Validating an Alternate Assessment

Johnson, Evelyn S.; Arnold, Nancy

doi:10.1177/07419325040250050101

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The validity and utility of virtually all alternate assessments has been questioned. For example, Johnson and Arnold (2004) published the first study on validating an alternate assessment portfolio. Specifically, they examine the validity of the Washington (state) Alternate Assessment System (WAAS) and concluded that the results “indicated serious shortcomings in the evidence for content, response process, and structural validity” (p. 266).…”

Section: Research On the Validity Of Alternate Assessment Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building Validity Evidence for Scores on a State‐Wide Alternate Assessment: A Contrasting Groups, Multimethod Approach

Elliott

Compton

Roach

2007

Educational Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Research On the Validity Of Alternate Assessment Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building Validity Evidence for Scores on a State‐Wide Alternate Assessment: A Contrasting Groups, Multimethod Approach

Elliott

Compton

Roach

2007

Educational Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Designing an assessment system to achieve both purposes is daunting and "requires rethinking traditional assessment methods" (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, ¶3). Unfortunately, research supporting the effectiveness of current alternate assessment systems in meeting this dual challenge is limited (Johnson & Arnold, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Validity of the Oregon Extended Writing Assessment

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research into the technical adequacy of statewide alternate assessments is limited. In this study, the authors analyzed 2 years of data from one state's alternate assessment in written language in an attempt to validate current test score interpretations. More than 1,000 students were included in each year. Findings support the test's technical adequacy on two major dimensions: (a) strong convergent and discriminant evidence for tasks on the assessment and (b) evidence that a collection of writing subtasks contribute unique information to the assessment of writing among students in special education. Implications include the use of the data (a) on subtasks to inform instruction in written language and (b) for accountability purposes.

show abstract

“…By definition, children with intellectual disabilities are different from children without IDs, and they require different instruction and curriculum in order to reach their potential (Kaufman, 2005). For general education, the goal is to meet proficiency in a standardized curriculum and prepare all students to be successful contributors to the U.S. economy (Johnson & Arnold, 2004), whereas the goal of special education is to meet the individual needs of the student to become independent and autonomous members of the community. Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:48 13 October 2014…”

Section: Final Thoughtsmentioning

confidence: 99%