A Multistage Adaptive and Accessible Reading Assessment for Accountability
Download
1 / 27

A Multistage Adaptive and Accessible Reading Assessment for Accountability Cara Cahalan Laitusis - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 60 Views
  • Uploaded on

A Multistage Adaptive and Accessible Reading Assessment for Accountability Cara Cahalan Laitusis ETS. Branden Hart Teresa King* Skip Livingston Pavan Pillarisetti Kitty Sheehan Elizabeth Stone* Klaus Zechner. ETS Contributors. Linda Cook* Kelly Bruce Jennifer Dean Dan Eignor

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' A Multistage Adaptive and Accessible Reading Assessment for Accountability Cara Cahalan Laitusis' - ashton


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

A Multistage Adaptive and Accessible Reading Assessment for Accountability

Cara Cahalan Laitusis

ETS


Ets contributors

Branden Hart Accountability

Teresa King*

Skip Livingston

Pavan Pillarisetti

Kitty Sheehan

Elizabeth Stone*

Klaus Zechner

ETS Contributors

  • Linda Cook*

  • Kelly Bruce

  • Jennifer Dean

  • Dan Eignor

  • Lois Frankel

  • Gena Gourley

  • Eric Hansen


Dara goal 4
DARA Goal 4 Accountability

  • Field test a multi-stage component-based reading assessment.

    • Reduce number of students performing at “chance level”

    • Allow students to show what they know

    • Push instructional to include both comprehension and reading fluently for students with reading-based LD


Dara test design
DARA Test Design Accountability


Accessibility elements
Accessibility Elements Accountability

  • Students with disabilities included in pilot test

  • “Higher” interest passages selected based on student ratings

  • Single column question format (increased white space and reduced wrapping of text)

  • Included “context” sentence

  • Panel of disability experts reviewed items and made suggested revisions (simplified language)


Data collection design
Data Collection Design Accountability


Primary research questions
Primary Research Questions Accountability

  • For accountability purposes, is it possible to combine scores from the two different routes on the component test (i.e., average scores from Test 1 and Test 2)?

  • Is the Component test more accessible than the state assessment

    • Do RLD students do better on the Component test than the state assessment while students without disabilities (NLD) perform similarly on both assessments?


Other research questions
Other Research Questions Accountability

  • Can we reduce the number of students scoring at chance level?

  • Can we use automated scoring technology (SpeechRater) to score oral reading fluency measure?

  • Can we accurately route students based on 7, 14, 21, and 28 items?

  • What is the best measure of oral reading fluency?

  • How do we combine fluency and comprehension test scores (50/50, 25/75, 75/25)?


Sample
Sample Accountability

  • 8th Grade Students

  • 26 Middle Schools

  • 294 RLD (final sample=275)

  • 194 LP (not include in this presentation)

  • 500 Non-Disabled (final sample=486)


Description of sample by nld rld

Race, Gender, and cut score impact Accountability

Description of Sample by NLD/RLD




Primary research questions1
Primary Research Questions Accountability

  • For accountability purposes, is it possible to combine scores from the two different routes on the component test (i.e., average scores from Test 1 and Test 2)? YES

  • Is the Component test more accessible than the state assessment

    • Do RLD students do better on the Component test than the state assessment while students without disabilities (NLD) perform similarly on both assessments? YES, for Route 1




Fluency test human vs automated scoring

Can we use automated scoring technology (SpeechRater) to score oral reading fluency measure?

Fluency TestHuman vs. Automated Scoring


Future questions for study and policy
Future Questions score oral reading fluency measure?for Study and Policy

  • Q: What is the best measure of oral reading fluency?

    • Corrected words per minute in 1st minute

    • Words per minute, corrected words per minute, percent correct, rating

  • Q: How do we combine comprehension and fluency scores

    • 25% fluency + 75% comprehension

    • 50/50, 75/25


Contact information
Contact information score oral reading fluency measure?

Cara Cahalan Laitusis

Senior Research Scientist

Educational Testing Service

Mailstop 09R

Princeton, NJ 08541

[email protected]


Extra slides
Extra Slides score oral reading fluency measure?


Test score correlations route 1
Test Score Correlations: Route 1 score oral reading fluency measure?

NLD

RLD


Test score correlations route 2
Test Score Correlations: Route 2 score oral reading fluency measure?

NLD

RLD


ad