Accommodations influence the measurement of student proficiency. However, with discrepant research findings, it is difficult to evaluate the effects of these practices on the measurement of performance of students with special needs. In this article, we present results from an experimental study investigating the effects of item characteristics on lower and higher readers' differential benefit for two reading-based accommodations on a third-grade mathematics test. Students with lower reading skills differentially benefited from the read-aloud accommodation on items with high mathematics difficulty and high linguistic complexity but did not benefit from a simplified-language accommodation. This study illustrates the need to consider the interaction between item features and student characteristics in accommodations research. Implications for accommodations research as well as practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbediJ. (2005, June). Validity of accommodations used in NAEP and NCLB for English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities. Paper presented with Thurlow, M., Van Anderson, T., Tindal, G., & Ayala, L. at the 35th National Conference on Large-Scale Assessment, San Antonio, TX.
2.
BielinskiJ.ThurlowM.YsseldykeJ.FrieidebachJ.FreidebachM. (2001). Read aloud accommodations: Effects on multiple-choice reading and math items. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
3.
CalhoonM. B.FuchsL. S.HamlettC. L. (2000). Effects of computer-based test accommodations on mathematics performance assessments for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 23, 271–282.
4.
FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.BoudousquieA.CopelandK.YoungV.KalinowskiS.VaughnS. (2006). Effects of accommodations on high-stakes testing for students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72 (2), 136–150.
5.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.EatonS. B.HamlettC. L.KarnsK. M. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgment of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65–85.
6.
HasbrouckJ.TindalG. (2005). Oral reading fluency: 90 years of measurement (Tech. Rep. No. 33). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, College of Education, Behavioral Research and Teaching.
7.
HelwigR.Rozek-TedescoM. A.TindalG. (2002). An oral versus a standard administration of a large-scale mathematics test. Journal of Special Education, 36, 39–47.
8.
HelwigR.Rozek-TedescoM. A.TindalG.HeathB.AlmondP. J. (1999). Reading as an access to mathematics problem solving on multiple-choice tests for sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 113–125.
9.
HelwigR.TindalG. (2003). An experimental analysis of accommodation decisions on large-scale mathematics tests. Exceptional Children, 69, 211–225.
10.
HollenbeckK.Rozek-TedescoM.TindalG. (2000). The influence of reading and listening comprehension of a math read-aloud accommodation. Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.
11.
Ketterlin-GellerL. R. (2003). Establishing a validity argument for universally designed assessments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
12.
Ketterlin-GellerL. R. (2005). Knowing what all students know: Procedures for developing universally designed assessments. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4 (2). Available from http://www.jtla.org.
13.
KiplingerV. L.HaugC. A.AbediJ. (2000, April). Measuring math—not reading—on a math assessment: A language accommodations study of English language learners and other special populations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
14.
MeloyL. L.DevilleC.FrisbieD. 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.
15.
MessickS. (1989). Validity. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.), (pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan.
16.
MillerS. D.SmithD. E. P. (1990). Relations among oral reading, silent reading and listening comprehension of students at differing competency levels. Reading Research and Instruction, 29, 73–84.
17.
MislevyR. J.BockR. D. (1990). BILOG MG-3. Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
18.
PriorS. M.WellingK. A. (2001). “Read in your head”: A Vygotskian analysis of the transition from oral to silent reading. Reading Psychology, 22, 1–15.
19.
SireciS. G.LiS.ScarpatiS. (2003). The effects of test accommodations on test performance: A review of the literature (Research Report 485). Amherst, MA: Center for Educational Assessment.
20.
SireciS. G.ScarpatiS.LiS. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457–490.
21.
StansfieldC. W. (2002). Linguistic simplification: A promising test accommodation for LEP students?. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8 (7). Retrieved April 30, 2003, from http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=8&n=7.
22.
ThompsonS.BlountA.ThurlowM. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Tech. Rep. No. 34). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
23.
TindalG. (2002). Accommodating mathematics testing using a videotaped read aloud administration. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
24.
TindalG.AndersonL.HelwigR.MillerGlasgowA. (2000). Accommodating students with learning disabilities on math tests using language simplification. Eugene, OR: Research, Consultation, and Teaching Program (RCTP).
25.
TindalG.FuchsL. S. (1999). Models for understanding task comparability in accommodated testing. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
26.
TindalG.Ketterlin-GellerL. R. (2003, August). Test accommodations research: Decision-making, outcomes, and designs. Presentation at University of Maryland Conference: Validity and accommodations: Psychometric and policy perspectives.
27.
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). What works clearinghouse. Retrieved August 1, 2005, from http://www.whatworks.ed.gov.
