Alternate Assessments of Students with Significant Disabilities: Alternative Approaches, Common Technical Challenges

Abstract

This article examines three typical approaches to alternate assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities-portfolios, performance assessments, and rating scales. A detailed analysis of common and unique design features of these approaches is provided, including features of each approach that influence the psychometric quality of their results. Validity imperatives for alternate assessments are reviewed, and approaches for addressing the need for validity evidence are outlined. The article concludes with an examination of three technical challenges-alignment, scores and scoring, and standard setting-common to all alternate assessments. In light of these challenges, existing methods and professional testing standards are endorsed as necessary guidance for understanding and advancing alternate assessment practices.Alternate assessment is a generic term for a family of methods used to assess the academic performance of students with significant disabilities or limited proficiency with English. According to the U.S. Department of Education, "An alternate assessment must be aligned with the State's content standards, must yield results separately in both reading/language arts and mathematics, and must be designed and implemented in a manner that supports use of the results as an indicator of AYP (adequate yearly progress)" (USDOE, 2005, p. 15). Alternate Correspondence should be addressed to Stephen N. Elliott,

A narrative inquiry of students with significant cognitive disabilities and the MCAS alternate assessment as told by their parents

“…The states take several approaches to include portfolios, performance assessments, and rating scales (Elliott & Roach, 2007). The graduation outcomes also vary among the states, with 70% of states allowing students to earn a diploma after completing an alternate assessment (Thurlow et al, 2014).…”

“…In support of alternate assessments, Musson et al (2010) suggested that including students with disabilities in state assessments ensures that states consider those students when they make policy decisions. While Elliott and Roach (2007) supported the use of performance assessments and rating scale approaches over portfolio assessments, they suggested that only leaders in each state can make the decision about which approach works best for that state. Each state must determine for itself which alternate assessment to implement.…”

“…They found that schools use alternate assessments with a very small percentage of students with significant cognitive disabilities, but they place high demands on teachers to implement and develop them. A key finding in their work was that the teacher's role in producing a portfolio influenced the validity of the assessment (Elliott & Roach, 2007). Karvonen and Huynh (2007) compared the relationship between the IEP and the alternate assessments.…”

“…However, measurement of the achievement of students with significant cognitive disabilities is mired in confusion. States prefer performance assessments and rating scales over portfolio assessments, but only leaders within each state can decide which approach works best in that state (Elliott & Roach, 2007). The approach does not have to be common across the country (Elliott & Roach, 2007 states offered diploma options for students with disabilities and others had multiple diploma options, including "certificate of attendance or completion" for all students, at the time of the NCEO and NTACT brief, none had diploma options that met the criteria of ESSA (NCEO & NTACT, 2017).…”

“…There are three typical approaches to alternate assessments: portfolios, performance assessments, and rating scales (Elliott & Roach, 2007;Vander Ark, 2013). A performance assessment is a test in which the student performs real-world tasks that require mastery of the actual skills the test measures (Vander Ark, 2013 (Bechard, 2001;Browder et al, 2005).…”