Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Education Research International
Volume 2013, Article ID 952704, 12 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/952704
Research Article

Test Accessibility: Item Reviews and Lessons Learned from Four State Assessments

1Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN 37204, USA
2Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2111, USA
3Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA

Received 17 February 2013; Revised 24 April 2013; Accepted 27 April 2013

Academic Editor: Huy P. Phan

Copyright © 2013 Peter A. Beddow et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. K. Hollenbeck, Determining when Test Alterations are Valid Accommodations or Modifications for Large-Scale Assessment, Large-Scale Assessment Programs for All Students: Validity Technical Adequacy, and Implementation, 2002.
  2. U. S. Department of Education, Modified Academic Achievement Standards: Non-Regulatory Guidance, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  3. U. S. Department of Education, Standards and Assessments Peer Review Guidance, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  4. P. A. Beddow, A. Kurz, and J. R. Frey, “Accessibility theory: guiding the science and practice of test item design with the test taker in mind,” in Handbook of Accessible Achievement Tests, S. N. Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, and A. Kurz, Eds., Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  5. L. R. Ketterlin-Geller, “Testing students with special needs: a model for understanding the interaction between assessment and student characteristics in a universally designed environment,” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 3–16, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. CAST, Universal Design For Learning Guidelines Version 2.0, Wakefield, Ma, Boston, 2011.
  7. M. Luethi, B. Meier, and C. Sandi, “Stress effects on working memory, explicit memory, and implicit memory for neutral and emotional stimuli in healthy men,” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, vol. 2, article 5, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. R. Bull, K. A. Espy, and S. A. Wiebe, “Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers: longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years,” Developmental Neuropsychology, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 205–228, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. S. G. Sireci, S. E. Scarpati, and S. Li, “Test accommodations for students with disabilities: an analysis of the interaction hypothesis,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 457–490, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. R. J. Kettler, M. C. Rodriguez, D. M. Bolt, S. N. Elliott, P. A. Beddow, and A. Kurz, “Modified multiple-choice items for alternate assessments: reliability, difficulty, and differential boost,” Applied Measurement in Education, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 210–234, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. S. N. Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, and A. Kurz, “Research and strategies for adapting formative assessments for students with special needs,” in Handbook of Formative Assessment, H. L. Andrade and G. J. Cizek, Eds., pp. 159–180, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  12. C. C. Laitusis, “Examining the impact of audio presentation on tests of reading comprehension,” Applied Measurement in Education, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 153–167, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. M. L. Thurlow, C. C. Laitusis, D. R. Dillon et al., Accessibility Principles For Reading Assessments, National Accessibility Reading Assessment Projects, Minneapolis, Minn, USA, 2009.
  14. S. N. Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow et al., “Effects of using modified items to test students with persistent academic difficulties,” Exceptional Children, vol. 76, pp. 475–495, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  15. S. N. Elliott, M. C. Rodriguez, A. T. Roach, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, and A. Kurz, AIMS EA, 2009 Pilot Study, Learning Sciences Institute, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn, USA, 2009.
  16. P. A. Beddow, S. N. Elliott, and R. J. Kettler, Accessibility Rating Matrix (ARM), Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn, USA, 2009.
  17. P. A. Beddow, S. N. Elliott, and R. J. Kettler, Test Accessibility and Modification Inventory (TAMI) Technical Supplement, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn, USA, 2009.
  18. J. Sweller, “Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 123–138, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. T. M. Haladyna, S. M. Downing, and M. C. Rodriguez, “A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment,” Applied Measurement in Education, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 309–334, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. M. C. Rodriguez, “Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: a meta-analysis of 80 years of research,” Educational Measurement, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 3–13, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  21. H. L. Andrade and G. J. Cizek, Handbook of Formative Assessment, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 2010.