Effects of a read-aloud modification on a standardized reading test

Large-scale Testing of Students with Disabilities: A Special Issue of Exceptionality

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 89-106

  Crawford, Lindy ^a   Tindal, Gerald ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85084534511     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203764466-3     Document Type: Chapter

References (35)

1. Aaron, P. G. (1991). Can reading disabilities be diagnosed without using intelligence tests? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 178-186, 191.
2. Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M, Ysseldyke, J., Freidebach, J., & Freidebach, M. (2001). Read-aloud accommoda tions: Effects on multiple-choice reading and math items (Tech. Rep. No. 31). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved November 3, 2002, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical31.htm
3. Carlisle, J. F. (1991). Planning an assessment of listening and reading comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 72(1), 17-31.
4. Curtis, H. A., & Kropp, R. P. (1961). A comparison of scores obtained by administering a test normally and visually. Journal of Experimental Education, 29, 249-260.
5. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound test accommodation decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 174-181.
6. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S., Hamlett, C. L., & Kams, K. (2000). Supplementing teachers’judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65-85.
7. Gough, P. B., Hoover, W. A., & Peterson, C. (1996). Some observations on the simple view of reading. In C. Comoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties (pp. 1-14). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
8. Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M. A., Tindal, G., Heath, B., & Almond, P. J. (1999). Reading as an access to mathematics problem solving on multiple-choice tests for sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Re search, 93, 113-125.
9. Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2003). An experimental analysis of accommodation decisions on large-scale mathe matics tests. Exceptional Children, 69, 211-225.
10. 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 stu dents (pp. 395-426). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
11. Hollenbeck, K., Rozek-Tedesco, M. A., Tindal, G., & Glasgow, A. (2000). An exploratory study of stu dent-paced versus teacher-paced accommodations for large scale math tests [Electronic version]. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(2), 1-78.
12. Joshi, R. M., Williams, K. A., & Wood, J. R. (1998). Predicting reading comprehension from listening compre hension: Is this the answer to the IQ debate? In C. Hulme & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Devel opment and disorders (pp. 319-327). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
13. Kosciolek, S., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2000). Effects of a reading accommodation on the validity of a reading test (Tech. Rep. No. 28). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Re trieved December 2, 2002, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical28.htm
14. Markwardt, F. C. (1989). Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guid¬ ance Services.
15. 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.
16. National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2002). Special topic area: Accommodations for students with dis abilities. Retrieved December 4, 2002, from http://education.umn.edu/nceo/TopicAreas/Accommodations/StatesAccomm.htm
17. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
18. North Carolina Public Schools. (1999a). English language arts curriculum: Fourth grade. Retrieved March 20, 2003, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/languagearts/gradefour.htm
19. North Carolina Public Schools. (1999b). English language arts curriculum: Second grade. Retrieved March 20, 2003, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/languagearts/gradetwo.htm
20. Oregon Department of Education. (2002). Oregon standards (English)—School year 2002-2003. Retrieved January 21, 2002, from http://www.ode.state.or.us/tls/english/standards/contentstandards.pdf
21. Palmer, J., McCleod, C., Hunt, E., & Davidson, J. (1985). Information processing correlates of reading. Jour nal of Memory and Language, 24, 59-88.
22. Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measure ment in Education, 7, 93-120.
23. Rispens, J. (1990). Comprehension problems in dyslexia. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d’Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 603-620). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
24. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231-244). New York: Sage.
25. Royer, J. M., Kulhavy, R. W., Lee, J. B., & Peterson, S. E. (1986). The sentence verification technique as a mea sure of listening and reading comprehension. Educational and Psychological Research, 6, 299-314.
26. Royer, J. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Shumer, H. (1990). Patterns of individual differences in the development of lis tening and reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 183-196.
27. Sinatra, G. M. (1990). Convergence of listening and reading processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 115-130.
28. Sticht, T. G. (1979). Applications of the Audread model to reading evaluation and instruction. In L. B. Resnik & P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 1, pp. 209-226). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
29. Sticht, T. G., & James, J. H. (1984). Listening and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading re search quarterly (pp. 293-317). New York: Longman.
30. Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S., Thompson, S., & Robey, J. (2002). 2001 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations (Synthesis Rep. No. 46). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved December 28, 2002, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis46.html
31. Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. (1999). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accom modations. Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center.
32. Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Hamiss, M. (1998). Accommodating students with dis abilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64, 439-450.
33. Townsend, D. J., Carrithers, C., & Bever, T. G. (1987). Listening and reading processes in college- and middle- school age readers. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 217-242). New York: Academic.
34. Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
35. Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.