Steps toward creating fully accessible reading assessments

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 121-131

  Thurlow, Martha L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951055716     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957341003673765     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. American Association of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. (2008). Frequently asked questions on intellectual disability and the AAIDD definition. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http://www.aamr.org/Policies/faq_mental_retardation.shtml
2. Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 45, 1142-1157.
3. Chamberlain, C. (2002). Reading skills of deaf adults who sign: Good and poor readers compared. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.
4. Chamberlain, C., & Mayberry, R. I. (2000). Theorizing about the relation between American Sign Language and reading. In C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford, & R. I. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 221-259). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
5. Daneman, M. (1996). Individual differences in reading skills. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds), Handbook of reading research (vol. 2)(pp.512-538). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
6. Dolan, R. P., & Hall, T. E. (2007). Developing accessible tests with universal design and digital technologies: Ensuring we standardize the right things. In C. C. Laitusis, & L. L. Cook (Eds.), Large-scale assessment and accommodations: What works (pp. 95-111). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
7. Dolan, R., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principles of uni-versal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7).
8. Federal Register. (2007, April 9). Title I-Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)-Assistance to states for the education of children with disabilities, 72(67), 17748-17781.
9. 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, 279-320.
10. Gillon, G. (2000). The efficacy of phonological awareness intervention for children with spoken language impairment. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 126-141.
11. Gillon, G. (2002). Follow-up study investigating the benefits of phonological awareness intervention of children with spoken language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 37, 381-400.
12. Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2004). Construct-irrelevant variance in high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(1), 17-27.
13. IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
14. Johnstone, C. J. (2003). Improving validity of large-scale tests: Universal design and student performance (Technical Report 37). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
15. Johnstone, C. J., Altman, J., & Thurlow, M. (2006). A state guide to the development of universally designed assessments. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
16. Johnstone, C. J., Thompson, S. J., Bottsford-Miller, N. A., & Thurlow, M. L. (2008). Universal design and multi-method approaches to item review. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(1), 25-36.
17. Johnstone, C. J., Thurlow, M. L., Moen, R. E., Matchett, D., Hausmann, K. E., & Scullin, S. (2007). What do state reading test specifications specify? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment.
18. Johnstone, C. J., Thurlow, M. L., Thompson, S.J., & Clapper, A.T. (2008). The potential for multimodal approaches to reading for students with disabilities as found in state reading standards. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(4), 219-229.
19. Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Lail, K. E., & Christensen, L. (2009). A longitudinal analysis of state accommodations policies: 12 years of change, 1993-2005. The Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 67-80.
20. NARAP. (2006, February). Defining reading proficiency for accessible large-scale assessments: Some guiding principles and issues. Retrieved July 18, 2008, from www.narap.info/publica-tions/reports/definingreadingprof.htm
21. NCLB (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001), 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2002).
22. New England Compact. (2007, January). Reaching students in the gaps: A study of assessment gaps, students, and alternatives. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from www.necompact.org/NECompct_StudentsGapSumFinal.pdf
23. President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
24. Ruiz, N. T. (1995). A young deaf child learns to write: Implications for literacy development. The Reading Teacher, 49, 206-217.
25. Schirmer, B. R., Bailey, J., & Lockman, A. S. (2004). What verbal protocols reveal about the reading strategies of deaf students: A replication study. American Annals of the Deaf, 149, 5-16.
26. Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C.J., Anderson, M. E., & Miller, N. A. (2005). Considerations for the development and review of universally designed assessments (Technical Report 42). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
27. Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., Thurlow, M. L., & Clapper, A. T. (2004). State literacy standards, practice, and testing: Exploring accessibility (Technical Report 38). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
28. Thompson, S. J., Thurlow, M. L., & Malouf, D. (2004, May). Creating better tests for everyone through universally designed assessments. Journal of Applied Testing Technology. Retrieved July 18, 2008, from www.testpublishers.org/atp.journal.htm
29. Thurlow, M. L. (2007). State policies and accommodations: Issues and implications. In C. C. Laitusis & L. L. Cook (Eds.), Large-scale assessment and accommodations: What works? (pp. 13-22). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
30. Thurlow, M., Altman, J., Cormier, D., & Moen, R. (2008a). Annual performance report: 2005-06 state assessment data. Retrieved July18,2008, from www.nceo.info/OnlinePubs/APRreport2005-2006.pdf
31. Thurlow, M. L., Altman, J. R., Quenemoen, R., & Cuthbert, M. (2008b). Trends in the public reporting of state assessment data (2001-02 through 2004-05). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
32. Thurlow, M. L., Bremer, C., & Albus, D. A. (2008). Good news and bad news in disaggregated subgroup reporting to the public on 2005-2006 assessment results (Technical Report 52). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
33. Thurlow, M. L., Johnstone, C. J., Thompson, S. J., & Case, B. (2008). Using universal design research and perspectives to increase the validity of scores on large-scale assessments. In R. C. Johnson, & R. E. Mitchell (Eds.), Testing deaf students in an age of accountability (pp. 63-75). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
34. Thurlow, M. L., Laitusis, C. C., Dillon, D. R., Cook, L. L., Moen, R. E., Abedi, J., & O'Brien, D. G. (2009). Accessibility principles for reading assessments. Minneapolis: National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects.
35. Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., & Christensen, L. L. (2008). Role of assessment accommodations in accountability. Perspectives. 34(4), 17-20.
36. Thurlow, M. L., Moen, R. E., Liu, K. K., Scullin, S., Hausmann, K. E., & Shyyan, V. (2009). Disabilities and reading: Understanding the effects of disabilities and their relationship to reading instruction and assessment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment.