In conjunction with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA; PL 105-17), the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB; PL 107-110) calls for enhancements to existing assessment and accountability systems within specific timelines. The NCLB Act also stresses the importance of using reliable and valid data for decision making. This study examined the consequential validity of a large-scale alternate assessment system for students with severe cognitive disabilities in one midwestern state. Three hundred and four teachers completed a survey designed to measure their perceptions of the alternate assessment's influence on instruction and the development of individualized education programs (IEPs). Findings indicated the assessment had a strong influence on instruction and a strong, but lesser influence on the development of IEPs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), and National Center on Measurement in Education (NCME). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2.
Bechard, S. (September, 2001). Models for reporting the results of alternate assessments within state accountability systems (Synthesis Report 39). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved February 13, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis39.html.
3.
Browder, D., Fallin, K., Davis, S., & Karvonen, M. (2003). A consideration of what may influence student outcomes on alternate assessment. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities,38(3), 255-270.
4.
Burdette, P. (2001). Alternate assessment: Early highlights and pitfalls of reporting. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26(2), 61-66.
5.
Cipani, E., & Spooner, F. (1994). Curricular and instructional approaches for persons with severe disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
Crossen, S., Garrett, B., Hurte, M., & Peters, D. (2002). Perspectives from Kentucky and Delaware on scoring alternate assessment portfolios. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual TASH Conference, Boston, MA.
7.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-382, § 101, 108 Stat. 3518 (1994).
8.
Figlio, D. (2002, February). Aggregation and accountability. Paper presented at the meeting of Will No Child Truly Be Left Behind? The Challenges of Making this Law Work, Washington, DC.
9.
Garrett, B., Towles, E., Kleinert, H., & Kearns, J.K. (2003). Portfolios in large-scale alternate assessment systems: Frameworks for reliability. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(2), 17-28.
10.
Haertel, E.H. (1999). Validity arguments for high-stakes testing: In search of the evidence. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(4), 5-9.
11.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. ¶ 1400 et seq.
12.
Kampfer, S., Horvath, L., Kleinert, H., & Kearns, J. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of one state's alternate assessment portfolio program: Implications for practice and preparation. Exceptional Children, 67(3), 361-374.
13.
Kane, M. (2002). Validating high-stakes testing programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21 (2), 31-41.
14.
Kleinert, H., & Kearns, J. (1999). A validation study of the performance indicators and learner outcomes of Kentucky's alternate assessment for students with significant disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24(2), 100-110.
15.
Kleinert, H.L., & Kearns, J.F. (2001). Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
16.
Kleinert, H.L., Kearns, J.F., Costello, K., Nowak-Drabik, K., Garrett, M., Horvath, L., Kampfer, S., et al. (2001). Research on the impact of alternate assessments . In H. Kleinert & J. Kearns (Eds.), Alternate assessments: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities (pp. 213-227). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
17.
Kleinert, H.L., Kearns, J.F., & Kennedy, S. (1997). Accountability for all students: Kentucky's alternate portfolio assessment for students with moderate and severe cognitive disabilities . Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps , 22, 88-101.
18.
Kleinert, H.L., Kennedy, S., & Kearns, J. (1999). Impact of alternate assessments: A statewide teacher survey. Journal of Special Education, 33(2), 93-102.
19.
Lane, S., Parke, C.S., & Stone, C.A. (1998). A framework for evaluating the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 17(2), 24-28.
20.
Lane, S., & Stone, C.A. (2002). Strategies for examining the consequences of assessment and accountability programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(2), 23-30.
21.
Linn, R.L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 15, 1-16.
22.
Linn, R.L. (1997). Evaluating the validity of assessments: The consequences of use. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 14-16.
23.
Linn, R.L. (1998). Partitioning responsibility for the evaluation of the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(3), 28-31.
24.
Mehrens, W.A. (1997). The consequences of consequential validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 16-18.
25.
Moss, P.A. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62, 229-258.
26.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
27.
Popham, W.J. (1997). Consequential validity: Right concern-wrong concept . Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 9-13.
28.
Quenemoen, R., Rigney, S., & Thurlow, M. (2002). Use of alternate assessment results in reporting and accountability systems: Conditions for use based on research and practice (Synthesis Report 43). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
29.
Ryan, K. (2002). Assessment validation in the context of high-stakes assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21 (2), 7-15.
30.
Shepard, L.A. (1997). The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 16(2), 5-24.
31.
Snell, M.E., & Brown, F. (2000). Instruction of students with severe disabilities . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32.
Thompson, S.J., & Quenemoen, R.F. (2001). Eight steps to effective implementation of alternate assessments. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26(2), 67-74.
33.
Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2001). 2001 state special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved July 19, 2001, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2001StateReport.html .
34.
Westling, D.L., & Fox, L. (2000). Teaching students with severe disabilities (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
