Accommodating Students With Disabilities in Large-Scale Testing

Abstract

Many students with disabilities are provided accommodations to enable their participation in statewide assessment programs; however, there is concern that accommodations may invalidate test results. For test administrations to be considered valid for all student groups, there must be comparable measurement across groups. This can ensure that decisions based on test results are made in a fair manner for all students. In this study, measurement comparability for two groups of accommodated students with disabilities (i.e., accommodated students with physical disabilities and accommodated students with mental disabilities) was examined using differential item functioning (DIF) analysis, in which item-level characteristics of the test for these groups were systematically compared with those for a reference group of nonaccommodated students without disabilities. A relatively large number of DIF items were identified for both accommodated disability groups, suggesting that more attention to the testing needs of students with disabilities is warranted. Suggestions for future research are provided.

The Longitudinal Measurement of Reasoning Abilities in Students With Special Educational Needs

“…It is notable that the present findings do not coincide with previous research that resulted in rather critical conclusions (e.g., Bolt and Ysseldyke, 2008; Südkamp et al, 2015). Domain-specific competence tests frequently showed poor measurement properties among students with SEN-L that did not allow for the estimation of valid person scores or comparative analyses with students from regular schools.…”

“…Taken together, the authors concluded that the reading competence test neither allowed for “substantive interpretations of the competence level of students with SEN-L” (p. 18) nor valid comparisons with students from regular schools. Similar results were observed by Bolt and Ysseldyke (2008) who identified severe differential item functioning on a mathematical test across different groups of students with SEN. Regarding tests of reasoning abilities, respective comparative studies in LSAs are still missing.…”

“…In light of these difficulties, a number of studies highlighted severe problems when administering instruments that were designed for students from regular schools to students with SEN (e.g., Bolt and Ysseldyke, 2008; Südkamp et al, 2015; Pohl et al, 2016). For example, Südkamp et al (2015) were unable to identify an acceptable measurement model for a reading competence test that was administered to students with SEN-L in grade 5 of special schools, although the same test showed satisfactory results among students without SEN-L attending regular schools.…”

Comparing Perceptual Speed Between Educational Contexts

“…The few studies that evaluated the measurement properties of cognitive tests among SEN-L students concluded that comparative analyses are difficult or even impossible because the administered tests seemed to measure different constructs in different educational contexts (Bolt & Ysseldyke, 2008;Pohl et al, 2016;Südkamp et al, 2015). For example, a test for mathematical competence showed substantial DIF between groups of students with different SENs (Bolt & Ysseldyke, 2008).…”

“…The few studies that evaluated the measurement properties of cognitive tests among SEN-L students concluded that comparative analyses are difficult or even impossible because the administered tests seemed to measure different constructs in different educational contexts (Bolt & Ysseldyke, 2008;Pohl et al, 2016;Südkamp et al, 2015). For example, a test for mathematical competence showed substantial DIF between groups of students with different SENs (Bolt & Ysseldyke, 2008). Similarly, Südkamp et al (2015) showed that a valid comparison of reading competencies between students from regular and special schools was impossible because of substantial rates of missing responses, low item discrimination, and an inferior test reliability among SEN-L students.…”