The purpose of this survey pilot study was to determine how knowledgeable general education and special education teachers are about allowable accommodations on statewide assessment tests and how accommodation choices influence the validity of decisions resulting from this assessment. Overall, only 21% of the respondents reported using the accommodations specified in the statewide testing manual. On the whole, teachers' knowledge of allowable accommodations was low (54.8%) and their knowledge didn't always translate into consistent action: The 4 accommodations teachers listed most often as ones they used for students taking the modified statewide assessment were also the 4 most listed modifications that teachers thought might have allowed an exempted student to participate in the statewide assessment. These initial survey findings support the call for renewed preservice/inservice measurement training to eliminate the differential exclusion and application of accommodations now found in the schools.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Benderson, A. (1988). Testing, equality, and handicapped people.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
2.
Borg, W.R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational Research: An Introduction (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
3.
Bruininks, R. H., Gilman, C. J., McGrew, K. S., Scott, D. L., Shriner, J. G., Spande, G., Thurlow, M. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1994). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: A review of the literature (Synthesis Report 4). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
4.
Certificate of initial mastery performance standards: Increasing measurement precision in using state tests and classroom work samples. (1997, Winter). Assessment Update, 1(2). Salem: Oregon Department of Education, Office of Assessment and Evaluation.
5.
Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on the validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test Validity (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
Hartman, R.C., & Redden, M. R. (1985). Measuring student progress in the classroom.Washington, DC: Department of Education.
7.
Howell, K. W., Fox, S. L., & Morehead, M. K. (1993). Curriculum-based assessment: Teaching and decision making (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
8.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, P.L. 105–17, 2C U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
9.
Jentzsch, C., & Tindal, G. (1991). Analytic scoring of writing (Training Module No. 8). Eugene: University of Oregon, Research, Consultation, and Teaching Program.
10.
Lenz, B.K., & Mellard, D. (1990). Content area skill assessment. In R. A. Gable & J. M. Hendrickson (Eds.), Assessing Students with Special Needs (pp. 117–145). New York: Longman.
11.
Messick, S. (1982). The values of ability testing. Implications of multiple perspectives about criteria and standards. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 1(3), 9–12, 20, 26.
12.
Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity; Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test Validity (pp. 33–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validity of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13–23.
14.
Nolen, S. B., Haladyna, T. M., & Haas, N. S. (1992). Uses and abuses of achievement test scores. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(2), 9–15.
15.
O'Sullivan, R. G., & Chalnick, M. K. (1991). Measurement-related course work requirements for teacher certification and recertification. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 17–19, 23.
16.
Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93–120.
17.
Schafer, W. D. (1991). Essential assessment skills in professional education of teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 3–6, 12.
18.
Schafer, W. D. (1991). Essential assessment skills in professional education of teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 3–6, 12.
19.
Shepard, L. (1983). The role of measurement in educational policy: Lessons from the identification of learning disabled. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2(3), 48.
20.
Siskind, T. G. (1993a). Modifications in statewide criterion-referenced testing programs to accommodate pupils with disabilities. Diagnostique, 18, 233–249.
21.
Siskind, T. G. (1993b). Teachers' knowledge about tests modifications for students with disabilities. Diagnostique, 18, 145–157.
22.
Stiggins, R. J. (1991). Relevant classroom assessment training for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 7–12.
23.
Tindal, G., Hollenbeck, K., Heath, W., & Almond, P. (1997). The effect of using computers as an accommodation in a statewide writing test (Technical Research Report). Eugene: University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching.
24.
Webb, M. W. (1983). A scale for evaluating standardized reading tests, with results for Nelson-Denny, Iowa, and Stanford. Journal of Reading, 26, 424–429.
25.
Willingham, W. W. (1988). Testing handicapped people: The validity issue. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test Validity (pp. 89–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
Wise, S. L., Lukin, L. E., & Roos, L. L. (1991). Teacher beliefs about training in testing and measurement. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 37–42.
