Psychometric Challenges in Assessing English Language Learners and Students With Disabilities

Abedi J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English Language Learners: Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8, 231–257.

Abedi J. (2003). Impact of student language background on content-based performance: Analyses of extant data (CSE Report No. 603). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

Abedi J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4–14.

Abedi J. (2006). Language issues in item development. In Downing S. M. Haladyna T. M. (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 377–399). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Abedi J. (2008). Classification system for English language learners: Issues and recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 17–31.

**Abedi J. (2009). Computer testing as a form of accommodation for English language learners. Educational Assessment, 13, 195–211.

Abedi J. Courtney M. Leon S. (2003). Effectiveness and validity of accommodations for English language learners in large-scale assessment. (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 608). Los Angeles: University of California: Center for the Study of Evaluation/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

**Abedi J. Courtney M. Leon S. Keo J. Azzam T . (2006). English language learners and math achievement: A study of opportunity to learn and language accommodation (CSE Report). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

**Abedi J. Courtney M. Mirocha J. Leon S. Goldberg J. (2005). Language accommodations for English language learners in large-scale assessments: Bilingual dictionaries and linguistic modification (CSE Report 666). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

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 Practice, 25(4), 36–46.

Abedi J. Hofstetter C. Lord C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 1–28.

Abedi J. Kao J. C. Leon S. Mastergeorge A. M. Sullivan L. Herman J. Pope R. (2010). Accessibility of segmented reading comprehension passages for students with disabilities. Applied Measurement in Education, 23, 168–186.

Abedi J. Leon S. Kao J. (2007). Examining differential item functioning in reading assessments for students with disabilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.readingassessment.info/resources

Abedi J. Leon S. Mirocha J. (2000). Examining ELL and non-ELL student performance differences and their relationship to background factors: Continued analysis of extant data. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

Abedi J. Lord C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 219–234.

Abedi J. Lord C. Hofstetter C. (1998). Impact of selected background variables on students’ NAEP math performance (CSE Technical Report No. 478). Los Angeles. University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

Abedi J. Lord C. Plummer J. R. (1997). Final report of language background as a variable in NAEP mathematics performance (CSE Technical Report No. 429). Los Angeles. University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

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.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Artiles A. J. Rueda R. Salazar J. Higareda I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300.

Barton K. Finch W. H. (2004, April). Using DIF analyses to examine bias and assumptions of unidimensionality across students with and without disabilities and students with accommodations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.

Barton K. Huynh H. (2003). Patterns of errors made by students with disabilities on a reading test with oral reading administration. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 602–614.

Brennan R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Brown J. I. Fishco V. V. Hanna G. (1993). Nelson–Denny Reading Test, Form H. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Buzick H. Stone E. (2011). Recommendations for conducting differential item functioning (DIF) analyses for students with disabilities based on previous DIF studies (ETS RR-11-34). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Cahalan C. Mandinach E. B. Camara W. J. (2002). Predictive validity of SAT I: Reasoning test for test-takers with learning disabilities and extended time accommodations (College Bard Research Report 2002-05). New York, NY: The College Board.

Camara W. J. Copeland T. Rosthschild B. (1998). Effects of extended time on the SAT I: Reasoning test score growth for students with learning disabilities (Research Report No. 1998-7). New York, NY: College Entrance Exam Board.

Camilli G. (1992). A conceptual analysis of differential item function in terms of a multidimensional item response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 129–147.

Castellano K. E. Ho A. D. (2013). Contrasting OLS and quantile regression approaches to student “growth” percentiles. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38, 190–214.

Cattell R. B. Burdsal C. A. (1975). The radial parcel double factoring design: A solution to the item-vs.-parcel controversy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10, 165–179.

Cho H. Lee J. Kingston N. (2012). Examining the effectiveness of test accommodation using DIF and a mixture IRT model. Applied Measurement in Education, 25, 281–304.

Cid J. Spitalny I. (2013, April). Investigating the effect of language on the invariance of equating functions in paper-and-pencil and computer-based tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.

Clauser B. E. Mazor K. M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 31–44.

Cohen A. S. Gregg N. Deng M. (2005). The role of extended time and item content on a high-stakes mathematics test. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 225–233.

Cook L. Eignor D. Steinberg J. Sawaki Y. Cline F. (2009). Using factor analysis to investigate the impact of accommodations on the scores of students with disabilities on a reading comprehension assessment. Journal of Applied Testing, 10(2). Retrieved from http://atpu.memberclicks.net/assets/documents/Special%20issue%20article%203.pdf

Cook L. Eignor D. Sawaki Y. Steinberg J. Cline F. (2010). Using factor analysis to investigate accommodations used by students with disabilities on an English-language arts assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 23, 187–208.

Cormier D. C. Altman J. R. Shyyan V. Thurlow M. L. (2010). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2007-2008 (Technical Report No. 56). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Cronbach L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. In Wainer H. Braun H. (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3–17), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cronbach L. J. Gleser G. C. Nanda H. Rajaratnam N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability of scores and profiles. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Dorans N. J. (2004). Using subpopulation invariance to assess test score equity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37(4), 43–68.

Dorans N. J. Holland P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In Holland P. W. Wainer H. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 35–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dorans N. J. Holland P. W. (2000). Population invariance and the equitability of tests: Basic theory and the linear case. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 43–68.

Douglas J. A. Roussos L. A. Stout W. (1996). Item-bundle DIF hypothesis testing: Identifying suspect bundles and assessing their differential functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33(4), 465–484.

*Elbaum B. (2007). Effects of an oral testing accommodation on the mathematics performance of secondary students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 40, 218–229.

*Elbaum B. Arguelles M. E. Campbell Y. Saleh M. B. (2004). Effects of a student-reads-aloud accommodation on the performance of students with and without learning disabilities on a test of reading comprehension. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 12(2), 71–87.

Elliott S. N. Kettler R. J. Beddow P. A. Kurz A. Compton E. … Roach A. T. (2010). Effects of using modified items to test students with persistent academic difficulties. Exceptional Children, 76, 475–495.

Engelhard G. Fincher M. Domaleski C. S. (2011). Mathematics performance of students with and without disabilities under accommodated conditions using resource guides and calculators on high stakes tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 37, 281–306.

English Learners Office, E. J. McClendon Educational Center. (2002). Federal definition of an English Language Learner (ELL). Retrieved from http://ell.pccs.k12.mi.us/sites/ell.pccs.k12.mi.us/files/shared/2011-2012/Federal%20Definition%20of%20ELL.pdf

Ercikan K. Arim R. G. Law D. M. Lacroix S. Gagnon F. Domene J. F. (2010). Application of think-aloud protocols in examining sources of differential item functioning. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(2), 24–35.

Ercikan K. Roth W.-M. Simon M. Sandilands D. Lyons-Thomas J. (2014). Inconsistencies in DIF detection for sub-groups in heterogeneous language groups. Applied Measurement in Education, 27, 273–285.

ESEA reauthorization: Standards and assessments: Hearings before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, United States Senate, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2010). (Testimony of Martha Thurlow). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg56288/pdf/CHRG-111shrg56288.pdf

*Feldman E. Kim J. S. Elliott S. N. (2011). The effects of accommodations on adolescents’ self-efficacy and test performance. Journal of Special Education, 45(2), 77–88.

Finch H. Barton K. Meyer P. (2009). Differential item functioning analysis for accommodated versus non-accommodated students. Educational Assessment, 14, 38–56.

Fuchs L. S. Fuchs D. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound accommodation decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 174–181.

Fuchs L. S. Fuchs D. Eaton S. Hamlett C. L. Karns K. (2000). Supplementing teachers’ judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65–85.

Geisinger K. F. (1994). Psychometric issues in testing students with disabilities. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 121–140.

Holland P. W. Thayer D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel Haenszel procedure. In Wainer H. Braun H. I. (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129–145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Huggins A. C. Elbaum B. (2013). Test accommodations and equating invariance on a fifth-grade science exam. Educational Assessment, 18, 49–72.

Huynh H. Barton K. (2006). Performance of students with disabilities under regular and oral administrations for a high-stakes reading examination. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 21–39.

Huynh H. Meyer P. Gallant D. J. (2004). Comparability of student performance between regular and oral administrations for a high-stakes mathematics test. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 39–57.

**Johnson E. Monroe B. (2004). Simplified language as an accommodation on math tests. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29(3), 35–45.

Johnson E. S. (2000). The effects of accommodations on performance assessments. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 261–268.

Jones N. D. Buzick H. M. Turkan S. (2013). Including students with disabilities and English learners in measures of educator effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 42, 234–241.

Kachchaf R. Solano-Flores G. (2012). Rater language background as a source of measurement error in testing of English Language Learners. Applied Measurement in Education, 25, 162–177.

Kane M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527–535.

Kane M. T. (2006). Validation. In Brennan R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Washington, DC: American Council on Education/Praeger.

Kane M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1–73.

Kane M. T. Mroch A. A. (2010). Modeling group differences in OLS and orthogonal regression: Implications for differential validity studies. Applied Measurement in Education, 23, 215–241.

Kato K. Moen R. E. Thurlow M. L. (2009). Differential of a state reading assessment: Item functioning, distractor functioning and omission frequency for disability categories. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(2), 28–40.

*Ketterlin-Geller L. R. Yovanoff P. Tindal G. (2007). Developing a new paradigm for conducting research on accommodations in mathematics testing. Exceptional Children, 73, 331–347.

Kettler R. J. (2011). Effect of packages of modifications to improve test and item accessibility: Less is more. In Elliott S. N. Kettler R. J. Beddow P. A. Kurz A. (Eds.), Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students: Bridging the gaps between research practice, and policy (pp. 231–242). New York, NY: Springer.

Kettler R. J. Elliott S. N. Beddow P. A. (2009). Modifying achievement test items: A theory-guided and data-based approach for better measurement of what SWDs know. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 529–551.

*Kettler R. J. Rodriguez M. R. Bolt D. M. Elliott S. N. Bedow P. A. Kruz A. (2011). Modified multiple-choice items for alternate assessments: Reliability, difficulty, and differential boost. Applied Measurement in Education, 24, 210–234.

Kieffer M. J. Lesaux N. K. Rivera M. Francis D. J. (2009). Accommodations for English Language Learners taking large-scale assessments: A meta-analysis on effectiveness and validity. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1168–1201.

Kieffer M. J. Rivera M. Francis D. J. (2012). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for the use of accommodations in large-scale assessments. 2012 update. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center of Instruction.

Kim J. Herman J. L. (2009). A three-state study of English learner progress. Educational Assessment, 13, 212–231.

Kim D. Huynh H. (2010). Equivalence of paper-and-pencil and online administration modes of the statewide English test for students with and without disabilities. Educational Assessment, 15, 107–212.

Kolen M. J. Brennan R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

Koo J. K. Becker B. J. Kim Y. (2014). Examining differential item functioning trends for English language learners in a reading test: A meta-analytic approach. Language Testing, 31, 89–109. Retrieved from http://ltj.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/07/25/0265532213496097

Koretz D. Hamilton L. (2000). Assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky: Inclusion, student performance and validity. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 255–272.

Koretz D. Hamilton L. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In Brennan B. (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 579–623). New York, NY: Praeger.

Kosciolek S. Ysseldyke J. E. (2000). Effects of a reading accommodation on the validity of a reading test (NCEO Technical Report No. 28). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

*Laitusis C. C. (2010). Examining the impact of audio presentation on tests of reading comprehension. Applied Measurement in Education, 23, 153–167.

Laitusis C. C. Buzick H. M. Cook L. L. Stone E. (2011). Adaptive testing options for accountability assessments. In Russell M. (Ed.), Assessing students in the margins: Challenges, strategies, and techniques (pp. 291–310). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Lakin J. M. Lai E. R. (2012). Multigroup generalizability analysis of verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal ability tests for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72, 139–158.

Lakin J. M. Young J. W. (2013). Evaluating growth for ELL students: Implications for accountability policies. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32(3), 11–26.

Lane S. Stone C. A. (2006). Performance assessments. In Brennan B. (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 387–432). New York, NY: Praeger.

Lane S. Wang N. Magone M. (1996). Gender related differential item functioning on a middle school mathematics performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(4), 21–27.

*Lewandowski L. J. Lovett B. J. Rogers C. L. (2008). Extended time as a testing accommodation for students with reading disabilities: Does a rising tide lift all ships? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 315–324.

*Lewandowski L. J. Lovett B. J. Parolin R. Gordon M. Codding R. S. (2007). Extended time accommodations and the mathematics performance of students with and without ADHD. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 17–28.

Li D. Brennan R. L. (2007). A multi-group generalizability analysis of a large-scale reading comprehension test (CASMA Research Report No. 25). Iowa City, IA: Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement and Assessment.

Li H. (2013, April). The effects of read-aloud accommodations for students with and without disabilities: A meta-analysis. Presentation at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.

Li H. Suen H. K. (2012). The effects of test accommodations for English Language Learners: A meta-analysis. Applied Measurement in Education, 25, 327–346.

Linn R. L. (1978). Single-group validity, differential validity, and differential prediction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 507–512.

Martiniello M. (2009). Linguistic complexity, schematic representations, and differential item functioning for English Language Learners in math tests. Educational Assessment, 14, 160–179.

Mattern K. D. Patterson B. F. Shaw E. Kobrin J. L. Barbuti (2008). Differential validity and prediction of the SAT (Research Report No. 2008-4). New York, NY: College Board.

Mazor K. M. Clauser B. E. Hambleton R. K. (1992). The effect of sample size on the functioning of the Mantel-Haenszel statistic. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 443–451.

McKevitt B. C. 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, 583–600.

Meloy L. Deville C. Frisbie D. (2000, April). The effects of a reading accommodation on standardized test scores of learning disabled and non learning disabled students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA

Messick S. (1989). Validity. In Linn R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–104). New York, NY: American Council on Education and Macmillan.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs. (2007). Retrieved from http://sbo.nn.k12.va.us/esl/documents/ncela_fast_faqs.pdf

Pennock-Roman M. Rivera C. (2011). Mean effects of test accommodations for ELLs and non-ELLs: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(3), 10–28.

Phillips G. (2009, December). Race to the Top Assessment Program: A new generation of comparable state assessments. Presentation at the U.S. Department of Education Public Hearings, Denver, CO.

Phillips S. E. Camara W. J. (2006). Legal and ethical issues. In Brennan R. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 734–755). Westport, CT: Praeger.

*Randall J. Engelhard G. (2010a). Performance of students with and without disabilities under modified conditions: Using resource guides and read-aloud test modifications on a high-stakes reading test. Journal of Special Education, 44, 79–93.

Randall J. Engelhard G. (2010b). Using confirmatory factor analysis and the Rasch model to assess measurement invariance in a high stakes reading assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 23, 286–306.

Randall J. Cheong Y. F. Engelhard G. (2011). Using explanatory item response theory modeling to investigate context effects of differential item functioning for students with disabilities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 17, 129–147.

**Rivera C. Stansfield C. W. (2004). The effect of linguistic simplification of science test items on score comparability. Educational Assessment, 9(3), 79–105.

Rock D. A. Bennett R. E. Kaplan B. A. (1987). Internal construct validity of a college admissions test across handicapped and non-handicapped groups. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 193–205.

Rock D. A. Bennett R. E. Kaplan B. A. Jirele T. (1988). Factor structure of the Graduate Record examinations’ general test in handicapped and nonhandicapped groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 382–392.

Rogers C. M. Christian E. M. Thurlow M. L. (2012). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2009-2010 (Technical Report No. 65). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Roussos L. Stout W. (1996). A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 355–371.

Russell M. (2011). Digital test delivery: Empowering accessible test design to increase test validity for all students. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.measuredprogress.org/documents/10157/18439/Michael_Russell-Digital_Test_Delivery.pdf

Scarpati S. E. Wells C. S. Lewis C. Jirka S. (2009). Accommodations and item-level analyses using mixture differential item functioning models. Journal of Special Education, 45, 54–62.

Shaftel J. Belton-Kocher E. Glasnapp D. R. Poggio J. P. (2003). The differential impact of accommodations in statewide assessment: Research summary. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/topicareas/accommodations/Kansas.htm

Shaftel J. Belton-Kocher E. Glasnapp D. Poggio J. (2006). The impact of language characteristics in mathematics test items on the performance of English language learners and students with disabilities. Educational Assessment, 11, 105–126.

Sinharay S. Dorans N. J. Liang L. (2011). First language of test takers and fairness assessment procedures. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(2), 25–35.

Sireci S. G. (2009). No more excuses: New research on assessing students with disabilities. Journal of Applied Testing, 10(2). Retrieved fromhttp://www.testpublishers.org/assets/documents/Special%20Issue%20Article%201.%20pdf

Sireci S. G. Han K. T. Wells C. (2008). Methods for evaluating the validity of test scores for English language learners. Educational Assessment, 13, 108–131.

Sireci S. G. Li S. Scarpati S. E. (2003). The effects of test accommodations on test performance: A review of the literature. Commissioned paper by the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council’s Board on Testing and Assessment. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Sireci S. G. Scarpati S. E. Li S. (2005). Test accommodations for SWDs: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457–490.

Solano-Flores G. (2006). Language, dialect, and register: Sociolinguistics and the estimation of measurement error in the testing of English-language learners. Teachers College Record, 108, 2354–2379.

Solano-Flores G. (2008). Who is given tests in what language by whom, when and where? The need for probabilistic views of language in the testing of English Language Learners. Educational Researcher, 37, 189–199.

**Solano-Flores G. Barnett-Clarke C. Kachchaf R. R. (2013). Semiotic structure and meaning making: The performance of English language learners on mathematics tests. Educational Assessment, 18, 147–161.

Solano-Flores G. Lara E. J. Sexton U. Navarrete C. (2001). Testing English language learners: A sampler of student responses to science and mathematics test items. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Solano-Flores G. Li M. (2006). The use of generalizability (G) theory in the testing of linguistic minorities. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25, 13–22.

Solano-Flores G. Li M. (2009). Language variation and score variation in the testing of English Language Learners, native Spanish speakers (2009). Educational Assessment, 14, 180–194.

Solano-Flores G. Li M. (2013). Generalizability theory and the fair and valid assessment of linguistic minorities. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 19, 245–263.

Solano-Flores G. Trumbull E. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new research and practice paradigms in the testing of English-language learners. Educational Researcher, 32(2), 3–13.

Stevens J. Zvoch K. Biancarosa G. (2012, April). Technical issues in the use and interpretation of growth models for students with and without disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Stone E. Cook L. Laitusis C. C. Cline F. (2010). Using differential item functioning to investigate the impact of testing accommodations on an English-language arts assessment for students who are blind or visually impaired. Applied Measurement in Education, 23, 132–152.

Stone E. Davey T. (2011, August). Computer-adaptive testing for students with disabilities: A review of the literature (ETS Research Report No. RR-11-32). Princeton, NJ: ETS.

Thompson S. J. Blount A. Thurlow M. L. (2002). A summary of research on effects of test accommodations-1999 through 2001. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thompson S. J. Thurlow M. L. Quenemoen R. F. Lehr C. A. (2002). Access to computer-based testing for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 45). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/onlinepubs/synthesis45.html

Thurlow M. Lazarus S. S. Albus D. Hodgson J. (2010). Computer-based testing: Practices and considerations (Synthesis Report No. 78). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow M. L. Bremer C. Albus D. (2011). 2008-09 publicly reported assessment results for students with disabilities and ELLs with disabilities (Technical Report No. 59). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow M. L. Kopriva R. J. (2015). Advancing accessibility and accommodations in content assessments for students with disabilities and English learners. Review of Research in Education, 39, 331–369.

Thurlow M. L. Lazarus S. S. Christensen L. L. (2013). Accommodations for assessment (pp. 94–110). In Lloyd J. W. Landrum T. J. Cook B. G. Tankersley M. (Eds.), Research-based practices in assessment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Tindal G. Fuchs L. (1999). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center.

Tippets E. Michaels H. (1997, April). Factor structure invariance of accommodated and non-accommodated performance assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Secretary Spellings announces Growth Model Pilot, addresses Chief State School Officers’ annual policy forum in Richmond. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/11/11182005.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Standards and assessments peer review guidance. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Race to the Top. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

Way W. D. Twing J. S. Camara W. Sweeney K. Lazer S. Mazzeo J. (2010). Some considerations related to the use of adaptive testing for the common core assessments. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

**Wolf M. K. Kim J. Kao J. (2012). The effects of glossary and read-aloud accommodations on English Language Learners’ performance on a mathematics assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 25, 347–374.

Wolf M. K. Leon S. (2009). An investigation of the language demands in content assessments for English Language Learners. Educational Assessment, 14, 139–159.

Young J. W. Cho Y. Ling G. Cline F. Steinberg J. Stone E. (2008). Validity and fairness of state standards-based assessments for English language learners. Educational Assessment, 13, 170–192.

Zieky M. (1993). Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In Holland P. W. Wainer H. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 337–347). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.