Students with disabilities often receive test accommodations in schools and on high-stakes tests. Students with learning disabilities (LD) represent the largest disability group in schools, and extended time the most common test accommodation requested by such students. This pairing persists despite controversy over the validity of extended time as a test accommodation. The current study examined the effects of 50% and 100% time extensions on the reading comprehension performance of college students with and without LD. Results indicated that typical students actually benefited more than the LD group when given extra time, indicating that extended time is not a test accommodation that is specific to those with a disability. Moreover, when only students with LD were given extended time, especially double time, they outperformed nondisabled peers. We discuss implications of these findings for future research as well as accommodation decisions in educational settings.
BoltS. E.ThurlowM. L. (2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 141-152.
2.
BrownJ. I.FishcoV. V.HannaG. (1993). Nelson-Denny Reading Test, Form H. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
3.
BryantS. K.McIntyreC. W.MurrayM. E.BlackwellS. L. (1983). Rate of visual information pick-up in learning disabled and normal boys. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 166-171.
4.
CahalanC.MandinachE. B.CamaraW. J. (2002) Predictive validity of SAT I: reasoning test for test-takers with learning disabilities and extended time accommodations. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
5.
Cahalan-LaitusisC.KingT. C.ClineF.BridgmanB. (2006). Observational timing study of the SAT reasoning test for test takers with learning disabilities and/or AD/HD (College Board Research Report No. 2006-4). New York, NY: The College Board.
6.
FlanaganD. P.AlfonsoV. C. (Eds.) (2011). Essentials of specific learning disability identification. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
7.
HarrisonA. G.NicholsE.LarochetteA. (2008). Investigating the quality of learning disability documentation provided by students in higher education. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23, 161-174.
8.
LernerC. (2004). Accommodations for the learning disabled: A level playing field or affirmative action for elites. Vanderbilt Law Review, 57, 1041-1122.
9.
LewandowskiL.LovettB. J.ParolinR.GordonM.CoddingR. (2007). Extended time accommodations and the mathematics performance of students with and without ADHD. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25(1), 17-28. doi:10.1177/0734282906291961.
10.
LewandowskiL.LovettB. J.RogersC. (2008). Extended time as a testing accommodation for students with reading disabilities: Does a rising tide lift all ships?Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 315-324. doi:10.1177/0734282908315757.
11.
LovettB. J. (2010). Extended time test accommodations for students with disabilities: Answers to five fundamental questions. Review of Educational Research, 80, 611-638.
12.
LovettB. J.LewandowskiJ. (2006). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Who are they?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 515-527.
13.
OfieshN. (2006). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 883-888.
14.
OfieshN. S.HughesC. A. (2002). How much time? A review of the literature on extended test time for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 16, 2-16.
15.
PhillipsS. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93-120.
16.
RoyerJ. M.RandallJ. (2012). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities. In HarrisK. R.GrahamS.UrdanT. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Vol. 3. Application of learning and teaching (pp. 139-158). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
17.
SireciS. G.ScarpatiS.LiS. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457-490.
18.
SparksR. S.LovettB. J. (2009). College students with learning disability diagnoses: Who are they, and how do they perform?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 494-510.
19.
StretchL. S.OsborneJ. W. (2005). Extended time test accommodation: Directions for future research and practice. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10, 1-8.
20.
ThorntonA. E.ReeseL. M.PashleyP. J.DalessandroS. P. (2001). Predictive validity of accommodated LSAT scores (Technical Report 01-01). Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Council.
21.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2010). Digest of Education Statistics, 2009 (NCES 2010-013).
22.
WeilerM.HarrisN.MarcusD.BellingerD.KosslynS.WaberD. (2000). Speed of information processing in children referred for learning problems: Performance on a visual filtering test. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 538-550.
