This article studies accessible assessment design to large-scale English language proficiency assessments that are now mandatory for elementary and secondary English language learners in public schools. Using a modified Delphi approach, a panel of 33 experts from the areas of assessment, English as a second language or bilingual education, and special education provided feedback on features of accessible English language proficiency tests. Experts rated the importance of a set of accessible test design considerations suggested by the literature and were able to add and rate additional considerations suggested by their own experience. Considerations related to the creation of concise and readable text in assessment items received consistently high ratings overall. In contrast, considerations relating to the creation of test items that allow for format changes (e.g., Braille, oral presentation, sign language) showed the most variability in ratings.
Abedi, J., & Gandara, P. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 25(4), 36-46.
2.
Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (Eds.). (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley.
3.
Albus, D., Barrera, M., Thurlow, M., Guven, K., & Shyyan, V. (2004). 2000-2001 Participation and performance of English language learners with disabilities on Minnesota standards-based assessments [ELLs With Disabilities Report 4]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 31, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/ELLsDisReport4.html
4.
Albus, D., Thurlow, M., & Liu, K. (2002). 2002 participation and performance of English language learners reported in public documents and on Websites [LEP Projects Report 3]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 31, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/LEP3.pdf
5.
Brill, J., Bishop, M., & Walker, A. (2006). The competencies and characteristics required of an effective project manager: A Web-based Delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(2), 115-140.
6.
Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design. Retrieved March 23, 2007 , from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/pubs_p/docs/poster.pdf
7.
Clayton, M. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373
8.
Davison, M. (1983). Multidimensional scaling. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
9.
Howell, S., & Kemp, C. (2005). Defining early number sense: A participatoryAustralian study. Educational Psychology, 25, 555-571.
10.
Individuals With Disabilities Improvement Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, §612 (a)(16)(E). Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ446.108
11.
Kopriva, R. (2002). Ensuring accuracy in testing English language learners. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
12.
Linstone, H., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
13.
Liu, K., Thurlow, M., Barrera, M., Guven, K., & Shyyan, V. (2005). Graduation exam participation and performance (2000-2001) of English language learners with disabilities [ELLs With Disabilities Report 3]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 31, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/ELLsDisReport3.html
14.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
15.
Murray, J., & Hammons, J. (1995). Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research. Review of Higher Education, 18, 423-436.
16.
Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15, 353-375.
17.
Thompson, S., Johnstone, C., Anderson, M., & Miller, N. (2005). Considerations for the development and review of universally designed assessments [Technical Report 42]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical42.htm
18.
Thompson, S., Johnstone, C., & Thurlow, M. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments [Synthesis Report 44]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.html
19.
Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2002). Universally designed assessments: Better tests for everyone! [Policy Directions 14]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
20.
U.S. Assistive Technology Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-364, §2, Stat. 1714. Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ364.108
21.
Zehler, A., Fleischman, H., Hopstock, P., Stephenson, T., Pendzick, M., & Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study of services to limited English proficient students. Washington, DC: Development Associates.
