Standardized Achievement Tests: How Useful for Special Education?

Abstract

The extent and direction of curriculum bias in standardized reading achievement tests are examined. Bias was estimated by comparing the relative overlap in the contents of four separate reading achievement tests with the contents of five commercial reading series at first and second grade levels. Overlap between each achievement test and each reading series is reported in terms of achievement test grade equivalent scores that would be expected given mastery of the words that appear both as content in a reading series and as achievement test items. Results indicate clear discrepancies between the grade equivalent scores obtained, both between tests for a single curriculum and on a single test for different reading curricula. The implications of the apparent curriculum bias of achievement tests are discussed as they relate to evaluation of teachers, children, and curricula; to reading placement; and to the identification and classification of exceptional children.

The effects of month of birth and gender on elementary reading and writing fluency scores using curriculum-based measurement.

“…In educational psychology, there has been a move away ft^om a diagnostic formal assessment system towards a more functional assessment of students' skills (Rosenfield & Kuralt, 1990). Results attained by various standardized achievement tests have been found to vary depending upon foe test's match to foe curriculum being used for teaching (Jenkins & Pany, 1978). This shift is motivating educators to develop assessment methods which link assessment such as curriculum based measurement (CBM), a standardized version of curriculum based assessment, to classroom practice (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 1994).…”

“…Concerns about the need for change from standardized measures which are costly and of limited utility are supported by research such as that done by Jenkins and Pany (1978) who analyzed correlations between five reading series and four standardized tests. They found that student achievement in a particular curriculum may not be reflected in that student's standardized test scores.…”

A Comparison of the Academic Achievement of Home School and Public School Students

“…The achievement that is most appropriate for use is the one that is the best match with the instructional objectives of the particular school "system" (Aiken, 2000). Although reviews of the group standardization sample demonstrate adequate reliability and validity coefficients for screening academic performance (Ebel, 1978;Wright, 1988), the content and administration procedures of the group achievement tests may not be a valid assessment of students educated exclusively in an individualized curriculum (Cizek, 1988;Jenkins & Pany, 1978;Wright, 1988). These measures were designed to assess and compare the achievement of large groups (Cizek, 1991;Cizek & Ray, 1995).…”

Curriculum bias and reading achievement test performance

“…Good and Salvia (1988) examined the curriculum bias effect for four achievement tests across third and fourth grades for Allyn and Bacon's Pafilfinder reading program. Using procedures identical to Jenkins and Pany (1978) and Webster et al (1985) to compute redundancy scores, they then converted these scores to standard scores based on each test's standardized norms. They found that the highest standard scores at third grade were generated using the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT), whereas the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT) had the highest scores at the fourth grade.…”