Portfolios in Large-Scale Alternate Assessment Systems: Frameworks for Reliability

Assessment for Effective Intervention

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 17-27

  Garrett, Brent ^a   Towles, Elizabeth ^a   Kleinert, Harold ^a   Kearns, Jacqui ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992806399     PISSN: 15345084     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/073724770302800202     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Ananda, S.M., & Rabinowitz, S.N. (2001). High-stakes & assessments innovation: A negative correlation? San Francisco, CA: Wested.
2. Bechard, S. (September, 2001). Models for reporting the results of alternate assessments within state accountability systems (Synthesis Report 39). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved February 13, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis39.html.
3. Burdette, P. (2001). Alternate assessment: Early highlights and pitfalls of reporting. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26(2), 61–66.
4. Charney, D. (1984). The validity of using holistic scoring to evaluate writing: A critical overview. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 65–81.
5. Congdon, P.J., & McQueen, J. (2000). The stability of rater severity in large-scale assessment programs. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 163–178.
6. Cooper, C.R., & Odell, L. (1977). Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging. Buffalo: State University of New York.
7. Cronbach, L.J., Linn, R.L., Brennan, R.L., & Haertel, E. (1995, Summer). Generalizability analysis for educational assessments (Evaluation Comment). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
8. Dunbar, S.B., Koretz, D.M., & Hoover, H.D. (1991). Quality control in the development and use of performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 289–303.
9. Engelhard, Jr., G. (1992). The measurement of writing ability with a many-faceted Rasch model. Applied Measurement in Education, 5, 171–191.
10. Engelhard, Jr., G. (1994). Examining rater errors in the assessment of written composition with a many faceted Rasch model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 93–112.
11. Garrett, B., & Towles, E. (2001). Results of Kentucky scoring study. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
12. Haertel, E.H. (1999). Validity arguments for high-stakes testing: In search of the evidence. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(4), 5–9.
13. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. ¶ 1400 et.seq.
14. Johnson, R.L., Penny, J., & Gordon, B. (2000). The relation between score resolution methods and inter-rater reliability: An empirical study of an analytic scoring rubric. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 121–138.
15. Kampfer, S., Horvath, L., Kleinert, H., & Kearns, J. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of one state's alternate assessment portfolio program: Implications for practice and preparation. Exceptional Children, 67(3), 361–374.
16. Klein, S.P., Stecher, B.M., Shavelson, R.J., McCaffrey, D., Ormseth, T., Bell, R., et al. (1998). Analytic versus holistic scoring of science performance tasks. Applied Measurement in Education, 11, 121–137.
17. Kleinert, H., Garrett, B., Towles, E., Garrett, M., Nowak-Drabik, K., Waddell, C., et al. (2002). Alternate assessment scores and life outcomes for students with significant disabilities: Are they related ? Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28 (1), 19–30.
18. Kleinert, H., & Kearns, J. (1999). A validation study of the performance indicators and learner outcomes of Kentucky's alternate assessment for students with significant disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24(2), 100–110.
19. Kleinert, H.L., & Kearns, J.F. (2001). Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
20. Kleinert, H.L., Kearns, J.F., & Kennedy, S. (1997). Accountability for all students: Kentucky's alternate portfolio assessment for students with moderate and severe cognitive disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22, 88–101.
21. Kleinert, H.L., Kennedy, S., & Kearns, J. (1999). Impact of alternate assessments: A statewide teacher survey. Journal of Special Education, 33(2), 93–102.
22. Kleinert, H., & Thurlow, M. (2001). An introduction to alternate assessments: Historical foundations and essential parameters. In H. Kleinert & J. Kearns (Eds.), Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities (pp. 1–15). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
23. Lane, S., & Sabers, D. (1989). Use of generalizability theory for estimating the dependability of a scoring system for sample essays. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 195–205.
24. Linn, R.L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 1–16.
25. Lumley, T., & McNamara, T.F. (1995). Rater characteristics and rater bias: Implications for training. Language Testing, 12, 54–71.
26. Lunz, M.E., & Stahl, J.A. (1990a). A comparison of intra-and interjudge decision consistencies using analytic and holistic scoring criteria. Journal of Allied Health, 19, 173–179.
27. Lunz, M.E., & Stahl, J.A. (1990b). Judge consistency and severity across grading periods. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 13, 425–444.
28. Lunz, M.E., Stahl, J.A., & Wright, B.D. (1994). Interjudge reliability and decision reproducibility. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 913–925.
29. Moss, P.A. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62, 229–258.
30. Overall, J.E., & Magee, K.N. (1992). Estimating individual rater reliabilities. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 77–85.
31. Peters, D.L., Crossen, S., & Anderson, K.J. (2000, October). Raising expectations for the school performance of students with moderate to severe cognitive disabilities (Tech. Rep. 1). Newark: University of Delaware, Center for Disabilities Studies-University Affiliated Program.
32. Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2001). Assessment. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
33. Thompson, S.J., & Quenemoen, R.E. (2001). Eight steps to effective implementation of alternate assessments. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26(2), 67–74.
34. Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2001). 2001 state special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved July, 19, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/Online-Pubs/2001StateReport.html.
35. Vacc, N.N. (1989). Writing evaluation: Examining four teachers' holistic and analytic scores. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 87–95.
36. White, E.M. (1984). Holisticism. College Composition and Communication, 35, 400–410.