Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barton, K. E.
Right arrow Articles by Huynh, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Patterns of Errors Made by Students with Disabilities on a Reading Test with Oral Reading Administration

Karen E. Barton

CTB/McGraw-Hill, karen_barton{at}ctb.com

Huynh Huynh

University of South Carolina

This study focused on differences in the types of errors made by students with disabilities on a multiple choice reading test administered under oral reading accommodations. The sample was composed of students with physical, emotional, learning, and mental disabilities, as well as students with no recorded disabilities. It was first found that, for the majority of items, students in various disability groups varied slightly in their choice for the distractors. Distractors were then classified in four major categories: Diversion, Misapplication, Delimiting, and Out of Bounds. No visible relationship was found between the chosen distractors and the category of errors. Some small group differences, however, were found in the number of errors in the categories of Misapplication and Delimiting. Taken together, the study indicates that when errors are used as an extra factor in exploring the nature of proficiency, the reading construct varies only slightly across disability groups. The results indicate that it is safe to adhere the same meaning to test scores for these groups even when the test is administered under different accommodations.

Key Words: error patterns • accommodations • oral reading

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 63, No. 4, 602-614 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164403256363


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?