College students with (n = 137) and without disabilities (n = 475) were surveyed about their perceptions of using various types of test accommodations. Results indicated that extended time was perceived as having a positive effect by the most students (>87% of both groups), followed by separate room testing and extra breaks (>60% of both groups). Students with disabilities rated separate room, a scribe, reader, and word processor more positively than did nondisabled students. Students generally felt that test accommodations on high-stakes exams would be more beneficial than on classroom tests. A significant number of students felt that everyone should have access to test accommodations, and/or that tests should be redesigned to remove the need for accommodations. Implications of these findings for practice and future research are discussed.
BerknerL.ChoyS. (2008). Descriptive summary of 2003–04 beginning postsecondary students: Three years later. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
2.
BoltS. E.DeckerD. M.LloydM.MorlockL. (2011). Students’ perceptions of accommodations in high school and college. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 165-176.
3.
ChristT. W.StoddenR. (2005). Advantages of developing survey constructs when comparing educational supports offered to students with disabilities in postsecondary education. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 23-31.
4.
EckesS.OchoaT. (2005). Students with disabilities: Transitioning from high school to higher education. American Secondary Education, 33, 6-20.
5.
ElliottS. N.MarquartA. M. (2004). Extended time as a testing accommodation: Its effects and perceived consequences. Exceptional Children, 70, 349-367.
6.
FinnL. L. (1998). Students’ perceptions of beneficial LD accommodations and services at the postsecondary level. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13, 46-67.
7.
HarrisonA. G.EdwardsM. J. (2010). Symptom exaggeration in post-secondary students: Preliminary base rates in a Canadian sample. Applied Neuropsychology, 17, 135-143.
8.
HarrisonA. G.GreenP.FlaroL. (2012). The importance of symptom validity testing in adolescents and young adults undergoing assessments for learning or attention difficulties. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27, 98-113.
9.
KosciolekS.YsseldykeJ. (2000). Effects of a reading accommodation on the validity of a reading test (Technical Report 28). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
10.
LangS. C.ElliottS. N.BoltD. M.KratochwillT. R. (2008). The effects of testing accommodations on students’ performances and reactions to testing. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 107-124.
11.
LovettB. J. (2010). Extended time testing accommodations for students with disabilities: Answers to five fundamental questions. Review of Educational Research, 80, 611-638.
12.
LovettB. J.LejaA. M. (2013). Students’ perceptions of testing accommodations: What we know, what we need to know, and why it matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29, 72-89.
13.
MarshakL.Van WierenT.FerrellD. R.SwissL.DuganC. (2010). Exploring barriers to college student use of disability services and accommodations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22, 151-165.
14.
PhillipsS. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 93-120.
15.
QuinlanM. M.BatesB. R.AngellM. E. (2012). ‘What can I do to help?’: Postsecondary students with learning disabilities’ perceptions of instructors’ classroom accommodations. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(4), 224-233.
16.
RoyerJ. M.RandallJ. (2012). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities. In HarrisK. R.GrahamS.UrdanT. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 3, 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.
SullivanB. K.MayKGalballyL. (2007). Symptom exaggeration by college adults in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disorder assessments. Applied Neuropsychology, 14, 189-207.
19.
ThompsonS. J.JohnstoneC. J.ThurlowM. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.html
20.
ThurlowM. L.ElliottJ. L.YsseldykeJ. E. (2003). Testing students with disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
