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

Alternate assessments are an important component of each state's assessment system and, as such, are required to meet the federal requirements outlined in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (2002). Specifically, the act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, mandates that state assessments "be aligned with the State's challenging content and student academic performance standards, and provide coherent information about student attainment of such standards" (Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 2002). Many states have struggled to meet these requirements because the skills and concepts in the state academic standards were deemed inappropriate or irrelevant for students with significant disabilities and the development of the alternate assessment was considered a special education function, precluding the involvement of general education curriculum and measurement experts.

The alignment between an assessment and the content it is meant to assess is an important piece of evidence in any validity argument. Lane (1999) outlined procedures for evaluating the validity of assessments designed to measure students' mastery of state academic standards. According to Lane, two forms of evidence are pertinent to determining the validity of these assessments: the extent to which the state assessment reflects the state's academic standards and the extent to which the curriculum offered to students reflects the academic standards. The purpose of this investigation was to provide evidence of the alignment between the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment (WAA) for students with disabilities and Wisconsin's Model Academic Standards. By establishing the alignment and curricular relevance of the WAA, this investigation provided evidence of the validity of the WAA results as a measure of students' mastery of the academic concepts and skills outlined in the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards. In addition, the investigation demonstrated the use of a formal procedure to establish the alignment of an alternate assessment.