Examining the Effectiveness of Test Accommodation Using DIF and a Mixture IRT Model

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 281-304

  Cho, Hyun Jeong ^a   Lee, Jaehoon ^a   Kingston, Neal ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867203019     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957347.2012.714682     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. 1999. Standards for educational and psychological testing, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Bolt, S. and Thurlow, M. 2007. Item-level effects of the read-aloud accommodation for students with reading disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33: 15-28.
3. Bolt, S. E. and 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. Cohen, A. S. and Bolt, D. M. 2005. A mixture model analysis of differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42: 133-148.
5. Cohen, A. S., Gregg, N. and Deng, M. 2005. The role of extended time and item content on a high-stakes mathematics test. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20: 225-233.
6. D'Agostino, R. B. Jr. 1998. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine, 17: 2265-2281.
7. De Ayala, R., Kim, S.-H., Stapleton, L. M. and Dayton, C. M. 2002. Differential item functioning: A mixture distribution conceptualization. International Journal of Testing, 2: 243-276.
8. Finch, H., Barton, K. and Meyer, P. 2009. Differential item functioning analysis for accommodated versus non-accommodated students. Educational Assessment, 14: 38-56.
9. Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Boudosquie, A., Copeland, K., Young, V., Kalinowski, S. and Vaughn, S. 2006. Effects of accommodations on high-stakes testing for students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72: 136-150.
10. Fuchs, L. S. and Fuchs, D. 2002. Mathematical problem-solving profiles of students with mathematics disabilities with and without comorbid reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35: 564-574.
11. Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M. A., Tindal, G., Heath, B. and 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.
12. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.(2004)
13. Mellenbergh, G. J. 1994. A unidimensional latent trait model for continuous item responses. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29: 223-236.
14. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002)
15. OpenBUGS 3.1.2. (2010) [Computer software]. OpenBUGS Foundation
16. Parmar, R. S., Cawley, J. R. and Frazita, R. R. 1996. Word problem-solving by students with and without math disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62: 415-429.
17. Raju, N. S., Laffitte, L. J. and Byrne, B. M. 2002. Measurement equivalence: A comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 517-529.
18. Rost, J. 1990. Rasch models in latent classes: An integration of two approaches to item analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14: 271-282.
19. Roussos, L. and Stout, W. 1996. A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20: 355-371.
20. Russell, R. L. and Ginsburg, H. P. 1984. Cognitive analysis of children's mathematical difficulties. Cognition and Instruction, 1: 217-244.
21. SAS Institute. 2002-2008. SAS/STAT 9.2 User's Guide, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
22. Scarpati, S. E., Wells, C. S., Lewis, C. and Jirka, S. 2009. Accommodations and item-level analyses using mixture differential item functioning models. Journal of Special Education, 45: 54-62.
23. Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S. E. and Li, S. 2005. Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75: 457-490.
24. Stone, E., Cook, L., Cahalan-Laitusis, C. and Cline, F. 2010. Using differential item functioning to investigate the impact of testing accommodation on an English-language arts assessment for students who are blind and visually impaired. Applied Measurement in Education, 23: 132-152.
25. Thissen, D. 2001. IRTLRDIF 2.0b: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
26. Thissen, D. 2003. MULTILOG 7.03: Multiple, categorical item analysis and test scoring using item response theory [Computer software], Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
27. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L. and Wainer, H. 1993. "Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models". In Differential item functioning, Edited by: Holland, P. W. and Wainer, H. 67-113. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Thurlow, M. L., Thompson, S. J. and Lazarus, S. S. 2006. "Considerations for the administration of tests to special needs students: Accommodations, modifications, and more". In Handbook of test development, Edited by: Downing, S. M. and Haladyna, T. M. 653-673. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Zimowski, M. F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R. J. and Bock, R. D. 2003. BILOG-MG 3 [Computer software], Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
30. Zenisky, A. L. and Sireci, S. G. 2007. A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2005-2006, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Report. No. 47
31. 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.