Comparison of two test methods for VIS: paper-pencil test and CATFootnote^*

* This study was produced from dissertation titled ‘Investigation of the Compatibility of Computerised Adaptive Testing on Students with Visual Impairment’.

References

• Abell, M., and P. Lewis. 2005. “Universal Design for Learning: A Statewide Improvement Model for Academic Success.” Information Technology and Disabilities Journal E-Journal 11 (1). Accessed July 26, 2016. http://itd.athenpro.org/volume11/number1/abell.html
   Google Scholar
• ACRE (Accountability and Curriculum Reform Effort). 2010. “Computerized Adaptive Testing: How CAT May be Utilized in the Next Generation of Assessments.” Accessed August 10, 2014. http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/acre/publications/2010/publications/20100716-01.pdf
   Google Scholar
• AERA (American Educational Research Association), APA (American Psychological Association) and NCME (National Council on Measurement in Education). 1999. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Allman, C. B. 2009. Making Tests Accessible for Students with Visual Impairments: A Guide for Test Publishers, Test Developers, and State Assessment Personnel. 4th ed. Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.
   Google Scholar
• Almond, P. J., C. Lehr, M. L. Thurlow, and R. Quenemoen. 2002. “Participation in Large Scale State Assessment and Accountability Systems.” In Large-scale Assessment Programs for all Students: Validity, Technical Adequacy, and Implementation, edited by G. Tindal and T. M. Haladyna, 341–370. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Atkins, S. 2012. Assessing the Ability of Blind and Partially Sighted People: Are Psychometric Tests Fair?. Birmingham, AL: RNIB Centre for Accessible Information.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, R. E. 1999. "Computer-based testing for examinees with disabilities: on the road to generalized accommodation". In Assessment in higher education: Issues of access, quality, student development, and public policy (p. 181–191). edited by S. J. Messick. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Cahalan Laitusis, C., D. L. Morgan, B. Bridgeman, J. Zanna, and E. Stone. 2007. Examination of Fatigue Effects from Extended-time Accommodations on the SAT Reasoning Test ( College Board Research Report No. 2007-1). New York: The College Board.
   Google Scholar
• Clapper, A. T., A. B. Morse, S. J. Thompson, and M. L. Thurlow. 2005. Access Assistants for State Assessments: A Study of State Guidelines for Scribes, Readers, and Sign Language Interpreters ( Synthesis Report 58). Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, L. 2004. “Computerized Adaptive Testing: Effective Measurement for All Students.” Technological Horizons in Education Journal 31 (10): 14–16.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., and V. L. Plano Clark. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, G., M. McLinden, S. McCall, S. Pavey, J. Ware, and A. M. Farrell. 2011. “Access to Print Literacy for Children and Young People with Visual Impairment: Findings from a Review of Literature.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 26 (1): 25–38.10.1080/08856257.2011.543543
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, G., M. McLinden, C. Robertson, J. Travers, and E. Smith. 2016. “Including Pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disability in National Assessment: Comparison of Three Country Case Studies through an Inclusive Assessment Framework.” International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 63 (1): 98–121.10.1080/1034912X.2015.1111306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Embretson, S. E., and S. P. Reise. 2000.Item Response Theory for Psychologists. New Jersey: Lawrence-Erlbaum Associate.
   Google Scholar
• ETS (Educational Test Service). 2014. Bulletin Supplement for Test Takers with Disabilities or Health-related Needs. GRE and TOEFL Tests, The Praxis Series, Paraproand School Leadership Series Assesments.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, E., J. S. Kim, and S. N. Elliott. 2011. “The Effects of Accommodations on Adolescents’ Self-Efficacy and Test Performance.” Journal of Special Education45(2): 77–88.10.1177/0022466909353791
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gershon, R. C. 2005. “Computer Adaptive Testing.” Journal of Applied Measurement 6 (1): 109–127.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hambleton, R. K., H. Swaminathan, and H. J. Rogers. 1991. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. California: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. K., and W. J. Van der Linden. 1982. “Advances in Item Response Theory and Applications: An Introduction.” Applied Psychological Measurement 6 (4): 373–378.10.1177/014662168200600401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heward, L. W. 2013.Exceptional Children: An Introduction to Special Education. 10th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, J., and M. Katz. 2013. “A Comparison of Audio Representations of Mathematics Content.” Journal of Special Education Technology 28 (3): 59–66.10.1177/016264341302800305
   Google Scholar
• Kalender, İ. 2011. “Effects of Different Computerized Adaptive Testing Strategies on Recovery of Ability.” PhD diss., Middle East Technical University.
   Google Scholar
• Kamei-Hannan, C. 2008. “Examining the Accessibility of a Computerized Adapted Test Using Assistive Technology.” Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 102 (5): 261–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaptan, F. 1993. “Yetenek kestiriminde bireyselleştirilmiş test uygulaması ile geleneksel kâğıt-kalem testi uygulamasının karşılaştırılması.” [Comparison of Adaptive Testing and Traditional Paper Pencil Testing in Ability Estimation.] MS thesis, Hacettepe University.
   Google Scholar
• Kezer, F. 2013. “Comparison of the Computerized Adaptive Testing Strategies.” PhD diss., Ankara University.
   Google Scholar
• Kingsbury, G. G., and C. Hauser. 2004. “Computer Adaptive Testing and the No Child Left Behind Act.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego CA. April. Accessed July 26, 2014. http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/catcentral/pdf%20files/ki04-01.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kingsbury, G. G., and R. L. Houser. 1988. “A Comparison of Achievement Level Estimates from Computerized Adaptive Testing and Paper-and-Pencil Testing.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. April.
   Google Scholar
• Koretz, D. M., and K. Barton. 2003. Assessing Students with Disabilities: Issues and Evidence. (CSE Technical Report. No 587). National Center for Research on Evaluation. University of California, Los Angeles.
   Google Scholar
• Koretz, D., and L. Hamilton. 2000. “Assessment of Students with Disabilities in Kentucky: Inclusion, Student Performance, and Validity.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 22 (3): 255–272.10.3102/01623737022003255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laitusis, C. C., L. L. Cook, H. M. Buzick, and E. Stone. 2011. “Adaptive Testing Options for Accountability Assessments.” In Assessing Students in the Margins: Challenges, Strategies and Techniques, edited by M. Russell, 291–310. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, S. C., S. N. Elliott, D. M. Bolt, and T. R. Kratochwill. 2008. “The Effects of Testing Accommodations on Students’ Performances and Reactions to Testing.” School Psychology Quarterly 23 (1): 107–124.10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., ed. 2005. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McDonnell, L., M. McLaughlin, and P. Morison, eds. 1997. Educating One and All: Students with Disabilities and Standards-based Reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• MEB (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı[Ministry of National Education]). 2013. Ortaöğretim kurumlarına geçiş sistemi, Seviye belirleme sınavı başvuru kılavuzu [Transition System to Secondary Education, Reference Guide for Levelling Examination]. Ankara: MEB Yayınları.
   Google Scholar
• Moshinsky, A., and C. Kazin. 2005. “Constructing a Computerized Adaptive Test for University Applicants with Disabilities.” Applied Measurement in Education 18 (4): 381–405.10.1207/s15324818ame1804_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCLD (National Center for Learning Disabilities). 2005. No Child Left Behind: Determining Appropriate Assessment Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. New York: Schwab Learning.
   Google Scholar
• ÖSYM (Ölçme, Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi [Measurement, Selection and Placement Center]). 2013. Öğrenci seçme ve yerleştirme sistemi kılavuzu [Reference Guide for School Selection and Placement System]. Ankara: Ölçme Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi Yayınları.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 169–186. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, G. 2009. “Race to the top assessment program: A new generation of comparable state assessments.” Paper presented at the United States Department of Education Public Hearings, Denver, CO.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, C. M., S. S. Lazarus, and M. L. Thurlow. 2016. A summary of the Research on the Effects of Test Accommodations: 2013–2014 (NCEO Report 402). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
   Google Scholar
• Rudner, L. M. 1998. An On-line, Interactive Computer Adaptive Testing Mini Tutorial. Accessed August 10, 2014. http://echo.edres.org:8080/scripts/cat/catdemo.htm
   Google Scholar
• Salvia, J. S., J. E. Ysseldyke, and S. Bolt. 2010. Assessment in Special and Inclusive Education. 11th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Sánchez, J., and M. Espinoza. 2012. “Chilean Higher Education Entrance Examination for Learners Who are Blind.” In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality and Associated Technologies (409–418), edited by P. Sharkey and E. Klinger, Laval, France.
   Google Scholar
• Şenel, S. 2015. “Görme engelli öğrencilerin üniversite giriş sınavı deneyimleri.” [Experience of Students with Visual Impairments in University Entrance Exam.] Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 1 (1): 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Siu, K. W. M., and M. S. Lam. 2012. “Public Computer Assisted Learning Facilities for Children with Visual Impairment: Universal Design for Inclusive Learning.” Early Childhood Education Journal 40 (5): 295–303.10.1007/s10643-011-0502-9
   Google Scholar
• Sireci, S.G., Li, S., and Scarpati, S. 2003. “The effects of test accommodation on test performance: a review of the literature”. Center for Educational Assessment Research Report no:485. Amherst, MA: School of Education, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, E., and T. Davey. 2011. Computer-adaptive Testing for Students with Disabilities: A Review of the Literature. Research Report. Educational Testing Service. Princeton, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Tashakkori, A., and C. Teddlie. 2003. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, N. A. 2010. Adaptive Testing: Is It Right for Me? Minnesota: University of Cincinnati. Assessment Systems Corporation. Accessed August 10, 2014. www.assess.com/docs/Thompson_(2010)_-_Adaptive_Testing_Right.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Tian, J., D. Miao, X. Zhu, and J. Gong. 2007. “An Introduction to the Computerized Adaptive Testing.” Us-China Education Review4(1): 72–81.
   Google Scholar
• Wainer, H., ed. 2000. Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar