Accessible Reading Assessments for Students with Disabilities: The Role of Cognitive, Grammatical, Lexical, and Textual/Visual Features

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the characteristics of reading test items that may differentially impede the performance of students with disabilities. By examining the relationship between select item features and performance, the study seeks to inform strategies for increasing the accessibility of reading assessments for individuals from this group. Including students with disabilities in large-scale, statewide assessment and accountability systems, as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) and the "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002), can help identify issues and guide instruction to improve education for these students. Research on reading complexities for students has primarily focused on the role of vocabulary and sentence length, and has also touched upon issues of legibility such as format, typeface, and visuals. Although research reveals that readability measures are widely used and beneficial for matching students' reading levels with appropriate text, they do not identify the precise grammatical and cognitive components within sentences, paragraphs, or passages that may contribute to complexity for students with disabilities. While current research does address the critical need to accurately assess the reading performance of students with disabilities, a void in operationalizing reading complexity exists.

Patient‐reported outcome measures for young people with developmental disabilities: incorporation of design features to reduce cognitive demands

“…The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity computer adaptive test and short form had the most complex grammar, as most items used the structure, ‘I could [functional task]’; ‘could + verb’ is a complex verb structure that may be difficult for young people with developmental disabilities to understand. 16 This complex structure may be related to the PROMIS Upper Extremity’s incorporation of a recall period.…”

“…If a single word was considered unfamiliar or not simple, the whole item received a ‘no’ rating for this feature. For the feature ‘simple grammar,’ verb complexity was based on the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing’s definition: ‘complex verbs are multi-part with a base or main verb and several auxiliaries.’ 16 Sentence length and number of clauses was also considered for ‘complex grammar.’ Raters met to review discrepancies and reach consensus for each feature. When necessary, the second author provided input to resolve discrepancies.…”

Toward Accessible Assessments: The Promises and Limitations of Test Item Adaptations for Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners

“…Item adaptations that are developed to measure the same target and cognitive complexity are derived from Messick's (1989) theory of measurement validity and on Mislevy's (1994) Evidence Centered Design. Abedi and colleagues's (e.g., Abedi et al, 2011;Abedi & Lord, 2001) and Kopriva's (2008aKopriva's ( , 2008c explanations of principled linguistic simplification of text and use of compensatory visuals articulate some of the tenets associated with this type of adaptation that is developed to not alter the content and depth of knowledge. Using cognitive load theory, with an emphasis on removing extraneous cognitive load from the test-taking process, scholars at Vanderbilt University articulated a sequence of steps in item modification process (e.g., .…”

“…However, although this may reflect a more quantitative approach, it may not fully explain why student performance changes or does not change with adaptations to different features of an item. To gain more explanatory results on effects of item changes, researchers may also utilize a panel of experts to evaluate test items according to several characteristics such as item grammar and vocabulary Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 23:27 04 April 2015 (Abedi et al, 2011) or inclusion of visual representations ). These experts may evaluate the items in a "round table" format (Johnstone et al, 2008) or by individually rating items using protocols Liu & Anderson, 2008).…”

“…The components include item stimulus, item stem, visuals, item layout, answer choices, and item fairness with an opportunity for the reviewer to explain what features can be modified to increase accessibility scores. Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 23:27 04 April 2015 Abedi et al (2011) used a componential approach in examining the role of cognitive, grammatical, lexical, and textual/visual features in Grade 8 statewide reading assessments. They grouped accessibility features into two major categories: (a) features that are incidental to the measurement and may be changed without threatening the intended target, and (b) features that are crucial to the construct measured and cannot be changed without altering the complexity of the item.…”