Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2007-11
Misconceptions regarding Accommodations on High–Stakes Tests: Recommendations for Preparing Disability Documentation for Test Takers with Learning Disabilities
The process of submitting documentation to testing agencies as proof of a disability can be time consuming, expensive, and even intimidating to test takers with learning disabilities. Misconceptions about the accommodations review process employed by testing agencies add to the anxiety that many test takers feel around obtaining approval for high–stakes test accommodations. The objective of this article is to clarify some of these misconceptions as well as shed more light on the accommodation decision–making process employed by testing agencies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlfonsoV. C., FlanaganD. P., & RadwanS. (2005). The impact of the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory on test development and interpretation of cognitive and academic abilities. In FlanaganD. P. & HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 185–202). New York : Guilford.
2.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12101et seq.
3.
Association on Higher Education and Disability. (n.d.). Foundation principles for the review of documentation and the determination of accommodations. Available at http://www.ahead.org/resources/bestpractices.htm.
BallardR., & ElworkA. (2003). Learning disability and professional licensing examinations: What accommodations are reasonable under the ADAThe Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 31/Spring, 43–66.
6.
BanerjeeM., & ShawS. F. (in press). High stakes test accommodations: Documentation review by testing agencies in an era of change. Assessment for Effective Intervention.
7.
BanerjeeM., & BrinckerhoffL. C. (2006, June). Crafting effective LD documentation updates: palatable enough for disability service providers and potent enough for testing agencies. Workshop presented at the Postsecondary Training Disability Institute, Burlington, VT.
8.
Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, 2001U.S. D. Dist. Lexis 11926 (S.D.N.Y. August 15, 2001).
9.
BennettR. E. (2001). How the Internet will help large–scale assessment reinvent itself [Electronic version]. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(5). Retrieved January 15, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n5.html
10.
BernsteinS., & SawyerD. (2003). Do discrepancy models satisfy either the letter or the spirit of IDEACenter for Dyslexia: Articles of Interest. Retrieved February 10, 2007, from http://dyslexia.mtsu.edu/
11.
BrayM. A., KehleT. J., & HintzeJ. M. (1998). Profile analysis with the Wechsler Scales: Why does it persistSchool Psychology International, 19, 209–220.
12.
BrinckerhoffL. C. (2004, August). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: A streetcar named dilemma. Presentation at the NCTA Conference, New Orleans, LA.
13.
BrinckerhoffL. C. (2007, April). The changing landscape of high stakes test accommodations. Panel presentation at the Independent Educational Consultants Association spring conference, Boston.
14.
BrinckerhoffL. C., McGuireJ. M., & ShawS. F. (2002). Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Austin, TX : Pro–Ed.
DarbyA., & GreggN. (2002). Equal access for all: The law profession for individuals with learning disabilities. Career Planning and Adult Development Journal, 18(1), 80–89.
17.
Disability Rights Advocates. (2005, Fall). High stakes testing and students with learning disabilities. The Briefcase.
Educational Testing Service. (2006a). New policy regarding LD and LD/ADHD documentation shelf–life. Office of Disability Policy, Princeton, NJ. Available at http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.
20.
Educational Testing Service. (2006b). Resources for test takers with disabilities: Tips for evaluators. Office of Disability Policy, Princeton, NJ. Available at http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.
21.
Educational Testing Service. (2007). Policy statement for documentation of a learning disability in adolescents and adults. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem
22.
FlanaganD. P., OrtizS. O., AlfonzoV. C., & DyndaA. M. (2006). Integration of response to intervention and norm–referenced tests in learning disability identification: Learning from the tower of babel. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 807–825.
23.
FletcherJ. M., DentonC., & FrancisD. J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545–552.
24.
FoxC. (January 28, 2007). Make requests for accommodations on high stakes testing now. Special education blog, posted at http://www.specialedlaw.blogs.
25.
FrancisD. J., FletcherJ. M., StuebingK. K., LyonG. R., ShaywitzB. A., & ShaywitzS. E. (in press). Psychometric approaches to the identification of learning disabilities: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
26.
FuchsL., FuchsD., & CapizziA. (2005). Identifying appropriate test accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(6), 1–8.
27.
GiovingoL. K., ProctorB. E., & PrevattF. (2005). Use of grade–based norms versus age–based norms in psychoeducational assessment for a college population. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(1), 78–85.
28.
Gonzales v. National Board of Medical Examiners, 60 F. Supp. 2nd 703 (E.D. Mich, 1999).
29.
GordonM., & KeiserS. (1998). Accommodations in higher education under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). New York : Guilford.
30.
GordonM., LewandowskiL., & KeiserS. (1999). The LD label for relative functioning students: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 485–490.
31.
GreenbergM., (2006, December). Testing accommodations for students with psychiatric disabilities. Workshop presented at the Testing Agencies Disabilities Forum (TADF), Washington, DC.
32.
GreggN. (1994). Eligibility for learning disabilities rehabilitation services: Operationalizing the definition. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 4(2), 86–95.
33.
HoldnackJ. A., & WeissL. G. (2006). IDEA 2004: Anticipated implications for clinical practice—integrating assessment and intervention. Psychology in the School, 43, 871–882.
34.
HoyC., GreggN., WisenbakerJ., BonhamS., KingM., & MorelandC. (1996). Clinical model versus discrepancy model in determining eligibility for learning disabilities services at a rehabilitation setting. In GreggN., HoyC., & GayA. (Eds.), Adults with learning disabilities (pp. 55–68). New York : Guilford.
35.
HoytG. (2007, April). The changing landscape of high stakes test accommodations. Panel presentation at the Independent Educational Consultants Association spring conference, Boston.
JohnsonE., MellardD. F., FuchsD., & McKnightM. A. (2006) Responsiveness to intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS : National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.
38.
KavaleK. A. (2005). Identifying specific learning disability: Is responsiveness to intervention the answerJournal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 553–562.
39.
KeiserS. (1998). Test accommodations an administrator's view. In GordonM. & KeiserS. (Eds.), Accommodations in higher education under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). New York : Guilford.
40.
Kidder–AshleyP., DeniJ. R., & AndertonJ. B. (2000). Learning disabilities eligibility in the 1990s: An analysis of state practices. Education, 121, 65–72.
41.
LazarusD. (2007, April). The changing landscape of high stakes test accommodations. Panel presentation at the Independent Educational Consultants Association spring conference, Boston.
42.
LissnerS. L. (2006, July). Documentation applications: Purpose, policy and best practices. Panel presentation at the 2006 Annual Association on Higher Education and Disability Conference, San Diego, CA.
43.
LorryB. (1998). Language–based learning disabilities. In GordonM. & KeiserS. (Eds.), Accommodations in higher education under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (pp. 130–154). New York : Guilford.
44.
MacMillanD. L., & SipersteinG. N. (2002). Learning disabilities as operationally defined by schools. In BradleyR., DanielsonL., & HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 287–367). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
45.
MatherN., GreggN., & SimonJ. (2005). The curse of high stakes tests and high abilities: Reactions to Wong v. Regents of the University of California. Learning Disabilities, 13(4), 139–143.
46.
McCoachB. D., KehleT. J., BrayM. A., & SeigleD. (2001). Best practices in the identification of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 403–411.
47.
OfieshN. S., HughesC., & ScottS. S. (2004). Extended test time and postsecondary students with learning disabilities: A model for decision making. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 57–70.
48.
PitoniakM. J., & RoyerJ. M. (2001). Testing accommodations for examinees with disabilities: A review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 53–104.
SiegelL. S. (1999). Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 304–319.
55.
SimonJ. (2007, February). Seven myths surrounding the accommodations of high stakes tests. Panel presentation at the LDA International Conference, Pittsburgh, PA : Author, 2003, Tech's answer to testing, Education Week, 22(35), 8–10. Retrieved October 16, 2006, from http://counts.edweek.org/sreports/tc03/article.cfm?slug=35exec.h22
56.
Testing Agency Disability Forum Mission Statement (2007).
57.
ThomasS. B. (2000). College students and disability law. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 248–257.
58.
ThompsonS. J., JohnstonC. J., & ThurlowM. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large–scale assessments. (Synthesis Rep. No. 44). Minneapolis, MN : National Center on Educational Outcomes.
59.
Van Den BroeckW. (2002a). The misconception of the regression–based discrepancy operationalization in the definition and research of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 194–204.
