This study investigated the effects of using modified items in achievement tests to enhance accessibility. An experiment determined whether tests composed of modified items would reduce the performance gap between students eligible for an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) and students not eligible, and the impact on student proficiency levels. Three groups of eighth-grade students ( N = 755) from four states took original and modified versions of reading and mathematics tests. Findings indicate modified item conditions were significantly easier for all students and modifications would result in more AA-MAS eligible students meeting proficiency status. Study limitations and follow-up research on item modifications and the performance of students with disabilities are discussed.

The relationships between ratings on the Idaho Alternate Assessment (IAA) for 116 students with significant disabilities and corresponding ratings for the same students on two norm‐referenced teacher rating scales were examined to gain evidence about the validity of resulting IAA scores. To contextualize these findings, another group of 54 students who had disabilities, but were not officially eligible for the alternate assessment also was assessed. Evidence to support the validity of the inferences about IAA scores was mixed, yet promising. Specifically, the relationship among the reading, language arts, and mathematics achievement level ratings on the IAA and the concurrent scores on the ACES‐Academic Skills scales for the eligible students varied across grade clusters, but in general were moderate. These findings provided evidence that IAA scales measure skills indicative of the state's content standards. This point was further reinforced by moderate to high correlations between the IAA and Idaho State Achievement Test (ISAT) for the not eligible students. Additional evidence concerning the valid use of the IAA was provided by logistic regression results that the scores do an excellent job of differentiating students who were eligible from those not eligible to participate in an alternate assessment. The collective evidence for the validity of the IAA scores suggests it is a promising assessment for NCLB accountability of students with significant disabilities. The methods of establishing this evidence have the potential to advance validation efforts of other states' alternate assessments.

This study featured validity evidence for scores from states' alternate assessments of alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AASs). It evaluated students from 6 states who were eligible for an AA-AAS concurrently with measures of academic competence and adaptive behavior. The investigators also assessed students with disabilities who were not eligible for an AA-AAS by using the same measures, as well as by using general achievement tests. The main findings included that AA-AAS reading and math scores may reflect a unitary construct, that AA-AAS scores are highly related to adaptive behavior but also relate to academic competence and achievement, and that all these scores represent unique but overlapping constructs. These results have implications for AA-AAS developers and teachers working with students with significant cognitive disabilities.