This study was inspired by the final regulations for the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) indicating that each state has the option to develop a new assessment for students whose disabilities have kept them from obtaining proficiency. Sets of high school science achievement items were enhanced for the new test. A 3-by-2, within subjects, experimental design was used with 400 participants from 3 states. Although items remained connected to grade-level content standards, in the enhanced condition they were easier for all groups. Changes in measurement precision were mixed for students in the group eligible for the new examination. Participants tended to report that individual enhancements made items easier, but that packages of enhancements did not affect the difficulty of items.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Assistive Technology Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105–394, 112 Stat. 3627 Short title, see 29 U.S.C. 3001 note.
2.
BeddowP. A.ElliottS. N.KettlerR. J. (2009). TAMI Accessibility Rating Matrix. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Retrieved from http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/tami.xml.
3.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.AlgozzineR.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.KarvonenM. (2003). What we know and need to know about alternate assessment. Exceptional Children, 70, 45–61.
4.
CaseS. M.SwansonD. (2001). Constructing written test questions for the basic and clinical sciences (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: National Board of Medical Examiners.
ClarkR.NguyenF.SwellerJ. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
DickensonT. S.GilmoreJ. A.PriceK. J.BennettH. L. (in press). Investigation of science inquiry items for use on an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards using cognitive lab methodology. Journal of Special Education. Retrieved from http://sed.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/07/19/0022466911414720.full.pdf.
9.
ElliottS. N.KettlerR. J.BeddowP. A.KurzA.ComptonE.McGrathD.RoachA. T. (2010). Effects of using modified items to test students with persistent academic difficulties. Exceptional Children, 76, 475–495.
10.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.EatonS. B.HamlettC.KarnsK. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65–85.
11.
GronlundN. E. (2003). Assessment of student achievement (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
12.
HaighJ. (1999). Accommodations, modifications, and alternates for instruction and assessment (Maryland/Kentucky Report 5). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
13.
HaladynaT. M.DowningS. M.RodriguezM. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309–344.
14.
JohnsonE.MonroeB. (2004). Simplified language as an accommodation on math tests. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29(3), 35–45.
15.
JohnstoneC.ThurlowM.MooreM.AltmanJ. (2006). Using systematic item selection methods to improve universal design of assessment (Policy Directions 18). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
16.
JohnstoneC. J. (2003). Improving validity of large-scale tests: Universal design and student performance (Technical Report 37). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
17.
KettlerR. J.ElliottS. N. (2010). Assessment accommodations for children with special needs. In BakerE.PetersonP.McGawB. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 530–536). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Limited.
18.
KettlerR. J.ElliottS. N.BeddowP. A. (2009). Modifying achievement test items: A theory-guided and data-based approach for better measurement of what students with disabilities know. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(4), 529–551.
19.
KettlerR. J.RodriguezM. R.BoltD. M.ElliottS. N.BeddowP. A.KurzA. (2011). Modified multiple-choice items for alternate assessments: Reliability, difficulty, and differential boost. Applied Measurement in Education, 24(3), 210–234.
20.
LazarusS. S.ThurlowM. L. (2009). The changing landscape of alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards: An analysis of early adopters of AA-MASs. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(4), 496–510.
21.
National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2007). 2007 Survey of states: Activities, changes, and challenges for special education. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
22.
National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2010a). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 2007–2008 (Synthesis Report 56). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
23.
National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2010b). States participation guidelines for alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards (AAMAS) in 2009 (Synthesis Report 75). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
24.
PhillipsS. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 93–120.
25.
PhillipsS. E. (2011). U.S. legal issues in educational testing of special populations. In ElliottS. N.KettlerR. J.BeddowP. A.KurzA. (Eds.). Handbook of accessible achievement tests: Bridging the gaps in policy, research, and practice for all students (pp. 33–68). New York, NY: Springer.
26.
QuenemoenR.ThompsonS.ThurlowM. (2003). Measuring academic achievement of students with significant cognitive disabilities: Building understanding of alternate assessment scoring criteria (Synthesis Report 50). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
27.
RoachA. T.BeddowP. A.KurzA.KettlerR. J.ElliottS. N. (2010). Incorporating student input in developing alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. Exceptional Children, 77, 61–80.
28.
ShinnM. R.ShinnM. M. (2002). AIMSweb Training Workbook: Administration and Scoring of Reading Maze for Use in General Outcome Measurement. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.aimsweb.com/uploads/pdfs/scoring_maze.pdf.
29.
SwellerJ. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.
30.
ThompsonS. J.JohnstoneC. J.AndersonM. E.MillerN. A. (2005). Considerations for the development and review of universally designed assessments (Technical Report 42). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
31.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007a). Modified Academic Achievement Standards: Non-Regulatory Guidance. Washington, DC: Author.
32.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007b). Standards and Assessments Peer Review Guidance. Washington, DC: Author.
33.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Blueprint for the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
34.
YsseldykeJ.OlsonK. (1999). Putting alternate assessments into practice: What to measure and possible sources of data. Exceptional Children, 65, 178–185.
