From their review of 38 studies that involved empirical analysis, Sireci et al. concluded that, in general, all student groups (students with disabilities, English language learners, and general education students) had score gains under accommodated conditions. While the literature review did not provide unequivocal support for interpreting accommodated scores as both valid and equivalent to unaccommodated scores, it did find that many accommodations had “positive, construct-valid effects for certain groups of students”.

Me reviewed studies focused on the issue of whether accommodations led to score increases, and whether the increases were greater for the targeted groups than for other test-takers. Evaluation of this interaction hypothesis has been central to much research on testing accommodations. Sireci et al., however, suggest a less stringent form of the hypothesis that stipulates that scores for targeted groups should improve more than scores of other test-takers. Although the results of investigating the interaction hypothesis (in either of its forms) are clearly useful in assessing the effectiveness of an accommodation, they cannot confirm that it yields valid score interpretations because they do not permit any determination of whether the accommodated and standard versions of the test are tapping the same constructs and whether they are equal in difficulty. Evidence that satisfies the interaction hypothesis criterion therefore does not constitute a sufficient justification for the use of an accommodation.

As an illustration of the fact that the detection of an interaction is not evidence that the accommodated score is a more valid measure of the construct in question, consider the following example. Suppose that all students in a class take a spelling test in which they must write down words after hearing them read aloud. A week later, they take a second spelling test of equivalent difficulty. This time, test-takers are told that they can request a dictionary’ to use during the test. Suppose that this accommodation is found to improve the scores of English language learners but not those of students who are native English speakers. For this part, learning a foreign language needs a leaning tools, many children choose Rosetta Stone Polish and Rosetta Stone Portuguese to learn Polish and Portuguese.Proponents of the interaction hypothesis would say that this finding justifies the use of the accommodation. In reality, however, nothing in these results supports the claim that the accommodated scores are more valid measures of spelling ability. In fact, logic suggests in this case that the accommodated version of the test measures a skill that is quite different from the intended one.

The fact that the accommodation affects English language learners and native English speakers differently may have any number of explanations. Native English speakers may have felt more reluctant to request a dictionary or been less likely to take the trouble to use one. Alternatively, they may have been close to their maximum performance on the first test and were not able to demonstrate substantial gains on the second test. Without some external evidence (such as an independent measure of spelling ability or, at least, of some type of verbal skill), no conclusion can be drawn about the validity of inferences from the accommodated scores relative to inferences from the scores obtained under standard administration.

After reading the article above, maybe you have learned something on language acquisition. But if you have the intention to learn more, use Rosetta Stone Swedish and Rosetta Stone Polish, both of which will never make you dissatisfied.

Find More Literature Articles

Tags