This study analyzed performance, process, and survey data of eighth graders with learning disabilities (LDs) who took the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) digital math test. Compared with students with LDs who did not receive extended time accommodations (ETAs), students with LDs who received and used ETA scored significantly higher on the test, whereas students with LDs who received but did not use ETA scored significantly lower on the test. In addition, students with LDs in the two ETA groups reported a lower level of perceived time pressure and a higher level of math interest and enjoyment than their peers who did not receive ETA. For students with LDs who received ETA, optimal performance was achieved with 50% additional time, while their peers who did not receive ETA typically performed best when utilizing most of their allotted time. The analysis of process data revealed that students with LDs who used ETA performed more actions, had a higher number of revisits, used universal design digital tools more frequently, and performed better on time-consuming items than their peers who did not receive ETA at the same level of math performance.
AlsterE. H. (1997). The effects of extended time on algebra test scores for college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 222–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000210
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing.
BezirhanU.von DavierM.GrabovskyI. (2021). Modeling item revisit behavior: The hierarchical speed–accuracy–revisits model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81(2), 363–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164420950556
5.
BoltS. E.YsseldykeJ. (2008). Accommodating students with disabilities in large-scale testing. A comparison of differential item functioning (DIF) identified across disability types. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282907307703
6.
Cahalan-LaitusisC.KingT. C.ClineF.BridgemanB. (2006). Observational timing study on the SAT reasoning test™ for test-takers with learning disabilities and/or AD/HD. ETS Research Report Series, 2006(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2006.tb02029.x
7.
CahanS.NirelR.AlkobyM. (2016). The extra-examination time granting policy: A reconceptualization. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(5), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915616537
8.
CamilliG.ShepardL. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Sage.
9.
ClevelandW. S. (1979). Robust locally-weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 829–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10481038
10.
CurtisL. H.HammillB. G.EisensteinE. L.KramerJ. M.AnstromK. J. (2007). Using inverse probability-weighted estimators in comparative effectiveness. Analyses with observational databases. Medical Care, 45(2), 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31806518ac
11.
DuncanH.PurcellC. (2020). Consensus or contradiction? A review of the current research into the impact of granting extra time in exams to students with specific learning difficulties (SpLD). Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(4), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1578341
12.
ElliottS. N.MarquartA. M. (2004). Extended time as a testing accommodation: Its effects and perceived consequences. Exceptional Children, 70, 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000306
13.
ErcikanK. (2002). Disentangling sources of differential item functioning in multilanguage assessments. International Journal of Testing, 2(3–4), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt023&4_2
14.
ErcikanK.GuoH.HeQ. (2020). Use of response process data to inform group comparisons and fairness research. Educational Assessment, 25(3), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2020.1804353
15.
FuchsL.FuchsD.CapizziA. (2005). Identifying appropriate test accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.17161/fec.v37i6.6812
16.
FurlanoR.GoodrichS.DarrW.GibbardK.HoJ. L.WangZ.PikeM. D.ProvencherY.ZhangI. Y.Vreeker-WilliamsonE. C.HausdorfP. A. (2021). Determining the appropriateness of extended time accommodations in standardized cognitive ability testing. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne des sciences du comportement, 53(2), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000257
17.
GelbarN.MadausJ. (2021). Factors related to extended time use by college students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 42(6), 374–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520972787
18.
GoldhammerF.NaumannJ.KeßelY. (2013). Assessing individual differences in basic computer skills: Psychometric characteristics of an interactive performance measure. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000153
19.
GreggN. (2009). Assessment and accommodation of adolescents and adults with learning disabilities and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The Guilford Press.
20.
GreggN.NelsonJ. M. (2012). Meta-analysis on the effectiveness of extra time as a test accommodation for transitioning adolescents with learning disabilities: More questions than answers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409355484
21.
GreiffS.NiepelC.SchererR.MartinR. (2016). Understanding students’ performance in a computer-based assessment of complex problem solving: An analysis of behavioral data from computer-generated log files. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.095
22.
HeQ.von DavierM. (2015). Identifying feature sequences from process data in problem-solving items with n-grams. In van der ArkA.BoltD.ChowS.DouglasJ.WangW. (Eds.), Quantitative psychology research (pp. 173–190). Springer.
23.
HiranoK.ImbensG. W.RidderG. (2003). Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica, 71(4), 1161–1189. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020371312283
24.
HjärneM. S. (2020). Just enough time to level the playing field: Time adaption in a college admission test. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(6), 941–955. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1788143
25.
HolmesA.SilvestriR. (2019). Extra time or unused time? What data from a college testing center tells us about 50% extra time as an accommodation for students with learning disabilities. Psychological Injury and Law, 12(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09339-9
26.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
27.
IrwinV.ZhangJ.WangX.HeinS.WangK.RobertsA.YorkC.BarmerA.Bullock MannF.DiligR.ParkerS. (2021). Report on the condition of education2021 (NCES 2021-144). US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
28.
IvanovaM.MichaelidesM.EklöfH. (2020). How does the number of actions on constructed-response items relate to test-taking effort and performance?Educational Research and Evaluation, 26(5–6), 252–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1963939
29.
KongX. J.WiseS. L.BholaD. S. (2007). Setting the response time threshold parameter to differentiate solution behavior from rapid-guessing behavior. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(4), 606–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406294779
LesauxN. K.PearsonM. R.SiegelL. S. (2006). The effects of timed and untimed testing conditions on the reading comprehension performance of adults with reading disabilities. Reading and Writing, 19, 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-4714-5
32.
LewandowskiL.CohenJ.LovettB. J. (2013). Effects of extended time allotments on reading comprehension performance of college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(3), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282912462693
LindstromW.LindstromJ. H.BarefieldT. T.SlaughterM. H.BensonE. W. (2021). Examination of extended time use among postsecondary students with non-apparent disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 34(4), 297–309. https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/publications/jped
35.
LovettB. J. (2010). Extended time testing accommodations for students with disabilities: Answers to five fundamental questions. Review of Educational Research, 80, 611–638. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310364063
MayA. L.StoneC. A. (2014). An initial investigation into the role of stereotype threat in the test performance of college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(1), 89–106. https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/publications/jped
NelsonJ. M.HarwoodH. (2011). Learning disabilities and anxiety: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409359939
41.
PumaM. J.OlsenR. B.BellS. H.PriceC. (2009). What to do when data are missing in group randomized controlled trials (NCEE 2009-0049). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
42.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
43.
RosenbaumP.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
44.
SireciS. G.ScarpatiS. E.LiS. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 457–490. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075004457
45.
SlaughterM. H.LindstromJ. H.AndersonR. (2020). Perceptions of extended time accommodations among postsecondary students with disabilities. Exceptionality, 30(4), 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1727339
46.
SokalL.VermetteL. A. (2017). Double time? Examining extended testing time accommodations (ETTA) in postsecondary settings. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(2), 185–200.
47.
SolandJ. (2018). Are achievement gap estimates biased by differential student test effort? Putting an important policy metric to the test. Teachers College Record, 120(12), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811812001202
WadleyM.LiljequistL. (2013). The effect of extended test time for students with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(3), 263–271. https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/publications/jped
50.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook, Version 5.0.
51.
WiseS. L.PastorD. A.KongX. J. (2009). Correlates of rapid-guessing behavior in low-stakes testing: Implications for test development and measurement practice. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(2), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340902754650
52.
WolfL. F.SmithJ. K. (1995). The consequence of consequence: Motivation, anxiety, and test performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 8(3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0803_3
53.
ZuriffG. E. (2000). Extra examination time for students with learning disabilities: An examination of the maximum potential thesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame1301_5
54.
ZwickR.ThayerD. (1996). Evaluating the magnitude of differential item functioning in polytomous items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21(3), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986021003187
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
