Psychometric Challenges in Assessing English Language Learners and Students With Disabilities

Review of Research in Education

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 165-214

  Lane, Suzanne ^a   Leventhal, Brian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924810452     PISSN: 0091732X     EISSN: 19351038     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0091732X14556073     Document Type: Article

References (148)

1. Abedi J.Standardized achievement tests and English Language Learners: Psychometric issues.Educational Assessment. 2002;8:231-257
2. Abedi J.Impact of student language background on content-based performance: Analyses of extant data. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; 2003:
3. Abedi J.The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues.Educational Researcher. 2004;33 (1): 4-14
4. Abedi J.Handbook of test development. Downing S. M.Haladyna T. M., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2006:-399.
5. Abedi J.Classification system for English language learners: Issues and recommendations.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2008;27 (3): 17-31
6. **Abedi J.Computer testing as a form of accommodation for English language learners.Educational Assessment. 2009;13:195-211
7. Abedi J.,Courtney M.,Leon S.Effectiveness and validity of accommodations for English language learners in large-scale assessment. Los Angeles: University of California: Center for the Study of Evaluation/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; 2003:
8. **Abedi J.,Courtney M.,Leon S.,Keo J.,Azzam TEnglish language learners and math achievement: A study of opportunity to learn and language accommodation. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; 2006:
9. **Abedi J.,Courtney M.,Mirocha J.,Leon S.,Goldberg J.Language accommodations for English language learners in large-scale assessments: Bilingual dictionaries and linguistic modification. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; 2005:
10. Abedi J.,Gandara P.Performance of English Language Learners as a subgroup in large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2006;25 (4): 36-46
11. Abedi J.,Hofstetter C.,Lord C.Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research.Review of Educational Research. 2004;74 (1): 1-28
12. Abedi J.,Kao J. C.,Leon S.,Mastergeorge A. M.,Sullivan L.,Herman J.,Pope R.Accessibility of segmented reading comprehension passages for students with disabilities.Applied Measurement in Education. 2010;23:168-186
13. AbediJ.LeonS.KaoJ. (2007). Examining differential item functioning in reading assessments for students with disabilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.readingassessment.info/resources
14. Abedi J.,Leon S.,Mirocha J.Examining ELL and non-ELL student performance differences and their relationship to background factors: Continued analysis of extant data. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; 2000:
15. Abedi J.,Lord C.The language factor in mathematics.Applied Measurement in Education. 2001;14:219-234
16. Abedi J.,Lord C.,Hofstetter C.Impact of selected background variables on students’ NAEP math performance. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; 1998:
17. Abedi J.,Lord C.,Plummer J. R.Final report of language background as a variable in NAEP mathematics performance. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; 1997:
18. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 1999:
19. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 2014:
20. Artiles A. J.,Rueda R.,Salazar J.,Higareda I.Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts.Exceptional Children. 2005;71:283-300
21. Barton K.,Finch W. H..Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education; 2004San Diego, CA; 2004.
22. Barton K.,Huynh H.Patterns of errors made by students with disabilities on a reading test with oral reading administration.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2003;63:602-614
23. Brennan R. L.Generalizability theory. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2001:
24. Brown J. I.,Fishco V. V.,Hanna G.Nelson–Denny Reading Test, Form H. Itasca, IL: Riverside; 1993:
25. Buzick H.,Stone E.Recommendations for conducting differential item functioning (DIF) analyses for students with disabilities based on previous DIF studies. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2011:
26. Cahalan C.,Mandinach E. B.,Camara W. J.Predictive validity of SAT I: Reasoning test for test-takers with learning disabilities and extended time accommodations. New York, NY: The College Board; 2002:
27. Camara W. J.,Copeland T.,Rosthschild B.Effects of extended time on the SAT I: Reasoning test score growth for students with learning disabilities. New York, NY: College Entrance Exam Board; 1998:
28. Camilli G.A conceptual analysis of differential item function in terms of a multidimensional item response model.Applied Psychological Measurement. 1992;16:129-147
29. Castellano K. E.,Ho A. D.Contrasting OLS and quantile regression approaches to student “growth” percentiles.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 2013;38:190-214
30. Cattell R. B.,Burdsal C. A.The radial parcel double factoring design: A solution to the item-vs.-parcel controversy.Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1975;10:165-179
31. Cho H.,Lee J.,Kingston N.Examining the effectiveness of test accommodation using DIF and a mixture IRT model.Applied Measurement in Education. 2012;25:281-304
32. Cid J.,Spitalny I..Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education; 2013San Francisco, CA; 2013.
33. Clauser B. E.,Mazor K. M.Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 1998;17 (1): 31-44
34. Cohen A. S.,Gregg N.,Deng M.The role of extended time and item content on a high-stakes mathematics test.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 2005;20:225-233
35. CookL.EignorD.SteinbergJ.SawakiY.ClineF. (2009). Using factor analysis to investigate the impact of accommodations on the scores of students with disabilities on a reading comprehension assessment. Journal of Applied Testing, 10(2). Retrieved from http://atpu.memberclicks.net/assets/documents/Special%20issue%20article%203.pdf
36. Cook L.,Eignor D.,Sawaki Y.,Steinberg J.,Cline F.Using factor analysis to investigate accommodations used by students with disabilities on an English-language arts assessment.Applied Measurement in Education. 2010;23:187-208
37. Cormier D. C.,Altman J. R.,Shyyan V.,Thurlow M. L.A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2007-2008. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes; 2010:
38. Cronbach L. J.Test validity. Wainer H.Braun H., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988:3-17.
39. Cronbach L. J.,Gleser G. C.,Nanda H.,Rajaratnam N.The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability of scores and profiles. New York, NY: John Wiley; 1972:
40. Dorans N. J.Using subpopulation invariance to assess test score equity.Journal of Educational Measurement. 2004;37 (4): 43-68
41. Dorans N. J.,Holland P. W.Differential item functioning. Holland P. W.Wainer H., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1993:35-66.
42. Dorans N. J.,Holland P. W.Population invariance and the equitability of tests: Basic theory and the linear case.Journal of Educational Measurement. 2000;41:43-68
43. Douglas J. A.,Roussos L. A.,Stout W.Item-bundle DIF hypothesis testing: Identifying suspect bundles and assessing their differential functioning.Journal of Educational Measurement. 1996;33 (4): 465-484
44. *Elbaum B.Effects of an oral testing accommodation on the mathematics performance of secondary students with and without learning disabilities.Journal of Special Education. 2007;40:218-229
45. *Elbaum B.,Arguelles M. E.,Campbell Y.,Saleh M. B.Effects of a student-reads-aloud accommodation on the performance of students with and without learning disabilities on a test of reading comprehension.Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal. 2004;12 (2): 71-87
46. Elliott S. N.,Kettler R. J.,Beddow P. A.,Kurz A.,Compton E.,… Roach A. T.Effects of using modified items to test students with persistent academic difficulties.Exceptional Children. 2010;76:475-495
47. Engelhard G.,Fincher M.,Domaleski C. S.Mathematics performance of students with and without disabilities under accommodated conditions using resource guides and calculators on high stakes tests.Applied Measurement in Education. 2011;37:281-306
48. English Learners Office, E. J. McClendon Educational Center. (2002). Federal definition of an English Language Learner (ELL). Retrieved from http://ell.pccs.k12.mi.us/sites/ell.pccs.k12.mi.us/files/shared/2011-2012/Federal%20Definition%20of%20ELL.pdf
49. Ercikan K.,Arim R. G.,Law D. M.,Lacroix S.,Gagnon F.,Domene J. F.Application of think-aloud protocols in examining sources of differential item functioning.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2010;29 (2): 24-35
50. Ercikan K.,Roth W.-M.,Simon M.,Sandilands D.,Lyons-Thomas J.Inconsistencies in DIF detection for sub-groups in heterogeneous language groups.Applied Measurement in Education. 2014;27:273-285
51. ESEA reauthorization: Standards and assessments: Hearings before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, United States Senate, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2010). (Testimony of Martha Thurlow). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg56288/pdf/CHRG-111shrg56288.pdf
52. *Feldman E.,Kim J. S.,Elliott S. N.The effects of accommodations on adolescents’ self-efficacy and test performance.Journal of Special Education. 2011;45 (2): 77-88
53. Finch H.,Barton K.,Meyer P.Differential item functioning analysis for accommodated versus non-accommodated students.Educational Assessment. 2009;14:38-56
54. Fuchs L. S.,Fuchs D.Helping teachers formulate sound accommodation decisions for students with learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 2001;16:174-181
55. Fuchs L. S.,Fuchs D.,Eaton S.,Hamlett C. L.,Karns K.Supplementing teachers’ judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources.School Psychology Review. 2000;29:65-85
56. Geisinger K. F.Psychometric issues in testing students with disabilities.Applied Measurement in Education. 1994;7:121-140
57. Holland P. W.,Thayer D. T.Test validity. Wainer H.Braun H. I., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988:129-145.
58. Huggins A. C.,Elbaum B.Test accommodations and equating invariance on a fifth-grade science exam.Educational Assessment. 2013;18:49-72
59. Huynh H.,Barton K.Performance of students with disabilities under regular and oral administrations for a high-stakes reading examination.Applied Measurement in Education. 2006;19:21-39
60. Huynh H.,Meyer P.,Gallant D. J.Comparability of student performance between regular and oral administrations for a high-stakes mathematics test.Applied Measurement in Education. 2004;17:39-57
61. **Johnson E.,Monroe B.Simplified language as an accommodation on math tests.Assessment for Effective Intervention. 2004;29 (3): 35-45
62. Johnson E. S.The effects of accommodations on performance assessments.Remedial and Special Education. 2000;21:261-268
63. Jones N. D.,Buzick H. M.,Turkan S.Including students with disabilities and English learners in measures of educator effectiveness.Educational Researcher. 2013;42:234-241
64. Kachchaf R.,Solano-Flores G.Rater language background as a source of measurement error in testing of English Language Learners.Applied Measurement in Education. 2012;25:162-177
65. Kane M. T.An argument-based approach to validity.Psychological Bulletin. 1992;112:527-535
66. Kane M. T.Educational measurement. (2006). Validation. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Washington, DC: American Council on Education/Praeger.Brennan R. L., ed. Washington, DC: American Council on Education/Praeger; 2006:17-64.
67. Kane M. T.Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores.Journal of Educational Measurement. 2013;50:1-73
68. Kane M. T.,Mroch A. A.Modeling group differences in OLS and orthogonal regression: Implications for differential validity studies.Applied Measurement in Education. 2010;23:215-241
69. Kato K.,Moen R. E.,Thurlow M. L.Differential of a state reading assessment: Item functioning, distractor functioning and omission frequency for disability categories.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2009;28 (2): 28-40
70. *Ketterlin-Geller L. R.,Yovanoff P.,Tindal G.Developing a new paradigm for conducting research on accommodations in mathematics testing.Exceptional Children. 2007;73:331-347
71. Kettler R. J.Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students: Bridging the gaps between research practice, and policy. Elliott S. N.Kettler R. J.Beddow P. A.Kurz A., ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2011:231-242.
72. Kettler R. J.,Elliott S. N.,Beddow P. A.Modifying achievement test items: A theory-guided and data-based approach for better measurement of what SWDs know.Peabody Journal of Education. 2009;84:529-551
73. *Kettler R. J.,Rodriguez M. R.,Bolt D. M.,Elliott S. N.,Bedow P. A.,Kruz A.Modified multiple-choice items for alternate assessments: Reliability, difficulty, and differential boost.Applied Measurement in Education. 2011;24:210-234
74. Kieffer M. J.,Lesaux N. K.,Rivera M.,Francis D. J.Accommodations for English Language Learners taking large-scale assessments: A meta-analysis on effectiveness and validity.Review of Educational Research. 2009;79:1168-1201
75. Kieffer M. J.,Rivera M.,Francis D. J.Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for the use of accommodations in large-scale assessments. 2012 update. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center of Instruction; 2012:
76. Kim J.,Herman J. L.A three-state study of English learner progress.Educational Assessment. 2009;13:212-231
77. Kim D.,Huynh H.Equivalence of paper-and-pencil and online administration modes of the statewide English test for students with and without disabilities.Educational Assessment. 2010;15:107-212
78. Kolen M. J.,Brennan R. L.Test equating, scaling, and linking. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.New York, NY: Springer; 2004:
79. KooJ. K.BeckerB. J.KimY. (2014). Examining differential item functioning trends for English language learners in a reading test: A meta-analytic approach. Language Testing, 31, 89–109. Retrieved from http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/07/25/0265532213496097
80. Koretz D.,Hamilton L.Assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky: Inclusion, student performance and validity.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2000;22:255-272
81. Koretz D.,Hamilton L.Educational measurement. Brennan B., ed. New York, NY: Praeger; 2006:579-623.
82. Kosciolek S.,Ysseldyke J. E.Effects of a reading accommodation on the validity of a reading test. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes; 2000:
83. *Laitusis C. C.Examining the impact of audio presentation on tests of reading comprehension.Applied Measurement in Education. 2010;23:153-167
84. Laitusis C. C.,Buzick H. M.,Cook L. L.,Stone E.Assessing students in the margins: Challenges, strategies, and techniques. Russell M., ed. Charlotte, NC: Information Age; 2011:291-310.
85. Lakin J. M.,Lai E. R.Multigroup generalizability analysis of verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal ability tests for culturally and linguistically diverse students.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2012;72:139-158
86. Lakin J. M.,Young J. W.Evaluating growth for ELL students: Implications for accountability policies.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2013;32 (3): 11-26
87. Lane S.,Stone C. A.Educational measurement. Brennan B., ed. New York, NY: Praeger; 2006:387-432.
88. Lane S.,Wang N.,Magone M.Gender related differential item functioning on a middle school mathematics performance assessment.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 1996;15 (4): 21-27
89. *Lewandowski L. J.,Lovett B. J.,Rogers C. L.Extended time as a testing accommodation for students with reading disabilities: Does a rising tide lift all ships?.Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2008;26:315-324
90. *Lewandowski L. J.,Lovett B. J.,Parolin R.,Gordon M.,Codding R. S.Extended time accommodations and the mathematics performance of students with and without ADHD.Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2007;25:17-28
91. Li D.,Brennan R. L.A multi-group generalizability analysis of a large-scale reading comprehension test. Iowa City, IA: Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement and Assessment; 2007:
92. Li H..Presentation at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education; 2013San Francisco, CA; 2013.
93. Li H.,Suen H. K.The effects of test accommodations for English Language Learners: A meta-analysis.Applied Measurement in Education. 2012;25:327-346
94. Linn R. L.Single-group validity, differential validity, and differential prediction.Journal of Applied Psychology. 1978;63:507-512
95. Martiniello M.Linguistic complexity, schematic representations, and differential item functioning for English Language Learners in math tests.Educational Assessment. 2009;14:160-179
96. Mattern K. D.,Patterson B. F.,Shaw E.,Kobrin J. L.,Barbuti Differential validity and prediction of the SAT. New York, NY: College Board; 2008:
97. Mazor K. M.,Clauser B. E.,Hambleton R. K.The effect of sample size on the functioning of the Mantel-Haenszel statistic.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1992;52:443-451
98. McKevitt B. C.,Elliott S. N.Effects and perceived consequences of using read aloud and teacher-recommended testing accommodations on a reading achievement test.School Psychology Review. 2003;32:583-600
99. Meloy L.,Deville C.,Frisbie D..Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education; 2000New Orleans, LA; 2000.
100. Messick S.Educational measurement. (1989). Validity. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–104). New York, NY: American Council on Education and Macmillan.Linn R. L., ed. New York, NY: American Council on Education and Macmillan; 1989:13-104.
101. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs. (2007). Retrieved from http://sbo.nn.k12.va.us/esl/documents/ncela_fast_faqs.pdf
102. Pennock-Roman M.,Rivera C.Mean effects of test accommodations for ELLs and non-ELLs: A meta-analysis of experimental studies.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2011;30 (3): 10-28
103. Phillips G..Presentation at the U.S. Department of Education Public Hearings; 2009Denver, CO; 2009.
104. Phillips S. E.,Camara W. J.Educational measurement. (2006). Legal and ethical issues. In BrennanR. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 734–755). Westport, CT: Praeger.Brennan R., ed. Westport, CT: Praeger; 2006:734-755.
105. *Randall J.,Engelhard G.Performance of students with and without disabilities under modified conditions: Using resource guides and read-aloud test modifications on a high-stakes reading test.Journal of Special Education. 2010a;44:79-93
106. Randall J.,Engelhard G.Using confirmatory factor analysis and the Rasch model to assess measurement invariance in a high stakes reading assessment.Applied Measurement in Education. 2010b;23:286-306
107. Randall J.,Cheong Y. F.,Engelhard G.Using explanatory item response theory modeling to investigate context effects of differential item functioning for students with disabilities.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2011;17:129-147
108. **Rivera C.,Stansfield C. W.The effect of linguistic simplification of science test items on score comparability.Educational Assessment. 2004;9 (3): 79-105
109. Rock D. A.,Bennett R. E.,Kaplan B. A.Internal construct validity of a college admissions test across handicapped and non-handicapped groups.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1987;47:193-205
110. Rock D. A.,Bennett R. E.,Kaplan B. A.,Jirele T.Factor structure of the Graduate Record examinations’ general test in handicapped and nonhandicapped groups.Journal of Applied Psychology. 1988;73:382-392
111. Rogers C. M.,Christian E. M.,Thurlow M. L.A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2009-2010. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes; 2012:
112. Roussos L.,Stout W.A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm.Applied Psychological Measurement. 1996;20:355-371
113. RussellM. (2011). Digital test delivery: Empowering accessible test design to increase test validity for all students. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.measuredprogress.org/documents/10157/18439/Michael_Russell-Digital_Test_Delivery.pdf
114. Scarpati S. E.,Wells C. S.,Lewis C.,Jirka S.Accommodations and item-level analyses using mixture differential item functioning models.Journal of Special Education. 2009;45:54-62
115. ShaftelJ.Belton-KocherE.GlasnappD. R.PoggioJ. P. (2003). The differential impact of accommodations in statewide assessment: Research summary. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/topicareas/accommodations/Kansas.htm
116. Shaftel J.,Belton-Kocher E.,Glasnapp D.,Poggio J.The impact of language characteristics in mathematics test items on the performance of English language learners and students with disabilities.Educational Assessment. 2006;11:105-126
117. Sinharay S.,Dorans N. J.,Liang L.First language of test takers and fairness assessment procedures.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2011;30 (2): 25-35
118. SireciS. G. (2009). No more excuses: New research on assessing students with disabilities. Journal of Applied Testing, 10(2). Retrieved fromhttp://www.testpublishers.org/assets/documents/Special%20Issue%20Article%201.%20pdf
119. Sireci S. G.,Han K. T.,Wells C.Methods for evaluating the validity of test scores for English language learners.Educational Assessment. 2008;13:108-131
120. Sireci S. G.,Li S.,Scarpati S. E.The effects of test accommodations on test performance: A review of the literature. Commissioned paper by the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council’s Board on Testing and Assessment. Washington, DC: National Research Council; 2003:
121. Sireci S. G.,Scarpati S. E.,Li S.Test accommodations for SWDs: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis.Review of Educational Research. 2005;75:457-490
122. Solano-Flores G.Language, dialect, and register: Sociolinguistics and the estimation of measurement error in the testing of English-language learners.Teachers College Record. 2006;108:2354-2379
123. Solano-Flores G.Who is given tests in what language by whom, when and where? The need for probabilistic views of language in the testing of English Language Learners.Educational Researcher. 2008;37:189-199
124. **Solano-Flores G.,Barnett-Clarke C.,Kachchaf R. R.Semiotic structure and meaning making: The performance of English language learners on mathematics tests.Educational Assessment. 2013;18:147-161
125. Solano-Flores G.,Lara E. J.,Sexton U.,Navarrete C.Testing English language learners: A sampler of student responses to science and mathematics test items. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers; 2001:
126. Solano-Flores G.,Li M.The use of generalizability (G) theory in the testing of linguistic minorities.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2006;25:13-22
127. Solano-Flores G.,Li M.Language variation and score variation in the testing of English Language Learners, native Spanish speakers (2009).Educational Assessment. 2009;14:180-194
128. Solano-Flores G.,Li M.Generalizability theory and the fair and valid assessment of linguistic minorities.Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice. 2013;19:245-263
129. Solano-Flores G.,Trumbull E.Examining language in context: The need for new research and practice paradigms in the testing of English-language learners.Educational Researcher. 2003;32 (2): 3-13
130. Stevens J.,Zvoch K.,Biancarosa G..Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education; 2012Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; 2012.
131. Stone E.,Cook L.,Laitusis C. C.,Cline F.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. 2010;23:132-152
132. Stone E.,Davey T.Computer-adaptive testing for students with disabilities: A review of the literature. Princeton, NJ: ETS; 2011:
133. Thompson S. J.,Blount A.,Thurlow M. L.A summary of research on effects of test accommodations-1999 through 2001. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes; 2002:
134. ThompsonS. J.ThurlowM. L.QuenemoenR. F.LehrC. A. (2002). Access to computer-based testing for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 45). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/onlinepubs/synthesis45.html
135. Thurlow M.,Lazarus S. S.,Albus D.,Hodgson J.Computer-based testing: Practices and considerations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes; 2010:
136. Thurlow M. L.,Bremer C.,Albus D.2008-09 publicly reported assessment results for students with disabilities and ELLs with disabilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes; 2011:
137. Thurlow M. L.,Kopriva R. J.Advancing accessibility and accommodations in content assessments for students with disabilities and English learners.Review of Research in Education. 2015;39:331-369
138. Thurlow M. L.,Lazarus S. S.,Christensen L. L.Research-based practices in assessment. Lloyd J. W.Landrum T. J.Cook B. G.Tankersley M., ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc; 2013:94-110.
139. Tindal G.,Fuchs L.A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center; 1999:
140. Tippets E.,Michaels H..Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education; 1997Chicago, IL; 1997.
141. U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Secretary Spellings announces Growth Model Pilot, addresses Chief State School Officers’ annual policy forum in Richmond. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/11/11182005.html
142. Standards and assessments peer review guidance. Washington, DC: Author; 2007:
143. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Race to the Top. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf
144. Way W. D.,Twing J. S.,Camara W.,Sweeney K.,Lazer S.,Mazzeo J.Some considerations related to the use of adaptive testing for the common core assessments. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2010:
145. **Wolf M. K.,Kim J.,Kao J.The effects of glossary and read-aloud accommodations on English Language Learners’ performance on a mathematics assessment.Applied Measurement in Education. 2012;25:347-374
146. Wolf M. K.,Leon S.An investigation of the language demands in content assessments for English Language Learners.Educational Assessment. 2009;14:139-159
147. Young J. W.,Cho Y.,Ling G.,Cline F.,Steinberg J.,Stone E.Validity and fairness of state standards-based assessments for English language learners.Educational Assessment. 2008;13:170-192
148. Zieky M.Differential item functioning. Holland P. W.Wainer H., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1993:337-347.