Equivalence of paper-and-pencil and online administration modes of the statewide English test for students with and without disabilities

Educational Assessment

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 107-121

  Kim, Do Hong ^a   Huynh, Huynh ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953711236     PISSN: 10627197     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2010.491066     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Clauser, B. E., & Mazor, K. M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 31-44.
3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Douglas, J., Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (1996). Item-bundle DIF hypothesis testing: Identifying suspect bundles and assessing their differential functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 465-484.
5. Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269-314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
6. Fitzpatrick, S., & Triscari, R. (2005, April). Comparability studies of the Virginia computer-delivered tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
7. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
8. Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8 for Windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
9. Keng, L., McClarty, K. L., & Davis, L. L. (2006, April). Item-level comparative analysis of online and paper administrations of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
10. Kim, D.-H., & Huynh, H. (2007, December). Comparability of computer and paper-and-pencil versions of Algebra and Biology assessments. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6(4). Retrieved October 2008, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol6/4/
11. Kim, D.-H., & Huynh, H. (2008). Computer-based and paper-and-pencil administration mode effects on the statewide end-of-course English test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 554-570.
12. Kim, D.-H., & Huynh, H. (2009). Transitioning from paper-and-pencil to computer-based testing: Examining stability of Rasch latent trait across gender and ethnicity. In E. V. Smith & G. E. Stone (Eds.), Criterion-referenced testing: Practice analysis to score reporting using Rasch measurement (pp. 121-137). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
13. Kingston, N. M. (2009). Comparability of computer- and paper-administered multiple-choice tests for K-12 popula-tions: A synthesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 22, 22-37.
14. Nichols, P., & Kirkpatrick, R. (2005, April). Comparability of the computer-administered tests with existing paper-and-pencil tests in reading and mathematics tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
15. Parshall, C. G., Spray, J. A., Kalohn, J. C., & Davey, T. (2002). Practical considerations in computer-based testing. New York: Springer.
16. Poggio, J., Glasnapp, D. R., Yang, X., & Poggio, A. J. (2005, February). A comparative evaluation of score results from computerized and paper and pencil mathematics testing in a large scale state assessment program. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(6). Retrieved October 2008, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol3/6/
17. Pommerich, M. (2004, February). Developing computerized versions of paper-and-pencil tests: Mode effects for passage-based tests. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(6). Retrieved July 9, 2005, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol2/6/
18. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55.
19. Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. F. (1996). Simulation studies of the effects of small sample size and studied item parameters on SIBTEST and Mantel-Haenszel Type 1 error performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 215-230.
20. Rubin, D. B. (1973). Matching to remove bias in observational studies. Biometrics, 29, 159-184.
21. Sandene, B., Horkay, N., Bennett, R. E., Allen, N., Braswell, J., Kaplan, B., et al. (2005). Online assessment in mathematics and writing: Reports from the NAEP technology-based assessment project, research and development series. Retrieved October 25, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2005457.pdf
22. SAS Institute Inc. (2004). SAS version 9.1.2 [Computer software]. Cary, NC: Author.
23. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. F. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
24. Thompson, S. J., Thurlow, M. L., Quenemoen, R. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2002). Access to computer-based testing for students with disabilities (Synthesis Rep. 45). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved October 25, 2008, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis45.html
25. Wang, S., Jiao, H., Young, M. J., Brooks, T. E., & Olson, J. (2007). A meta-analysis of testing mode effects in Grade K-12 mathematics tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 219-238.
26. Wang, S., Jiao, H., Young, M. J., Brooks, T. E., & Olson, J. (2008). Comparability of computer-based and paper-and-pencil testing in K-12 reading assessments: A meta-analysis of testing mode effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 5-24.
27. Way, W. D., Davis, L. L., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2006, April). Score comparability of online and paper administrations of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
28. Willingham, W. W. (1989). Standard testing conditions and standard score meaning for handicappedexaminees. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 97-103.
29. Wu, A. D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12(3), 1-26.