Norm-referenced and Other Standardized Tests

18

State Criterion-referenced Tests or Performance Assessments

18

School or District-designed Tests

0

Other

8

Survey

3

N/A, Meta-Analyses

2

Mathematics

21

Reading/Language Arts

23

Science

3

Writing

3

Social Studies

1

No Specific Content Area

7

Presentation (21):

Oral Administration

11

Computer Administration

5

Video

2

Large Print

1

Dictionary Use

1

Braille

1

Timing/Scheduling (8):

Extended Time

7

Multiple Day

1

Response (2):

Dictated Response

1

Calculator

1

Technological Aid (2)

2

Multiple Accommodations (11)

11

N / A (Survey or Meta-Analysis) (5)

5

1-99

18

100-199

2

200-299

3

300-499

4

500-999

4

More than 1000

16

Not Applicable

2

1-24%

10

25-49%

5

50-74%

8

75-100%

10

Not Reported

9

No Students with Disabilities Participated in Study

0

Not Applicable

7

Elementary (K-5)

6

Middle School (6-8)

6

High School (9-12)

11

Multiple Grade Level Categories (K-Postsecondary)

15

Post Secondary

6

Not Applicable

5

Learning Disability

15

Cognitive Disability (e.g., mental retardation)

10

Emotional/Behavioral Disability

10

Communication Disability

12

Reading or Math Deficit

4

Other (includes physical and sensory disabilities, autism, attention deficit disorder, health impairments, and multiple disabilities)

16

Not Reported

21

Not Applicable

5

Oral Presentation (11)

Positive effect on scores

6

No Differential Item Functioning

2

No significant effect on scores

2

Differential Item Functioning

2

Self-prediction for need unreliable

1

Extended Time (12)

Positive effect on scores

3

No significant effect on scores

2

Differential Item Functioning

2

No Differential Item Functioning

1

Scores on accommodated test predictor of grades

1

Computer Administration (5)

No significant effect on scores

3

Positive effect on scores

1

Differential Item Functioning

1

Technological Aid (3)

Positive effect on scores

3

Calculator Use (1)

No significant effect on scores

1

Dictionary Use (1)

Negative effect on Scores

1

Multiple Accommodations

11

N/A, Meta-analyses, Survey, Teacher

5

Small Sample Size/Sample Too Narrow in Scope

15

Confounding Factors

13

Flaw in Research Design

4

Conflicting Results

2

Nonstandard Administration Across Proctors and Schools

2

No Limitations Mentioned

12

Not Applicable/Meta-Analyses

2

Investigate characteristics of accommodations themselves in further detail

12

Investigate student factors contributing to accommodations use

6

Improved study design or study replication

5

Study policy and accommodations hypotheses

4

Replicate study with larger sample

3

Investigate teacher factors related to accommodations selections

2

Investigate possible instructional uses for accommodations

1

Investigate accommodation practicality

1

The effects of the read aloud accommodation on math test items.. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.

The purpose of this study was to examine whether score comparability improves when a test is read aloud to students.

Buehler K. L. (2002). Standardized group achievement tests and the accommodation of additional time (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana State University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63/04, 1312.

This study investigated the effects of additional time on test data.

Burch M. (2002). Effects of computer-based test accommodations on the math problem-solving performance of students with and without disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63/03, 902.

This study investigated three different computer-based testing accommodations. Students were tested in the following conditions: Standard administration (SA), computer-read text (CRT), video (V), constructed responses (CON), and comprehensive accommodations (CA).

Crawford, L., Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2004). Writing performance assessments: How important is extended time? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 132-142.

This study investigated the effects of varying the available amounts of testing time on the writing performance of students in general and special education at Grades 5 and 8.

Barton K. E., & Sheinker A. (2003). Comparability and accessibility: On line versus on paper writing prompt administration and scoring across students with various abilities. Monterey, CA: CTB-McGraw-Hill.

The purpose of this study was to examine whether students without disabilities obtain higher scores than those with disabilities when all participants were administered two writing prompts (on-line and paper-based) counter-balanced by mode of administration and prompt.

Dempsey, K. M. (2004). The impact of additional time on LSAT scores: Does time really matter? The efficacy of making decisions on a case-by-case basis (Doctoral dissertation, La Salle University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64/10, 5212.

This study examines the relationship between cognitive test data and Law School Admission Test (LSAT) performance as well as the effects of being granted additional test time to take the LSAT. This study also evaluated the difference between candidates’ standard and accommodated LSAT scores and their predicted LSAT scores.

Elbaum B., Arguelles M. E., Cambpell Y., & Saleh M. B. (2004). Effects of a Student-Reads-Aloud Accommodation on the Performance of Students With and Without Learning Disabilities on a Test of Reading Comprehension. Exceptionality, 12(2), 71-87.

This study examined the impact of a student-reads-aloud (i.e., student reads text but aloud) accommodation on the performance of middle and high school students with and without learning disabilities on a test of reading comprehension.

Elliott S. N., & Marquart A. M. (2003). Extended time as an accommodation on a standardized mathematics test: An investigation of its effects on scores and perceived consequences for students with varying mathematical skills. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

This study investigated the significance on scoring for students who took equivalent forms of a standardized math test in two conditions (extended time and standard time).

Elliott, S. N., & Marquart, A. M. (2004). Extended time as a testing accommodation: Its effects and perceived consequences. Exceptional Children, 70(3), 349-367.

This investigation examined the effect of extended time on the performance of students with disabilities, students educationally at risk in math, and students without disabilities.

Hansen E. G., Lee M. J., & Forer D. C. (2002). A ‘self-voicing’ test for individuals with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 96(4), 273-275.

The study investigated the use of speech output technology for tests for individuals with visual impairments.

Helwig R., Rozek-Tedesco M. A., & Tindal G. (2002). An oral versus a standard administration of a large-scale mathematics test. The Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 39-47.

The purpose of this study was to examine whether students perform better on examinations when read aloud items via a video presentation.

Idstein, B. E. (2003). Dictionary use during reading comprehension tests: An aid or a diversion? (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64/02, 483.

The purpose of this study is to examine students’ use of dictionaries during reading comprehension exams, expecially since their use during exams has come under critical reexamination.

Janson I. B. (2002). The effects of testing accommodations on students’ standardized test scores in a northeast Tennessee school system (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63/02, 557.

Scores obtained by students who received special education services and did not receive accommodations in 1998 and/or 1999 were compared to scores obtained by the same students who did receive accommodations in later testing. Ninety-nine percent of students who received accommodations were given the read aloud accommodation.

Kappel A. (2002). The effects of testing accommodations on subtypes of students with learning disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63/05, 1804.

This study investigated the effects of two testing accommodations, extended time and oral administration, on the math test performance of students’ with learning disabilities

Kettler R. J., Niebling, B. C., Mroch A. A., Feldman E. S., & Newell M. L. (2003). Effects of testing accommodations on math and reading scores: An experimental analysis of the performance of fourth and eighth grade students with and without disabilities. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Participants with disabilities were assigned accommodations based on their IEPs. Participants without disabilities were paired with students with disabilities. Each pair was tested under the accommodation condition during which both students in the pair received the same set of accommodations.

Landau, S., Russell, Gourgey, K., Erin, J. N., & Cowan, J. (2003). Use of talking tactile tablet in mathematics testing. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 97(2), 85-96.

This study examined the extent to which use of the Talking Tactile Tablet had a positive impact on the mathematics performance of students who were visually impaired and/or had difficulty visualizing graphics and diagrams. To the extent possible, the study also explored the Talking Tactile Tablet’s impact on the difficulty of items.

Macarthur, C. A., & Cavalier, A. R. (2004). Dictation and speech recognition technology as test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 43-58.

This study addressed the feasibility and validity of dictation using speech recognition software (Dragon Naturally Speaking, Version 4) and dictation to a scribe as test accommodations for students with learning disabilities.

McKevitt, B. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2003). Effects and perceived consequences of using read aloud and teacher-recommended testing accommodations on a reading achievement test. The School Psychology Review, 32(4), 583-600.

The purpose of this study was to test students’ performance on a reading test with and without read-aloud accommodations.

Reed, E. (2002). Wrong for the right reasons: Appropriate accommodations for students with learning disabilities and/or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63/10, 3475.

This study considered student performance and the appropriateness of accommodations at the level of the individual student through a think-aloud process. Students were asked to think-aloud while solving grade level mathematics problems.

Tavani, C. M. (2004). The impact of testing accommodations on students with learning disabilities: An investigation of the 2000 NAEP mathematics assessment (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65/07, 2493.

This study addressed the effects of accommodations on mathematical performance scores and examined additional variables that showed to have strong relationships with student’s test performances.

Tindal G. (2002). Accommodating mathematics testing using a videotaped, read-aloud administration. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Students participated in both standard and videotaped test administrations. During the videotaped administration the test items were read aloud individually, in a paced format, with visual prompting of the answer choices.

Trammell, J. K. (2003). The impact of academic accommodations on final grades in a postsecondary setting. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 34(1), 76-90.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether postsecondary students with learning disabilities and/or Attention Deficit Disorder experienced a differential increase in end-of-term grades when they used academic accommodations required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Students received one or more of the following academic accommodations throughout the school year: additional time to complete the tests, taping classes, testing in a separate room and books on tape.

Weston, T. J. (2003). NAEP validity studies: The validity of oral accommodation testing. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

This study examined three factors related to read aloud accommodation is math. First, accommodated test scores were compared to non-accommodated scores for a sample of students with learning disabilities. Second was the relative benefit that students with learning disabilities received from read aloud accommodations. Finally, the author examined the accuracy of information derived from accommodated and non-accommodated tests.

Barton K. E. (2002). Stability of constructs across groups of students with different disabilities on a reading assessment under standard and accommodated administrations (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62/12, 4136.

The purpose of this study was to examine whether a similar construct is measured among students who are administered either the oral accommodation (OA) form or a regular form of an assessment.

Bridgeman, B., Cline, F., & Hessinger, J. (2004). Effect of extra time on verbal and quantitative GRE scores. Applied Measurement in Education, 17(1), 25-37.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of extra time on the Graduate Record Examination General Test.

Bridgeman, B., Lennon, M. L., & Jackenthal, A. (2003). Effects of screen size, screen resolution and display rate on computer-based test performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(3), 191-205.

This study evaluated the effects of variations in screen size, resolution, and presentation delay on verbal and mathematics scores. There were three screen display conditions (size and resolution) crossed with two presentation rate conditions (delay or no delay).

Cahalan C., Mandinach E., & Camara W. J. (2002). Predictive validity of SAT I: Reasoning test for test-takers with learning disabilities and extended time accommodations. New York, NY: The College Reporting Board.

The study was conducted to examine the predictive validity of scores taken with an extended time accommodation.

Hall S. E. H. (2002). The impact of test accommodations on the performance of students with disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63/03, 902.

Subjects received a variety of accommodations including extended time, dictated response, small group, and oral administration of the test.

Huynh H., Meyer J. P., & Gallant-Taylor D. (2002). Comparability of scores of accommodated and non-accommodated testings for a high school exit examination of mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. New Orleans, LA.

Students received a different form of the test that was designed to be appropriate for testing students with visual and hearing impairments. This form could have been provided in a regular print, large-print, or loose-leaf version. This form also may have been administered orally or by sign language to some of the students.

Huynh, H., Meyer, J. P., & Gallant, D. J. (2004). Comparability of student performance between regular and oral administrations for a high-stakes mathematics Test. Applied Measurement in Education, 17(1), 39-57.

This study examined the effect of oral administration accommodations on test structure and student performance on the mathematics portion on the South Carolina high School Exit Examination.

Kobrin, J. L., & Young, J. W. (2003). The cognitive equivalence of reading comprehension test items via computerized and paper-and-pencil administration. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(2), 115-140.

The cognitive equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil reading comprehension tests was investigated.

Meloy L. L., Deville C., & Frisbie D. (2002). The effect of a read aloud accommodation on test scores of students with and without a learning disability in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 23 (4), 248-255.

Students were randomly assigned to two experimental conditions. In one condition the test was administered according to standard procedures; in the other condition the test was read aloud to the students.

Pomplun M., Frey S., & Becker D. (2002). The score equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computerized versions of a speeded test of reading comprehension. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(2), 337-354.

Students took two forms of a test in computerized and paper-and-pencil versions.

Scheuneman J. D., Camara W. J., Cascallar A. S., Wendler C., & Lawrence I. (2002). Calculator access, use, and type in relation to performance in the SAT I: Reasoning test in mathematics. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(1), 95-112.

After completing the test, participants were asked to respond to a set of three questions about their use of a calculator during the test.

Thornton A. E., Reese L. M., Pashley P. J., & Dalessandro S. P. (2002). Predictive validity of accommodated LSAT scores. Pennsylvania: Law School Admission Council.

The validity of scores obtained by test takers who were administered the test under nonstandard time conditions (i.e., accommodations that included extended time) was investigated.

Woods, K. (2004). Deciding to provide a reader in examinations for the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE): Questions about validity and inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 31(3), 122-124.

This study examined the effects of providing a read-aloud accommodated test to examinees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its purpose was to report whether reading age and self-prediction were accurate indicators of the need for read-aloud accommodations.

Bolt, S. E. (2004). Using DIF analyses to examine several commonly-held beliefs about testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.

The purpose of this study was to examine the extent of data based support for several commonly held opinions about testing accommodations for students with disabilities.

Bielinski, J., Sheinker, A., & Ysseldyke, J. (2003). Varied opinions on how to report accommodated test scores: Findings based on CTB/McGraw-Hill’s framework for classifying accommodations (Synthesis Report 49). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

A list of 44 different accommodations categorized into presentation, response, setting, and timing accommodations were used.

Cisar, C. A. (2004). Teacher’s knowledge about accommodations and modifications as they relate to assessment (Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65/10, 3754.

The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a difference among staff (administrators, general education teachers, special education teachers, elective area teachers: art, PE, music) servicing students with special needs in their ability to distinguish accommodations from modifications and their ability to use them in assessment activities.

Gagnon, J. C., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2004). Curriculum, assessment, and accountability in day treatment and residential schools. Exceptional Children, 70(3), 263-283.

This study determined school-level curricular, assessment, and accountability policies and practices in private and public day treatment and residential schools for elementary age children with emotional or behavioral disorders.

Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2003). An experimental analysis of accommodation decisions on large-scale mathematics tests. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 211-225.

This study tested the accuracy with which special education teachers determine which students need read-aloud accommodations. An additional goal of this study was to develop a profile of students who benefit from this type of accommodation by contrasting their achievement levels in reading and basic math skills.

Jackson, L. M. (2003). The effects of testing adaptations on students’ standardized test scores for students with visual impairments in Arizona (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64/10, 3644.

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of testing modifications, a type of adaptation, and the effects of demographic information on students’ standardized test scores for students in Arizona who have visual impairments including those with additional disabilities.

Katzman, L. I. (2004). Students with disabilities and high stakes testing: What can the students tell us? (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65/05, 1732.

This study examined the qualitative aspects of high stakes testing and accommodations for students with disabilities by asking students to explain their understanding and experiences of participating in a large-scale high school examination.

Nickerson, B. (2004). English language learners, the Stanford Achievement Test, and perceptions regarding the effectiveness of testing accommodations: A study of eighth graders (Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65/07, 2465.

This study examined the perception of students with regard to the effectiveness of testing accommodations in assisting them to more accurately demonstrate content knowledge and skills.

Shriner, J. G., & Destefano, L. (2003). Participation and accommodation in state assessment: The role of individualized education programs. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 147-161.

The purpose of this study was to test if training sessions help special education teachers and administrators use, and report accommodations on test day.

Barton, K. E., & Huynh, H. (2003). Patterns of errors made by students with disabilities on a reading test with oral reading administration. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(4), 602-614.

This study examined differences in the types of errors made by students with disabilities on a multiple choice reading test administered under oral reading accommodations.

Choi, S. W., & Tinker T. (2002). Evaluating comparability of paper-and-pencil and computer-based assessment in a K-12 setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.

Students took alternate forms of the test under computer administration and paper-and-pencil administration.

Sireci, S. G., Li, S., & Scarpati, S. (2003). The effects of test accommodations on test performance: A review of the literature (Research Report 485). Amherst, MA: Center for Educational Assessment.

The purpose of this study was to analyze existing research in the area of test accommodations.

Tindal, G., & Ketterlin-Geller, L.R. (2004). Research on mathematics test accommodations relevant to NAEP testing. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.

The purpose of this study was to synthesize research pertaining to differential item functioning.

The reading portion of a secondary level statewide assessment was used as the dependent variable.

The study was based on statewide data from the 1996, 1997, and 1998 administration of the Oral Accommodation form of South Carolina’s statewide reading test.

Questionnaires addressing computer literacy, accommodations, and accessibility were given to all students participating. Writing prompts were scored via paper and online formats and analyzed via descriptive and inferential analysis.

This study is a survey of the perceptions held by people familiar with policy or research on the way in which test scores are influenced by accommodations and how scores obtained under accommodated conditions are to be treated in reporting. Participants marked each accommodation as either: 1) measuring the construct in the same way, 2) changing the meaning of the test score, or 3) not having definitive evidence to place it in either category one or two.

Level analyses were conducted on multiple choice math items from the Missouri Assessment Program.

A series of DIF analyses were conducted across three statewide achievement tests.

The participants were tested using a computerized version of questions from the SAT 1: Reasoning Test. The test was given in various formats crossing screen size, resolution, and presentation rate.

The verbal and quantitative sections of the Graduate Record Examination were experimentally administered with standard time limits and at 1.5 times the normal allotted time.

Students were administered the reading subtests of the California Achievement Tests, Fifth Edition (CAT/5) and the rapid-naming subtests of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP).

Several math tests were administered to assess the math problem-solving performance of students with and without disabilities.

SAT I test scores and self-reported high school grade point average (HSGPA) to predict first year grade point average (FGPA).

Items from a statewide math and reading test were analyzed. Surveys were also conducted to determine student computer experience.

The researcher created a questionnaire that contained four sections of data collection: professional development, identification, accommodation information, and demographics.

The students completed a 30-minute Oregon state writing performance assessment as well as a longer writing performance assessment which was completed over 3 days. Assessments were evaluated on four traits (ideas, organization, conventions, and sentence fluency).

Subjects were administered the LSAT under extended time conditions.

A test made up of 3^rd–5^th grade reading passages.

Students completed alternate short forms of standardized mathematics tests developed from the TerraNova Level 18 mathematics test.

The students completed one of two alternate short forms of standardized mathematics tests developed from the TerraNova level 18 mathematics test. Upon completion of the test, students completed an accommodations survey about their reactions to working on the test under the accommodated or standard conditions.

Two surveys were developed based on a review of literature, consideration of current educational reform, etc. There were five sections on each survey, however, this study focuses only on the sections on curricular policies and accountabilities.

Results from the 2000 administration of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSAP) were used as the dependent variable in this post hoc analysis.

The study examined the use of a prototype testing system that utilizes synthesized speech to deliver questions on reading and listening comprehension tests.

Items were selected from a statewide multiple-choice math test; items considered more difficult to read were specifically analyzed.

For each student, the appropriate teacher completed a survey that rated the student’s skill level in both reading and mathematics on a 5-point Likert scale. The teacher also predicted which students would benefit most from a read-aloud accommodation. The students were also tested with a standardized reading and basic math skills test.

Performance on the math portion of the South Carolina High School Exit Examination was used as the dependent variable.

The mathematics section of the state exit examination was given at grade 10. All students in this assessment program were given unlimited time to complete the test.

The students were given a test called a bagrut, a reading comprehension test in English. The reading task component included two reading passages. Students were permitted use of the Oxford Student’s Dictionary for Hebrew Speakers.

The dependant variable in this study was the Stanford Achievement Test, 9^th Edition.

Performance on the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) achievement test was used as the dependent variable. Results from the following years were analyzed: 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

All students were administered items from the Mathematics subtest of the California Achievement Test under several conditions, with and without accommodations.

The students were interviewed after completing the 10^th grade MCAS, an assessment students must pass in order to graduate.

Two math subtests and two reading subtests from research editions of the TerraNova Multiple Assessment Battery were used to assess participants’ achievement levels.

Subjects were tested using reading comprehension items from the ETS GRE General Test Big Book. Two long passages consisting of 55 lines and 7 corresponding test items were selected and administered via computer and paper-and pencil formats.

For this study, three mathematics test forms, each containing four items, were administered to the participants. Each of the 12 items referenced a diagram or graphical element. The items focused on geometry, measurement, patterns and relations, and statistics and probability.

Two measures were used to evaluate accuracy of speech recognition: sentence probes and word-list probes. Students wrote essays under the following three conditions: using handwriting, using a scribe, and using speech recognition software.

Two forms of a research version of the TerraNova Multiple Assessments Reading test (eighth-grade level) were used in this study. After completing the test, students completed a survey about testing accommodations. Teachers also completed a survey about their perceptions of the effectiveness of testing with accommodations.

Participants were administered four tests from the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS): Science, Usage and Expression, Math Problem-Solving, Data Interpretation, and Reading Comprehension.

Interviews were used to elicit student perceptions about which testing accommodations effectively assisted the students in demonstrating what he/she knows and can do on the SAT-9 test.

Participants were administered multiple forms of a reading placement test, namely the Nelson-Denny Reading Test.

Three subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests and a subset of tasks from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children were used in this study. The think-aloud data were analyzed in conjunction with pre-test ability and achievement measures to determine why students got test items right or wrong. Test items were thought to function appropriately for students who got the answer wrong and displayed no mastery of the construct being assessed during the think-aloud process.

The participants were administered the SAT I: Reasoning test in Mathematics in domestic test centers. Questions about use of the calculator on the test were placed in the answer sheets for the November 1996 and the November 1997 administrations of the examination.

The IEP analyses that are reported were conducted twice (1999, 2000). During the intervening year, site-based management teams of special and general education teachers and administrators participated in a series of training sessions and follow-up conducted by the researchers during March 1999 through February 2000. The decisions of the same groups of trained IEP team members were followed through both years in a longitudinal design.

The 2000 NAEP Mathematics assessment.

The measure used to assess the predictive validity of the LSAT for participant groups was law school first year average grades.

Fourth and seventh grade levels of a multiple choice mathematics test were administered in two different forms (videotaped and standard) in a counterbalanced order.

End of term grades for each subject were compared and contrasted in this study.

All subjects took two matched forms of a mathematics assessment based on NAEP items: one form accommodated (read-aloud), and one form non-accommodated. All students also took the first part of the Third Grade TerraNova Reading test to determine reading level.

The GCSE is a high stakes examination in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is used as a predictor of future educational achievement.

Barton (2002)

X

1

Barton (2003)

X

1

Barton (2003)

X

1

Bielinski (2003)

N/A

Bolt (2002)

X

1

Bolt (2004)

X

X

2

Bridgeman (2003)

X

2

Bridgeman (2004)

X

X

2

Buehler (2002)

X

1

Burch (2002)

X

X

2

Cahalan (2002)

X

1

Choi (2002)

X

X

2

Cisar (2004)

N/A

Crawford (2004)

X

1

Dempsey (2003)

X

1

Elbaum (2004)

X

1

Elliott (2003)

X

1

Elliott (2004)

X

1

Gagnon (2004)

N/A

Hall (2002)

X

X

2

Hansen (2002)

X

1

Helwig (2002)

X

1

Helwig (2003)

X

X

2

Huynh (2002)

X

1

Huynh (2004)

X

1

Idstein (2003)

X

1

Jackson (2003)

X

X

2

Janson (2002)

X

X

X

3

Kappel (2002)

X

1

Katzman (2004)

N/A

Kettler (2003)

X

X

2

Kobrin (2003)

X

1

Landau (2003)

X

1

Macarthur (2004)

X

1

McKevitt (2003)

X

1

Meloy (2002)

X

X

X

3

Nickerson (2004)

N/A

Pomplun (2002)

X

1

Reed (2002)

X

X

2

Scheuneman (2002)

X

1

Shriner (2003)

X

1

Tavani (2004)

X

1

Thornton (2002)

X

1

Tindal (2002)

X

1

Trammell (2003)

X

1

Weston (2003)

X

X

2

Woods (2004)

X

1

Presentation

Response

Setting

Timing

Techno-logical Aid

Barton (2002)

X

Barton (2003)

X

Barton (2003)

X

Bielinski (2003)

X

Bolt (2002)

X

Bolt (2004)

X

Bridgeman (2003)

X

Bridgeman (2004)

X

Buehler (2002)

X

Burch (2002)

X

Cahalan (2002)

X

Choi (2002)

X

Cisar (2004)

N/A

Crawford (2004)

X

Dempsey (2003)

X

Elbaum (2004)

X

Elliott (2003)

X

Elliott (2004)

X

Gagnon (2004)

N/A

Hall (2002)

X

Hansen (2002)

X

Helwig (2002)

X

Helwig (2003)

X

Huynh (2002)

X

Huynh (2004)

X

Idstein (2003)

X

Jackson (2003)

X

Janson (2002)

X

Kappel (2002)

X

Katzman (2004)

N/A

Kettler (2003)

X

Kobrin (2003)

X

Landau (2003)

X

Macarthur (2004)

X

McKevitt (2003)

X

Meloy (2002)

X

Nickerson (2004)

Pomplun (2002)

X

Reed (2002)

X

Scheuneman (2002)

X

Shriner (2003)

X

Tavani (2004)

X

Thornton (2002)

X

Tindal (2002)

X

Trammell (2003)

X

Weston (2003)

X

Woods (2004)

X

11

5

1

1

1

0

1

0

7

1

2

11

5

Barton (2002)

5,921 (28% students with disabilities)

10^th, 12^th Grades

Learning disability, emotional disability, mental retardation, speech, language, vision or hearing impairment, physical disability

Barton (2003)

2,924 (80% students with disabilities.)

12^th Grade

Learning disability, mentally challenged, emotional disability, physical disability, communication disability

Barton (2003)

630 (50% students with disabilities)

4^th–6^th Grades

Emotionally disturbed, learning disabled, physically disabled, speech/language, hearing impaired

Bielinski (2003)

86 (% N/A)

State assessment directors, state special education directors, or individuals who have printed research on test accommodations or have published accommodations research.

N/A

Bolt (2004)

More than 1,000 (Number of students with disabilities not reported)

Elementary School, High School

Not Reported

Bolt, Bielinski J (2002)

3,013 (67% students with disabilities)

4^th Grade.

Bridgeman (2003)

357 (Number of students with disabilities not reported)

11^th Grade

Not Reported

Bridgeman (2004)

7,653

Post secondary students

Not reported

Buehler (2002)

49 (45% students with disabilities)

K-5^th Grades

Not reported

Burch (2002)

49 (67% students with disabilities)

4^th Grade

Reading deficit

Cahalan (2002)

34,000 (Number of students with disabilities not reported)

College students

Not reported

Choi (2002)

1600 (Number of students with disabilities not reported)

3^rd, 10^th Grades

Not reported

Cisar (2004)

505 (% N/A)

School staff members

N/A

Crawford (2004)

353 (14% students with disabilities)

5^th–8^th Grades

Not reported

Dempsey (2003)

200

Post collegiate adults

Participants reported either attention deficit or a learning disability limiting performance under standard test conditions

Elbaum (2004)

311 (74% students with disabilities)

6^th–10^th grade students

Not Reported

Elliott (2003)

69 (33% students with disabilities)

8^th Grade

Mild learning disabilities, emotional disabilities, behavioral disabilities, mild physical disabilities, speech and language disabilities, mild cognitive disabilities

Elliott (2004)

97 (24% students with disabilities)

8^th Grade

Mild learning disabilities, emotional disabilities, behavioral disabilities, mild physical disabilities, speech and language disabilities, mild cognitive disabilities

Gagnon (2004)

500 (% N/A)

Principals and teachers

N/A

Hall (2002)

192,000 (6% students with disabilities)

5^th Grade

Not reported

Hansen (2002)

17 (100% students with disabilities)

Ages 17 to 55

Legally blind

Helwig (2002)

1,343 (20% students with disabilities)

4^th, 5^th, 7^th, and 8^th Grades

Reading

Helwig (2003)

1,218 (20% students with disabilities)

4^th–8^th Grades

Learning disability, language impairment, serious emotional disturbance, mental retardation

Huynh (2002)

90,000 (8% students with disabilities)

10^th Grade

Speech, hearing, visual, orthopedic, emotional, learning disabilities, educable mentally retarded, and trainable mentally retarded

Huynh (2004)

89,214 (4% students with disabilities).

10^th Grade

Speech, hearing, visual, orthopedic, emotional, learning disabilities, educable mental retardation, and trainable mental retardation

Idstein (2003)

63 (Number of students with disabilities not reported)

11^th Grade

Not reported

Jackson (2003)

71 (100% students with disabilities)

2^nd–9^th Grades

Visual impairments, including students with additional disabilities. The students in this study attended either a specialized school for the visually impaired or a public school with support from teachers of the visually impaired

Janson (2002)

448 (100% students with disabilities)

2^nd-8^th Grades

Twelve disability groups represented

Kappel (2002)

47 (100% students with disabilities).

5^th grade

Students with learning disabilities were categorized into one of three groups based on patterns of performance on a large-scale achievement test, which was administered to all participants. A fourth group of students without disabilities was also included in the sample.

Katzman (2004)

36 (67% students with disabilities)

10^th Grade

Not Reported

Kettler (2003)

196 (44% students with disabilities)

4^th, 8^th Grades

Not reported

Kobrin (2003)

48 (Number of students with disabilities not reported)

College students

Not reported

Landau (2003)

8 (100% students with disabilities)

9^th Grade-College students

Visual impairments resulting in a need for braille

Macarthur (2004)

31 (68% students with disabilities)

High school students

Not reported

McKevitt (2003)

79 (51% students with disabilities)

8^th Grade

Not reported

Meloy (2002)

260 (24% students with disabilities)

6^th–8^th grades

Reading deficit

Nickerson (2004)

30 (Number of students with disabilities not reported)

8^th Grade

Not Reported

Pomplun (2002)

215 (Number of students with disabilities not reported)

High school, post-secondary

Not reported

Reed (2002)

36 (78% students with disabilities)

8^th Grade

Learning disability, attention disability

Scheuneman (2002)

417,000 (Number of students with disabilities not reported)

11^th, 12^th Grades

Not reported

Shriner (2003)

651 (92% students with disabilities)

3^rd–11^th Grades

Learning disability, behavior disorder, mental retardation, speech/language, orthopedic impairment, visual impairment, hearing impairment, autism, other health impairment

Sireci (2003)

N/A

N/A

N/A

Tavani (2004)

42,453 (5% students with disabilities)

4^th Grade, 8^th Grade, 12^th Grade

Not Reported

Thornton (2002)

123,065 (1% students with disabilities)

Law school students

Attention deficit, learning disability, neurological impairment, and visual impairment subgroups.

Tindal (2002)

2,000 (40% students with disabilities)

4^th, 5^th, 7^th, and 8^th Grades

Mental, speech, orthopedic, traumatic, learning disability, hearing, visual, autism

Tindal (2004)

N/A

N/A

N/A

Trammell (2003)

61 (100% students with disabilities)

Undergraduate college students

Learning disability, attention deficit

Weston (2003)

119 (54% students with disabilities)

4^th Grade

Not reported

Woods (2004)

38 (Number of students with disabilities not reported)

High school students

Not reported

Barton (2002)

The results indicate that a similar construct was measured among students with and without disabilities taking the regular form. The results also indicate that a similar construct was measured among students with and without disabilities taking the oral accommodation form.

Barton (2003)

The study indicates that when errors are used as an extra factor in exploring the nature of proficiency, the reading construct varies only slightly across disability groups. The results indicate that it is safe to apply the same meaning to test scores for these groups even when the test is administered under different accommodations.

Barton (2003)

Results indicated that students without disabilities obtain higher scores than those with disabilities. There were significant differences between essays scored online and by hand scorers; however, there were no differences between students’ performance online or on paper.

Bielinski (2003)

The results show that the extent of agreement about how accommodated scores should be treated depends on the accommodation. The study also shows how deep-seated beliefs lead some respondents to consider almost no accommodation as changing the construct, whereas other respondents consider almost all accommodations as influencing the construct being measured.

Bolt (2002)

The read aloud accommodation did not appear to improve score comparability for students with reading disabilities when compared to students without disabilties. More items displaying differential item functioning (DIF) were identified for those who received the accommodation than for those who did not receive the accommodation.

Bolt (2004)

Results provide some support for the commonly held beliefs, although results were not always consistent across datasets. The results also point to the challenge of appropriately assessing the skills and knowledge of students with disabilities using currently available assessments.

Bridgeman (2003)

Screen display conditions and presentation rate had no significant effect on math scores. Verbal scores were a quarter of a standard deviation higher with the larger, highest resolution display.

Bridgeman (2004)

Extra time added about 7 points to verbal scores and 7 points to quantitative scores. The accommodation appeared to have a greater impact on the quantitative scores of lower ability examinees.

Buehler (2002)

Results indicated that students with learning disabilities did not use significantly more time on the CAT/5, even when given the option. Students with disabilities did not receive any differential benefit from the use of the additional time accommodation. Although there were no differences in the reliability of the CAT/5 due to the accommodation of additional time, the validity of the CAT/5 was lower for students with learning disabilities who received additional time. The CTOPP was not found to be a useful predictor of students that would benefit from additional time on the CAT/5.

Burch (2002)

In comparison to students without LD, students with both reading and math disabilities experienced large accommodation boosts in the following conditions: CRT, V, and CA. Students with only reading disabilities did not receive an accommodation boost larger than students without LD under any condition.

Cahalan (2002)

In general, the revised SAT was to be positively correlated with FGPA for students who took the test with extended time accommodations for a learning disability. SAT scores were fairly accurate predictors of FGPA for students with learning disabilities. In the majority of cases when HSGPA was used along with SAT test scores, the predictive validity of FGPA was increased.

Choi (2002)

Item difficulty estimates did not appear to be the same across modes, particularly on the reading test and at the third grade level. When comparing identical items that were administered across both modes, computer items tended to have higher item difficulty estimates. Scrolling reading passages on computer screens seemed to have interfered with a student’s test-taking behavior, particularly for younger students.

Cisar (2004)

Special educators and administrators tended to score higher than general and elective area teachers in their ability to distinguish and use assessment modifications.

Crawford (2004)

A significant interaction was found at grade 5 between length of time allotted for the assessment and the students’ education classification. Grade 5 students performed significantly better on the 3-day writing assessment, with students in special education benefiting the most. The eighth-graders performed no better on the 3-day assessment than in the 30-minute assessment. Significant differences were reported across certain writing traits.

Dempsey (2003)

The verbal comprehension index was identified as the score that most closely predicts LSAT performance. This study found that scores earned under accommodated conditions are better than those earned under standard conditions.

Elbaum (2004)

As a group, students’ test performance did not differ in the two conditions, and students with learning disabilities did not benefit more from the accommodation than students without learning disabilities. However, students with learning disabilities showed greater variability in their response to the accommodation.

Elliott (2003)

The performance of students with disabilities was highly similar to the performance of students without disabilities under standard time and extended time testing conditions. Overall, the provision of the accommodation, extended time, did not significantly improve scores of students with disabilities on the math test.

Elliott (2004)

The scores achieved in the extended time condition were higher than the scores achieved in the standard condition for all groups. However, the scores of students with disabilities did not improve significantly more than those of the students without disabilities when given extra time. A large proportion of survey respondents across all three groups expressed approval of the extended time condition.

Gagnon (2004)

No significant differences existed between teacher and principal reports of school-level curricular, assessment, and accountability policies. However, several statistically significant differences existed in school policies for schools that served students from a single district and those that served students from across a single state or more than one state. Approximately two-thirds of all the schools administered district and state assessments and most schools used their state’s accommodation guidelines.

Hall (2002)

The study found that nearly 75% of fifth grade students with disabilities who participated in the MSPAP 2000 received test accommodations. Nearly half of these students received reading accommodations that invalidated the construct of the reading test, and almost a third of these students received writing accommodations that invalidated the language usage test. These reading and writing accommodations resulted in the reading and language usage scores of thousands of students with disabilities not being reported. Seventy-five percent of students with disabilities received accommodations and a third of these students met the satisfactory standard in the subject areas assessed. Also, although 25% of students with disabilities did not receive accommodations, about one-third of these students met the satisfactory standard.

Helwig (2002)

Elementary students with disabilities tended to perform better under the read aloud condition; elementary general education students did not appear to receive a similar benefit from the accommodation. For middle school students, no significant interactions were found.

Helwig (2003)

The teachers in the study were not effective in their recommendations of which students would, and would not, benefit from having math tests items read aloud. Teachers’ ratings of their student’s needs for testing accommodations coincided with actual students performance only half the time. The study found no connection between performance on reading and basic math skills tests and the need for accommodations.

Huynh (2002)

Accommodations provided on the separate form did not appear to substantially change the internal test structure. Students with disabilities taking the regular test form did not perform as well as other groups; students with disabilities taking the accommodated form performed as well as students without disabilities taking the regular form.

Huynh (2004)

It was found that the test structure remained rather stable across the three groups. Controlling for student background variables, disabled students under oral administration performed better than disabled students on the non-accommodated format. On the non-accommodated format, students with disabilities fared worse than general education students.

Idstein (2003)

Qualitative results show the better students do well in less time than it takes weaker students to achieve lower grades. Weaker students rely excessively on their dictionaries and do not trust themselves. Dictionary use does not effect the scores or test time of the better students, and may actually slow down and negatively effect the scores of weaker students.

Jackson (2003)

Scores did not differ among individual students due to demographic factors.

Janson (2002)

Students who received special education services and received accommodations experienced significant gains in scores in science and social studies in the year they were initially granted accommodations. There were substantial gains in science and social studies in 2000 for students initially receiving accommodations. There were significant gains in social studies and math scores in 2001 for students initially receiving accommodations.

Kappel (2002)

In general, no increase in scores was found when testing accommodations were used, and no differential response to using accommodations was found among subgroups or those without disabilities.

Katzman (2004)

The students with disabilities reported that they did not feel that they were prepared to take the MCAS because they believed that they were not taught the content on the test. Many students were not enrolled in courses that prepared them for the MCAS.

Kettler (2003)

Among fourth grade students, accommodations provided a larger effect for students with disabilities than students without disabilities on both the mathematics and the reading tests. Among eighth grade students, the effects of testing accommodations depended on the test content (math versus reading). The effects of testing accommodations on the math tests were somewhat higher for students with disabilities than for students without disabilities. Conversely, the effects of testing accommodations on the reading tests were slightly lower for students with disabilities than for students without disabilities.

Kobrin (2003)

The results suggest that computerized and paper-and-pencil reading comprehension tests may be more cognitively similar than originally thought. The only significant difference between computerized and paper-and-pencil tests was in the frequency of identifying important information in the passage.

Landau (2003)

Students performed better on five of the eight items when using the Talking Tactile Tablet, and performed the same on the remaining three. Using the Talking Tactile Tablet also yielded item difficulties that more closely resembled the item difficulties obtained by general education students during testing.

Macarthur (2004)

The results indicate that two-thirds (68%) of the students achieved 85% accuracy and more than one-third (40%) achieved 90% accuracy using dictation to a scribe or speech recognition software. Only 3 students (10%) were below 80% accuracy. Results for adults have been reported between 90% and 98%. Results also demonstrate that both dictation conditions helped students with learning disabilities produce better essays. Students with learning disabilities produced higher quality essays when using a scribe, then when using speech recognition software. Both adapted conditions were better in quality than handwritten essays.

McKevitt (2003)

The use of the read-aloud accommodation did not significantly improve the test performance of either group of students. Teachers as a group had neutral attitudes about testing and testing accommodations.

Meloy (2002)

Analyses revealed that students in both groups (LD-R and non-LD) achieved significantly higher test scores with the read aloud test administration.

Nickerson (2004)

The students felt that a majority of the accommodations used were helpful.

Pomplun (2002)

Analyses indicated that both forms of the computerized versions produced higher vocabulary scores than the paper-and-pencil format and one-form also had higher comprehension and total scores on the computerized version. These differences appeared to be related to the differences in response speed associated with use of a mouse to record responses as opposed to a pencil and answer sheet. Scores on the paper-and-pencil version and the computerized version had similar predictive power for course-placement.

Reed (2002)

Instances of learned helplessness and low motivation, a problem for LD and AD/HD students, were observed. To aid these students, test makers must do the following: Be cautious with the context, Ask the question clearly, and Repeat key words when possible in the response options.

Scheuneman (2002)

Almost 95% of students brought calculators to the November administration of the examination in both years. About 65% used their calculators on one third or more of the items. Group differences in the use of calculators were detected with girls using calculators more frequently than boys and Whites and Asian Americans using them more often than other racial groups. Although calculator presence, frequency of use, and calculator type were all correlated with test scores, this relation appears to be the result of the more able students using calculators differently from the less able students. Regression analyses revealed that a small percentage of the variance in test scores was accounted for by calculator access and type of calculator. Differential item functioning analyses (DIF) showed items favoring both frequent use and little use of calculators. Data concerning the rate of completion provided evidence that those using calculators less often were more likely to complete the exam.

Shriner (2003)

In this intervention study, training was found to increase the quality and extent of participation and accommodation documentation on the IEP. Correlations between what was documented on the IEP and what happened on the day of testing were highly variable. Although students’ IEPs appeared to reflect individualized decisions, political and logistical factors limited the utility of the IEP and interfered with its actual implementation.

Tavani (2004)

Findings demonstrated non-significant performance score increases when students with learning disabilities who used accommodations were compared to those students who did not use accommodations.

Thornton (2002)

Overall, results suggest that LSAT scores earned under the nonstandard time condition are not comparable to LSAT scores earned under standard timing conditions. Results for individual subgroups were consistent with the overall group result.

Tindal (2002)

A main effect for both student classification and test administration was found for the elementary school students: Low achieving students outperformed students with IEPs and both groups benefited with a video-taped administration. For middle school students, a main effect was found for student classification; however, no main effects for the type of test administration (video versus standard).

Trammell (2003)

The impact of special accommodations on the subgroups revealed a significant improvement in grades for students with ADD and students with Learning Disabilities and ADD, but a drop for students with Learning Disabilities. Students with ADD and ADD and Learning Disabilities experienced an increase in grades with all types of accommodations conversely, students with learning disabilities experienced a drop in grades with each accommodation.

Weston (2003)

The findings revealed a statistical difference between the tests, and also between the two groups of students. Students with learning disabilities who are poor readers gained the most from the read-aloud accommodation. Results also suggest that the results on the accommodated test better match the teacher’s estimations of the student’s mathematical abilities.

Woods (2004)

The investigation found a low level of candidate need for a reader with candidate reading age and self-prediction being unreliable indicators of this need.

Barton (2003)

This study included mostly mild to moderately disabled students. A replication with participating students with more severe disabilities, particularly severe physical disabilities, would certainly be beneficial.

Bridgeman (2003)

Although this study provides evidence that issues of screen size and resolution cannot be ignored, even larger studies are needed to understand fully the separate roles of screen size and resolution.

Burch (2002)

The study is limited by the small sample sizes of the groups. So, it is possible the students were not representative of the entire population of fourth-graders because the sample sizes were small.

Crawford (2004)

Further research using larger samples is needed on the effects of extended time for students with learning disabilities in the upper grades.

Hall (2002)

The study focuses only on fifth grade students, and the results may not generalize to students with disabilities in other grades or dissimilar disabilities, socio-economic statues, etc.

Helwig (2002)

There were too few fifth-grade low-skill readers taking Form A in accommodated format to do meaningful analyses.

Idstein (2003)

The sample size was smaller than expected due to unpredictable attendance rates.

Jackson (2003)

Visual impairment is a low incidence disability and the number of possible participants is restricted. Many of the potential participants were eliminated because they were given the alternate assessment due to additional disabilities that affect student performance.

Janson (2002)

The study was conducted in a small school system in Tennessee. The study was limited to 448 students. Due to the small sample size of students who took the tests with accommodations it would be problematic to generalize the findings to a larger population.

Kappel (2002)

The sample size of 11 to 12 per group was possibly insufficient to detect effects that were present.

Kettler (2003)

One potential limitation of this study is that we examined only two test content areas and two grade levels. Specifically, we examined only mathematics and reading, although students are tested in science and social studies as well.

Landau (2003)

The small sample limited the analysis of the impact of the test accommodations on the psychometric properties of items.

McKevitt (2003)

This study focused solely on reading. Although the question of interest focused on a read-aloud accommodation, it was addressed only in the context of a reading test.

Pomplun (2002)

The ability to draw generalizations from these results could be limited by having students from only seven schools participate in the study.

Tavani (2004)

This study was intentionally limited with respect to its population and dependent variable. The target population was restricted to students in the 4^th, 8^th, and 12^th grades in the United States in 2000; consequently, this study may have sacrificed on its level of external validity.

Tindal (2004)

Much of this research is tentative with conflicting overall test results: some findings show positive effects for all students, other findings reflect interactions between an accommodation and a population.

Weston (2003)

For non-disabled students the evidence is mixed and may be flawed by methodological problems. First, very low readers in the regular classroom did not seem to profit from the accommodation. Second, item content did not seem to affect general education students. Third, these students performed better on a number of items in the paper and pencil format.

Huynh (2002)

South Carolina High School Exit Examination tests are un-timed; hence all students are permitted to take as along as they need to complete the tests regardless of whether they are disabled or not. Therefore, the findings of this study are not applicable to test administration modes that involve extended-time accommodations.

Huynh (2004)

Different school authorities made IEP and 504 accommodation decisions across grades 8 and 10; therefore, it is conceivable that a subset of this population should have been tested under oral administration at grade 8.

Barton (2002)

Some students may be more accustomed to receiving the oral accommodation in their daily instruction and may therefore be practiced in test taking forms or environments that involve a good deal of listening.

Barton (2003)

A confound in this study was that students were not randomly assigned to discourse type nor to specific prompts within discourse type.

Cahalan (2002)

Some of these variations may be due to different populations of students used in the second sample. In sample two, colleges and universities were permitted to omit students for any reason including receiving services for a learning disability and having a FGPA less than 1.0.

Elbaum (2004)

The confounding of the accommodation with concomitant factors such as self-pacing and individual administration was a serious limitation.

Elliott (2004)

The students had more than enough time in the standard time condition likely diminished the impact of the accommodation of extra time. Also, nearly all students with disabilities receive multiple accommodations on district and statewide tests, thus the extended time accommodation when provided in isolation is contrived and not realistic.

Gagnon (2004)

Two limitations exist with the current study: (a) low response rate; and (b) differences in the characteristics of respondents versus nonrespondents.

Kobrin (2003)

An important limitation of this study is the lack of a time limit imposed on participants, because actual testing situations include time limits.

Macarthur (2004)

It is important to keep in mind that this study did not include extensive training in the use of speech recognition. Students received approximately 6 hours of individual instruction on training the software to recognize their speech and using it to compose essays.

Meloy (2002)

The read-aloud administration did not permit student self-pacing, and this procedure could have had an impact on students; maintaining attention to the test. Moreover, the administration was done by reading scripts for the various testings, whereas using a prerecorded tape could have reduced possible varying reader emphases.

Nickerson (2004)

Variables other than language proficiency and accommodations may affect performance on the SAT-9 (e.g. program model, access to curriculum, instruction, test preparation, etc.).

Reed (2002)

The use of the think-aloud procedure in this research may have in itself been beneficial for student performance. The process of self-explanation has been shown to improve students’ problem-solving performance.

Trammell (2003)

Students with learning disabilities or learning disabilities plus ADD were not well matched with the accommodations they selected and were granted. This pitfall was the first and foremost limitation addressed in the design of the experiment and requires much further refinement and investigation.

Bolt (2004)

This was not an experimental study, and there are subsequently limits to the inferences that can be made.

Cisar (2004)

The questionnaire that was developed for this study was not tested for construct or content validity. The validity of the test will indicate if it measured what it presumed to measure thus making the instrument more meaningful.

Elliott (2003)

When given twice as much time to work on the test, students neither took advantage of the extra time, nor showed significant gains in their scores. The students had more than enough time to complete the test diminishing the impact of the extra time accommodation.

Tindal (2002)

The sampling plan of the study was neither random nor stratified for teachers or students. Rather, teachers had been nominated for participation based on personal contacts of state department personnel through their own networks with principals and others in the local educational agencies.

Bielinski (2003)

Bridgeman (2004)

Choi (2002)

Dempsey (2003)

Hansen (2002)

Helwig (2003)

Katzman (2004)

Schenueman (2002)

Shriner (2003)

Thornton (2002)

Woods (2004)

Sireci (2003)

Tindal (2004)

Barton (2003)

It is important to continue the research in the area of comparability of assessments that are administered online or on paper, both on scoring comparability and on the performance comparability of all students.

Bielinski (2003)

The findings in this study point to the need for further dialogue and more research on test accommodations. The opinions of those who influence policy and who are familiar with test accommodations vary too much to ignore.

Elbaum (2004)

The effects of different components of the accommodation need to be assessed separately.

Elliott (2004)

Researchers need extra time to answer this question: It is difficult to determine what a lack of boost in scores on accommodated test conveys about the effectiveness of the accommodation—specifically, did the accommodation provide access to the test so that the student’s true ability was assessed, or did the accommodation itself negatively affect the students’ performance?

Janson (2002)

Further research studies should be conducted in other Tennessee school systems to determine if accommodations, as provided in Tennessee, "level the playing field."

Kappel (2002)

This study might also be expanded to include other factors, other accommodations. Also the effects of the Extended Time and Read-Aloud accommodation when administered in a group setting should also be investigated.

Kobrin (2003)

Future research should highlight the ways in which computerized tests may completely replace paper-and-pencil tests.

McKevitt (2003)

Future research examining the differential impact that decoding, fluency, or comprehension difficulties may have on reading test performance and the effects of accommodations would be useful.

Meloy (2002)

Future research on the read aloud accommodation is needed. Additional aspects of the read aloud procedures should be studied, and further refinements in design and sampling would be helpful.

Nickerson (2004)

An investigation into content validity, consequential validity and possible test bias is warranted for English language learners being assessed for academic achievement in the content areas of Reading/Langauge Arts and Mathematics with the SAT-9 tests.

Tavani (2004)

An investigation of a similar model utilizing NAEP databases is warranted in order to examine the impact these characteristics have on differing subject performances.

Weston (2003)

For any policy decision that contemplates providing students with accommodations, more research should be done to learn if the patterns shown in this study can be reproduced.

Bridgeman (2003)

More research is needed to investigate the effects of a high stakes test on the psychological state of computer scrolling test takers. This study did not address that issue.

Crawford (2004)

Follow-up research studies investigating student’s use of time during writing assessments will provide researchers with information related to differences across grades and educational classifications. The stakes associated with large-scale testing are too high to ignore the need for empirical evidence supporting the validity of multiple-day writing assessments.

Idstein (2003)

An observation based on interview data and subsequently discussed with classroom teachers, points to a possible correlation between general personality traits and dictionary use. This topic may warrant further investigation.

Katzman (2004)

Future research should examine the amount of support required to help students stay motivated.

Scheuneman (2002)

Differences in students’ approach to problems when using calculators is an area where further investigation would be required.

Trammell (2003)

Students with learning disabilities in addition to ADD exhibited erratic decision making regarding accommodation requests. They may have been ill matched to the accommodation used during test taking. This pitfall requires much further refinement and investigation.

Cahalan (2002)

More research is needed to investigate which factors contribute to the varied correlations in this study.

Helwig (2002)

The poor performance of some of the participants was, in fact, due to the distraction of the video when it was not needed, a logical solution would be an on-demand delivery system. A computer, audiotape, or live reading of only items selected by students on an individual basis would likely solve this problem. Further research in this area is warranted.

Landau (2003)

It is strongly suggested that in future studies participants be allowed to work with the Talking Tactile Tablet prior to testing and that more thorough beta-testing should be performed prior to testing.

Tindal (2002)

Further research may begin to utilize a videotaped administration along with other, more powerful and individualized accommodations that deal with setting and time.

Tindal (2004)

An effort needs to be made to improve consistency and systematicity in both practice and research, while maintaining clarity.

Bolt (2004)

Research should continue to investigate accommodation decision-making and administration practices as well as Universal Design.

Gagnon (2004)

The results of this study indicate a need for more research concerning how the policies related to increased accountability are being implemented in special schools.

Reed (2002)

Additional clarification is needed for discussing the role of item or test intent in determining the appropriateness of an accommodation. Clear definitions of the constructs a given test measures should inform the practice of granting accommodations.

Sireci (2003)

Due to a wide variety of results stemming from experiential research it is suggested that a revision of the interaction hypotheses be proposed and that directions for future research and for improved test development and administration practices be proposed.

Burch (2002)

Future studies should address the limitations of this study as well as the other studies in this area. The small sample sizes in this study create a need for replication.

Jackson (2003)

This study should be replicated to validate the results, with a larger sample across a variety of states, classifying adaptations into components identified in this study, and with more comparison to assessment results of non-disabled students.

Pomplun (2002)

Because the present study was based on students from only seven institutions, research studies should be continued, especially to support predictive validity of the computerized versions.

Cisar (2004)

Replication of this study in other states may be beneficial to determine if teachers can distinguish and know when to use adaptations nationwide.

Kettler (2003)

More research is needed on the apparently highly individualized nature of the impact of testing accommodations. What factors influence educators’ selection of testing accommodations for specific students?

Barton (2002)

Future analyses that seek to guide instructional effectiveness of students will augment this research. It would be interesting to look at each item that loaded on particular factors to see what qualitative characteristic they possess. If commonalities exist across items, such information may supplement instructional level information and types of approaches teachers may take with students.

Macarthur (2004)

Future research should investigate the practical issues involved in using speech recognition in school settings and the impact of use over an extended time.

Barton (2003)

Bridgeman (2004)