Using differential item functioning to investigate the impact of testing accommodations on an English-language arts assessment for students who are blind or visually impaired

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 132-152

  Stone, Elizabeth ^a   Cook, Linda ^a   Laitusis, Cara Cahalan ^a   Cline, Frederick ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951069889     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957341003673773     Document Type: Article

References (17)

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. Bennett, R. E., Rock, D. A., & Kaplan, B. (1987). SAT differential item performance for nine handicapped groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(1), 41-55.
3. Bennett, R. E., Rock, D. A., & Novatkoski, I. (1989). Differential item functioning on the SAT-M Braille edition. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26(1), 67-79.
4. Bolt, S. E. (2004, April). Using DIF analyses to examine several commonly-held beliefs about testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
5. Bolt, S. E., & Diao, Q. (2005). Reading-aloud a reading test: Examining reading sub-skill performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
6. Bolt, S. E., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2006). Comparing DIF across math and Reading/Language Arts tests for students receiving a read-aloud accommodation. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(4), 329-355.
7. Cahalan-Laitusis, C., Cook, L. L., & Aicher, C. (2004, April). Examining test items for students with disabilities by testing accommodation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
8. Cortiella, C. (2005) No Child Left Behind: Determining appropriate assessment accommodations for students with disabilities. National Center for Learning Disabilities.
9. Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning: Theory and practice (pp. 35-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Ferrell, K. A. (2007a). Issues in the field of blindness and low-vision. Retrieved November 12, 2008 from http://www.unco.edu/ncssd/resources/issues_bvi.pdf.
11. Ferrell, K. A. (2007b). Range of estimates of severely visually impaired children. New York: American Foundation for the Blind. Retrieved March 9, 2007 from http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=43&DocumentID=3300.
12. Geisinger, K. (1994). Psychometric issues in testing students with disabilities. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 121-141.
13. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. 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.
15. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
16. Stone, E. (2007, October). Investigation of some assessment issues for students who are blind or visually impaired. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Rocky Hill, CT.
17. Zieky, M. (1993). Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning: Theory and practice (pp. 337-347). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.