Item Characteristics, Student Characteristics, and Segmented Text

1. Item Characteristics,Student Characteristics,and Segmented Text Ross Moen December 7, 2007 NARAP GAC Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA): A collaboration between the University of Minnesota’sNational Center on Educational Outcomes and Department of Curriculum & Instruction; CRESST, University of California, Davis; and Westat www.readingassessment.info

2. Working Assumptions: Exploring options; we don’t already have the answers Seeking universal solutions; minimize accommodations Prior Studies Consult with reading experts (jointly with DARA) on the construct: Definition panel and focus groups leading to Principles and Guidelines Report Review literature on disabilities relation to reading: Disabilities Reports Examine test materials: Test Specifications Report Analyze test data: DIF/DDF for Pre-NCLB NRTs Context for Current Studies

3. Data differed from previous item analyses: Instead of pre-NCLB NRTs, obtained test data from 3 states’ post-NCLB criterion referenced reading tests Distinguished students with different kinds of disabilities Item Characteristics: Methods

4. Item Characteristics: Results • CRTs lacked NRTs’ end-of-test DIF/DDF increase • Results varied by state and by type of disability • Number of groups and items affected varied by state • Which groups were affected varied by state • DIF/DDF need not indicate bias against students with disabilities • Low performing students without disabilities sometimes were more seduced by false foils • Can be seen by examining response plots • Leads to questions other than test bias

5. Results Varied

6. Foil “A” draws students without LD A0 through D0 = students without disabilities; A1 through D1 = students with LD; the correct response is C

7. Foil “A” again A0 through D0 = students without disabilities; A1 through D1 = students with LD; the correct response is B

8. Foil “C” then “A” A0 through D0 = students without disabilities; A1 through D1 = students with LD; the correct response is B

9. Item Characteristics Question • How does the test behavior of students with a particular disability differ from other students? • In one state, DIF/DDF was found only for students with learning disability (LD) • Those students show a different test score distribution.

10. Score Distribution of Grade 3 Students Without Disability

11. Score Distribution of Grade 3 Students With Speech/Language

12. Score Distribution of Grade 3 Students With Emotional/Behavioral

13. Score Distribution of Grade 3 Students With Learning Disability

14. Item Characteristics Question • What are the implications of these findings? • For designing accessible reading assessments • For understanding students with disabilities

15. Student Characteristics of Less Accurately Measured Students (LAMS) Who needs Accessible Reading Assessment? (MAMS) More Accurately Measured Students Assessment (LAMS) Less Accurately Measured Students

16. How Can We Identify LAMS? Compare test results with (what?) other information MAMS Match Compare Mismatch ? LAMS

17. Compare Tests with Teacher Judgment? ? =

18. How well can teachers identify LAMS? Do they say they can? Can they distinguish reasons for LAMS? Can they provide supporting evidence? Do brief supplemental examinations match teacher judgments? What can we learn from teachers’ LAMS? What do they say they need or want? What do we observe in assessment situations? LAMS Study Goals

19. Teachers completed questionnaire Provided four reasons; sought open ended responses Stable questionnaire design over 2 phases 21 teachers at 10 sites completed 77 questionnaires Researchers met with teachers Structured interview & examine supporting evidence Phase 2 had 7 teachers at 5 sites Researchers met with students Structured interview and differentiated assessment Phase 2 had 17 students at 5 sites LAMS Study Procedures

20. Questionnaire: Reasons for Identifying Students as LAMS * Note duplicate counts on 77 students sum to a total count of 108 and total percentage of 140%

21. Teacher Interview: Hindrances to Student Performance

22. Student Interview: Attitudes Toward Reading and Tests

23. Student Interview: Ways to Improve Test Performance

24. Qualitative Analysis - tentative:Teachers’ LAMS confirmed? Off Target No evidence that student is LAM n = 3 Seems Close Differ on why LAMS n = 3 Seems Close Weak confirmation n = 4 Clear Bulls Eye Consensus between researchers & teacher n = 8 Betty Stanley Bruce Borderline Questionable n = 2 Mac Zorro Spock Matt Jimmy Marie Ike Henry Frank Jackie Beth Al Joan Mike Jane Karen Rose

25. Segmented Text related to “Chunking” Literature Reading is chunked into meaningful units to aid readers with working memory capacity constraints The literature refers to chunking of sentences Our “segmented text” refers to grouping passage segments with their corresponding items on the test page. Segmented text may reduce the need for accommodations by providing “built-in” test breaks Segmenting Study

26. 737 Grade 8 students from ten public schools in California 620 Students without disabilities 117 Students with disabilities: 107 specific learning disabilities 2 deaf/hard of hearing 3 autistic 2 speech/language impairment 4 other health impairments Segmenting: Participants

27. Three reading comprehension passages were obtained from publicly-released tests from two states outside of California. Two versions of the test were created: Original (version A) and Segmented (version B) Test designed to be completed in one classroom period (approx. 50 min.) Segmenting: Reading Test

28. All passages were informational. First passage was 700 words, other two passages were about 550 words each. Each passage had 8 multiple-choice items with 4 possible answer choices (24 total test items). Segmenting: Passages

29. Segments were grouped with corresponding test items Each passage was broken down into 3 to 4 segments; each segment contained 1-3 questions Inferential questions appeared at the end Test items appeared in the same order in both versions Segmenting: Adjustments

30. Asked students after each passage: How does taking the test make you feel? Please circle all the words that describe how you feel. There is no right or wrong answer. If none of these words describe how you feel, please circle NONE. good tired energetic upset bored confident frustrated okay happy stressed blanked out interested relaxed bad NONE Segmenting: Emotion/Mood Inventory

31. Post-test (printed at the end of the test booklets) 10-item, 4-point Likert-type, combining “importance” and “effort” questions Segmenting: Motivation Scale

32. Segmenting: Performance • No significant differences in reading performance of either group due to segmenting

33. Segmenting: Reliability Findings • Unsegmented showed more reliability for students without disabilities (“Non-SD”) • This reliability gap decreased on the segmented version (no longer significant). • This suggests the segmented version may be more accessible for SD students • (Caution: How much of this is attributable to standard deviation differences?) • Reliability limits validity, because rxy < √ rxx’ (Allen & Yen, p. 113)

34. Segmenting: Motivation Results Summary of descriptive analyses for the motivation section No significant differences

35. Would segmenting have greater impact if the test was longer than 50 minutes? Would segmenting have greater impact for students with disabilities focused on working memory capacity issues? Questions

36. Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA):Calibration & Motivation Studiespresentation to the General Advisory Committee December 7, 2007Deborah Dillon & David O’BrienUniversity of MinnesotaPartnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA):A collaboration between the University of Minnesota’sNational Center on Educational Outcomes and the Department of Curriculum & Instruction; CRESST, University of California, Davis; and Westatwww.readingassessment.info 36

37. Calibration Study The purpose of the study is to scale or calibrate the measurement tools that will be used in a large-scale accessible reading assessment for students with disabilities. This process allows investigators to empirically determine the comparability of passages and items used in the reading assessment study by placing all passages and questions on a common IRT (item response theory) -based equal-interval measurement scale. 37

38. Research Questions 1. What is the difficulty of each reading passage (based on a passage total score, which, in turn, is based on performance on all passage comprehension items/questions) and each comprehension item/question? How well can the reading passages be placed on a common interval measurement scale to allow scores from different passages (of equal or unequal difficulty) to be compared and equated? 3. Based on IRT item fit statistics, what multiple choice items should be retained and which should be eliminated? 4. Which reading passages do students prefer to read? 38

39. Participants A representative total sample of 1,200 students 600 from grades 3-5 (200 3rd graders, 200 4th graders, 200 5th graders) in 12-16 intact classrooms 600 students from grades 7-9 (200 7th graders, 200 8th graders, 200 9th graders) in 12-16 intact classrooms. Students representing the full range of reading ability, including students with disabilities are included in the study 39

40. Design: Steps in the Calibration Process Selected 40 passages, including 10 literary-fiction and 10 informational-exposition texts for each grade level (4th and 8th); the passages were rated as easy, medium, and hard in difficulty. Commissioned the writing of 10 items for each passage, using the 2009 NAEP Reading Framework cognitive targets . 40

41. Design Testing procedures were employed to assure representation of passage text types while removing order effects Within classes students will be assigned to one of several possible test forms (a form is a set of passages with counterbalanced passage order) The test includes anchor passages (included in all forms), and non-anchor passages, from which several are selected and included in each form. 41

42. Experimental Design and Analysis This preliminary item/passage psychometric calibration study will allow for: the placement of all passages/questions on a common equal-interval measurement scale, the development of passage scoring tables by which to assign subjects reading “ability” scores, and provision of a mechanism for equating scores across different passages. This “item fit analysis” will determine which items will be retained and those that will be eliminated. 42

43. Motivation Study Purpose: To examine whether improving the motivational characteristics of a large-scale reading assessment increases its accessibility for students with disabilities, and in so doing provides a more valid assessment of these students’ reading proficiency due to their increased engagement. 43

44. Research Questions Is there an interaction effect between choice, type of text, and type of student? Is there a correlation between students’ general motivation to read (e.g., as measured by the Motivation to Read Questionnaire [MRQ]) and their performance on a large-scale reading assessment? Are participants who are more motivated to read (as measured by the MRQ), more likely to benefit from the choice option on a large scale reading assessment? 44

45. Research Questions—cont. Does the option of exercising choice in the selection of reading comprehension passages, which is hypothesized to improve student motivation and engagement on a large-scale assessment, produce significantly higher measured reading comprehension for all students? Is there a significant difference in reading scores of students with disabilities versus general education students on large-scale reading assessments? Is there a significant difference in student performance on text type (literary-fiction versus informational-exposition passages) on large-scale reading assessments? 45

46. Participants 280 students who are fluent in English 140 students from 4th grade 140 students from 8th grade targeted samples of students representing a range of disability groups are included students will be placed in a treatment condition based on stratified random assignment (i.e., students representing particular disabilities will be randomly assigned to the experimental and control conditions). 46

47. Design: Components of the Test The motivation assessment includes 2 literary-fiction and 2 informational-expository passages for both grade 4 & grade 8; passage order will be randomly assigned. Each passage will be followed by 5-6 multiple choice items. The assessment is untimed and will be completed on a computer-based platform. 47

48. Attending to Issues of Motivation General motivation will be measured prior to the test to obtain information on students’ feelings about “self as reader” (e.g., Motivation for Reading Questionnaire-MRQ). Situated motivation will be measured using questions woven into the test booklets for the choice and no-choice conditions (placed after the comprehension items); specific questions will tap students’ perceptions of the texts they read (e.g., difficulty; interest), and students’ sense of self-efficacy in reading and completing the items following the passage (the task). 48

49. Design A counterbalanced stratified random assignment design will be used with experimental choice (C) groups that select reading passages for the assessment (“design your own assessment”) and control no choice (NC) groups that do not select passages 49

50. Design: Procedures Students in the experimental group are given choice (C) in selecting the passages they read in comparison to students in a control group who are not given choice in selecting passages (NC). students in the (C) & (NC) condition read short descriptions for 6 informational-exposition and 6 literary-fiction passages; they rate the passages according to interest; students in the (C) condition select 2 passages from each genre to create their “own personal assessment.” 50