This study investigates the factorial invariance of the statewide science tests at the middle school level across the oral administration accommodation and nonaccommodated groups of students with and without disabilities. Results indicate that the factor loadings and error variances are invariant across groups, although the oral administration and general education groups in Grade 8 support partial invariance in error variances. On the whole, this study supports that the science test scores for the oral administration group have the same meaning for those for the nonaccommodated groups. Aside from providing supporting validity evidence, this study also introduces the analytical method that can be used for studies of the same nature in other states.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing . Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Bolt, S.E., & Thurlow, M.L. (2006). Item-level effects of the read-aloud accommodation for students with reading disabilities (Synthesis Report 65). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Crawford, L., & Tindal, G. (2004). Effects of a read-aloud modification on a standardized reading test. Exceptionality, 12, 89-106.
5.
Elbaum, B., Arquelles, M., Campbell, Y., & Saley, M. (2004). Effects of student reads-aloud accommodation on the performance of students with and without disabilities on a test of reading comprehension. Exceptionality, 12, 71-87.
6.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C.L., & Karns, K.M. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65-85.
7.
Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M.A., Tindal, G., Heath, B., & Almond, P. (1999). Reading as an access to mathematics problem solving on multiple-choice tests for sixth-grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(2), 113-125.
8.
Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M.A., & Tindal, G. (2002). An oral versus a standard administration of a large-scale mathematics test. The Journal of Special Education , 36(1), 39-47.
9.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
10.
Huynh, H., & Barton, K. (2006). Performance of students with disabilities under regular and oral administrations for a high-stakes reading examination. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 21-39.
11.
Huynh, H., Meyer, J.P., & Gallant, D. (2004). Comparability of student performance between regular and oral administrations for a high-stakes mathematics test. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 39-57.
12.
Johnstone, C.J., Altman, J., Thurlow, M.L., & Thompson, S.J. (2006). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 2002 through 2004 (Technical Report 45) . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Tech45/
13.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8 for Windows [Computer Software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International .
14.
Kim, D.-H., Schneider, C., & Siskind, T. (in press). Examining the equivalence of accommodations on a statewide elementary level science test. Applied Measurement in Education .
15.
Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. (2000). Assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky: Inclusion, student performance, and validity. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 255-272.
16.
McKevitt, B.C., & Elliot, S.N. (2003). Effects and perceived consequences of using read aloud and teacher-recommended testing accommodations on a reading achievement test. The School Psychology Review, 32(4), 583-600.
17.
Meloy, L.L., Deville, C., & Frisbie, D. (2000, April). The effect of reading accommodation on standardized test scores of learning disabled and non learning disabled students . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
18.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
19.
Pomplun, M., & Omar, M.H. (2000). Score comparability of a state mathematics assessment across students with and without reading accommodations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 21-29.
20.
Sireci, S.G., Scarpati, S.E., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457-490.
21.
South Carolina Department of Education (2006 ). Test administration manual: South Carolina Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests. Retrieved February 19, 2007, from http://www.ed.sc.gov/agency/offices/assessment/publications/documents/PACTTAM06.pdf
22.
Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Technical Report 34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 29, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical34.htm
23.
Thurlow, M., & Wiener, D. (2000). Non-approved accommodations: Recommendations for use and reporting (Policy Directions No. 11). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy11.htm
24.
Trimble, S. (1998). Performance trends and use of accommodations on a statewide assessment: Students with disabilities in the KIRIS on-demand assessments from 1992-93 through 1995-96 (State Assessment Series, Maryland/Kentucky Report). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
25.
Zenisky, A.L., & Sireci, S.G. (2007). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2005-2006 (Technical Report 47). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
