Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Item Characteristics, Student Characteristics, and Segmented Text Ross Moen December 7, 2007 NARAP GAC Partnership.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Item Characteristics, Student Characteristics, and Segmented Text Ross Moen December 7, 2007 NARAP GAC Partnership."— Presentation transcript:

1 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Item Characteristics, Student Characteristics, and Segmented Text Ross Moen December 7, 2007 NARAP GAC Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA): A collaboration between the University of Minnesotas National Center on Educational Outcomes and Department of Curriculum & Instruction; CRESST, University of California, Davis; and Westat

2 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Context for Current Studies Working Assumptions: –Exploring options; we dont already have the answers –Seeking universal solutions; minimize accommodations Prior Studies –Consult with reading experts (jointly with DARA) on the construct: Definition panel and focus groups leading to Principles and Guidelines Report –Review literature on disabilities relation to reading: Disabilities Reports –Examine test materials: Test Specifications Report –Analyze test data: DIF/DDF for Pre-NCLB NRTs

3 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Data differed from previous item analyses: –Instead of pre-NCLB NRTs, obtained test data from 3 states post-NCLB criterion referenced reading tests –Distinguished students with different kinds of disabilities Item Characteristics: Methods

4 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Item Characteristics: Results CRTs lacked NRTs end-of-test DIF/DDF increase Results varied by state and by type of disability –Number of groups and items affected varied by state –Which groups were affected varied by state DIF/DDF need not indicate bias against students with disabilities –Low performing students without disabilities sometimes were more seduced by false foils –Can be seen by examining response plots –Leads to questions other than test bias

5 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Results Varied DisabilityState 1State 2State 3 SLD2-8 SL/I-40 EMR11-- EBD730 OHD2-- Perceptual/ Communication -0- Physical-4-

6 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Foil A draws students without LD A0 through D0 = students without disabilities; A1 through D1 = students with LD; the correct response is C

7 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment A0 through D0 = students without disabilities; A1 through D1 = students with LD; the correct response is B Foil A again

8 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Foil C then A A0 through D0 = students without disabilities; A1 through D1 = students with LD; the correct response is B

9 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Item Characteristics Question How does the test behavior of students with a particular disability differ from other students? –In one state, DIF/DDF was found only for students with learning disability (LD) –Those students show a different test score distribution.

10 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Score Distribution of Grade 3 Students Without Disability

11 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Score Distribution of Grade 3 Students With Speech/Language

12 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Score Distribution of Grade 3 Students With Emotional/Behavioral

13 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Score Distribution of Grade 3 Students With Learning Disability

14 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Item Characteristics Question What are the implications of these findings? –For designing accessible reading assessments –For understanding students with disabilities

15 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Who needs Accessible Reading Assessment? (LAMS) Less Accurately Measured Students Assessment Student Characteristics of Less Accurately Measured Students (LAMS) (MAMS) More Accurately Measured Students

16 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment ? MAMS Compare test results with (what?) other information Match LAMS How Can We Identify LAMS? Mismatch Compare

17 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Compare Tests with Teacher Judgment? ? =

18 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment How well can teachers identify LAMS? –Do they say they can? –Can they distinguish reasons for LAMS? –Can they provide supporting evidence? –Do brief supplemental examinations match teacher judgments? What can we learn from teachers LAMS? –What do they say they need or want? –What do we observe in assessment situations? LAMS Study Goals

19 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Teachers completed questionnaire –Provided four reasons; sought open ended responses –Stable questionnaire design over 2 phases –21 teachers at 10 sites completed 77 questionnaires Researchers met with teachers –Structured interview & examine supporting evidence –Phase 2 had 7 teachers at 5 sites Researchers met with students –Structured interview and differentiated assessment –Phase 2 had 17 students at 5 sites LAMS Study Procedures

20 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Questionnaire: Reasons for Identifying Students as LAMS Count*Percentage* Fluency Limitations Obscure Comprehension Skills % Some Comprehension Limitations Obscure other Skills % Test Fails to Reveal Non-Tested Strengths % Responds Poorly to Testing Circumstances or Materials % Other 5 6.5% * Note duplicate counts on 77 students sum to a total count of 108 and total percentage of 140%

21 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Teacher Interview: Hindrances to Student Performance Hardly At AllA LittleSomeQuite a BitA LotBlankMean Fluency limitations %0.0%23.5%35.3%23.5%0.0% Comprehension limitations %5.9%29.4%41.2%23.5%0.0% Low motivation for the test %5.9%23.5%5.9%23.5%0.0% Keeping attention focused on the test %29.4% 11.8% 0.0% Getting worn out by the test %23.5%11.8%17.6% 0.0% Anxiety %17.6%35.3%0.0%11.8%5.9% Other: %5.9%0.0%11.8%41.2%

22 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Student Interview: Attitudes Toward Reading and Tests Hardly At AllA LittleSomeQuite a BitA LotBlankMean How much do your read not for school? %23.5%41.2%5.9%17.6%5.9% How much do you Like reading? % 52.9%23.5%17.6%5.9% How hard is reading for you? %11.8%41.2%23.5%0.0%5.9% How well do tests show your reading? %5.9%35.3%29.4%11.8%17.6%

23 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Student Interview: Ways to Improve Test Performance Hardly At AllA LittleSomeQuite a BitA LotBlankMean Shorter reading passages %11.8%23.5%41.2%5.9%17.6% More interesting passages %17.6%5.9%23.5%35.3%17.6% Computer instead of paper and pencil %5.9%11.8%23.5% Entire test read aloud by CD etc % 41.2%11.8%17.6% Computer pronounces or explains words you pick % 5.9%35.3%41.2%17.6% Other ideas you have %5.9%0.0%5.9%29.4%58.8%

24 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Qualitative Analysis - tentative: Teachers LAMS confirmed? Clear Bulls Eye Consensus between researchers & teacher n = 8 Jackie MattJimmyIke AlBethJoan Marie BettyStanley Spock Zorro Rose Frank Off Target No evidence that student is LAM n = 3 Bruce Mac Henry Mike Karen Seems Close Differ on why LAMS n = 3 Seems Close Weak confirmation n = 4 Jane Borderline Questionable n = 2

25 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Segmenting Study Segmented Text related to Chunking Literature –Reading is chunked into meaningful units to aid readers with working memory capacity constraints –The literature refers to chunking of sentences –Our segmented text refers to grouping passage segments with their corresponding items on the test page. Segmented text may reduce the need for accommodations by providing built-in test breaks

26 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Segmenting: Participants 737 Grade 8 students from ten public schools in California 620 Students without disabilities 117 Students with disabilities: –107 specific learning disabilities –2 deaf/hard of hearing –3 autistic –2 speech/language impairment –4 other health impairments

27 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Segmenting: Reading Test Three reading comprehension passages were obtained from publicly-released tests from two states outside of California. Two versions of the test were created: Original (version A) and Segmented (version B) Test designed to be completed in one classroom period (approx. 50 min.)

28 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Segmenting: Passages All passages were informational. First passage was 700 words, other two passages were about 550 words each. Each passage had 8 multiple-choice items with 4 possible answer choices (24 total test items).

29 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Segmenting: Adjustments Segments were grouped with corresponding test items Each passage was broken down into 3 to 4 segments; each segment contained 1-3 questions Inferential questions appeared at the end Test items appeared in the same order in both versions

30 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Segmenting: Emotion/Mood Inventory Asked students after each passage: How does taking the test make you feel? Please circle all the words that describe how you feel. There is no right or wrong answer. If none of these words describe how you feel, please circle NONE. goodtired energetic upset boredconfident frustratedokay happy stressed blanked outinterested relaxedbad NONE

31 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Segmenting: Motivation Scale Post-test (printed at the end of the test booklets) 10-item, 4-point Likert-type, combining importance and effort questions

32 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Segmenting: Performance No significant differences in reading performance of either group due to segmenting Groups MeanSDn SD/Original SD/ Segment Non-SD/ Original Non-SD/ Segment

33 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Segmenting: Reliability Findings Unsegmented showed more reliability for students without disabilities (Non-SD) This reliability gap decreased on the segmented version (no longer significant). This suggests the segmented version may be more accessible for SD students (Caution: How much of this is attributable to standard deviation differences?) Reliability limits validity, because rxy < rxx (Allen & Yen, p. 113) Groups ReliabilityValidity SD/Original (n=53) SD/Segment (n=62) Non- SD/Original (n=312) Non- SD/Segment (n=305)

34 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Segmenting: Motivation Results Summary of descriptive analyses for the motivation section No significant differences GroupMeanSDn Students with disabilities, original Students with disabilities, segm Students with disabilities, total Non-disabled, original Non-disabled, segmented Non-disabled, total Original version, total Segmented version, total Total

35 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Questions Would segmenting have greater impact if the test was longer than 50 minutes? Would segmenting have greater impact for students with disabilities focused on working memory capacity issues?

36 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 36 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA): Calibration & Motivation Studies presentation to the General Advisory Committee December 7, 2007 Deborah Dillon & David OBrien University of Minnesota Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA): A collaboration between the University of Minnesotas National Center on Educational Outcomes and the Department of Curriculum & Instruction; CRESST, University of California, Davis; and Westat

37 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 37 Calibration Study The purpose of the study is to scale or calibrate the measurement tools that will be used in a large-scale accessible reading assessment for students with disabilities. This process allows investigators to empirically determine the comparability of passages and items used in the reading assessment study by placing all passages and questions on a common IRT (item response theory) -based equal-interval measurement scale.

38 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 38 Research Questions 1. What is the difficulty of each reading passage (based on a passage total score, which, in turn, is based on performance on all passage comprehension items/questions) and each comprehension item/question? 2.How well can the reading passages be placed on a common interval measurement scale to allow scores from different passages (of equal or unequal difficulty) to be compared and equated? 3. Based on IRT item fit statistics, what multiple choice items should be retained and which should be eliminated? 4. Which reading passages do students prefer to read?

39 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 39 Participants A representative total sample of 1,200 students –600 from grades 3-5 (200 3rd graders, 200 4th graders, 200 5th graders) in intact classrooms –600 students from grades 7-9 (200 7th graders, 200 8th graders, 200 9th graders) in intact classrooms. Students representing the full range of reading ability, including students with disabilities are included in the study

40 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 40 Design: Steps in the Calibration Process 1.Selected 40 passages, including 10 literary-fiction and 10 informational- exposition texts for each grade level (4 th and 8 th ); the passages were rated as easy, medium, and hard in difficulty. 2.Commissioned the writing of 10 items for each passage, using the 2009 NAEP Reading Framework cognitive targets.

41 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 41 Design Testing procedures were employed to assure representation of passage text types while removing order effects Within classes students will be assigned to one of several possible test forms (a form is a set of passages with counterbalanced passage order) The test includes anchor passages (included in all forms), and non-anchor passages, from which several are selected and included in each form.

42 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 42 Experimental Design and Analysis This preliminary item/passage psychometric calibration study will allow for: 1.the placement of all passages/questions on a common equal-interval measurement scale, 2.the development of passage scoring tables by which to assign subjects reading ability scores, and 3.provision of a mechanism for equating scores across different passages. This item fit analysis will determine which items will be retained and those that will be eliminated.

43 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 43 Purpose: To examine whether improving the motivational characteristics of a large-scale reading assessment increases its accessibility for students with disabilities, and in so doing provides a more valid assessment of these students reading proficiency due to their increased engagement. Motivation Study

44 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 44 Research Questions 1.Is there an interaction effect between choice, type of text, and type of student? 2.Is there a correlation between students general motivation to read (e.g., as measured by the Motivation to Read Questionnaire [MRQ]) and their performance on a large-scale reading assessment? Are participants who are more motivated to read (as measured by the MRQ), more likely to benefit from the choice option on a large scale reading assessment?

45 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 45 Research Questions cont. 3.Does the option of exercising choice in the selection of reading comprehension passages, which is hypothesized to improve student motivation and engagement on a large-scale assessment, produce significantly higher measured reading comprehension for all students? 4.Is there a significant difference in reading scores of students with disabilities versus general education students on large-scale reading assessments? 5.Is there a significant difference in student performance on text type (literary-fiction versus informational- exposition passages) on large-scale reading assessments?

46 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 46 Participants 280 students who are fluent in English –140 students from 4th grade –140 students from 8th grade –targeted samples of students representing a range of disability groups are included –students will be placed in a treatment condition based on stratified random assignment (i.e., students representing particular disabilities will be randomly assigned to the experimental and control conditions).

47 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 47 Design: Components of the Test The motivation assessment includes 2 literary-fiction and 2 informational- expository passages for both grade 4 & grade 8; passage order will be randomly assigned. Each passage will be followed by 5-6 multiple choice items. The assessment is untimed and will be completed on a computer-based platform.

48 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 48 Attending to Issues of Motivation General motivation will be measured prior to the test to obtain information on students feelings about self as reader ( e.g., Motivation for Reading Questionnaire-MRQ ). Situated motivation will be measured using questions woven into the test booklets for the choice and no-choice conditions (placed after the comprehension items); specific questions will tap –students perceptions of the texts they read (e.g., difficulty; interest), and –students sense of self-efficacy in reading and completing the items following the passage (the task).

49 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 49 Design A counterbalanced stratified random assignment design will be used with experimental choice (C) groups that select reading passages for the assessment (design your own assessment) and control no choice (NC) groups that do not select passages

50 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 50 Design: Procedures Students in the experimental group are given choice (C) in selecting the passages they read in comparison to students in a control group who are not given choice in selecting passages (NC). –students in the (C) & (NC) condition read short descriptions for 6 informational-exposition and 6 literary-fiction passages; –they rate the passages according to interest; –students in the (C) condition select 2 passages from each genre to create their own personal assessment.

51 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 51 Design: Procedures cont. Post-assessment interviews will be conducted with subsets of students from the control and experimental groups at both grade levels. Students from the various disabilities groups as well as regular education students will be selected for interviews (16 students from 4th grade and 16 from 8th grade)

52 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 52 Analysis The dependent measure is comprehension performance (Y); factors include choice condition (choice/ no choice), disability status (youth with disabilities/ youth without disabilities) & text type (literary-fiction/informational- exposition) A split-plot design will be used with two between- subjects factors (A = passage choice & B = disability status), one within-subjects factor (C = text type), one blocking variable (S = subject), & one covariate (X = motivation as assessed on the MRQ) at the between- subject level; A, B, C, and X are fixed effects, and S is a random effect

53 Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment 53 Analysis cont. Analysis of variance will be used to evaluate various effects; correlations of students performance on the comprehension test & responses on the MRQ and situated motivation questions will be calculated Various analytic deduction approaches will also be used to analyze the post assessment interview data and a mixed-design approach will be used to integrate the overall quantitative and qualitative findings.


Download ppt "Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Item Characteristics, Student Characteristics, and Segmented Text Ross Moen December 7, 2007 NARAP GAC Partnership."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google