Ability or Access-ability: Differential Item Functioning of Items on Alternate Performance-Based Assessment Tests for Students with Visual Impairments
Introduction This study investigated differential item functioning (DIF) of test items on Pennsylvania's Alternate System of Assessment (PASA) for students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities and what the reasons for the differences may be. Methods The Wilcoxon signed rank...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of visual impairment & blindness 2012-06, Vol.106 (6), p.325-338 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 338 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 325 |
container_title | Journal of visual impairment & blindness |
container_volume | 106 |
creator | Zebehazy, Kim T. Zigmond, Naomi Zimmerman, George J. |
description | Introduction
This study investigated differential item functioning (DIF) of test items on Pennsylvania's Alternate System of Assessment (PASA) for students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities and what the reasons for the differences may be.
Methods
The Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used to analyze differences in the scores of the students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities who took the Grade 3–4 or 7–8 Level A PASA compared to matched peers without visual impairments. The students with visual impairments were analyzed as a group and by level of functional vision. Logical analyses of videotaped assessments of the students with visual impairments were conducted to identify potential sources of DIF.
Results
Among the functional vision groups, 17 instances in reading and 22 instances in math were flagged for DIF, with 14 skills in reading and 13 in math emerging as harder for students with visual impairments. The types of items that were significantly different included those involving money, matching, and selecting the smallest. Potential reasons for the differences included students needing a better orientation to test materials; the influence of lucky guesses based on distractor characteristics; and the influence of accommodations, such as the substitution of objects.
Discussion
The results demonstrate the complexity and importance of evaluating the validity of alternate performance-based assessments for students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities. The themes that emerged suggest the need to structure alternate assessment tasks for consistent orientation to materials and to consider closely how accommodations affect the difficulty of the tasks.
Implications for practitioners
Practitioners should consider how the reading progression for their students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities is related to alternate standards and the instruction that is in place to learn concepts that were missed incidentally. Practitioners can help improve alternate assessments by communicating with their states about the types of tasks that are difficult to accommodate in their current format or by requesting guidance in making meaningful accommodations that maintain the intent of the items. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0145482X1210600602 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2734777391</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A295551313</galeid><ericid>EJ985036</ericid><sage_id>10.1177_0145482X1210600602</sage_id><sourcerecordid>A295551313</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c382t-9fc3f83df163607973ab345241af39377fa9465d15754f7565661bf6f846df383</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kduK1TAUhoMouN36AuJFwOvO5JzWuzoHZ2RAwVG8K9lpss3QNtusFJkX8XlNpyIjHkgg8K_v_1cWC6HnlBxRqvUxoUKKmn2mjBJFymUP0IZK2VRUaPUQbRagWojH6AnADSGEckE36Hu7C0PItzgm3FrrACqzKq_wafDeJTflYAZ8md2Iz-fJ5hCnMO1x9Hca4DjhdsguTSY7_N4lH9NoJuuq1wZcj1uAkjqWGHztIAMudfwhz31RAH8L-Qv-FGBeWowHE9JCwlP0yJsB3LOf7xZ9PD-7Prmort69uTxpryrLa5arxlvua957qrgiutHc7LiQTFDjecO19qYRSvZUaim8lkoqRXde-Vqo3vOab9HLNfeQ4te5fK-7iXOZZICOaS601ryh_6MoYZxyLsm9rL0ZXBcmH3Mydgxgu5Y1Ukq6kFt09BeqnN6NwcbJ-VD03wxsNdgUAZLz3SGF0aTb0rtblt_9ufxierGaXAr2l-HsbVNLwlUpH69lMHt3f5h_Bv4AaPi29g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1023133508</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ability or Access-ability: Differential Item Functioning of Items on Alternate Performance-Based Assessment Tests for Students with Visual Impairments</title><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Zebehazy, Kim T. ; Zigmond, Naomi ; Zimmerman, George J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Zebehazy, Kim T. ; Zigmond, Naomi ; Zimmerman, George J.</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction
This study investigated differential item functioning (DIF) of test items on Pennsylvania's Alternate System of Assessment (PASA) for students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities and what the reasons for the differences may be.
Methods
The Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used to analyze differences in the scores of the students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities who took the Grade 3–4 or 7–8 Level A PASA compared to matched peers without visual impairments. The students with visual impairments were analyzed as a group and by level of functional vision. Logical analyses of videotaped assessments of the students with visual impairments were conducted to identify potential sources of DIF.
Results
Among the functional vision groups, 17 instances in reading and 22 instances in math were flagged for DIF, with 14 skills in reading and 13 in math emerging as harder for students with visual impairments. The types of items that were significantly different included those involving money, matching, and selecting the smallest. Potential reasons for the differences included students needing a better orientation to test materials; the influence of lucky guesses based on distractor characteristics; and the influence of accommodations, such as the substitution of objects.
Discussion
The results demonstrate the complexity and importance of evaluating the validity of alternate performance-based assessments for students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities. The themes that emerged suggest the need to structure alternate assessment tasks for consistent orientation to materials and to consider closely how accommodations affect the difficulty of the tasks.
Implications for practitioners
Practitioners should consider how the reading progression for their students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities is related to alternate standards and the instruction that is in place to learn concepts that were missed incidentally. Practitioners can help improve alternate assessments by communicating with their states about the types of tasks that are difficult to accommodate in their current format or by requesting guidance in making meaningful accommodations that maintain the intent of the items.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0145-482X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1559-1476</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0145482X1210600602</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JVIBDM</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Achievement tests ; Alternative Assessment ; Blindness ; Cognition ; Differences ; Education ; Elementary education ; Grade 3 ; Grade 4 ; Grade 7 ; Grade 8 ; Learning disabilities ; Mathematics Skills ; Mathematics Tests ; Mental Disorders ; Pennsylvania ; Performance Based Assessment ; Reading Tests ; Scores ; Special education ; Students ; Students with disabilities ; Test Bias ; Test Items ; Testing Accommodations ; Vision ; Visual impairment ; Visual Impairments ; Visually disabled persons</subject><ispartof>Journal of visual impairment & blindness, 2012-06, Vol.106 (6), p.325-338</ispartof><rights>2012 American Foundation for the Blind</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2012 Sage Publications, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright American Foundation for the Blind, Inc. Jun 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c382t-9fc3f83df163607973ab345241af39377fa9465d15754f7565661bf6f846df383</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0145482X1210600602$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0145482X1210600602$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ985036$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zebehazy, Kim T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zigmond, Naomi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zimmerman, George J.</creatorcontrib><title>Ability or Access-ability: Differential Item Functioning of Items on Alternate Performance-Based Assessment Tests for Students with Visual Impairments</title><title>Journal of visual impairment & blindness</title><description>Introduction
This study investigated differential item functioning (DIF) of test items on Pennsylvania's Alternate System of Assessment (PASA) for students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities and what the reasons for the differences may be.
Methods
The Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used to analyze differences in the scores of the students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities who took the Grade 3–4 or 7–8 Level A PASA compared to matched peers without visual impairments. The students with visual impairments were analyzed as a group and by level of functional vision. Logical analyses of videotaped assessments of the students with visual impairments were conducted to identify potential sources of DIF.
Results
Among the functional vision groups, 17 instances in reading and 22 instances in math were flagged for DIF, with 14 skills in reading and 13 in math emerging as harder for students with visual impairments. The types of items that were significantly different included those involving money, matching, and selecting the smallest. Potential reasons for the differences included students needing a better orientation to test materials; the influence of lucky guesses based on distractor characteristics; and the influence of accommodations, such as the substitution of objects.
Discussion
The results demonstrate the complexity and importance of evaluating the validity of alternate performance-based assessments for students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities. The themes that emerged suggest the need to structure alternate assessment tasks for consistent orientation to materials and to consider closely how accommodations affect the difficulty of the tasks.
Implications for practitioners
Practitioners should consider how the reading progression for their students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities is related to alternate standards and the instruction that is in place to learn concepts that were missed incidentally. Practitioners can help improve alternate assessments by communicating with their states about the types of tasks that are difficult to accommodate in their current format or by requesting guidance in making meaningful accommodations that maintain the intent of the items.</description><subject>Achievement tests</subject><subject>Alternative Assessment</subject><subject>Blindness</subject><subject>Cognition</subject><subject>Differences</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Elementary education</subject><subject>Grade 3</subject><subject>Grade 4</subject><subject>Grade 7</subject><subject>Grade 8</subject><subject>Learning disabilities</subject><subject>Mathematics Skills</subject><subject>Mathematics Tests</subject><subject>Mental Disorders</subject><subject>Pennsylvania</subject><subject>Performance Based Assessment</subject><subject>Reading Tests</subject><subject>Scores</subject><subject>Special education</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Students with disabilities</subject><subject>Test Bias</subject><subject>Test Items</subject><subject>Testing Accommodations</subject><subject>Vision</subject><subject>Visual impairment</subject><subject>Visual Impairments</subject><subject>Visually disabled persons</subject><issn>0145-482X</issn><issn>1559-1476</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kduK1TAUhoMouN36AuJFwOvO5JzWuzoHZ2RAwVG8K9lpss3QNtusFJkX8XlNpyIjHkgg8K_v_1cWC6HnlBxRqvUxoUKKmn2mjBJFymUP0IZK2VRUaPUQbRagWojH6AnADSGEckE36Hu7C0PItzgm3FrrACqzKq_wafDeJTflYAZ8md2Iz-fJ5hCnMO1x9Hca4DjhdsguTSY7_N4lH9NoJuuq1wZcj1uAkjqWGHztIAMudfwhz31RAH8L-Qv-FGBeWowHE9JCwlP0yJsB3LOf7xZ9PD-7Prmort69uTxpryrLa5arxlvua957qrgiutHc7LiQTFDjecO19qYRSvZUaim8lkoqRXde-Vqo3vOab9HLNfeQ4te5fK-7iXOZZICOaS601ryh_6MoYZxyLsm9rL0ZXBcmH3Mydgxgu5Y1Ukq6kFt09BeqnN6NwcbJ-VD03wxsNdgUAZLz3SGF0aTb0rtblt_9ufxierGaXAr2l-HsbVNLwlUpH69lMHt3f5h_Bv4AaPi29g</recordid><startdate>20120601</startdate><enddate>20120601</enddate><creator>Zebehazy, Kim T.</creator><creator>Zigmond, Naomi</creator><creator>Zimmerman, George J.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>American Foundation for the Blind</general><general>Sage Publications, Inc</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120601</creationdate><title>Ability or Access-ability: Differential Item Functioning of Items on Alternate Performance-Based Assessment Tests for Students with Visual Impairments</title><author>Zebehazy, Kim T. ; Zigmond, Naomi ; Zimmerman, George J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c382t-9fc3f83df163607973ab345241af39377fa9465d15754f7565661bf6f846df383</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Achievement tests</topic><topic>Alternative Assessment</topic><topic>Blindness</topic><topic>Cognition</topic><topic>Differences</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Elementary education</topic><topic>Grade 3</topic><topic>Grade 4</topic><topic>Grade 7</topic><topic>Grade 8</topic><topic>Learning disabilities</topic><topic>Mathematics Skills</topic><topic>Mathematics Tests</topic><topic>Mental Disorders</topic><topic>Pennsylvania</topic><topic>Performance Based Assessment</topic><topic>Reading Tests</topic><topic>Scores</topic><topic>Special education</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Students with disabilities</topic><topic>Test Bias</topic><topic>Test Items</topic><topic>Testing Accommodations</topic><topic>Vision</topic><topic>Visual impairment</topic><topic>Visual Impairments</topic><topic>Visually disabled persons</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zebehazy, Kim T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zigmond, Naomi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zimmerman, George J.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>One Literature (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Education Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of visual impairment & blindness</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zebehazy, Kim T.</au><au>Zigmond, Naomi</au><au>Zimmerman, George J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ985036</ericid><atitle>Ability or Access-ability: Differential Item Functioning of Items on Alternate Performance-Based Assessment Tests for Students with Visual Impairments</atitle><jtitle>Journal of visual impairment & blindness</jtitle><date>2012-06-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>106</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>325</spage><epage>338</epage><pages>325-338</pages><issn>0145-482X</issn><eissn>1559-1476</eissn><coden>JVIBDM</coden><abstract>Introduction
This study investigated differential item functioning (DIF) of test items on Pennsylvania's Alternate System of Assessment (PASA) for students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities and what the reasons for the differences may be.
Methods
The Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used to analyze differences in the scores of the students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities who took the Grade 3–4 or 7–8 Level A PASA compared to matched peers without visual impairments. The students with visual impairments were analyzed as a group and by level of functional vision. Logical analyses of videotaped assessments of the students with visual impairments were conducted to identify potential sources of DIF.
Results
Among the functional vision groups, 17 instances in reading and 22 instances in math were flagged for DIF, with 14 skills in reading and 13 in math emerging as harder for students with visual impairments. The types of items that were significantly different included those involving money, matching, and selecting the smallest. Potential reasons for the differences included students needing a better orientation to test materials; the influence of lucky guesses based on distractor characteristics; and the influence of accommodations, such as the substitution of objects.
Discussion
The results demonstrate the complexity and importance of evaluating the validity of alternate performance-based assessments for students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities. The themes that emerged suggest the need to structure alternate assessment tasks for consistent orientation to materials and to consider closely how accommodations affect the difficulty of the tasks.
Implications for practitioners
Practitioners should consider how the reading progression for their students with visual impairments and severe cognitive disabilities is related to alternate standards and the instruction that is in place to learn concepts that were missed incidentally. Practitioners can help improve alternate assessments by communicating with their states about the types of tasks that are difficult to accommodate in their current format or by requesting guidance in making meaningful accommodations that maintain the intent of the items.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0145482X1210600602</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0145-482X |
ispartof | Journal of visual impairment & blindness, 2012-06, Vol.106 (6), p.325-338 |
issn | 0145-482X 1559-1476 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2734777391 |
source | SAGE Complete |
subjects | Achievement tests Alternative Assessment Blindness Cognition Differences Education Elementary education Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 7 Grade 8 Learning disabilities Mathematics Skills Mathematics Tests Mental Disorders Pennsylvania Performance Based Assessment Reading Tests Scores Special education Students Students with disabilities Test Bias Test Items Testing Accommodations Vision Visual impairment Visual Impairments Visually disabled persons |
title | Ability or Access-ability: Differential Item Functioning of Items on Alternate Performance-Based Assessment Tests for Students with Visual Impairments |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T04%3A18%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ability%20or%20Access-ability:%20Differential%20Item%20Functioning%20of%20Items%20on%20Alternate%20Performance-Based%20Assessment%20Tests%20for%20Students%20with%20Visual%20Impairments&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20visual%20impairment%20&%20blindness&rft.au=Zebehazy,%20Kim%20T.&rft.date=2012-06-01&rft.volume=106&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=325&rft.epage=338&rft.pages=325-338&rft.issn=0145-482X&rft.eissn=1559-1476&rft.coden=JVIBDM&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0145482X1210600602&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA295551313%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1023133508&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A295551313&rft_ericid=EJ985036&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0145482X1210600602&rfr_iscdi=true |