This study compared the performance of students with and without learning disabilities (LD) on a mathematics test using a standard administration procedure and a read-aloud accommodation. Analyses were conducted on the test scores of 625 middle and high school students (n = 388 with LD) on two equivalent 30-item multiple-choice tests. Whereas mean scores for students both with and without LD were higher in the accommodated condition, students without disabilities benefited significantly more from the accommodation (ES = 0.44) than students with LD ( ES = 0.20). In addition, effect sizes from the present study were combined meta-analytically with those of previous studies. Results of the meta-analysis revealed that for elementary students, oral accommodations on a mathematics test yielded greater gains for students with LD than for students without disabilities; for secondary students, the converse was true. Findings of the study are discussed in relation to the question of the validity of an oral accommodation on mathematics tests for students both with and without disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Calhoon, M.B., Fuchs, L.S., & Hamlett, C.L. (2000). Effects of computer-based test accommodations on mathematics performance assessments for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(4), 271—282.
2.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
Dale, E., & O'Rourke, J. (1979). The living word vocabulary: The words we know . Elgin, IL: Field Enterprises Educational Corp.
5.
Edgemon, E., Jablonski, B., & Lloyd, J. (2006). Large-scale assessments: A teacher's guide to making decisions about accommodations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(3), 6—11.
6.
Elbaum, B., Arguelles, M.E., Campbell, 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.
7.
Elliott, S.N., Kratochwill, T.R., & McKevitt, B.C. (2001). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations on the scores of students with and without disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 3—24.
8.
Harcourt Educational Measurement. (1996). Stanford achievement test (9th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Author.
9.
Fuchs, L. (2000). The validity of test accommodations for students with learning disabilities: Di ferential item performance on reading and mathematics tests as a function of test accommodations and disability status. Wilmington: Delaware Department of Education.
10.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C.L., & Karns, K.M. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data. School Psychology Review, 29, 65—85.
11.
Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M., & Tindal, G. (2002). An oral versus a standard administration of a large-scale mathematics test. The Journal of Special Education , 36(1), 39—47.
12.
Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M., Tindal, G., Heath, B., & Almond, P. (1999). Reading as an access to mathematics problem solving on multiple-choice tests for sixth-grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(2), 113—125.
13.
Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2003). An experimental analysis of accommodation decisions on large-scale mathematics tests. Exceptional Children, 69, 211—225.
14.
Huynh, H., Meyer, 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, 39—57.
15.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (1997)
16.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. P.L. 108—446. Retrieved January 16, 2006, from: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ446.108
17.
Johnson, E. (2000). The effects of accommodations on performance assessments . Remedial and Special Education, 21, 261—267.
18.
Johnson, E., Kimball, K., Brown, S.O., & Anderson, D. (2001). A statewide review of the use of accommodations in large-scale, high stakes assessments. Exceptional Children , 67, 251—264.
19.
Meloy, L., Deville, C., & Frisbie, D. (2000). 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, 248—255.
20.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002)(Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965)
21.
Phillips, S.E. (1994). High stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93—120.
22.
Pomplun, M., & Omar, M.H. (2000). Score comparability of a state mathematics assessment across students with and without reading accommodations. TheJournal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 21—29.
23.
Schulte, A.A., Elliott, S.N., & Kratochwill, T.R. (2001). Effects of testing accommodations on students' standardized mathematics test scores: An experimental analysis . School Psychology Review, 30, 527—547.
24.
Sireci, S., Scarpati, S., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 457—490.
25.
Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 16, 2006, from: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.html
26.
Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., Thurlow, M.L., & Altman, J.R. (2005). 2005 state special education outcomes: Steps forward in a decade of change. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 11, 2006, from: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2005StateReport.htm/
27.
Thurlow, M., & Bolt, S. (2001). Empirical support for accommodations most often allowed in state policy (Synthesis Report 41). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota National Center on Educational Outcomes.
28.
Thurlow, M., House, A., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (2000). Students with disabilities in large-scale assessments: State participation and accommodation policies. The Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 154—163.
29.
Thurlow, M.L., McGrew, K.S., Tindal, G., Thompson, S.J., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Elliott, J.L. (2000). Assessment accommodations research: Considerations for design and analysis (Technical Report 26). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
30.
Tindal, G. (2002). Accommodating mathematics testing using a videotaped, read-aloud administration. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
31.
Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. (1999). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. Unpublished manuscript, Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center.
32.
Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64(4), 439—450.
33.
Weston, T.J. (2002). The validity of oral accommodation in testing (NCES 200306). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
