Table C28. What evidence supported the validity argument in terms of implementation processes?

Appendix B: Data Tables

State	1. Training	2. Administration manual/guide	3. Monitoring	4. Post hoc data collection/analysis
Total	32	29	17	16
Percent	82.05	74.36	43.59	41.03

Alabama	X	—	—	—
Alaska	†	†	†	†
Arizona	X	—	X	—
Arkansas	X	X	—	—
California	X	X	X	—

Colorado	X	X	—	—
Connecticut	X	—	—	—
Delaware	X	X	X	—
District of Columbia	X	—	—	—
Florida	†	†	†	†

Georgia	X	X	X	X
Hawaii	X	X	X	X
Idaho	X	—	X	—
Illinois	—	X	—	—
Indiana	X	X	—	X

Iowa	†	†	†	†
Kansas	X	X	—	X
Kentucky	—	X	—	—
Louisiana	†	†	†	†
Maine	X	X	—	—

Maryland	X	X	X	X
Massachusetts	X	X	X	X
Michigan¹	X / X	X / X	— / —	— / —
Minnesota	—	—	X	X
Mississippi	X	X	—	—

Missouri	†	†	†	†
Montana	X	X	X	X
Nebraska	†	†	†	†
Nevada	X	X	—	X
New Hampshire	X	X	—	—

New Jersey	X	X	—	X
New Mexico	X	—	—	—
New York	X	X	X	X
North Carolina	†	†	†	†
North Dakota	X	—	—	X

Ohio	†	†	†	†
Oklahoma	†	†	†	†
Oregon	X	X	X	X
Pennsylvania	X	X	—	—
Rhode Island	X	X	X	X

South Carolina	X	X	—	—
South Dakota	X	X	X	—
Tennessee	—	—	—	X
Texas	†	†	†	†
Utah	—	X	X	—

Vermont	†	†	†	†
Virginia	X	X	—	—
Washington	—	—	X	—
West Virginia	—	X	X	—
Wisconsin	†	†	†	†
Wyoming	X	X	—	X
— No. X Yes. † Not applicable. State did not have alternate achievement standards for this assessment. ¹ More than one assessment used. See explanation in introductory text of this appendix. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Special Education Research, National Study on Alternate Assessments (NSAA), state data summaries for school year 2006–07.