Empirical Support for Accommodations Most Often Allowed in State Policy
NCEO Synthesis Report 41
Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes
Prepared by:
Martha Thurlow • Sara Bolt
November 2001
Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
Thurlow, M., & Bolt, S. (2001). Empirical support for accommodations most often allowed in state policy (Synthesis Report 41).Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis41.html
The
need for research findings on the effects of assessment accommodations has been
lamented for several years. This need was heightened in importance as IDEA 97
became law and required that students with disabilities be included in
assessments and provided with needed assessment accommodations. In 1999 Tindal
and Fuchs developed a comprehensive review of the literature on test changes.
The complexity of the many studies included in that review made it evident that
in the future a searchable data base was needed to cull the information for
addressing specific accommodations, specific groups of students, specific ages,
or combinations of these and other factors. NCEO launched a searchable database
of research on accommodations in September, 2001 (http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/AccomStudies.htm),
with plans to update the research included in the accommodations database every
three months.
This
report is a compilation of information collected from the searchable database on
the accommodations that are most often allowed in state policies: Braille
editions, computer/machine response, dictate response to scribe, extended time,
interpreter for instructions, large print edition, mark answers in test booklet,
read aloud, test direction clarifications, and test breaks. The summary of
research reveals that there are not yet simple or conclusive answers to
questions about the effects of specific accommodations. It is important to
continue to document what the research tells us, and to analyze the specific
contexts of the studies, their methodologies, and their findings.
The
reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1997 (IDEA
97) requires that students with disabilities be included in state and district
assessments, with appropriate accommodations as necessary. Accommodations are
changes in assessment materials or procedures that address aspects of students’
disabilities that may interfere with the demonstration of their knowledge and
skills on standardized tests. Accommodations attempt to eliminate barriers to
meaningful testing, thereby allowing for the participation of students with
disabilities in state and district assessments.
Currently there is limited consensus on what constitutes an “appropriate”
accommodation. Although providing accommodations for sensory or physical
disabilities (e.g., Braille, large print, etc.) has rarely been questioned,
accommodations for students with disabilities that specifically affect cognitive
functioning (e.g., read the test to the student, extended time, etc.) have been
considered more controversial due to beliefs that these accommodations may alter
the construct the test is intended to measure (Phillips, 1994). This controversy
is evident from analyses of state policies of testing accommodations. Thurlow,
House, Boys, Scott, and Ysseldyke (2000) found that although there has been an
increase in the number of states with accommodation policies, states continue to
vary in terms of which accommodations they will either allow on statewide tests
or treat in the same way as “standard” test administrations.
Complicating this issue is the fact that empirical research on the effects of
specific testing accommodations is still quite limited (Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton,
Hamlett, & Karns, 2000). In 1999, Tindal and Fuchs completed a comprehensive
review of literature on testing accommodation research. Although they identified
114 studies on test changes overall, these studies have not provided conclusive
support for many specific accommodations. Also, many of the studies that were
included in their review did not address the use of specific accommodations.
Given the controversy surrounding the use of accommodations as evidenced by state policy analysis (Thurlow et al., 2000), it is important to know that the most frequently allowed accommodations are supported by a solid research base. The purpose of this document is to summarize information currently available on 10 of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policies. The intent of this summary is to provide information on what the research currently indicates, and to provide decision makers with a general overview of common accommodations in order to help in making “appropriate” accommodation decisions.
In 1999 NCEO gathered, organized, and reported various aspects of state accommodation policies (Thurlow et al., 2000). Five main categories of accommodations were identified: presentation, presentation equipment, scheduling, response, and setting accommodations. State policy information was organized according to each of these main categories, and by each of the more frequently mentioned individual accommodations (read aloud, extended time, dictated response, etc.). The report also included information on states that allowed specific accommodations only under certain conditions (e.g., on certain test content areas, for specific grades of students, etc.). For the current synthesis, the number of states allowing accommodations both with and without such limitations was tallied. Information for the top 12 accommodations that are allowed in state policies is included in Table 1.
Accommodation
|
|
|
|
Without
|
|
Individual Administration |
44 |
44 |
Dictate
Response to Proctor/Scribe |
43 |
32 |
Small
Group Administration |
41 |
41 |
Large Print |
40 |
38 |
Braille |
38 |
33 |
Extended
Time |
37 |
32 |
Interpreter for Instructions |
36 |
34 |
35 |
31 |
|
Computer/Machine Response |
34 |
28 |
Read Aloud |
34 |
4 |
Write in
Test Booklet |
33 |
28 |
Testing
with Breaks |
33 |
28 |
It is
important to note that these are not necessarily the most frequently used accommodations, they
are simply the most frequently allowed in state policies. Because two of
the first three accommodations listed are not considered to be highly
controversial (individual and small group administrations), and may actually be
used during standardization procedures, these accommodations were deleted for
purposes of this synthesis of accommodation research. For the remaining 10
accommodations, survey and empirical research was collected and summarized.
The
Tindal and Fuchs (1999) report provided initial guidance on what research
studies to include. Updated searches of ERIC were conducted to identify more
recent research. Research on accommodations used for K-12 students in
large-scale assessments was the primary focus. However, for several of the
accommodations, limited research of this type was identified and so other
research (accommodations for college students, intellectual assessments, etc.)
was also included. The 10 accommodations are presented here in alphabetical
order.
Braille
editions of tests are developed to accommodate students with blindness or
significant visual impairments. Sixty-three possible dot combinations that can
be read tactually form the basis for the Braille code, which is now universally
accepted as the graphic symbol for blind readers (Barraga, 1983).
Explanation
Academic tests are not designed to measure students’ sensory abilities. However,
if students with blindness are required to take a regular-print version of the
test, their performance will be more representative of their visual disability
than of their academic abilities. By taking a Braille version of a test,
students with blindness are able to demonstrate their true academic abilities.
Phillips (1994) pointed out that providing accommodations to students with
sensory deficits has traditionally been a common practice.
State
Use
The
Braille accommodation is allowed by 33 of the 48 states that have statewide
assessments (Thurlow et al., 2000). Five additional states allow this
accommodation with limitations. Some states allow the Braille accommodation only
on certain assessments and others may not allow the accommodation simply because
a Braille version of the test has not yet been developed.
Empirical Research
Despite
the fact that the Braille accommodation has been widely accepted, studies have
shown that students using a Braille edition of a test may have trouble with
certain types of items. Bennett, Rock, and Kaplan (1987) found that math items
involving special symbols and tally systems were differentially difficult for
students taking a Braille edition of the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT). In
addition, Bennett, Rock, and Novatkoski (1989) found that differential item
functioning existed for the Braille edition of the SAT math section,
specifically among items that included figures in the stimulus and items for
which spatial estimation was considered helpful in eliminating two of the
options. Similarly, Coleman (1990) found that Braille readers had more
difficulty with length measurement tasks than regular-print readers. A statewide
stakeholder focus group in Texas suggested that tactual versions of print
diagrams and pictures may convey very different information to students than
visual diagrams and pictures, thus challenging the validity of the Braille
version of the test. Although certain types of test items have been found to be
more difficult for Braille readers, it appears that overall test scores are not
greatly affected by this.
In
addition to having difficulty with certain test items, students taking a Braille
assessment may need extra time to complete the test. According to Phillips
(1994), reading in Braille is a slower process than reading print materials.
Braille shorthand can help speed up the process; however, Barraga (1983)
suggests that extensive abbreviation can actually make it more difficult for
students to recognize words in an unfamiliar context. Wright and Wendler (1994)
found that the majority of students who were given twice the normal amount of
time were able to finish the test.
Controversy
The
Braille accommodation is typically regarded as a change that maintains the
validity of the test. There is little controversy about whether this
accommodation should be allowed. However, even though the accommodation is
allowed, the scores from Braille editions of a test often are not aggregated or
reported in the same way as other scores. Analyses of test performance at the
item level also suggest that certain types of items are differentially difficult
for Braille readers.
Recommendations
• Braille assessments should be
developed for tests that currently do not have a Braille edition and should be
offered to students with severe visual impairments who use Braille.
• Items that are difficult to
translate into a Braille version of the test should be avoided during initial
item development (e.g., picture items, tally items, etc.).
• Students using a Braille
version of the test should be given extended time to complete the test, perhaps
as much as double the time.
Students are using computers more than ever before. Similarly, computerized
assessments are becoming more widely used. Because computerized assessments
often involve both computer presentation and computer response, it is often
difficult to disentangle the impact of the computer response mode on test
administration.
Explanation
Many
students complete writing assignments via computer. Students who are more
familiar with completing assignments on computer may be more comfortable with
completing a test in this mode. Because tests are intended to measure the
outcomes of instruction, rationale for using this accommodation when students
use computers in the classroom is clear. Also, many students with physical
impairments that limit their abilities to respond with paper-and-pencil may not
be able to demonstrate their true knowledge and skills unless a test is
administered in an alternate format, such as via computer. Thus,
computer/machine response has been studied for both writing assessments and
assessments in other subject areas.
State
Use
Of the
48 states with statewide assessment programs, 28 allow the computer/machine
response accommodation. Six additional states allow it in some situations and
prohibit it in others. States that limit its use commonly only allow this
accommodation on certain assessments, or only allow it if all students in the
classroom have the opportunity to take the test via computer (Thurlow et al.,
2000).
Survey Research
Jayanthi, Epstein, Polloway, and Bursuck (1996) sent surveys to 708 general
education teachers to obtain information on educators’ perceptions and use of a
variety of accommodations. Results of the survey (401 respondents) indicated
that of the 24 accommodations studied, allowing a word processor was somewhat
difficult for elementary and middle school teachers, but a bit easier for high
school teachers to provide. Overall, 8.3% of teachers surveyed reported using
this accommodation, and teachers reported finding this accommodation somewhat
helpful.
Empirical Research
Several
studies have examined the use of computerized assessments for students in grades
K-12. For this analysis, our primary focus was computer and word-processor response accommodations, rather than
general computer administrations. Studies that examined student preferences
related to the computer/machine response accommodations also are discussed.
Writing assessments. Eight
studies were identified that examined the effects of having students complete
writing tasks via computer. The majority of these studies involved middle-school
students, and some included students with disabilities.
One of
these studies showed students performing better under a computer response mode.
Russell and Haney (1997) had two groups of middle school students complete an
open-ended assessment on paper that involved questions in a variety of subject
areas. Then, one group completed a performance writing assessment (which
required extended written response) on paper, and one group completed it on
computer. Paper-and-pencil test responses for the second test were then
converted into computer responses. Results indicated that groups scored
similarly on the open ended assessment, but that students using a computer for
the performance writing assessment scored significantly better than those
responding with paper-and-pencil (effect size = .94).
Other
studies have suggested that positive effects of the computer response mode are
mediated by student efficiency in keyboard use. In a later study, Russell (1999)
again had middle school students answer open-ended test questions in different
subject areas, some students using a paper-and-pencil format and others
responding in the computer format. Results indicated that for students who
keyboard at a speed of 20 words or more per minute, the paper-and-pencil format
underestimated achievement level. For slower keyboarders, the computer response
format underestimated achievement level. Similarly, Russell and Plati (2001)
found that paper-and-pencil results severely underestimated the achievement of
students in grades 8-10 who were accustomed to writing using a computer. This
study used open-ended questions from the language arts section of the
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS).
Hollenbeck, Tindal, Harniss, and Almond (1999) found no differences between the
scores for seventh and eighth grade students composing stories for a statewide
writing test in computer mode versus handwritten mode. In fact, students with
disabilities performed significantly poorer when composing with computer than
when handwriting their stories. Significant effects were found, however, for
students who were allowed to use spell-checkers. It was not clear whether
handwritten work was converted into word-processed work prior to evaluation in
this study.
Several
studies have looked at process related differences between handwritten and
computer formats for writing. In a study by Vacc (1987), four eighth grade
students (all certified as having mild mental handicaps) wrote letters in both
computer and handwritten formats. Vacc found that writing letters on a
microcomputer took more time, produced noticeably longer letters, and involved
more revision than handwritten letters. The mean number of words written per
unit of time was substantially higher for participants’ handwritten letters.
Judges evaluations did not differ significantly between the two production
modes.
MacArthur and Graham (1987) had fifth and sixth graders with learning
disabilities compose and revise stories under three modes: handwritten, word
processed, and dictation. Although the dictation condition resulted in
significant differences, the handwritten and word-processed stories did not
differ in terms of length, quality, story structure, mechanical or grammatical
errors, or vocabulary. Word-processing was less than half as fast as
handwriting. The overall amount of revision was similar across the handwritten
and word-processed modes.
Another
study looked at differences in how judges rated handwritten and word-processed
essays for a statewide assessment (Hollenbeck, Tindal, Stieber, & Harniss,
1999). Middle school students completed the assessment in handwritten mode.
Next, essays were word-processed, without changes in spelling or grammar.
Original handwritten compositions were rated significantly higher than the typed
composition on three of the six traits for the total group. Five of the six mean
trait scores favored the handwritten essays. This study suggested that the two
modes should not be used in the same evaluation system. Similarly, factor
analysis studies of writing assignments corresponding to the Oregon statewide
writing assessment found that when handwritten and word-processed essays were
analyzed separately, all traits loaded on a single factor; however, when data
from the two modes were analyzed together, two factors emerged: one for the
handwritten traits, and one for the word-processed traits (Helwig, Stieber,
Tindal, Hollenbeck, Heath, & Almond, 2000). Furthermore, low correlations were
found for individual students’ ratings in computer and handwritten essays in
this study.
Other computerized response assessments.
Nine studies examining the use of computerized assessments for K-12 students in
non-writing assessments were identified. Three of these studies involved
assessment of writing-related skills (capitalization and spelling), and the
others examined other skill areas (math, reading, vocabulary, etc.). Several of
these studies demonstrated that students performed better under the
paper-and-pencil format.
Watkins
and Kush (1988) conducted a study in which elementary students with learning
disabilities received a capitalization test under both a paper-and-pencil method
and via computer (with conditions counterbalanced). During the computer
administration, the students were presented items that measured particular
capitalization objectives until the student reached a “mastery,” “non-mastery,”
or “review” criteria for each objective. Analysis of the paper-and-pencil tests
also involved coding student progress into one of the three categories. Results
indicated that students scored higher on the paper-and-pencil test; however, the
computer and paper-and-pencil tests did not significantly differ in their
assignment of students to instructional interventions.
Varnhagan (1984) studied one group of students in special education and one
group of third-grade regular education students who were both administered a
spelling test in standard written format, and via computer. Results indicated
that the written mode elicited higher scores than the computer format for both
groups. Students generally took more time in completing the computer test.
Contrary to this, Hasselbring and Crossland (1982) found the computer response
format to be favored over the paper-and-pencil format on a spelling test for 9-
to 14-year-old students with learning disabilities. The computer administration
required less teacher administration time, and difficulties associated with
deciphering student handwriting were avoided in the computer response format.
In a
study by Swain (1997), third grade students (some with disabilities in math,
some without) completed two math tests (Keymath and a computer-administered math
test). Participants scored higher on all subtests of the paper-and-pencil test
than on the computer-administered test. No interaction effects (mode of
administration by disability status) were found.
Russell
(1999) also found limited support for computer response accommodations on a math
test. He found that regardless of keyboarding speed, middle school students’
performance on math assessments administered on a computer underestimated their
level of achievement. He suggested that students may require scratch paper for
many math items, which is difficult to provide in a computer administration.
Other
studies have shown no differences according to assessment mode. Miller (1990)
administered a receptive vocabulary screening test to students with cerebral
palsy and students without disabilities. Students completed different forms of
the test in both standard response mode and via computer (counterbalanced
design). Results indicated that the two modes were equivalent for the groups of
students. In the study by Russell and Haney (1997), in addition to completing a
writing performance assessment, the two groups of students completed a multiple
choice test in differing formats (computer and paper-and-pencil). While students
who were administered the writing test via computer performed better on a
writing performance task, the two groups did not significantly differ in
performance on the multiple choice test.
Horton
and Lovitt (1994) found mixed results in the area of reading. Their study
involved having middle and high school students (some with and some without
learning disabilities) complete reading inventories under two conditions:
computer presentation and response, and paper-and-pencil administration. Results
favored the computer mode on factual questions for the students overall;
however, it appeared that middle school students with learning disabilities
scored markedly better on social studies items in the paper-and-pencil format
than in the computer format. On interpretive test items, the results of the
group analysis showed no significant difference between the two assessment
methods.
In
addition to the Hasselbring and Crossland (1982) and Horton and Lovitt (1994)
studies which provided some support for the computer response accommodation, one
other study was identified that supported the use of this accommodation for
students with disabilities. Burk (1999) studied the effects of a computer format
versus a paper-and-pencil format for a variety of populations on multiple choice
tests in multiple subject areas. Results indicated that students with learning
disabilities performed significantly better on tests delivered via computer.
Student preferences. A number of
the studies on the effects of computer accommodations also surveyed students’
perceptions of the computer administration. Hollenbeck et al. (1998) found that
both students with and without disabilities tended to prefer the handwritten
format for the writing assessment. Varnhagan (1984), Watkins and Kush (1988),
and Horton and Lovitt (1984) all found students to prefer the computer format,
despite their general findings that students performed better under the
handwritten condition.
Overall, it appears that the computer/word-processor response accommodation has
limited empirical support, especially for students with disabilities. The
research review identified studies that both supported and discouraged its use,
as well as studies that demonstrated no mode effect.
Controversy
Research findings indicate limited agreement about whether computer/machine
response is a valid accommodation for students with disabilities. Teachers find
it somewhat difficult to implement as an accommodation, and states are not
unanimous in terms of allowing it. Also, it is clear that without necessary
computer knowledge and typing skills, this accommodation may hinder student
performance. However, with increasing use and access to computers, this
accommodation may become more helpful and necessary for students. Furthermore,
computer administrations can additionally offer easy access to other
accommodations (e.g. computer read aloud, large print, etc.). Although this
synthesis did not focus on the multiple accommodation possibilities available
via computer, research studies have begun to analyze how several accommodations
can be incorporated by using computers. Finally, if students cannot physically
use a pencil to complete a test, it may make more sense for them to use a
computer response format.
The
fact that judges often rate word-processed essays lower than handwritten essays
suggests that this accommodation may put students at a disadvantage unless there
is appropriate training of scorers. Greater attention to these scoring
implications will be needed if computer use in assessments increases as
expected.
Recommendations
• Students must be provided the
necessary typing and computer skills so that they are accustomed to using the
computer/machine response accommodation. Without this support, caution should be
taken in allowing a student to use the computer/machine response accommodation.
• This accommodation may also be
relevant for students who physically cannot manipulate a pencil, and can more
easily respond using a computer or machine. Of course, instruction in its use,
and previous experience with computers are essential.
• Because studies have
demonstrated the tendency to use different evaluation criteria for handwritten
and computer versions, it is essential that evaluators first demonstrate the
ability to use the same criteria before scoring assessments.
• When students use this
accommodation, it is important to know that equipment is working properly. Also,
students should frequently save their responses during testing to ensure that
work is not inadvertently erased (CEC, 2000).
Students are sometimes offered the opportunity to orally respond to test items
and have a scribe record their answers instead of providing a written response.
This accommodation is offered to students with a variety of disabilities
including learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, mild mental retardation,
physical impairments, and communication disorders.
Explanation
In
order to accurately answer test items, students need writing skills. It is
possible for test results to inaccurately represent a student’s ability in a
particular subject area simply because the student’s writing skills hinder his
or her ability to demonstrate achievement. For instance, students who can
accurately solve a math problem may have difficulty demonstrating this ability
if they cannot write.
State
Use
Of the
48 states with statewide assessment programs, 32 allow the dictated response to
a scribe accommodation. Eleven additional states allow it in some situations,
and prohibit it in others. Some states prohibit the use of this accommodation on
writing tests, but allow it for other subject areas. Another state specifies
that students must indicate punctuation and spell all key words when this
accommodation is used. This suggests that there is some disagreement about
whether dictated response is a valid accommodation (Thurlow et al, 2000).
Survey Research
Several
surveys have addressed the scribe accommodation. There is some evidence of
change over time in the responses to this accommodation. The earliest survey was
conducted by Gajria, Salend, and Hemrick (1994). They surveyed 100 teachers on
their awareness, use, and perceived integrity of a variety of accommodations and
received responses from 64 of them. Gajria et al. found that 82.8% of these
respondents were aware of the dictated response accommodation, 50% reported
using it in their classrooms, and 67% thought that it maintained the integrity
of the test. It was ranked 31st of 32 modifications in terms of “ease of use,”
and 28th in terms of effectiveness.
Results
of the Jayanthi et al. (1996) survey (401 respondents of 708 surveyed) indicated
that of the 24 accommodations studied, allowing dictated responses for tests was
rated as easy and somewhat helpful to provide. Overall, 21% of the teachers who
responded indicated that they currently use this accommodation in their
classrooms.
Lambert, Dodd, Christensen, and Fishbaugh (1996) surveyed rural secondary
teachers, asking about their willingness to provide and their current use of the
dictated response accommodation. Of the 171 teachers surveyed, 121 surveys were
returned. “Allow the student to dictate answers to a proctor” ranked tenth among
several accommodations in terms of the percentage of teachers who had provided
the accommodation in the past. Also, the average rating of willingness to
provide this accommodation was 4 on a 1-5 rating scale, 5 being “very willing to
provide.”
Most
recently, Hollenbeck, Tindal, and Almond (1998) surveyed 633 regular and special
educators, of which 166 responded. They found that 85% of the teachers who
returned surveys had correct knowledge about this accommodation, and 71%
reported using this accommodation.
Empirical Research
A
limited amount of research has been conducted on the dictated response
accommodation. Three empirical studies and four descriptive studies on the use
of this accommodation for K-12 students were identified. Two of the empirical
studies focused only on story writing, while the other investigated the effects
of dictation on a math assessment. The four descriptive studies investigated the
effects of accommodations on the scores of students with disabilities in the
statewide assessments in Maryland and Kentucky, and were included due to the
limited amount of empirical research available.
Fuchs,
Fuchs, Eaton, Hamlett, and Karns (2000) studied the effects of the encoding
accommodation (“teacher wrote student responses”) on math problem solving
curriculum based measures (CBM) scores of students both with and without
learning disabilities. Results indicated that this accommodation had a
significantly greater impact on the scores of students with learning
disabilities than those without learning disabilities.
MacArthur and Graham (1987) studied the differences between stories written by
5th and 6th grade students with learning disabilities under handwritten,
word-processed, and dictated response modes. Each student composed a story in
each of the three modes. Results indicated that the dictated stories were
longer, of higher quality, and had fewer grammatical errors than handwritten or
word-processed stories. This study suggests that dictating a story helps to free
the student from spelling, penmanship, punctuation, and capitalization concerns,
and allows students to express their ideas more quickly. Hidi and Hildyard
(1983, as cited in MacArthur and Graham) conducted a similar study on students
of average achievement in grades 3 and 5. Results showed an increase in the
length of stories and essays, but no differences in terms of quality. MacArthur
and Graham (1987) suggest that when the “mechanical and conventional demands of
producing text” are removed, “learning disabled students compose more fluently
and with better results.”
Tippets
and Michaels (1997) studied the factor structure of the reading and language
arts sections of the Maryland statewide assessment for 3rd, 6th, and 8th grade
students. Students were assigned to accommodation categories according to their
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Analysis of test scores indicated that
students receiving the dictation accommodation in combination with other
accommodations (read aloud, extended time, etc.) performed better than students
not receiving any accommodations. The average scores for students receiving the
dictated response accommodation were better than students who wrote their own
responses. A concern that emerged was whether scribes were encouraging students
to elaborate on responses, helping students organize their thoughts, or
facilitating writing mechanics such as capitalization and punctuation skills.
However, overall, the factor structures that emerged from accommodated and
non-accommodated tests in this study were similar.
Koretz
(1997) performed an in-depth study of the effects of the dictated response
accommodation on the scores of students in the Kentucky statewide assessment
system. Results indicated that the dictated response accommodation had a large
impact on scores for students with learning disabilities, behavioral
disabilities, and mild mental retardation, especially in social studies,
reading, and science. In a second study of this assessment system, Koretz and
Hamilton (1999) found this accommodation to have somewhat less of an impact on
scores of students with disabilities.
Trimble
(1998) studied the effects of the dictation accommodation in combination with
other accommodations on the scores of 4th, 8th, and 11-12th grade students
taking the statewide assessment in Kentucky. For 4th graders, the dictated
response accommodation produced average scores above that of the total
population, including students without disabilities. For 8th and 11th graders,
students receiving the dictated response accommodation scored on average higher
than those of students with disabilities not receiving the accommodation, but
not above the average score of all students.
Controversy
Research on the dictated response accommodation for students with disabilities
in the K-12 range has been limited and rather inconclusive. Although students
with disabilities appear to receive higher scores on a variety of tests when
using this accommodation, it is unclear whether the test scores obtained using
this accommodation as implemented are valid. For students who could physically
not respond without a scribe, dictated response seems like an appropriate
accommodation to allow. Also, when a test is not meant to measure certain
writing skills, it also seems like a legitimate accommodation. Contrary to this,
if a test is designed to measure grammar and other specific writing skills, this
accommodation may be less valid. Furthermore, teachers appear to be concerned
about the difficulty of implementation, and consider it to be one of the least
effective accommodations.
Recommendations
• The dictated response
accommodation should be provided to students for whom it is determined will
benefit from this accommodation on tests not specifically designed to measure
writing ability that includes specific skills such as spelling.
• If students are unable to
handwrite, but can efficiently type on a computer, a computer response
accommodation should be considered prior to a dictated response accommodation.
• When the dictated response
accommodation is allowed, scribes should be carefully trained in how to record
responses (e.g., whether students must indicate spelling, punctuation, etc.).
Scribes should also be monitored to be certain that students’ verbatim responses
are recorded.
• Scribes should be familiar
with the test so they can easily record student answers (CEC, 2000).
• More research should examine
the effects of this accommodation on the test scores of students with and
without disabilities.
Extended Time
Students with disabilities are often allowed extra time to complete tests that
are normally administered under timed conditions. This accommodation is
frequently given in addition to other common accommodations (read aloud,
Braille, large print, etc.), and is offered to students with a variety of
disabilities. Extended time is often understood as “unlimited time” although in
some cases it simply means that a specified amount of time is added to the
normal time allotted for students to complete the test. Research has used both.
Explanation
Deficits in information processing rates are common among students with learning
disabilities (Huesman, 1999). When a test is timed, students with learning
disabilities may not be given enough time to show what they know and can do.
Students with other disabilities, similarly, may require extra time if their
disability hinders their ability to respond in a timely manner. Extending the
amount of time that a student has to complete a test, therefore, can help to
alleviate these problems, and consequently can make the test a more accurate
measure of the student’s level of achievement.
State
Use
Of the
48 states with statewide assessment programs, 32 allow the extended time
accommodation. Five additional states allow it in some situations, and prohibit
it in others. Two other states prohibit the use of extended time. This suggests
that there is some disagreement about whether extended time is a valid
accommodation (Thurlow et al., 2000).
Survey Research
Several
surveys have explored the extended time accommodation. The earliest, by Gajria
et al. (1994) surveyed 100 teachers on their awareness, use, and perceived
integrity of the accommodation. They found that 93.8% of the 64 teachers who
responded were aware of the extended time accommodation, 90.6% reported using it
in their classrooms, and 79.7% thought that it maintained the integrity of the
test. It was ranked 14th of 32 modifications in terms of “ease of use,” and 15th
in terms of effectiveness.
The
Jayanthi et al. (1996) survey responded to by 401 general education teachers (of
708 sent) indicated that allowing extended time for tests was rated as “easy”
and helpful to provide. Overall, 74% of the teachers who responded indicated
that they currently use the extended time accommodation in their classrooms.
The
Lambert et al. (1996) survey of 171 rural secondary teachers found that for 121
respondents, extended time ranked first among several accommodations in terms of
the percentage of teachers who had provided the accommodation in the past. The
average rating of willingness to provide this accommodation was 4.4 on a 1-5
rating scale, 5 being “very willing to provide.”
Finally, the Hollenbeck et al. (1998) survey of 633 regular and special
educators found that 59% of the 166 teachers who returned surveys had correct
knowledge about this accommodation. They also found that only 13% reported using
this accommodation.
Empirical Research
Extended time is one of the most widely researched testing accommodations. Chiu
and Pearson (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of 18 studies on this accommodation
(including primary, secondary, and post-secondary studies) and found that the
majority of studies looked at the effects of extended time on the test scores of
students with learning disabilities. Extended time accommodation studies often
examine whether there is a significantly greater effect of the accommodation on
the scores of students with disabilities versus the scores of students without
disabilities. Overall, Chiu and Pearson (1999) found a .07 effect size
supporting the use of the extended time accommodation for students with
disabilities over students without disabilities. Some studies have found a
differential impact of the accommodation according to student disability status;
others have found no differential impact.
Several
studies examined the effects of extended time on test scores of students with
disabilities in elementary, middle, and high school. Some of these studies
examined the effects of the extended time accommodation on tests in separate
content areas, including language arts and math. Others have looked at the
effects of this accommodation on scores from standardized tests covering
multiple subject areas.
Math. Eight studies were identified
that examined the effects of extended time on math test scores. Gallina (1989)
found that elementary students with Tourette’s syndrome scored in the average
range on untimed math tests, but performed poorly on timed math tests. Centra
(1986) found that students with learning disabilities derived significantly
greater gains from extended time on the math section of the Scholastic Aptitude
Test (SAT) than students without learning disabilities. Furthermore, Lewis and
Green (1999) found there to be relatively few items displaying differential item
functioning (DIF) for students with disabilities receiving the extra time
accommodation on a math test. Finding few DIF items suggests that the
accommodation did not change the underlying construct of the test.
Contrary to these findings that provide support for the use of the extended time
accommodation for students with disabilities, Marquart (2000) found there to be
no significant increase in math test scores for eighth grade students when
receiving the test under an extra time condition (40 min) as opposed to a
standard condition (20 min). This non-effect was found for all three groups of
students studied (students with disabilities, students without disabilities, and
at-risk students). Students, however, were found to prefer the extended time
condition.
Munger
and Loyd (1991) also found that 5th grade students with disabilities (both
learning and physical) were not differentially affected by the untimed condition
on a math test when compared to students without disabilities. Similarly,
Montani (1995) found that both low achieving and normally achieving 3rd grade
students benefited from extended time, and there was no significant difference
in effect among the two groups of students. Murray (1987) looked at the effects
of the untimed condition on spatial test scores of boys ages 12-14 years. Groups
included: (a) boys without learning disabilities + boys with learning
disabilities and average achievement, and (b) boys with learning disabilities
and low achievement. Results indicated that the first group performed better in
the untimed, but not in the timed condition.
Taken
altogether, the results of these studies are inconclusive. However, results of a
study by Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton, Hamlett, and Karns (2000) may provide a better
understanding of the effects of extended time on math tests. This study found
that 4th grade students with learning disabilities did not differentially
benefit from extended time on concept and application problems, but did
differentially benefit from extended time on more innovative problem-solving
type items. This suggests that on certain types of math problems, extended time
may be more influential for students with disabilities.
Language arts. Five
studies were identified that examined the effects of the extended time
accommodation on language arts tests. Munger and Loyd (1991) found that 5th
grade students with physical and learning disabilities were not differentially
affected by the amount of “speededness” on a language use and expression test
when compared to students without disabilities. Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton, Hamlett,
Binkley, and Crouch (2000) found that the extended time accommodation did not
benefit fourth grade students with learning disabilities more than students
without disabilities on reading tests. Huesman and Frisbie (2000) found that the
test scores of students with learning disabilities on the reading section of the
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills did significantly increase in the extended time
condition; however, the scores of students without disabilities who were given
extended time and told to “take time and work carefully” also significantly
increased. Another important finding in their study was that the amount of
extended time that students with learning disabilities required varied among
individuals.
Perlman, Borger, Collins, Elenbogen, and Wood (1996) found that fourth grade
students with learning disabilities and IEPs requiring the extended time
accommodation finished the reading test within the recommended time limit, but
that eighth graders with learning disabilities took substantially more time, and
scored higher when they did use extra time. Overall, the results of the Perlman
et al. (1996) study suggest that the tests may be more reliable when
administered without time limits, and that merely knowing unlimited time is
available may yield higher scores even if no additional time is used. Finally,
Lewis and Green (1999) found that there were relatively few items that displayed
DIF for students with disabilities receiving extra time on a language arts
tests, which suggests that the same construct was being measured under the
accommodated condition. Altogether, these studies seem to suggest that although
there appears to be no definitive answer to the question of whether extended
time is significantly better for students with disabilities, this accommodation
may make the test results more valid for all students.
Ziomek
and Andrews (1998) studied the effects of the extended time accommodation for
students who had taken the American College Test (ACT) twice, and at least once
under extended time conditions. Results indicated that they performed better
under the extended time condition. The authors concluded that scores
administered under non-standard conditions should continue to be “flagged” until
score comparability can be determined; however, this recommendation recently has
been negated. The Educational Testing Service (ETS) decided to stop flagging
accommodated tests.
Controversy
Research on the extended time accommodation for students with disabilities in
the K-12 grade range has been inconclusive. Although students with disabilities
appear to gain from the use of this accommodation on a variety of tests, it is
also true that students without disabilities display similar gains. For math
tests, it appears that differential gains for students with disabilities may be
evident on certain types of items. On reading tests, the research has provided
less direction. Limited differential effects for students with disabilities, as
opposed to students without disabilities, were found for this accommodation. One
study suggested both groups of students benefit from extended time. It may be
that the underlying question is whether the particular test is intended to
measure how fast students can complete test items. If tests are meant to measure
rate of completion, then extended time is not a valid accommodation. However, if
rate of test completion is not meant to be evaluated, extended time may be
considered more valid.
In this
synthesis, studies involving extended time in addition to other accommodations
were not examined in depth. It is understandable that extended time might be a
valid accommodation for students who are also having the test read aloud,
reading large print, etc. The question of whether extended time alone is a valid
accommodation for students with disabilities remains somewhat unanswered.
Recommendations
• The extended time
accommodation should be allowed to students for whom it is determined will
benefit from this accommodation on tests not specifically designed to measure
rate of test-completion.
• The amount of extra time
necessary may vary among students; it may be important to determine for each
student individually the amount of extra time that is most desirable. Some
students may experience fatigue from a longer test, and others may benefit.
• Students who require this
accommodation may need to take the test in another room (CEC, 2000).
• The extended time
accommodation should be allowed when other accommodations provided necessitate
extended time (e.g., read aloud, tape recorder, etc.).
• When only some students are
allowed access to this accommodation, it may be necessary to indicate that they
received this accommodation in reporting results.
• Test-makers should determine
whether test-completion rate is of essence to what they are testing. If it is
determined that testing rate is not intended to be measured, perhaps all
students should be given the amount of time they need to complete the test.
Students with hearing impairments are often allowed to have an interpreter
communicate test instructions in sign language. Although entire tests
(directions and items) may be communicated to students through interpreters, for
the purpose of this summary, we will refer to using interpreters to communicate
only test directions. According to
Bourquin (1996), interpreting is “the process of receiving a message in one
language and transmitting an equal meaning into a second language.” The form of
interpretation used will depend on the language preferences of the student
(e.g., American Sign Language, finger spelling, signing + speech, etc.).
Explanation
For
students to demonstrate their knowledge and perform well on tests, they must
understand what the test requires them to do. Students with hearing impairments
cannot understand orally communicated test instructions unless they are able to
lip-read or are provided an interpreter who can translate the spoken directions
into a language that they can understand. Through the use of an interpreter for
test directions, tests can measure achievement rather than sensory deficits of
students with hearing impairments.
State
Use
Of the
48 states that have statewide assessment programs, 34 allow “interpreter for
instructions” as a testing accommodation. Two additional states allow this
accommodation on certain tests, but not on others. One other state prohibits the
use of this accommodation (Thurlow et al., 2000).
Survey Research
Petronio (1988) interviewed 10 students with deaf-blindness to find out what
they needed and wanted most from interpreters. Results indicated that students
wanted information conveyed in the language that they most easily understood. A
number of students also needed special modifications to the normal manner of
interpreting due to tunnel vision or problems viewing interpreters at a
distance. Students also emphasized the need for interpreters to convey visual
information about relevant things going on in the classroom. Finally, Petronio’s
results indicated that students who had used interpreters for three or more
years were the most satisfied with them; those who were new to using
interpreters were more easily frustrated.
Empirical Research
Very
limited empirical research exists on the use of an interpreter specifically for
communicating achievement test instructions to students with hearing
impairments. Because of this, other studies that examined adapting tests for
students with hearing impairments were examined. Ray (1982) conducted a study of
adapting the Weschler Intelligence Scales for Children-Revised (WISC-R) for
students with hearing impairments. The adaptation involved using additional
sample items prior to conducting each subtest, as well as using alternate
instructions in which the directions were signed to the student. The directions
were also modified in order to avoid using words that were not easily translated
into sign language. Results indicated that when these adaptations were made,
deaf children scored on average the same as other students on the performance
scale of the WISC-R.
Sullivan (1982) similarly studied the effects of accommodations on the WISC-R
for students who were deaf. Each student in the study had half of the subtests
communicated via Total Communication (simultaneous verbal and sign language),
and half of the subtest directions communicated verbally with gestures. This
study found that WISC-R Performance Scale scores were higher when directions
were communicated via Total Communication than when communicated only verbally
and gesturally. An additional study (Sullivan, 1982) showed Total Communication
of directions resulted in significantly higher scale scores than pantomiming
directions. However, results also suggested that the population of students with
hearing impairments is not homogeneous; adaptations therefore must be
individualized.
Benderson (1988, as cited in Gorden, Stump, and Glaser, 1996) found that the
scores of students with hearing impairments who were given special
administrations of the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) did not over- or
under-predict their college achievement. For other students given special
administrations, there was a great deal of fluctuation in terms of how well the
test scores predicted future achievement.
Controversy
Providing an interpreter for instructions to students with hearing impairments
appears to be a very reasonable testing accommodation. Students need to be able
to comprehend task demands in order for them to demonstrate what they know and
can do on a test. Perhaps the only controversy identified has to do with the
quality of the interpretation. If interpreters do not communicate directions
accurately to students with hearing impairments, the accommodation does not meet
its intended purpose.
Recommendations
• An interpreter for
instructions should be provided to students with hearing impairments who will
benefit from such communication.
• Interpreters should be trained
professionals (Bourquin, 1996), and should sign the instructions exactly as
given (Ray, 1982).
• Interpreters should be aware
of the unique needs of the students they are serving; different students may
prefer differ language systems.
• Interpreters should check to
be sure that the correct message is received by the student.
• Some words in the standardized
directions may not be easily translated into sign language. Test developers
should avoid using such words and phrases, and a standard procedure should be
developed for how interpreters should communicate directions if such words and
phrases are necessary.
• Students should have
experience using an interpreter prior to the testing situation.
• More empirical research is
necessary to demonstrate effective ways of adapting standardized tests for
students with hearing impairments.
Large-print editions of tests are frequently used to accommodate students with visual impairments. Burns (1998) states that large-print applications are also used by students who are distracted by cluttered test formats and by very young children. Research studies have defined large-print in several similar ways: “14-point Helvetica font” (Mick, 1989), “double the size of regular print” (Burk, 1999), and “16-point type” (Grise, Beattie, & Algozzine, 1982).
Explanation
Few
academic tests are developed with the intent to measure either visual abilities
or a student’s degree of distractedness. However, the way students are currently
tested requires that they have adequate visual abilities and that they attend
well to regular print tests. Consequently, the score of a non-accommodated
student with a visual impairment on a reading comprehension test may reflect his
or her visual difficulties rather than his or her comprehension skills. A
large-print edition of a test can ensure that the student’s academic abilities
rather than his or her visual abilities are measured.
State
Use
Of the
48 states that have statewide assessment programs, 38 allow large print as a
testing accommodation (Thurlow et al., 2000). Two additional states allow it in
some situations but not others. One of these states allows large-print only if
it is not offered in addition to the extended time accommodation. None of the
states that allow large print indicate that it can be used only by students with
visual disabilities.
Survey Research
The
Jayanthi et al. (1996) survey of 708 general education teachers indicated that
the 401 responding teachers found the large-print testing accommodation both
helpful and easy to provide. Overall, 9.8% of the teachers who responded
indicated that they currently use the large-print accommodation in their
classrooms.
Empirical Research
Students with visual impairments.
Several studies on large-print accommodations have focused on secondary and
post-secondary students with visual impairments. A few of these studies have
suggested that when using the large-print accommodation, students with visual
impairments score more like students without disabilities taking a standard
administration of the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) (Bennett, Rock, & Jirele,
1987). Bennett, Rock, and Kaplan (1987) found no significant differences in SAT
item functioning for students with visual impairments taking a large-print
edition of the SAT. These results support the idea that the large print
accommodation does not affect the validity of academic tests.
Not all
of this research, however, has been supportive of the large-print accommodation.
Rock, Bennett, and Jirele (1988) identified problems in fit with the
three-common-factor model of the GRE for students with visual impairments taking
a large-type, extended time administration when compared to students without
disabilities and students with visual impairments taking the standard
administration. They found that the overall scores of students with visual
impairments taking the large-type edition of the GRE exhibited lower
intercorrelations with the verbal factor of the test than the scores of groups
receiving a standard administration. Because students self-selected the
large-print exam, it is unclear whether these test differences were due to the
severity of visual impairments, or whether the large-type accommodation actually
influenced test validity. The authors suggest that the reading task may be more
difficult for large-print readers because large print items may be cut off at
the end of a page and continue on the next page. This may interfere with the
student’s construction of item meaning.
Only
one study was identified that used the large-print accommodation with young
students with visual impairments. Coleman (1990) studied 24 students (7 large
print readers, 7 Braille readers, and 10 regular print readers) and found that
large print readers had more difficulty with length measurement tasks than did
the other readers. However, he concluded that it was vision problems rather than
the large-print that accounted for these results.
Although not pertaining directly to the specific effects of the large print
accommodation, Wright and Wendler (1994) documented that students who received
the large-print accommodation on a Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) field trial
required up to twice the normal time to complete the test. The extra time
necessary was suggested to be due to visual processing deficits.
Students with learning disabilities.
The use of the large-print accommodation by students with learning disabilities
has also been studied. The majority of these studies suggest that the
large-print accommodation does not have a significant effect on test scores
(Beattie, Grise, & Algozzine, 1983; Burk, 1999; Florida Department of Education,
1982; Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton, Hamlett, Binkley, & Crouch, 2000; Grise, Beattie, &
Algozzine, 1982; Mick, 1989). In one study, large-print did have an effect on
scores. Perez (1980) selected three modified presentation modes (regular print,
large print, and audio support) for items from Florida’s Statewide Student
Assessment and conducted these modified tests with 48 secondary-level students
with learning disabilities. Findings indicated that large-print presentation
resulted in the highest levels of performance overall. Performance with large
print was significantly higher than performance with regular print, as well as
higher than performance with audio support.
In all
but one study, therefore, the large-print accommodation seemed to have no effect
on scores of students with learning disabilities. It is important to note that
contrary to the studies of students with visual impairments, none of these
studies involved a decision-making process whereby individual students’
large-print needs were addressed. Perhaps if more attention had been given to
identifying which students would benefit from the accommodation, the
accommodation would have had more of an effect for students with learning
disabilities.
Controversy
Overall, it appears that state policymakers and educators agree that large-print
is a useful accommodation. Furthermore, most studies suggest that this
accommodation does not unfairly affect students’ scores. Perhaps the most
important point is that large-print test booklets can be less user-friendly than
regular print tests. They are often much heavier than normal tests, and require
more page-turning. Students using large-print test booklets have indicated that
they do not like how heavy they are (Florida Department of Education, 1982).
Additionally, more research may be needed on how this accommodation affects the
test-validity of very young children, a group of students that Burns (1998)
states often use large print.
Recommendation
• The large-print accommodation
should be offered to any student who it is determined will benefit from the
accommodation.
• When determining the large
print needs of a student, the best approach is to experiment with different
point and font sizes to decide which text best meets the student’s needs (Burns,
1998).
• Students receiving the
large-print accommodation should have adequate practice taking tests in this
format to be familiar with the extra page turning that may be required.
• Tests that are translated into
large print need to be checked to make sure no inappropriate line breaks or
measurement tasks are included. Make sure that items are grouped as much like
the original as possible (CEC, 2000).
• Students who use the
large-print accommodation may also require additional time due to visual
processing difficulties.
In some situations, the typical multiple-choice “fill-in-the-bubble” separate sheet response format may not be an appropriate way for a student to complete a test. The “mark answers in test booklet” accommodation may be necessary for some students to demonstrate what they truly know and can do. This accommodation allows students to respond to test items directly in the test booklet rather than on a separate answer sheet.
Explanation
Burns
(1998) suggested that if a student does not understand the “bubble-task,” is not
able to record answers using a bubble format, or has a mobility or coordination
problem, marking answers in the test booklet might be an effective
accommodation. Bubbling-in answers on a separate answer sheet requires adequate
student attention to ensure that the intended item is being marked. It also
requires adequate motor coordination. If a student does not have these
prerequisite abilities, his or her test performance may not reflect what the
test was intended to measure.
State
Use
Of the
48 states with statewide assessment programs, 28 allow the mark answers in test
booklet accommodation. Five additional states allow it on a portion, but not
all, of the required state assessments (Thurlow et al., 2000).
Empirical Research
Four
empirical studies were identified that examined the effects of the “mark answers
in test booklet” accommodation. Three of these studies showed no significant
difference between performances of students receiving this accommodation and
students completing the test under a standard response mode.
Rogers
(1983) conducted a study of this accommodation with 8- to 16-year-old students
with hearing impairments taking a multiple-choice spelling test. Results
indicated that the separate answer sheet was a valid assessment strategy, and
that the two methods had similar degrees of reliability. In other words, the
standard and accommodated test formats functioned similarly for this group of
students. Tolfa-Veit and Scruggs (1986) looked at differences in number of items
marked “outside the box” for fourth grade students with and without learning
disabilities. Results indicated that students with and without learning
disabilities had similar percentages of items marked outside of the necessary
area. Students with learning disabilities were found to complete significantly
fewer items than students without learning disabilities in the specified time
period; however, the two groups did not differ in the percent of items they
answered correctly. Tindal, Heath, Hollenbeck, Almond, and Harniss (1998)
similarly studied this accommodation with fourth grade students in special and
regular education. In this study, students completed statewide reading and math
tests in both accommodated and non-accommodated conditions. Results indicated
that there were no significant differences between testing response formats for
either group of students (those in regular education and those in special
education).
In a
study by Mick (1989), a modified test format including “marking answers in test
booklet” was found to result in lower scores for students with educable mental
handicaps and students with learning disabilities. A reading test was
administered to these students under both a modified format (large print,
unjustified lines, and writing answers directly in test booklet) and a
standardized format. Although these results may suggest that marking answers in
the test booklet puts students at a disadvantage, it is not clear which
aspect(s) of the modified version accounted for changes in performance.
Overall, there is no empirical support for this accommodation if the criterion
is increased test scores. Test scores for students taking the test with and
without this accommodation are similar; only one study suggested otherwise.
Controversy
Separate answer sheets help to facilitate the scoring process. Research has
shown students to score similarly both with and without this accommodation. It
might be argued, therefore, that the accommodation of marking answers in test
booklets is unnecessary. However, the research has failed to address the needs
of students with specific motor impairments, as well as those students with
attention problems that might lead them to mis-mark answers when using a
separate answer sheet. Because of this, this accommodation still seems warranted
in certain situations with certain students.
Recommendations
• This accommodation should be
allowed for students with motor coordination problems that hinder their ability
to respond appropriately in a standard test format. Furthermore, this
accommodation should be favored above other response accommodations (e.g.
dictated response to a scribe) because it is less likely to result in test bias.
• More research should be done
on this accommodation, especially involving students with attention problems and
physical impairments.
• If a student does not know how
or is not attentive enough to mark answers appropriately on a separate answer
sheet, this accommodation should be provided; however, it may be that the
student should be taught how to appropriately use the standard bubble sheet
format for later testing purposes (Burns, 1998).
• There should be ample space in
the test booklet for the student to respond when providing this accommodation
(CEC, 2000).
Reading
aloud a test to a student is an accommodation frequently used by students with
learning disabilities. Students with physical or visual impairments may also
benefit from the oral reading accommodation; however, it has been suggested that
students with visual impairments should be tested with Braille or large-print
when possible (Phillips, 1994). The read aloud accommodation generally refers to
having a teacher or aide read test directions, test items, and test reading
passages to students. Although this accommodation is often used in combination
with other equipment (e.g., computer, video, cassette tape, etc.), for the
purposes of this analysis, focus will be placed on read aloud accommodations as
provided by test proctors and teachers.
Explanation
Reading
is a prerequisite skill for demonstrating skills in a variety of academic areas.
For instance, completing math word problems requires that students know how to
read the questions. However, the intent of such an item may be to test math
skills rather than reading skills. For this reason, it appears necessary to
allow a read aloud accommodation for students with reading disabilities. In this
way, students’ true abilities can be manifested on the test without error that
is due to an inability to read quickly or accurately.
State
Use
Of the
48 states with statewide assessment programs, 4 states allow the read aloud
accommodation without limitations. One state prohibits its use, and 30 states
allow it under certain conditions. The states that impose limitations on this
accommodation generally allow it only on certain sections of the assessment,
such as in the math, science, social studies, and writing sections, and prohibit
its use on the reading sections (Thurlow et al., 2000).
Survey Research
The 64
teachers responding to the Gajria et al. (1994) survey of 100 teachers generally
favored the read aloud accommodation. A total of 90.6% of the respondents were
aware of the read aloud accommodation, 79.7% reported using it in their
classrooms, and 89% thought that providing this accommodation maintained the
integrity of the test. It was ranked 7th of 32 accommodations in terms of “ease
of use,” and 5th in terms of effectiveness.
The
Jayanthi et al. (1996) survey responses from 401 of the 708 general education
teachers to whom survey were sent indicated that “reading test questions to
students” was an easy accommodation to make. They also indicated that it was
“helpful” to “very helpful” to use. Of the teachers that responded, 67.9%
reported using this accommodation in their classrooms.
Hollenbeck et al. (1998) found that 56% of the 166 responding teachers (of 633
surveyed) had correct knowledge about the accommodation entitled “read math
text.” A total of 21% reported using this accommodation.
Empirical Research
Oral reading accommodation for math tests.
Nine studies looked at the effects of the oral reading accommodation on math
test scores. Five of these studies tested the hypothesis that the oral reading
accommodation should differentially boost the scores of students with
disabilities compared to students without disabilities. Three of these studies
found that students with learning disabilities benefited significantly more from
the accommodation than students without disabilities (Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton,
Hamlett, & Karns, 2000; Tindal, Heath, Hollenbeck, Almond, & Harniss, 1998;
Weston, 1999). Although Johnson (2000) found that students with learning
disabilities did differentially benefit from the accommodation, the increase in
scores was not statistically significant due to a small sample size. Johnson
(2000) also found that orally reading the test items had no differential effects
for good versus poor readers among non-disabled students.
Further
support on using this accommodation for students with learning disabilities is
warranted from additional findings by Tindal et al. (1998). Tindal et al. (1998)
found that even the lowest achievement-ranked students in general education did
not benefit significantly from the oral reading accommodation. According to
these findings, the oral reading accommodation appears to be a valid
accommodation for students with learning disabilities. Calhoon, Fuchs, and
Hamlett (2000) studied a sample of only students with learning disabilities, and
found that providing a reader on a math test significantly increased scores.
They also studied a computer read aloud accommodation, and found that this
accommodation also increased scores of students with learning disabilities. No
significant difference in scores was found between teacher-read and
computer-read accommodations.
Other
studies have looked at the read aloud accommodation in terms of overall test
functioning. Pomplun and Omar (2000) found that a proposed two-factor model
(writing and math factors) fit the data for all groups of students on a fourth
grade math test, including students with learning disabilities receiving the
read aloud accommodation, students with learning disabilities not receiving the
accommodation, and students without disabilities. This further suggests that the
read aloud accommodation is appropriate for students with disabilities on math
tests. Additionally, Bielinski, Thurlow, Ysseldyke, Freidebach, and Freidebach
(2001) found that although there were a few items that displayed differential
item functioning for accommodated students on a statewide math test, overall,
the accommodated version appeared to be measuring the same construct as the
non-accommodated test for students without disabilities. In a similar study,
Lewis and Green (1999) found there to be relatively few items displaying DIF for
the accommodated group on a math test; however, no reference group of regular
education students was provided in the study.
In
contrast, Meloy, Deville, and Frisbie (2000) found that the read aloud
accommodation increased the scores of both learning disabled and non-learning
disabled students on math and science sections of the Iowa Tests of Basic
Skills. They argued that the read aloud accommodation changed the construct
being measured for most students relative to what is measured under standard
conditions.
For the
most part, the oral reading accommodation for math tests appears to be supported
by research. However, the findings of Meloy et al. (2000) suggest that more
research support is needed to validate the use of this accommodation
Oral reading accommodation for reading tests.
Concern has been expressed regarding the use of the oral reading accommodation
on reading tests. Phillips (1994) suggested that this accommodation results in
the substitution of listening comprehension for reading comprehension, and
therefore greatly alters what the test measures. Burns (1998) argued that the
oral reading accommodation for reading tests undermines test validity, and could
lead to students not getting necessary services.
Five
studies on the use of the read aloud accommodation for reading tests were
identified. Tippets and Michaels (1997) examined the factor structure of reading
and language arts tests for students receiving the read aloud accommodation
alone and in combination with other accommodations (e.g., read aloud + extended
time, read aloud + dictated response, etc.), and compared this to the factor
structure of the tests for non-accommodated students. Results indicated no
difference between the structures, which suggests that the same underlying
construct was being measured.
Contrary to this finding, Meloy et al. (2000) found that the read aloud
accommodation benefited both learning disabled and non-learning disabled
students on several sections of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, of which the
greatest impact was found on the reading sections of the test. This suggests
that the accommodation changes what the test measures, therefore is invalid.
Bielinski (2000) also suggested that the read aloud accommodation changed the
construct that statewide reading test intended to measure. He found numerous
items displaying differential item functioning (DIF) when compared to results
for students in regular education. However, there were also several DIF items
for low performing students in regular education. Lewis and Green (1999) found
few DIF items for accommodated students in a similar study; however, the study
did not provide a comparison group of students without disabilities.
Finally, Barton and Huynh (2000) conducted a study of errors made by students
with disabilities receiving the read aloud accommodation on a high school
reading test. Their analysis suggested that there may be some items that are
particularly difficult for students receiving the read aloud accommodation, such
as items that include an index of entries or references that are difficult for
students to listen to and remember if they are not skilled in following along as
the proctor reads.
Clearly, more research needs to be done on the oral reading accommodation to
determine how it affects what the test measures.
Controversy
Research has primarily supported the use of the read aloud accommodation for
students with disabilities on math tests. However, great concern has been
expressed about the validity of using this accommodation on reading tests, and
limited research has addressed this issue. Additionally, it is not always clear
what the read aloud accommodation entails; in some cases students may be allowed
to ask the reader to “re-read” certain sections, and in other cases students
have the test read only once and must rely on auditory memory in answering the
questions (Burns, 1998). Administering this accommodation in large groups of
students can complicate things further; students may require different amounts
of time to complete items, requiring the reader to adjust his or her pace
accordingly. Concern is also evident in whether students should be given a copy
of the test to follow along or if they should simply listen to the test being
read. Some students may benefit from following along, whereas it may pose as a
distraction for others (Burns, 1998). Finally, readers must be careful not to
display inadvertent cues such as changes in voice inflection when correct
answers are being read. Students may easily recognize these subtle hints, which
may in turn alter the meaning of test scores. Overall, it appears that
differences in how the read aloud accommodation is administered may have
important effects on test scores.
Recommendations
• The read aloud accommodation
should be offered to students for whom it is determined will benefit from this
accommodation on tests not specifically designed to measure reading achievement.
• More research needs to be done
on using the read aloud accommodation on reading and language arts tests.
• Decisions should be made on an
individual basis about whether the student can follow along when reading the
test, or whether he or she should only listen to the test being read (Burns,
1998).
• In order to best reflect the
non-accommodated condition, students should be allowed to ask the reader to
re-read certain sections of the test.
• It is best to administer this
accommodation individually to effectively accommodate each student’s pace.
• Students using the oral
reading accommodation should be allowed approximately twice the normal amount of
time to complete the test (Burns, 1998).
• Readers should be trained in
how to effectively administer this accommodation (proper reading speed,
avoidance of inappropriate voice inflection, etc.). They should know the
pronunciation of words on the test and practice reading it in a straightforward
and clear manner prior to test administration (CEC, 2000).
A
variety of adaptations are frequently made in how test directions are
communicated to students. Directions may be read aloud or paraphrased,
additional examples may be given, or the student may be allowed to ask to have
directions repeated. Frequently, this accommodation is included along with the
read aloud accommodation for the remainder of the test. This accommodation
appears to be most appropriate for students with reading-related disabilities.
Explanation
In
order for students to demonstrate what they know and can do on a test, they must
have a good understanding of what the test requires them to do. A small
misunderstanding in test directions can cause students to complete an entire
test incorrectly. In general, tests do not intend to measure how carefully a
person can follow directions. This accommodation helps to facilitate the
understanding of test directions so that students can demonstrate their true
knowledge and skills.
State
Use
Of the
48 states with statewide assessment systems, 31 allow some form of the
read/reread/ simplify/clarify directions accommodation (Thurlow et al., 2000).
One state prohibits this accommodation, and four other states have limitations
on its use. In one state that limits its use,
clarifying directions is prohibited. In another state, the accommodation is
allowed only on certain subtests.
Survey Research
This
accommodation has been the subject of several surveys. The earliest was by
Gajria et al. (1994), who surveyed 100 teachers and received responses from 64.
They found that 90.6% of those surveyed were aware of the “read test directions
and items” accommodation, 79.7% reported using it in their classrooms, and 89%
thought that it maintained the integrity of the test. It was ranked 7th of 32
modifications in terms of “ease of use,” and 5th in terms of effectiveness.
Jayanthi et al. (1996) received surveys from 401 of 708 general education
teachers. Results indicated that of the 24 accommodations studied, “give
individual help with directions during tests” was rated as “easy” to “very easy”
to provide. It was ranked first in helpfulness, and in terms of how many
teachers used the accommodation (84.7% of the teachers who responded indicated
that they used the accommodation).
Lambert
et al. (1996) received responses from 121 of 171 teachers surveyed. “Allow a
proctor to rephrase test questions” ranked sixth among several accommodations in
terms of the percentage of teachers who had provided the accommodation in the
past. Also, the average rating of willingness to provide this accommodation was
4.1 on a 1-5 rating scale, 5 being “very willing to provide.”
Hollenbeck, Tindal, and Almond (1998) surveyed 633 regular and special
educators, of which 166 responded. They found that 51% of the teachers who
returned surveys had correct knowledge about the “clarify directions”
accommodation, and 16% reported using this accommodation.
Empirical Research
Very
limited research on this accommodation was identified. Elliott, Kratochwill, and
McKevitt (2001) included “support with understanding test directions” as part of
a package of accommodations to students in a study of the effects of testing
accommodations for students with and without disabilities. Several students
without disabilities and all students with disabilities in this study were given
an individualized accommodation package determined to be appropriate by their
teachers. Another group of students without disabilities was provided a standard
package of testing accommodations, which included “support with understanding
test directions” as well as other accommodations (e.g., help reading words,
verbal encouragement, extra time). Finally, one group of students without
disabilities was not provided any accommodations. Accommodation packages were
found to have positive effects for a large percentage of students with
disabilities (63.4%), a medium percent of students without disabilities who
received the teacher recommended packages (42.9%), and a smaller percent of
students without disabilities receiving the standard package (20.0%). Because of
the use of multiple accommodations in this study, however, it is difficult to
determine the specific effects of the “support with understanding test
directions” accommodation.
Controversy
Tests
typically are not designed to measure how well students follow directions, but
rather how well they read, write, calculate, etc. Logically, this accommodation
should not change what the test measures. Teachers and policymakers tend to
agree that this is a valid accommodation; overall, there is not much
controversy. However, further empirical support should be sought. Furthermore,
because this accommodation is “definitionally diverse,” it may be necessary to
study its different manifestations separately (e.g., reading directions vs.
simplifying directions).
Recommendations
• In general, test directions
should be written as simply and clearly as possible on the test, thus avoiding
the need for much additional clarification.
• When the purpose of the test
is not to test the ability to follow directions, this accommodation should be
allowed.
• This accommodation should
always accompany the read aloud accommodation unless the test measures reading
decoding skills.
• When clarifying test
directions, it is important for the test administrator to clearly and accurately
communicate how the test is to be completed.
• A set of guidelines should be
developed to indicate appropriate and inappropriate procedures for this
accommodation.
• This accommodation may require
testing in a separate location in order to avoid distracting other students
(CEC, 2000).
Students often are provided breaks between subtests. In some circumstances,
students are not given breaks between subtests, or the breaks they are given are
very short. Rarely are students given breaks within subtests. In this summary,
the “test break” accommodation is defined as allowing students to take the test
with breaks when the normal administration of the test does not include breaks.
The test breaks accommodation may provide students with various disabilities the
opportunity to demonstrate what they truly know and can do on a test.
Explanation
The use
of magnification equipment, tape recorders, and earphones can cause fatigue,
making frequent breaks a necessity (CEC, 2000). Also, students with attention
problems may have difficulty concentrating on a test for the period of time that
is typically expected of students. Fatigue and lowered concentration levels can
limit students’ abilities to show what they really know on a test. When provided
with more frequent or longer breaks, students with disabilities can experience a
break from frustration and regain an optimal level of test concentration.
State
Use
Of the
48 states with statewide assessment programs, 28 allow the test break
accommodation. Five additional states allow this accommodation under certain
conditions. For these five states, the accommodation is allowed on only some of
the statewide assessments, or is allowed only between subtests (Thurlow et al.,
2000).
Survey Research
No
survey research was identified that specifically addressed the test breaks
accommodation. One study, however, examined the accommodation of testing over
several sessions. Hollenbeck, Tindal, and Almond (1998) surveyed 633 regular and
special educators and received responses from 166. They found that 45.2% of the
responding teachers had correct knowledge about this accommodation, and 18%
reported using this accommodation.
Empirical Research
No
studies were identified that specifically addressed the test breaks
accommodation. However, two studies were identified that examined the use of a
very similar accommodation – testing on multiple days. DiCerbo, Stanley,
Roberts, and Blanchard (2001) studied the effects of two-day and three-day
administrations of reading comprehension tests on the scores of 939 third-grade
students. All students completed a form of the Stanford 9 reading comprehension
test, and a second form of the same test under either the two-day or three-day
condition. Students were not able to return to previously completed test
sections on the second or third days, and the overall amount of time students
had to complete the test was equivalent. Results indicated that participants’
scores were 12 scaled score points higher for the divided-time administrations
than for the one-time administration (ES=.25). There was also a significant time
by reading comprehension ability interaction (p < .001). Middle and low ability
readers experienced greater benefits from the multiple day administrations than
high ability readers.
Walz,
Albus, Thompson, and Thurlow (2000) examined the effects of allowing students to
take a reading test over multiple days versus one day. Participants were 112
seventh and eighth grade students (48 students receiving special education
services, and 64 non-special education students) taking the Minnesota Basic
Standards reading test. Under the one day administration, students read and
answered questions for three reading passages; in the multiple day
administration, students read one passage and completed the corresponding
questions each day for three days. Each student participated in both
administrations of the test. Results indicated that a multiple-day test
accommodation did not enhance the test scores of students with disabilities.
Furthermore, students without disabilities performed better under the one-day
administration.
Overall, it appears that more research needs to address the test breaks
accommodation. No research was identified that specifically studied this
accommodation, and studies of similar accommodations have differing results.
Perhaps the age of the students is a factor (e.g., younger students may benefit
more from this accommodation).
Controversy
Test
breaks are suggested to provide students with disabilities a chance to regain
concentration in order to perform optimally on tests. Furthermore, this
accommodation does not appear to significantly affect what is being tested.
However, no research has addressed whether students with disabilities perform
better when provided the test breaks accommodation. It has been suggested that
breaks within subtests may distract from the problem-solving rhythm a student
has developed (Burns, 1998) and interfere with performance on a sequence of
items (CEC, 2000). However, breaks between subtests are suggested to be
beneficial, especially when students are being administered a test individually
(Burns, 1998). It is clear that more research is needed to determine whether the
test breaks accommodation is appropriate, and if so, how and when it should be
used.
Recommendations
• Test breaks between subtests
should be provided to students for whom it has been determined will benefit from
this accommodation.
• Breaks within subtests should
be avoided, unless absolutely necessary.
• Because it may be possible for
students to find answers to previous test questions during breaks, students
should not be allowed to return to previously completed test items following a
break.
• The test break accommodation
may require a separate setting (CEC, 2000).
• Lengthened test breaks may be
necessary for some students (Burns, 1998).
• Test-developers should take
into consideration the age and the sustained attention abilities of the students
who will be tested.
• More research needs to address
the use of this accommodation.
This
report on the research that has been conducted on the most frequently used
accommodations reveals that there are not yet simple or conclusive answers to
questions about the effects of accommodations. Yet, there are some trends. There
were three accommodations included here that more than 90% of the states allow
without limitations (Interpreter for Instructions, Large Print Edition of the
Test, Read/Reread/Simplify/Clarify Directions). For these three, the primary
concerns relate to the quality of the implementation of the accommodation and to
the alignment of the accommodation to specific student needs.
The
Read Aloud accommodation is clearly the most controversial of the most
frequently allowed accommodations, with only four states allowing it without
limitations. The research confirms this controversy, with results for reading
tests mired in concerns about fidelity of implementation, validity issues, and
logistical concerns, even though use of Read Aloud generally is supported for
math tests.
It is
important to continue to document what the research tells us, and to analyze the
specific context of the studies, their methodologies, and their findings. Doing
so will be facilitated by referring to NCEO’s searchable accommodations research
database on its Web site (http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/AccomStudies.htm).
Barraga, N. (1983). Visual handicaps and learning. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.
Barton,
K. E. & Huynh, H. (2000). Patterns of
errors made on a reading test with oral reading administration. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the National Council on Measurement in
Education, New Orleans, LA.
Beattie, S., Grise, P., & Algozzine, B. (1983). Effects of test modifications on
the minimum competency performance of learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 75-77.
Bennett, R.E., Rock, D.A., & Jirele, T. (1987). GRE score level, test
completion, and reliability for visually impaired, physically handicapped, and
nonhandicapped groups. The Journal of Special Education, 21 (3),
9-21.
Bennett, R.E., Rock, D.A., & Kaplan, B.A. (1987). SAT differential item
performance for nine handicapped groups.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 24 (1), 44-55.
Bennett, R.E., Rock, D.A., & Novatkoski, I. (1989). Differential item
functioning on the SAT-M Braille Edition.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 26 (1), 67-79.
Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., Freidebach, J., & Freidebach, M.
(2001). Read-aloud accommodation: Effects on
multiple-choice reading & math items (Technical Report 31). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Bourquin, E.A. (1996). Using interpreters with deaf-blind clients: What
professional service providers should know.
RE:view, 27 (4), 149-154.
Braden,
J.P. (1992). Intellectual assessment of deaf and hard-of-hearing people: A
quantitative and qualitative research synthesis. School Psychology Review, 21 , 82-94.
Burk,
M. (1998, October). Computerized test
accommodations: A new approach for inclusion and success for students with
disabilities. Paper presented at Office of Special Education Program Cross
Project Meeting “Technology and the Education of Children with Disabilities:
Steppingstones to the 21st Century.”
Burns,
E. (1998) Test accommodations for students
with disabilities. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, LTD.
Calhoon, M.B., Fuchs, L.S., & Hamlett, C.L. (2000). Effects of computer-based
test accommodations on mathematics performance assessments for secondary
students with learning disabilities.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 271-282.
Centra,
J.A. (1986). Handicapped student performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19 (6),
324-327.
Chiu,
C.W.T., Pearson, & P. David (1999).
Synthesizing the effects of test accommodations for special education and
limited English proficiency students. Paper presented at the National
Conference on Large Scale Assessment.
Coleman, P.J. (1990). Exploring visually handicapped children’s understanding of
length (math concepts). (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University,
1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51,
0071.
Council
for Exceptional Children. Making
assessment accommodations: A toolkit for educators. Reston, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children.
DiCerbo, K., Stanley, E., Roberts, M., & Blanchard, J. (April, 2001). Attention
and standardized reading test performance: Implications for accommodation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Association of School Psychologists, Washington, DC, 2001.
Elliott, S., Kratochwill, T., & McKevitt, B. (2001). Experimental analysis of
the effects of testing accommodations on the scores of students with and without
disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 31(1),
3-24.
Florida
Department of Education. (1982). Florida
Technical Report: Study of procedural adaptation and format modifications in
testing learning disabled students elementary level: Volume II. Tallahassee:
Author.
Fuchs,
L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C., & Karns, K. (2000). Supplementing
teacher judgements about test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29 (1),
65-85.
Fuchs,
L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C., Binkley, E., & Crouch, R. (2000).
Using objective data source to enhance teacher judgements about test
accommodations. Exceptional Children, 67 (1), 67-81.
Gajria,
M., Salend, S.J., & Hemrick, M.A. (1994). Teacher acceptability of testing
modifications for mainstreamed students.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9(4), 236-243.
Gallina, N.B. (1989). Tourette’s syndrome children: Significant achievement and
social behavior variables (Tourette’s syndrome, attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder) (Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50,
0046.
Gordon,
R.P, Stump, K., & Glaser, B.A. (1996). Assessment of individuals with hearing
impairments: Equity in testing procedures and accommodations. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 29, 111-119.
Grise,
P., Beattie, S., & Algozzine, B. (1982). Assessment of minimum competency in
fifth grade learning disabled students: Test modifications make a difference. Journal of Educational Research, 76 (1),
35-40.
Hasselbring, T.S. & Crossland, C.L. (1982). Application of microcomputer
technology to spelling assessment of learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 80-82.
Helwig,
R., Stieber, S., Tindal, G., Hollenbeck, K., Heath, B., & Almond, P. (2000). A
comparison of factor analyses of handwritten and word-processed writing of
middle school students. Eugene, OR: RCTP.
Hollenbeck, K., Tindal, G., & Almond, P. (1998). Teacher’s knowledge of
accommodations as a validity issue in high-stakes testing.
The Journal of Special Education, 32 (3), 175-183.
Hollenbeck , K., Tindal, G., Harniss, M., & Almond, P. (1999). The effect of
using computers as an accommodation in a statewide writing test. Eugene, OR:
University of Oregon, BRT.
Hollenbeck, K., Tindal, G., Stieber, S., & Harniss, M. (1999). Handwritten vs.
word processed statewide compositions: Do judges rate them differently? Eugene,
OR: University of Oregon, BRT.
Horton,
S.V., & Lovitt, T.C. (1994). A comparison of two methods of administering group
reading inventories to diverse learners: Computer versus pencil and paper. Remedial and Special Education, 15 (6) 378-390.
Huesman, R.L. (1999). The validity of ITBS reading comprehension test scores for
learning disabled and non-learning disabled students under extended-time
conditions. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, A 60/06, 1996.
Huesman, R.L., & Frisbie, D.A. (2000). The validity of the ITBS reading
comprehension test scores for learning disabled and non learning disabled
students under extended time conditions.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in
Education, New Orleans, LA.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. Sec.
1400 et seq.
Jayanthi, M., Epstein, M.H., Polloway, E.A., & Bursuck, W.D. (1996). A national
survey of general education teachers’ perceptions of testing adaptations. The Journal of Special Education, 30 (1),
99-115.
Koretz,
D. (1997). The assessment of students with
disabilities in Kentucky (CSE Technical Report No. 431). Los Angeles, CA:
Center for Research on Standards and Student Testing.
Koretz,
D. & Hamilton, L. (1999). Assessing
students with disabilities in Kentucky: The effects of accommodations, format,
and subject (Technical Report No. 498). Los Angeles, CA: Center for Research
on Standards and Student Testing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 440
148).
Lambert, D., Dodd, J.M., Christensen, L., & Fishbaugh, M.S.E. (1996). Rural
secondary teachers’ willingness to provide accommodations for students with
learning disabilities. Rural Special
Education Quarterly, 15 (2), 36-42.
Lewis,
D., Green, D. R., & Miller, L. (1999).
Using differential item functioning analyses to assess the validity of testing
accommodated students with disabilities. Paper presented at the national
conference on large-scale assessment, Snowbird, UT.
MacArthur, C.A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students’ composing
under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and
dictation. The Journal of Special Education, 21 (3),
22-42.
Marquart, A. (2000). The use of extended
time as an accommodation on a standardized mathematics test: An investigation of
effects on scores and perceived consequences for students of various skill
levels. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council of Chief State
School Officers, Snowbird, UT.
Meloy,
L.L., Deville, C., & Frisbie, C. (2000). The Effect of a Reading Accommodation
on Standardized Test Scores of Learning Disabled and Non Learning Disabled
Students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on
Measurement in Education (New Orleans, LA).
Mick,
L.B. (1989). Measurement effects of modifications in minimum competency test
formats for exceptional students.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 22, 31-36.
Miller,
P. (1990). Use of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) with
individuals with severe speech and motor impairment: Effect of response mode on
test results (Speech Impairment). (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kansas
,1990): Digital Dissertations, 51, 5632.
Montani, T.O. (1995). Calculation skills of third-grade children with
mathematics and reading difficulties (learning disabilities). (Doctoral
dissertation, Rutgers the State University of New Jersey, 1995).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 0910.
Munger,
G.F., & Loyd, B.H. (1991). Effect of speededness on test performance of
handicapped and nonhandicapped examinees.
Journal of Educational Research, 85 (1), 53-57.
Murray,
E.A. (1987). The relationship between spatial abilities and mathematics
achievement in normal and learning-disabled boys. (Doctoral dissertation, Boston
University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58,
0176.
Perez,
J.V. (1980). Procedural adaptations and format modifications in minimum
competency testing of learning disabled students: A clinical investigation
(Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 0206.
Perlman, C.L., Borger, J., Collins, C.B., Elenbogen, J.C., & Wood, J. (1996). The effect of extended time limits on
learning disabled students’ scores on standardized reading tests. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in
Education, New York, NY.
Petronio, K. (1998). Interpreting for deaf-blind students: Factors to consider. American Annals of the Deaf, 133 (3),
33-43.
Phillips, S.E. (1994). High stakes testing accommodations: Validity vs. disabled
rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7 (2),
93-120.
Pomplun, M. & Omar, M. H. (2000). Score comparability of a state mathematics
assessment across students with and without reading accommodations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 21-29.
Ray,
S.R. (1989). Adapting the WISC-R for deaf children. Diagnostique, 7, 147-157.
Ray,
S.R. (1989). Context and the psychoeducational assessment of hearing impaired
children. Topics in Language Disorders, 9(4) 33-43.
Rock,
D.A., Bennett, R.E., & Jirele, T. (1988). Factor structure of the Graduate
Record Examinations General Test in handicapped and nonhandicapped groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (3),
383-392.
Rogers,
W.T. (1983). Use of separate answer sheets with hearing impaired and deaf school
age students. B.C. Journal of Special
Education, 7
(1), 63-72.
Russell, M. (1999). Testing writing on computers: A follow-up study comparing
performance on computer and on paper.
Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7.
Russell, M., & Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers: An experiment
comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via
paper-and-pencil. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 5
(3).
Russell, M., & Plati, T. (2001). Effects of computer versus paper administration
of a state-mandated writing assessment.
TCRecord.org.
Retrieved January 23, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.tcrecord.org/PrintContent.asp?ContentID=10709.
Statewide Stakeholder Focus Group. (September, 1995) «Including Students with
Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the
Issues.» Under a grant from The Texas Education Agency to Region XI Education
Service Center.
Sullivan, P.M. (1982). Administration modifications on the WISC-R Performance
Scale with different categories of deaf children.
American Annals of the Deaf, 127 (6),
780-788.
Swain,
C. R. (1997). A comparison of a computer-administered test and a paper and
pencil test using normally achieving and mathematically disabled young children.
( Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Texas, 1997) Digital Dissertations, 58, 835.
Thurlow, M., House, A., Boys, C., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (2000). State participation and accommodation
policies for students with disabilities: 1999 Update (Synthesis Report 33).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational
Outcomes.
Tindal,
G., & Fuchs, L. (2000). A Summary of
Research on Test Accommodations: An Empirical Basis for Defining Test
Accommodations. Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 442 245).
Tindal,
G. Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998). Accommodating
students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An empirical study of student
response and test administration demands.
Exceptional Children, 64
(4), 439-450.
Tippets, E., & Michaels, H. (1997). Factor Structure Invariance of Accommodated
and Non-Accommodated Performance Assessments.
Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education annual
meeting, Chicago.
Tolfa-Veit, D., & Scruggs, T.E. (1986). Can learning disabled students
effectively use separate answer sheets?
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 155-160.
Trimble, S. (1998). Performance trends and
use of accommodations on a statewide assessment (Maryland/Kentucky Report Number
3). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Vacc,
N. (1987). Word processor versus handwriting: A comparative study of writing
samples produced by mildly mentally handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54(2), 156-165.
Varnhagen, S., & Gerber, M.M. (1984). Use of microcomputers for spelling
assessment: Reasons to be cautious.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 7,
266-270.
Walz,
L., Albus, D., Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2000). Effect of a multiple day test accommodation
on the performance of special education students (Minnesota Report 34).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Watkins, M.W., & Kush, J.C. (1988). Assessment of academic skills of learning
disabled students with classroom microcomputers.
School Psychology Review, 17 (1), 81-88.
Weston,
T. (1999). The validity of oral
presentation in testing. Montreal, CANADA: American Educational
Research Association.
Wright,
N., & Wendler, C. (1994). Establishing timing limits for the new SAT for
students with disabilities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
National Council on Measurement in Education (New Orleans, LA, April 4-8, 1994).
ERIC ID# ED375543.
Ziomek,
R.L., & Andrews, K.M. (1998). ACT assessment score gains of special tested
students. ACT Research Report Series, October, 1998.