Accommodations and item-level analyses using mixture differential item functioning models

Journal of Special Education

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 54-62

  Scarpati, Stanley E ^a   Wells, Craig S ^a   Lewis, Christine ^a   Jirka, Stephen ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^b PEARSON   (United States)

Author keywords

accommodations; differential item functioning; test item analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 79953649919     PISSN: 00224669     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0022466909350224     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Ackerman, T.A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 67-91.
2. 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.
3. 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, 329-355.
4. Chui, C.W.T., & Pearson, P.D. (1999, June). Synthesizing the effects of test accommodations for special education and limited English proficient students. Paper presented at the National Conference on Large Scale Assessment, Snowbird, UT.
5. Cohen, A.S., & Bolt, D.M. (2005). A mixture model analysis of DIF. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42, 133-148.
6. Cohen, A.S., Gregg, N., & Deng, M. (2005). The role of extended time and item content on a high-stakes mathematics test. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 225-233.
7. Cohen, A.S., & Kim, H. (1992). Detecting calculator effects on item performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 5, 303-320.
8. 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: Differential item functioning based on Rasch analyses. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Education.
9. Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Boudousquie, A., Copeland, K., Young, V., & Kalinowski, S., et al(2006). Effects of accommodations on high-stakes testing for students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 136-150.
10. Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Mathematics problem-solving profiles of students with mathematics disabilities with and without comorbid reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 563-573.
11. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C., Brinkley, E., & Crouch, R. (2000). Using objective data sources to enhance teacher judgments about test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 67, 67-81.
12. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C.L., & Karns, K.M. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data, School Psychology Review,29, 65-85.
13. Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M.A., & Tindal, G. (2002). An oral versus standard administration of a large-scale mathematics test. Journal of Special Education, 36, 39-47.
14. Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M.A., Tindal, G., Heath, B., & Almond, P.J. (1999). Reading as an access to mathematics problem solving on multiple-choice tests for sixth grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 113-125.
15. Huynh, H., & Barton, K.E. (2006). Performance of students with disabilities under regular and oral administrations of a high-stakes reading examination. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 21-39.
16. Johnstone, C.J., Altman, J., Thurlow, M.L., & Thompson, S.J. (2006). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 2002 through 2004 (Tech. Rep. No. 45). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
17. Ketterlin-Geller, L.R., Yovanoff, P., & Tindal, G. (2007). Developing a new paradigm for conducting research on accommodations in mathematics testing. Exceptional Children, 73, 331-347.
18. Lord, F. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Marco, G.L. (1977). Item characteristic curve solutions to three intractable testing problems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 139-160.
20. Phillips, S.E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 93-120.
21. Rost, J. (1990). Rasch models in latent classes: An integration of two approaches to item analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 271-282.
22. Shepard, L., Taylor, G., & Betebenner, D. (1998). Inclusion of limited-English-proficient students in Rhode Island's Grade 4 mathematics performance assessment. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
23. Sireci, S.G. (2005). Unlabeling the disabled: A psychometric perspective on flagging scores from accommodated test administrations. Educational Researcher, 24, 3-12.
24. Sireci, S.G., Scarpati, S.E., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction effect. Review of Education Research, 75, 457-490.
25. Spiegelhalter, D., Thomas, A., Best, N., & Lunn, D. (2003). Win-Bugs (Version 1.4) [Computer software]. Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health.
26. Thissen, D. (2003). MULTILOG for Windows (Version 7) [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software.
27. Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Tech. Rep. No. 34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 2003 from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/Online-Pubs/Technical34.htm.
28. Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. (2000). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations, Lexington: University of Kentucky Mid-south Regional Resource Center, Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute.
29. Wells, C.S., Cohen, A.S., & Patton, J. (2008, March). A range-null hypothesis approach for testing DIF under the Rasch model. Paper presented at the annual conference for the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.
30. Zenisky, A.L., & Sireci, S.G. (2007). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2005-2006 (Tech. Rep. No. 47). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
31. Zimowski, M.F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R.J., & Bock, R.D. (2003). BILOG-MG 3.0 [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
32. Zumbo, B.D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 223-233.
33. Zumbo, B.D., & Gelin, M.N. (2005). A matter of test bias in educational policy research: Bringing the context into picture by investigating sociological/community moderated (mediated) test item bias. Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5, 1-23.
34. Zuriff, G.E. (2000). Extra examination time for students with learning disabilities: An examination of the maximum potential thesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 99-117.