Scarpati, S. E., Wells, C. S., Lewis, C., & Jirka, S. (2011). Accommodations and item-level analyses using mixture differential item functioning models . The Journal of Special Education , 45 (1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466909350224

Journal Article

Scarpati, S. E., Wells, C. S., Lewis, C., & Jirka, S. (2011). Accommodations and item-level analyses using mixture differential item functioning models. The Journal of Special Education, 45(1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466909350224

Tags

Braille; Calculation device or software (interactive); Disabilities Not Specified; Enlarged print (on paper); Examiner familiarity; Line reading device or software; Magnification device or software; Math; Middle school; Multiple accommodations; No disability; Oral delivery; Oral delivery, live/in-person; Signed administration; Text-to-speech device/software; U.S. context

Summary

Accommodation

Accommodations studied were calculator, and several item presentation accommodations (including familiar administrator, noise buffer, magnification/overlay, clarify directions, large print, braille, place marker, track test items, amplification, read aloud items, sign interpret items, and electronic text reader).

Participants

Participants were over 73,000 students in grade 8 who participated in a statewide mathematics assessment in an unspecified state (U.S.). Approximately 17% were students with disabilities.

Dependent Variable

Statewide mathematics assessment scores, examined as an extant data set, served as the dependent variable.

Findings

Fourteen out of 34 items exhibited differential item functioning (DIF) when comparing scores of examinees with disabilities who used a calculator and students with disabilities who did not have any accommodations. Of these items, eight were easier for the accommodated group, and six were easier for the nonaccommodated group. Nine out of the 34 items exhibited DIF between examinees who had an item presentation accommodation and those who did not have any accommodations. Of these items, five were easier for the accommodated group and four were easier for the nonaccommodated group. Results also revealed that item difficulty and student ability level contribute to differences in performance above and beyond accommodation status.