Alignment of an alternate assessment with state academic standards: evidence for the content validity of the Wisconsin alternate assessment.

In this article, the authors describe an alignment and content analysis of the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment (WAA) for students with disabilities. The WAA is an assessment of the academic performance of students with significant disabilities and is an alternative to the traditional on-demand achievement test. Alternate assessments like the WAA are required by federal law and are expected to be aligned with state content standards. The primary purpose of this investigation was to determine the extent to which the WAA adequately measured the concepts and skill areas represented in Wisconsin's Model Academic Standards. The ratings of an expert panel (N = 10) that participated in the WAA Alignment Institute provided data regarding the alignment of WAA items to the standards. The expert panel's responses indicated that the WAA generally meets the multifaceted criteria developed by Webb (1997) and advocated by Title I reviewers for acceptable alignment between assessments and curriculum expectations as articulated in academic content standards.

**********

For many students with disabilities, participation in state and district assessments involves taking existing standardized tests with testing accommodations. Some students (perhaps 0.5% to 2% of the student population), however, have disabilities that make their participation in state- and district-wide tests impractical and render the tests an inaccurate measure of their academic achievements. For example, a student with a developmental disability may not be able to understand and respond to items on a state's large-scale multiple-choice test. For such cases, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA) required states to create and implement alternate assessment systems by July 1, 2000, and include the performance of students participating in alternate assessments in public accountability reporting.

The mandate to create alternate assessments has led states to propose a variety of methods for assessing students with significant disabilities. According to a survey of state special education directors conducted by Thompson and Thurlow (2003), the most common element in alternate assessments is a portfolio or body of evidence (23 of 50 states), followed by a rating scale or checklist (15 states), performance tasks or events (9 states), and Individualized Education Program (IEP) analysis (4 states). As the survey responses indicated, states are using multiple data collection methods to increase the validity of their alternate assessment systems. Moreover, many states' alternate assessment systems are in flux as modifications are made to respond to Title I reviews, No Child Left Behind Act (2001) legislation on adequate yearly progress (AYP), and demands to improve the reliability and validity of inferences based on alternate assessment results.

An Element of Inclusive Assessment Systems