Accessibility of computer-based testing for individuals with disabilities and english language learners within a validity framework

Online Assessment and Measurement: Foundations and Challenges

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 214-262

  Hansen, Eric G ^a   Mislevy, Robert J ^b  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952922566     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59140-720-1.ch011     Document Type: Chapter

References (56)

1. Abedi, J., Courtney, M., & Leon, S. (2003). Effectiveness and validity of accommodations for English language learners in large-scale assessments (Center for the Study of Evaluation [CSE] Report 608). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
2. Abedi, J., & Dietel, R. (2004). Challenges in the No Child Left Behind Act for English language learners (CRESST Policy Brief No. 7). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
3. Abedi, J., Hoffstetter, C. H., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 1-28.
4. Allen, J. M., Bulla, N., & Goodman, S. A. (2003). Test access: Guidelines for computer-administered testing. Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind. Retrieved December 1, 2004, from http://www.aph.org/tc/access/
5. Allman, C. (2004). Making tests accessible for students with visual impairments: A guide to test publishers, test developers, and state assessment personnel (2nd ed.). Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind. Retrieved December 1, 2004, from http://www.aph.org/tc/access2/
6. 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.
7. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. (2000). Electronic and information technology accessibility standards (Section 508). Retrieved October 4, 2002, from http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm
8. Bennett, R. E. (1995). Computer-based testing for examinees with disabilities: On the road to generalized accommodation (ETS RM-95-1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
9. Bennett, R. E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1(1), 2002. Retrieved October 27, 2004, from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/jtla/journal/v1n1.shtml
10. Center for Applied Special Technology. (2004a). National file format initiative at NCAC. Retrieved August 25, 2004, from http://www.cast.org/ncac/NationalFileFormat3138.cfm
11. Center for Applied Special Technology. (2004b). National instructional materials accessibility standard report-Version 1.0: NIMAS report executive summary. Retrieved August 25, 2004, from http://www.cast.org/ncac/nimas/executive_summary.htm
12. Center for Universal Design (1997). The principles of universal design: Version 2.0-4/1/97. Retrieved July 28, 2004, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/univ_design/principles/udprinciples.htm
13. Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., & Jacobs, I. (Eds.). (1999). Web content accessibility guidelines. Retrieved May 5, 1999, from the World Wide Web Consortium site http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT
14. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
15. DAISY Consortium. (2004, August 25). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from http://www.daisy.org/about_us/g_faq.asp
16. ERIC/OSEP Special Project. (1999, Fall). Universal Design: Ensuring access to the general education curriculum. Research Connections, 5. Retrieved July 28, 2004, from http://ericec.org/osep/recon5/rc5sec1.html
17. Freed, G., Rothberg, M., & Wlodkowski, T. (2003). Making educational software and web sites accessible: Design guidelines including math and science solutions. Retrieved March 24, 2004, from the WGBH Educational Foundation Web site: http://ncam.wgbh.org/cdrom/guideline/
18. gh. (2003). gh, LLC and Educational Testing Service working to provide historic computer-voiced standardized test for people with visual disabilities. Retrieved August 6, 2004, from http://www.ghbraille.com/microsoftnewsrelease.html
19. Hansen, E. G., Forer, D. C., & Lee, M. J. (2004). Toward accessible computerbased tests: Prototypes for visual and other disabilities (RR-78). Princeton, NJ: TOEFL Research Reports.
20. Hansen, E. G., & Mislevy, R. J. (2004, April 13). Toward a unified validity framework for ensuring access to assessments by individuals with disabilities and English language learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), San Diego, CA. Retrieved October 27, 2004, from the ETS Web site http://www.ets.org/research/conferences/aera2004.html#framework
21. Hansen, E. G., & Mislevy, R. J. (in press). Toward a unified validity framework for ensuring access to assessments by English language learners. Princeton, NJ: ETS Research Report Series.
22. Hansen, E. G., Mislevy, R. J., & Steinberg, L. S. (2003). Evidence-centered assessment design and individuals with disabilities. E. G. Hansen (Organizer), Assessment design and diverse learners: Evidentiary issues in disability, language, and non-uniform testing conditions. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL. Retrieved October 27, 2004, from the ETS Web site www.ets.org/research/dload/ncme03-hansen.pdf
23. Hansen, E. G., Mislevy, R. J., & Steinberg, L. S. (in press). Evidence centered assessment design for reasoning about testing accommodations in NAEP reading and math. Princeton, NJ: ETS Research Report Series.
24. Hansen, E. G., Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., Lee, M. J., & Forer, D. C. (2005). Accessibility of tests for individuals with disabilities within a validity framework. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 107-133.
25. Hansen, E. G., & Steinberg, L. S. (2004). Evidence-centered assessment design for reasoning about testing accommodations in NAEP reading and math. Paper commissioned by the Committee on Participation of English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities in NAEP and Other Large-Scale Assessments of the Board on Testing and Assessment (BOTA) of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council.
26. Heath, A., & Hansen, E. (2002). Guidelines for testing and assessment. In IMS Global Learning Consortium (Ed.), IMS guidelines for developing acces sible learning applications. Retrieved August 6, 2004, from http://ncam.wgbh.org/salt/guidelines/sec9.html
27. IMS Global Learning Consortium. (Ed.). (2002). IMS guidelines for developing accessible learning applications. Retrieved August 6, 2004, from http://ncam.wgbh.org/salt/guidelines/
28. IMS Global Learning Consortium. (Ed.). (2003). IMS learner information package accessibility for LIP information model. Version 1.0 final specification. Retrieved August 24, 2004, from http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/acclipv1p0/imsacclip_infov1p0.html
29. IMS Global Learning Consortium. (Ed.). (2004). IMS AccessForAll Meta-data - Information Model. Version 1.0 final specification. Retrieved August 25, 2004, from http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/accmdv1p0pd/imsaccmd_infov1p0pd.html
30. Jacobs, I., Gunderson, J., & Hansen, E. (Eds.). (2002). User agent accessibility guidelines 1.0. W3C Recommendation 17 December 2002. Retrieved October 27, 2004, from the World Wide Web Consortium Web site: http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/
31. Jensen, F. V. (1996). An introduction to Bayesian networks. New York: Springer-Verlag.
32. Kane, M. (1992). An argument-based approach to validation. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527-535.
33. National Research Council. (2004). Keeping score for all: The effects of inclusion and accommodation policies on large-scale educational assessment. In J. A. Koenig & L. F. Bachman (Eds.), Committee on Participation of English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities in NAEP and Other Large-Scale Assessments. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
34. Landau, S. (2004, February). Development of an audio-tactile accommodation for delivery of standardized tests to students who are blind or visually impaired-Interim Report (U.S. Department of Education, SBIR Grant ED-02-CO-0054). New York: Touch Graphics.
35. Linn, R. L. (2002). Validation of the uses and interpretations of results of state assessment and accountability systems. In G. Tindal, & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all students (pp. 109-148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. McConnell, S. (1998). Software project survival guide. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.
37. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: Macmillan.
38. Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Education Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.
39. Mislevy, R. J. (1994). Evidence and inference in educational assessment. Psychometrika, 59, 439-483.
40. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 3-67.
41. National Assessment Governing Board. (2002). Reading framework for the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington DC: Author.
42. National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2004). Special topic area: Universally designed assessments. Retrieved August 24, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/TopicAreas/UnivDesign/UnivDesign_topic.htm
43. Phillips, S. E. (2002). Legal issues affecting special populations in large-scale testing programs. In G. Tindal, & T. M. Haladyna (Eds), Large-scale assessment programs for all students (pp. 109-148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
44. Pitoniak, M. J., & Royer, J. M. (2001). Testing accommodations for examinees with disabilities: A review of psychometric, legal and social policy issues. Review of Educational Research, 71, 53-104.
45. Sheehan, K. M, & Ginther, A. (2001, April). What do multiple choice verbal reasoning items really measure? An analysis of the cognitive skills underlying performance on TOEFL reading comprehension items. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), Seattle, WA.
46. Sheinker, A., Barton, K. E., & Lewis, D. M. (2004). Guidelines for inclusive test administration 2005. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
47. Shute, V. J., Graf, E. A., & Hansen, E. G. (in press). Designing adaptive, diagnostic math assessments for sighted and visually-disabled students. In L. PytlikZillig, R. Bruning, & M. Bodvarsson (Eds.). Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
48. Spearman, C. (1904). "General intelligence" objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201-293.
49. Thatcher, J. W. (2004). Side-by-side: WCAG v. 508. Retrieved August 25, 2004, from http://www.jimthatcher.com/sidebyside.htm
50. Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (NCEO Synthesis Report 44). Minne apolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved October 27, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.html
51. Thompson, S. J., Thurlow, M. L., & Malouf, D. B. (2004). Creating better tests for everyone through universally designed assessments. ATP Journal. Retrieved July 28, 2004, from the Association of Test Publishers Web site: http://www.testpublishers.org/Creating_Better_Tests%20Final%20Revision%205.15.04.pdf
52. Thompson, S. J., Thurlow, M. L., Quenemoen, R. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2002). Access to computer-based testing for students with disabilities (NCEO Synthesis Report 45). Retrieved February 6, 2004, from the National Center on Educational Outcomes Web site: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis45.html
53. Thurlow, M., House, A., Boys, C., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (2000). State participation and accommodation policies for students with disabilities: 1999 update (Synthesis Report No. 33). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 1, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis33.html
54. Thurlow, M. L., House, A. L., Scott, D. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2000, Fall). Students with disabilities in large-scale assessments: State participation and accommodation policies. Journal of Special Education. Retrieved August 27, 2004, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HDF/is_3_34/ai_76157521/pg_1
55. Wainer, H., & Thissen, D. (1994). On examinee choice in educational testing. Review of Educational Research, 64, 159-195.
56. Willingham, W. W., Ragosta, M., Bennett, R. E., Braun, H., Rock, D. A., & Powers, D. E. (Eds.). (1988). Testing handicapped people. Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.