Exploring Assessment Processes in Specialized Schools for Students who are Visually Impaired

Abstract

In this qualitative study, various professionals in specialized schools for students who are visually impaired provided information on assessment tools; how information was used to plan Individualized Education Programs; and their opinions on the reliability, validity, and usefulness of various measurements. The implications of the findings for policy guidelines and high-stakes decisions are explored.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker

C. P.

, & Koenig

A. J.

(1995). Relation ship of the Blind Learning Aptitude Test to braille reading skills. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 89, 440–448.

Bolt

S. E.

, & Thurlow

M. L.

(2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy: Synthesis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 141–152.

Browder

, Spooner

, Ahlgrim-Delzell

, Flowers

, Algozzine

, & Karvonen

(2003). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states’ alternate assessment performance indicators. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 165–181.

Cook

T. D.

(1985). Post-positive critical multiplism: Social science and social policy. In Shotland

, & Mark

(Eds.), Social science and social policy (pp. 21–62). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ekstrom

(1998). Test interpretation and diversity: Achieving equity in assessment. Paper presented at Assessment ‘98: Assessment for Change—Changes in Assessment, St. Petersburg, FL.

Ferrell

K. A.

(2005). The effects of NCLB. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99, 681–683.

Genshaft

J. L.

, Dare

, & O'Malley

P. L.

(1980). Assessing the visually impaired child: A school psychology view. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 74, 344–350.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (P.L. 108-446). (2004). Retrieved October 28, 2006, from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ446.108

McMahon

(2005). Civil rights legislation. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99, 678–680.

10.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Public law print of P.L. No. 107-110. (2001). Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://www/ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

11.

Pressley

(2003). A few things reading educators should know about instructional experiments. Reading Teacher, 57(1). Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/RT/9-03_Column

12.

Reid

(1998). Assessing the literacy of adults who are visually impaired: Conceptual and measurement issues. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 92, 447–452.

13.

Sechrest

(2005). Validity of measures is not a simple matter. Health Research and Educational Trust, 40, 1584–1604.

14.

Shadish

(1994). Critical multiplism: A research strategy and its attendant tactics. New Directions for Program Evaluation 60, 13–57.

15.

Swallow

R. M.

(1981). Fifty assessment instruments commonly used with blind and partially seeing individuals. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 75(2), 65–72.

16.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Policy guidance on educating blind and visually impaired students. RE:view, 33(2), 77–94.

17.

Warren

D. H.

(1984). Blindness and early childhood development (rev. ed.). New York: American Foundation for the Blind.

18.

West

(2005). An opportunity slipping away? Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99, 677–678.