green, B. F., Crone, C. R., & Folk, V. G. (1989). A method for studying differential distractor functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 147-160.
10. Kane, M. T. (2002). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527-535.
11. Kettler, R. J., Elliott, S. N., & Beddow, P. A. (2009/this issue). Modifying achievement test items: A theory-guided and data-based approach for better measurement of what students with disabilities know. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 529-551.
12. Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2009/this issue). The changing landscape of alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards: An analysis of early adopters of AA-MASs. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 496-510.
13. Lissitz, R.W., & Samuelsen, K. (2007).Asuggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding validity and education. Educational Researcher, 36, 437-448.
14. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
15. Middleton, K., & Cahalan Laitusis, C. (2007). Examining test items for differential distractor functioning among students with learning disabilities (ETS Research Rep. No. 07-43). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-07-43.pdf
16. Palmer, P.W. (2009/this issue). State perspectives on implementing, or choosing not to implement, an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 578-584.
17. Roach, A. T., Chilungu, E. N., LaSalle, T. P., Talapatra, D., Vignieri, M. J., & Kurz, A. (2009/this issue). Opportunities and options for facilitating and evaluating access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 511-528.
18. Scriven, M. (2002). Assessing six assumptions in assessment. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 255-275). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Zigmond, N., & Kloo, A. (2009/this issue). The "two percent students": Considerations and consequences of eligibility decisions. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 478-495.