Using confirmatory factor analysis and the Rasch model to assess measurement invariance in a high stakes reading assessment

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 286-306

  Randall, Jennifer ^a   Engelhard Jr , George ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^b EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954183841     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957347.2010.486289     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2006). Robust chi-square difference testing with mean and variance adjusted test statistics. Mplus Web Notes: No. 10. Retrieved January 13, 1998, from http://www.statmodel.com/download/webnotes/webnote10.pdf
2. Benedict, J., Steenkamp, E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90.
3. Bennett, R., Rock, D., & Novatkoski, I. (1989). Differential item functioning on the SAT-M Braille edition. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26(1), 67-79.
4. Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., Freidebach, J., & Freidebach, M. (2001). Read aloud accommodations: Effects on multiple choice reading and math items (Technical Report 31). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
5. Bock, R. D., & Jones, L. V. (1968). The measurement and prediction of judgment and choice. San Francisco: Holden-Day.
6. Bolt, S., & Thurlow, M. (2006). Item level effects of the read aloud accommodation for students with disabilities. (Synthesis Report 65). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
7. Bolt, S., & Ysseldyke, J. (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.
8. Byrne, B. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Byrne, B. & Campbell, T. L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(5), 555-574.
10. Byrne, B., Shavelson, R., & Muthen, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466.
11. Cheung, G., & Rensvold, R. (2002). Evaluating goodness of fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233-245.
12. Cohen, A., Gregg, N., Deng, M. (2005). The role of extended time and item content on a high-stakes mathematics test. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(4), 225-233.
13. Elbaum, B., Arguelles, M., Campbell, Y., & Saleh, M. (2004). Effects of a student-reads-aloud accommodation on the performance of students with and without learning disabilities on a test of reading comprehension. Exceptionality, 12(2), 71-87.
14. Elbaum, B. (2007). Effects of an oral testing accommodation on the mathematics performance of sec- ondary students with and without learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 40(4), 218-229.
15. Engelhard, G., Fincher, M., & Domaleski, C. S. (2006). Examining the reading and mathematics performance of students with disabilities under modified conditions: The Georgia Department of Education modification research study. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Education.
16. Fuchs, L. (2000a, July). The validity of test accommodations for students with disabilities: Differential item performance on mathematics tests as a function of test accommodations and disability status. Final Report: U.S. Department of Education through the Delaware Department of Education.
17. Fuchs, L. (2000b, July). The validity of test accommodations for students with disabilities: Differential item performance on reading tests as a function of test accommodations and disability status. Final Report: U.S. Department of Education through the Delaware Department of Education.
18. Huesman, R. & Frisbie, D. (2000, April). The validity of ITBS reading comprehension test scores for learning disabled and non learning disabled students under extended tie conditions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
19. Huynh, H., Meyer, J., & Gallant, D. (2004). Comparability of student performance between regular and oral administrations for a high stakes mathematics test. Applied Measurement in Education, 17(1), 39-57.
20. Huynh, H., & Barton, K. (2006). Performance of students with disabilities under regular and oral admin- istrations of a high-stakes reading examination. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(1), 21-39.
21. Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
22. Linacre, J. M. (2007). A user's guide to FACETS: Rasch-model computer programs. Chicago: winsteps.com.
23. Meloy, L., Deville, C., & Frisbie, D. (2000, April). The effect of a reading accommodation on standardized test scores of learning disabled students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association: New Orleans, LA.
24. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525-543.
25. Munger, G., & Loyd, B. (1991). Effect of speededness on test performance of handicapped and nonhandicapped examinees. Journal of Educational Research, 85(1), 53-57.
26. Muthen, B., & Christofferson, A. (1981). Simultaneous factor analysis of dichotomous variables in several groups. Psychometrika, 46(4), 407-419.
27. Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998-2007). Mplus user's guide. Fifth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
28. Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1960)
29. Rock, D., Bennett, R., & Kaplan, B. (1985). Internal construct validity of the SAT across handicapped and nonhandicapped populations. ETS Research Report RR-85-50. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
30. Rock, D., Bennett, R., & Kaplan, B. (1987). Internal construct validity of a college admissions test across handicapped and nonhandicapped groups. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(1), 193-205.
31. Runyan, M. (1991). The effect of extra time on reading comprehension scores for university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24(2), 104-108.
32. U.S. Department of Education (2007a). Demographic and school characteristics of students receiving special education in elementary grades (NCES Publication 2007-005). Jessup, MD: National Center for Educational Statistics.
33. U.S. Department of Education (2007b). Title I: Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged; Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA); Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 67, Monday, April 9, 2007.
34. Wagner, M., Marder, C., Blackorby, J., & Cardosa, D. (2002). The children we serve: The demographic characteristics of elementary and middle school students with disabilities and their households. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
35. Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Guzman, A. (2003). Who are secondary students in special education today? (A Report from the National Longitudial Transition Stud). Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http://www.ncset.org/publications
36. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.
37. Wu, A., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMMS data. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 12(3), 1-23.