Patterns of Errors Made by Students with Disabilities on a Reading Test with Oral Reading Administration

Abstract

This study focused on differences in the types of errors made by students with disabilities on a multiple choice reading test administered under oral reading accommodations. The sample was composed of students with physical, emotional, learning, and mental disabilities, as well as students with no recorded disabilities. It was first found that, for the majority of items, students in various disability groups varied slightly in their choice for the distractors. Distractors were then classified in four major categories: Diversion, Misapplication, Delimiting, and Out of Bounds. No visible relationship was found between the chosen distractors and the category of errors. Some small group differences, however, were found in the number of errors in the categories of Misapplication and Delimiting. Taken together, the study indicates that when errors are used as an extra factor in exploring the nature of proficiency, the reading construct varies only slightly across disability groups. The results indicate that it is safe to adhere the same meaning to test scores for these groups even when the test is administered under different accommodations.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1986). Statistical methods for the social sciences (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Dellen.

Bernstein, D., & Tiegerman, E. (1989). Language and communication disorders in children (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Bryson, S. E., & Werker, J. F. (1989). Toward understanding the problem in severely disabled children, Part I: Vowel errors. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 1-12.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fisher, D. L. (1981). Functional literacy tests: A model of question-answering and an analysis of errors. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 418-447.

Goodman, K. S. (1969). Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 9-30.

Hallahan, D., & Kauffman, J. (1988). Exceptional children: Introduction to special education (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Huynh, H., Gleaton, J. U., & Seaman, S. P. (1990). Technical documentation for the South Carolina High School Exit Examination of reading and mathematics (Paper No. 2). Columbia: University of South Carolina.

McCormick, S. (1992). Disabled readers’ erroneous responses to inferential comprehension questions: Description and analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 55-77.

10.

National Assessment of Education Progress. (1996). The NAEP 1994 Technical Report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

11.

National Council for Educational Outcomes. (1993, March). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: A review of the literature. Synthesis Report No. 4, St. Cloud State University and National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 358 656)

12.

Norusis, M. J. (1998). SPSS 8.0 Guides to data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

13.

Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93-120.

14.

Rasinski, T. V., & Padak, N. D. (1998). How elementary students referred from compensatory reading instruction perform on school-based measures of word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 19(2), 185-216.

15.

Rock, D. A., Bennett, R. E., & 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.

16.

Rock, D. A., Bennett, R. E., & 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.

17.

SAS Institute. (1990). SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 6 (4th ed., Vol. 1). Cary, NC: Author.

18.

Seidenberg, M. S., Bruck, M., Fornarolo, G., & Backman, J. (1985). Word recognition processes of poor and disabled readers: Do they necessarily differ? Applied Psycholinguistics, 6, 161-180.

19.

Smith, F. (1994). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

20.

South Carolina Department of Education. (2001, Spring). Test administrator’s manual (BSAP Exit). Columbia, SC: Author.

21.

Thorndike, E. L. (1917). Reading as reasoning: A study of mistakes in paragraph reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, 323-332.

22.

Tippets, E., & Michaels, H. (1997, March). Factor structure invariance of accommodated and non-accommodated performance assessments. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.

23.

U.S. Congress. (1973). Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 504). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

24.

U.S. Congress. (1990). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (PL 101-336). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

25.

U.S. Congress. (1994). Improving America’s Schools Act (PL 103-382, Op.lit. § 1115 [b][2]). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

26.

Werker, J. F., Bryson, S. E., & Wassenberg, K. (1989). Toward understanding the problem in severely disabled readers part II: Consonant errors. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 13-30.

27.

Willingham, W. W. (1989). Standard testing conditions and standard score meaning for handicapped examinees. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 97-103.