Test Accommodations and Equating Invariance on a Fifth-Grade Science Exam

Educational Assessment

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 49-72

  Huggins, Anne Corinne ^a   Elbaum, Batya ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874473116     PISSN: 10627197     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2013.761536     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Abedi, J. 2002. Standardized achievement tests and English Language Learners: Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8: 231-257.
2. Altman, J. R., Lazarus, S. L., Thurlow, M. L., Quenemoen, R. F., Cuthbert, M. and Cormier, D. C. 2008. 2007 survey of states: Activities, changes, and challenges for special education Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
3. 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.
4. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. 2011. Draft standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. American Psychological Association. 2009. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. 1966. Standards for educational and psychological tests and manuals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7. Angoff, W. H. and Cowell, W. R. 1985. An examination of the assumption that the equating of parallel forms is population independent Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. (Report No. 85-22)
8. Bennett, R. E., Rock, D. A. and Kaplan, B. A. 1987. SAT differential item performance for nine handicapped groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24: 41-55.
9. Bolt, S. E. and Ysseldyke, J. E. 2006. Comparing DIF across math and reading/language arts tests for students receiving read-aloud accommodation. Applied Measurement in Education, 19: 329-355.
10. Chiu, C. W. T. and Pearson, P. D. 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. June.
11. Cook, L. L., Eignor, D. R. and Taft, H. L. 1988. A comparative study of the effects of recency of instruction on the stability of IRT and conventional item parameter estimates. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25: 31-45.
12. Cormier, D. C., Altman, J., Shyyan, V. and Thurlow, M. L. 2010. A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2007-2008 Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (Tech. Rep. 56)
13. Dorans, N. J. 2004. Using subpopulation invariance to assess test score equity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41: 43-68.
14. Dorans, N. J. and Feigenbaum, M. D. 1994. "Equating issues engendered by changes to the SAT and PSAT/NMSQT.". In Technical issues related to the introduction of the new SAT and PSAT/NMSQT Edited by: Lawrence, I. M., Dorans, N. J., Feigenbaum, M. D., Feryok, N. J., Schmitt, A. P. and Wright, N. K. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. (ETS Research Memorandum No. RM-94-10)
15. Dorans, N. J. and Holland, P. W. 2000. Population invariance and the equatability of tests: Basic theory and the linear case. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37: 281-306.
16. Dorans, N. J. and Liu, J. 2009. Score equity assessment: Development of a prototype analysis using SAT mathematics test data across several administrations Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. (ETS Research Rep. No. RR-09-08)
17. Dorans, N. J., Liu, J. and Hammond, S. 2008. Anchor test type and population invariance: An exploration across subpopulations and test administrations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32: 81-97.
18. Dorans, N. J. and Middleton, K. 2012. Addressing the extreme assumptions of presumed linkings. Journal of Educational Measurement, 49: 1-18.
19. Dorans, N. J. and Walker, M. E. 2007. "Sizing up linkages.". In Linking and aligning scores and scales Edited by: Dorans, N. J., Pommerich, M. and Holland, P. W. 179-198. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.
20. Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., McKevitt, B. C. and Malecki, C. K. 2009. The effects and perceived consequences of testing accommodations on math and science performance assessments. School Psychology Quarterly, 24: 224-239.
21. Feldman, E., Kim, J. and Elliott, S. N. 2009. The effects of accommodations on adolescents' self-efficacy and test performance. The Journal of Special Education, 45: 77-88.
22. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S. B., Hamlett, C. L. and Karns, K. M. 2000. Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29: 65-85.
23. Goh, D. S. 2003. Assessment accommodations for diverse learners. New York, NY: Pearson.
24. Han, K. T. 2009. IRTEQ: Windows application that implements IRT scaling and equating [Computer software]. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33: 491-493.
25. Holland, P. W. 2007. "A framework and history for score linking.". In Linking and aligning scores and scales Edited by: Dorans, N. J., Pommerich, M. and Holland, P. W. 5-30. New York, NY: Springer.
26. Holland, P. W. and Dorans, N. J. 2006. "Linking and equating.". In Educational measurement, 4th ed. Edited by: Brennan, R. L. 187-220. Westport, CT: Praeger.
27. Huggins, A. C. Equating invariance across curriculum groups on a statewide fifth grade science exam. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. April.
28. Huggins, A. C. 2012. "The effect of differential item functioning on population invariance of item response theory true score equating (Paper 724).". In Open Access Dissertations Retrieved fromhttp://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa_dissertations/724
29. Huggins, A. C. and Penfield, R. D. 2012. An NCME instructional module on population invariance in linking and equating. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 31: 27-40.
30. Huynh, H., Meyer, J. P. and Gallant, D. J. 2004. Comparability of student performance between regular and oral administrations for a high-stakes mathematics test. Applied Measurement in Education, 17: 39-57.
31. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, as Reeditorized, Public Law 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004)
32. Johnstone, C. J., Altman, J., Thurlow, M. L. and Thompson, S. J. 2006. A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 2002 through 2004 Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (Tech. Rep. 45)
33. Kim, D., Schneider, C. and Siskind, T. 2009. Examining equivalence of accommodations on a statewide elementary-level science test. Applied Measurement in Education, 22: 144-163.
34. Klein, A. November 2 2011. "Clock ticks on Senate bill to overhaul NCLB.". In Education Week November 2, 118-19.
35. Klein, A. January 11 2012. "House ESEA draft would reduce federal school role.". In Education Week January 11, 16-17.
36. Kolen, M. J. 2004. Population invariance in equating and linking: Concept and history. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41: 3-14.
37. Kolen, M. J. and Brennan, R. L. 2004. Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer.
38. Koretz, D. 1997. The assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. (CSE Tech. Rep. 431)
39. Lang, S. C., Elliott, S. N., Bolt, D. M. and Kratochwill, T. R. 2008. The effects of testing accommodations on students' performances and reactions to testing. School Psychology Quarterly, 23: 107-124.
40. Liu, M. and Holland, P. W. 2008. Exploring population sensitivity of linking functions across three law school admissions test administrations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32: 27-44.
41. Lord, F. M. 1980. Application of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. McNeil, M. December 7 2011. "Waiver plans would scrap parts of NCLB.". In Education Week December 7, 128-29.
43. Muraki, E. 1992. A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16: 159-176.
44. National Center for Education Statistics. 2006. The nation's report card: Science 2005. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
45. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001)
46. Pomplun, M. and Omar, M. H. 2000. Score comparability of a state mathematics assessment across students with and without reading accommodations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 21-29.
47. R Development Core Team. 2005. R: A language and environment for statistical computing, reference index version 2.2.1. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved fromhttp://www.R-project.org
48. Robelen, E. W. April 25 2012. "Waivers to widen test menu.". In Education Week April 25, 120-21.
49. Rock, D. A., Bennett, R. E. and Jirele, T. 1988. Factor structure of the Graduate Record Examination's general test in handicapped and non-handicapped groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 383-392.
50. Rock, D. A., Bennett, R. E. and Kaplan, B. A. 1987. Internal construct validity of a college admissions test across handicapped and non-handicapped groups. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47: 193-205.
51. Shriner, J. G. and Destefano, L. 2011. Participation and accommodation in state assessment: The role of individualized education programs. Exceptional Children, 69: 147-161.
52. 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.
53. Stocking, M. L. and Lord, F. M. 1983. Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7: 201-210.
54. Stone, E., Cook, L., Laitusis, C. C. and Cline, F. 2010. Using differential item functioning to investigate the impact of testing accommodations on an English-language arts assessment for students who are blind or visually impaired. Applied Measurement in Education, 23: 132-152.
55. Thissen, D., Chen, W. H. and Bock, R. D. 2003. MULTILOG 7 for Windows: Multiple-category item analysis and test scoring using item response theory [Computer software] Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
56. Thompson, S., Blount, A. and Thurlow, M. 2002. A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (Tech. Rep. 34)
57. Thurlow, M. L., McGrew, K. S., Tindal, G. T., Thompson, S. L., Ysseldyke, J. E. and Elliott, J. L. 2000. Assessment accommodations research: Considerations for design and analysis Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (Tech. Rep. 26)
58. Tindal, G. and Fuchs, L. January 1999. A summary of research of test accommodations: What we know so far. January, Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center, University of Kentucky.
59. U.S. Department of Education. 2004. Standards and assessments peer review guidance: Information and examples for meeting requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Author.
60. von Davier, A. A. and Wilson, C. 2008. Investigating the population sensitivity assumption of item response theory true-score equating across two subgroups of examinees and two test formats. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32: 11-26.
61. Willingham, W. W. 1989. Standard testing conditions and standard score meaning for handicapped examinees. Applied Measurement in Education, 2: 97-103.
62. Yang, W. L. 2004. Sensitivity of linkings between AP multiple-choice scores and composite scores to geographical region: An illustration of checking for population invariance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41: 33-41.
63. Yang, W. L. and Gao, R. 2008. Invariance of score linkings across gender groups for forms of a testlet-based college-level examination program examination. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32: 45-61.
64. Yi, Q., Harris, D. J. and Gao, X. 2008. Invariance of equating functions across different subgroups of examinees taking a science achievement test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32: 62-80.
65. Yin, P., Brennan, R. L. and Kolen, M. J. 2004. Concordance between ACT and ITED scores from different populations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28: 274-289.
66. Young, J. W. and King, T. C. 2008. Testing accommodations for English Language Learners: A review of state and district policies New York, NY: The College Board. (Research Rep. No. 2008-6)
67. Zenisky, A. L. and Sireci, S. G. 2007. A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 2005-2006 Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (Tech. Rep. 47)