View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Case for Reimagining Universal Design of Assessment Systems

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Case for Reimagining Universal Design of Assessment Systems
Language: English
Authors: Cara Cahalan Laitusis, Meagan Karvonen
Source: Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2025 44(3):5-14.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Descriptors: Educational Assessment, Access to Education, Systems Approach, Psychological Needs, Inclusion, Test Use, Test Interpretation, Personal Autonomy, Test Validity, Assessment Literacy
DOI: 10.1111/emip.12674
ISSN: 0731-1745
1745-3992
Abstract: The 2014 "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" describe universal design as an approach that offers promise for improving the fairness of educational assessments. As the field reconsiders questions of fairness in assessments, we propose a new framework that addresses the entire assessment lifecycle: universal design of assessment systems. This framework is rooted in the original Universal Design principles but extends beyond test design and administration to the entire assessment lifecycle, from construct definition to score interpretation and use. Another core tenet within this framework is the integration of psychological theory on universal human needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness with flexibility based on our contemporary understandings of neurodiversity, culture, and multilingualism. Finally, the framework integrates the original "Universal Design" principle of "tolerance for error," which promotes assessment designs that anticipate unintended actions and mitigate potential harms. After describing how the principles and guidelines might apply in contexts ranging from classroom assessments to statewide assessments and licensure exams, we conclude with practical implications and next steps. We hope future versions of the "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" incorporate this broader, systems-wide approach to universal design.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 20250101
Accession Number: EJ1482835
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFOYRnHKtZL8WcwDU_3Px3GAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAzR6EFC_yz6kiJIKgIBEICBm59FkUuV_BjbL6J955-tEPy-O-Rc-gdpw123Rf9JtA_6KlqdoT7mEqofO2h6vXyekGSt6K8zp3qC5n9DgPdZJ9MH7XVKuVNXx5omRiOoVM1OnaPwmwcWv1qBt4Gw-sxxVXClN4jGtluAGLMjANgqfIEB2omxd-5CC17bfijjnCSz6543LhD6Z13BbHeOARFqTVY7HDnF8xpYo84U
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187819404;ems01sep.25;2025Sep10.05:28;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187819404-1">A Case for Reimagining Universal Design of Assessment Systems </title> <p>The 2014 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing describe universal design as an approach that offers promise for improving the fairness of educational assessments. As the field reconsiders questions of fairness in assessments, we propose a new framework that addresses the entire assessment lifecycle: universal design of assessment systems. This framework is rooted in the original Universal Design principles but extends beyond test design and administration to the entire assessment lifecycle, from construct definition to score interpretation and use. Another core tenet within this framework is the integration of psychological theory on universal human needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness with flexibility based on our contemporary understandings of neurodiversity, culture, and multilingualism. Finally, the framework integrates the original Universal Design principle of tolerance for error, which promotes assessment designs that anticipate unintended actions and mitigate potential harms. After describing how the principles and guidelines might apply in contexts ranging from classroom assessments to statewide assessments and licensure exams, we conclude with practical implications and next steps. We hope future versions of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing incorporate this broader, systems‐wide approach to universal design.</p> <p>Keywords: universal design; test design; fairness; test use; inclusive assessment</p> <p>For at least two decades, various attempts to apply universal design concepts to educational assessment have resulted in different principles and guidelines. In this article, we review the history of universal design and existing frameworks and their gaps. We propose a new framework with associated principles and guidelines: universal design of assessment systems (UDAS). We discuss how the UDAS framework could apply to different assessment types and how it addresses contemporary issues and needs in the field. We know that more work will be required to provide examples of application to each phase of assessment development and different types of assessment. However, we hope this article sets the stage for future evaluation of the efficacy of UDAS principles in promoting inclusive assessments and reducing unintended consequences of testing.</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-2">Relevant History of Universal Design</hd> <p>Universal design began as a set of architectural guidelines for developing physical spaces and products that are maximally accessible for all users of the space (Mace, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref1">52</reflink>]). The Center for Universal Design refined these ideas into seven broad principles that are now included in many regulations, from architecture to product design, and have spread worldwide (Snider & Takeda, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref2">75</reflink>]; United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref3">82</reflink>]). The seven broad principles include (a) equitable use, (b) flexibility in use, (c) simple and intuitive use, (d) perceptible information, (e) tolerance for error, (f) low physical effort, and (g) size and space for approach and use (Story et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref4">77</reflink>]).</p> <p>While many universal design principles can be implemented in assessments, there is a lack of specificity about how these principles apply to assessment design (Ketterlin‐Geller, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref5">42</reflink>]). As a result, test developers can claim to follow the principles without articulating how or providing evidence of what procedures were applied. For example, a recent program review of the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority indicated that universal design was one of the few criteria met by every state, yet the review defined universal design broadly as "the totality of the items developed strives to give all students equal opportunity to access test items and show what they know" (Troppe et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref6">81</reflink>], p. 33). In a recent review of nearly 40 years of literature on universal design in assessment, Liu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref7">51</reflink>]) identified many gaps, especially the "lack of specificity about which UD framework was the focus" (p. iv). Without operational definitions for educational assessment, universal design offers a vague idea of designing for all learners while neglecting some of Mace's ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref8">52</reflink>]) key ideas, such as designing to avoid stigmatization and minimizing adverse consequences.</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-3">Universal Design for Learning</hd> <p>The first universal design for learning (UDL) framework was published in 2002 (Rose & Meyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref9">69</reflink>]). The UDL guidelines include three principles: (a) multiple means of engagement, (b) multiple means of representation, and (c) multiple means of action and expression (CAST, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref10">18</reflink>]). These principles are included in laws and policies that affect curricula and teacher preparation (e.g., Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref11">26</reflink>]; Florida Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref12">27</reflink>]). CAST ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref13">16</reflink>]) offered practical tips for educators to apply UDL to assessments. Several of these tips (e.g., use rubrics to clarify expectations) are most relevant for teacher‐designed assessments and formative practices. CAST's application of universal design to the needs of educators and learners has had an immense impact on the design of curricula, assessments, and teaching practices. The UDL framework has also been integrated in pedagogy around the world. It has been required in work funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and applied to instruction in countries like China, India, and Ireland (Gronseth & Dalton, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref14">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several additional attempts have been made to apply UDL to a large‐scale assessment context (e.g., Dolan et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref15">22</reflink>]; Mislevy, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref16">55</reflink>]; Oliveri, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref17">64</reflink>]). For example, Dolan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref18">22</reflink>]) noted UDL could benefit large‐scale assessment through broader construct definition, the design of assessments for the full range of examinees, and flexible administration options for all students so that accommodations (as exceptions to the norm) are used only when necessary. Many measurement experts (including the authors of this paper) have increasingly pointed to UDL as a means for assessment developers to address the needs of all students, not just students with disabilities. Numerous recent publications on culturally responsive assessment, socioculturally responsive assessment, sociocognitive assessment designs, unstandardized assessments, and personalized assessments point to the ideas first introduced by UDL (Bennett, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref19">8</reflink>]; Buzick et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref20">14</reflink>]; Sireci, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref21">73</reflink>]; Walker et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref22">83</reflink>]). The latest version of the UDL framework (CAST, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref23">18</reflink>]) is more inclusive of cultural identities and removes the term "expert learner" to be more inclusive of students along the continuum from novice to expert.</p> <p>Although the UDL framework has contributed significantly to inclusive education, it is not without criticism. Our most significant concern is that it relies on dated (or discredited) research on neuroscience and learning theory, including learning styles (Boysen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref24">9</reflink>]; Edyburn, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>]; Hattie & O'Leary, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>]; Pashler et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref27">65</reflink>]; Willingham et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref28">84</reflink>]). CAST responded to this criticism by updating some of the research evidence supporting UDL 3.0. The newer research incorporates broader perspectives beyond the field of disability (CAST, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref29">17</reflink>]). However, the updated research literature does not reflect contemporary understandings of neurodiversity, including neuropsychological evidence that the brain is a complex network not limited to brain regions (Pessoa, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref30">66</reflink>]). The UDL 3.0 graphics still include images of brain regions aligned to each UDL principle (CAST, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref31">18</reflink>]). Our second concern is that the framework does not align with non‐classroom assessment and is solely aimed at the needs of the learner. UDL focuses on creating self‐directed learners, but neglects the needs of other people and entities in the educational system, like teachers, parents, community members, and policymakers. Accountability assessments have impacts beyond students, including on teacher morale and engagement (Castro et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref32">19</reflink>]). A third concern is that the UDL framework does not include the original Universal Design principle of tolerance for error which involves designing systems that anticipate human mistakes (error) and reduce the impact (tolerance). These features include fail‐safes (such as automatic shutoffs), warnings and feedback to prevent dangerous errors, and redundancy or confirmation steps to prevent unintended consequences. For example, a power tool that shuts off when dropped or a confirmation screen before submitting a tax form. As we will discuss later in this article, designs that mitigate unintended consequences are essential when considering the history of harm caused by the misuse of high‐stakes tests.</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-4">Universal Design of Assessments</hd> <p>Several attempts have been made to apply the original universal design principles to large‐scale assessment. For example, Ketterlin‐Geller ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref33">42</reflink>]) described how universal design can help eliminate construct‐irrelevant test characteristics that differentially affect certain groups of test takers. She also introduced a model for integrating universal design principles with the widely used assessment triangle (Ketterlin‐Geller, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref34">43</reflink>]). Almond et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]) described considerations for universal design in technology‐enabled assessments. In 2014, universal design entered the language of the <emph>Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing</emph> (American Educational Research Association [AERA] et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref36">5</reflink>]). The <emph>Standards</emph> framed universal design as an approach to promoting fairness by maximizing accessibility for a wide range of examinees and subgroups and minimizing construct‐irrelevant variance.</p> <p>Perhaps the best‐known guidance is the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) principles for universal design in assessment (UDA; Thompson et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref37">78</reflink>]). NCEO defined elements of UDA that are intended to improve the reliability, validity, and fairness of assessments without changing the construct being tested. These elements include (a) an inclusive assessment population, (b) precisely defined constructs; (c) accessible and nonbiased items; (d) amenable to accommodations; (e) simple, clear, and intuitive instructions and procedures; (f) maximum readability and comprehensibility; and (g) maximum legibility. By 2005, more than half of U.S. states reported including UDA in their item‐development and assessment‐procurement processes for statewide assessments (Johnstone et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref38">36</reflink>]). In its 2022 update to state guidance, NCEO did not change the principles and elements but did update the list of steps states should take to apply UDA to assessments (Lazarus et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref39">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>The 2002 NCEO UDA guidelines were certainly useful in an era when students with disabilities were still excluded from large‐scale assessments and accommodations were not routinely provided. However, 20 years later, the assessment community relies on a wider range of guidance. For instance, because ESSA ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref40">26</reflink>]) references UDL rather than UDA, peer review of assessment systems requires states to provide evidence that that they incorporate UDL "to the extent practicable" (Office of Elementary & Secondary Education, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref41">63</reflink>], p. 7).</p> <p>A major limitation of the UDA guidance is that it narrowly focuses on creating requirements for large‐scale assessment that align to Mace's ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref42">52</reflink>]) framework. UDA also neglects to incorporate Mace's original ideas on designing to mitigate unintended consequences, resulting in a checklist mindset that allows test developers to claim adherence at the item level. In addition, the UDA framework was created for large‐scale assessments. It is too narrow for the larger context of assessment systems—which consist of more than just items—or other types of assessments, such as diagnostic or single‐item formative assessments in which elements such as nonbiased items are more difficult to evaluate. Finally, recommendations in the 2022 guidance are important for validity evaluation but may not go far enough to support needed applications of universal design in innovative assessments of the future. For example, subgroup analysis is necessary to evaluate comparability for accountability assessments, but unidimensional subgroups such as gender or disability status are inconsistent with more‐contemporary views of cultural identity and intersectionality (e.g., Keller et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref43">40</reflink>]; Moffitt et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref44">58</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-5">Rationale for a New Framework</hd> <p>Despite our concerns about the applicability of existing frameworks to current and emerging assessment systems, we see how universal design, UDL, and UDA have advanced the educational community toward the design and implementation of more‐inclusive assessment (Batel & Sargrad, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref45">7</reflink>]; Kubatzky & Benner, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref46">46</reflink>]). We recognize the impressive advances the universal design community has made to ensure that universal design requirements permeate laws and design requirements that extend beyond educational assessment. Instead of abandoning these efforts, we propose a new framework, UDAS, which incorporates some elements of earlier frameworks.</p> <p>UDAS incorporates existing ideas into a new, coherent framework that extends across all types of assessments (formative, diagnostic, interim, and summative). We argue for a systems‐based framework because current guidance is fragmented. The <emph>Standards</emph> (AERA et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref47">5</reflink>]), ESSA ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref48">26</reflink>]), and the NCEO UDA guidelines (Lazarus et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref49">48</reflink>]) all focus on large‐scale assessments. Although this guidance may arguably be applied to a range of large‐scale assessments (e.g., summative, interim), it is hard to translate the guidance to teacher‐created classroom assessments or formative assessment practices. In contrast, most guidance on classroom assessment and formative assessment practices is framed by the CAST UDL guidelines and instructional design (e.g., CAST, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref50">16</reflink>]; Rao & Meo, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref51">68</reflink>]). Finally, we advocate designing for a systems approach to acknowledge the needs of all individuals in the system, rather than limiting guidance solely to student–item interactions.</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-6">Overview of the Framework</hd> <p>The UDAS framework considers the needs of all humans who are affected by assessments, expands the concepts of universal design to the entire assessment life cycle, and shifts the responsibility for mitigating harms from the score user to the test developer. UDAS includes three principles and 10 associated guidelines (see Figure 1). In this section we discuss each principle, guidelines and example applications within assessment systems. We propose this framework as a step toward finer‐grained recommendations that are still needed, analogous to CAST's ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref52">15</reflink>]) UDL checkpoints. The recommendations may vary by type or purpose of assessment. We propose this framework for the full spectrum of educational assessments, from formative assessment practices to large‐scale summative tests.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EMS/01sep25/emip12674-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNLe80Sepq84zdnyOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="emip12674-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Universal Design of Assessment Systems: Principles and GuidelinesMeet Human Psychological Needs with a heart graphic. Below are three guidelines: Maximize Autonomy, Promote Competence, and Foster a Sense of Relatedness.Design for Flexibility and Learner Variability. Below are three guidelines: Broadly Define Constructs, Design for Flexibility in Representation, and Design for Flexibility in Action and Expression.Safeguard for Fair, Responsible and Equitable Use. Below are four guidelines: Conduct proactive and ongoing validity evaluation, Promote intended interpretations and discourage inappropriate use, Promote assessment literacy, and build in consequences for score misuse." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187819404-8">Principle 1: Assessments Meet Human Psychological Needs and Fulfill the Goals of Educational...</hd> <p>Regardless of the level at which results are used (i.e., student, class, school, district, state), educational assessments provide feedback about the extent to which educational programs are meeting or making progress toward their intended goals. We propose that, regardless of their stated purpose, assessments should serve the educational system. To do so, they must meet core human needs that span language, disability, and other dimensions of student background and identity. This idea goes beyond meeting basic but important goals of accessibility and bias‐free measurement. UDAS builds on the psychological science of motivation and engagement to produce learners who meet goals beyond academic achievement by the time they graduate.</p> <p>We ground principle 1 on self‐determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref53">72</reflink>]), which emphasizes the importance of psychological needs for human well‐being and flourishing. SDT hypothesizes that people are more likely to be motivated and engaged when they feel that their basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met. These needs influence how individuals perceive and interact with their environment, including their relationships, work, and other aspects of their lives. SDT has been applied and empirically supported in fields such as education, health care, and sports (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref54">72</reflink>]). The basic needs are universal, although there are cultural differences in how those needs are associated with outcomes like motivation and performance (e.g., Bao & Lam, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref55">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Designing assessments to foster autonomy, competence, and relatedness is a way of creating conditions that allow all (not most) students to show what they know and can do. Principle 1 acknowledges the affective processes in student‐assessment interactions and score‐report interpretations. It embraces context instead of striving to strip it out of the assessment experience. Assessments that support basic needs should increase engagement and motivation to learn. This principle may be the easiest to envision and enact for formative assessment practices and more challenging for large‐scale summative assessments.</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-9">Guideline 1.1: Assessments maximize autonomy for test takers and others</hd> <p>We ground guideline 1.1 in people's need to "regulate [their] experiences and actions" (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref56">72</reflink>], p. 10). Autonomy is not a necessity solely of students or test takers. It also applies to teachers' choices about the data they need on student learning and parents' choices about how frequently their children participate in accountability testing. There is evidence that autonomy acts as a causal variable in achievement (e.g., Froiland & Worrell, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref57">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Maximizing autonomy is the first guideline because it is central to questions of control. It is easy to envision guideline 1.1 in classroom assessment (e.g., in project‐based learning). In contrast, educational accountability systems can act as extrinsic influences that undermine optimal learning for all students. We do not argue against the existence of accountability systems. Instead, we ask how large‐scale assessments used for accountability can promote autonomy. An obvious answer is universal tools made available to all students in online assessments (e.g., Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref58">74</reflink>]). Other design features that support autonomy, such as choice in assessment topics and items (e.g., Allen et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref59">3</reflink>]; Bridgeman et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref60">11</reflink>]; Gabrielson et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref61">29</reflink>]) or student use of feedback (e.g., Ketonen et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref62">41</reflink>]; Nicol & Macfarlane‐Dick, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref63">61</reflink>]), have been investigated but largely not implemented. At the other end of the system, consider questions of autonomy in score use. Do teachers, parents, or students have a choice in a longer test in exchange for additional information (e.g., subscores), or are these decisions made exclusively by policymakers and test developers? Does a student, parent, or community have a say in how school administrators and policymakers use test scores? Who chooses which process, background, or log‐file data are used to generate personalized pathways or enhance score reports? Do policies and practices about score use limit student autonomy (e.g., do low test scores act as gatekeepers to limit access to more advanced courses or the next topic of study)?</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-10">Guideline 1.2: Assessments promote competence for test takers and others</hd> <p>We adopt Ryan and Deci's ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref64">72</reflink>]) definition of competence as people's "basic need to feel effectance and mastery; and ability to operate effectively within their important life contexts" (p. 11). Situations that reduce feelings of competence include those in which challenges are too difficult, negative feedback is pervasive, or feelings of mastery and effectiveness are diminished by interpersonal factors such as person‐focused criticism and social comparisons (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref65">72</reflink>]). Unfortunately, current assessments foster many of these conditions.</p> <p>Many ideas in guideline 1.2 have been articulated by scholars of competency‐based assessment and mastery‐based grading (Gyll & Ragland, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref66">33</reflink>]; Townsley & Schmid, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref67">80</reflink>]). We extend "competence" to encompass design that provides a means of adapting test content to a student's current ability, as well as opportunities for all students to achieve, and exceed, learning standards. The <emph>Standards</emph> (AERA et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref68">5</reflink>]) address opportunity to learn in guidance on fairness for high‐stakes assessments. In an assessment adhering to guideline 1.2, students would have opportunities to master test content before being assessed, and tests would adapt to ensure that students can show what they can do, not what they cannot do. These concepts may be common in classroom assessments, but they should be extended to all summative and interim assessments. Guideline 1.2 can also be applied in scoring and reporting, for example, with rubric‐scored, constructed‐response tasks and asset‐based score reports.</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-11">Guideline 1.3: Assessments foster sense of relatedness for test takers and others</hd> <p>Guideline 1.3 is related to Mace's ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref69">52</reflink>]) efforts to design products that avoid stigmatization. In a testing context, stigmatization includes flagging test scores or isolating students when they require accommodations. In shifting from stigmatization to inclusion, this guideline encourages design that enhances a student's sense of belonging and feeling significant among others. This approach aligns with Rose et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref70">70</reflink>]) assertion that considering emotions leads to assessment results that are both more accurate and more meaningful.</p> <p>Creating a sense of relatedness may be an ambitious goal for any assessment, especially when the assessment is not intended to provide information about a student's sense of self and others. We believe that formative assessments and even large‐scale and high‐stakes assessments have the potential to foster a sense of relatedness. This can be accomplished through the selection of passages and content that affirm a wide variety of cultural and linguistic identities. In [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref71">25</reflink>], Evans and Taylor provided test developers and classroom teachers with examples of how assessments can be designed to foster relatedness across cultural and linguistic differences (e.g., task design and grading). A sense of belonging can also be accomplished by designing accommodations that do not stigmatize or isolate test takers who require accommodations or alternative forms of assessment (Nieminen, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref72">62</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-12">Principle 2: Design Assessments for Flexibility and Learner Variability</hd> <p>Flexibility is a core principle of Universal Design and a core tenet in the UDL framework. However, when the 2014 <emph>Standards</emph> were written, flexibility was commonly viewed as a threat to comparability. Since then, some psychometricians have voiced support for more‐flexible assessments. In 2020, National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) president Steve Sireci called for psychometricians "stuck in the 20th century" (p. 104) to embrace more flexibility in standardized testing (Sireci, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref73">73</reflink>]). Mislevy ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref74">55</reflink>]) used the term "conditional sense of fairness" and recommended how to implement UDL and still achieve comparability. He proposed three conditions for comparability: (a) "It must be possible for targeting capabilities to be measured through alternate work products," (b) "students must understand how to demonstrate them in the form they are using," and (c) "the evaluation procedures must be applied in equivalent, suitably adapted, ways to all forms" (Mislevy, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref75">55</reflink>], p. 224).</p> <p>These ideas are admirable, but they have resulted in various implementation approaches across assessments. Collectively, these variations risk undermining efforts to honor learners (principle 1). For example, a high school student who uses an audio accommodation may take many different tests in the same year (e.g., classroom, interim, admissions, college equivalency tests, state accountability, graduation) that implement this accommodation with prerecorded audio, a human reader, and/or text to speech. It is unlikely that the student's preferred assistive technology is allowed as an accommodation on each assessment.</p> <p>Test developers must provide flexibility in the content and tools that address the needs and preferences of students from different cultures, abilities, and languages. However, designing with unidimensional subgroups in mind (e.g., students with learning disabilities, multilingual learners) may lead to the danger of thinking of subgroups as homogeneous and presuming their members have uniform needs for assessment‐design features. Hence, Principle 2 extends beyond UDL concepts of flexibility to include learner variability across groups and within groups.</p> <p>UDAS principle 2 harmonizes with existing standards and guidelines where they exist, particularly in Guidelines 2.2 and 2.3. For digital assessments, much of this principle is also aligned with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), governed by the World Wide Web Consortium ([<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref76">86</reflink>]). The WCAG encourage all elements to be perceivable, operable, usable, and robust, and provide explicit guidance on how to enact these criteria across a multitude of elements on assessments, from radio buttons and checkboxes to the creation of alternate text for graphics. The assessment community has integrated WCAG into the Question and Test Interoperability framework (QTI 3.0; IMS Global Learning Consortium, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref77">35</reflink>]) that governs the formatting of test items to facilitate communication between testing vendors. Likewise, the U.S. Office for Civil Rights and the United Nations recommend these guidelines as an approach to ensure accessibility compliance for both large‐scale summative tests and tools that are used during formative assessment and classroom assessments (e.g., clickers, Kahoot).</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-13">Guideline 2.1: Broadly define constructs to be inclusive of all students</hd> <p>Guideline 2.1 represents a considerable shift from prior interpretations of universal design, which emphasize precise construct definition (AERA et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref78">5</reflink>]; Thompson et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref79">78</reflink>]). Although the goal of precisely defining the construct was to identify and remove construct‐irrelevant variance, UDAS promotes a broader view of the construct to be inclusive of all students regardless of differences in culture, language, and abilities. We still believe a construct needs to be defined to support the assessment's purpose and intended uses. Clear construct definition is consistent with assessment‐design frameworks like evidence‐centered design (Mislevy et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref80">56</reflink>]). However, we suspect that in many forms of educational assessment, "precise" has been reinterpreted as "narrowly defined." One example of a narrowly defined construct is when task templates used to guide item development become so constrained that they do not allow for multiple ways of demonstrating knowledge. In contrast, the preamble in the Common Core State Standards for English language arts (Common Core State Standards Initiative, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref81">21</reflink>]) shows how constructs can be broadly defined: "Reading should allow for the use of braille, screen‐reader technology, or other assistive devices," and writing should include the "use of a scribe, computer, or speech‐to‐text technology" (p. 6). This broad approach to construct definition makes it clear to test developers how to incorporate inclusiveness while plainly defining the construct being measured.</p> <p>Because cognitive processes are coupled with affective processes during an assessment (Dolan et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref82">22</reflink>]), viewing a construct as purely cognitive is likely to be a form of construct underrepresentation (Messick, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref83">54</reflink>]). Even presuming a single, expected response process may be a pitfall if that process is defined according to a typical pathway instead of allowing for a range of possible ways to answer an item. While we acknowledge that construct‐irrelevant variance is something to be minimized to the extent possible, precise definitions result in variance that is still buried in some students' scores (likely students at the margins). We propose broadening the construct definition to include multiple ways of knowing that are more inclusive of culture, abilities, and language differences.</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-14">Guideline 2.2: Design for flexibility in representation</hd> <p>Rather than perpetuating accommodations and their associated stigmas, assessments need to represent content in flexible ways, with options for access to language and symbols, perception, and comprehension. We propose leveraging the CAST ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref84">15</reflink>]) representation principle for UDAS guideline 2.2. Fortunately, there is extensive research on how students interact with a variety of assessment contents, formats, and features (Morris et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref85">59</reflink>]; Zhu et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref86">89</reflink>]), as well as practical guidance on topics like legibility and comprehensibility (Lazarus et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref87">48</reflink>]). There are research‐based ways to operationalize the CAST principles for assessment design (e.g., Accessible Teaching, Learning, & Assessment Systems, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>]). For the most widely studied representation option—audio supports (e.g., text to speech, prerecorded audio)—three meta‐analyses demonstrated that some students perform significantly better on tests when provided audio supports (Buzick & Stone, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref89">13</reflink>]; Li, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref90">50</reflink>]; Wood et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref91">85</reflink>]).</p> <p>Technology‐based assessments should incorporate the most current WCAG and QTI specifications to allow for flexible content representation. Harmonizing with these standards will reduce redundancies and support integrating both current and future assistive technologies (e.g., spoken responses) into an assessment context. WCAG 2.2 and QTI 3.0 provide a how‐to guide for simple and intuitive design that is consistent with user expectations developed through prior experience in their learning environments. This guideline is also relevant for the design of score reports, dynamic data displays, interpretive guides, and other resources to promote intended uses of assessment results.</p> <p>Although accessibility specifications for flexibility in representation exist, we recognize that more work is needed to operationalize strategies for cultural and linguistic differences. There is some research on intuitive score‐report design (Zenisky & Hambleton, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref92">88</reflink>]), features that promote comprehension of complex ideas like measurement error (Zapata‐Rivera et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref93">87</reflink>]), and literacy and language supports for stakeholders, including parents (Kannan et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref94">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-15">Guideline 2.3: Design for flexibility in action and expression</hd> <p>As with guideline 2.2, there is a substantial body of research on practices in support of guideline 2.3. WCAG and the QTI 3.0 support flexibility in responding to test questions. In addition, we propose incorporating the CAST ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref95">15</reflink>]) action‐and‐expression principle. Assessment systems need to provide flexible options for physical action, expression and communication, and executive function. The shift to technology‐based assessments has provided significantly flexibility in how students physically interact with assessments and use a variety of tools to show what they know, including speech to text or an alternate language (Walker et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref96">83</reflink>]). However, more work is needed to implement research on the CAST checkpoints related to goal setting, planning and strategy development, managing information and resources, and capacity for progress monitoring in the context of large‐scale assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-16">Principle 3: Safeguard Assessment Systems for Fair, Responsible, and Equitable Use</hd> <p>Principle 3 is rooted in Mace's original ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref97">52</reflink>]) tolerance‐for‐error principle. "Error" does not refer to measurement error but to the design of products and spaces that minimize hazards and the adverse consequences of unintended actions (Story et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref98">77</reflink>]). This principle was initially aimed at designing products that would not cause harm, such as automatic shutoff mechanisms on a lawn mower or Undo buttons in software applications like Microsoft Word or Google Docs. Tolerance for error is a significant omission from previous applications of universal design to assessment contexts. In an educational assessment context, a tolerant design arranges elements to minimize hazards and errors, such as ensuring submit buttons are large enough to be selected by someone with difficulty with fine‐motor control. Selections should also be reversible if accidentally activated or include an extra confirmation screen when submission cannot be reversed because of routing rules in an adaptive assessment. We propose broadening this idea of designing to promote equity and mitigate harm, through all phases of the assessment from test design through development, delivery, scoring, and test‐score use.</p> <p>The assessment community is well aware of the historical use of tests to do harm, ranging from the use of intelligence testing in the eugenics movement to the current use of test scores to justify excluding and segregating students from rigorous classes, gifted‐and‐talented programs, or selective high schools (Briggs, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref99">12</reflink>]; Russell, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref100">71</reflink>]). More recent examples occurred in the 1990s when states began rewarding and punishing teachers for students' test scores through teacher evaluation. The unintended consequences included widespread dissatisfaction among teachers who felt controlled (through loss of autonomy) at one extreme, and teachers manipulating student test responses on the other extreme. Even more recently concern has been raised that reporting of achievement gaps has contributed to perpetuating negative stereotypes about the academic abilities of Black, Hispanic, and Native American students (Montenegro & Jankowski, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref101">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>Principle 3 puts the responsibility of test‐score misuse on the test developer (i.e., product owner) rather than the test‐score user (i.e., customer). The earliest phases of test design should anticipate potential misuses and integrate steps to mitigate those misuses. Waiting until a testing program is operational to consider potential misuse relegates the topic of score use to the category of consequential validity, where questions have been raised about limits on the test developer's responsibility for preventing, identifying, and remediating negative consequences (Brennan, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref102">10</reflink>]). Consequential evidence also tends to take lower priority than other types of evidence when operational testing programs have limited resources.</p> <p>Principle 3 is based on best practices developed by the assessment community over the last 20 years and more recent models for broader equity and culturally responsive assessments. We integrate the concept of safe use and mitigating unintended consequences (Story et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref103">77</reflink>]) with the ideas of universal design and test fairness and use from the <emph>Standards</emph> (AERA et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref104">5</reflink>]) and the Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education (Joint Committee on Testing Practices, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref105">37</reflink>]). Although fairness and universal design are components of inclusive assessments, they are insufficient to mitigate harm. Principle 3 also integrates some of the ideas on full inclusion within a culturally responsive educational system (cited previously) and recognizes that test developers and test‐score users must be aware of the impact of testing on the creation of a more (or less) inclusive society.</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-17">Guideline 3.1: Conduct proactive and ongoing validity evaluation</hd> <p>Proactive validity work is the best way to promote Mace's universal design guideline on safe use and preventing misuse. This guideline is not a call for routine validity studies on an operational assessment. Test developers must rethink how they approach validity. Large‐scale assessment developers could start by asking whose views are represented in the discussion about intended and unintended uses and potential consequences and which communities are included when identifying potential consequences. Similar guidance for teachers to reflect on their assessment practices and results (e.g., CAST, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref106">16</reflink>]) is also needed.</p> <p>Using several of the arguments we have made to support this framework, we see value in adopting theories of action to guide validity evaluation for all large‐scale assessments. We endorse NCME's ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref107">60</reflink>]) position that, when assessments serve as causal agents, they should be guided by a theory of action that articulates the assessment components, intended outcomes, causal mechanisms, and program implementation that will drive the intended change. In a theory of action, test designers need to identify the possible unintended impacts of the assessment and then articulate the actions and design elements needed to mitigate the unintended negative effects (e.g., Gholson & Guzman‐Orth, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref108">30</reflink>]). In the UDAS framework, hypothesized intended and unintended consequences need to consider test takers' basic human needs and the multiple dimensions of identity and learner characteristics that may affect the use of results.</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-18">Guideline 3.2: Design to promote intended interpretations and uses and discourage inappropria...</hd> <p>The Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education (the Code hereafter) developed by the Joint Committee on Testing Practices ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref109">37</reflink>]) clearly states what is required of both test publishers and test‐score users regarding score interpretation and misuse. The Code includes guidance such as "Specify appropriate uses of test results and warn test users of potential misuses," (p. 8), but it does not require that score reports be designed to mitigate known misuses of test‐score data. Universal Design's tolerance‐for‐error principle asserts that effective design must minimize adverse consequences. Assessment developers (e.g., testing companies) and assessment users (e.g., college admissions officers, teacher‐licensure boards, state education agencies) should take concrete actions to promote intended interpretations. These actions may include requiring policymakers, educators, or journalists undergo short training on score interpretation before they access test data, as well as grouping data in a way that discourages misinterpretation. For example, rather than grouping data by race, test publishers can report scores based on malleable factors (e.g., teacher experience, poverty, instructional approaches, curriculum, student attendance). Determining which design is most appropriate to promote intended interpretations requires that test developers and test‐score users have a clearly articulated theory of action that includes the test purpose, intended outcomes, action mechanisms, and possible unintended outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-19">Guideline 3.3: Promote assessment literacy for all score users</hd> <p>It is not enough to design materials to promote accurate and appropriate interpretation and uses. Assessment literacy is also needed to ensure stakeholders are prepared to use results when making educational decisions (Popham, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref110">67</reflink>]). The <emph>Standards</emph> (AERA et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref111">5</reflink>]) define <emph>assessment literacy</emph> as "knowledge about the basic principles of sound assessment practice," (p. 192) including terminology, assessment methods, and standards for judging testing practices. Ideally, assessment literacy supports will (a) be tailored to the type of assessment (e.g., classroom, large scale) and nature of the results (e.g., rubric‐based raw scores, DCM‐based mastery, IRT‐based scale scores; Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref112">20</reflink>]), (b) be supported with interpretation for the entire range of students, (c) be designed to actively guard against misinterpretations and misuses, and (d) be effective in changing stakeholder knowledge (Gotch & McLean, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref113">31</reflink>]). While the primary audiences for professional development on assessment literacy are local teachers and educational leaders, other stakeholder groups, including parents, policymakers, journalists, and the general public, may also benefit from resources that support their understanding of assessment results.</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-20">Guideline 3.4: Build in consequences for score misuse</hd> <p>Guideline 3.4 is a necessary partner to guideline 3.3. Recognizing that proactive approaches cannot prevent all misuses, assessment systems should include an automatic shutoff of testing data for those who misuse test data and warning labels before the release of test scores. There is a long and public history of large‐scale assessment results used in accountability systems having a disproportional impact on schools that serve marginalized groups. Especially when accountability systems rely on status (i.e., proficiency) measures or growth measures that are not equally sensitive to the full continuum of test takers, those systems can perpetuate harm. Misuses with unintended consequences in a classroom or for individual students tend to remain hidden and need to be brought into the field's awareness. Regardless of the purpose of the assessment, harmful consequences that have become normalized and accepted as the status quo are especially problematic. This guideline requires test developers to commit to warning of misuse, monitoring use, and taking action to halt the misuse of test scores. Doing so may necessitate resurrecting the Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education (Joint Committee on Testing Practices, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref114">37</reflink>]), which requires test developers and test‐score users to monitor test use, including inconsistencies with the intended purpose, and to warn users of misuse. A more extreme remedy may require the development of a licensure process for test makers and users.</p> <p>Another approach would clearly define the purpose and use of each test and the consequences of score misuse. Most testing professionals would agree that using admissions test scores to rank colleges is not the purpose of tests like the SAT and ACT. However, no consequence of score misuse is currently integrated into data‐sharing agreements or challenged as a form of secondary copyright infringement. Imagine how university rankings would change if colleges did not release admissions test scores to <emph>U.S. News and World Report</emph> because doing so was an enforceable misuse of test data. There is precedent for testing companies setting aside profits and refusing to sell tests to entities that misuse test data. For example, in the mid‐1980s, ETS refused to release data on the National Teaching Exam (NTE), a teacher‐licensure test designed to assess minimum teaching competency. Arkansas planned to the test to determine teacher compensation, retention, termination, and advancement, a clear misuse of NTE data. ETS refused to release test‐score data, saying "NTE tests were developed to provide information about a candidate's academic knowledge and skills, typically acquired through a teacher training program.... They do not provide a direct evaluation of teaching performance" (Killackey, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref115">44</reflink>], paras. 51–52). Preventing misuse may require built‐in consequences such as legal testing agreements, laws to govern misuse, licensure of test‐score users, and warning mechanisms accompanying test‐score reports.</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-21">Conclusions and Implications</hd> <p>The proposed UDAS framework is a departure from current conceptualizations of universal design in assessment. Prior models of universal design did not fully consider design for safe use or the impact of test design on our emotions. We think this shift is necessary to improve current forms of assessment and prepare for new types of assessments. The field needs a new approach to address systemic inequities and create more‐inclusive experiences from test taking to score use. UDAS sets the stage for work that gets us past the "shoulds" (Solano‐Flores, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref116">76</reflink>]) in professional standards related to fairness.</p> <p>We hope this framework will be welcomed by assessment developers (including classroom teachers) and test users (such as state education agencies) who would value operationally defined criteria, guidance, and ways to evaluate the efficacy of their inclusive strategies. We hope to inspire the assessment community to take the next steps, including creating UDAS checkpoints for all types of educational assessments, all parts of the assessment system, and all phases of the life cycle from construct definition to test use.</p> <p>Where UDAS departs significantly from existing practice, new approaches will be needed to evaluate technical adequacy and fairness. For instance, shifting from the view that test takers vary on a single dimension to broader learner variability will require new methods that ensure items function as intended for all test takers without losing the ability to identify potential systemic barriers or inequitable outcomes for certain groups. Promising areas include intersectional differential item functioning and using log‐file data and other process data to evaluate item functioning (Albano et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref117">2</reflink>]; Karvonen et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref118">39</reflink>]; Laitusis, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref119">47</reflink>]; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref120">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>UDAS provides an organizing framework that incorporates past guidance on universal design with our evolved understanding that validity and fairness are inclusive of test use and the impact that tests have on the human needs of people and communities (Englert & Kūkea Shultz, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref121">24</reflink>]). These ideas about human needs should be integrated into policy and standards for our field, including the next version of <emph>The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing</emph>. While the current <emph>Standards</emph> (AERA et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref122">5</reflink>]) acknowledge the need to consider all phases of test development and administration to support valid score inferences for the full range of examinees (Standard 3.1), the text related to universal design are limited to three concepts: accessibility, precise construct definition, and minimizing construct‐irrelevant variance. Consistent with more‐contemporary views of validity (Kopriva et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref123">45</reflink>]) and calls for coherence within assessment systems (Marion et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref124">53</reflink>]), it is time to think about universal design across the whole assessment system, starting with the definitions of purpose and use and including construct definition, test design, test development, test administration, scoring and reporting, fair interpretation and use, and validity evaluation. Just as conceptualizations of inclusive assessment (Thurlow et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref125">79</reflink>]) have evolved over time, universal design needs to mature.</p> <hd id="AN0187819404-22">Conflict of Interest Statement</hd> <p>The authors have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.</p> <ref id="AN0187819404-23"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref88" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> To improve clarity, we use lowercase "universal design" to refer to the broad concept and uppercase "Universal Design" when referring to the specific framework developed by Mace.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0187819404-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Accessible Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Systems. (2021). Evaluating innovative science assessments: Evidence from the I‐SMART pilot study. University of Kansas.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref117" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Albano, T., French, B. F., & Vo, T. T. (2024). Traditional vs intersectional DIF analysis: Considerations and a comparison using state testing data. Applied Measurement in Education, 37 (1), 57 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2024.2311935</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref59" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, N. L., Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (2005). Measuring the benefits of examinee‐selected questions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42 (1), 27 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref35" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Almond, P., Winter, P., Cameto, R., Russell, M., Sato, E., Clarke‐Midura, J., Torres, C., Haertel, G., Dolan, R., Beddow, P., & Lazarus, S. (2010). Technology‐enabled and universally designed assessment: Considering access in measuring the achievement of students with disabilities—A foundation for research. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 10 (5), 4 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref36" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref55" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bao, X.‐H., & Lam, S.‐F. (2008). Who makes the choice? Rethinking the role of autonomy and relatedness in Chinese children's motivation. Child Development, 79 (2), 269 – 283.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref45" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Batel, S., & Sargrad, S. (2016). Better tests, fewer barriers: Advances in accessibility through PARCC and Smarter Balanced. Center for American Progress</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref19" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bennett, R. E. (2023). Toward a theory of socioculturally responsive assessment. Educational Assessment, 28 (2), 83 – 104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref24" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Boysen, G. A. (2021). Lessons (not) learned: The troubling similarities between learning styles and universal design for learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 10 (2), 207 – 221. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000280</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brennan, R. L. (2006). Perspectives on the evolution and future of educational measurement. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., 1 – 16). Rowman and Littlefield.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bridgeman, B., Morgan, R., & Wang, M. (2005). Choice among essay topics: Impact on performance and validity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34 (3), 273 – 286.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Briggs, D. C. (2021). Historical and conceptual foundations of measurement in the human sciences: Credos and controversies. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buzick, H., & Stone, E. (2014). A meta‐analysis of research on the read aloud accommodation. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33 (3), 17 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buzick, H. M., Casabianca, J. M., & Gholson, M. L. (2023). Personalizing large‐scale assessment in practice. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 42 (2), 5 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines (Version 2.2). Wakefield, MA : Author. <ulink href="http://udlguidelines.cast.org">http://udlguidelines.cast.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> CAST. (2020). UDL tips for assessment. Wakefield, MA : Author. https://<ulink href="http://www.cast.org/resources/tips‐articles/udl‐tips‐assessment/">www.cast.org/resources/tips‐articles/udl‐tips‐assessment/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> CAST. (2024a). Research evidence. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/more/research‐evidence/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> CAST. (2024b). UDL guidelines 3.0. https://udlguidelines.cast.org</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castro, A. J., Edmondson, E., & Santoro, D. (2023). Shifting the gaze: Examining contextual factors influencing teacher morale in suburban schools. American Journal of Education, 130 (1), 61 – 87.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, A. K., Nash, B., Burnes, J., & Karvonen, M. (2022). Teacher assessment literacy: Implications for diagnostic assessment systems. Applied Measurement in Education, 35 (1), 17 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC : Authors.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dolan, R. P., Burling, K., Harms, M., Strain‐Seymour, E., Way, W. D., & Rose, D. H. (2013). A Universal Design for learning‐based framework for designing accessible technology‐enhanced assessments [Research report]. Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edyburn, D. L. (2019). Universal design for learning and the landfill of revolutionary education innovations. In S. Gronseth & E. Dalton (Eds.), Universal access through inclusive instructional design (pp. 332 – 342). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Englert, K., & Kūkea Shultz, P. (2025). Reconsidering theories of action: Using cultural and community validity to transform assessment development, implementation, and use. In C. M. Evans & C. S. Taylor (Eds.), Culturally responsive assessment in classrooms and large‐scale contexts: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 156 – 176). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003392217‐12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, C. M., & Taylor, C. S. (Eds.). (2025). Culturally responsive assessment in classrooms and large‐scale contexts: Theory, research, and practice (1st ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301. (2015).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Florida Department of Education. (2022). Policies and procedures specifications for the Florida instructional materials adoption. Tallahassee, FL : Author. https://<ulink href="http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5574/urlt/PoliciesandProceduresSpecifications.pdf">www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5574/urlt/PoliciesandProceduresSpecifications.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Froiland, J. M., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Intrinsic motivation, learning goals, engagement, and achievement in a diverse high school. Psychology in the Schools, 53 (3), 321 – 336.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabrielson, S., Gordon, B., & Engelhard Jr., G. (1995). The effects of task choice on the quality of writing obtained in a statewide assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 8 (4), 273 – 290.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gholson, M. L., & Guzman‐Orth, D. (2019). Developing an alternate English language proficiency assessment system: A theory of action (RR‐19‐25). ETS Research Report Series.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gotch, C. M., & McLean, C. (2019). Teacher outcomes from a statewide initiative to build assessment literacy. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 62, 30 – 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gronseth, S. L., & Dalton, E. M. (Eds.). (2019). Universal access through inclusive instructional design: International perspectives on UDL. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gyll, S., & Ragland, S. (2018). Improving the validity of objective assessment in higher education: Steps for building a best‐in‐class competency‐based assessment program. The Journal of Competency‐Based Education, 3 (1), e01058.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J., & O'Leary, T. (2025). Learning styles, preferences, or strategies? An explanation for the resurgence of styles across many meta‐analyses. Educational Psychology Review, 37, p. 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐025‐10002‐w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> IMS Global Learning Consortium. (2022). Question & test interoperability (QTI) 3.0. (Spec Version 3.0) [Data set]. 1EdTech Consortium, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnstone, C. J., Altman, J., & Thurlow, M. (2006). A state guide to the development of universally designed assessments. University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joint Committee on Testing Practices. (2004). Code of fair testing practices in education. American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kannan, P., Zapata‐Rivera, D., & Leibowitz, E. A. (2018). Interpretation of score reports by diverse subgroups of parents. Educational Assessment, 23 (3), 173 – 194.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karvonen, M., Romine, R. S., & Clark, A. (2024). Response process evidence for academic assessments of students with significant cognitive disabilities. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 29 (1), 13. https://doi.org/10.7275/pare.2060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keller, L., Lüdtke, O., Preckel, F., & Brunner, M. (2023). Educational inequalities at the intersection of multiple social categories: An introduction and systematic review of the Multilevel Analysis of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminatory Accuracy (MAIHDA) approach. Educational Psychology Review, 35 (31), 30 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ketonen, L., Nieminen, P., & Hähkiöniemi, M. (2020). The development of secondary students' feedback literacy: Peer assessment as an intervention. The Journal of Educational Research, 113 (6), 407 – 417.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ketterlin‐Geller, L. R. (2005). Knowing what all students know: Procedures for developing universal design for assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4 (2), 4 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ketterlin‐Geller, L. R. (2008). Testing students with special needs: A model for understanding the interaction between assessment and student characteristics in a universally designed environment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27 (3), 3 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Killackey, J. (1984, February 19). Arkansas' teacher test battle spills into state. The Oklahoman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kopriva, R. J., Thurlow, M. L., Perie, M., Lazarus, S. S., & Clark, A. (2016). Test takers and the validity of score interpretations. Educational Psychologist, 51 (1), 108 – 128.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kubatzky, L., & Benner, M. (2023). Inclusive, innovative assessments for students with learning disabilities. National Center for Learning Disabilities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laitusis, C. C. (2022). The next frontier of fairness and accessibility for digital assessments. In J. L. Jonson & K. F. Geisinger (Eds.). Fairness in educational and psychological testing: Examining theoretical, research, practice, and policy implications of 2014 Standards (pp. 233 – 250). American Educational Research Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lazarus, S. S., Johnstone, C. J., Liu, K. K., Thurlow, M. L., Hinkle, A. R., & Burden, K. (2022). An updated state guide to universally designed assessments (NCEO Report 431) (ED620541). ERIC; University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, D., Buzick, H., Sireci, S. G., Lee, M., & Laitusis, C. (2021). Embedded accommodation and accessibility support usage on a computer‐based statewide achievement test (EJ1327403). ERIC. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 26, 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, H. (2014). The effects of read‐aloud accommodations for students with and without disabilities: A meta‐analysis. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33 (3), 3 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, K. K., Thurlow, M. L., Quanbeck, M., Bowman, J. A., & Riegelman, A. (2024). Universal design and K–12 academic assessments: A scoping review of the literature (NCEO Report 442). University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/OnlinePubs/report442/default.htm</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mace, R. (1997). What is universal design? The Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marion, S., Thompson, J., Evans, C., Martineau, J., & Dadey, N. (2019). The challenges and opportunities of balanced systems of assessment: A policy brief (ED598421). ERIC; National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23 (2), 13 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mislevy, R. J. (2018). A conditional sense of fairness. In R. J. Mislevy (Ed.), Sociocognitive foundations of educational measurement (pp. 218 – 245). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mislevy, R. J., Almond, A. G., & Lukas, J. F. (2003). A brief introduction to evidence‐centered design (ETS Research Report RR‐03‐16). ETS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2017). Equity and assessment: Moving towards culturally responsive assessment (Occasional Paper No. 29) (ED574461). ERIC; National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moffitt, U., Katsiaficas, D., Ghavami, N., Minor, I., Padilla, D., & Rogers, L. O. (2023). Intersectionality and identity: A systematic review and qualitative analysis of U.S. research in psychological science. Identity, 23 (4), 288 – 313.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, R., Perry, T., & Wardle, L. (2021). Formative assessment and feedback for learning in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Education, 9 (3), e3292.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council on Measurement in Education. (2018). Position statement on theories of action for testing programs. Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (2), 199 – 218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nieminen, J. H. (2022). Assessment for inclusion: Rethinking inclusive assessment in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 29 (4), 1 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2018). A state's guide to the U.S. Department of Education's assessment peer review process. U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliveri, M. E. (2019). Considerations for designing accessible educational scenario‐based assessments for multiple populations: A focus on linguistic complexity. Frontiers in Education, 4, 88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9 (3), 105 – 119.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pessoa, L. (2023). The entangled brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 35 (3), 349 – 360. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01908</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Popham, W. J. (2011). Assessment literacy overlooked: A teacher educator's confession. The Teacher Educator, 46 (4), 265 – 273.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rao, K., & Meo, G. (2016). Using universal design for learning to design standards‐based lessons. SAGE Open, 6 (4),.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (with Strangman, N., & Rappolt, G.). (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, D. H., Robinson, K. H., Hall, T. E., Coyne, P., Jackson, R. M., Stahl, W. M., & Wilcauskas, S. L. (2018). Accurate and informative for all: Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and the future of assessment. In S. N. Elliot, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, & A. Kurz (Eds.), Handbook of accessible instruction and testing practices: Issues, innovations, and applications (pp. 167 – 180). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell, M. (2024). Systemic racism and educational measurement: Confronting injustice in testing, assessment, and beyond. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self‐determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sireci, S. G. (2020). Standardization and UNDERSTANDardization in educational assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39 (3), 100 – 105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2022, October 14). 2020–21 Summative technical report. Author. https://technicalreports.smarterbalanced.org/2020-21_summative-report/_book/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snider, H., & Takeda, N. (2008). Design for all: Implications for bank policy. The World Bank.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solano‐Flores, G. (2023). How serious are we about fairness in testing and how far are we willing to go? A response to Randall and Bennett with reflections about the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Educational Assessment, 28 (2), 105 – 117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. (Revised ed.) (ED460554). ERIC; NC State University, Center for Universal Design.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, S., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44) (ED467721). ERIC; University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Christensen, L. L., & Shyyan, V. (2016). Principles and characteristics of inclusive assessment systems in a changing assessment landscape (NCEO Report 400). University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Townsley, M., & Schmid, D. (2020). Alternative grading practices: An entry point for faculty in competency‐based education. The Journal of Competency‐Based Education, 5 (3), e01219.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Troppe, P., Osowski, M., Wolfson, M., Ristow, L., Lomax, E., Thacker, A., & Schultz, S. (2023). Evaluating the federal innovative assessment demonstration authority: Early implementation and progress of state efforts to develop new statewide academic assessments (NCEE 2023‐004a). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. (2006). https://<ulink href="http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/crpd/pages/conventionrightspersonswithdisabilities.aspx">www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/crpd/pages/conventionrightspersonswithdisabilities.aspx</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker, M. E., Olivera‐Aguilar, M., Lehman, B., Laitusis, C., Guzman‐Orth, D., & Gholson, M. (2023). Culturally responsive assessment: Provisional principles (ETS Research Report RR‐23‐11). ETS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42 (3), 266 – 271.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, S. G., Moxley, J. H., Tighe, E. L., & Wagner, R. K. (2018). Does use of text‐to‐speech and related read‐aloud tools improve reading comprehension for students with reading disabilities? A meta‐analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51 (1), 73 – 84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Wide Web Consortium. (2022). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. W3C: Web accessibility initiative (WAI).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zapata‐Rivera, D., Zwick, R., & Vezzu, M. (2016). Exploring the effectiveness of a measurement error tutorial in helping teachers understand score report results. Educational Assessment, 21 (3), 215 – 229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zenisky, A. L., & Hambleton, R. K. (2012). Developing test score reports that work: The process and best practices for effective communication. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 31 (2), 21 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhu, S., Guo, Q., & Yang, H. H. (2023). Beyond the traditional: A systematic review of digital game‐based assessments for students' knowledge, skills, and affections. Sustainability, 15 (5), 4693.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Cara Cahalan Laitusis and Meagan Karvonen</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref125"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1482835
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Case for Reimagining Universal Design of Assessment Systems
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cara+Cahalan+Laitusis%22">Cara Cahalan Laitusis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Meagan+Karvonen%22">Meagan Karvonen</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Measurement%3A+Issues+and+Practice%22"><i>Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice</i></searchLink>. 2025 44(3):5-14.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Assessment%22">Educational Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Systems+Approach%22">Systems Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Needs%22">Psychological Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Use%22">Test Use</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Interpretation%22">Test Interpretation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personal+Autonomy%22">Personal Autonomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Assessment+Literacy%22">Assessment Literacy</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/emip.12674
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0731-1745<br />1745-3992
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The 2014 "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" describe universal design as an approach that offers promise for improving the fairness of educational assessments. As the field reconsiders questions of fairness in assessments, we propose a new framework that addresses the entire assessment lifecycle: universal design of assessment systems. This framework is rooted in the original Universal Design principles but extends beyond test design and administration to the entire assessment lifecycle, from construct definition to score interpretation and use. Another core tenet within this framework is the integration of psychological theory on universal human needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness with flexibility based on our contemporary understandings of neurodiversity, culture, and multilingualism. Finally, the framework integrates the original "Universal Design" principle of "tolerance for error," which promotes assessment designs that anticipate unintended actions and mitigate potential harms. After describing how the principles and guidelines might apply in contexts ranging from classroom assessments to statewide assessments and licensure exams, we conclude with practical implications and next steps. We hope future versions of the "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" incorporate this broader, systems-wide approach to universal design.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 20250101
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1482835
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1482835
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/emip.12674
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 5
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Systems Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Use
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Interpretation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personal Autonomy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Assessment Literacy
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Case for Reimagining Universal Design of Assessment Systems
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cara Cahalan Laitusis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Meagan Karvonen
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0731-1745
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1745-3992
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 44
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice
              Type: main
ResultId 1