Validity Issues and Decisions About Testing Accommodations

Assessment for Effective Intervention

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 7-17

  Hollenbeck, Keith ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992785656     PISSN: 15345084     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/073724770503100102     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Abikoff, H., Courtney, M.E., Szeibel, P.J., & Koplewicz, H.S. (1996). The effects of auditory stimulation on the arithmetic performance of children with ADHD and non-disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 238–246.
2. Bangert-Downs, R.L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63 (1), 69–93.
3. Beattie, S., Grise, P., & Algozzine, B. (1993). Effects of test modifications on the minimum competency performance of learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 75–77.
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: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
5. Bums, E. (1998). Test accommodations for students with disabilities. Springfield, IL: CC Thomas Publishers.
6. Crawford, L. (2000). The effects of time and discourse type on a writing performance assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
7. Derr-Minneci, T.F. (1990). A behavioral evaluation of curriculum-based assessment for reading: Tester, setting, and task demand effects on high- level vs. low-level readers (doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 0105.
8. DeStefano, L., Shriner, J.G., & Lloyd, C.A. (2001). Teacher decision making in participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessment. Exceptional Children, 68, 7–22.
9. Elliott, S.N., & Kratochwill, T.R. (1999). Testing accommodations can help students. WCER Highlights, 11(3), 1–3.
10. Elliott, S.N., & Marquart, A.M. (2003). Extended time as an accommodation on a standardized mathematics test: An investigation of its effects on scores and perceived consequences for students with varying mathematical skills (WCER Working Paper No. 2003–1). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research
11. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1989). Effects of examiner familiarity on Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic children: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 55, 303–308.
12. Fuchs, D., Featherstone, N.L., Garwick, D.R., & Fuchs, L.S. (1984). Effects of examiner familiarity and task characteristics on speech-and-language impaired children's performance. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 16, 198–204.
13. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Power, M.H. (1987). Effects of examiner familiarity on LD and MR students' language performance. Remedial and Special Education, 8(4), 47–62.
14. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Garwick, E.R., & Featherstone, N. (1983). Test performance of language-handicapped children with familiar and unfamiliar examiners. The Journal of Psychology, 114, 37–46.
15. Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound test accommodation decisions for student with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Research & Practice, 16, 174–181.
16. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C., & Kams, K. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65–85.
17. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C., Binkley, E., & Crouch, R. (2000). Using objective data sources to enhance teacher judgments about test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 67, 67–81.
18. Gibson, D., Haeberli, F.B., Glover, T.A., & Witter, E.A. (2003). The use of recommended and provided testing accommodations (WCER Working Paper No. 2003–8). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
19. Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2003). An experimental analysis of accommodation decisions on large-scale mathematics tests. Exceptional Children, 69, 211–225.
20. Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M.A., Tindal, G., Heath, B., & Almond, P. (1999). Reading as an access to mathematics problem solving on multiple choice tests for sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 113–125.
21. Hollenbeck, K. (2002). Determining when test alterations are valid accommodations or modifications for large-scale assessment. In G. Tindal & T.M. Haladyna (Eds.). Large-scale assessment programs for all students: Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation (pp. 395–425). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Hollenbeck, K., Linder, C., & Almond, P. (2000). Statewide writing score comparability of various brailing tools used by students with visual impairments. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon.
23. Hollenbeck, K., Rozek-Tedesco, M., & Finzel, A. (2000, April). Defining valid accommodations as a function of setting, task, and response. Presentation at the meeting of the Council of Exceptional Children, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
24. Hollenbeck, K., Rozek-Tedesco, M., Tindal, G., & Glasgow, A. (2000a). An exploratory study of student-paced versus teacher-paced accommodations for large-scale math tests. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(2), 29–38.
25. Hollenbeck, K., Rozek-Tedesco, M., Tindal, G., & Glasgow, A. (2000b). Computation as a predictor of large-scale test scores. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon.
26. Hollenbeck, K., & Tindal, G. (2002). Accommodating students on large scale writing tests: Consideration of time in the writing process (Accommodations Research Report 7). Eugene: University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching.
27. Hollenbeck, K., Tindal, G., & Almond, P. (1998).Teachers' knowledge of accommodations as a validity issue in high-stakes testing. Journal of Special Education, 32, 175–183.
28. Hollenbeck, K., Tindal, G., & Almond, P. (1999). Reliability and decision consistency: An analysis of writing mode at two times on a statewide test. Educational Assessment, 6(1), 23–40.
29. Hollenbeck, K., Tindal, G., Hamiss, M., & Almond, P. (2002). Handwritten versus word-processed statewide compositions: Do judges rate them differently ? (Accommodations Research Report 3). Eugene: University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching.
30. Horton, S.V., & Lovitt, T.C. (1994). A comparison of two methods of administering group reading inventories to diverse learners. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 378–390.
31. Johnson, E., Kimball, K., Brown, S.O., & Anderson, D. (2001). A statewide review of the use of accommodations in large-scale, high-stakes assessments. Exceptional Children, 67, 251–264.
32. Kettler, R.J., Niebling, B.C., Mroch, A.A., Feldman, E.S., & Newell, M.L. (2003). Effects of testing accommodations on math and reading scores: An experimental analysis of the performance of fourth-and eighth-grade students with and without disabilities (WCER Working Paper No. 2003–7). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
33. Koretz, D. (1997). The assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky (CSE Technical Report 431). Los Angeles: University of California - Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
34. Lang, S.C., Kumke, P.J., Cowell, E.L., & Ray, C.E. (2003). The consequences of using testing accommoda, tions: Student, teacher, and parent reactions to and perceptions of testing accommodations (WCER Working Paper No. 2003–3). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
35. Langone, J., Levine, B., Clees, T., Malone, M., & Koorland, M. (1996). The differential effects of a typing tutor and microcomputer-based word processing on the writing samples of elementary students with behavior disorders. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(2), 141–158.
36. Langone, J., Willis, C., Malone, M., Clees, T., & Koorland, M. (1995). Effects of computer-based word processing versus paper/pencil activities on the paragraph construction of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(2), 171–183.
37. MacArthur, C.A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students' composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Journal of Special Education, 21 (3), 22–42.
38. Marquart, A.M. (2000). The use of extended time as an accommodation on a standardized mathematics test: An investigation of effects on scores and perceived consequences for students of various skill levels. Annual meeting of Council of State School Officers, Snowbird, UT
39. McKevitt, B.C., & Elliott, S.N. (2003). The use of testing accommodations on a standardized reading test: Effects on scores and attitudes about testing. School Psychology Review, 32(4), 583–600.
40. Meloy, L.L., DeVille, C., & Frisbie, D.A. (2002). The effect of a read aloud accommodation on test scores of students with and without a learning disability in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 248–255.
41. Messick, S. (1982). The values of ability testing: Implications of multiple perspectives about criteria and standards. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 1(3), 9–12, 20, 26.
42. Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 89–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validity of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13–23.
44. Mick, L.B. (1989). Measurement effects of modifications in minimum competency test formats for exceptional students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 22, 31–36.
45. Miller, S. (1998). The relationship between language simplification of math word problems and performance for students with disabilities. Unpublished master's project, University of Oregon.
46. Nichols, L.M. (1996). Pencil and paper versus word processing: A comparative study of creative writing in the elementary school. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(2), 159–166.
47. O'Sullivan, R.G., & Chalnick, M.K. (1991). Measurement-related course work requirements for teacher certification and recertification. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 17–19, 23.
48. Owston, R.D., Murphy, S., & Wideman, H.H. (1992). The effects of word processing on students' writing quality and revision strategies. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 249–273.
49. Perez, J.V. (1980). Procedural adaptations and format modification in minimum competency testing of learning disabled students: A clinical investigation (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 0206.
50. Phillips, S.E. (1993). Testing accommodations for disabled students. Education Law Reporter, 80, 9–32.
51. Phillips, S.E. (1994). High stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93–120.
52. Polloway, E.A., Epstein, M.H., & Bursuck, W.D. (2003). Testing adaptations in the general education classroom: Challenges and directions. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 189–192.
53. Schulte, A.A.G., Elliott, S.N., & Kratuchwill, T.R. (2001). Effects of testing accommodations on standardized mathematics test scores: An experimental analysis of the performances of students with and without disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 527–547.
54. Shriner, J.G. (2000). Legal perspectives on school outcomes assessment for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33, 232–239.
55. Shriner, J.G., Gilman, C.J., Thurlow, M.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995). Trends in state assessment of educational outcomes. Diagnostique, 20(1–4), 101–119.
56. Tindal, G., Almond, P. Heath, B., & Tedesco, M. (1998). Single subject research using audio cassette read, aloud in math. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon.
57. Tindal, G., Anderson, L., Helwig, R., Miller, S., & Glasgow, A. (1999). Accommodating students with learning disabilities on math tests using language simplification. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon.
58. Tindal, G., Glasgow, A., Helwig, B., Hollenbeck, K., & Heath, B. (1998). Accommodations in large-scale tests for students with disabilities: An investigation of reading math tests using video technology. Unpublished manuscript for Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.
59. Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64, 439–450.
60. Tindal, G., Hollenbeck, K., Heath, W., & Almond, P. (1997). The effect of using combuters as an accommo, dation in a statewide writing test (Technical Research Report). Eugene: University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching.
61. Trimble, S. (1998). Performance trends and use of accommodations on a statewide assessment (Maryland/Kentucky State Assessment Series Report No. 3). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
62. Veit, D.T., & Scruggs, T.E. (1986). Can learning disabled students effectively use separate answer sheets? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 155–160.
63. Wasburn-Moses, L. (2003). What every special educator should know about high-stakes testing. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35, 12–15.
64. Weston, T. (1999, April). The validity of oral presentation in testing. Montreal, Canada: American Educational Research Association.
65. Willingham, W.W. (1988). Testing handicapped people: The validity issue. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Testing validity (pp. 89–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
66. Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Bielinski, J., House, A., Moody, M., & Haigh, J. (2001). The relationship between instructional and assessment accommodations in an inclusive state accountability system. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 212–220.