This study examines the effects of two test modifications—resource guide and read-aloud—on the reading performance of students within the context of a large-scale statewide assessment in Georgia. Schools were both randomly selected and assigned to one of three possible test conditions: resource guide, read-aloud, or standard test condition. Students in the participating schools took the standardized operational version of the assessment in Grades 3 (n = 945) and 6 (n = 995), and then they were retested the following spring in Grades 4 and 7 under one of the three test conditions. Results suggest that the use of resource guides was not effective and that they may have been distracting for the students. The findings also indicate that the use of the read-aloud test modification provided a differential boost in reading performance for students with disabilities in the fourth grade but not for seventh-grade students.
Abedi, J., & Lord, C. ( 2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(3), 219-234.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. ( 1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Bolt, S., & Ysseldyke, J. ( 2006). Comparing DIF across math and reading/language arts tests for students receiving a read aloud accommodation. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(4), 329-355.
4.
Elliott, S., Kettler, R., & McKevitt, B. ( 2002). Testing accommodations research and decision making: The case of "good" scores being highly valued but difficult to achieve for all students (WCER Working Paper No. 2002-1). Madison: University of Wisconsin .
5.
Georgia Department of Education. (2007). CRCT content descriptions: Based on the Georgia Performance Standards. Retrieved January 14, 2009 from http://public.doe.k12.ga.us
6.
Huynh, H., & Barton, K.E. ( 2006). Performance of students with disabilities under regular and oral administrations. Applied Measurement in Education , 19(1), 21-39.
7.
Huynh, H., Meyer, J.P., & Gallant, D.J. ( 2004). Comparability of student performance between regular and oral administrations for a high-stakes mathematics test. Applied Measurement in Education, 17(1), 39-57.
8.
Johnson, E. ( 2000). The effects of accommodations on performance assessments . Remedial and Special Education, 21, 261-267.
9.
Kosciolek, S., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2000). Effects of a reading accommodation on the validity of a reading test (Tech. Rep. No. 28). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 2008 from http://weducation.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical28.htm
10.
Lazarus, S.S., Thurlow, M.L., Lail, K.E., Eisenbraun, K.D., & Kato, K. ( 2006). 2005 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Rep. No. 64). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
11.
McKevitt, B.C., & Elliott, S.N. ( 2003). Effects and perceived consequences of using read-aloud and teacher-recommended accommodations on a reading achievement test. School Psychology Review, 32, 583-600.
12.
Phillips, S.E. ( 1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93-120.
13.
Sireci, S.G. ( 2004). Validity issues in accommodating NAEP reading tests. National Assessment Governing Board Conference on Increasing the Participation of Special Needs Students in the National Assessment of Educational Progress . Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://www.nagb.org/pubs/conferences/sireci.pdf
14.
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.
15.
Thurlow, M.L., Thompson, S.J., & Lazarus, S.S. ( 2006). Considerations for the administration of tests to special needs students: Accommodations, modifications, and more. In S. M. Downing and T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 653-673). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. ( 1999). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. Lexington: University of Kentucky, Mid-South Regional Resource Center Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute.
17.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Building the legacy: IDEA 2004. Retrieved January 14, 2009 from http://idea.ed.gov
18.
Weston, T. ( 2003). The validity of oral accommodation on testing: NAEP validity studies (NCES Rep. No. NCES-WP-2003-06). Washington, DC : National Center for Education Statistics.
19.
Zenisky, A., & Sireci, S. ( 2007). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2005-2006 (Tech. Rep. No. 47). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
20.
Zuriff, G.E. ( 2000). Extra examination time for students with learning disabilities: An examination of the maximum potential thesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(1), 99-117.
