Students with disabilities are frequently granted accommodations for high-stakes standardized tests to provide them an opportunity to demonstrate their academic knowledge without interference from their disability. One type of possible accommodation, test response format, concerns whether students respond in multiple-choice or constructed-response format. An experimental study was conducted to assess the performance differences of third-grade students with mathematics difficulty on a test of mathematics problem solving as a function of response format. Students responding in the multiple-choice format had a significant advantage over students answering in the constructed-response format.
BennettR. E.RockD. A.WangM. (1991). Equivalence of free-response and multiple-choice items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 77–92.
2.
BielinskiJ.YsseldykeJ. E.BoltS.FriedebachM.FriedebachJ. (2001). Prevalence of accommodations for students with disabilities participating in a statewide testing program. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26, 21–28. doi:10.1177/07372477010260020510.1177/073724770102600205
3.
BoltS. E.ThurlowM. L. (2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy: Synthesis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 141–152.
4.
BridgemanB. (1992). A comparison of quantitative questions in open-ended and multiple-choice formats. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 253–271.
5.
BrunoJ. E.DirkzwagerA. (1995). Determining the optimal number of alternatives to a multiple-choice test item: An information rhetoric perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 959–966.
6.
DiamondJ.EvansW. (1973). The correction for guessing. Review of Educational Research, 43, 181–191.
7.
FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.PaulsenK.BryantJ. D.HamlettC. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493–515. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.49310.1037/0022-0663.97.3.493
8.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound test accommodation decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 174–181.
9.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.EatonS. B.HamlettC. L.KarnsK. M. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65–85.
10.
FuchsL. S.SeethalerP. M.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (2008). Using curriculum-based measurement to identify the 2% population. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19, 153–161. doi:10.1177/104420730832747110.1177/1044207308327471
11.
GarnerM.EngelhardG. (1999). Gender differences in performance on multiple-choice and constructed response mathematics items. Applied Measurement in Education, 12, 29–51. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1201_310.1207/s15324818ame1201_3
12.
HaladynaT. M. (1999). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
HaladynaT. M.DowningS. M.RodriguezM. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 309–334. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1503_510.1207/S15324818AME1503_5
14.
HanichL. B.JordanN. C.KaplanD.DickJ. (2001). Performance across different areas of mathematical cognition in children with learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 615–626. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.93.3.61510.1037//0022-0663.93.3.615
HooverH. D.DunbarS. B.FrisbieD. A. (2001). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills–Form A. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
17.
JohnsonE. S. (2000). The effects of accommodations on performance assessments. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 261–267.
18.
KatzI. R.BennettR. E.BergerA. E. (2000). Effects of response format on difficulty of SAT-Mathematics items: It’s not the strategy. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 39–57.
19.
Ketterlin-GellerL. R.YovanoffP.TindalG. (2007). Developing a new paradigm for conducting research on accommodations in mathematics testing. Exceptional Children, 73, 331–347.
20.
KuK.Y.L. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 70–76.
21.
LazarusS. S.ThurlowM. L.LailK. E.ChristensenL. (2009). A longitudinal analysis of state accommodations policies: Twelve years of change, 1993–2005. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 67–80.
22.
LukheleR.ThissenD.WainerH. (1994). On the relative value of multiple-choice, constructed response, and examinee-selected items on two achievement tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 234–250.
23.
MazzoccoM.M.M. (2005). Challenges in identifying target skills for math disability screening and intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 318–232.
24.
PowellS. R.FuchsL. S.FuchsD.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ. M. (2009). Do word-problem features differentially affect problem difficulty as a function of students’ mathematics difficulty with and without reading difficulty?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 99–110. doi:10.1177/002221940832621110.1177/0022219408326211
25.
SchulteA.A.G.ElliottS. N.KratochwillT. R. (2001). Effects of testing accommodations on standardized mathematics test scores: An experimental analysis of the performances of students with and without disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 527–547.
26.
SireciS. G.ScarpatiS. E.LiS. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457–490.
SwansonJ.SchuckS.MannM.CarlsonC.HartmanM.SergeantJ.. . . McClearyR. (n.d.). Categorical and dimensional definitions and evaluations of symptoms of ADHD: The SNAP and SWAN Ratings Scales. Retrieved August 19, 2007, from http://www.adhd.net
29.
TankersleyK. (2007). Tests that teach: Using standardized tests to improve instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
30.
TaylorA. K. (2005). Violating conventional wisdom in multiple choice test construction. College Student Journal, 39, 141–148.
31.
The Psychological Corporation. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace.
32.
WilkinsonG. S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test–Revision 3. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range.
