Generalizability theory applied to reading assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities

Journal of Special Education

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 3-17

  Tindal, Gerald ^a   Yovanoff, Paul ^a   Geller, Josh P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

1 population; G theory; Performance assessment; Students with significant cognitive disabilities

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950523607     PISSN: 00224669     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0022466908323008     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Baker, E., Abedi, J., Linn, R., & Niemi, D. (1995). Dimensionality and generalizability of domain-independent performance assessments. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(4), 197-205.
2. Baxter, G.P., Shavelson, R.J., Goldman, S.R., & Pine, J. (1992). Evaluation of procedure-based scoring for hands on science assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 1-17.
3. Brennan, R.L. (1996). Generalizability of performance assessments. In G. W. Phillips (Ed.), Technical issues in performance assessments (pp. 19-58). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
4. Brennan, R.L. (2000). Performance assessments from the perspective of generalizability theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 339-353.
5. Brennan, R.L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
6. Browder, D., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L.A., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessments with academic and functional curricula. The Journal of Special Education, 37(4), 211-223.
7. Bruckner, C.T., Yoder, P.J., & McWilliam, R.A. (2006). Generalizability and decision studies: An example using conversational language samples. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 139-153.
8. Crawford, L., Tindal, G., & Carpenter, D.M., II. (2006). Exploring the validity of the Oregon extended writing assessment. The Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 16-27.
9. Elliott, S.N., Compton, E., & Roach, A. (2005). Building validity evidence for scores on a state alternate assessment: A contrasting groups multi-methods approach. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(2), 30-43.
10. Flowers, C., Browder, D., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L.A. (2006). An analysis of three states' alignment between language arts and mathematics standards and alternate assessments. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 201-215.
11. Gao, X., & Brennan, R.L. (2001). Variability of estimated variance components and related statistics in a performance assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 191-203.
12. Gierl, M.J. (1998). Generalizability of written-response scores for the Alberta Education English diploma examination. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 44, 94-97.
13. Hintze, J.M., Owen, S.V., Shapiro, E.S., & Daly, E.J., III. (2000). Generalizability of oral reading fluency measures: Application of G-theory to curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Quarterly, 15(1), 52-68.
14. Hintze, J.M., & Petitte, H.A. (2001). The generalizability of CBM oral reading fluency measures across general and special education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 158-170.
15. Kampfer, S., Horvath, L., Kleinert, H., & Kearns, J. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of one state's alternate assessment: Implications for practice and preparation. Exceptional Children, 67(3), 361-374.
16. Kleinhert, H.L., & Kearns, J.F. (1999). A validation study of the performance indicators and learner outcomes of Kentucky's alternate assessment for students with significant disabilities. JASH, 24(2), 100-110.
17. Kleinert, H., Kearns, J., & Kennedy, S. (1997). Accountability for all students: Kentucky's alternate portfolio assessment for students with moderate and severe cognitive disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 24(2), 88-101.
18. Kleinert, H., Kennedy, S., & Kearns, J. (1999). The impact of alternate assessments: A statewide teacher survey. The Journal of Special Education, 33(2) 93-102.
19. Kohl, F.L., McLaughlin, M., & Nagle, K. (2006). Alternate achievement standards and assessment: A descriptive investigation of 16 states. Exceptional Children, 73(1), 107-123.
20. Lane, S., Liu, M., Ankenmann, R.D., & Stone, C.A. (1996). Generalizability and validity of a mathematics performance assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 71-92.
21. Linn, R., & Burton, E. (1994, Spring). Performance-based assessment: Implications of task specificity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13, 5-15.
22. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: American Council on Education.
23. Novak, J.R., Herman, J.L., & Gearhart, M. (1996). Establishing validity for performance-based assessments: An illustration for collections of student writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(4), 220-233.
24. Roach, A.T., Elliott, S.N., & Webb, N. (2005). Alignment of an alternate assessment with state academic standards. Evidence for the content validity of the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment. The Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 218-231.
25. Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Baxter, G.P., & Shavelson, R.J. (1993). On the stability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 41-53.
26. Shavelson, R.J., Baxter, G., & Gao, X. (1993). Sampling variability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 215-232.
27. Tindal, G., Glasgow, A., VanLoo, D., Chow, E., & Gall, J. (2001). Oregon extended assessment: Reading, writing, and math results and reliability summary.
28. Tindal, G., McDonald, Tedesco, M., Glasgow, A., Almond, P., Crawford, L.,et al.(2003). Alternate assessments in reading and math: Development and validation for students with significant disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 481-494.
29. Turner, M., Baldwin, L., Kleinert, H., & Kearns, J. (2000). The relation of a statewide alternate assessment for students with severe disabilities to other measures of instructional effectiveness. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 69-76.
30. U.S. Department of Education. (2003, December). Title I- Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged: Final regulations (34 CFR Part 200). Washington, DC: Author.
31. U.S. Department of Education. (2004, April). Standards and assessments peer review guidance: Information and examples for meeting requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Author.
32. U.S. Department of Education. (2005, August). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author.
33. Webb, N. (1997, April). An analysis of the alignment between mathematics standards and assessment for three states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
34. Webb, N.M., Schlackman, J., & Sugrue, B. (2000). The dependability and interchangeability of assessment methods in science. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(3), 227-301.
35. Ysseldyke, J., & Olsen, K. (1999). Putting alternate assessments into practice: What to measure and possible sources of data. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 175-185.
36. Yovanoff, P., & Tindal, G. (2007). Scaling early reading alternate assessments with statewide measures. Exceptional Children, 73(2), 184-201.