Many students with disabilities are provided accommodations to enable their participation in statewide assessment programs; however, there is concern that accommodations may invalidate test results. For test administrations to be considered valid for all student groups, there must be comparable measurement across groups. This can ensure that decisions based on test results are made in a fair manner for all students. In this study, measurement comparability for two groups of accommodated students with disabilities (i.e., accommodated students with physical disabilities and accommodated students with mental disabilities) was examined using differential item functioning (DIF) analysis, in which item-level characteristics of the test for these groups were systematically compared with those for a reference group of nonaccommodated students without disabilities. A relatively large number of DIF items were identified for both accommodated disability groups, suggesting that more attention to the testing needs of students with disabilities is warranted. Suggestions for future research are provided.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing . Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2.
Bennett, R.E., Rock, D.A., & Jirele, T. (1987). GRE score level, test completion, and reliability for visually impaired, physically handicapped, and nonhandicapped groups. The Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 9-21.
3.
Bennett, R.E., Rock, D.A., & Kaplan, B.A. (1987). SAT differential item performance for nine handicapped groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(1), 41-55.
4.
Bennett, R.E., Rock, D.A., & Novatkoski, I. (1989). Differential item functioning on the SAT-M Braille edition. Journal of Educational Measurement , 26(1), 67-79.
5.
Bolt, S.E., & Thurlow, M.L. (2004). Five of the most commonly allowed accommodations in state policy: Synthesis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 141-152.
6.
Bolt, S.E., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2006). Comparing DIF across math and reading/language arts tests for students receiving a read-aloud accommodation . Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 329-355.
7.
Braden, J., & Niebling, B. (2006). Using the joint standards to evaluate validity evidence for intelligence tests. In Flanagan, D. P., & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.). Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (2nd ed.; pp. 615-630). New York: Guilford.
8.
Buist-Bouwman, M.A., DeGraaf, R., Vollebergh, W.A.M., Alonso, J., Bruffaerts, R., Ormel, J., & the ESEMeD/MHEDEA2000 Investigators. (2006). Functional disability of mental disorders and comparision with physical disorders: a study among the general population of six European countries. ACTA Psychiatrica Scandinavica , 113, 492-500.
9.
Clapper, A.T., Morse, A.B., Lazarus, S.S., Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2005). 2003 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 56). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 24, 2006 , from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis56.html
10.
CTB/McGraw-Hill (1997). Handbook of instructional objectives for the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) Survey Form A. Monterey, CA : Author.
Elbaum, B., Arquelles, M., Campbell, Y., & Saley, M., (2004). Effects of student reads-aloud accommodation on the performance of students with and without disabilities on a test of reading comprehension. Exceptionality, 12,2, 71-87.
13.
Embretson, S., & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
14.
Epps, S., Ysseldyke, J., & McGue, M. (1984). "I know one when I see one"-differentiating LD and non-LD students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 89-101.
15.
Farina, A., Thaw, J., Felner, R.D., & Hust, B.E. (1976). Some interpersonal consequences of being mentally ill or mentally retarded. American Journal of Mental Deficiency , 80, 414-422.
16.
Fichten, C.S. (1988). Students with physical disabilities in higher education: Attitudes and beliefs that affect integration. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with disabilities (pp. 171-186). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C.L., & Karns, K.M. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29(1), 65-85.
18.
Gajria, M., Salend, S.J., & Hemrick, M.A. (1994). Teacher acceptability of testing modifications for mainstreamed students. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9(4), 236-234.
19.
Gresham, F.M., MacMillan, D.L., & Bocian, K.M. (1996). Learning disabilities, low achievement, and mild retardation: More alike than different?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29 (6), 570-581.
20.
Huynh, H., & Barton, K. (2006). Performance of students with disabilities under regular and oral administration of a high stakes reading examination. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 21-39.
21.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 195-17, 105th Cong., 1st session.
22.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), Pub. L. 108-446, 20 U.S.C.
23.
Jayanthi, M., Epstein, M.H., Polloway, E.A., & Bursuck, W.D. (1996). A national survey of general education teachers' perceptions of testing adaptations. The Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 99-115.
24.
Johnstone, C.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. Retrieved August 17, 2007 , from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical37.htm
25.
Lewis, D., Green, D.R., & Miller, L. (1999, June). Using differential item functioning analyses to assess the validity of testing accommodated students with disabilities . Paper presented at the National Conference on Large-Scale Assessment, Snowbird, UT.
26.
McKevitt, B.B., & Elliott, S.N. (2003). Effects and perceived consequences of using read-aloud and teacher-recommended testing accommodations on a reading achievement test . School Psychology Review, 32(4), 583-600.
27.
Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment. Educational Measurement, 14, 5-8.
28.
Olson, J.F., & Goldstein, A.A. (1996). Increasing the inclusion of students with disabilities and limited English proficient students in NAEP (NCES 96-894). Focus on NAEP, 2(1). Retrieved August 17, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs96/web/96894.asp
29.
Phillips, S.E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93-120.
30.
Phillips, S.E. (2002). Legal issues affecting special populations in large-scale testing programs. In G. Tindal & T. Haladyna (Eds.), Large scale assessment programs for all students (pp. 109-148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31.
Pomplun, M., & Omar, M.H. (2000). Score comparability of a state mathematics assessment across students with and without reading accommodations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 21-29.
32.
Premeaux, S.F. (2001). Impact of applicant disability on selection: The role of disability type, physical attractiveness, and proximity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2), 291-298.
33.
Rogers, W.T. (1983). Use of separate answer sheets with hearing impaired and deaf school age students. Journal of Special Education , 7(1), 63-72.
34.
Roussos, L.A., & Stout, W.F. (1996). Simulation studies of the effects of small sample size and studied item parameters on SIBTEST and Mantel-Haenszel Type I error performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33(2), 215-230.
35.
Schulte, A.G., Elliott, S.N., & Kratochwill, T.R. (2001). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations on students' standardized achievement test scores. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 527-547.
36.
Sireci, S., Scarpati, S., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457-490.
37.
Social Security Administration (2007). Disability evaluation under social security. Retrieved on March 25, 2007, from http://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/112.00-MentalDisorders-Childhood.htm#112.02%200rganic%20Mental%20Disorders
38.
Stanovich, K.E. (1999). The sociometrics of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 350-361.
39.
Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIF v. 2.0b: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item-response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory .
40.
Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Technical Report 34). Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 17, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical34.htm
41.
Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved November 2, 2002, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.html
42.
Thurlow, M.L., Moen, R., & Altman, J. (2006). Annual performance reports: 2003-2004 state assessment data. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
43.
Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64(4), 439-450.
44.
U.S. Department of Education (2003). Including special-needs students in the NAEP reading assessment (NCES 2003-467) . Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
45.
Wainer, H. (1993). Model-based standardized measurement of an item's differential impact. In P.W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 123-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46.
Ysseldyke, J.E., Algozzine, R., Shinn, M., & Irvine, P. (1982). Similarities and differences between low achievers and students classified learning disabled. Journal of Special Education, 16, 73-85.
47.
Zenisky, A.L., Hambleton, R.K., & Robin, F. (2003). Detection of differential item functioning in large-scale state assessments: A study evaluating a two-stage approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(1), 51-64.
