Since the first review of alternate assessment literature by Browder, Spooner, Algozzine, et al. (2003), educational research related to alternate assessment has rapidly expanded as state and federal policies have required the inclusion of students with disabilities, including students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, in state and school accountability indexes. The purpose of this literature review was to examine the empirical studies conducted since the conception of alternate assessment to evaluate the progress made in this area, using a research framework proposed by Browder et al. We discuss future research directions, particularly as these relate to recent changes in federal policy under No Child Left Behind as well as implications for teachers and practitioners.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrowderD.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.KarvonenM.SpoonerF.AlgozzineR. (2005). How states implement alternate assessments for students with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15(4), 209–220.
2.
BrowderD.FlowersC.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.KarvonenM.SpoonerF.AlgozzineR. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula. The Journal of Special Education, 37(4), 211–223.
3.
BrowderD.KarvonenM.DavisS.FallinK.Courtade-LittleG. (2005). The impact of teacher training on state alternate assessment scores. Exceptional Children, 71, 267–282.
4.
BrowderD.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.AlgozzineR.KarvonenM. (2003). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states' alternate assessment performance indicators. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 28(4), 165–181.
5.
BrowderD.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.HarrisA.WakemanS. (2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407–432.
6.
BrowderD.WakemanS.FlowersC.RickelmanR.PugaleeD.KarvonenM. (2007). Creating access to the general curriculum with links to grade-level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities: An explication of the concept. The Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 2–16.
7.
BrowderD.WakemanS.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.AlgozzineB. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392–408.
8.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerR.AlgozzineR.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.KarvonenM. (2003). What we know and need to know about alternate assessment. Exceptional Children, 70, 45–61.
9.
CizekG. (2001). Conjectures on the rise and call of standard setting: An introduction to context and practice. In CizekG. (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 3–17). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
ClapperA. T.MorseA. B.LazarusS. S.ThompsonS. J.ThurlowM. L. (2005). 2003 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 56). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis56.html.
11.
CourtadeG.SpoonerF.BrowderD. (2007). A review of studies with students with significant cognitive disabilities that link to science standards. Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities, 32, 43–49.
12.
DestefanoL.ShrinerJ.LloydC. (2001). Teacher decision making in participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessment. Exceptional Children, 68, 7–22.
13.
FarlowL. J.SnellM. E. (1994). Making the most of student performance data. (Innovations). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
14.
FlowersC.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.BrowderD.SpoonerF. (2005). Teachers' perceptions of alternate assessments. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 30(2), 81–92.
15.
FlowersC.BrowderD. M.Ahlgrim-DelzellL. (2006). An analysis of three states' alignment between language arts and mathematics standards and alternate assessments. Exceptional Children, 72, 201–215.
16.
FlowersC.WakemanS.BrowderD.KarvonenM. (2007). Links for academic learning: An alignment protocol for alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. Charlotte, NC: National Alternate Assessment Center, University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
17.
GrahamS. (Ed.). (2005). Criteria for evidenced-based practice in special education [Special issue]. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–207.
18.
HeumannJ.WarlickK. (2000, August 24). OSEP memorandum to state directors of special education (OSEP 00–24). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
19.
HorvathL.Kampfer-BohachS.KearnsJ. (2005). The use of accommodations among students with deaf-blindness in large-scale assessment systems. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16(3), 177–187.
20.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA), Pub. L. No. 105–17, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.
21.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), Pub. L. No. 108–446, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.
22.
JohnsonE.ArnoldN. (2004). Validating an alternate assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 25(5), 266–275.
23.
JohnsonE.ArnoldN. (2007). Examining an alternate assessment: What are we testing?. Journal of Disabilities Studies, 18(1), 23–31.
24.
KampferS.HorvathL.KleinertH.KearnsJ. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of one state's alternate assessment portfolio program: Implications for practice and preparation. Exceptional Children, 67, 361–374.
25.
KarvonenM.FlowersC.BrowderD.WakemanS.AlgozzineB. (2006). Case study of the influence on alternate assessment outcomes for students with disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41(2), 95–110.
26.
KarvonenM.WakemanS.FlowersC.BrowderD. (2007). Measuring the enacted curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 29–38.
27.
KleinertH.GarrettB.TowlesE.GarrettM.Nowak-DrabikK.WaddellC. (2002). Alternate assessment scores and life outcomes for students with significant disabilities: Are they related?. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 19–30.
28.
KleinertH.KearnsJ. (2004). Alternate assessments. In OreloveF.SobseyD.SilbermanR. (Eds.), Educating children with multiple disabilities: A collaborative approach (4th ed., pp. 115–149). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
29.
KleinertH.KearnsJ.KennedyS. (1997). Accountability for all students: Kentucky's Alternate Portfolio system for students with moderate and severe cognitive disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 22(2), 88–101.
30.
KleinertH.KearnsJ. F. (1999). A validation study of the performance indicators and learner outcomes of Kentucky's alternate assessment for students with significant disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 24, 100–110.
31.
KleinertH.KennedyS.KearnsJ. (1999). Impact of alternate assessments: A statewide teacher survey. Journal of Special Education, 33(2), 93–102.
32.
KohlF.McLaughlinM.NagleK. (2006). Alternate achievement standards and assessments: A descriptive investigation of 16 states. Exceptional Children, 73, 107–123.
33.
LazarusS.ThurlowM.KailK.EisenbraunK.KatoK. (2006). 2005 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 64). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis64/.
34.
LinnR.BakerE.DunbarS. (1991). Complex, performance based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20, 15–21.
35.
MarionS.PellegrinoJ. (2006). A validity framework for evaluating the technical quality of alternate assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 25(4), 47–57.
36.
National Alternate Assessment Center. (2007). Technical documentation workbooks I and II. Lexington: University of Kentucky, National Alternate Assessment Center. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.naacpartners.org/products.aspx.
37.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq.
38.
PellegrinoJ.ChudowskyN.GlaserR. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: Committee on the Foundations of Assessment, National Academy Press.
39.
PernerD. (2007). No child left behind: Issues of assessing children with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42, 243–251.
40.
QuenemoenR.RigneyS.ThurlowM. (2002). Use of alternate assessment results in reporting and accountability systems: Conditions for use based on research and practice (Synthesis Report 43). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved April 16, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis43.html.
41.
RoachA. (2006). Influences on parent perceptions of an alternate assessment for students with severe cognitive disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 267–274.
42.
RoachA.ElliottS. (2006). The influences of access to general education curriculum on alternate assessment performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(2), 181–194.
43.
RoachA.ElliottS.BerndtS. (2007). Teacher perceptions and the consequential validity of an alternate assessment for students with significant disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18, 168–175.
44.
RoachA.ElliottS.WebbN. (2005). Alignment of alternate assessment with state academic standards: Evidence for the content validity of the Wisconsin alternate assessment. Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 218–231.
45.
RoeberE. (2002). Setting standards on alternate assessments (Synthesis Report 42). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved November 28, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis42.html.
46.
ShepardL. A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. In Darling-HammondL. (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 19, pp. 405–450). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
47.
ThompsonS.EricksonR.ThurlowM.YsseldykeJ.CallenderS. (1999). Status of the states in the development of alternate assessments (Synthesis Report 31). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved November 25, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis31.html.
48.
ThompsonS.JohnstoneC.ThurlowM.AltmanJ. (2005). 2005 State special education outcomes: Steps forward in a decade of change. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://www.education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/2005StateReport.htm.
49.
ThompsonS.ThurlowM. (1999). 1999 State special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the end of the century. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved November 28, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/99StateReport.htm.
50.
ThompsonS.ThurlowM. (2000). State alternate assessments: Status as IDEA alternate assessment requirements take effect (Synthesis Report 35). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved November 28, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis35.html.
51.
ThompsonS.ThurlowM. (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 November 28, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2001StateReport.html.
52.
ThompsonS.ThurlowM. (2003). 2003 State special education outcomes: Marching on. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved November 28, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2003StateReport.htm.
53.
ThompsonS.ThurlowM.EslerA.WhetstoneP. (2001). Addressing standards and assessments on the IEP. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26(2), 77–84.
54.
ThurlowM.LazarusS.ThompsonS.RobeyJ. (2002). 2001 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations (Synthesis Report 46). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis46.html.
55.
TindalG.McDonaldM.TedescoM.GlasgowA.AlmondP.CrawfordL. (2003). Alternate assessments in reading and math: Development and validation for students with significant disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 481–494.
56.
Towles-ReevesE.GarrettB.BurdetteP.BurdgeM. (2006). What are the consequences? Validation of large-scale alternate assessment systems and their influence on instruction. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31(3), 45–57.
57.
Towles-ReevesE.Kampfer-BohachS.GarrettB.KearnsJ.Grisham-BrownJ. (2006). Are we leaving our children behind? State deafblind coordinators' perceptions of large-scale assessment. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17(1), 40–47.
58.
Towles-ReevesE.KearnsJ.KleinertH.KleinertJ. (2008, May 12). An analysis of the learning characteristics of students taking alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. Journal of Special Education. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://sed.sagepub.com/cgi/rapidpdf/0022466907313451v1.
59.
Towles-ReevesE.KleinertH. (2006). The impact of one state's alternate assessment upon instruction and IEP development. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(3), 31–39.
60.
TurnerM.BaldwinL.KleinertH.KearnsJ. (2000). An examination of the concurrent validity of Kentucky's alternate assessment system. Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 69–76.
61.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Education week analysis of data from the Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System. Washington, DC: Author.
62.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Standards and assessment peer review guidance. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
63.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005a). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
64.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005b). The tool kit on teaching and assessing students with disabilities. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education. Retrieved August 30, 2006, from http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/index.asp.
WebbN. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education. (NISE Research Monograph No. 6). Madison: University of Wisconsin—Madison, National Institute for Science Education.
67.
WebbN. (2002, April). An analysis of the alignment between mathematics standards and assessments for three states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
68.
WhiteM.GarrettB.KearnsJ.Grisham-BrownJ. (2003). Instruction and assessment: How students with deaf-blindness fare in large-scale alternate assessments. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 28(4), 205–213.
69.
WienerD. (2006). Alternate assessments measured against grade-level achievement standards: The Massachusetts “Competency Portfolio” (Synthesis Report 59). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis59.html.
70.
YovanoffP.TindalG. (2007). Scaling early reading alternate assessments with statewide measures. Exceptional Children, 73, 202–223.
71.
YsseldykeJ.DennisonA.NelsonR. (2004). Large-scale assessment and accountability systems: Positive consequences for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 51). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved September 27, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis51.html.
