There is no abstract available for this dissertation. / Department of Special Education

This study examined the relationship between Indiana's Graduate Qualifying Examination (GQE), a criterion referenced assessment which is a part of the general educational assessment and Indiana's alternate assessment, the Indiana Standards Tool for Alternate Reporting (ISTAR), a teacher rating assessment. The study utilized ISTAR ratings and GQE scores for three years (2003-2005). These data were derived from a secondary data source, the student test number (STN) database at the Indiana Department of Education. Use of the STN protects the confidentiality of personally identifiable information are, protects the confidentiality of students. All students in the study participated in both the GQE and ISTAR assessments. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine the relationship between GQE scores and ISTAR ratings. The results of the Pearson correlation coefficient were mixed. Overall when all students were included in the sample, the relationships were stronger than when only students with disabilities were included in the sample. When only 10th grade students with disabilities were included in the sample for two years, 2003 and 2004, no significant correlation was found in the domain of English/language arts. With a larger sample size in 2005, a significant correlation between GQE scores and ISTAR ratings for 10th grade students with disabilities was determined (r = .31). In the domain of mathematics, all correlations were shown to be significant for both all students and students with disabilities. Even though some evidence of validity was demonstrated, the present study does not provide enough data to make definitive determinations regarding the validity of ISTAR ratings. Additional years of data are needed before any judgments regarding the ratings yielded from the ISTAR instrument can be made. The current study provides a base for future ongoing validation studies. / Department of Educational Leadership

The purposes of this study were to survey Indiana high school principals, teachers, and counselors (a) to determine their levels of level of knowledge in testing, interpretation of test scores, research on the impact of graduation examinations, and performance assessment; (b) to determine their levels of experience with minimal competency testing, graduation examination programs and performance assessment; and (c) to profile each group's and the entire group's views of the purposes, content, standards of achievement, and administrative procedures for a graduation examination. Additionally, the study sought to identify what these educators predicted would be the impacts of such examinations.The populations studied were randomly selected samples from three groups of educators: (a) principals (350); (b) teachers (753); and (c) guidance counselors (524) in Indiana public high schools. A survey concentrating on the issues central to the purpose, content, standards of achievement, administrative procedures, and impact of graduation examinations was developed and validated by the researcher.It was found that principals and counselors perceived themselves to be more knowledgeable about and experienced with testing than did teachers. Indiana educators preferred (a) a high school graduation examination with a combination of open-ended constructed responses, performance tasks, and multiple-choice questions whose content was determined by a state-level committee of educators and consisted of a broad spectrum of skills and content areas; (b) full inclusion of students with disabilities, if there were reasonable and appropriate accommodations and if these students' scores were not used to evaluate teachers or schools; and (c) awarding two high school diplomas. Indiana educators predicted that if high school graduation examinations were enacted, the following would increase: (a) legal challenges and lawsuits; (b) the public's evaluation of education based on test scores; (c) the public's perception of test scores as the major goal of schooling; (d) stress on teachers and administrators; (e) pressure on teachers to change; (f) time demands on educators; (g) measures to protect students and schools from harm caused by high-stakes tests; (h) drop out rates; (i) emphasis on tested content and skills; and (k) state control. / Department of Educational Leadership

In order is meet the requiremcnts for technically sound assessment instruments as required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), this study investigates the construct validity of Indiana's alternate assessment, the Indiana Standards Tool for Alternate Reporting (ISTAR), a teacher rating assessment as compared to Indiana's general educational assessment, the Indiana Statewide Test of Educational Progress - Plus (ISTEP+), a criterion referenced assessment. Study participants consisted of 284 students from grades 3, 6, and 8. Students were from general and special education. All students in the study were considered not to have significant cognitive disabilities that would have exempted them from ISTEP+ participation. Therefore, all students in the study were required to participate in the fall 2003 ISTEP+ testing session. Students with disabilities in the study were identified as having one of four mild disabilities as defined by the Indiana Professional Standards Board (Mild Mental Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, Emotional Disabilities, or Other Health Impairment. Teachers rated students using the ISTAR assessment during a fall testing window from August 1, through October 31, 2003. The Pearson correlation coefficient used to determine the relationship between ISTEP+ scores and ISTAR teacher ratings. Results of the Pearson correlation coefficient indicated a linear relationship between scores on the two assessment instruments for students in grades 3, 6, and 8 with mild disabilities and without disabilities who participated in both assessments (r = .46 to r = .71). An analysis of variance was used to determine if the ISTAR instrument could, when appropriately completed, differentiate between groups of students who would be expected to perform less well or better than other groups of students. Results from the ANOVA, Levene and Welch procedures as well as the Tamhane post hoc statistic indicated that ISTAR is capable of differentiating between different achievement level groups for the constructs of English/language arts and mathematics. While the study results indicate a sufficient positive relationship, it should be considered to be a baseline study. Additional years of data are needed before valid inferences can be made for the ISTAR assessment tool. / Department of Special Education