College of Education and Human Development

Reports

Publication prices current through December 30, 2009

Topics

Accessible Reading Assessments

Accessibility Principles for Reading Assessments
By M. Thurlow, C. Laitusis, D. Dillon, L. Cook, R. Moen, J. Abedi, and D. O’Brien
The National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects (NARAP), of which the Institute’s Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment is a member, have been conducting research to identify ways to increase the accessibility of reading assessments. This document is the culmination of one of NARAP's goals: to develop evidence-based principles for making large scale assessments of reading proficiency more accessible for students who have disabilities that affect reading, while maintaining a high level of validity for all students taking the assessments. Some of the principles clarify and underscore the importance of well-accepted and widely used practices in designing reading assessments. Other principles have been developed from theory to respond to the needs of specific groups of students. The principles are to be viewed as a whole, representing a coherent and integrated approach to accessibility. They provide a vision of accessible reading assessments. This document was written primarily for personnel in state assessment offices and for test developers of regular large scale reading assessments used for accountability purposes. Other audiences also may find the document to be of interest and useful for other types of assessments. Published by NARAP. (2009) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

Disabilities and Reading: Understanding the Effects of Disabilities and Their Relationship to Reading Instruction and Assessment
By M. Thurlow, R. Moen, K. Liu, S. Scullin, K. Hausmann, and V. Shyyan
A report intended to provide enough common ground on the issues surrounding reading and students with various disabilities to facilitate discussion of accessible reading assessment. The information in this report was obtained through a broad review of literature and Web sites of national agencies and organizations, along with input and feedback from professionals in the disability areas. It is not intended to be a comprehensive research review of disabilities or reading-related issues, but nevertheless should prove useful for understanding the effects of disabilities and their relationship to reading. Seven disabilities are discussed in the order of their prevalence: specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairments, intellectual disabilities, emotional/behavioral disabilities, autism, deaf or hard of hearing, and visual impairments. Although these disabilities do not comprise all of the possible disability categories or even the most common disabilities, they do represent those often considered most challenging for reading assessment. This report provides: (1) an overview of the characteristics of students with each disability, (2) a description of common approaches to reading instruction for students with each disability, and (3) assessment approaches and issues that surround the assessment of reading for students with each disability. Published by the Institute’s Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. (2009) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

Exploring Factors That Affect the Accessibility of Reading Comprehension Assessments for Students With Disabilities: A Study of Segmented Text
By J. Abedi, J. Kao, S. Leon, L. Sullivan, J. Herman, R. Pope, V. Nambiar, and A. Mastergeorge
A report from a study seeking to experimentally examine factors affecting accessibility of assessments for students with disabilities. This study focused on reading comprehension assessments since (1) reading is one of the primary areas of the NCLB Title I accountability requirements, and (2) reading is the underlying ability for understanding instruction and assessment in all other content areas. A randomized field trial study in which a reading comprehension assessment, designed to be potentially more accessible for students with disabilities, was administered to groups of students including students with disabilities. Three long reading comprehension passages from existing state assessments were broken down into more manageable segments with corresponding questions placed immediately after each segment. The results of the segmenting study indicated that: (1) segmenting did not affect reading performance of students without disabilities, suggesting that it does not compromise the validity of reading assessment; (2) segmenting did not affect reading performance of students with disabilities; (3) the segmented version had a higher reliability for students with disabilities without affecting the reliability for students without disabilities; and (4) no trends were observed for student motivation, general emotions, and moods with respect to segmented assessment in either disability or no disability groups. Published by the Institute’s Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. (2009) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

Examining DIF, DDF, and Omit Rate by Discrete Disability Categories
By K. Kato, R., Moen, and M. Thurlow
A paper describing a study of differential item functioning (DIF), differential distractor functioning (DDF), and differential omission frequency (DOF) for one third grade and one fifth grade statewide reading test for three disability groupings: students with speech/language impairments, learning disabilities, and emotional/behaviorial disorders. The study found substantive DIF/DDF only for students with learning disabilities, not for students with speech/language impairments or emotional/behaviorial disorders. Furthermore, examination of response characteristic curve graphs showed that DIF/DDF did not necessarily indicate an item had statistical bias against students with learning disabilities. Rather, low-performing students with learning disabilities more often than low-performing students without disabilities appeared to choose wrong answers randomly rather than selecting the most appealing wrong answers. The researchers concluded that there was no evidence of test bias for students with disabilities in the state reading tests examined in the study. Published by the Institute’s Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. (2007) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

What Do State Reading Test Specifications Specify?
By C. Johnstone, R. Moen, M. Thurlow, D. Matchett, K. Hausmann, and S. Scullin
A paper examining state assessment blueprints or test specifications for state reading assessments. The No Child Left Behind Act requires all states to assess student reading, but each state is responsible for selecting what will be tested and how in its large-scale statewide assessments. As part of this process, states develop standards with which both instruction and assessments are expected to align. State standards for reading vary by definition and focus from state to state. The authors of this paper looked at (1) themes related to the purposes and constructs of assessments, (2) how those themes related to state standards, (3) the number of items assigned to particular constructs, and (4) the types of items typically found in statewide assessments. Published by the Institute’s Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. (2007) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

Examining Differential Distractor Functioning in Reading Assessments for Students With Disabilities
By J. Abedi, S. Leon, and J. Kao
A paper examining the incorrect response choices, or distractors, of students with disabilities in standardized reading assessments. Differential distractor functioning (DDF) analysis differs from differential item functioning (DIF) analysis, which treats all answers alike and examines all wrong answers against the correct answer. DDF analysis, in contrast, examines only the wrong answers. If different groups, such as students with disabilities and students without disabilities, preferred different incorrect responses to an item, then the item could mean something different to the different groups. The authors found items showing DDF for students with disabilities in grade 9, but not for grade 3. Results also suggest that items showing DDF were more likely to be located in the second half of the assessments rather than the first half. Additionally, results suggest that in items showing DDF, students with disabilities were less likely to choose the most common distractor than their non-disabled peers. Results of this study can shed light on potential factors affecting the accessibility of reading assessments for students with disabilities. Published by the Institute’s Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. Published by the Institute’s Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. (2007) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

Examining Differential Item Functioning in Reading Assessments for Students With Disabilities
By J. Abedi, S. Leon, and J. Kao
A paper examining group differences between students with disabilities and students without disabilities using differential item functioning (DIF) analyses in a high-stakes reading assessment. Results indicated that for grade 9, many items exhibited DIF and these were more likely to be located in the second half of the assessment subscales. After accounting for reading ability, when compared to their non-disabled peers, students with disabilities consistently under-performed on items located in the second half relative to the items located in the first half. These results were seen in grade 9 for data from two different states, but these results were not seen for grade 3. This study has several limitations to the data. There was no access to information about the testing accommodations that students with disabilities might have received, and no information about the type of disabilities. Results of this study can shed light on potential factors affecting the accessibility of reading assessments for students with disabilities, in an ultimate effort to provide assessment tools that are conceptually and psychometrically sound for all students. Published by the Institute’s Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. (2007) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

State Accommodations Policies: Implications for the Assessment of Reading
By S. Lazarus, M. Thurlow, K. Eisenbraun, K. Lail, D. Matchett, and M. Quenemoen
A report presenting the results of an analysis of the accommodations that are included in state accommodations policies and guidelines. The purpose of the analysis was to learn more about 10 accommodations that may have specific implications for the assessment of reading: audio-video equipment, Braille, large print, proctor/scribe, read-aloud directions, read-aloud questions, repeat/re-read/clarify directions, sign interpret directions, sign interpret questions, and sign responses to sign language interpreter. Much controversy has surrounded the use of some accommodations on statewide assessments used for accountability purposes. This report examines the variation across states for this group of accommodations. Published by the Institute’s Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. (2006) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

Top of page

PARA Disability-Specific Reading Assessment Papers
A series of papers developed to contribute to the process of conducting research and developing accessible reading assessments for students with disabilities. Each paper is intended as a first step to facilitate discussions that include individuals who do not know the disability and those who may know the disability but have not considered its interaction with reading or the assessment of reading through statewide testing. Published by the Institute’s Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

Reading and Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. (2007)
Reading and Students with Autism. (2006)
Reading and Students with Emotional or Behavioral Disabilities. (2006)
Reading and Students with Mental Retardation. (2006)
Reading and Students with Specific Learning Disabilities. (2006)
Reading and Students with Speech or Language Impairments. (2006)
Reading and Students with Visual Impairments or Blindness. (2006)

Progress Monitoring

New!
Exploring the Use of Early Numeracy Indicators for Monitoring Progress in Two Intervention Contexts: 2007-08 (RIPM Technical Report 29)
By J. Olson and A. Foegen
A study extending research examining the use of Early Numeracy Indicators (ENIs) developed by Lembke and Foegen (Lembke & Foegen, 2005; Olson, Foegen, & Singamaneni, 2009; Nagarkar, Hamptom, Lembke, & Whitaker, 2009) for progress monitoring. In this study, conducted from September 2007 to May 2008, two of the ENIs were used as progress monitoring measures with small groups of first grade students who were struggling with beginning math concepts. The study examined the reliability and sensitivity to growth of these assessments. In addition, it examined the effects of two kinds of mathematics intervention with low-performing students. Published by the Institute’s Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (RIPM). (2009) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

New!
Exploring the Use of Early Numeracy Indicators for Monitoring Progress in Two Intervention Contexts (RIPM Technical Report 28)
By L. Impecoven-Lind, J. Olson, and A. Foegen
A report reviewing the reliability and criterion validity of two Early Numeracy Indicators developed by Lembke and Foegen (2005) for use as benchmarking tools that were examined in previous studies (Lembke & Foegen, 2005; Foegen, Lembke, Klein, Lind, & Jiban, 2006). In this study, conducted from September 2006 to May 2007, two of the Early Numeracy Indicators were used as progress monitoring measures with small groups of first grade students who were struggling with beginning math concepts. This report examines the reliability and sensitivity to growth of these assessments. In addition, it examines the effects of two kinds of mathematics interventions with these students. Published by RIPM. (2009) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

New!
Study of General Outcome Measurement (GOMs) in Reading for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Year 1 (RIPM Technical Report 27)
By T. Wallace, R. Tichá, and K. Gustafson
A report detailing the results of a study that examined the technical characteristics of newly created general outcome measures (GOMs) in reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Thirty-one students with significant cognitive disabilities participated in the study. The GOMs used in this study produced reliable data. The results establishing validity of the GOMs suggest which measures best predict student reading performance and which measures best track the reading progress of students with significant cognitive disabilities. The results suggest GOMs to be a useful tool for teachers to predict and potentially monitor progress of students with significant cognitive disabilities in reading. More research is needed to replicate these results. Published by RIPM. (2009) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

Monitoring Progress of Beginning Writers: Technical Features of the Slope (RIPM Technical Report 25)
By K. McMaster, X. Du, S. Yeo, S. Deno, D. Parker, and T. Ellis
A report presenting the findings of a study, the purpose of which was to replicate and extend research on CBM-W for beginning writers. Research questions included: (1) Which measures yield stable/reliable slopes, and how many data points are needed? (2) Which measures reflect growth in a relatively short time? and (3) How frequently should measures be administered to obtain useful data for instructional decision-making? Published by RIPM. (2009) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

Iowa Early Numeracy Indicator Screening Data: Iowa 2008-2009 (RIPM Technical Report 24)
By J. Olson, A. Foegen, and S. Singamaneni
A report presenting the findings from an ongoing examination of four early mathematics screening measures, called Early Numeracy Indicators, that were developed by Lembke and Foegen and tested as benchmarking tools in a small Midwestern school district from September 2008 through May 2009. After considering four years of screening data for the Early Numeracy Indicators, the researchers found support for the use of two Mixed Numeracy tasks for the fall, winter, and spring benchmarking assessments. Using a single measure for screening purposes, as opposed to four separate measures, shortens the time that teachers need to gather benchmarking data throughout the year. Published by RIPM. (2009) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

Iowa Early Numeracy Indicator Screening Data: Iowa 2007-2008 (RIPM Technical Report 23)
By J. Olson, A. Foegen, and S. Singamaneni
A report presenting the findings from an ongoing examination of three early mathematics screening measures, called Early Numeracy Indicators, that were developed by Lembke and Foegen (2005) and tested as benchmarking tools in a small Midwestern school district from September 2007 through May 2008. A new measure, called Mixed Numeracy, was developed for use during the 2007-08 academic year. Data collected that year provided strong support for the continued use of the Mixed Numeracy measures, suggesting they could be used as stand-alone benchmarking tools. Published by RIPM. (2009) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

Iowa Early Numeracy Indicator Screening Data: Iowa 2006-2007 (RIPM Technical Report 22)
By L. Impecoven-Lind, J. Olson, and A. Foegen
A report presenting the findings from an ongoing examination of three early mathematics screening measures (called Early Numeracy Indicators) that were developed by Lembke and Foegen (2005) and tested as benchmarking tools in a small Midwestern school district from September 2006 through May 2007. Published by RIPM. (2009) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

New!
A Replication of Static Use of Six Brief Middle School Mathematics Measures (RIPM Technical Report 21)
By A. Foegen and L. Lind
A report detailing the results of a study replicating previous research involving the technical adequacy of six potential mathematics measures with brief administration times that make them well-suited for monitoring student progress in mathematics at the middle school level. These brief measures included two that have been investigated previously with middle school students, two that have documented technical adequacy for use at elementary grade levels, and two that represent extensions of elementary numeracy measures developed in other RIPM research. The study examined the alternate-form reliability and criterion validity of the brief measures at a single point in time. Published by RIPM. (2009) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

Seamless and Flexible Progress Monitoring: Age and Skill Level Extensions in Math, Basic Facts (RIPM Technical Report 2)
By C. Espin, T. Wallace, A. Foegen, X. Du, R. Ticha, M. Wayman, and H. Wiley
A report detailing the results of a study about the technical adequacy of two forms of a probe used to measure K-12 students’ basic math skills and whether such a measure could be used in a seamless and flexible system to track students’ development of mathematical proficiency across multiple grade levels. Published by RIPM. (2009) • Cost: Free, available only on the Web

Top of page

Continue to next page