Modifying Achievement Test Items: A Theory-Guided & Data-Based Approach

1. Modifying Achievement Test Items:A Theory-Guided & Data-Based Approach Stephen N. Elliott Learning Sciences Institute and Department of Special Education Vanderbilt University CCSSO 2009 National Conference on Student Assessment

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 CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

3. 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. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

4. 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. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

5. Goal #2 of the CAAVES Project is to “investigate feasibility of item modification strategies for future alternate assessments.” This goal was accomplished by: (a) developing a common set of test items from existing reading and mathematics tests using modification principles that facilitate reading access and valid responses and (b) using a computer-based delivery system to experimentally examine student preferences, score comparability, and item statistics of the modified items for students with and without disabilities. CAAVES Project Goal #2 CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

6. Motivating Questions We wanted to answer the following questions about item modifications: Will modifications in testing conditions change the skill (construct) being measured? Will taking the test under modified conditions change the resulting scores? Will non-disabled examinees benefit if allowed the same modifications? CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

7. Procedures for Addressing Questions 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. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

8. Participation Criteria for Students with Disabilities CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

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

10. Item Summary Reports: An Example CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009 10

11. Overview of Results Elliott, et al. (in press) Exceptional Children CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

12. Tools to Analyze Items & Guide Modifications The Test Accessibility and Modification Inventory (TAMI; 2008) and TAMI Accessibility Rating Matrix (ARM; 2009) were developed as decision-making tools to facilitate the analysis of new and existing tests and test items with the purpose of enhancing their accessibility. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

13. TAMI Item Accessibility Ratings CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

14. TAMI Item Accessibility Ratings CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

15. TAMI Item Accessibility Audits IN CMAADI Item Review, 2009 CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

16. Method for Documenting OTL AZ Cog Lab Study, 2008 CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

17. Cognitive Labs Excerpted from Kettler, Elliott, & Beddow, in press Peabody Journal of Education CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

18. Post-Assessment Focus Groups AZ CMAADI Pilot Study, 2009 CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

19. Theory-Guided & Data-Based Modifications CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

20. Review: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. CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009

21. 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 CCSSO NSA Conference / Elliott 2009