The effect of physical test format modifications

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The effect of physical test format modifications on the performance of third grade mildly handicapped and normal students
Physical Description:
x, 108 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Beattie, Susan, 1949-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Competency-based educational tests -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Children with disabilities -- Education (Elementary) -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1982.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 81-85).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Susan Beattie.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000319116
notis - ABU5967
oclc - 09304577
System ID:
AA00002181:00001

Full Text












EFFECT


PHYSICAL


TEST


FORMAT MODIFICATIONS


ON THE


PERFORMANCE


OF THIRD GRADE


AND NORMAL








BY

SUSAN B


MILDLY


STUDENTS


HANDICAPPED


EATTIE


A DISSERTATION


OF THE


OF THE


UNIVERSITY


REQUI REMENTS


PRESENTED


FLORIDA


DEGREE


GRADUATE


PARTIAL
F DOCTOR


COUNCIL


FULFILLMENT


PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY


FLORIDA


1982
















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Bliz


ard of


Buffalo,


York,


inflicted much


hard-


ship on many


area


citizens.


Fortunately,


a more


i ti ve


effect on


family


became


fundamental


impetus


for our moving


warm and


sunny


climate.


move


to Gainesville,


Florida,


brought several


wonderful


people


into


lives,


for which


we will


always


thankful


These


individuals


have


made


five


years


at the


university memorable,


some


will


have


an everlasting


effect on


future.


deepest


thank


so many,


especially


to my


chairman


Algo


zzine.


know


to love


him.


nai vete and


optimism are


refreshing


talent


awe i


nspiring,


personal i ty


enviable


Thank


personifying


profe


ssional


expert


standard


toward


which


we all


should


tri ve.


Your


friendship,


family


understanding,


are the


best


kindness


will


to Kate,


always


thanks


remembered


haring


with


us for so


long.


committee


members,


thank


your


support,


encourage-


ment,


tolerance.


special


thank


extended


Cathy Morsink.


wonderful


example


of how


a competent


talented woman











sense


of humor


When


life


becomes


difficult


we will


remember


"pulled


hamstrings"


, smile


forge


sincere


thanks


are al


extended


to those


individuals


provided


access


population


special


students


assi


data


coll


section.


Without


help


of Maryel en


Maher


, Rosalie


Boone,


Jani


Maureen


Gale


tudy would


have


never


come


fruition


Thank


from


bottom of my heart.


very wonderful


friend


, Gayl


McBride


Chip


Voorneveld,


could


never express


how mu


your caring and


concern


have


meant


are so special


appreciate


times


that


were


there


for me.


enormous


amount of


thanks


friend


world


best


typi


Cantara.


will


always


respe


t and admire


ability


high


standards.


to my


family


"thank


you"


seems


hardly


enough


done.


To my


parents


will


always


grateful


your


nstilling


philosophy


of "you


can do


anything you


your mind


gave me


strength


to endure


many


difficult


times.


son,


Matthew


thank


being


wonderful


baby


never


staying with


grandparents


hitters


, neighbors


friends


so that


could


tudy


write.


appreciate


love


so much.


Unfortunately


there


are no express


ions


thank


love


great enough


extend


v ..


best


friend


, my


love


..II. I


husband


John.


.... U


.


.


V


--










there.


Your


professional


expert


was invaluable


certainly


made my


road


easier


travel


Thank


coming


into


life


bringing


a happiness


very


people


are fortunate


enough


experience.


last


, but


definitely not


least


spec


thank


was responsible


for my


initially


undertaking


this


degree.


never


forget


you.















TABLE


CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


ABSTRACT


viii


CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


S. a 1


Current


Interest


in Minimum


Competency


Programs


. 2


Minimum


Competency


Education


Reaction


Framework


to Minimum


ting


Within a


Competency


Competency


testing


a S S S a a 5


Impact of MCT on

Test Modification


Handicapped


Individual


Competency


Testing


Statement of


Problem


S S S S S S S S S 51


Purpose

Related


Questions . . .


Limi stations . . .

Delimitations . . .

Definition of Terms . . .


Summary


CHAPTER


REVIEW


LITERATURE


Background .

Verified Test Modifications


S S S S S a a a a S S a S S

S S S S S S S S S S S S


Print


w w









Physical


Layout


Administration


..... 0. 26


0 0 0 0 .0. 0 0 0 .0 28


Answer


Format


. 0 0 0 0 0 0 29


.Unverified


Modification


Increased


Example/


kill


Ratio


Characteristic


Need


Handi capped


Individual


Current


Research


in MCT Modifications


Individual


Handicapped


tate


Research


tudie


Uni ver


Florida


Research


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40


umnary


S 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42


CHAPTER


METHODS


PROCEDURES


Method


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4


Experimental


Procedures


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 48


Material


. 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


getting


Variables


Hypotheses


Data Analy


Summary


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 *0


CHAPTER


RESULTS


0 0 0 054


CHAPTER


ION AND CONCLUSION


scuss


ion of


Findings


0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7


Test


Form Analyses


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 7


Category


Analy


..


A










Implications

Conclusions

REFERENCES


* S S S S

* S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

* S S S S S 5 0 S S S S S S S S S S


APPENDIX A


ELIGIBILITY


CRITERIA


PARENT


PERMIT


SS


SAMPLE


TEST


STANDARD


S S S S S 596


SAMPLE


TEST


--MODIFIED


MEAN


PERFORMANCE


CORE


CATEGORY,


RACE,


S S S S S S S S S S S S 0 5 5 S S S S S S S


BIOGRAPHICAL


SKETCH


S S S S 0 5 5 0












Abstra


ssertation


e University
Requirements


rese


Florida


nted


Degree


to the


Partial


Graduate


Fulfillment


Council


Doctor of Philosophy


EFFECT


PERFORMANCE


ICAL


TEST


FORMAT MODIFICATION


OF THIRD GRADE MILDLY


NORMAL


usan


Augu


HANDICAPPED


ON THE


STUDENT


Beattie

, 1982


Chairman


Major


Robert


Department


Algoz
special


Education


Test


are an


integral


part


educational


process.


view


of Public


Law 94-142,


Education


Handicapped


Children Act,


becomes


crucial


that diagnostic


instruments


are valid


ul tural ly


fair,


unbia


Caution mu


exerci


to i


nsure


that


targeted


results


behaviors


should


are the one


reflect cognitive


actually

ability


being


assessed.


individual


ability


an effort


to make


tests


fair


handicapped


populations


such


modification


as head


pointers,


braille


type,


alterations


admini


tudy,


tration


however


getting

been d


have


i rected


been


nstituted.


toward


mildly


Li ttle


handicapped


tematic

student


or phy


ical


test


item


format modifications.


current


tudy


investi-









modification


included


alterations


line


length


inclu


example


answer


use of boldface


bubble


type


arrangement


emphasis


items


, placement


a hierarchy


progressive


difficulty


Eighty


students


were


randomly


cted


from

ally


four


population


handicapped


normal


, learning


educable mentally


abled


retarded


(EMR)


emotion-

tudents.


students


were


matched


within


each


category


according


to reading


ability


then


randomly


assigned


either


modified


or the


tand-


test


group.


Data


were


analyzed


at a


level


i gni ficance


results


indicated


that


overall


total


test


scores


were


ignifi-


cantly


were


higher


no s


on the


significant


modified


differences


test


than


between


standard


test


form


test.


scores


There


four out


five modification


subtests.


Performance


scores


on the


example


subtest


however,


were


significantly


higher


on the


modified


version


than


on the


standard


test


version.


Performance


scores


emotion-


ally


handicapped


student


were


tati


tically


similar


as were


scores


normal


students.


students


consi


tently


scored


lower


than


other


categories


students.


post


analysis


mndi


ated


that modifications


physical


test


format may


have


some


merit


in mastery


level


situation


Mean


performance


scores


on the


modified


test


surpas


sed ma


stery


criteria


percent of


subskill


section


failed


students


taking


(LD)


(EH),


J









modification


handicapped


appeared


students


have


than


a greater


on that


effect


normal


on the


student


performance


Continued


research


area


f minimum competency


test modifications


appears


warranted.
















CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


Ameri ca


spends


billion


annually


on education,


admin-


sisters


over


50 million


tests.


result


such


enormous


expen-


diture


time


money,


one may


assume


that America


a fully


literate


society.


Unfortunately


appear


untrue.


congressional


youths


survey


are functional


revealed


that


ill iterates


percent


(Pabian,


-year


1979)


Another


-old


survey


public


1973


Department of Health


Education,


Wel fare


(HEW)


supported


these


data


tated


that


an estimated


one million


American


youths


between


ages


can not


read


at a


fourth


grade


level


can therefore


labeled


illiterate


(cited


McClung


1977).


eldyke


Algo


zzine


(198


cited


Copperman


report


that


America


academic


performance


standards


have


shown


a marked


decline


since


mid-


1960


Today


average
about a


college


current


eighth
seventh


well a
e admi


high


average


(Copperman,


grader
grader


Ls the
ssion


school
high


1978,


read


average
s tests
graduate


school


appro
ten y


ixth


only


imately


as well


ears


grader of


about


attain


graduate


computes


period


that


a quarter


level


early


recorded


1960


. 15)


,


w










reported


that


"there


growing


evidence


that


shifts


policy,


expectation


behavior within


school


themselves


have


contrib-


uted


documented


decline


writing


kill


aptitude


test


S co res


" (Berry,


1979,


. 167)


performance


level


school


been


attributed


to the


amount


on task


learning


time


According


to Berry


(1979)


students


tend


to be


on task


appro


ximately


only


percent of


tructional


. Th


impact


tati


percent of


magni field


total


school


when


one real i


actually


that


devoted


only


to 1


60-70


warning.


addition


enrolled


there


core


appears


academic


a decline


subjects


number


increase


students


number of


optional


courses


available


erry,


1979


Copperman,


1978)


Public


appear


critic


rigid


justified


students


surveillance


graduate


our school


after


would


year


education


are truly


unable


read


write.


Even


with


acknowledge-


ment


that


there


are other


variable


as home


, family


community


in fl uence


that


contribute


an individual


achievement


potential,


it would


appear


that


our


school


must


till


assume


primary


respon


ibility


graduating


illiterates


(Pinkney,


1979)


Current


Interest


Minimum


Competency


Programs


Educator


admini


strators


, legal


consul tants


, parents,










the gradual


decline


hola


Aptitude


Test


(SAT)


scores


(Copperman,


1978)


rece


litigation


courts


(Donohue


Copiague


Union


Free


school


trict,


1978


Peter W


Franci


Unified


hool


trict,


1976)


an effort


to reduce


illiteracy


tati


eliminate


ibility


members


future


communi ty


litigation


have


many


focused


educators


attention


concerned


on minimum


competency

component


component of


programs.


drawn t

the more


Al though

he most a

global c


the minimum


attention

concept of


competency


ting


(MCT)


recently,


competency


based


education


(CBE).


Minimum


Based


Comp


etency


Education


testing


Framework


Within


A Competency


Competency


education


(CBE)


comprised


five major


com-


ponents.


They


include


establi


hment


educational


objectives


development of


instructional


process


Cc)


competency


ting,


pro vi


remedial


instruction,


program evaluation


reconceptuali


action


(Watt


, 1979)


ugge


that


five


components


interdependent


incorporation


t one


component


wouldtbe punitive


student.


Educator


advocate


competency


based


education


foresee


process


that


will


ensure


acqui


ition


fundamental


knowl edge.


They


contend


that


attainment


standard


set of


kill










system.


Poss


ibly


competency


based education


could


facilitate


America


effort


to reestabli


priority


high


esteem of


educational


tern.


curri


ulum objectives


tructional


process


within


are means


ured


competency


testing


scores


competency te


criterion-


referenced


and measure


student


performance


relative


specified


set of


behaviors.


They


differ


from


norm-referenced


ests


that


they


compare


student


performance


an establi


standard.


Norm


referenced


tests


criminate


between


individual


whereas


criterion


referenced


tests


can be


regarded


as the


best


mndi


cation


of what


being


taught


room


(Denninger


, 1979)


testing


tingui


those


students


need


additional


remedial


instruction


also


provides


teac


hers


admini


strators


with


feedback


on the


effe


tiveness


f the


teaching method


being


employed


appropriateness


program.


goal


competency


testing


improve


programs


not to


fail


students


, point an


accusing


finger


students


or teacher


withhold


how well


diploma


student


Instead,


prepared


allows


to move


school


from


personnel


grade


to document


to grade


asce


rtain


those


specific


kill


high


school


graduate


brings


our working


society


contrast


current


trend


where


only requirement


graduation


time


spent


school


completion


an establi


hed number


courses.










According


Popham


(1981)


nearly


states


have


established minimum


competency


testing


programs


covering


basic


skill


reading,


writing,


and mathematics


Seventeen


those


states


have


also


establi


competency


testing


as a


requ irement


high


school


graduation


(Neill,


1979).


Reaction


Minimum


Competency


testingg


itive effects.


According


Popham


(1981)


there


are s


several


positive


attributes


to the


program


Pinkney


(1979)


identified


itive


character


specific c


Florida


program;


Both


student


teachers


have


been


provided


with


list


exactly which


kill


are to


mastered


students


a time-


table


accompli


hing


these


objectives.


Ideally,


basic


kill


criteria a


teachers,


are decided


admini


upon


trators,


diverse


professor


group


, parents,


individual


employers,


including


other


profess


ionals.


There


been


a renewed


interest


n learning


school


Cognitive


devel opment


returned


primary


justification


the exi


tence


school


uppl ementary


frill


have


been


minimized


educating,


children


become


highest priority.


program


created


a new awareness


among


parents


regard


their


children


s education


real


zation


that


their


children will


requi red


to demon


trate


mastery


basic


kill










There


been


a reorganization


greater


utilization


human


resources


throughout


state


based


on the


needs


student.


pecificity


efficiency


purpose


performance


contributed


f teaching


personnel


greater


Program


planning


education


procedures


establi


admini


strators


have


hown


marked


improvements.


tandardized


measure


students


against


students


contrast,


measures


mastery


kills.


character


can be


used


regroup


students


skill


level


rather


than


age,


permit


report


student


card


learn


based


at h


/her own


on continuums,


pace.


allow


executed with


each


caution,


these


changes


could


essen


student


feeling


failure


enhance


chance


success.


Pabian


(1979)


noted


that


early


quality


teaching


urban


ghetto


was relatively


low,


with


percent


high


school


graduate


being


ssified


functional


illiterates.


Pygmalion


effect


dominated


teachers


rving


students


having


difficulty


learning


academic


attributed


difficulty


socio-


economic


factors


topped


trying


teach


impossible


Pinkney


(1979)


feel


program


Florida


counteracted


Pygmalion


effect.


He maintains


that


teachers


expectation


level


students


increased


that


students


are working


harder


to learn.


Negative


effects.


other


hand


there


are educators










negative


issues


which


surround


included


following


discuss


There


a fear


that minimum


compete


become


maximum competence


Critic


infer


that


advanced


courses


as Calculu


Chemi


stry,


Literature,


World


tory may


eventually


eliminated


from


school


curriculum.


There


concern


that a


concentrated


emphasis


on basic


academic


kill


reduce


intere


other


sciplines,


such


music,


art,


ical


education.


There


also may


negative


tigma


associated


with


those


students


requiring


remedial


asses


. As


consequence


some


opponents


of MCT


fear


students


become


courage


at the


prospect


failing


choose


to drop


out of


school.


Some


educator


fear


there will


an abu


use of


test


results


Improper


use of


scores


can s


egregate


group


students,


contribute


poor


self


-concepts,


as a


barrier


future


employment.


Other


individual


are concerned


that


movement


been


implemented


too quickly


without nece


ssary


precautions.


McClung


(1977),


an education


cons


ultant


taff


attorney


Center


Education,


Inc.,


several


legal


educational


issues


that may


hazardous


to both


students


school


These


issues


include


potential


racial dis


crimi nation,


remediation










period,


as a


requirement


for graduation,


negligence


sues.


McClung


esses


fact


that


these


issues


are merely


potential


problems


that warrant


further


inspection


cons


idera-


tion


pol i


y makers.


Impact of MCT


on Handicapped


Individual


hand capped


individual


protect


from


unfair


criminatory


practice


Federal


Constitution,


various


statutes,


regulation


Fourteenth


Amendment


titution


guarantees


individual


equal


protection


Section


504 of


Vocational


Rehabilitation


Act of


1973


. 93-


prohibits


crimi nation,


denial


nefits,


or the exclu


a handicapped


person


from an


educational


program or opportunity


solely


on the


handicap.


handicapped


individual


also


pro-


tected


from


unfair


educational


tices


, especially with


regard


assessment,


provi


Public


142,


Education


Handicapped


Children


1975


(Abeson


ttel,


1977)


These


provide


fundamental


basi


that


ensures


right of


handicapped


student


participate


/her maximum


ability


in any


and all


educational


program


approach a


tate


adopt


accommodate


handicapped


student


in MCT


must


fulfill


requirement


ting


legi


lation.


McClung


Pullin


(1978)


state


there


are four


areas


legal


*MI mAwS~L


rflnra n +n.+n ,w64. n. -f.m 4 n J .a- a..


~.,~:,,,,,~


AA~lll~lr: A IYI


1H


*A


rC










individual


standards,


determinations,


differential


differential


assessment


diplomas


procedures


Exemption


handicapped


students.


extent


handi


capped


students


should


requi red


held


exempt


from)


competency


test


as a


prerequi


high


school


diploma


important


concern


area


of MCT


National


ociation


tate


Directors


special


Education


(1979)


indicated


that


state


currently


requi ring


competency


testing


prior


high


school


graduation,


require


or selected


categories


handicapped


students


take


pecifi


the competency


police


remaining


regarding


handicapped


states


student.


have


These


results


(1980)


are congruent


that


with


the majority of


survey


states


finding


have


Smith


establi


Jenkin


or finalized"


their


position


regarding


usion


or exclusion


of handicapped


students


from


programs


Ewing


(1979)


refers


to 1


class


ification


handicapped


individual


peech


impaired,


mentally


retard


, deaf,


hard


of hear-


ing,


ually


handi


capped,


eriou


y emotionally


turbed,


ortho-


pedically


impaired


other


health


impaired


deaf-blind


mul ti


-handicapped,


learning


disabled)


indicates


that


"heterogeneity


handicapped


population


prohibits


reas


enable


expe


station


that handicapped


students


either


ystematical ly


included


or exc


luded


from competency


test


requirements"


. 115)


For example


it would










confinement


wheel chair,


realistic


fair


exempt


profoundly


retarded


individual.


Individualized


determination


would


appear


that


no uniform


approach


hand capped


children would


equitable when


types


severity


hand


apping


condition


considered


(Denninger


, 1979;


Ewing,


1979; McClung


Pullin,


1978)


example,


attempt


establ i


general


policy


that


would


equitable e


both


mi dly


peech


impaired


student and


eriou


y emotionally


turbed


indivi-


dual


would


appear


impo


ssibl


consequence


it would


seem most


appropriate


that


deci


regarding


student


participation


in MCT


programs


be made on


an individual


handicapped


students,


however,


they


houl d


have


desire,


opportunity


school


participate


that


fails


the MCT


to provide


program


that


option may


violation of


(McClung,


1979)


process


individualized


an opportunity


become m


determination

ore aware of


also


the wide


provide


range of


educators

ability


with

and


achievement


level


within


handi


capped


population.


Differential


diplomas


standard


Another


ssue


affecting


handicapped


population


awarding


f differential


diploma


the e


tabl i


terizes


hment of


diff


rental


differential


diploma


standard


as being


McClung


tingui


(1979)


able


charac-


color


shape


, or wording


from a


standard


diploma.


Differential


standard


are usually


tringent


than


standard


required


rnonk


. The










decide


handicapped


which


three gen


student.


Some


approach


handicapped


would


student


best


will


each


have


problems


complying with


standard


procedure


obtaining


standard


diploma


Other


students


need


differential


standard


order


earn a


standard


diploma.


could


accomplished


using


student


Individualized


Education


Plan


(IEP)


design-


a modified


comp


tency


program


that


would


meet


special


need


capability


student.


Other


students may


so severely


handicapped


that


differential


diplomas


differential


standard


would


the most appropriate


alternative.


These


three option


assure


handicapped


individual


property


right


obtaining


the most appropriate diploma.


This


becomes


critical


light of


Smith


Jenkins


' (1980)


warning


that


ssuance


differential


diploma


or certificate


attendance


could


become


source of


tj gma


handicapped


individual


According


Department of


Labor


report,


high


school


diploma


required


entry


into


virtually


(Safer,


1980).


Differential


assessment


procedures.


final


issue


reaching


implication


not only


success


the minimum competency


testing movement,


educational


principles


legal


equality


definition,


Many mildly


difficulty


handicapped


taking


individual


tandardi


have,


almo


ts (Smith


Jenkin


1980)


w can s


school


rsonnel


ctiv


ly mea


sure


level


of knowledge











handicapping


condition


(Gearheart


& Willenberg,


1974


, Gearheart


, & Gearheart,


1978


McCarthy


, 1980;


Salvia


sseldyke,


1978)


For example,


traditionally most


competency


testing


programs


have


been


restricted


paper


pencil


tests.


Educators


must


able


to verify


that


type


assessment


accurately measures


competence


being


taught


fulfill


standard


test


reliability


validity


Otherwi


becomes


legal


responsibility


policy makers


eliminate


potential


crimi nation


against


handicapped


individual


devi


differ-


ential


assessment


procedure


t Modification


Competency


Testing


Research


limited


concerning


nature.


test modification


In addition


appears


paucity


to be


data


relative


studies,


there


also


been a


tendency


narrowly


restrict


target


popula-


tion


adults,


ually


impaired


physically


handicapped.


Traditional


t modification


hese


students


have


been


braille or


enlarged


print,


use of


head


pointer,


or an aide


to transcribe


answers.


est modification


the mildly


handicapped


student


have


typically


been


"procedural"


or environmental


nature.


Example


uch modifications


include


reduction


group


change


admini


trati ve


setting,


or a


waiver of


time


limit


Resear


a .


*- _


..


.. I I r


1


1 .


,











Florida.


Examples


such modification


include


print


ize,


audio


support,


grouping


test


i tems


progre


ssive


hierarchy,


methods


recording


answers


, adaptation


line


length,


inclusion


example


, and


real


representations.


Statement


Problem


There


is much


controver


y regarding


the educational


practice of


minimum competency


ti ng.


Frequently


debated


issues


normal


student


include


legal


ramifications,


minority


right


, comparability


curricula,


implementation


procedures


handicapped


learners,


however,


there


are additional


problems


that may


take


precedence


over


these


issues.


performance of


handicapped


non-handicapped


student


will


likely


be different


assumed


that


difference


students


' handicap


circumstances


sting.


However,


failure


cons


ider


possible


sources


performance


differences


(other


than


student abilities)


be a


major


source of


assess-


ment.


Such


factors


as inappropriate


cons


truction


or item


election,


as well


poor


as problems


performance of


the general


ting


exceptional


procedures,


child


contribute


inaccurate


assess-


ment of hi


/her


fundamental


content


know edge.


Purpose


purpose


tudy was


investigate


effect


w










emotional ly


handicapped)


normal


students.


The effects


five modification


were measured


within


three


groups


of mildly


handicapped


students


one group


nonhandicapped


learners.


independent


variabi


tudy were


type


stud


type.


students


were


character


as normal


, learning


abled


emotionally


handicapped


(EH)


or educable mentally


retarded


(EMR)


criteria


used


termination of


such


mildly


handi


capping


conditions


as LD,


EMR are


in Appendix A


Tests


comprised


standard


and modified


formats


were


used


the modifications


included


the grouping


similar


items


hierarchy


progre


ssive


difficulty,


arrangement of


line


length


unju


tified manner,


introduction


exampi


direction


each


kill


change


, (d)


placement of


answer


bubbles


right of


The dependent


each


foil


use of boldface


variable


tudy was


type


score


emphasis.


indi


eating


student


performance


on the


total


test


or selected


items.


Related


tions


This


test con


tudy was


stru


designed


tion modifications


inve


tigate


on the


the effect


rformanc


ical


selected


lemen-


tary


school


aged


children.


peci fi


ally,


following


ques


tion


were


addre


sed:


. What


effect


test


item modification


have on


total


fltttCjttqbflyjMh,~i~ ,~.t .n4 1 ~J1 .. 4j "I


L


+nr


4-


(LD),


,


,,..,,~


A'A


r^











What


effect


unjustified


line


length


have


on the


test


performance of


mildly


handicapped


children


performance


normal


children


. What


effect


does


introduction


f exampi


direction


each


new s


kill


change


have


on the


test performance


of mildly


hand capped


children


performance


normal


children


What


effect


does


placement


answer


bubble


to th


right


foil


have on


test


performance


of mildly


handicapped


children


performance


f normal


children?


What


effect


does


use o


boldface


type


have


on test


performance of


mildly


handicapped


children


performance


normal


children


Limitations


tudy


incl uded


third


grade mildly


handicapped


regular


classroom


students


from Alachua


County


Orange


County


school


teams


north


-central


central


Florida,


respectively


handicapped

educable me


students


ntally


were


retarded


identi field


(EMR)


learning


emotionally


disabled (LD

handicapped


),


(EH)


according


Education


regulation


Appendix


Florida


result


State


f variation


Department


identifi-


cation


criteria a


between


tate


handicapped


students


this


tudy


not be


representative


other


handicapped


students


throughout












Delimitation


delimitation


grade


this


student


tudy


county


included


regulations


use of


criteria a


third


that


were


used


to identify


class


randomly


selected


sample


normal


handicapped


EMR)


student


Additional


delimitations


elementary


were


public


that


school


participant


from


citi


were


enrolled


Gaine


cted


ville


Orlando,


Florida.


Gaine


ville


school


included


Duval,


tephen


foster ,


Lake


Forest,


Prairie


View


Rawlings


Archer,


hell,


'and


Metcal fe


elementary


school


Participating


school


from


city


of Orlando


Cherokee


were


Fern


Pine


Creek,


Hill


Lake


, Ridgewood


Como,


Park


Chickasaw,


Hiawassee


Eccl


eston,


, Blankner,


Lake


Weston.


cities


Gainesville


Orlando


are located


Alachua


County


and Orange


County,


respectively


sample


population


representative


specifically north


southea


-central


tern


region


central


United


Florida.


A final


states


del imi ta-


tion


study was


measuring a


limited


that


sample


test


was a


behaviors


paper


These


pencil


behaviors


included


knowledge


fraction


means


urement,


coin


value,


picture


sequen-


alphabetical


ordering


and math


word


problems


example


subtest;


reading


comprehen


(not,


end,


pronoun


word


oppo


ites,


:











subtraction


ingle


two digit


numbers


hierarchy


subtest;


reading


comprehend


ion,


money word


problems,


number


word


problems


altered


line


length


subtest


Definition


of Terms


Boldface


type


darkened


print


that


draws


attention


itself


can be


used


items


requ hiring


additional


emphasis


educable


mentally


retarded


(EMR)


student


one who


mildly


impaired


development


intellectual


reflects


a reduced


adaptive


rate


behavior


of learning.


whose


measured


intelligence


an educable


mentally


retarded


student


generally


falls


between


three


standard


deviations


below


mean


assesse


adaptive


behavior


fall


below


cultural


expectations


(Florida


Department of


Education,


1979).


The emotionally


handicapped


(EH)


student


who,


after


receiv-


supportive


educational


assi


stance


counseling


services


available


students,


till


exhibits


persi


tent


consi


tent


severe


behavioral


disabilities


which


conse


quently


disrupt


student


learning


cess.


student


whose


inability


to achieve


adequate


academic


progress


or s


factory


interpersonal


relation-


cannot


attributed


primarily


to physical


sensory,


intellectual


deficit


(Florida


Department


Education


, 1979)


Inn1 .I-.-a.Hjn a t -n


It n\


#'1


~lrlh~


~,,~,,,


A YL A


SIR*


1


dpI











talking,


writing,


spelling,


or arithmetic.


They


include


learning


problems


which


are primarily


, hearing,


motor

or to


handicaps,


to mental


an environmental


retardation,


deprivation


to emotional


(Florida


Department


turbance,


of Education,


1979)


normal


student


one who


appears


functioning within


normal


limits


classroom


not eligible


additional


educational


services.


Unju


tified


line


are created


arrangement


type


uniform


spacing


so that


lines


are set according


to their natural


length.


opposed


to justifi


line


length


where


alterations


pacing


cause


every


line


at the


same


stance


from


right


-hand edge


paper


Justi field


lines


are traditionally


found


textbook


, newspapers,


magazines.


Summary


testing


appears


to be


an i


nescapable


phenomenon


today


educa-


tional


system.


Each


year over


50 million


tandardi


tests


admini


Algozz


tered


ine,


America


1982).


44 million


itive


school


benefit


children


gained


Ysse


from


Idyke


ting


include


provi


f additional


educational


support


services,


appro-


private


educational


placement,


curriculum modification


- a S


- S a


*


.. r


.r


*











response


format.


instances


test


results


accurately


represent


child


cognitive


proficiency


various


skill


areas


instead,


they may


repre


sent


inability


to handle


"standard"


timulus-response


purpose


ting


tudy was


format.


investigate


effect


physical


test


format modifications


on the


performance


of mildly


handicapped


(LD,


, EMR)


normal


student


third


grade.


modi fi cation


included


alterations


line


length,


grouping


similar


items


hierarchy


progress


difficulty,


an increased


ratio of


example


skill


change


placement of


answer


bubbles


use of


boldface


type


for emphasis


was anticipated


that


these


test modifications


would


result


differential


performance


scores.















CHAPTER


REVIEW


LITERATURE


following


literature


review


examines


nature


extent


current


knowledge


concerning


test modification


normal


and mildly


handicapped


(LD,


EMR,


population


specifically


ment of


addre


similar


sses


items


in a


print,


line


hierarchy


length,


progress


arrange-


ive difficulty,


ical


layout


(workspace,


cell


page)


admini


tration


(direction


increased


ratio


example e


kill


change),


answer


format


(separate


answer


heet,


answer


bubble


placement)


review of


current


modification


research


character


the

tic


area


need


of minimum


competency


handicapped


individual


included


Background


Information


review was


obtained


from


several


sources.


These


included


an ERIC


earch,


examination


f the


Current


Index


Journal


Education


(CIJE),


examination


Educational


Index.


riptor


utilized


ERIC


each










"testing the


handicapped,


" "learning


disabilities


(LD),


" "emotion-


ally


handicapped


(Ei),


" educablee


mentally


retarded


(EMR)


" "minimum


competency


ting,


" "reading achievement


" and


"print/type


Additional


sources


included


ssertation


stracts


International


card


catalog


system


Univer


Florida


library


(for


textbooks


on print


typography)


review


literature


revealed


that


area


physi


test


format modifications


, specifically


i gned


elementary mildly


handicapped


sample


children,


population


received


studied


little


attention


varied


researcher


students


(elemen-


tary,


secondary


college,


adult),


handicap


(normal


individual


ually


impaired,


, EMR),


degree


handicap


severe,


moderate,


and mild)


paucity


research


material


specific


type


educational


handicap


election


ri terion


inclusion


literature


review was


very


broad.


A deci


made


include


access


ible


information


regarding


test


cons


truction


principle


their


application.


information,


restricted


neither


handicap,


was collected


from


data


based


research,


survey


tudie


, authority


based


good


practi


expert


opinion.


Therefore


'literature


each


t modification


does


always


address


targeted


population


current


tudy.


fact


test modifi


action


f increa


ratio


example


skill


change


was not even


addressed


literature


Conse


quently,


tudie


v v


v


w











can be


category


as verified


are (a)


print


(boldface),


line


length,


item grouping,


(direction


answer


ical


format


layout,


booklet


admini


response


tration


answer


bubble


ement)


The one modification


that mu


assified


as unverified


increased


ratio


f exampi


kill


change.


rified


est Modifications


Print


relation


process


reading,


print


regarded


crucial


element


(Fonda


1968


Syke


1971


Tinker


, 1963a)


. Fonda


(1968)


ink,


tated


that


contrast of


actors


white


non-gl


as s


ossy


tyle of


paper


print,


ink,


blackness


appropriate


illumination


ilitate


reading.


Tinker


(1963b)


used


these


same


features


define


ability.


tated


that


ability was


affected


combination


brightness


paper,


darkness


ink,


thickness


trokes


letter


noted


that an


increase


ibility


can make


type


appear


larger


Accordi ng


toS


(1969)


(1971)


legibility


print


controlled


character


as quality,


, weight,


pacing.


Erdmann and


Neal


(1968)


tated


that


legibility


increases


with


height


resolution


character.


sence


serif


(the


horizontal


vertical


strokes


that are


attack


to the


- t


..


..


m










There


use o


Tinker


appears


upper


(1963a)


to be


lower


Craig


general


case


(1971)


consensus


letter


among


, italics


recommended


expert


regarding


boldface


use of


bol dfac


type.


type


as an effective mean


emphasis


zing


an important concept


or word,


or for drawing


attention


critical


element.


use of


lower


case


letters


preferred


upper


case


or italic


since


lower


case


can be


read more


quickly


(Tinker


Patter


1928


Tinker


, 1963a)


and more


easily


(Craig,


1971)


Craig


(1971)


contended


that


lower-


case


letters


facilitate


cess


reading


presence


greater


reader


cues.


receives more d


can be


seen


coding


pl i tting


from


lowercase


word


rhairl


horizontally


than


upperca


e WPHA.R


Sawyer


(1975)


ugge


that word


not be


typed


capital


(uppercase


better


Tinker


(1963a)


reported


that


capital


italic


retarded


speed


reading


Length


According


Tinker


(1963b)


normal


line width


character


although


vary


depending


on different


type


(Craig,


1971)


Line


length


an important effe


ct on


reading.


Lines


that are


hort can


break


phrases


logical


thought


unit


(Craig,


1971)


other


hand


, there


are also


disadvantage


line


that are


long.


excess


ively


long


lines


make


it diffi


to find


beginning


line


(Tinker,


1963a)


long


lines


r~n alrt% n d- fl I' r..~- 4~. men~


IC% 4~*. -VI Sn


Ir


1 n71\


A*


1










are usually


found


newspaper


magazines


books.


Para-


graph


with


tified


ngth


appro


ximate


with


parallel


sides.


pri nter


altering


pacing


are able


between


create


individual


even


letter


appearance


and word


Craig


(1971),


however


suggested


that


equal


pacing


between


words


create


greater


legibility.


equal


pacing


create


uneven


or "unju


tified"


line


length


lines


take on


a jagged


effect.


jagged


effect


texture,


adds


sual


intere


to the


page,


contribute


the ease of


reading,


reduce


difficulty of


locating


beginning


next


line


(Craig,


1971)


ults


tudy


hard


Reid


(1970)


indicated


that


retarded


children


demon


treated


increa


reading


rate


improved


reading


comprehen-


sion


scores


on reading


passage


that


were


unjustified


lines


with


double


paced


ading


, space


between


lines


print)


Leading


the amount of


white


space


between


line


f print.


another


factor


that


can alter


effectiveness


line


ngth


little


or too much


pacing


can be


distracting.


Craig


(1971)


tated


that


too much


leading


can cause


e a. drifting effect and


type


takes


grayish


cast


opposed


true


black)


. He


recommended


that


lead-


between


lines


be greater


than


pacing


between


individual


word


Appropriate


leading


also


response


ible


increa


ibility


on a


poor


page when

(Tinker,


paper


brightness


or the


reading


light


1963b)










there


leading


are certain


necessary


character


felt


that


that more


regulate


leading


amount


was needed with


letters


large


heights,


letter


trong


vertical


tress,


sans


serif


type


as oppo


serif


type,


longer


lines


very


small


type.


I tem Grouping


There


some


controversy


literature


(involving


normal


individual


with


regard


the grouping


like


items


presentation of


such


i teams


hi erarchy


progress


ive difficulty


Brenner


(1964),


irotnik


Wellington


(1974),


Marso


(1970)


ested


that


crambl ing


test


items


no effect on


test


scores


normal


individual


grade


college)


Holliday


Partridge


(1979)


Flaugher,


Mel ton,


and Meyer


(1968),


however,


ested


that


hierarchy


items


progress


from ea


hard


(rather


than


random or


descending


order)


improve


test


scores


normal


second


high


graders


school


high


students


school


Flaugher


students.


Melton,


tudy


and Meyers


5,000


(1968)


normal


supported


idea


that


reordering


test


item


does


create


There


appeared


no empirical


data


available


concerning


effect of


that


item


handicapped


grouping


on handicapped


children would


benefit t


students.


from


eemed,


grouping


however,


similar


i teams


Grouping


similar


items


would


i teams


within on


particular


LI itl


rq~ r U PU -,.


rnnc


tonrv


rniuil


il iminmto


-h rnnfsi


H


.


.


f' I i I


a


. man


IIII


. x


I











Ordering


items


from ea


lest


to most


difficult would


also


appear


there


help


no assurance


handicapped


an EMR or


student.


child


When

will


items are scrambled,

continue Dast the


difficult t


item


until


reaches


another


item


know


Educationally


handicapped


student


become


frustrated


with


difficult


problem


abandon


rest of


items.


combining


these


features,


grouping


ordering,


test


could


logical


reinforcing


handicapped


child.


discouragement a


child may


feel


as he


reaches


limit of


ability


on one


kill


could


counter


-balanced


successful


accompli


hment on


the easier


f the


next


kill


Physical


Layout


Cells


page.


since


educationally


handicapped


children


often


demonstrate


optimally


perception


be character


problem


limited


educational


well


materials


organized


should


timulus.


order


create


clean


uncluttered


page,


problems


enclosed within


cell


or box.


Cell


can be


created


extending


horizontal


lines


across


page


placing


vertical


line


down


center of


each


page.


These


line


create


well


balanced


page


that


resembles


ample


(Figure


Cell


other


tests


are incons


tent


ize due


t page


randomly


resemble e


placed


Sample


hori


ontal


(Figure


lines.


Os


example,


an imbalanced


some


page


be di


tracti ng


promote


confu


handicapped


child


1~-. L -


I, n i' ~L -. -I- ~ --.


Ir nnn\


1


A


- A


I -




























Sampl e


Well


Balanced


Page











Workspace.


There


also


limited


research


available


on thi


topic.


Provi


ion of workspace


(for math


reading


word


problems)


was investigated


in a


tudy


Major


Micha


(1975)


Their


research


indicated


that children


seventh


grade


cored


higher on


test


work


that


provided workspace.


pace may


tematically


Handicapped


logi


learners


ally work math


provided


with


reading


word


problems


rather


than


guess


answer


success


work


pace modification would


effectiveness


in encouraging


close


associated with


persuading


students


teacher


utili


the workspace.


Administration


Directions


procedures


Tests


often


require


children


read


comprehend


written


direction


independently


. Thi


assumes


that all


children


have


ability


to do


initial


can then


proceed


individual


test


items.


Unfortunately,


erroneous

readers d


assumption


emons tra te


for many


their


hand


cognitive


apped


individual


proficiency


can poor


on other


tasks


when


they


are unabi


decod


information


provided


direction


Consequently,


become critical


t direction


elements


general


assessment


admini


tration


process


procedure


esse


ntial


that


tests


are an


accurate measurement of


child


cognitive


ability


not of hi


ability


respond


test


format.


B -


.t, a. a iA~tan a.S I~s~ C I 2 --A---


-1 J.2 *.-


. n


mJ


Irur ri


RI1 k


r


k L


A LAA











task


are not attempting


task


that


unclear


attempt


to mea


sure


kill


ability


read,


procedure


York


(Clift,


1979)


, Virginia,


North


Carolina


1981


allow the math


read ng


section


the minimum


competency


test


to be


read


some


handicapped


students


while


Florida


allows


only


math and


writing


portion


read


handicapped


student


(Florida


Statute


.246


S 1979)


In addition


problems


decoding


direction


some


handicapped


students


also


Brannigan,


exhibit problem


Penner


(1978)


attention.


direction


tudy


were modified


Margolis,


children


who were


labeled


impul


ive.


t admini


strator


read


example


orally,


presented


logic


behind


choo


sing


correct


answer


estigators


examine


were


success


deliberately


teaching


logically


children


instead


reacting


new and


uncertain


i tuation


their


traditionally


habitual


impul


ive manner,


children


began


solve


tasks


ystematical ly


rationally.


Answer


Format


Within


booklet


response.


veral


tudi


support


pro-


cedure of


having


students


answer


directly


their


answer


booklet as


opposed


transferring


answers


separate


answer


heet.


Muller,


Calhoun,


Orling


(197


suggested


that


transfer


answers


a .- .- -* S I


L -- -


A =


-


SI


r I Ir


I i


~ I I 1


A










their


booklets


ratio


than on a


separate


answer


heet.


heets


Gaffney


were


Magui re


invalid


(1971)


use with


tated


normal


that


children


separate


answer


below fifth


grade.


Other


results


supporting


use o


f direct


response


test


booklet


were


stated


seyer


(1969)


normal


children


in grades


(1974)


with


normal


children


grades


, Majors


Clark


and Mi


hael


(1968)


(1975)


learner


normal


, and


seventh


Greenberg


eighth graders,


(1980)


handicapped


(EH,


EMR)


fourth


graders.


Placement


answer


bubble


since


literature


appeared


support


procedure of


marking


answers


within


individual


test


booklets


the answer


tudi


bubbi


that


pertained


were of


interest


to the most


Only


effect ve


one report wa


placement


available


on the phy


ical


arrangement


answers.


Hartley


Davi


Burnhill


(1977)


compared


four


answer


forms


that


varied


placement of


bubbles


left or


right


answers.


results


indicated


that


normal


year


children


demonstrated


no s


significant


preference


particular


placement.


tudi


were


found


that


investigated


handicapped


population.


Theoretically,


when


answer


bubbi


are po


itioned


on the


left,


following


perc


ptual


errors


occur within


an elementary


hand


capped


(right


(EMR,


left)


, LD)


population:


across


number


reversal


fill


when


bubble,


child moves


he may











bubbles


Moving


presented,


bubbles


fist/fingers


right


covering


answer may


answers.


promote


left


to right


reading


sequence


and avoid


accidental


mistakes


that occur while


filling


bubbles.


Unverified


Increa


Modification;


Example/Skill


Ratio


There


appeared


to be


no s


studies


available


that


discussed


value


f example


or their effect


on children


performance.


What


purpose


example


they


facilitate


comprehension


f direction


completion


Hypothetically,


it would


seem


that


difficulty of


test


would d


increase


as the


number of


example


decrea


sed.


ts with


example


examples


question


or 2


kill


changes)


measuring


handicapped


child


ability


to read


directions


respond


changes


independently,


rather


than


assess


true


cogni


tive


abilities


on those


particular


kill


would d


appear


that a


modi field


test


which


increased


rati o


example


relative


introduction


each


skill


change,


i ti ve


change


Implementation


theory would


provide


educational ly


handi-


capped


child with


directions


sample


problem


prior


each


series


tasks.











Characters ti


Needs


Handicapped


Individual


diagnosis


a mildly


handicapping


condition


evolves


from


premi


that


hild


does


learn


as other


children


frequently


from acquiring


character


demonstrate


knowledge


necess


certain


traditional


itate modifications


behavior


manner.


that


These


teaching


prohibit


behaviors


tyle


and/or


presentation of material


Given


the opportunity


to learn,


however,


the mildly


handicapped


child


capable


learning.


"needs"


accompl i


are s


imply


different


than


nonhandi


apped


peers.


umma rizi ng


finding


noted


authority


Morsink


(1977)


some


chara


teri


mildly


handicapped


children


that may


impede


learn ng.


These


include


Attention difficulties


Some


children may


have


problem


concentrate ng

selectively,


on a


or may


specific


be over


, may


elective


unable


use.


use attention


inability may


result


limited


Perceptual


task


behavior or


problems


impul


(auditory/vi


ive guessing

sual/motor).


Children with


these


problems


tend


difficulty


criminating


diffe


rences


between


similar


items.


They may


also


focu


on the


irrel evant


details


k or concept.


social


-emotional


problems


. Frequently,


mildly


handicapped


mfl n.. ~ 4. a a a ..LLI LnJ.ma a a -- I- -. A-- U-


*
- I,


~AII*rSU*~A


*


I


RIIII


-u,-..


f ^l


- hA ,


A


L










continually


failed


past.


Poor


sel f-concepts


extremely


frustration


level


only


complicate


an already


difficult


task


Memory


problems.


These


children


often


demon


state


defi cien


ability


timulu


Al though


store


they may


retrieve


able


auditory


learn


and/or


task


initially,


they


become


plagued


with


inability


recall


information


after


period


time.


Language


deficit


Mildly


handicapped


individual


frequently


demon


state


weak


oral


written


language


kill


Complex


lingui


passages


become


difficult


understand


child


imply


know what


being


asked


of him


. let


alone


Transfer


difficulties.


These


children


tend


have


problems


tructuring


, general i


ing,


seeing


relationships.


They


appear


unable


These


i nte grate


deficits


mailer


make


parts


into


difficult


whole.


handicapped


child


learn


or res


pond


traditional


means.


Ideally,


a learning


envi ronment


will


control


these


variable e


this


control


that


then


allows


optimum


learning


assessment


occur


Current


earch


Handicapped


MCT Modifications
Individuals


According


National


Association


tate


Directors


special


Education


(1979)


only


seven


states


have


already made


or are i


pro-










Georgia,


Kansas


Loui


iana)


have


indicated


formal


provision


special


testing


procedures


categorical


groups


handicapped


student


state


survey


also


indicate


that


current modifications


tend


to concentrate on


severely


handicapped


populations.


example,


the MCT


for vi


modified


ually


using


language


Jenkins,


hearing


braille,


(McClung,


1980)


impai red


larg


1979


the other


print,


McClung


hand


individual


audio


& Pullin,


, some


1978


handi capping


been


upplement,


Smith


conditions


educablee mental


retardation)


have


received


no testing


modifi


action


(McCl ung


& Pullin,


1978)


the mildly


hand capped


students


have


received minimal


attention.


Education


special i


tate of


Florida


are apparently well


aware of


probl ems


involved


with


testing


handicapped


learners


McCarthy


(1980)


tated


that


Florida


the most


elaborate


legi


lative


regulations


date.


tatutes


provide


appropriate modification of


order


student


with


ensure


student


impaired


kill


purpor
Section


sens


identified


that


achievement


ory,


, except
ts to mea


246)


n


manual


where
sure.


ting


handicap


result


rather


peaking,


uch skill
(Florida


than


instrument


or d


procedures


ability


testing repre
reflecting the


or psychological


are the
tatutes,


factors
Chapter


sent
student
process
test


According


Florida


Admini


trative


Code


, the


following


test


modification


have


been


proposed


handicapped


students


r1.2L1- -- L.J-l .


L


ff










exible


setting


student may


administered


test


individually


or i


small


group


setting


proctor


rather


than


in a


classroom


or auditorium


setting


Recording


answers


student may mark


answers


test


booklet,


type


answer


by machine,


or indicate


selected


answers


test


proctor


proctor may


then


transc


ribe


student


responses


onto


a machine-


scoreabl


answer


heet.


Mechani


aids


student may


brated


or template


use a magnifying


or other


devi


pointer,


similar


assist


non-cali-

in main-


tai nng


visual


attention


to the


test


booklet.


Revi


format


t may


presented


student


using


one or more of


following


techniques.


reading--regular


or enlarged


print.


tactile


reading--braille


code or


technology


allow optical/


tactile


tran


formation


test


item


which


have


no real


world


applica-


tions


the blind


person will


deleted


from


form provided


Department.


the mathematics


language


and writing


direction


portions


present


presented


language and


. The










Department,


presented;


test


administrator may


read


script


version


to the


student


however,


reading


portion


test mu


read


or tactile


means


(Propo


State


Board


Rule


.943


State


Florida,


1980)


progressive


as the


Florida


modifi


nations


compare -


son with


those


other


tate


, they may be


somewhat


leading.


current empha


appears


on the


more


general


"procedural"


mod-


i fications


truction


where

test.


and when

Although


f testing)


these


than


on the


modifications


actual


con-


benefit


ial,


would


appear


that mildly


handicapped


population


require


additional


t modifications


involving


design


physical


formatting


issues


dealing with


print


, color,


spacing


consi


stency,


or realism)


There


little


rese


arch


data


available


area


f specific


modi fi cations


on test


performance


handicapped


learners


Al though


many


educator


espouse


legal


and educational


need


modification


(Denninger,


1979


Kaluzny


1979


McCarthy,


1980;


McClung


& Pullin,


1978


mith


Jenkins


, 1980)


there


have


been


only


three


known


tudie


using modified


formats


tate


assessment


tests


State


Research


Studies


New Jersey


A project


Jersey


under


direction


of Lydia


Greenberg,


Coordinator of


tate


ting


Program,


Jersey


tate


=


..


i










twelfth


grade


handicapped


students,


assess


reading


and math


kills.


areas


handicapping


conditions


included


communica-


tion


impaired


mentally


retarded,


emotionally


sturbed,


ortho-


pedically


handicapped


chronically


ill,


perceptually


impaired,


neurologically


impaired


multiply


handicapped,


socially mal-


adju


ted.


contra


t with


their


rformance


on the


standard


test,


students


grade


, 10,


higher


scores


on the


revised


reading


test.


There


was no s


significant


difference


between


student


performance


on the


revised


standard math


ubtests


grade


Even


with


noted


reading


score


improvement,


however,


handicapped


population


till


scored


below


normal


group of


students.


Based


tion


on the


appeared


analysis


have


f the


greatest


field


test


impact


following modifica-


tudy


according


Greenberg


(1980):


print


was enlarged.


Time


1imit


were


extended


(approximately


twice


normal


amount of


time


allotted)


teacher was


asked


to mention


time


limit.


Practice


tests


were


developed


handicapped


students


four


grade


level


purpose


this


was to acquaint


students


with


test


taking


techniques.


was administered


one to two


week


before


actual


testing.











Transferring


answers


from


test


booklet


to the


answer


heet


caused


places.


confusion


suggestion


anxiety


were


made


, and


have


student


student


lost


mark


their


answers


test


booklets


or respond


orally


wording of


directions


should


implified.


Admini


stra-


tors


should


able


paraphrase


instruction


Direction


should


repeated


or examples


re-expl ained


student


does


understand.


Directions


should


read


aloud


ensure


each


student


under


tand


task.


Marker


would d


hel p


alleviate


problem


students


losing


their


places.


It wa


also


recommended


that


several


variable


cons


idered when


determining


student


eligibility


inclu


minimum


competency


testing


program


Handicapped


students


previous


experience


taking


standardized


tests


appeared


to perform


better


than


those


not.


Elementary


secondary


special


education


students


been


taffed


into


resource


rooms


performed


better


than


those


special


education


students


been


taffed


into


self-


contained


classrooms.


was also


recommended


that any


student


functioning


at a


level


or more


years


below


content


level


test


should


excluded


from


test.


Florida


Another


tudy was


conducted


tate


Florida


JoEllen


Pere z


198O)


Based


on th


- WV


Jersey


tudy


a review of


V


,


*


1


a


--










required modification.


They


cons


listed


clear


presentation


directions


addition of


supplemental


direction


ample


items,


varlou


alternatives


indicating


responses


marking


answers


test


book


t or


giving


answers


orally)


access


an audio


sensation of


some


items


clear


print


format and


print


size;


adequate


spacing


that


would


facilitate


process


task


information,


Perez


(1980)


placed


the major


emphasis


Florida


s modified


st on


timulus/r


response mode.


Using


learni ng


abled


(LD)


venth


grader


from


Dade


County


area,


Perez


admini


tered


modified


assessment


with


follow-


changes


group of


students


too k


test augmented


with


audio


support


Another


group of


students


took


large


print


version of


A third


group


took


standard


ized


print


test


student


unlimited


time


responding


to test


items.


Templates


or markers


white)


were


available


student


use.


student


option of


responding


test


item


circling


or underlining


entire


item


or (b)


corresponding










tested.


Large


print


also


showed


improved


scores


when compared


audio


support


four


eight


skill


There wa


no skill


where


regular print


or audio


support


was preferred


large


print.


accommodate


large


print,


however,


booklets


enlarged


(1980)


noted


that


the older stud


ents


expressed


their di


like,


as the


booklet


was awkward


handle and


tended


draw


attention


ability.


Some


reported


confu


ion with


audio


support


senta-


tion of


auditory


They


visual


found


timul4


it difficult


The markers


to cope with


provided


combined


tudy were


not u

using


sed


secondary


their


pencil


to mark


their


students

place.


, although


some were


Finally,


seen


not appear


poss


ible


use the


psychological


data


individual


student


predict maximum


performance


on tests


with


specific


modifications.


University


Florida


Research


The mo


(1981)


current


tudy wa


University


conducted


Florida.


Beattie


anal


and Algoz


of the


tate


student As


sessment


Test-Part


(grade


review


literature


indicated


that


several


general


physical


format


modifications


could


implemented


as potential


aids


to mildly


handi-


capped


students.


specifically,


following


changes


were made


I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m~ IU Z42l15vA-aS ,-.-J.A


C~nrl~~r(


Cn Hm ~ ~


nWn~)A


rA


S1Y r J i










multiple e


choice


answer options


were


placed


vertical


format with


shape of


coring


"bubble


individual


answer


" placed


bubble


was a


right


hori


each


ontal


choi


oval


Third


grade


tests


were


available


either


standard


print


0 mm)


or enlarged


print


.3 mm)


Fifth


grade


test


were


printed


enlarged


type and


standard


print.


sentence


reading


comprehen


item


were arranged


unjustified


format when


possible;


that


, complete


sentences


were


left


intact creating


tional


uneven


tests maintained


right


the ju


hand margins.


tified


In contrast


formatting


tradi-


character-


equal


left and


right


hand margins.


Reading


comprehen


passages


were


placed


haded


boxes


immediately


above


test


items


related


them.


Example


were


provided


each


skill


grouping


within


individual


test


sections


example


were


set apart


from the


test


item


by boxes.


specific words


that


required


additional


emphasis


were


printed


boldface


type


as opposed


uppercase


capital


letter


itali


or underlining.


Pictorial


representation


coins


were di


played


with


head


or face


was i


contrast


traditional


tail


format.


9 mn)











Arrows


were


placed


lower


right-hand


corner


page


indicate


continuing


sections


Stop


signs


were


itioned


similarly


, denoting


an end


each


kill


section


A total


third


fifth


grade


learning


abled


(LD)


students


from


seven


county


Florida


participated


tudy


ults


indicated


that


third


fi fth


grade


students


' per-


formance


on the


modified


was comparable


or better


than


that on

items e


regular


val uated.


approximately


Detailed


analysis


peci fic


percent


modifications


test

revealed


that


both


third


fi fth


grade


students


performed


consi


tently


higher on


modified


test


items


presenting


coin


face


third


grade


students


(the


was not


perform d


better on


presented


fifth


modi field


grade


sequencing


test


section


there


was no s


significant


difference


between


students


performance on


tests


printed


standard


type


their


performance


on tests


printed


enlarged


print.


Summary


review of


literature


revealed


very


studies


that


applied


to physical


test modification


designed


for mildly


handicapped


elementary


involved


aged


non-d


children


scriminatory


to current


testing


legal


there


educational


a definite


need


issues

for


. .. -


II(I ,


=










They


also


agree


that words


written


capital


letters


or italics


down


rate


reading.


spite


agreement,


however


there

these


were


no studies


printing


available


procedures


with


that

various


establi


handicapped


effectiveness


population


There


appear


to be


conflicting


data


regarding


effectiveness


enlarged


print with


handicapped


populations.


Additional


research


with


various


handicapped


individual


warranted


order


measure


effect


enlarged


print


on the


type of


handicap


different age


subjects


Typographers


recommend


use of


unju


tified


lines


greater


legibility


ease


reading


presence


only


one empirical


study


to date


with


ahndicapped


children


also


suggests


need


continued


research


area.


There


appears


controversy


literature


regarding


benefit


grouping


similar


items


hierarchy


from easy


hard


normal


children


handicapped


There


children


with


are no known


scattered


tudi


item


measuring


or groups


abilities


items


no order of


difficulty.


literature contains


efficient evidence


warrant


con-


that


elementary


handicapped


children


perform better when


required


to respond


directly


their


answer


bookl ets


as opposed


trans


ferrying


answers


a separate


answer


heet.


other


hand,


research


appears


limited


regard


effect


physical


format-











Research


also


limited


regard


physical


formatting


individual


test


items.


Although


one s


tudy


recommended


maximum


cell


per page


used,


results


tudy


prove


that


number wa


critical


. There


appear


to be


no data


that


measure


confusion


handicapped


children


experience


from


random placement of


test


items


Finally,


number of


no rel


vant


example


data


kill


could d


change


found


either normal


recommended

or handicapped


population


purpose


f thi


tudy,


inclu


modification


was base


logic


current


knowledge


available


regarding


learning character


of handicapped


normal


children.


Based


on this


review


, the


following


physical


test


format modifica-


tion


appear


warranted


continued


research.


They


include


effectiveness


boldface


type


for emphasis


, unju


tified


formatting of


sentence


, grouping of


similar


task


progre


ssive


hierarchy


, inclu-


of example


facilitate


transition,


placement


answer


bubble


relation


to foil


The effect


these


modi fi cation


on the


performance


students


with


mildly


handicapping


conditions


as L


, EMR,


primary


interest.


inclu


normal


group


individual


reveal


that


specific modification


are s


imply


"good"


test


construc-


tionn


formatting


nrincidnles


aool cable


beneficial


to the


ma.iori tv
















CHAPTER


METHODS


PROCEDURES


Chapter


includes


a description


method


procedures


used


tudy


There


are two


major


section


chapter


first


description


ubje


second


descri p-


tion


experimental


procedure


including


material


, setting,


variable


, hypoth


eses


data


analysis


Method


research


was conducted


Al achua


County


Orlando,


which


compri


sed of


three


counties


(Orange,


Seminole,


Osceola)


Alachua


County


located


north


central


Florida


encompa


sses


an area


approximately


square


miles,


population


,817


Metropolitan


Orlando


s located


cental


Florida,


approximately


square


mile


population


723,903


Four categories


students


from


third


grade


participated


tudy


These


included


normal


students


those


student


with










condition


are listed


Appendi


Each


group


subjects


(LD,


, EMR,


normal)


contained


students


total


population


subject


Permi


ssion


partici pate


tudy was


obtained


from ea


student


parent/


guardian.


Parent


permit


ssion


lips


are i


Appendix


Selection


students


was done


randomly.


Alachua


County,


there was


a limited


number


diagnosed


third


grade


students


result,


principal s


those


school


were


contacted


permit


ssion


to test.


addition


selecting


those


particular


students


third


grade


LD and


children


proportionate


number of


normal


third


grade


children


those


school


were


also


selected


partici


pation


tudy


Orange


County


special


Education


Coordinators


randomly


elected


school


obtained


principal


pe rmi


ssion


children


those


school


to participate


tudy


each


county


children


were


randomly matched within


each


category according


to reading


level


obtained


from a


Ginn


reading


or Woodcock


Reading Ma


tery


Test.


students


reading


same


level


were


then


randomly


assigned


to take


either


a modified


or s


standard


vers


test.


mean


reading


level


for the


entire


population


was 2


(fourth


month


second


grade).


average


reading


level


category were


normal


ubjects-grade


learning


disabled


- grade


* (c)


emotionally


handicapped


- grade


educable mentally


retarded


grade


. Analysis


s of these


, (b)










subjects


were


evenly


tri buted


= 0.21


0.005


.05)


across


test


type


with


regard


sex and


race


49 male


standard,


black


modified),


standard


female


modified)


standard,


40 white


14 modified),


standard,


modified).


Consi


tent with


past


findings


special


education


literature


however


, sex and


race


were


not evenly


tribute


a cro ss;


category


pec i fi c


exampi


relation


hips


between


race/


special


LD as


education


black


placement


almost


are three


times


times


as many


as many white


boys


children


as girl


breakdown


four categories


race


sex i


presented


Table


Table


Category


Category


Membership


Black


Race


Race


White


Mal e


Female


Normal


14(17


.5%)


8(10


.0%)


12(15


.0%)


15(18


.8%)


8(10


.0%)


11(13


9(11


10(1


10(1


.0%)


8(10.


=8.










Experimental


Procedures


Each


randomly


selected


subjects


was asked


complete


a 100


item


school


testing


students


too k


occurred


test


desi gnated


small


ssroom


groups


effects


various


test modifications


on the


performance


four


groups


students


were


evaluated


using


appropriate


inferential


stati


tics.


Material


students


were


randomly


assigned


take


one of


tests,


either


standard


or modified


vers


test


contained


items


with


multiple


choice


answers;


answers


were


marked


within


booklet.


test


items


were


identical


content


, differing


only


physical


format.


Internal


consi


stency


estimates


standard


modified


total


ranged


from


Reliability measure


five modification


ubte


generally


ranged


from


.94,


with


three


subtests


scores


falling


below


Refer


Table


reliability


f the


total


test


each


ubtest


category


standard


test consi


five


groups


items.


These


items


were


kill


-40),


character


skill


-20),


placement of


by exclu


incon


answer


example


istent method of


bubbles


transition


denoting


left


from


empha


foil


(#41-


60),


presentation


kill


mixed


hierarchy


f difficulty










Table


Internal


tency


standard


Estimate


Modified


Tests


Test


Category


Total


Version


Example


Boldface


ubtests
Answer
Bubbles


Hierarchy


Line


Length


Standard


Modi field


Normal


Normal


modified


test


also


consi


five


group


of 20


items.


These


items,


however,


were


characterized


inclu


example


teacher explanation


beginning


each


new s


kill


section


(#1-


20),


use of boldface


type


to denote empha


-40),


placement


answer


bubbles


right


f the


answer


foil


(#41


-60)


grouping


similar


items


a hierar


progress


difficulty


(#61


-80)


unju


tified


line


length


(#81


-100)


A sample


modi field


test










Setting


subjects


were


removed


from


their


regular


classrooms


taken


to one


room where


standard


modified


tests


were


admini


tered


beginning


group


test


approximately


following


statement was


students.


read


Before


subjects.


Today


are going


take


special


test


. You


probably


have


seen


ques


tion


like


these


your


class-


room work.


want


to take


your


time


answer


as many


questions


as you


your


hand


have


tions


there


questions


Good


luck!


tests


were


admini


tered


on two


consecutive


days


students


were


given


items


-60 of


their


respe


tive


test


during


firs t


sess


which


asted


approximately


60-75


minutes.


Items


#61-


100 were


admini


tered


on the


next


day with


that


sess


lasting


approximately


60 minutes.


Upon


completion


test,


subjects


returned


to their


regular


ssroom


setting.


Variables


The effects


f the


experimental


procedure


on s


students


' test


performance


scores


was measured.


Four


group


students


were


evaluated


using


two different


format


performance


scores


total


test


comparable


ubte


were


analyzed.


1 n Ao nan n 4n n


~lwarn


4- rna


flnrAon+


1


nT


! k


II












comprised of


standard


and modified


formats


were


used;


modifica-


tions


included


grouping


similar


i teams


a hierarchy of


progress


unju


difficulty,


tified manner,


arrangement


introduction


of line


example


length


directions


each


right


new skill


of each


change


placement


foil,


answer


use of boldface


bubble


type


emphasis


dependent


variable


this


tudy was


raw score


indicating


student


performance


on the


total


or group of


selected


test


i teams


Equal


numbers


test


i teams


were


included


each


test


modification.


Hypotheses


A series


f related


hypotheses


were


addressed.


These


included:


There


no difference


total


test


performance


various


groups


students


as a fun


action


nature


of the


test


modified


standard


form).


There


no difference


performance


various


groups


students


on s


elected


items


as a


function


an increased


ra ti o


example


kill


changes.


There


no difference


performance of


various


groups


students


on selected


test


items


as a


function


boldface


type.


There


no difference


performance


various


groups


- a U a U a i S a S S -~ S --.tt-~ -


t .. E. i. 'I~


r


1 1 ii


F 1 I I










There


no difference


performance


f various


groups


student


line


Data


on selected


test


items


as a fun


tion


f unjustified


lengths.


Analysis


data


analysis


was conducted


following manner


There


was a c


comparison


test


scores


on the


standard


and modified


test


form


for each


of the


handicapped


, EMR)


normal


group


factor


analyses


variance


(ANOVA)


were


completed


total


performance


score


performance


on each


set of


similar


items.


Main effects


interaction


were


analy


subsequent


follow-up


analyses


were


completed


as necessary


percent


level


of confi


dence was


used


Table


were


prepared


total


test


scores


and each


t modification


items


Additionally


post hoc


comparison


student


performance


on certain


kill


ster


f items


was completed


difference


between


modified


standard


test


performance


were evaluated


using


criteria


developed


Florida


State


Department of


Education


ummary


purpose


this


tudy was


compare


total


test


performance


scores


two tests


between


four


groups


students.


Performances


each


group of


students


on selected


test


item modifications


were


also










randomly


selected


each


f the


four categories


half


taking


modified


test


items


half


taking


standard


version


item


tests


were


admini


tered


mall


group


students,


seven


students


group.


test


was given


on two consecutive


days


approximately


minutes


minute


sess


ions


respectively


each


day.


standard


statement was


read


students


prior


beginning


test.


factor


performance


analyses


score


variance


performance


were


completed


on each


total


similar


items.


Main


effects


interaction


were


analy


susequent


follow-up


analyses


were


completed


as necessary


using


percent


level


confidence.
















CHAPTER


SULTS


study wa


conducted


invest gate


possible


effects


five


ical


test


format modification


on the


performance


mildly


tion


handicapped


included


normal


an increased


third


ratio


grade


students.


example


skill


modifica-


change,


use of boldface


grouping


type


similar


empha


item


placement


hierarchy


answer


of progressive


bubbles


diffi


culty,


unjustified


line


length


Eighty


students


from


Alachua


County


and metropolitan


Orlando


school


participated


tudy


. There


were


students


each


four


categories


(LD,


, normal)


. The


student


within


each


category were


randomly matched


according


to reading


ability


randomly


assigned


to either


standard


or modified


test


forms.


Data


were


analyzed


using two


factor


analyse


variance


(ANOVA)


total


similar


test


items


performance


ubtests


score


Os


performance


igni ficant main


on each


effects


category were


further


evaluated


using


follow-up


analyses


according


to Tukey


Hone


significant


Di ffer


ences


cited


Ferguson,


1971)


procedure


main


effect


differences


test


forms


were


interpreted


. =


.


w v










Mean


standard


deviations


anal


ance


summary


table


total


test


performance


are presented


Table


ignifi


cant main


ects


are indi


cated


both


category


test


form.


similar


information


relative


student


performance on


five


modification


ests


, example


boldface


type,


answer


bubble


placement


progress


rarchy,


unju


tified


line


length),


presented


Table


Total


performance on


the modified


was approxi


mately


point


higher


than


on the


standard


form


= 68.


revealed


follow-up


analyses


performance of


students


was s


similar


as were


normal


students.


scores


the mentally


retarded


nts,


however


were


ignifi-


cantly


lower


than


normal


students.


With


regard


ubte


scores


ere were


no differences


test


form for


four


five modifi


cation


subtests


one excep-


tion wa


example


ubtest.


example


ubte


students


achieved


higher


scores


on the modified


version


than on


standard


version


performance of


indicated


student


was consi


follow-up


tently


analyses


similar on


ubtests


abled and


was also


normal


true


students


normal


performed


nd EH students.

similarly on only


Learni ng


percent


ests


children


al ways


performed


lower


than other


categories


students.


Results


follow-up


analyses are


presented










Table


Mean


Standard


on S


Deviations


tandard/Modified


students


Test


Performance


Total Score
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation

Standard 89.3 10.6
Normal
Modified 92.9 6.2

Standard 71.5 16.8
LD
Modified 78.3 12.4

Standard 76.3 20.1
EH
Modified 83.3 12.9

Standard 38.7 13.0
EMR
Modified 46.3 15.5




Analysis of Variance Summary
Sums of Mean Degrees of
Source Squares(SS) Square(MS) Freedom(df) F

Category 26085.75 8695.25 3 44.32*

Test Form 781.25 781.25 1 3.98*

Category X 48.55 16.18 3 .08
Test Form
Error 14125.89 196.19 72










Table 4


Means


standard


on S


Deviations


ubtest


students


Performance


Example Modification


Examples
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation

Standard 18.1 2.4
Normal
Modified 18.8 1.5

Standard 15.5 2.9
LD
Modified 16.0 2.7

Standard 15.4 3.7
EH
Modified 16.9 2.6

Standard 7.1 3.2
EMR
Modified 11.0 4.4



Analysis of Variance Summary
Sums of Mean Degrees of
Source Squares(SS) Square(MS) Freedom(df) F

Category 982.00 327.33 3 35.22*

Test Form 54.45 54.45 1 5.86*

Category X 36.55 12.18 3 1.31
Test Form

Error 669.19 9.29 72










Table


Means


standard


on S


Deviations
for Boldfac


students


Performance


Type Modification


Boldface
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation

Standard 17.7 2.2
Normal
Modified 18.5 2.0

Standard 13.6 5.0
LD
Modified 15.3 4.1

Standard 14.9 5.4
EH
Modified 16.5 4.7

Standard 7.1 3.8
EMR
Modified 8.3 3.5



Analysis of Variance Summary
Sums of Mean Degrees of
Source Squares(SS) Square(MS) Freedom(df) F

Category 1191.84 397.28 3 24.79*

Test Form 35.11 35.11 1 2.19

Category X 2.54 .85 3 .053
Test Form

Error 1153.49 16.02 72










Table


Mean


on S


standard


ubte


Deviations


swer


Students


Performance


Bubble Modification


Answer Bubbles
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation

Standard 18.5 1.8
Normal
Modified 18.8 1.1

Standard 13.7 5.5
LD
Modified 14.8 4.4

Standard 15.5 4.0
EH
Modified 17.4 2.1

Standard 8.3 3.4
EMR
Modified 8.3 4.1



Analysis of Variance Summary
Sums of Mean Degrees of
Source Square(SS) Square(MS) Freedom(df) F

Category 1189.94 396.64 3 30.68*

Test Form 13.61 13.61 1 1.05

Category X 10.94 3.65 3 .28
Test Form

Error 930.89 12.93 72










Table


Mean


standard


on Subtest


Deviations for
for Hierarchial


Students'


Modification


Performance


Hierarchy
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation

Standard 18.5 2.2
Normal
Modified 19.2 1.3

Standard 16.3 2.8
LD
Modified 17.0 2.5

Standard 16.9 4.7
EH
Modified 17.6 2.1

Standard 9.6 3.8
EMR
Modified 11.1 6.0



Analysis of Variance Summary
Sums of Mean Degrees of
Source Square(SS) Square(MS) Freedom(df) F

Category 836.55 278.85 3 22.74*

Test Form 16.20 16.20 1 1.32

Category X 2.40 .80 3 .06
Test Form

Error 882.79 12.26 72










Table


Means


on S


standard


ubtest


Deviations


Line


Students


Length


' Performance


Modification


Line Length
Category Test Form Mean Standard Deviation

Standard 16.5 4.9
Normal
Modified 17.6 2.9

Standard 12.4 4.1
LD
Modified 15.0 2.2

Standard 13.7 4.5
EH
Modified 14.9 4.6

Standard 7.8 5.0
EMR
Modified 7.6 3.2



Analysis of Variance Summary
Sums of Mean Degrees of
Source Squares(SS) Square(MS) Freedom(df) F

Category 930.64 310.21 3 18.89*
Test Form 27.61 27.61 1 1.68

Category X 19.64 6.55 3 .39
Test Form
Error 1182.29 16.42 72










Table


Results


Follow-Up


Honestly


Analy


significant


Using


Tukey


Differences


Category


Normal
x score


score


x score


x score


Total


Test


79.80


ubtests


Example


18.45


Boldface


15.70


14.45


wer Bubble


Hierarchy


Line


Length


18.65 16.45


18.85


8.30


17.25 16.65


17.05 14.30 13.70










Current


testing


practice


Florida


reporting


present scores


results

that a


minimum competency


re indicative


mastery


mance


of ba


standards


relative


kills.


each


total


tate


subskill


number of


establi


number


ubskill


items


hed minimum


items


perfor-


correct


attempted


basi


deci


making


relative


"mastery


mastery


criteria


currently


being


used


Florida


are presented


n Table


Within


the five different


ubte


presented


tudy,


different


were


included


A post hoc


analy


student


test


per-


formance


on s


peci fic


ubskill s


was completed.


Individual


scores


were


calculated


percentage


kill


items


correct


these


were


compared


current


state


mastery


criteria.


Results


analysis


are presented


Table


percent


ubskill


sections,


difference


was the


between


difference


performance


between


on the


achieving master


standard an

y criteria


d modified


tests


failing


Overall,


performance


scores


modified


test


were


one to 1


percentage


points


higher than


on the


standard


test


for 80


percent


individual


ubskill


sections.


Further


analy


data


was completed


regarding


number of


student


achieving ma


stery


subtest


category


appeared


there were


no sub


tantial


difference


mastery


level


normal


students


on either


standard


or modified


test


vers


ions.


Certain


t modification


appear,


however


tofcltt


to fa c i 1 i ta te


w .


J










Table


Criter


Used


Determine


Report Mastery


kill


When


measure


number
a skill


questions


follows:


The minimum


required
shall be


number of


to be answered
as follows:


question


correctly


4 of


5 of


9 of

10 of

10 of


Source:


Florida


Department


State and


Divi


ion of


distri


Publi


Education.
t report of


hool


Stati


results


erie


Report:


Tall aha


, February


ssee,
1981.


1980-


__ __










Table


Compari


Modi field


of Mean


ubte


Scores


with


tery


Standard
Criteria


Mastery 1
Criteria


standard


Test


percentage


score


Modified


percentage


score


Example


Dollar


Fractions


Measurement


quencing


(1st-


last)


order


Math


Word


Problems


Boldface


.5 *

.7


Pronoun


Oppo


Following


directions


Answer Bubble


-digit addition


Math


Word


Problems


Reading


Comprehension











Table


11-Continued


Mastery
Criteri


standard


Test


x percentage


score


Line


Modified


Test


percentage


score


Length


Reading


Comp


-end


Reading

$ Word


# Word


Comp.

Problems


Problems


Reading


Comp.


-not


Hierarchy


+ vertical

+ horizontal


- vertical


- hori


70.5


zontal


Indicates
achieved
version.


those
on the


subtests
modified


which


vers


mastery


not on


criteria


standard


_ __ ._










criteria


were


substantially


higher when


using


modi fiction


unjustified


line


lengths.


Likewi


differences


favor


boldface


type


example


modifications


were


noted


students


student


respectively


Data


upporti ng


hese


conclu


ions


contained


n Table


summary,


both


total


category


test


test


performance


form.


differences


a result


were


follow-up


indicated


analyses,


no s


significant


differences


between


students


' scores


between


those


normal


students


were


indicated


Learning


disabled


normal


student


' performance


was s


significantly


different


student


' scores


were


cons


tently


lower


than


those


other category


student


A compare


test


forms


indicated


total


performance


on the


modified


test


was approxi


mately


an average


points


higher


than


on the


standard


test


form.


Analy


f subtest


scores


revealed


consi


tent main


effects


categories


performance


students


imi lar


on all


ubtests


as was that


f normal


students


Learning


disabled


normal


students


performed


similarly


on 3


percent of


lower than


ubtests


other


children


categories


consi


students


tently


only


performed


ignifi cant


difference


test


form wa


on the


example


ubtest,


with


higher


scores


being


achieved


on the


modifi


form


than


on the


standard


version


f the










Table


Frequency


Count


Students


Subtest


Subtest


Examples


Achieving


Mastery


Category


Subskill


Dollar
Fractions


Measurement
Sequencing
ABC Order


Math
Total


Boldface


Word


Not
End
Pronouns
Opposites
Following
Total


Probl ems


Directions


Answer
Bubble


2-digit Addition
Math Word Problems


Reading
Reading
Spelling
Total


Comprehension
Comprehension


Line


ngth


Reading
Reading
$ Word
# Word
Reading
Total


Comprehension
Comprehension
Problems


Problem
Comp.


s
- Not


Hierarchy


+ Vertical
+ Horizontal
- Vertical
- Horizontal
Total











standard


test


percent


individual


ubskill


sections.


analysis


these


differences


indicated


number


instances


.e.,


percent)


when


mastery was


achieved


on the


modified


test


standard.


Further


analysis


indicated


that


specific


test modification


produced


substantial


differences


numbers


differences


students


were


attaining mastery


seen


criteria


students


category


using


These


unjustified


line


length


students


using


boldface


type,


students


using


example
















CHAPTER


DISCUSSION AND


CONCLUSIONS


ests


can be


useful


tools


adequately


designed


used


properly,


they


can direct


teachers


specific


strength


weaknesses


hild.


ests


can be


used


determine degrees


deficit


facilitate


appropriate


placement,


be of


assi


tance


development of


instructional


trategi


information


obtained

lessons


from

and c


tests


curriculum,


also

and


useful


determining


evaluating


amount


skill


prog res


, planning


that


have


been made.


essence,


tests


can be


used


constructively


analyze


problem


serve


as a


remediation


Unfortunately,


are not always


designed


implemented


sens


ibly


or i


best


interest of


hild.


Often


test


item


not measure what


they


purport


to m


measure


and a


child


true


ability


not adequately


assessed.


Al though


hild may


cognitively


know


kill,


the manner


which


kill


ted may


frequently


affect


ability


demon


state


proficiency


same


kill


pre-


sented


in a


different manner/mode may


elicit


totally


different


response.


ssibly,


the great


inequiti


testing may


a a


. a a


q


1 I I


I .


A


I










express


response"


25).


result,


hand capped


students


possibly


unable


demon


trate


their


true


level


content


knowledge


instead,


responses


measure of


ability


tran


decode


answers.


direction


Gearheart


read


the word


Willenberg


(1974)


passage,


empha


need


testing


examiner


to be


aware


confounding


factors


i nherent


some


hand


apping


conditions


They


stress


need


"remember


primary


handicap


and make certain you


are te


ting what


intend


test,


reflection


or outcome


disability"


. Individual


involved


admini


traction


tests mu


extremely


careful


recogni


poss


ible


interaction


between


student


ability,


ability


behavior


sampled


items.


ideration of


appropriate


test modification


appears


warranted.


alvia


sseldyke


(1978)


state


that


"conmnon


sense


tells


us that


student


cannot


read


the directions


or write


responses,


est requiring


these abilities


inappropriate"


26).


support


this


ssue,


Marsh


Gearheart


Gearheart


(1978)


contend


that


students


with


poor


reading


and writing


kill


should


have


to take


tests


under


traditional


circumstances.


Tests


need


eliminated.


uch,


standard


test


forms may


imply


need


be modified


according


individual


differences.


Optimally,


tests


could


be d


designed


handicapped


population


adequately


assess


their


kill










deficiencies,


or poor


decoding


skills.


When


a test


compensates


these


weakne


sses


, there


Isa


greater


assurance


that


child


true


ability


been accurately mea


ured


Diagno


educators


can then proceed


take


full


advantage of


benefits


that


testing


offer.


There


been


little


research associated


with


ical


test


modifications.


Further,


investigations


appear


be warranted


those modification


educationally


that


handicapped


are s

(LD,


specifically


EMR)


designed


student


for

alvia


the mild


sseldyke,


1978)


information gath


relative


to the effect


test


modifications,


designing


can serve


as a


implementing


future


test


minimum


planning


abilities


relative


handi


capped


students.


Discuss


Findings


Eighty


third


grade


students


(normal,


EMR)


from Alachua


Orange


County


were


admini


stere


one of


two version


a minimum


comp


tency


test.


group


students


, comprised


student


from


each


category,


received


standard


The other group of


was admini


tered


a modified


version


standard


test.


Al though


the content of


test


item


remained


constant,


physical


formatting


was altered


example


boldface


print,


answer


bubble


ni 2rnmon* 5~~~~ vr~ bn 5 nf Mna-+nnl r nYr


Hi 4a1 yrrrk n1


1: .


4..


nl~r pmpnf


I r^ n


~nn


I










significant main effects


test


form exi


only


total


test


scores


those


example


ubtest.


average,


student


taking


the modified


test


performed


approximately


point


higher


on the


item test


than


those


students


taking


standard


version.


example


ubtest,


students


achieve


higher


scores


(approximately


two points


or a


gain


percent)


on the


modified


version


than


on the


standard


test.


These


finding


would


sugge


st that


students


performance


varie


with


type


test admini


tered


favor


modified


version.


Category


Anal


yses


igni ficant


main


effects


category


student were


further


evaluated


using


Tukey


Honestly


i gni fi cant


Di fference


procedure.


Consi


stent


tests


(total


ubtest


was s


similar


perform-


ance


between


ubte


ents


(those


modified


between


normal


hierarchical


students.


arrangement


items


unju


tified


line


lengths)


normal


student


performed


ilarly


other


instances,


student


performed


igni ficantly


lower


than


other categories


students.


These


results


support


differences


student


performance


consi


tent


with


assigned


category.


Post


Analyse


Additional


analvCP


7,mn .. .Pr


adrcvcc the c


nri fi r


Wa rP


.


I .











students.


Although


overall


analysis


indicated


that


differences


between


these


test


scores


were


significant


at the


level,


issue


of mastery


individual


ubskill


was of


interest.


percentage


of items


correct


each


ubskill


on both


test


versions


was calculated


These


scores


were


then


compared


with


current


state


mastery


riteria.


compare


revealed


that


performance


scores


on the


modi field


test


were


higher


than


those


standard


test


percent


subs


kills


tested.


increase


between


mean


scores


ranged


from


percentage


points.


These


increases


performance


scores


modified


test


subse-


quently


became


difference


between


mastery


failure


percent


subskill


sections


. Students


taking


modi


field


test


achieved mastery


level


criteria


for one-third


sub-


that


were


not ma


tered


on the


standard


version.


analy


revealed


that


peci fi c


modifications


appeared


facilitate


acquisition


mastery


certain


category e


handi


apped


students.


Frequency


of mastery wa


tantially


higher


stu-


ents


on the


unju


tified


line


length


ubtest


students


bol dface


type


subtest


students


on the


example


ubtest.


Another


issue


interest


was the


presence


trend


performance


scores


between


category


on total


test.


Some


pro-


fess


ional


argue


that


physical


format


modifi


action


imply


. -V -


test


scores


across


- .


categories.


ults


_ V


w


W I mW V


w


r


w w .










for normal


differences


students


between


was 3.


standard


favor of


and modified


modified


test


test)


scores


students


were


These


differences


modified


test


were


consi


tently


three


four


point


higher


for mildly


handicapped


student


than


they were


normal


students.


Although


no interaction


between


form


category


resulted


from


analysis


inferential


tati


data


were


then


analyze


ascertain


pecifi c


categories


obtained


higher


performance


scores


on any


particular


ubtests


either


vers


ion.


Emotion-


ally


handicapped


point


boldface


percent)


type,


students


higher


answer


cons


on the


bubble


tently


cored


modi field


placemen t


an average


subtest


Learning


example


abled


students


achieved


an average


point


higher on


boldface


type


ubtest


three


points


percent)


higher


on the


unju


tified


line


length


subtest


, both


modified


vers


ions.


Normal


educable


mentally


retarded


students


' average


scores


appear


to be


affected d


ubte


t modification


exception


this


was EMR


mean


scores


on the


example


subtest


this


one instance


differences


between


mean


scores


reached


tati


tical


igni finance,


a difference


percent.


Observations


, EH,





-










example,


performance was


read well


became


apparent early


closely related


performed well,


to reading


those


pilot


ability


tudy that

Those st


student


poor


test


udent


read-


kill


great


difficulty


taking


test


achieved


test


scores.


Another


effect


reading


ability


appeared


have


test


performance


was the


ability of


some


children


to understand


sages


read


ilently


several


mildly


handicapped


children


appeared


to demon


trate


comprehension


problems


when


reading


themselves


confu


when


reading


aloud


Many mildly


handicapped


student


also


appeared


to be


acking


test


taking


skill


They


did not


recogni


basic


direction


words


as "above


" "below,


"I II


same


" "different,


" "find,


or "choose


Some


students


went


directly


from


reading


ssage


to the


test


answer choices


without


reading


estion


inter


group


of LD


students


, however,


demon


treated


outstanding


test


tak-


kill


reading


They


read


tion


to be


answered


first


then


continued


find


sol ution


passage


. For


example,


response


to "How


tory end?"


these


students


immediately


went


last


sentence


(without


reading


entire


passage)


marked


corres


ponding


answer.


Some


student


also


demonstrated


particular


difficulties


with


ubskill


following


directions.


There


was a


tendency


great many


follow t


1 phabet


sequence


labeled


dots


rather


s


w


l 1










children


were


taken


aside


asked


to redo


items


from


this


section


each


instance


child


read


problem


aloud.


each


sentence


that


ncl uded


directional


clue


examiners


aid,


confu


was all


eliminated


performed with


little


difficulty.


Another


cons


stent


problem


students


was those


items


measuring


hild


ability


to locate


two particular


items


four


then


correctly mark


only


one of


those


two.


example,


"Look


these


pictures.


Find


apple


Find


other


thing


that


good


Mark


eat.


large


Mark


animal


one you


Many


found


children


"Find


cons


animal


tently marked


answers


for ea


ques


tion,


both


thing


to eat


both


animal


final


observation


are noted.


appeared


that


some


children


best method


obtaining


an accurate


assessment


ability would


only


a one to


one test


situation


Independent


test


alent


performance


to those


scores


that


obtained


could


within


obtained


group


on a


seem


one to


quiv-


examiner


student,


attention


basi


Finally


to the


test


, there


item


were


numbers.


those


students


instead


progress


vertically


down


each


page


as the


test


was numbered,


most


children


proceeded


answer


items


ented


horizontally


across


top of


each


page


then


across


bottom.


curri


ulum


resource


teacher


noted,


"It makes


me so angry


minimum


compe-











answering


questions


another


passage


(upper


right


quadrant)


. This


posed


potential


problems


this


tudy


along with


affe


cting


math


hierarchy


was corrected


ly repeatedly


demonstrating


correct


order


to each


student


individually


monitoring


activity


Implication


an instance


when


mastery


criteria a


are o


utmost


importance,


appears


that


modi fi cation


made


tudy,


alterations


physi


modi field


formatting


test


have


achieved mastery


some


merit.


level


student


criteria a


taking


eight


sub-


that


were


not ma


tered


on the


standard


vers


ion.


Mastery


achievement on


modified


ubtests


contribute


sel f


concept


possibly


itive


facilitate


attitude


acqui


mildly


ition


handicapped


standard


learner


diploma


some


states.


indicated


post


analysis


students


' perform-


ance


on the


example


ubtest


these


indeed


know


perform


skill


demon


state


proficiency more


readily when


example


students


are provided.


also


test


appeared


scores


affected


emotionally


gain)


handicapped


inclu


examples.


I f


^ ^ a^ wa- 11,,-


4 .aenJn


I


FI


n rl L~lh rl


1.


I il











what


, where,


not, end,


first,


last


apparently


require


additional


empha


to aid


comprehen


ion.


Learning


abled


student


appeared


to benefit


gain)


from alterations


n line


length


Other


student


performed


similarly


on pa


ssages


appear


justified


that


unju


order


item


tified


manner.


presentation


not make


di fference


performance


category


student.


student


proficient with


task,


appears


to be


able


demonstrate


ability


regard


placement within


test.


similarly


answer


bubble


placement


appear


to affect


perform-


ance


type


student.


result


f observations


made


throughout


study,


appears


that


teachers


may wi


to give


cons


ideration


to the


importance


test


taking


skills


performance


f mildly


handicapped


students


enhanced


from


direct


nstru


tion


kill


as recog-


direction


learning


word


to follow written


(above,


different,


direction


hoose,


using


other),


hort


cuts


answering


reading


comprehen


question


Teachers


also


wish


fami liari


students


with


physical


layout


f the


test.


Conclusions


There


was a


igni ficant


difference


between modified


standard


nf t ho


t~nt-t1


toc


,4


I. ..-- n*I** IIl I'* ..


pyamni p


ciinhtpdt


favnr


~nA Hns


fa~t~


I.


.
.
. ..-


.











present


between


category


student


test


form.


can be


seen


from


data


presented


Appendix


was not


possible


to determine


ignifi


cancer


either


sex or race


on test


scores


to the


limited


sample


Result


st hoc


analy


however


indicated


that


the modifi-


cations


would


beneficial


instances


where ma


tery wa


an i


ssue.


Students


needing


demonstrate


mastery


kill


could


so on


percent more


test.


section


Gain


within


percentage


modified


point


test


could


than


seen


on the


on 80


standard


percent


ubskill


tested


with


modi field


test


contrast


standard


test.


Also,


certain modifications


appeared


ilitate


acqui


ition


of mastery


spec


ific


category e


of handicapped


students.


Modifications


physical


formatting


appear


to improve


test


scores


across


category


inclu


examples


appear


facilitate


cores


demon


hierarchical


tration


profit


arrangement


iency


items,


students


answer


bubble


only


placement,


unju


tified


line


length


boldface


type


reach


level


significance.


Trend


higher


test


scores


cia-


gain


were


noticed


however


use o


example


boldface


type


emotion-


ally


turbed


students


with


boldface


type


unju


tified


line


length


research


learning


that


abled


been


students.


previous


to the


done


limited


because


amount


results


of this


tudy


have


been


favorable


further


research


on thi


topic
















REFERENCES


Abeson, A., &
Education


Children


Zettel


for
1977


All
, 44


Handicapped


the quiet


Children


revolution


Act of


1975


The
exceptional


115-


Beattie, S.
grades
State


, & Algoz
three an


student


Gainesville,


ine,
five


sessment


sessment of


in analy
Test-I.


Department


minimum


competency


of modification


Final


Report:


ation,


1981.


to Florida


Contract


#080-187


Beck,


response
11, 109-


Achievement
procedures
113.


test


reliability


Journal


as a


function


Educational


pupil


urement,


1974,


Berry,


competency


testing


. High


hool


Journal,


1979,


166-17


Brenner, M. H
function


1964,


Test


difficulty,


of item difficulty
98-100.


reliability


order


crimination


Journal


Applied


ychol ogy,


Cashen, V. M
primary


age
157.


Rams eyer,
children.


Journal


use of


separate


answer


Educational


heet


urement,


by
1969,


Clark


, C.
pupil


use of


Journal


separate


answer


Educational


heet


urement,


testing
1968, 5,


low-learning


Clift, T. Th
remedial


Univer


Department,


regent


instruction


competency


high


tate


testing
school


of New


program:
credential


York,


tate


etenc


testing


Education


1979.


Copperman
and


learning


York


li teracy


Morrow,


hoax:


public
1978.


school


decline o
and what


reading,
we can do


writing,
about it


~-s-h-I~ A- S *-~ A- - L..


,


n..__ 1


m


*,,


---L-


..-LI. I


I


L| A


i


.." m










Donohue v.
(App.


Copiague


Union


Free


hool


Distri


. 1978).


Erdmann, R.
letter


L., & Neal,
legibility,


resolution


Word


with


word


as parameters


legibility


size


Journal


word


as a


function


familiarity,


f Applied


Psychology,


1968,


409.


Ewing,
4


Minimum


issues


High


competency


school


Journal,


estinm
1979


, 63,


the
114-


handicapped:
119.


Major


Ferguson, G.
(3rd ed.


Stati


tical


New York


analyst
McGraw-


Hill,


psychology
1971.


and education


Flaugher,
under


. L., Melton,
typical test


Measurement,


& Myer


condi tions


1968,


Educational


Item
and


rearrangement
Psychological


-824.


Florida


Department of


and evaluation


Exceptional


tate


Education.


special
student


Florida,


resource


programs
programs


manual for
exceptional
overview.


he development
students (Vol.


Tallaha


see,


1979.


Florida
St


Department of


ate


trict


Divi


Education.


report


Public


school


tati


result


1 Report
series 81


, February


1980-81.
. Tallahssee,


1981.


Fonda, G.
1968


evaluation


large


type.


Outlook


Blind,


,62


Gaffney, R.
sheets


, & Maguire


with


1971,


103-


young


106.


children


optically


Journal


cored


Educational


test answer


sure


ment,


Gearheart, B. R.
information


Willenberg,
the special


Application


education


teacher


of pupil
(End ed.


assess


ment


Denver


Love,


1974.


Greenberg, L.
students


State


Test


development


procedure


state


Department


of Education


assess


ment


including


program


handicapped
Trenton, NJ


1980.


capped


Florida
students.


minimum competency


Exceptional


Children


testing
, 1980,


program
47. 186-


handi-


a~~i S. .. .


A-


fL


~~L .u.


1 flfl


a


I


i










Holliday
of


hi ng,


i teams


Partridge, L
on children.


1979,


Differential


Journal


sequencing


search


effects


clence


407-411


Kalu


ny, B. A. Competency
Education Unlimited,


handicapped


testing
1979, 1,


student.


Madau


clarifi


Kappan,


1981


action
, 63,


hearing
92-94.


negative


team


case.


Major


. W., & Michael, J.
her-made mathematic


relationship of
computational


achievement


kill


on a


to two


ways of recording
Educational and P


answers
sychologi


to two workspace arrangement
Measurement, 1975, 35, 1005-


s.
1009.


Margolis,
impul


Education,


Brannigan,


1978,


enner


crimination


-35.


performance


Modification
Journal of


f
pecdal


Marsh,


abled


Loui


II,


Gearheart,


adoles
: The


cent


G. K., & Gearheart,
Program alternatives


Mosby


Company


1978.


warning


secondary


school.


Marso, R. N.
Journal


Test


item


of Educational


arrangement,


Measurement,


ting
1970


time,
, 7,


performance.
118.


McCarthy, M. M.
Exceptional


McClung,
Cle


Minimum c
Children,


Competency


aring


House


Review,


:ompetency
1980, 47,


ting:


1977


, Il,


testing


166-


handicapped


students


175.


Potential


for discrimination


9-448.


McClung, M.
issues


Competency
Fordham Law


testing programs
Review, 1979, 47,


Legal
651-712


educational


McClung, M. S., & Pullin,
Clearinghouse Review,


. Competency
1978, 11, 922


testing


handicapped


students.


Morsink,


. (Ed.


Educational


DELTA:


Development


A design


for word


Corporation,


attack


growth.


Tulsa,


1977.


Muller
o0


, D.,


Calhoun


answer


-324.


heet mode.


Orling,
Journal


reliability


Educational


as a


surement


function


-- -


..


I


L ,L











ill,


Delta


summary
Kappan,


issues


1979


, 60,


minimum competency movement.


453.


Pabian,
Is
15


there


Education malpractice


legal


remedy


and minimal


England


competency


Review


testing:
, 1979,


erez,


Procedural


competency


testing


estigation.


Florida,


1980.


adaptation


Unpubli


format modification


earning dis
shed manusc


abled
rnipt,


student


Univ


ersity


in minimum


A clinical


outh


Peter


Francisco


Unified


hool


trict,


Rptr


(1976)


Pinkney, H.
House,


The minimum


1979,


competency movement


education


413-416.


Clearing


Popham, W. J
Kappan,


The
1981,


case
63,


for minimum


competency


testing.


Delta


89-9


Reichard, C.
material


1970,


Reid,


for the


, 363-


inve


educable mentally


tigation
retarded


format
Journal


reading
Reading,


366.


Safer,


Implications


hand capped


students


minimum


competency


Exceptional


tand


Children,


yards
1980


and
, 46,


testing
288-292.


Salvia,


& Yss


education


eldyke,
Boston:


Assessment


Houghton Mifflin,


special
1978.


remedial


Sawyer,
st


rategic


When


choice.


budgets


Indu


require


trial


compromise


Marketing,


, impact


most


1975,


haw,


1969


Print


for partial


ight.


London:


Library


Association,


irotnik, K., &
Application
Journal of


Wellington,


multiple matrix


Educational


rambling


content


ampli ng


urement,


1974,


achievement


experimental
1. 179-188.


testing


ign.


Smith, L. D
capped


& Jenkin
students.


Minimum


Exceptional


Child


competency
ren. 1980.


testing
46. 440


S C


and
-443


handi-


State


of Florida.


r..-


rida


statutes,


Chapter
----._A- .re


tion


a, lwn f


r-i


.... Ii,


J


FT


rl..__L1


n










Sykes, K. C. P
and large
impaired s
3. 97-105.


comparison
print in fa


students


ilitating


Education


effectiveness


reading


usually


standard


skill


print


Handicapped


ually
1971,


Tinker, M
Pres


Legibility
, 1963. (a


of print.


Ames


Iowa


* Iowa


State


Univer


Tinker,


Typography


Government


(training


Printing Office,


1963


series)
(b)


. Washington,


Tinker


reading


Patterson


Journal


Applied


Influence
sychology,


of type
1928,


form on


peed


359-368.


Watts,


competency testing


answer


Clearing


House,


1979,


Ysse


Idyke


remedial


., & Algo


zzine,


education.


Boston:


Critical


Houghton


issues


special


Mi fflin,


1982















APPENDIX


ELIGIBILITY


CRITERIA


Specific c


Learning


Disability


Specific


one or more of


learning


basic


abilities


-one


psychological


exhibits


processes


disorder


involved


under-


standing


or i


in di


spelling,

are due D


using


order


poken


or arithmetic.


mimarily


written


listening,


They


visual,


hearing


thinking


include


language.


reading


learning


handi


or motor


ese may


talking,


problem


be mani-


writing,


which


to mental


retardation


emotional


turbance


or to


an environmental


depriva-


tion.


Cri t


Eligibility


student must


school


age.


Evidence of


disorder


in one or more of


basic


psychological


cesses.


Based


on a


student


ected


level


functioning


score


standard


deviations


or 1


below the


mean


process


area


or a


score of


one-


half


standard


deviation


or 1


below


the mean


A


LI


...











processes


sensory


integrated


cesses.


cases


where


score of


standard


perc


nt or


deviation


less


not available,


student'


expectancy


one process


area


80 percent or


less


three


or more


process


areas


used.


Evidence


student


process


expected


strength


level


or above


functioning.


more


than


process


test


instrument


used


document


deficit or


strength,


results


must


con-


tently


deficits


or s


strength


same


cess


area.


If more


than one


level


function-


obtained


used


Only


mean


establi


subtests


level


deficit


functioning


or s


appropri at


will


strength.


student


expectancy


should


used


place


purpo


ses.


student


not qualify for


eligibility


following


subtests


only


ones


that


indicate


process


strength


or defi


Detroit


Test of


Learning


Abilities


Free


Social
Social
Number


Association


Adju
Adju


stment A
stment B


Abi lity


Illinois


Test


ycholingui


tic Abilities


M L. ten-n- nn~~l


q


*


F,










Evidence


academic


deficits


Based


on the


student'


expected


level


functioning,


core of


percent


expectancy


or below


third


through


ixth


grade


percent


expectancy


or below


seventh


through


ninth


grade


or 65


cent


expectancy


or below for


tenth


through


twel fth


grade


required


one or more


following


academic c


areas


reading


writing,


arithmetic,


pelling.


students


kindergarten


grade,


evidence must


percent


expectancy


presented


or below on


that achievement


preacademi


which


require


teni ng


, thinking


or speaking


kill


students


second


grade,


evid


nce must


ented


that


achievement


percent


xpectancy


or below


on preacademic


asks


which


require


tening,


thinking,


or speaking


ficit


kills.


either writing


student may


or spelling


placed


or both.


more


than


academic


instrument


used


document


weakness


results must


consistently


deficits


in th


same


academic


area.


If more


than one


level


functioning


obtained,


the mean


level


functioning


will


used


establi


h weakn


ess.


Evidence


that


learning


problems


not due


primarily










or evidence


indicator


student


intellectual


potential.


students


with


process


deficits,


acuity


least


20/70


better


eye with


best


possible


correction or


evidence


that


student


inability


perform


adequately


on tasks


which


require


cess


not due


poor


acuity


students


with


auditory


process


or language


deficit


auditory


acuity


not more


than


30 decibel


better ear


unaided


or evidence


that


student


inability


perform


adequately


on ta


require auditory


processing


or language


poor


auditory


acuity


student


with


a motor


handicap


evidence


that


inability


perform


adequately


on tas


which


assess


basic


psyc


hological


processes


not due


the motor


hand


cap.


students


exhibit


istent


cons


tent


severe


emotional


perform


sturbance


adequately


evidence


on ta


that


which


thei r


inability


assess


psycho-


logical


processes


emotional


turbance.


Documented


evidence which


indicates


that


viable


general


educa-


tional


alternatives


have


been


attempted


found


to be


ineffective


in meeting


student


educational


needs











Educable


Mentally


Retarded


Educable mentally


retarded--one who


mildly


impaired


intel-


lectual


adaptive


behavior


and whos


development


reflects


reduced


rate of


retarded


learning


The measured


student generally


fall


intellig


between


nce of


two (


an educable mentally


three


standard


deviation


below


the mean,


asses


adaptive


behavior


fall


below


cultural


expectations.


Criteri a


Eligibility


The measured


level


intellectual


functioning,


as determined


performance


on an individual


t of


intelligence,


between


three


standard


deviations


below


mean.


standard


rror of


measurement may


cons


idered


individual


cases


profile


intellectual


functioning


shows


cons


tent


ub-average


performance


a majority


areas


evaluated.


assessed


level


adaptive


behavior


below


cultural


expectations.


ub-average


performance on


standardized measure of


academic


achievement


demonstrated.


Emotionally


Handicapped


Emotionally


handicapped--one who


after


receiving


upportive


educational


assi


tance


couns


eling


servi


available


to all


1.W-I C. S m S


Ill


.


- m


-I..~~.~I- Ir


I II I


I