Subject Index

AAA-AAS, see Alternate assessment based on alternate

achievement standards (AA-AAS)AA-MAS, see Alternate assessment based on modified

academic achievement standards (AA-MAS)Academic Competence Evaluation Scales (ACES), 190Academic grading system, 83Acceptability, 37, 239, 246–247, 253Access, 44

alternate language, 266audio, 260–261barriers/challenges, 5, 147–148, 165, 172, 326and cut score setting, 275–276definition, 3to general curriculum, 321–323innovations to improve, 326–328to instruction and tests of achievement, 1–2, 131–132,

137–139, 158, 319to intended curriculum, 100linguistic, 217–218pathway, 179–180policy and regulations, 320–321as policy tools, 202signed, 263–266tactile, 266–267test-taking skills and, 153and test-wiseness, 147–148through OTL, 5–8through testing accommodations, 8–9through well-designed test items, 10–11, 166–171,

231, 323–325v. success, 44–45

Accessibilityacross educational environment, 179–180and construct preservation/score comparability, 38–39definition, 2–3item modifications for, 210levels, 168limited, 201–202linguistic, concept of, 217–220, 223–224means for increasing, 279modification packages on test and item, effects of, 231proof paradox, 177–178test-taking skills and, 147–148

Accessibility Principles for Reading Assessments, 213

Accessibility Rating Matrix (ARM), TAMI, 11, 168–169,171–176, 179, 327

Accessibility theory, 2–3, 10–11, 163–165accessibility proof paradox, 177–178accessibility rating, 174–177accessible test items, 166–171

characteristics, 169TAMI/TAMI ARM, 166, 168

CLTcategories, 166long-term/working memory, concept of, 166principles of, 166–168

and educational environment, 179–180test-takers, 164–165, 190

ARC, 165barriers, 165interaction domains/categories, 164

UD, 163–164Accommodation(s)

access through testing, 8–9categories, 258–260definition, 4, 38for ELL, 60, 219, 223–224instructional, 13, 131–136, 138–142, 144, 180, 257,

322–323read aloud, 140, 186–187, 189, 195–196, 256–261,

263“standard”, 23test, 8, 64, 185–186, 193, 211, 257–258, 260,

269–271test-taking skills and, 153–154

Accommodations Survey (Terra Nova 18), 190Accountability systems, 5, 12, 24, 59, 62, 69–71, 80,

107–108, 113, 153, 243, 295, 297, 311–315,321–322

Accountability testing challenges, U.S. legal issues,59–63

California case, 61–62construct shift, 61ELL accommodations/modifications, 60majority/minority ELL, 60–61NCLB Act, 59–60NCLB cases, 62–63

Coachella Valley, 62–63Reading School District, 62

329S.N. Elliott et al. (eds.), Handbook of Accessible Achievement Tests for All Students,DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-9356-4, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

330 Subject Index

ACES, see Academic Competence Evaluation Scales(ACES)

Achievementalternate, standards, 27–28IEA, 110instruction and tests of, 1–2levels, 20, 30, 64, 71, 93, 193, 275–276, 278,

280–282, 284, 286–287, 289–290, 325modified, standards/tests, 29–30, 71, 73, 77–79, 106,

197, 232–235, 239–240, 295–296See also Alternate assessment based on modified

academic achievement standards (AA-MAS)student, 5–8, 12, 27, 88–89, 94, 99–100, 103,

107–113, 115–116, 153, 278, 282, 296, 319,322–323, 327

ADA, see Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Adapted interactions, 258Adapted response modes, 258, 325Adelaide Declaration, 87–88Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), 26, 29, 59–60, 137,

183, 295–297, 306–311, 314, 321Advanced Placement exam, 207Advocates for Special Kids v. Oregon Dep’t of Educ., 45AERA, see American Educational Research Association

(AERA)Alignment index (AI), 102, 110, 121Alignment methodologies, 7

constraints, 107SEC method, 102, 111Webb method, 102

All-of-the-above (AOTA) items, 205, 208–209Alternate achievement standards, 27–28, 70–71, 73–74,

78, 80, 94, 313Alternate assessment based on alternate achievement

standards (AA-AAS), 27–28, 71, 73–75, 79,94, 105, 137, 210–211, 231–232, 275–278,280–282, 284–285, 287, 290, 296–297, 309,313, 320–321

Alternate assessment based on modified academicachievement standards (AA-MAS), 3–4,29–30, 71, 73–75, 77–79, 93, 105, 137, 183,185–187, 210–211, 231–236, 238–240, 244,275–282, 284–285, 287, 290, 295–298,302–303, 305–308–314, 319–321, 326

Alternate Assessment Standards for Students with themost Significant Cognitive Disabilities, 73

Alternate-choice format, 203, 205Alternate contrasts accommodation, 259, 268–269Alternate scoring methods, 214Alternative assessment, 23–24, 93–94, 319Ambach case, 36, 52–53American Educational Research Association (AERA),

3–4, 37, 183–185, 226, 232American Psychological Association (APA), 3–4, 33, 37,

103, 183–185, 187, 210, 226, 232, 245–246,253

American Sign Language (ASL), 263, 266Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 23, 35–36, 100,

164

Amplification devices, 139–141Analytic rubrics, 168, 174, 220Ancillary requisite constructs (ARC), 165, 172, 175,

178Anderson v. Banks, 36Annual accountability assessment, primary participation

decisions, 76, 78APA, see American Psychological Association (APA)Applied Measurement in Education, 204Approaching Expectations, 281–282Approximation techniques, 39ARC, see Ancillary requisite constructs (ARC)Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards, 238ARM, see Accessibility Rating Matrix (ARM), TAMIARM Record Form, 174ARM rubrics, 168, 174Assessed curriculum, 12, 99–100, 102–106, 110, 113,

121, 179–180, 321–322, 327–328Assessed skill levels, 118–119Assessment

accommodations, 23, 153–154, 158instruments, 10, 25, 164, 166, 177, 227, 244policies, 1960s and 1970s, 19–20modifications, 153

Assistive listening devices, 91Assistive technologies, 2, 25, 27–28, 141, 213, 258Assistive Technology Act, 2, 164Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, 85Auditory accommodations, 139–142, 257–258, 260–263,

270–271Australia, 83–94

See also specific entriesAustralian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting

Authority (ACARA), 88, 94Australian Federal Court, 84–85, 87Australian Government Productivity Commission, 84–85Australian Human Rights Commission, 85–87Australian policies, inclusive assessments and, 83–84

compared with U.S. policies, 87, 93–94DDA legislation, 84–87

historical development of, 85–87educational system, 83–84

enrolment options for SWD, 83–84two tiered, 83

NAPLAN, 88–90comprehensive assessment process, 88–89exemptions/absences/withdrawals and related

issues, 90–93participation and eligibility, 90performance scores/statements, 89–90special provisions/considerations and related

issues, 91–94test administration authority, role of, 89types of test questions/formats, 89

national goals for schooling, 87–88Australian public education systems, 85Australian student exemptions, absences/withdrawals, 92“Authentic” assessments, 22Automated scoring, 204

Subject Index 331

Avatars, signing, 165, 264–266, 325AYP benefits, 309–310

BBd. of Educ. of Northport v. Ambach, 36, 52Beddow model, 164–165Biases, 194–195, 218–219, 225–226, 228, 233–234, 252,

288, 327Binet-Simon Scale, 201Bloom’s taxonomy, 134Braille accommodations, 8, 23, 35, 41, 44, 48, 54, 91,

139–140, 256–257, 259, 266–267, 322Brookhart v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 35–36, 51–52Brown v. Board of Education, 19, 295Bureau of Accountability and Assessment (BAA;

Pennsylvania), 305Bureau of Special Education (BSE; Pennsylvania), 305

CCAAVES, see Consortium for Alternate Assessment

Validity and Experimental Studies (CAAVES)Calculators, 7, 28, 33, 39–40, 42–43, 45–46, 53, 55, 65,

112, 136, 139, 142, 144–145, 212, 233California case

accountability testing challenges, 61–62graduation testing challenges in SWD, 54–56

alternate assessments, 55graduation test, 54–55legislative intervention and settlement, 56waiver policy, 55–56

California High School Exit Examination (CAH SEE),54, 58, 256

California Supreme Court, 58Carroll model, 7, 108–109, 112CBM, see Curriculum-based measurement (CBM)CEC, see Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)CEC testimony, 22Chain gameplay, 156Chapman (Kidd) v. State Bd. of Educ., 53–54, 256Chicago Public Schools, 250Child x Instruction interactions, 118Civil Rights Act, 19Classical measurement theory, 218, 225Classical test theory, 225, 238Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS),

118–119Classroom-based assessment practices, 137–138, 142,

257Classroom instruction

accommodation/modification adaptations, 131–145OTL and ICM, 99–125test-taking skills, 147–158

“Clickers”, see Electronic input devicesClosed-product formats, 206Closed scoring keys, 206CLT, see Cognitive load theory (CLT)CMAADI, see Consortium for Modified Alternate

Assessment Development and Implementation(CMAADI)

Coachella Valley v. California, 62–63Coaching programs, 150, 152Coefficient alphas, 203, 232–239Cognitive complexity, 134–135, 234, 277, 284, 312Cognitive continuum, 206Cognitive demands, types of, 7, 10–11, 102–103, 110,

112, 115, 120–122, 166–167, 173–175, 177,251, 312

Cognitive load theory (CLT), 5, 10–11, 202, 211, 213,252, 311

categories, 166item stimulus, 171long-term/working memory, concept of, 166principles of, 166–168, 178–179

Cognitive overload, 143, 155, 167, 174Cognitive process dimensions, 123–124College Board, 201Committee on Goals 2000, 93Commonwealth and State and Territory governments,

85–86Communication devices, 91, 139, 142, 258, 271Comparable scores, 33–34, 37–38, 40, 44–46, 55, 64,

66Complex multiple-choice (Type K) format, 203Computer-adaptive assessments, 25, 212Computer-based tests (CBT), 147

access tools, recommended, 155advantages/disadvantages, traditional methods,

154–155suggestions for developers, 155–156video games and, 156–157

Computer-enabled innovations, 211–212Computerized tests and individual needs, 255–257, 327

accommodation representations/categories, 258–260alternate language based, 266audio based, 260–263sign based, 263–266tactile based, 266–267test validity, 269–270

accommodations, rethinking test, 257–258adapted presentations, 267–269

alternate contrasts, 268magnification, 267–268masking, 268–269

prospects, 270–272Computer spell-check, 45Consensus-building activities, 286Consortium for Alternate Assessment Validity and

Experimental Studies (CAAVES), 166, 233,235–238, 240, 250–251

Consortium for Modified Alternate AssessmentDevelopment and Implementation (CMAADI),166, 233, 236–239

Constructed response (CR) items, 148, 168, 197,202–204, 206–208, 212, 233, 235, 248,284–285

Construct-irrelevant variance, 8, 147, 157–158, 179,211–212, 218–219, 226, 228, 323, 327

Construct preservation, 34, 38–39, 66

332 Subject Index

Construct-relevant factors, 30, 37, 40, 56–57, 60–61, 64,147, 155, 214

Construct validity, 37, 119–120, 147–148, 185, 194–196,246

Contentcoverage, 134–137, 139, 142–143, 179, 322emphasis, 102, 113exposure, 112–113map, SEC, 121–122overlap, 7, 108, 110–111, 121and quality, 7–8, 113–114, 118, 121, 323related evidence, 34, 183, 202validity, 34, 43, 47, 235

Context-dependent item set format, 203Conventional MC format, 202, 205Co-teaching, 117, 302Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), 22, 56,

247Council of Australian Governments (COAG), 88,

92Criterion-referenced tests, 23, 203Criterion-related validity, 122, 226Cronbach alpha, 177Cue-using strategy, 150–151Curricular validity, 50–51, 53Curriculum

general, 1–2, 5–6, 22, 24, 27, 73, 75, 100–102,104–108, 111, 113, 118, 121–123, 155, 214,321–323

intended, 1, 5–7, 11, 99–108, 110–118, 120–122,124–125, 179–180, 319–323

1980s and 1990s: IEP as, 20–23Curriculum-based measurement (CBM), 24, 28, 77, 190,

195, 301Custom skills/activities, instructional time allocation to,

122–123Cut-score recommendations, 279, 325

methods, 285–286technical report, 288workshop, 276, 280, 284, 286–288, 290

Cut score setting, see Standard setting process

DDDA, see Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)Debra P. v. Turlington, 49–51, 53, 108Deductive reasoning strategy, 150–151Department of Education Organization Act (PL 96-88),

20Depth of knowledge (DOK), 11, 30, 131–132, 134–137,

139, 142–144, 177, 179, 322Design

access, supporting, 323–325extended time studies, 190–192language issues in, 217–228student voices in, including, 243–253test item, 163–180UD, 2–3, 5, 10, 70, 156, 163–164, 178, 197, 202, 206,

211, 213, 243–247, 256–258, 271, 303, 307,311, 319, 326

Developing and Validating Multiple-Choice Test Items,204

6D Frameworkdeconstruct phase, 288define phase

AA-MAS/AA-AAS and unmodified grade-levelassessment, relationship between, 277–278

identifying desired ALD rigor, 277identifying examinee population, 277identifying intended uses of ALD, 279identifying means for increased accessibility, 279stakeholder involvement, 279validity evidence, 279

deliver phase, 287using reporting ALD, 287validity evidence, 288

deploy phase, 286refining/reporting target ALD, 286–287validity evidence, 287

describe phase, 280ALD, types of, 280–281ALD, writing range and target, 281–284proficient definition, 281–282validity evidence, 284

design phaseAA-MAS/AA-AAS test designs, 284–285methodologies, 285–286validity evidence, 286

Differential boost, 3, 8–9, 186–187, 237–238Differential item functioning (DIF), 187–188, 213, 244,

246Digital magnifying glass, 267–268Digital technologies, see Computerized tests and

individual needsDisabilities

Australian policies, 83–94SWD, see Students with disabilities (SWD)SWOD, see Students without disabilities (SWOD)U.S. policies, 19–30

Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), 84–87, 91–92,94

Disallowed accommodations, 91Discovery Education Assessment, 250Discrepancy model, 28, 193

EEAHCA, see Education for All Handicapped Children

Act (EAHCA)Educational environment, 100, 108, 131, 138, 144, 163,

179–180, 321, 325Educational evaluation, 20Educational measurement, 166, 204, 206Educational Measurement (book), 201, 204Educational productivity model, 112Educational Researcher, 115Educational systems, 26, 35, 52, 63Educational testing, 3, 20, 33–66, 87, 147, 246, 253, 255,

319Educational Testing Service (ETS), 207

Subject Index 333

Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA),20, 36

Electronic input devices, 142Elementary School Journal, 115Element interactivity, 171, 173–174Elimination testing, 214ELL, see English language learners (ELL)Embedded mnemonic devices, 142Enacted curriculum, 7–8, 100, 102–103, 106–110,

112–116, 120–125, 179–180, 322English language arts (ELA), 53–55, 63, 65, 121, 225,

233–235, 248, 283English language learners (ELL), 33–34, 43, 49, 56–66,

99, 111, 217–220, 222–228, 253, 308, 320,324, 327

Equitable OTL, 108Error-avoidance strategy, 150–151Essay formats, 203–204Evidence-based instructional practices, 113–114, 122,

326Evidence-based interventions, 24, 28–29Experimental studies, 184, 232–233, 235–239Extended MC items, 212External validity, 185, 194–196, 323–324Eyeglasses, 39, 48, 140, 149

FFactor analysis model, 119, 226Fair assessment practices, 24, 26Fair Housing Amendments Act, 164Fairness in testing, 12, 23, 63, 103, 149, 163, 201–202,

207, 211–212, 245Federal District Court (California), 256Federal guidance documents, 74–75Federal legislation, U.S. legal issues in SWD, 35–37

AA-AAS, 137AA-MAS, 137ADA, 36, 164IDEA, 2, 36–37, 134–135NCLB modified tests, 2, 46–47, 134–135Rehabilitation Act, 2, 35–36

Federally funded research projects, 202Federal Register, 70, 77, 297, 305Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test, 190Formal assessments, 201Formative assessments, 28, 88, 226–227Frame of reference, 183Free appropriate public education (FAPE), 19–20, 23,

104

G“Gap kids, the”, see Students with disabilities (SWD)General achievement test, 231–232, 236–237, 239General curriculum, 1–2, 5–6, 22, 24–25, 27, 73, 75,

100–102, 104–108, 111, 113, 118, 121–123,155, 214, 321–323

General Supervision Enhancement Grant (GSEG), 236,297–300, 303, 305–308

GI Forum v. Texas Educ. Agency, 49–51, 57–58

Goals 2000 Educate America Act (PL 103-227), 22“Gold standard”, 114, 232, 324Government/legal policies supporting inclusive

assessment practicesAustralian policies, 83–94IEP team decision-making, 69–80U.S. legal issues, 33–66U.S. policies, 19–30

Grade-level proficiency, 71, 74–75, 144, 185, 232, 281,295–297, 306

Graduation testing challenges, U.S. legal issuesclaiming racial/ethnic discrimination, 49–51

Debra P. and GI Forum cases, 49–50notice and curricular validity, 50–51retests and remediation, 50–51

involving ELL, 56–59California case, 58–59Texas case, 57–58

involving SWD, 53–56Ambach case, 52–53Brookhart case, 51–52California case, 54–56Indiana case, 53–54

GRE innovations, 212–213Grid-in items, 204GSEG, see General Supervision Enhancement Grant

(GSEG)Guessing strategy, 150–1512005/2007 Guidance, U.S. DOE, 73Guidelines for Constructed-Response and Other

Performance Assessments, 207

HHandbook of Test Development, 204Hierarchical linear modeling, 110–111, 116Hills Grammar School v. HREOC, 84Human interpreters, 155, 256, 264–265Human-like digital figures, see Avatars, signing

IIDEA, see Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA)IEP, see Individualized education program (IEP)IEP team decision-making

annual accountability assessment, participation in, 76historic role of, 72inclusive assessments, 69–72

1994 ESEA, full participation requirement, 69flexibility of alternate assessments for SWD,

70–71IDEA amendments, 69–70modified/alternate achievement standards, 70–71NCLB accountability provisions, 69participation assumptions, 70

recommendations, 74–80AA-AAS, participate through, 75annual IEP meetings, decisions be made at, 74considerations, 75, 79general assessment, default decision, 74, 76

334 Subject Index

state guidelines, 73–75statewide assessment participation, 72–74

decision-making, 72–73Improving America’s Schools Act, 69Inclusion of Students with Disabilities for the National

Research Council, 93Inclusive assessment, 2, 10, 19–20, 30, 69–72, 83–84,

164, 243–244, 246–248, 311, 324Indiana case, 53–54Individualized education program (IEP), 36, 93, 133,

301Individualized intended curricula, 105Individualizing Student Instruction Observation and

Coding System (ISI), 118–119Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 2,

21, 24–26, 28–29, 36–37, 133, 153, 164, 243,296

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act(IDEA), 28, 72, 77, 100, 105, 134–135, 164,255–256

Initial Content Standard III, 247Innovative practices, see Test design and innovative

practicesInspiration R©, 142Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities (IRLD),

184Instruction

access to, 1–12, 131–132, 137–138classroom, 321–323content on, 110–112differentiated, 132–133quality of, 112–113unfolding of, 113–114

Instructional accessibility, 131–132, 137–138, 180, 298,323, 326

Instructional accommodations, 13, 131–136, 138–142,144, 180, 257, 322–323

Instructional activities, 100, 118, 120, 135, 143,258

Instructional adaptations, 131–132, 139accommodations, 139–142

location/condition, changes to, 141and modifications, distinguishing between,

133–134presentation, 139–141response format, 142timing and scheduling, 141–142

alignment with grade-level content standards,134–135

case example, 145consequences, 136–137differentiated instruction, 132–133integration based on students’ needs, 144–145interdependence, 137–138modifications, 142–144

and accommodations, distinguishing between,133–134

location/condition, changes to, 143presentation, 142–143

response format, 144timing and scheduling, 143–144

performance expectations and general educationconsistency, 135–136

Instructional delivery, 113, 142–143Instructional dimensions, 108–121, 123–124, 322Instructional groupings, 7, 112–113, 122Instructional task demands, 10–11Instruction and achievement test access, 1–2

affecting SWD, 1barriers, overcoming, 5as central issue in instruction, 1improvement actions and innovations, 11–12

access to achievement tests, 12access to instruction, 11–12

legislative context and key concepts, 2–4AA-MAS, 3accessibility, 2–3accommodation, 4IDEA, 2modification, 3–4NCLB, 2–3purpose, 3–4Rehabilitation Act, 2UD principles rationale, 2

via OTL, 5–8content/time/quality of instruction, 6–7definition, 6factors affecting, 6measurement of, 6–7SEC method, 7

via testing accommodations, 8–9differential boost, 8effect sizes of, 9implementation challenges, 9interaction hypothesis, 8research review, 8–9typical changes in, 8

via well-designed test items, 10–11CLT, 10–11development stages, 11primary options and goals, 11recommendations, 10TAMI, 11test accessibility, 10

Integrated instructional supports, 145Intended constructs, 34, 37, 39, 41, 43, 64, 148, 158, 262,

269, 323, 140, 142Intended curriculum, 1, 5–7, 11, 99–108, 110–115, 117,

120–122, 124–125, 179–180, 319–323Intended curriculum model (ICM)

access to, 100framework, 100–101for general education, 101–104

failure to distinguish, 104intended/assessed/planned/enacted curriculum

alignment, 102–1032001 NCLB Act, mandate, 101–102

and OTL, 99–100

Subject Index 335

for special education, 104–106assessment options, 105IEP/general curricula overlap, 105–106student specific, 105

Intent consideration strategy, 150–151Interaction hypothesis, 8–9Internal validity, 184, 193–195International Association for the Evaluation of

Educational Achievement (IEA) studies,110

Internet, 255See also Computerized tests and individual needs

Interpanelist consistency, 286, 288, 290Interpretative/qualitative methods, 244–245Interrater agreement, 115, 248Interrater reliability, 119–120Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 111Intrapanelist consistency, 286, 288, 290Introduction to the Theory of Mental and Social

Measurements, 201Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), 40, 189–192IQ-performance discrepancy model, 28Irlen Syndrome, 268IRT, see Item response theory (IRT)IRT framework, 237ITBS, see Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS)Item

-based OTL measures, 6–7, 110–111development, 5, 10, 166–171, 176, 178–179, 197,

213, 227, 244, 251, 275, 280, 311, 324,327

difficulty, 177–179, 208, 212, 232, 250, 324discrimination, 177–179, 209-total correlations, 177–178, 203, 225

Item response theory (IRT), 214, 237Item-writing, practice and evidence

access/assessment policy tools, 202CR item

formats, 203–204guidelines/taxonomy of, 206–208

format choice, 208guidelines, empirically studied, 208–209historical view, 201–202MC item

formats, 202–203guidelines/taxonomy of, 204–206

modifications for accessibility, research on, 210–214AA-AAS, 210–211AA-MAS, 211alternative scoring methods, 213–214assistive devices and technologies, 211–213

research, 201–202three-option items, optimal, 209–210tools

ARM, 327TAMI, 327

J2007 Joint Title I IDEA Regulations, 29–30

KKansas Assessments of Multiple Measures (KAMM),

233Kansas General Assessments, 233–234K-3 educational system, 118–119K-12 educational system, 26, 104, 121, 187, 201, 209,

276, 284–286Kidspiration R©, 142Knowing What Students Know, 245Knowledge, measurement of, 232, 321, 327Kuder-Richardson Formula 20, 235

LLAA 2, see Louisiana Educational Assessment Program

Alternate Assessment, Level 2 (LAA 2)Language-based accommodation, see Language issues in

item designingLanguage issues in item designing, 217

affecting performance, 219–220complexity, unnecessary, 219impact, 218–219improvement steps, 226–228linguistic accessibility, concept of, 217–218modification procedures, 220–223

effectiveness, 224–225measurement error, sources of, 225validity, impact on, 226

research/methodological issues, 223–224Laptops, 91, 255Large-print test materials, 35, 48–49, 91, 134, 139–140,

154, 180, 191, 196, 267, 269See also Magnification methods

Large-scale assessment, 6, 10, 13, 99, 102, 137–138, 157,196, 210, 227, 243, 247, 322

Large-scale tests/testing, 2, 22, 93, 183, 185, 195–196,198, 202, 244, 247 –250, 252, 257, 270–271

Laws, 19, 22–24, 26, 35–38, 46, 48, 51, 56–58, 61–63,69–70, 72–73, 84, 87, 105, 279, 289, 296, 311,321

See also specific actsLearning disabilities (LD), 23, 25–26, 29, 33, 39–43,

45–46, 48, 51, 76, 85, 91, 112, 149, 184, 186,189, 193, 298, 301, 306

labels, 187, 189–191, 193, 252“Leveling the playing field”, 44–45, 149, 295“Life-skills” for independent living, 27Likert scale, 110, 168, 220–221, 227Listening comprehension, 38–39, 43–44, 142Local education agencies (LEA), 21, 26, 71, 78, 80, 275,

277, 279, 297, 311Louisiana Educational Assessment Program Alternate

Assessment, Level 2 (LAA 2), 233–235Louvain University, 201

MMagnification methods, 49, 139–140, 154, 256, 259,

267–269, 271Manipulatives, use of, 8, 133, 139, 141–142, 285Masking methods, 155, 258–259, 268–269, 271

336 Subject Index

Massachusetts Department of Education, 248Matching format, 43, 203, 205, 285MAZE measure, 238–239MCEECDYA, Early Childhood Development and Youth

Affairs (MCEECDYA), Ministerial Council forEducation

MCEETYA 4 Year Plan, 88, 92Measurement errors, 155, 218–219, 224–225Mehrens-Kaminski continuum, 152Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young

Australians, 87–88, 92Mental load analyses, 252Meta-analysis, 7, 9, 110, 150, 173, 204,

208–209Microsoft PowerPoint R©, 142Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood

Development and Youth Affairs(MCEECDYA), 87, 90, 94

Modification(s)CAHSEE, 54–56definition, 3–4, 38ELL, 60, 62goals of, 11instructional, 131–138, 142–144, 322item, 3, 11, 30, 46–47, 172, 175–177, 179–180, 208,

210–211, 231–240, 246–247, 250–251, 279,311–312, 324–326

linguistic, 220–228Modification packages, test and item accessibility

improvement, 231AA-MAS policy, 231–232

characteristics, 232–233coefficient alphas, 232, 234measurement for proficiency, 232new policy criteria, 232

experimental studies, 235–236CAAVES, 236–238CMAADI, 238OAASIS, 238–239

findings, 239–240prospects, 240state-modified achievement tests, 232–233

KAMM, 233LAA 2, 233–235TAKS-M, 235

Modified achievement tests, 106, 232–235, 239,295–296

AA-MAS rationale, 308–313consequences, 313–315federal regulations, history of, 296–297GSEG project, 297–298

focus groups, 302–303PSSA performance trends analysis, 303–305recommendations and guidance, 305–308survey, 298–302

Multi-level analysis, 110–111, 116Multi-level models, 116Multi-level OTL studies, 112, 116Multimedia learning theory, 166

Multiple choice (MC) items, 45, 54, 89, 201–203, 239,261

formats, 202–204guidelines/taxonomy of, 204–206key characteristics, 168–169

Multiple regression, 110Multiple true-false format, 202, 205MyiLOGS, see My Instructional Learning Opportunities

Guidance System (MyiLOGS)My Instructional Learning Opportunities Guidance

System (MyiLOGS), 120–124, 326

NNAEP, see National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP)NAPLAN, see National Assessment Program for Literacy

and Numeracy (NAPLAN)National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects

(NARAP), 213National achievement scales, 89National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),

21, 60, 131, 201, 207, 222, 224, 284, 287National Assessment Program for Literacy and

Numeracy (NAPLAN), 83, 88–94National Association of School Psychologists, 77, 247National Center for Special Education Research, 213National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO),

21–22, 74, 185–186, 243, 250National Commission on Excellence in Education, 21National Council on Measurement in Education

(NCME), 3–4, 33, 37, 103, 184–185, 197, 210,226, 232, 245–246, 253

National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standards(NIMAS), 256

National Longitudinal Transition Study, 21National Research Council, 8, 93, 245NCEO, see National Center on Educational Outcomes

(NCEO)NCLB, see No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)NCME, see National Council on Measurement in

Education (NCME)“New generation” assessment, see “Race to the Top”

(RTT) assessment initiativesNew Hampshire Department of Education, 271New York Supreme Court, 36No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), 2–3, 26–28, 46–47,

55, 59–60, 62–65, 69–70, 72, 80, 93, 100–106,108–109, 134–135, 153, 185, 187, 202, 210,231, 240, 243–244, 256, 276, 279, 295–296,306, 308–309, 319

Non-biased items, 10, 164, 213, 311Non-comparable scores, 37–38, 43–47, 53–54Non-English language learners (non-ELL), 43, 57,

60–61, 63–64, 217–218, 224–226, 228,324

None-of-the-above (NOTA) items, 205, 208–209Non-essential visuals, 172Non-LD labels, 187, 189–190, 193Non-Regulatory Guidance, U.S. DOE, 244, 297

Subject Index 337

Non-standard test administrations, 33–36, 38, 40–41,44–46, 49, 53, 64–66, 320

eligibility, 47–48labeling, 39

Norm group, 40Norm-referenced tests, 22–23, 40–41Notice validity, 50–51Numbers/operations, instructional time to, 122–123

OOAASIS, see Operationalizing Alternate Assessment for

Science Inquiry Skills (OAASIS)Office for Civil Rights (OCR), 54Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), 21, 24,

26, 28, 213, 297Online teacher tools, see My Instructional Learning

Opportunities Guidance System (MyiLOGS)Operationalizing Alternate Assessment for Science

Inquiry Skills (OAASIS), 233, 236, 238–240Opportunity to learn (OTL), 2, 99–100

alignment methodologiesconstraints, 107SEC method, 102Webb method, 102

dimensions, 108–113content of instruction, 110–112quality of instruction, 112–113synthesis of, 113–114time on instruction, 108–109

documentation, 107–108ICM

framework, 100–101for general education, 101–104for special education, 104–106student access to, 100

research, 106–108conceptual and substantive relevance, 107–108measurement of, 114–124prospects of, 124–125

Optical mark recognition software, 89Option items, three/four/five-, 209–210, 212, 214, 233Oral presentations, 8, 54, 120, 134, 139–140, 193, 201,

203, 259, 263Oregon case, 45–46Oregon Statewide Test, 192OSEP, see Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)Otherwise qualified individuals, 20, 35–36, 44, 55–56OTL, see Opportunity to learn (OTL)

PPaper-based tests, 39, 42–43, 55, 148, 154–155, 225, 248,

257–260, 266, 271“Pathway to accessibility”, 169Peabody Journal of Education, 204, 211Peer-assisted learning strategies, 139–140, 145Peer-reviewed alternate assessments, 27, 60, 63, 74Pennsylvania GSEG survey, 298–302Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA), 298,

301, 303–305, 307–308

Performance expectations, 6, 131–133, 135–136, 138,141–143

Performance levels, 93, 135, 184, 276, 302, 307Performance standards, 22–23, 63, 70, 101–102, 104,

135, 296See also Performance expectations

Peripheral devices, 266, 271Personal decisions, 69–80Policies, see Government/legal policies supporting

inclusive assessment practicesPractice(s)

classroom-based assessment, 137–138, 142,257

ethics and standards for professional, 246–247evidence-based instructional, 113–114, 122, 326fair assessment, 24, 26government/legal policies supporting inclusive

assessmentAustralian policies, 83–94IEP team decision-making, 69–80U.S. legal issues, 33–66U.S. policies, 19–30

innovative, see Test design and innovative practicesvalidity evidence, 185–188

Praise statements, usage of, 7, 112Predictive validity, 119–120, 122Prerequisite skills, 10, 50Presentation

accommodations, 139–141auditory, 140–141tactile, 141visual, 140

modifications, 142–143President’s Commission on Excellence in Special

Education, 26Principals, role of school, 72, 89–92, 286Principles for Professional Ethics, 247Professional judgment, 27, 37, 56, 90Proficient performance, 79, 275–291Programme for International Student Assessment, 83Prompts, 54, 78, 99, 101, 139, 141–142, 189, 213,

248–249, 251, 260, 268–269, 285, 303Psychometrics, 4, 33–35, 37–39, 46, 61–66, 118, 122,

153–154, 202, 206, 214, 228, 244–245,277–278, 320

See also Rasch model

QQSA, see Queensland Studies Authority (QSA)Qualified individual with disability, 36

See also Otherwise qualified individualsQuality indicators, 7, 112–113Quality of instruction, 6–8, 107–108, 112–113, 115, 125,

322Quantitative methods, 244

See also Statistical analysesQuasi-experimental studies, 9, 184–185, 187, 193,

197–198Queensland Special Provisions, 91

338 Subject Index

Queensland students afforded special consideration andexemptions, 92

Queensland Studies Authority (QSA), 90–92

R“Race to the Top” (RTT) assessment initiatives, 30Racial/ethnic discrimination, 49–51, 87, 212, 250Range ALD, 280–284, 288–291Rasch model, 238Read aloud accommodations, 41–42, 139–141, 145, 148,

154, 185–189, 191–193, 195–198, 236, 239,256–263, 266, 268, 271, 312, 323

Reading comprehension, 37–39, 43–44, 54, 142, 172,188–193, 219, 251, 312

Reading School District case (Pennsylvania), 62Reasonable accommodations, 19, 25, 36, 38–39, 41, 60,

311“Reasonable adjustment”, 86, 91Reasoning competency, types of, 206Reauthorization, Elementary and Secondary Education

Act (ESEA)1993, 21–221994, 26, 69

Reauthorization, Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct (IDEA)

1990, 211991, 351997, 2, 22, 24–27, 69–70, 72, 105, 296, 3202004, 28, 72, 77, 100, 105, 134–135, 164, 255–256

Rehabilitation Act, 2, 19–20, 35–36, 39, 52Reliability, 11, 33–34, 111, 119–120, 124, 147–148, 165,

177–178, 184, 194, 196, 202–203, 209, 211,214, 223–225, 228, 233–237, 239–240, 244,321, 324

Remedial instruction, 21, 24, 29, 50–53, 55–56, 59, 63,103, 284, 306

Remote control, use of, 264Rene v. Reed, 53Reporting ALD, 281, 286–291Response modes

accommodations, 142adapted, 258, 325modifications, 144

Response theory, 214Response to intervention (RTI), 28–29, 77, 193,

256Retests and remediation, 50–51Rhode Island Department of Education study, 257Rhode Island Performance Assessment, 190Rodriguez meta-analysis, 209RTI, see Response to intervention (RTI)RTT, see “Race to the Top” (RTT) assessment initiativesRule violations, item writing, 209

SSan Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), 61–62SAT-9, Stanford Achievement Test Ninth Edition (SAT-9)Scaffolded instructional prompts, 142Scale scores, 89, 279

School learning model, 7, 108–109, 112School psychologists, 247, 302Sciences, 37, 169–170, 172–176, 201–202, 224, 259,

323–324Scores

comparable, 33–34, 37–40, 44–46, 55, 64, 66, 224cut, 275–291non-comparable, 37–38, 43–47, 53–54reliability, 202–203, 209, 211–212, 326–327validity, 2–3, 34, 138, 269, 272, 327

Screen readers, 139–141Scribes, 91, 139, 141–142, 155, 180, 256, 258SEC, see Surveys of the Enacted Curriculum (SEC)Settings (location/condition changes)

accommodations, 141modifications, 143

Short answer items, 168, 201, 203–204Sign based accommodation, 263–266Signed English, 263, 265–266Signing avatars, 165, 264–266, 325Sign language, 8, 54, 165, 256, 259, 263SLD, see Slow Learning Disability (SLD)Slow Learning Disability (SLD), 26–29Socioeconomic status (SES), 109–110, 116, 310–311Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 20, 23,

35Spearman-Brown formula, 234–236Special education tracking, 306, 313Special populations, 23, 33–66

See also Students with disabilities (SWD)Spencer Foundation, 245Standardized tests, 23, 25, 53, 69, 264Standards-based accountability system, 23, 69, 80, 100,

253Standards-based assessment/testing, 30, 183–184, 188,

250, 276–277Standards-based reforms, 2, 6, 22, 26, 104, 110, 306Standard setting process, 275–276

ALD development prior to, 290definition, 276design and development steps, overview, 290implementation, 289–290panelists/committee members, 280process planning/evaluations, 279–280technical report validity, 288–289terminology, 276validity, 276–277See also 6D Framework

Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing,3–4, 33–34, 37–39, 43–45, 47, 50, 56, 61, 63,183–185, 197, 210, 226, 232, 245–246, 253

Standard testing conditions, 36, 39–40Stanford Achievement Test Ninth Edition (SAT-9), 21,

61–62State, Territory, and Commonwealth Ministers of

Education, 87State assessment participation guidelines, 74–75State Board of Education (SBE), 54–55, 61, 276State Department of Education, 74, 76

Subject Index 339

State education agencies (SEA), 26, 275–276, 279,281–282, 289

Statistical analyses, 194, 244, 251Statistical conclusion validity, 184–185,

194–196Students

achievement, 5–8, 12, 27, 88–89, 94, 99–100, 103,107–113, 116, 153, 278, 282, 296, 319,322–323, 327

characteristics, 188–189, 193ELL, 226–228exemptions, 69, 90–92needs, 8, 77, 88, 132, 144, 156, 262,

266See also Instructional adaptations

OTL, see Opportunity to learn (OTL)participation, 90PSSA performance trends analysis, 303–305response data, 245–246, 248–252test-taking skills, see Test-taking skills and impact on

accessibility for studentswithdrawals, 90–93

Students with disabilities (SWD), 1–9, 42, 44–46, 69–73,76–78, 88, 90–91, 93–94, 100–102, 104–108,112, 117, 149, 153, 157–158, 179–180,183–185, 187, 190, 192, 194, 196–197, 213,219, 231–232, 236–239, 243–244, 247,251–253, 256, 261, 270–271, 275, 295–297,299, 302–303, 305–308, 311, 315, 319–322,326–327

See also Instructional adaptationsStudents without disabilities (SWOD), 2, 4, 8, 41, 72, 91,

102, 105–107, 113, 149, 158, 236–239, 251Student voices in inclusive assessments, 243–244

epistemological and methodological frameworks,244–245

extant research integrating students, 247–252using drawings, 248–249using interviews, 249–252

professional practice, ethics/standards for, 246–247prospects, 252–253response data, uses of, 245–246

Study of Instructional Improvement (SII) logs, 118,120–121

Surveys of the Enacted Curriculum (SEC), 7, 102,110–111, 120–122, 125

Sydney Morning Herald, 92Symbolic communication systems, 27, 41–42, 91, 259,

263See also Sign language

TTactile accommodations, 139–141, 155, 164, 259,

266–267, 325TAKS-M, see Texas Assessment of Knowledge and

Skills – Modified (TAKS-M)Talking Tactile Tablet (TTT), 266–267TAMI, see Test Accessibility and Modification Inventory

(TAMI)

TAMI Accessibility Rating Matrix (ARM), 11, 168–169,171–176, 179, 327

Target ALD, 280–284, 286–291Target constructs, 2–3, 8, 10–11, 103–104, 147, 157,

163–167, 169–170, 172, 174, 177–180, 212,226, 251, 320, 323–327

Taxonomies, content, 6–7, 110–111, 117, 134, 203–206,208

Teacher-child interactions, 115, 118Teacher information, 298–299Teacher logs, 115–116, 120Teacher-recommended cut scores, 284, 286Teachers’ instruction, 6, 100, 136Technology Assisted Reading Assessment (TARA)

project, 213Telecommunications Act, 164Terra Nova 18, 190Terra Nova Multiple Assessment Battery, 192Test Accessibility and Modification Inventory (TAMI),

11, 166, 168–170, 176, 179, 211, 213,250–251, 327

Test accessibility theory, 165Test accommodations, 8, 64, 185–186, 193, 211,

257–258, 260, 269–271Test Anxiety Inventory for Children and Adolescents

(TAICA), 252Test delivery systems, 155, 165, 168, 258–260, 263, 267,

271Test design and innovative practices

accessibility theory for test-takers, 163–180accommodated/modified large-scale tests, 183–198CBT, 255–2726D Framework, 275–291item-writing, 201–214linguistic complexity in, 217–228modification packages, 231–240student voices, inclusion of, 243–253

Test developers/development, 2, 4, 20, 23, 37, 65, 147,153–155, 158, 163, 165, 171, 178–179, 188,202, 206, 213, 223, 239, 244–246, 253, 258,260, 262, 270, 275, 279–280–281, 289–291,295–296, 311, 319, 323–328

Tested construct, 33–34, 43, 61, 178, 269, 312, 322Testing accommodations, 1–5, 8–10, 12–13, 23, 33–34,

39, 74, 93, 138, 155, 164, 179–180, 237,246–247, 251, 257, 326–327

See also Non-standard test administrationsTesting Individuals of Diverse Linguistic Backgrounds,

56–57Testing protocols, 4, 89, 94Test item design, 10–11, 163–180, 217–228, 231–240,

267–269Test Preparation Handbook, QSA, 90–91Tests of achievement, 1–19, 295–315, 319–328Test Standards, see Standards for Educational and

Psychological TestingTest-takers/taking, 2–3, 8, 10–11, 103, 148–150,

152–155, 157–158, 163–180, 197, 211, 236,249, 271, 323–326

340 Subject Index

Test-taking skills and impact on accessibility for students,147

interactions with other improvement methods,153–157

accommodations, 153–154CBT, 154–157modifications, 154–155

practical implications, 157–158test-wiseness

access and, 147–148definition, 148frameworks and findings, 150–153threshold hypothesis, 148–150

Test-taking strategies, 149, 157Test-wiseness, 147–153Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills – Modified

(TAKS-M), 233, 235Texas case, graduation testing challenges involving ELL,

49–51, 57–58Texas Education Agency, 235Texas Education Code, 51, 57Texas Reading Assessment of Knowledge and Skills

(TAKS), 191Texas Student Assessment Program, 232, 235Text-based information, 259–261, 263, 266–267Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS),

224Third-party observations, 114Threshold hypothesis, 148–150Time

and content dimension, 11, 113and quality dimension, 8, 11, 113–114-using strategy, 150–151

Timers, 139, 142Timing and scheduling

accommodations, 139, 141–142modifications, 143–144

2002–2003 Title I ESEA regulations, 27–28TOEFL innovations, 212True-false format, 147, 202–203, 205Two-tier education system, Australian, 83Type-K formats, 205, 208–209

UUnderstand/apply, cognitive process dimension, 123–124“Unicorn syndrome”, 315United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

(UNCRC) Article 12, 247Universal design (UD), 2–3, 5, 10, 70, 156, 163–164,

178, 197, 202, 206, 211, 213, 243–247,256–258, 271, 303, 307, 311, 319, 326

See also specific designsUniversal Design for Learning (UDL), 256, 307“Universal proficiency” goal, 29University of Bologna, 201University of Kansas, 140–141University of Minnesota, 184Unmodified grade-level assessments, 275–278, 282,

284–285, 290

U.S. Department of Education (U.S. DOE), 2–3, 22–24,26, 59–60, 64, 93, 153, 185, 231–232,235–236, 240, 244, 271, 295, 297

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 217U.S. inclusive assessment policies for SWD, 19–30

1960s and 1970s, inclusion and equal access, 19–20EAHCA, 20ESEA amendments of 1974, 20FAPE, 19–20Rehabilitation Act, 19–20Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 19

1980s and 1990s, IEP curriculum, 20–23ADA, 23CEC testimony, 22criterion-referenced tests, 23Department of Education Organization Act (PL

96-88), 20–21education and assessment gap, 22ESEA reauthorized (1993) attempts and reform

approaches, 22IDEA reauthorized (PL 101-476; 1990) focus and

funded studies, 21National Commission on Excellence in Education,

21norm-referenced tests, 22–23OSEP, 21participation guidelines, 23Rehabilitation Act regulations, 20sensory impairments v. cognitive disabilities,

debate, 231997 IDEA and alternate assessment options, 24–26

CBM measures, 24classes of SWD, 24–25communication, mode of, 25computer-adaptive assessments, 26elements, new, 25endorsement, 24IEP as tool, 26initiated by Hoppe, 25non-native English speakers, inclusion of, 241999 Part B regulations mandate, 26SLD students, 26

2001 NCLB Act, 26–27annual assessments, 26Paige and Spellings emphasis on, 26–27President’s Commission on Excellence in Special

Education, 27“wait-to-fail” model, 27

2002–2003 Title I Regulations on alternateassessments, 27–28

CBM-based assessments, 28“life-skills” for independent living, 27

2004 IDEA and RTI assessment, 28–292007 Joint Title I IDEA Regulations, 29–30RTT assessment initiatives, 30

U.S. legal issues in educational testing for SWD, 33accessibility and construct preservation/score

comparability, 38–39accountability testing challenges, 59–63

Subject Index 341

California case, 61–62construct shift, 61ELL accommodations/modifications, 60majority/minority ELL, 60–61NCLB Act, 59–60NCLB cases, 62–63

construct fragmentation and shift, 43–44ELL v. non-ELL, 43mathematical assistance to SWD, 43

federal legislation, 35–37ADA, 36IDEA, 36–37NCLB modified tests, 46–47Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act, 35–36

graduation testing challengesclaiming racial/ethnic discrimination, 49–51involving ELL, 56–59involving SWD, 53–56

labeling non-standard test administrations, 39“leveling the playing field”, access v. success, 44–45non-standard test administrations, 33–35

access, 33burdens, undue, 47–48content validity evidence/judgments, 34definition, 33eligibility for, 47–48tested construct, 33–34testing accommodation, 33

Oregon case settlement, 45–46professional standards, 37–38public policy exceptions, 44recommendations, 63–66skill substitution, 40–43

calculator use, 42–43extended time alteration, 40–41readers, 41–42

U.S. policies, see U.S. inclusive assessment policies forSWD

U.S. Supreme Court, 20, 23, 35–36, 48, 58

VValenzuela v. O’Connell, 57–58, 63Validity evidence, 183–185

constructs, 197definition, 184extended time research

elements for, 190student characteristics, 187–189task demands, 187–188

operationalization, test design, 197–198outcomes, validation of, 198read aloud research

elements for, 191–192student characteristics, 188, 193task demands, 188–193

research designs and qualityextended time, 194–195read aloud accommodations, 195–196

response processes, current practices, 185–188systems organization, 198teacher training, 198types of, 184–185See also 6D Framework

Variance decomposition, 111, 116VHS/DVD/CD/MP3 players, 141, 264Video game technologies, 156–157Visual accommodations, 139–142, 155, 166–167,

172–173, 211, 213, 251, 324–325Visual acuity difficulties, 149Voice-over technology, 233, 236, 239

W“Wait-to-fail” model, 27Waivers, 44, 53, 55–57, 62Walberg model, 112Washington Administrative Code, 193Washington statewide achievement test (WASL),

191Webb method, 102Webb’s taxonomy, 134What Every Special Educator Must Know: Ethics,

Standards, and Guidelines, 247Withdrawals, student, 90–93Within-method consistency, 286, 290Writing Test Items to Evaluate Higher Order Thinking,

204