Designing More Accessible Achievement Tests for All Students

1. Designing More Accessible Achievement Tests for All Students Stephen N. Elliott Learning Sciences Institute and Department of Special Education Vanderbilt University CCSSO 2009 National Conference on Student Assessment

2. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 2 Projects & Partners CAAVES: Consortium for Alternate Assessment Validity and Experimental Studies USDE funded; 2006-2009 Partners: AZ, HI, ID, & IN + Vanderbilt Measurement Group + Discovery Education Assessment CMAADI: Consortium for Modified Alternate Assessment Development and Implementation USDE funded; 2007-2010 Arizona Dept. of Education Indiana Dept. of Education Visit Websites for Resources Discussed Today http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/LSI_Projects/CAAVES_Project_Home.xml http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/LSI_Projects/C-MAADI_Project_Home.xml http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/LSI_Projects/CAAVES_Project_Home/TAMI_Project.xml

3. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 3 Inclusive Testing & Better Results NCLB Act 2007 Amendments on AA-MAS Students with disabilities who exhibit persistent academic difficulties. Inattention Organizational difficulties Poor reading fluency History of below proficient test performances Low self-efficacy with testing

4. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 4 Key Terms Access: the opportunity for test-takers to demonstrate proficiency on the target construct of a test or a test item. In essence, complete access is manifest when a test-taker is able show the degree to which he/she knows the tested content. Access, therefore, must be understood as an interaction between individual test-taker characteristics and features of the test itself. Accommodation: widely recognized in state testing guidelines as individualized changes to the setting, scheduling, presentation format, or response format of an assessment. Modification: alterations or adjustments of test items to facilitate access for virtually all test takers. Appropriate modifications �. Remove extraneous material, Maintain the same depth of knowledge (DOK), Do NOT change the grade-level construct being measured, and Increase the validity of the inference from the test score.

5. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 5 Anatomy of an Item

6. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 6 CAAVES Procedures We completed the following�.. Modified a common set of existing reading and math items to create items designed to be more accessible and still measure the same grade-level content as the original items. Conducted a cognitive lab study with a small sample of students with and without disabilities to gain their insights into which item modifications are preferred and most likely to improve test access for students whose disability involves reading difficulties. Conducted a cross-state experimental study to compare the effects of tests with and without modified items on students� test performances and test score comparability. Conducted post-assessment survey of all students concerning their perceptions of item types and cognitive ease.

7. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 7 Guiding Theories & Research Evidenced-based model of test score validity, Universal design principles, Cognitive Load Theory for designing instructional materials, and Item writing research and practices.

8. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 8 Examples of Theory-Guided & Data-Based Item Modifications

9. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 9 Example: Original to Modified Item

10. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 10 Overview of Results

11. Modifications Benefited all Groups CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 11

12. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 12 Item Summary Reports: An Example

13. Estimating Impact Will AA-MASs result in more students with disabilities being considered �proficient� for AYP? We have explored the impact of some hypothetical cut scores for the CAAVES Reading and Math Scores. An actual Standard Setting is needed. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 13

14. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 14 Method for Documenting OTL

15. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 15 Cognitive Labs

16. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 Post-Assessment Focus Groups 16

17. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 17 Evolving Modification Paradigm Step 1. Evaluate original item accessibility. Step 2. Reduce sources of construct-irrelevant variance in items. Step 3. Document changes to items. Step 4. Pilot test with student cognitive labs & post-assessment focus groups. Step 5. Field test with large sample of students. Step 6. Conduct psychometric & related analyses.

18. Characteristics of Appropriate Modifications Design Elements Simply words and text structure Delete extraneous words Improve visuals and locate within item Use bold text for important words Eliminate least plausible distractor so there are 3 answer choices Desired Outcomes Increase accessibility Decrease item difficulty Increase item discrimination Increase reliability estimates Reduce readability level w/i grade range Maintain alignment w/ content stds. Maintain DOK for all items Increase validity of test scores Reduce need for accommodations Increase reading fluency Improve students� perceptions of tests & motivation to engage in testing CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 18

19. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 19 Colleagues� Presentations Quantifying and Improving Item & Test Accessibility � Peter Beddow, Vanderbilt Using Students� Insights to Influence Item & Test Design � Andrew Roach, Georgia State Plausible Attractors & Item Psychometrics- Michael Rodriguez, University of Minnesota

20. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 20 Thanks! Thank you very much for your time and joining us for this session. Please provide follow-up questions and suggestions in writing to: Steve.elliott@vanderbilt.edu http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/LSI_Projects/CAAVES_Project_Home.xml http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/LSI_Projects/C-MAADI_Project_Home.xml