Including Students with Deafblindness in Large Scale Assessment Systems

Home Page

Why Should Students with Deafblindess Be Included in Large Scale Assessment Systems?

Assessment Guidelines

Accommodation Study

Quality Indicators Study

- Research Questions

- Methodology

- Research Findings

 

Postsecondary Study

 

Project Staff

 

Reference Materials

 

Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute

The Quality Indicators Study performed by the staff of the Including Students with Deafblindness in Large Scale Assessment Systems Project used a multi-method technique of gathering data.  The research design is described below.

Data Collection:

Participant Observations - Student Classrooms:  Students were observed in their classrooms, the community, and other learning environments.  Observations were made of the daily instructional routine in which students participate, including opportunities for interaction with non-disabled peers, use of communication systems, and practice of targeted skills.  Of specific interest was the quality of IEPs,  employed instructional strategies, the degree of social interactions, and the use of communication systems. 

Document Analysis:  Each student’s IEP was analyzed for quality using the IEP Evaluation Instrument (Hunt, Goetz, and Anderson, 1986).  The score obtained on each IEP analysis was then correlated to the score on each student assessment. 

Teacher Interview: Teachers interviews included specific opportunities to discuss student outcomes within each of the performance indicators on the alternate assessment. Teachers were asked to discuss their concerns and suggestions about assessment implementation issues for students with deafblindness, as well as their perceptions about the effectiveness of the student’s instructional program.  Questions from classroom observations were clarified during teacher interviews.

Family interview:  Family members were asked to discuss student outcomes with respect to the assessment indicators. T hey also were asked to comment on their perception of the daily instructional program for their child, as well the appropriateness of that instruction.  Finally, they were asked to comment on whether the results of the assessment are a valid measure of their son/daughter’s present level of performance.   

Data Analysis: 

Data gathered from observations, interviews, and document analysis was triangulated in an effort to identify common themes.  Individual case descriptions were developed. Interview participants will be asked to review the case description and confirm or clarify the information in the case.  From the individual cases, common themes and discrepancies were discovered and analyzed using a matrix approach. In addition, outside readers from multiple perspectives (e.g. similarly situated student, parent, teacher, deafblind project staff, and assessment staff) reviewed the cases. Once the individual cases were completed, a cross-case analysis was conducted within each state following similar procedures.  A cross-case analysis will be conducted for across the three states using a similar procedure - once the study is completed in each state.

 

References:

Haring, K., Farron-Davis, F., Goetz L., Karasoff, P., Sailor, W., and Zeph, L. (1992). CRI/IES Student Descriptor Scale

Hunt, P., Ferron-Davis (1992). A preliminary investigation of IEP quality and content associated with placement in general versus special education classes. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. 17(4), 247-253.

Hunt, P., Goetz, L., and Anderson, J. (1986).  The Quality of IEP objectives associated with placement on integrated versus segregated school sites. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11(  ), 125-130

Meyer, L., Eichinger, J., Downing, J. (1992). Program Quality Indicators: A checklist of most promising practices in educational programs for students with severe disabilities. Baltimore:TASH.

Top of Page