Examining provision and sufficiency of testing accommodations for English learners

References

• Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometrics issues. Educational Assessment, 8, 231–257. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326977EA0803_02
   Google Scholar
• Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C. H., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2003). Impact of student language background on content-based performance: Analyses of extant data. Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.
   Google Scholar
• Abedi, J., & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1403_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abedi, J., Lord, C., & Hofstetter, C. (1998). Impact of selected background variables on students' NAEP math performance. Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles.
   Google Scholar
• Abedi, J., Lord, C., Hofstetter, C., & Baker, E. (2000). Impact of accommodation strategies on English language learners' test performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(3), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2000.tb00034.x
   Google Scholar
• Acosta, B. D., Rivera, C., & Willner, L. S. (2008). Best practices in state assessment policies for accommodating English language learners: A Delphi study. George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational & psychological tests. American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Beddow, P. A. (2018). Cognitive load theory for test design. In S. Elliott, R. Kettler, P. Beddow, & A. Kurz (Eds.), Handbook of accessible instruction and testing practices (pp. 199–211). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71126-3_13
   Google Scholar
• Bolt, D., Hare, R., & Neumann, C. (2007). Score metric equivalence of the psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R) across criminal offenders in North America and the United Kingdom: A critique of Cooke, Mitchie, Hart, & Clark (2005) and new analyses. Assessment, 14(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106293505
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolt, S. E., & Quenemoen, R. L. (2006). The growing demand for expertise in assessment and diverse learners to inform the implementation of large-scale accountability systems. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31, 49–62.
   Google Scholar
• Cai, L., Thissen, D., & du Toit, S. H. C. (2011). IRTPRO for windows [Computer software]. Scientific Software International.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, P., & LaHuis, D. (2012). An examination of power and type I errors for two differential item functioning indices using the graded response model. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428111403815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Embretson, S., & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Ercikan, K., Arim, R., Law, D., Domene, J., Gagnon, F., & Lacroix, S. (2010). Application of think aloud protocols for examining and confirming sources of differential item functioning identified by expert reviews. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(2), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00173.x
   Google Scholar
• Fikis, D.R.J., & Oshima, T.C. (2017). Effect of purification procedures on DIF analysis in IRTPRO. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77, 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164416645844
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S. B., Hamlett, C., Binkley, E., & Crouch, R. (2000). Using objective data sources to enhance teacher judgments about test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 67, 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290006700105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia, G. E. (1994). Assessing the literacy development of second-language students: A focus on authentic assessment. In K. Spangenberg-Urbschat (Ed.), Kids come in all languages: Reading instruction for ESL students (pp. 180–205). International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. K. (1989). Principles and selected applications of item response theory. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), The American Council on Education/Macmillan series on higher education. Educational measurement (pp. 147–200). Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc; American Council on Education.
   Google Scholar
• Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion and retention. National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Lovett, B. J., & Lewandowski, L. J. (2015). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: Research-based practice. American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney, K. (2008). Linguistic influences on differential item functioning for second language learners on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. International Journal of Testing, 8, 14–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305050701808615
   Google Scholar
• Martiniello, M. (2009). Linguistic complexity, schematic representations, and differential item functioning for English language learners in math tests. Educational Assessment, 14, 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190903422906
   Google Scholar
• Meade, A. W. (2010). A taxonomy of effect size measures for the differential functioning of items and scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 728.
   Google Scholar
• Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Joe, H. (2005). Limited and full information estimation and testing in 2n contingency tables: A unified framework. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100, 1009–1020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2016). Participation in general assessments. https://nceo.info/Assessments/general_assessment/participation
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. National Governors Association for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers.
   Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nye, C.D., Bradburn, J., Olenick, J., Bialko, C., & Drasgow, F. (2019). How big are my effects? Examining the magnitude of effect sizes in studies of measurement equivalence. Organizational Research Methods, 22(3), 678–709. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118761122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office of English Language Acquisition. (2017). Profiles of English learners (ELs).
   Google Scholar
• Orlando, M. & Thissen, D. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S-X 2: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 289–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennock‐Roman, M., & Rivera, C. (2011). Mean effects of test accommodations for ELLs and non‐ELLs: A meta‐analysis of experimental studies. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(3), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00207.x
   Google Scholar
• Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 207–230. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986004003207
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075004457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snetzler, S., & Qualls, A. L. (2000). Examination of differential item functioning on a standardized achievement battery with limited English proficient students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 564–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970727
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solano-Flores, G., & Trumbull, E. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new research and practice paradigms in the testing of English-language learners. Educational Researcher, 32, 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032002003
   Google Scholar
• Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2004). Examining the effects of differential item (functioning and differential) test functioning on selection decisions: When are statistically significant effects practically important? Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurlow, M. L., & Kopriva, R. J. (2015). Advancing accessibility and accommodations in content assessments for students with disabilities and English learners. Review of Research in Education, 39, 331–369. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X14556076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Parcerisa, L. (2019). Reforming governance through policy instruments: How and to what extent standards, tests and accountability in education spread worldwide. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(2), 248–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2019.1569882
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willner, L. S., Rivera, C., & Acosta, B. D. (2008). Descriptive study of state assessment policies for accommodating English language learners. George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, M. K., & Leon, S. (2009). An investigation of the language demands in content assessments for English language learners. Educational Assessment, 14, 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190903425883
   Google Scholar
• Young, J. W., Cho, Y., Ling, G., Cline, F., Steinberg, J., & Stone, E. (2008). Validity and fairness of state standards-based assessments for English language learners. Educational Assessment, 13, 170–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190802394388
   Google Scholar