Search

This study examined the impact of a read-aloud accommodation on standardized test scores of reading comprehension at Grades 4 and 8. Under a repeated measures design, students with and without reading-based learning disabilities took both a standard administration and a read-aloud administration of a reading comprehension test. Results show that the mean score on the audio version was higher than scores on the standard version for both groups of students at both grade levels. Students with reading-based learning disabilities at both levels benefited differentially more than students with no disability. This finding continues to hold after controlling for reading fluency and ceiling effects at both grades. The results also examined the relationship between test scores and teachers' ratings of reading comprehension to determine which measures are the best predictors of teachers' ratings of reading comprehension by grade and disability classification.

This study examined whether distractor choices functioned differently for students without learning disabilities than they functioned for students with learning disabilities who received no accommodation, students with learning disabilities who received a read-aloud accommodation, and students with learning disabilities who received some form of accommodation other than read-aloud. The study's purpose was twofold: (a) to examine the results of the DDF analysis to determine whether the distractors functioned differently for the various groups of students and (b) to aid in determining whether the test may be modified for those students with learning disabilities by removing a distractor while maintaining adequate test validity and information.

Current educational policies require the participation of students with disabilities in state assessments. Their participation has raised a number of issues, among them the need for accommodations. In this article we consider the role that assistive technology (AT) can play to alleviate current accommodations demands, and highlight research and practice on assistive technology outcomes in large-scale assessments. The variability in states' accommodation policies, and the consideration of AT as accommodations, heightens the importance of attending to AT in state assessments. Examples of assistive technology in current state assessments, including Kentucky, Minnesota, and Oregon, are presented. Several current and emerging research activities in this area are highlighted as well. We conclude by suggesting outcomes and benefits, and identifying issues that remain to be addressed. (Contains 3 figures and 1 table.)

Growth-based approaches to federal accountability are receiving considerable attention because they have the potential to reward schools and teachers for improving student performance over time by measuring student progress at all levels of the performance spectrum, including progress by students who have not reached proficiency on state accountability assessments. The use of growth in accountability holds promise for students with disabilities, but measuring changes over time in academic performance with large-scale annual assessments is complex. The authors discuss practical challenges in measuring and modeling growth for students with disabilities. In addition, they identify and describe three areas in need of research on the measurement of growth: the impact of testing accommodations, the impact of test difficulty, and the longitudinal characteristics of the population of students with disabilities. (Contains 1 figure, 3 tables and 2 notes.)

This study examined the impact of a read-aloud accommodation on standardized test scores of reading comprehension at grades 4 and 8. Under a repeated measures design, students with and without reading-based learning disabilities took both a standard administration and a read-aloud administration of a reading comprehension test. Results show that the mean score on the audio version was higher than scores on the standard version for both groups of students at both grade levels. Students with reading-based learning disabilities at both levels benefited differentially more than students with no disability. This finding continues to hold after controlling for reading fluency and ceiling effects at both grades. The results also examined the relationship between test scores and teachers' ratings of reading comprehension to determine which measures are the better predictors of teachers' ratings of reading comprehension by grade and disability classification. (Contains 3 tables and 1 footnote.)

The purpose of this study was to examine Differential Item Functioning (DIF) by disability groups on an on-demand performance assessment for students with severe cognitive impairments. Researchers examined the presence of DIF for two comparisons. One comparison involved students with severe cognitive impairments who served as the reference group and students with autism and severe cognitive impairments who served as the focal group. The other comparison compared students with severe cognitive impairments (reference group) and students with severe cognitive impairments and orthopedic impairments (focal group). Results indicated a moderate amount of DIF for the autism comparison and a negligible amount of DIF for the orthopedic impairment comparison. In addition researchers coded all test items based on characteristics likely to favor one of the three groups. Although several of the hypothesized coding categories resulted in accurate prediction of DIF, the study was limited to items from one testing program for students in one state. More research is needed to see if these hypotheses can be replicated across testing programs and populations. (Contains 8 tables and 2 footnotes.)

The purpose of this study was to examine Differential Item Functioning (DIF) by disability groups on an on-demand performance assessment for students with severe cognitive impairments. Researchers examined the presence of DIF for two comparisons. One comparison involved students with severe cognitive impairments who served as the reference group and students with autism and severe cognitive impairments who served as the focal group. The other comparison compared students with severe cognitive impairments (reference group) and students with severe cognitive impairments and orthopedic impairments (focal group). Results indicated a moderate amount of DIF for the autism comparison and a negligible amount of DIF for the orthopedic impairment comparison. In addition researchers coded all test items based on characteristics likely to favor one of the three groups. Although several of the hypothesized coding categories resulted in accurate prediction of DIF, the study was limited to items from one testing program for students in one state. More research is needed to see if these hypotheses can be replicated across testing programs and populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]