Connecticut's Skills Checklist was developed in response to federal policy that requires all students with significant cognitive disabilities participate in state assessments and be included in measures of adequate yearly progress. Test developers had high expectations for this assessment. In addition to its function as an accountability measure, the assessment was designed to change the nature of classroom instruction for this population. In this study, special education teachers in Grades 4, 6, and 10 completed a survey of their instructional practices after submitting accountability data. Combined survey and accountability data indicated that teachers did not instruct students on the breadth of content included on the Skills Checklist. Study data suggest patterns of academic content that are accessible not only for this population of students but for their teachers as well. Moreover, findings from this study have profound implications on the validity of the assessment data.
AgranM.AlperS.WehmeyerM. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123–133.
2.
AgranM.BlanchardC.WehmeyerM. (2000). Promoting transition goals and self-directed learning model of instruction. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 351–364.
3.
AgranM.CavinM.WehmeyerM.PalmerS. (2006). Participation of students with moderate to severe disabilities in the general curriculum: The effects of the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 230–241.
4.
AgranM.CavinM.WehmeyerM.PalmerS. (2010). Promoting active engagement in the general education classroom and access to the general education curriculum for students with cognitive disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 163–174.
5.
AgranM.WehmeyerM. L.CavinM.PalmerS. (2008). Promoting student active classroom participation skills through instruction to promote self-regulated learning and self-determination. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 106–114.
6.
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.
7.
BehuniakP.AmentaJ. (2009). Assessing all students in Connecticut. In SchaferW. M.LissitzR. (Eds.), Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: Policy, practice, and potential. Baltimore: Brooks Publishing.
8.
BrowderD.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.KarvonenM.SpoonerF.AlgozzineR. (2005). How states implement alternate assessments for students with disabilities and recommendations for national policy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15, 209–220.
9.
BrowderD.GrassoE. (1999). Teaching money skills to individuals with mental retardation: A research review with practical applications. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 297–308.
10.
BrowderD. M.KarvonenM.DavisS.FallinK.Courtade-LittleG. (2005). The impact of teacher training on state alternate assessment scores. Exceptional Children, 71, 267–282.
11.
BrowderD.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.HarrisA.WakemanS. (2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407–432.
12.
BrowderD.SpoonerF.AlgozzineB.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.KarvonenM. (2003). What we know and need to know about alternate assessment. Exceptional Children, 70, 45–62.
13.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.WakemanS.TrelaK.BakerJ. N. (2006a). Aligning instruction with academic content standards: Finding the link. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 309–321.
14.
BrowderD.WakemanS.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.AlgozzineB. (2006b). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 392–408.
15.
BrowderD.XinY. P. (1998). A meta-analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 32, 130–153.
16.
CizekG. J.RosenbergS.KoonsH. (2008). Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 397–412.
17.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (2006). CMT/CAPT Skills Checklist: Technical manual. Hartford, CT: Author.
18.
CopelandS. R.CosbeyJ. (2008/2009). Making progress in the general curriculum: Rethinking effective instructional practices. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33–34, 214–227.
19.
CronbachL. J. (1989). Construct validation after thirty years. In LinnR. E. (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement theory, and public policy. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
20.
GoldsteinJ.BehuniakP. (2010). Assessing students using the CMT/CAPT Skills Checklist: A study of teachers' tasks. Hartford, CT: Connecticut State Department of Education.
21.
GoldsteinJ.BehuniakP. (2012). Assessing students with significant cognitive disabilities on academic content: A study of teacher ratings. Journal of Special Education, 46, 117–127.
22.
GoldsteinJ.StuckJ. (2010, October). Examining the impact of alternate assessments on instruction: A multimethod study of test consequences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association (NERA), Rocky Hill, CT.
23.
HaertelE. (1999). Validity arguments for high-stakes testing: In search of the evidence. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18, 5–9.
24.
KarvonenM.FlowersC.BrowderD. M.WakemanS. Y.AlgozzineB. (2006). Case study of the influences on alternate assessment outcomes for students with disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 95–110.
25.
KearnsJ.Towles-ReevesE.KleinertH.KleinertJ.ThomasM. (2009). Characteristics of and implications for students participating in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 3–14.
26.
KleinertH.BrowderD.Towles-ReevesE. (2005). The assessment triangle and students with significant cognitive disabilities: Models of student cognition. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, National Alternate Assessment Center.
27.
KleinertH.KearnsJ. (2004). Alternate assessments. In OreloveF.SobseyD.SilbermanR. (Eds.), Educating children with multiple disabilities: A collaborative approach (4th ed., pp. 115–149). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
28.
LaneS.ParkeC. S.StoneC. A. (1998). A framework for evaluating the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 24–28.
29.
MehrensW. (2002). Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence? In TindalG.HaladynaT. (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all students: Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
30.
MossP. A. (1998). The role of consequences in validity theory. Educational Measurement, 17, 6–12.
31.
ReckaseM. (1998). Consequential validity from the test developer's perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 13–16.
32.
RyanK. (2002). Assessment validation in the context of high stakes assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2, 7–15.
33.
Towles-ReevesE.KearnsJ.KleinertH.KleinertJ. (2009a). An analysis of the learning characteristics of students taking alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 241–254.
34.
Towles-ReevesE.KleinertH.MuhombaM. (2009b). Alternate assessment: Have we learned anything new?Exceptional Children, 75, 233–252.
35.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Standards and assessments peer review guidance: Information and examples for meeting requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Author.
36.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005, August). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author.
37.
WehmeyerM. L.LattinD.AgranM. (2001). Achieving access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation: A curriculum decision-making model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 327–342.
38.
WehmeyerM. L.LattinD.Lapp-RinckerG.AgranM. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle-school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262–272.
39.
WehmeyerM.SandsD. J.KnowltonH. E.KozleskiE. B. (2002). Teaching students with mental retardation: Providing access to the general curriculum. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
