Including students with special educational needs in the competence assessment of the NEPS. Results on the comparability of test scores in reading.

Autor/inn/en	Südkamp, Anna; Pohl, Steffi; Heydrich, Jana; Weinert, Sabine
Titel	Including students with special educational needs in the competence assessment of the NEPS. Results on the comparability of test scores in reading.
Quelle	Aus: Blossfeld, Hans-Peter (Hrsg.); Maurice, Jutta von (Hrsg.); Bayer, Michael (Hrsg.); Skopek, Jan (Hrsg.): Methodological issues of longitudinal surveys. Wiesbaden: Springer VS (2016) S. 485-501 PDF als Volltext Link als defekt meldenVerfügbarkeit
Beigaben	Literaturangaben
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	online; gedruckt; Sammelwerksbeitrag
ISBN	978-3-658-11992-8; 978-3-658-11994-2
DOI	10.1007/978-3-658-11994-2_27
Schlagwörter	Itemanalyse; Testverfahren; Förderungsmaßnahme; Schuljahr 05; Schüler; Lesekompetenz; Sonderpädagogischer Förderbedarf; Behinderter; NEPS (National Educational Panel Study)
Abstract	Including students with special educational needs in learning (SEN-L) is one of the National Educational Panel Study's (NEPS) challenges. In this study, we address the question of whether the reading competence of students with SEN-L may be assessed reliably with the reading test designed for general-education students. In addition, we ask whether the test scores of students with SEN-L can be compared with the test scores of students without SEN-L. The reading competence of N = 176 students with SEN-L and N = 5,208 general-education students is assessed with the NEPS standard reading test for students in Grade 5. The results of test targeting and item fit reveal that the items of the NEPS standard reading test are rather difficult for students with SEN-L, while item discrimination is low for many items of the test. With respect to measurement invariance, a substantial number of items show differential item functioning, indicating that the standard reading test measures a different construct for students with and without SEN-L. Implications for further research are indicated in the discussion. (Orig.).
Erfasst von	DIPF \| Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsforschung und Bildungsinformation, Frankfurt am Main
Update	2020/3