No abstract

Opportunity to Learn (OTL) stems from the basic premise that there is an important relationship between the quality and intensity of classroom instruction and students’ levels of academic success. For many students with disabilities, an emphasis on OTL has become national priority, yet measuring its impact is a complex challenge. The first purpose of this study was to explore the factorial validity of OTL using indicators found in the 2005 4th grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The study entailed confirmatory factor analyses for potential OTL factors including teacher preparation, professional development, classroom activities, and access to technology. Separate factor analyses were conducted using the reading and mathematics datasets. The authors then looked at the degree to which OTL factors influenced NAEP estimates of ability for both students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers. The following three OTL factors differentially predicted student scores: classroom activities (reading), student constructed projects (reading), and using calculators for instruction (mathematics). For the remaining three reading factors and seven mathematics factors, there were no differences in the relationship between the factors and scores for students with and without disabilities.

A comparative evaluation was made of the ability of the four Academic Tests of the American College Test (ACT) Assessment Program and the Descriptive Tests of Language Skills (DTLS) to predict course grades and freshman grade-point average for 496 students enrolled in a basic skills program at a large four-year midwestern university. Multiple regression analyses indicated that performance in basic skills courses, notably reading and writing, can be predicted equally well by a subset of the Academic Tests of the ACT Assessment Program or a subset of the DLTS. Performance in a basic skills mathematics course was predicted considerably more accurately by three of the four Academic Tests of the ACT Assessment Program as opposed to one subtest from the DTLS. Grade point av erage was predicted equally well with selected subtests from both instruments.EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL *EASV&dquo;MENT 1990,40 -' POSTSECONDARY institutions over the past decade have modified their admissions criteria in order to identify students who would not normally be admitted to college but who have the potential for satisfactory work. Many of these students are drawn from racial minorities and/or low socio-economic status (SES) groups. Although it is assumed that they possess the necessary intellectual ability to meet the academic demands of college, they are often seriously deficient in such basic skills as reading comprehension, writing, and mathematics. In response to the needs of these students, many colleges have estabat CORNELL UNIV on June 25, 2015 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from

This pedagogical article is intended to explain the similarities and differences between the parameterizations of two multilevel measurement model (MMM) frameworks. The conventional two-level MMM that includes item indicators and models item scores (Level 1) clustered within examinees (Level 2) and the two-level crossclassified MMM (in which item scores are cross-classified by two Level 2 classifications including item and examinee) are discussed. A small subset of National Assessment of Educational Progress 4th grade mathematics item scores is used to demonstrate use of the MMMs for assessing facets of the validity of accommodated test scores. The models' similarities and distinctions are emphasized as well as the flexibility of the models' extensions.