In the past, students with disabilities were frequently excluded from statewide testing. With changes in federal laws, states are seeking ways to increase the participation of students with disabilities in testing. Many have developed lists of allowable accommodations to facilitate participation. Although there has been an increase in research on how accommodations can aid in the measurement of skills among students with disabilities, many questions remain unanswered. The degree to which accommodations may compromise the integrity of tests is not clear. As a result, accommodation decision making is difficult. A review of research on 5 frequently allowed test accommodations (dictated response, large print, Braille, extended time, and sign language interpreter for instructions) was conducted; 36 studies were identified. Results indicate mixed support and nonsupport for providing these accommodations to students with disabilities. Guidelines for effective accommodation decision making and administration are discussed, and recommendations for future research are given.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M., Callender, S., & Bolt, S. (2001). On the road to accountability: Reporting outcomes for students with disabilities (Tech. Rep. No. 32). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved April 12, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical32.htm
2.
Bennett, R.E., Rock, D.A., & Kaplan, B.A. (1987). SAT differential item performance for nine handicapped groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 44—55.
3.
Bennett, R.E., Rock, D.A., & Novatkoski, I. (1989). Differential item functioning on the SAT-M Braille Edition. Journal of Educational Measurement , 26, 67—79.
4.
Brown, P.J. (1998). Findings of the 1997 Spring Field Test. Retrieved September 4, 2002, from Delaware Department of Education Web site: http://www.doe.state.de.us/aab/dstp%5Fresearch.html
5.
Buehler, K.L. (2002). Standardized group achievement tests and the accommodation of additional time. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(04), 1312A. (UMI No. 3050241)
6.
Burk, M. (1999). Computerized test accommodations. Washington, DC: A.U. Software.
7.
Camara, W.J., Copeland, T., & Rothchild, B. (1998). E fects of extended time on the SAT I: Reasoning test score growth for students with learning disabilities (College Board Rep. No. 98-7). New York: College Board Publications. Retrieved April 25, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.collegeboard.com/research/html/rr9807.pdf
8.
Chiu, C.W.T., & Pearson, P.D. (1999, June). Synthesizing the e fects of test accommodations for special education and limited English proficiency students. Paper presented at the annual large-scale assessment conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Snowbird, UT. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED433362)
9.
De La Paz, S. (1999). Composing via dictation and speech recognition systems: Compensatory technology for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 173—182.
10.
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Effects of dictation and advanced planning instruction on the composing of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 203—222.
11.
DiCerbo, K., Stanley, E., Roberts, M., & Blanchard, J. (2001, April). Attention and standardized reading test performance: Implications for accommodation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists , Washington, DC.
12.
Education Commission of the States. (1999). Education accountability systems in 50 states. Denver, CO: Author.
13.
Elliott, J., Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M., DeVito, P., & Hedlund, E. (1999). Accommodations and the performance of all students on Rhode Island's performance assessment (Rhode Island Assessment Rep. 1) . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
14.
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.
15.
Fuchs, L.S. (2000). The validity of test accommodations for students with learning disabilities: Di ferential item performance on mathematics tests as a function of test accommodations and disability status. Retrieved September 4, 2002, from Delaware Department of Education Web site: http://www.doe.state.de.us/aab/dstp%5Fresearch.html
16.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C., Binkley, E., & Crouch, R. (2000). Using objective data source to enhance teacher judgments about test accommodations. Exceptional Children , 67, 67—81.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C., & Karns, K. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments about test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29(1), 65—85.
18.
Gajria, M., Salend, S.J., & Hemrick, M.A. (1994). Teacher acceptability of testing modifications for mainstreamed students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9(4), 236—243.
19.
Gallina, N.B. (1990). Tourette's syndrome children: Significant achievement and social behavior variables. Dissertation Abstracts International , 50(08), 2430.
20.
Geisinger, K.F. (1994). Psychometric issues in testing students with disabilities . Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 121—140.
21.
Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students' compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology , 82, 781—791.
22.
Hollenbeck, K., Tindal, G., & Almond, P. (1998). Teachers' knowledge of accommodations as a validity issue in high-stakes testing. The Journal of Special Education , 32, 175—183.
23.
Huesman, R.L. (1999). The validity of ITBS reading comprehension test scores for learning disabled and non-learning disabled students under extended-time conditions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, A60(06), 1996.
24.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
25.
Jayanthi, M., Epstein, M.H., Polloway, E.A., & Bursuck, W.D. (1996). A national survey of general education teachers' perceptions of testing adaptations. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 99—115.
26.
Johnson, E., Kimball, K., & Brown, S.O. (2001). American sign language as an accommodation during standards-based assessments. Assessment for E fective Intervention , 26(2), 39-47.
27.
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.
28.
Kappel, A. (2002). The effects of testing accommodations on subtypes of students with learning disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(05), 1804A. (UMI No. 3054293)
29.
Koretz, D. (1997). The assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 431). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Standards and Student Testing.
30.
Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. (1999). Assessing students with disabilities in Kentucky: The e fects of accommodations, format, and subject (Tech. Rep. No. 498). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Standards and Student Testing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED440148)
31.
Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. (2000). Assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky: Inclusion, student performance, and validity. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 255—272.
32.
Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. (2001). The performance of students with disabilities on New York's Revised Regents Comprehensive Examination in English (Tech. Rep. 540). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation.
33.
Lambert, D., Dodd, J.M., Christensen, L., & Fishbaugh, M.S.E. (1996). Rural secondary teachers' willingness to provide accommodations for students with learning disabilities . Rural Special Education Quarterly, 15(2), 36—42.
34.
Lewis, D., Green, D.R., & Miller, L. (1999, June). Using di ferential item functioning analyses to assess the validity of testing accommodated students with disabilities . Paper presented at the annual large-scale assessment conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Snowbird, UT.
35.
Maihoff, N.A. (2000). The e fects of administering an ASL signed standardized test via DVD/television and by paper-and-pencil: A pilot study. Retrieved September 4, 2002, from Delaware Department of Education Web site: http://www.doe.state.de.us/aab/dstp%5Fresearch.html
36.
MacArthur, C.A., & Cavalier, A.R. (n.d.). Dictation and speech recognition technology as accommodations in large-scale assessments for students with learning disabilities . Retrieved September 4, 2002, from Delaware Department of Education Web site: http://www.doe.state.de.us/aab/dstp%5Fresearch.html
37.
Marquart, A.M. (2001). The use of extended time as an accommodation on a standardized mathematics test: An investigation of effects on scores and perceived consequences for students of various skill levels. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(08), 3120A. (UMI No. 9982212)
38.
McKevitt, B.C. (2000, June). The use and e fects of testing accommodations on math and science performance assessments. Paper presented at the annual large-scale assessment conference of the Council for Chief State School Officers, Snowbird, UT.
39.
McKevitt, B.C. (2001). The effects and consequences of using testing accommodations on a standardized reading test. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(07), 2384A. (UMI No. 3020768)
40.
Munger, G.F., & Loyd, B.H. (1991). Effect of speededness on test performance of handicapped and nonhandicapped examinees. Journal of Educational Research , 85, 53—57.
41.
Perlman, C.L., Borger, J., Collins, C.B., Elenbogen, J.C., & Wood, J. (1996, April). The e fect of extended time limits on learning disabled students' scores on standardized reading tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.
42.
Phillips, S.E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 93—120.
43.
Schulte, A.G., Elliott, S.N., & Kratochwill, T.R. (2001). Effects of testing accommodations on standardized mathematics test scores: An experimental analysis of the performances of students with and without disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 527—547.
44.
Simpson, R.L., Griswold, D.E., & Myles, B.S. (1999). Educators' assessment accommodation preferences for students with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14, 212—219.
45.
Sullivan, P.M. (1982). Administration modifications on the WISC-R Performance scale with different categories of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 127, 780—788.
46.
Thurlow, M., House, A., Boys, C., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (2000). State participation and accommodation policies for students with disabilities: 1999 Update (Synthesis Rep. No. 33). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
47.
Thurlow, M.L., Langenfeld, K.L., Nelson, J.R., Shin, H., & Coleman, J.E. (1998). State accountability reports: What are states saying about students with disabilities? (Tech. Rep. No. 20). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
48.
Thurlow, M.L., Nelson, J.R., Teelucksingh, E., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2000). Where's Waldo? A third search for students with disabilities in state accountability reports (Tech. Rep. No. 25). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
49.
Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., & Silverstein, B. (1993). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: A review of the literature (Synthesis Rep. No. 4). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
50.
Tindal, G. (1998, March). Models for understanding task comparability in accommodated testing. Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.
51.
Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. (1999). A summary of research on test accommodations: An empirical basis for defining test accommodations. Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 442245)
52.
Tippets, E., & Michaels, H. (1997, March). Factor structure invariance of accommodated and non-accommodated performance assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
53.
Trimble, S. (1998). Performance trends and use of accommodations on a statewide assessment (Maryland/Kentucky State Assessment Series Rep. No. 3). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
54.
Walz, L., Albus, D., Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2000). E fect of a multiple day test accommodation on the performance of special education students (Minnesota Rep. 34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
55.
Wright, N., & Wendler, C. (1994, April). Establishing timing limits for the new SAT for students with disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education , New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED375543)
56.
Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., Langenfeld, K., Nelson, J.R., Teelucksingh, E., & Seyfarth, A. (1998). Educational results for students with disabilities: What do the data tell us? (Tech. Rep. No. 23). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
57.
Ziomek, R.L., & Andrews, K.M. (1996). Predicting the college grade point averages of special-tested students from their ACT assessment scores and high school grades (Report No. ACT-RR-96-7). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED405357)
58.
Ziomek, R.L., & Andrews, K.M. (1998). ACT assessment score gains of special tested students (Report No. ACT-RR-98-8). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 426108)
