The Model

Inclusion of Students with Disabilities

in

Large-Scale Assessments

Our Commission

• Develop a model for participation of students with disabilities in large-scale testing.

• Establish criteria for states to follow so their assessment systems are technically adequate (contain all the essential evidence for making valid decisions).

• Establish a system of development so the white paper is credible and acceptable.

• Do both of the above by August 1

The Process• Two conference calls and three face-to-face

meetings in Denver (June 5), San Antonio (June 25), and Charlotte (July 9).

• Four drafts completed for review on June 1, June 18, July 5, and July 21, the last two versions having been reviewed by nine individuals for technical soundness.

• Draft 7 was reviewed by an expert for technical soundness and by centers, states, and publishers for applicability.

• OSEP began publishing with back and forth contact with the authors and in April 2006 published 7 chapters as part of Tool Kit on Teaching and Assessing Students with Disabilities

• www.osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/index.asp

The People• Almond, Pat – Consultant• Browder, Diane – University of North Carolina• Crawford, Lindy – University of Colorado, Colorado

Springs• Ferrara, Steve – American Institutes for Research• Haladyna, Tom – Arizona State University• Huynh Huynh – University of South Carolina• Tindal, Gerald – University of Oregon• Zigmond, Naomi – University of Pittsburgh• Specialist Writers and Internal Reviewers• Barton, Karen – CTB-McGraw• Flowers, Claudia – University of North Carolina• Karvonen, Meagan – Western Carolina University• Wakeman, Shawnee – University of North Carolina• Yovanoff, Paul – University of Oregon

The Product: Seven Chapters

• Including Students with Disabilities in Large-Scale Assessment: Executive Summary

• Validating Assessments for Students with Disabilities

• Reliability Issues and Evidence

• Validity Evidence

• Standards and Assessment Approaches for Students with Disabilities using a Validity Argument

• Professional Development on Assessment Systems

• Glossary

Validation Model

Validity Argument Supporting Large-Scale Assessment for Students with DisabilitesDecision-Making for ParticipationAssessment ApproachesCollection of Evidence to Support Claims and InferencesContent Related EvidenceResponse ProcessesInternal StructureRelation to other VariablesTypical Statewide Assessment (mulitple choie and performance tasks)Rating Scales and ChecklistsPortfoliosPerformance EventsGeneral Education Test?General Education Test with Accommodations?Alternate Assessment Judged Against Grade Level Standards?Alternate Assessment Judged Against Modified Achievement Standards?Performance Task CollectionsAlternate Assessments Judged Against Alternate Achievement Stanadrds?

Validity Argument Supporting Large-Scale Assessment for Students with

Disabilites

Decision-Making for Participation

Assessment Approaches

Collection of Evidence to

Support Claims and Inferences

Content Related Evidence

Response Processes Internal Structure

Relation to other Variables

Typical Statewide Assessment (mulitple choie and performance

tasks)

Rating Scales and Checklists

Portfolios

Performance Events

General Education Test?

General Education Test with

Accommodations?

Alternate Assessment Judged

Against Grade Level Standards?

Alternate Assessment Judged Against Modified

Achievement Standards?

Performance Task Collections

Alternate Assessments

Judged Against Alternate

Achievement Stanadrds?

Alignment with Grade Level Content Standards

Grade Level Content

Standards

Alternate Assessment

Changes in: Breadth Depth Complexity

Changes in Support: Assistive Technologies Prompts, and Scaffolds

Changes in Supports

• Assistive technologies – Any kind of encoding or decoding device (electronic, digital, manual, etc.) that allows information to be presented or responses to be made while interacting with test directions, items, or tasks.

• Prompts – Any form of verbal, non-verbal, or physical cue to structure, pace, or signal a response to be made by the student. Examples include verbalisms like, ‘continue,’ next,’ now what,’ or reminders of each step; physical guidance is an example of a prompt.

• Scaffolds – Any type of structural assistance introduced to organize information or guide responses embedded in the presentation of the item or task. Examples include the addition of highlights, underlines, outlines, crib sheets, or other information to ‘essentialize’ the task or response.

Changes in Breadth & Depth

• Breadth – The number of standards and objectives being met in the assessment.

• Depth – The type of knowledge form implied in the standard and response demand or type of intellectual operation required to respond. Examples include various knowledge forms (concepts, principles, procedures) and intellectual operations needed to solve the problem or answer the question (e.g., make predictions, provide explanations, give illustrations, consider reasons and use criteria to make judgments).

Working Operationalizations

Grade-level achievement standards are designed to enable inferences to the breadth and/or depth of standards as specified in the test specifications for the general education large-scale assessment without or with accommodations. Both the assessment with accommodations and an alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards allow comparable inferences. Inferences about comparability and meaning of proficiency are not constrained by the assessment methodology.

Modified achievement standards are designed to enable inferences to grade-level expectations with specified levels of breadth and/or depth. Inferences about comparability and meaning of proficiency are constrained by the assessment methodology.

Alternate achievement standards are designed to enable inferences to grade-level expectations that have been extensively prioritized but maintain high expectations for progress in the general curriculum and assume student performance is contingent on having the supports specified for the assessment. Inferences are stipulated because of the assessment methodology.

Presentations

• Overview (Tindal)-15 minutes

• Participation Options and Populations (Browder)-20 minutes

• Reliability and Validity Evidences (Tindal)-20 minutes

• Approaches (Ferrara)-20 minutes

• Professional Development (Zigmond)-20 minutes