Abstract
Changes in theory, in practice, and in the research base necessitate a reconceptualization of the traditional dichotomy between testing accommodations and test modifications. Individual need of testing adaptations should be based on functional impairment or competency in access skills, in conjunction with the defined construct of a test. Focusing on access skills, target constructs, and whether either was changed is a more informative way of categorizing adaptations, compared to considering whether or not test content was changed. On one end of the continuum would exist appropriate adaptations, defined as any changes to standard administration that do not change the construct, and on the other end of the continuum would exist inappropriate adaptations, defined as any change in standard administration that does impact the construct. Much of the research on testing adaptations has assumed changes are only appropriate if the differential boost criteria can be met. Given the centrality of clearly defining the construct, other forms of validity evidence may be more appropriate as a first step in evaluating testing adaptations. Practitioners and researchers can use the following three-step process to make evidence-based decisions about adaptations that will lead to reliable scores from which valid inferences can be made: (a) considering the access skills, (b) finding available adaptations, and (c) analyzing the target construct.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
Beddow, P. A. (2012). Accessibility theory for enhancing the validity of test results for students with special needs. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(1), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.654966
Bolt, S. E., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy synthesis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 25(3), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250030201
Cho, H. J., Lee, J., & Kingston, N. (2012). Examining the effectiveness of test accommodation using DIF and a mixture IRT model. Applied Measurement in Education, 25(4), 281–304.
Christensen, L. L., Lazarus, S. S., Crone, M., & Thurlow, M. L. (2008). 2007 State policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 69). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
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 56). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
CTB McGraw-Hill. (2008). North Dakota state assessments: Fall 2008 administration final technical report. Monterey, CA: Author.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2000). Guidelines for using the results of standardized tests administered under nonstandard conditions. Monterey, CA: Author.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2005). Guidelines for inclusive test administration. Monterey, CA: Author.
Data Recognition Corporation, & Pacific Metric Corporation. (2008a). iLEAP 2008: Operational technical report. Washington, DC: Author.
Data Recognition Corporation, & Pacific Metric Corporation. (2008b). LEAP 2008: Operational technical report. Washington, DC: Author.
Davidshofer, K. R., & Muphy, C. O. (2005). Psychological testing: Principles and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice.
Dembitzer, L. (2016). Universal design and accommodations: Accessibility, reliability, and validity (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Elliott, S. N., Kettler, R. J., Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., Compton, E., McGrath, D., … Roach, A. T. (2010). Effects of using modified items to test students with persistent academic difficulties. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 475–495.
Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & Schulte, A. (1999). The assessment accommodation checklist. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
Flowers, C., Kim, D. H., Lewis, P., & Davis, V. C. (2011). A comparison of computer-based testing and pencil-and-paper testing for students with a read-aloud accommodation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(1), 1–12.
Flowers, C., Wakeman, S., Browder, D. M., & Karvonen, M. (2009). Links for academic learning (LAL): A conceptual model for investigating alignment of alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(1), 25–37.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound test accommodation decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00018
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Capizzi, A. M. (2005). Identifying appropriate test accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(6), 1–8.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S. B., Hamlett, C. L., Binkley, E., & Crouch, R. (2000). Using objective data sources to enhance teacher judgments about test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 67, 67–81.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S. B., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics tests accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65–85.
Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2003). An experimental analysis of accommodation decisions on large-scale mathematics tests. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 211–225.
Hollenbeck, K. (2005). Validity issues and decisions about testing accommodations. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31(7), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724770503100102
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997. (1997). Pub. L., 101–476, 104 Stat. 1142.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). Pub. L., 208–446, 118 Stat. 2647.
Kettler, R. J. (2011a). Effects of packages of modifications to improve test and item accessibility: Less is more. In S. N. Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, & A. Kurz (Eds.), Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students: Bridging the gaps between research, practice, and policy (pp. 231–242). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9356-4_13
Kettler, R. J. (2011b). Holding modified assessments accountable: Applying a unified reliability and validity framework to the development and evaluation of AA-MASs. In M. Russell (Ed.), Assessing students in the margins: Challenges, strategies, and techniques (pp. 311–334). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Kettler, R. J. (2012). Testing accommodations: Theory and research to inform practice. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 5(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.654952
Kettler, R. J. (2015). Adaptations and access to assessment of common core content. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 295–330.
Kettler, R. J., Dickenson, T. S., Bennett, H. L., Morgan, G. B., Gilmore, J. A., Beddow, P. A., … Palmer, P. W. (2012). Enhancing the accessibility of high school science tests: A multi-state experiment. Exceptional Children, 79, 91–106.
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 students with disabilities know. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 529–551.
Kettler, R. J., Rodriguez, M. R., Bolt, D. M., Elliott, S. N., Beddow, P. A., & Kurz, A. (2011). Modified multiple-choice items for alternate assessments: Reliability, difficulty, and differential boost. Applied Measurement in Education, 24(3), 210–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2011.580620
King, J. E. (2011). Implementing the Common Core state standards: An action agenda for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Implementing-the-Common-Core-State-Standards-2011.pdf
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(4), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282908315757
Lindstrom, J. H., & Gregg, N. (2007). The role of extended time on the SAT for students with learning disabilities and/or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 85–95.
Louisiana Department of Education. (2008). LEAP GEE 2008 technical summary. Baton Rouge, LA: Author.
Louisiana Department of Education. (2009). iLEAP 2009 technical summary. Baton Rouge, LA: Author.
Meloy, L. L., Deville, C., & Frisbie, D. A. (2002). The effect of a read aloud accommodation on test scores of students with and without a learning disability in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325020230040801
National Assessment of Educational Progress (2013). Reading Framework for the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/moreabout.aspx
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2013). Accessibility features and accommodations manual, 1st edition. Retrieved from: http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-assessment-policies
Poggio, A. J., Yang, X., Irwin, P. M., Glasnapp, D. R., & Poggio, J. P. (2006). Kansas assessments in reading and mathematics: Technical manual. Lawrence: University of Kansas, Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation. Retrieved from https://cete.ku.edu/sites/cete.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/Technical_Reports/2007/irwin2007_KAMM.pdf
Randall, J., Cheong, Y. F., & Engelhard, G. (2011). Using explanatory item response theory modeling to investigate context effects of DIF for students with disabilities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(1), 129–147.
Randall, J., & Engelhard, G. (2010). 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.
Roach, A. T., Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2010). Incorporating student input in developing alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. Exceptional Children, 77, 61–80.
Roach, A. T., Elliott, S. N., & Webb, N. L. (2005). Alignment of an alternate assessment with state academic standards evidence for the content validity of the Wisconsin alternate assessment. The Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 218–231.
Roach, A. T., Niebling, B. C., & Kurz, A. (2008). Evaluating the alignment among curriculum, instruction, and assessments: Implications and applications for research and practice. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2), 158–176.
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 65). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Rogers, C. M., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2014). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2011–2012 (Synthesis Report 94). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Russell, M., & Famularo, L. (2009). Testing what students in the gap can do. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 9(4), 1–28.
Scarpati, S. E., Wells, C. S., Lewis, C., & Jirka, S. (2011). Accommodations and item-level analyses using mixture DIF models. The Journal of Special Education, 45(1), 54–62.
Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S. E., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 457–490. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075004457
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2013). Usability, accessibility, and accommodations guidelines. Retrieved from: http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SmarterBalanced_Guidelines_091113.pdf
Texas Education Agency. (2009). Technical digest 2007–2008. Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us
Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). UD applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved Sept 30, 2013, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.html
Thurlow, M., House, A., Boys, C., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (2000). State participation and accommodation policies for students with disabilities: 1999 Update (Synthesis Rep. No. 33). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Zenisky, A. L., & Sireci, S. G. (2007). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2005–2006 (Technical Report No. 47). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dembitzer, L., Kettler, R.J. (2018). Testing Adaptations: Research to Guide Practice. In: Elliott, S., Kettler, R., Beddow, P., Kurz, A. (eds) Handbook of Accessible Instruction and Testing Practices. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71126-3_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71126-3_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71125-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71126-3
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)