Accessibility of segmented reading comprehension passages for students with disabilities

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 168-186

  Abedi, Jamal ^a   Kao, Jenny C ^b   Leon, Seth ^b   Mastergeorge, Ann M ^a   Sullivan, Lisa ^a   Herman, Joan ^b   Pope, Rita ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951038413     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957341003673823     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Abedi, J. (2006). Psychometric issues in ELL assessment and special education eligibility. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2282-2303.
2. Abedi, J., Kao, J. C., Leon, S., Sullivan, L., Herman, J., Pope, R., & Mastergeorge, A. (2008). Exploring factors that affect the accessibility of reading comprehension assessments for students with disabilities: A study of segmented text. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment.
3. Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Kao, J. C. (2007a). Examining differential distractor functioning in reading assessments for students with disabilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment.
4. Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Kao, J. C. (2007b). Examining differential item functioning in reading assessments for students with disabilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment.
5. Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2003). Impact of student language background on content-based performance: Analyses of extant data (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 603). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
6. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English Language Learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283-300.
8. Barrera, M., Liu, K., Thurlow, M., & Chamberlain, S. (2006). Use of chunking and questioning aloud to improve the reading comprehension of English language learners with disabilities (ELLs with Disabilities Report 17). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
9. Buly, M., & Valencia, S. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 219-239.
10. Casteel, C. A. (1988-89). Effects of chunked reading among learning disabled students: An experimental comparison of computer and traditional chunked passages. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 17(2), 115-121.
11. Casteel, C. A. (1990). Effects of chunked text-material on reading comprehension of high and low ability readers. Reading Improvement, 27(4), 269-275.
12. Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 948-958.
13. Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. (Eds.). (2005). Language and reading disabilities (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
14. Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate: An inquiry into the science, art, and ideology of old and new methods of teaching children to read, 1910-1965. New York: City College, Carnegie Corporation of New York.
15. Clay, M. M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
16. DiCerbo, K., Stanley, E., Roberts, M., & Blanchard, J. (2001, April). Attention and standardized reading test performance: Implications for accommodation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Washington, DC.
17. Garrison, W., Long, G., & Dowaliby, F. (1997). Working memory capacity and comprehension processes in deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2(2), 78-94.
18. Gay, L. R. (1981). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
19. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Williams, J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-320.
20. Gough, P. B., Hoover, W. A., Peterson, C. L. (1996). Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Individual with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37 (1997).
22. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended in 2004, PL 108-446, 20 USC 1400 et seq.
23. Keenan, S. A. (1984). Effects of chunking and line length on reading efficiency. Visible Language, 18(1), 61-80.
24. Kibby, M. M. (1979). Passage readability affects the oral reading strategies of disabled readers. The Reading Teacher, 32(4), 390-396.
25. Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71-104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Klein, J. A., Wiley, H. I., & Thurlow, M. L. (2006). Uneven transparency: NCLB tests take precedence in public assessment reporting for students with disabilities (Technical Report 43). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
27. Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Lail, K. E., Eisenbraun, K. D., & Kato, K. (2006). 2005 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 64). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved September 6, 2007 from http://cehd.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Synthesis64/Synthesis64.pdf
28. Miller, P. (2005). Reading comprehension and its relation to the quality of functional hearing: Evidence from readers with different functional hearing abilities. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(3), 305-485.
29. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1998). Operationalizing the NJCLD definition of learning disabilities for ongoing assessment in schools. Asha, 40 (Suppl. 18), in press. Retrieved August 2005 from http://www.ldonline.org/njcld/operationalizing.pdf
30. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
31. Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2000). Children's difficulties in text comprehension: Assessing causal issues. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 51-59.
32. Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. (2006a). Reading and students with autism. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from The Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA) website http://www.readingassessment.info/resources/publications/readingandautism.htm
33. Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. (2006b). Reading and students with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from The Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA) website: http://www.readingassessment.info/resources/publications/reading andemotbehav.htm
34. Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. (2006c). Reading and students with mental retardation. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from The Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA) website: http://www.readingassessment.info/resources/publications/mentalretardation.htm
35. Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. (2006d). Reading and students with specific learning disabilities. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from The Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA) website: http://www.readingassessment.info/resources/publications/readingandld.htm
36. Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. (2006e). Reading and students with speech or language impairments. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from The Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA) website: http://www.readingassessment.info/resources/publications/reading andspeech.htm
37. Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. (2006f). Reading and students with visual impairments or blindness. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from The Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA) website: http://www.readingassessment.info/resources/publications/visualimpairment.htm
38. Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. (2007). Reading and students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from The Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA) website: http://www.readingassessment.info/resources/publications/deaf Orhardo-fhearning.html
39. Perie, M., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2005). The nation's report card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006451). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
40. Rasinski, T. V. (1990). The effects of cued phrase boundaries on reading performance: A review. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University, Department of Teacher Development and Curriculum Studies.
41. Saarnio, D. A., Oka, E. R., & Paris, S. G. (1990). Developmental predictors of children's reading comprehension. In T. H. Carr & B. A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development: Components skills approaches (pp. 57-79). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
42. Siegel, L. S. (1993). Phonological processing deficits as the basis of a reading disability. Developmental Review, 13(3), 246-257.
43. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
44. Stahl, S. A., & Murray, B. A. (1998). Issues involved in defining phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 221-234.
45. Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Romance and reality. The Reading Teacher, 47, 280-291.
46. Stevens, K. C. (1981). Chunking material as an aid to reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 25(2), 126-129.
47. Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
48. Thurlow, M., & Bolt, S. (2001). Empirical support for accommodations most often allowed in state policy (Synthesis Report 41). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
49. Thurlow, M. L., Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1998). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
50. Thurlow, M. L., Moen, R., Altman, J. (2006). Annual performance reports: 2003-2004 state assessment data. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved September 6, 2007 from http://cehd.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/APR2003-04.pdf
51. U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) database. Author: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
52. Walz, L., Albus, D., Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2000). Effects of a multiple day test administration on the performance of special education students (Minnesota Report No. 34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
53. Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., Langenfeld, K. L., Nelson, J. R., Teelucksingh, E., & Seyfarth, A. (1998). Educational results for students with disabilities: What do the data tell us? (Technical Report 23). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.