Accommodation policymaking and practice should be guided by empirical research and informed clinical judgment. Findings from our study can provide information to test users about the validity of inferences that can be made from scores obtained from accommodated test administrations for students with disabilities. The factor structure of the newly revised Scholastic Aptitude Reasoning Test (SAT®, 2005) was examined across two groups of students (students without disabilities tested under standard time conditions, and students with disabilities tested with extended time) to determine whether the test measures the same construct for both groups. Invariance across the two groups was supported for all parameters of interest, suggesting that the scores on the Critical Reading, Math, and Writing sections of the SAT Reasoning Test can be interpreted in the same way when students have an extended–time administration as opposed to the standard–time administration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (AERA/APA/NCME). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC : American Educational Research Association.
2.
BowdenS. C., CookM. J., BardenhagenF. J., ShoresE. A., & CarstairsJ. R. (2004). Measurement invariance of core cognitive abilities in heterogeneous neurological and community samples. Intelligence, 32, 363–389.
3.
BowenW. G., & BokD. (1998). The arrival of the Bowen–Bok study on racial preferences in college admissions. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 20, 120–122.
4.
BrannickM. T. (1995). Critical comments on applying covariance structure modeling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 201–213.
5.
BridgemanB., TrapaniC., & CurleyE. (2003). Impact of fewer questions per section on SAT I scores. (College Board Research Report No. 2003–2). New York : College Board.
6.
ByrneB. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with Lisrel, Prelis and Simplis. London : Erlbaum.
7.
CahalanC., MandinachE., & CamaraW. (2002). Predictive validity of SAT I: Reasoning Test for test takers with learning disabilities and extended time accommodations. (College Board Research Report No. 2002–05). New York : College Board.
8.
CheungG. W., & RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness–of–fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 233–255.
DoransN. (2002). The recentering of SAT® scales and its effects on score distributions and score interpretations. (College Board Research Report No. 2002–11). New York : Author.
14.
GED Testing Service. (2002). Who took the GED? GED Statistical Report. Washington, DC : American Council on Education.
15.
HuL., & BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
16.
KellowayE. K. (1995). Structural equation modeling in perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 215–224.
17.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York : Guilford Press.
18.
MandinachE., CahalanC., & CamaraW. (2002). The impact of flagging on the admission process: Policies, practices, and implications. (College Board Research Report No. 2002–02). New York : College Board.
19.
MeadeA. W., & LautenschlagerG. J. (2004). A Monte Carlo study of confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement equivalence/invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 60–72.
20.
MillsapR. E., & Yun–TeinJ. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered–categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 479–515.
21.
MorganD. L., & HuffK. (2002). Reliability and dimensionality of the SAT for examinees tested under standard timing conditions and examinees tested with extended time. (Unpublished research report at the Educational Testing Service.) Princeton, NJ : Educational Testing Service.
22.
MuthénL. K., & MuthénB. O. (1998-2006). Mplus user's guide, fourth edition. Los Angeles, CA : Muthén & Muthén.
23.
PitoniakM., & RoyerJ. (2001). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: a review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 53–104.
24.
PomplunM., & OmarM. H. (2000). Score comparability of a state mathematics assessment across students with and without reading accommodations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 21–29.
25.
ReillyR., BowdenS. C., BardenhagenF. J., & CookM. J. (in press). Equality of the psychological model underlying depressive symptoms in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy versus heterogeneous neurological disorders. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology.
26.
RockD., BennettR. E., KaplanB. A., & JireleT. (1988). Construct validity. In WillinghamW. W., RagostaM., BennettR. E., BraunH., RockD. A., & PowersD. E. (Eds.), Testing handicapped people (pp. 99–107). Needham Heights, MA : Allyn and Bacon.
27.
SireciS., LiS., & ScarpatiS. (2003). The effects of test accommodation on test performance: A review of the literature. (Center for Educational Assessment Research Report No. 485). Amherst, MA : School of Education, University of Massachusetts.
28.
SireciS. (2005). Unlabeling the disabled: A psychomteric perspective on flagging scores from accommodated test administrations. Educational Researcher, 24(1), 3–12.
29.
VogelS., & RederS. (Eds.). (1999). Learning disabilities, literacy, and adult education. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
30.
WagnerM., NewmanL., CametoR., GarzaN., & LevineP. (2005). After high school: A first look at the post school experiences of youth with disabilities. A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2. Prepared for: Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education (SRI Project P11182).
31.
WillinghamW.W. (1976). Validity and the Graduate Record Examinations program. (Educational Testing Service Research Report No. GREB–76–01–SR). Princeton, NJ : Educational Testing Service.
