Rasch Validation of the Inclusive Curriculum-Based SCALE Instrument in Hong Kong
Abstract: Background: Past research has reflected the needs to develop measures in the area of assessment, curriculum and teaching strategies for pupils with special educational needs. The SCALE, an assessment instrument to align assessment with the central curriculum for pupils with intellectual disabilities was developed by a team of teacher leaders from nine special schools in Hong Kong. Aim: The objectives of this study are to critically evaluate the validity and reliability of the SCALE attainment scales for each strand in four key learning areas (KLA) of the central curriculum of Hong Kong using Rasch analysis. Method: The SCALE data was calibrated using the Rasch measurement model. By calculating the probability of a response by right or wrong answers in terms of a logistic function of the difference between the ability of the person taking the test, Rasch analyses on the assessment data were carried out in the form of model fit statistics, point-measure correlation coefficient, person / item reliability and principal component factor analysis on dimensionality. Results: The Rasch statistics indicate that SCALE possesses a high degree of validity and reliability. It can classify pupils into at least 13 levels of abilities, and that the range of item difficulty is capable of stratifying pupils’ abilities into at least 8 to 11 attainment levels. The result also supports the uni-dimensionality of the SCALE. That is, SCALE solely measures the attainment levels of the pupils but not other aspects of their learning. Conclusion: The use and the impact of SCALE in providing evidenced-based outcome data to document progress of pupils across their years in education, and, to inform school-based curriculum planning are further discussed.
文章引用: 曾君兰 , 谢宗义 , 李启明 (2013) 以全纳课程为本的香港融通学习成效量表(SCALE)之等级量尺分析检视。 教育进展， 3， 41-50. doi: 10.12677/AE.2013.32009
 D. Browder, F. Spooner, L. Ahgrim-Delzell, C. Flowers, B. Algazzin and M. Karvonen. A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states’ alternate assessment performance indicators. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 2004, 28(4): 165-181.
 The SAME Curriculum Project. Key learning area curriculum guide supplement. Centre for Advancement in Special Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 2008.
 K. Humphreys. Developing an inclusive curriculum: “Every teacher matters”. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 2009, 5(2): 43-54.
 A. M.-C. Li, A. C.-Y. Tse and M.-G. J. Lian. The SAME Project: A Hong Kong experience in enhancing accessibility of the central curriculum. Hong Kong Special Education Forum, 2008, 10: 1- 15.
 K. Jamentz. The instructional demands of standard reform. Wa- shington DC: American Federation of Teachers, 2003.
 R. F. Quenemoen, A. Carmilla, M. L. Thurlow and C. B. Mas- sanari. Pupils with disabilities in standards-based assessments and accountability systems: Emerging issues, strategies, and re- com-mendations (Synthesis Report 37). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2001. http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED452654.pdf
 H. Beilin. Piaget’s contribution to developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 1992, 28(2): 191-204.
 T. G. Bond, C. M. Fox. Applying the Rasch Model—Fundamen- tal measurement in the human sciences. 2nd Edition, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2007.
 J. M. Linacre. WINSTEPS Rasch measurement software. Chicago: WINSTEPS, 2006.
 M. M. C. Mok. Self-directed learning oriented assessment: As- sessment that informs learning and empowers the learner. Hong Kong: Pace Publishing Limited, 2010.
 C. W. Chien, T. G. Bond. Measurement properties of fine motor scale of Peabody developmental motor scales. 2nd Edition: A Rasch analysis. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 2009, 88(5): 376-386.
 W. P. J. Fisher. Measurement-related problems in functional as- sessment. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1993, 47: 331-338.
 M. M. C. Mok, Y. C. Cheng, P. J. Moore and K. J. Kennedy. The development and validation of the self-directed learning scales (SLS). Journal of Applied Measurement, 2006, 7: 418-449.
 R. M. Smith. Rasch measurement models: Interpreting WINSTEPS/BIGSTEPS and FACETS output. Chicago: MESA Press, 1999.
 E. K. Kontu, R. A. Pirttimaa. Teaching methods and curriculum models used in Finland in the education of pupils diagnosed with having severe/profound intellectual disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2011, 38(3): 175-179.
 M. M. Abell, D. K. Bauder and T. J. Simmons. Access to the general curriculum: A curriculum and instruction perspective for educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, 2005, 41(2): 82-86.
 A. Kurz, S. N. Elliot, J. H. Wehby and J. L. Smithson. Align- ment of the intended, planned, and enacted curriculum in general and special education and its relation to student achievement. The Journal of Special Education, 2009, 44: 131-144.
 P. R. Parrish, R. A. Stodden. Aligning assessment and instruction with state standards for children with significant disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 2009: 46-56.
 L. B. Resnick, R. Rothman, J. B. Slattery and J. L. Vranek, Bench- marking and alignment of standards and testing. Educational Assessment, 2003, 9: 1-27.
 K. Humphreys. Empowering schools in planning for effective learning diversity with SCALE (Feature article of keynote pres- entation at the SCALE launch seminar presented at the Interna- tional Conference on Special Education). CASE News, 2010, 5(7): 4-7.