Research support for providing a read-aloud accommodation (i.e., having an individual read test items and directions aloud) to students with disabilities has been somewhat limited, particularly when merely examining effects of the accommodation on overall test scores for general groups of students with disabilities. We examined data on accommodated and nonaccommodated performances of students with specific reading disabilities on math test items anticipated to be highly sensitive to accommodation effects due to their level of reading and math difficulty. We conducted analyses across 3 consecutive years of data from an elementary and middle school statewide assessment program. Within the elementary data set we identified a significant Accommodation Group × Reading Difficulty interaction effect, such that the accommodation appeared to more positively impact student performance on items that were classified as difficult to read. We describe other identified effects and discuss limitations of the study, as well as implications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing . Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2.
Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J.E., Freidebach, J., & Freidebach, M. (2001). Read-aloud accommodation: Effects on multiple-choice reading and math items (Tech. Rep. No. 31). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
3.
Bolt, S.E. (2004). Examining empirical evidence for several commonly-held beliefs about testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 1659.
4.
Bolt, S.E., & Bielinski, J. (2002, April). The effects of the read-aloud accommodation on math test items. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
5.
Bolt, S.E., Krentz, J., & Thurlow, M. (2002). Are we there yet? Accountability for the results of students with disabilities (Tech. Rep. No. 31). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota.
6.
Bolt, S.E., & Thurlow, M.L. (2004). Five of the most commonly allowed accommodations in state policy: Synthesis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 141—152.
7.
Bolt, S.E., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2006). Comparing DIF across math and reading/language arts tests for students receiving a read-aloud accommodation . Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 329—355.
8.
Burch, M.A. (2002). Effects of computer-based test accommodations on the math problem-solving performance of students with and without disabilities . Dissertation Abstracts International,63 (03), 902A. (UMI No. 3047429)
9.
Clapper, A.T., Morse, A.B., Lazarus, S.S., Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2005). 2003 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Rep. No. 56) . Retrieved February 13, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis56.html
10.
Elbaum, B., Arquelles, M., Campbell, Y., & Saleh, M. (2004). Effects of student reads-aloud accommodation on the performance of students with and without disabilities on a test of reading comprehension. Exceptionality,12, 71—87.
11.
Elliott, S.N., & Marquart, A.M. (2004). Extended time as a testing accommodation: Its effects and perceived consequences. Exceptional Children, 70, 349—367.
12.
Erickson, R.N., Thurlow, M.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1996). Neglected numerators, drifting denominators, and fractured fractions: Determining participation rates for students with disabilities in statewide assessment programs (Synthesis Rep. No. 23). Retrieved November 2, 2002, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis23.html
13.
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 sources. School Psychology Review, 29(1), 65—85.
14.
Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M.A., & Tindal, G. (2002). An oral versus a standard administration of a large-scale mathematics test. Journal of Special Education , 36(1), 39—47.
15.
Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M.A., Tindal, G., Heath, B., & Almond, P. (1999). Reading as an access to mathematics problem solving on multiple-choice tests for sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 93(2), 113—125.
16.
Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2003). An experimental analysis of accommodation decisions on large-scale mathematics tests. Exceptional Children, 69, 211—225.
17.
Hollenbeck, K. (2002). Determining when test alterations are valid accommodations or modifications for large-scale assessment. In G. Tindal & T. Haladyna (Eds.), Large scale assessment programs for all students (pp. 109—148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
Howell, D. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
19.
Huynh, H., & Barton, K. (2006). Performance of students with disabilities under regular and oral administration of a high stakes reading examination. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 21—39.
20.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq (2004) (reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990)
21.
Johnstone, C.J. (2003). Improving validity of large-scale tests: Universal design and student performance (Tech. Rep. No. 37). Retrieved March 14, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical37.htm
22.
Klein, J.A., Wiley, H.I., & Thurlow, M.L. (2006). Uneven transparency: NCLB tests take precedence in public assessment reporting for students with disabilities (Tech. Rep. No. 43). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
23.
Kosciolek, S., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2000). Effects of a reading accommodation on the validity of a reading test (Tech. Rep. No. 28). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
24.
Lewis, D., Green, D.R., & Miller, L. (1999, June). Using differential item functioning analyses to assess the validity of testing accommodated students with disabilities . Paper presented at the National Conference on Large-Scale Assessment, Snowbird, UT.
25.
McKevitt, B.C., & Elliott, S.N. (2003). Effects and perceived consequences of using read-aloud and teacher-recommended testing accommodations on a reading achievement test . School Psychology Review, 32, 583—600.
26.
Meloy, L.L., Deville, C., & Frisbie, D.A. (2002). 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.
27.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741—749.
28.
Olson, J., & Goldstein, A. (1996). Increasing the inclusion of students with disabilities and limited English proficiency in NAEP. Focus on NAEP,2(1), 1—5.
29.
Phillips, S.E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93—120.
30.
Pomplun, M., & Omar, M.H. (2000). Score comparability of a state mathematics assessment across students with and without reading accommodations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 21—29.
31.
Sahlen, C., & Lehmann, J. (2006). Requesting accommodations in higher education . Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 28—34.
32.
Schulte, A.G., Elliott, S.N., & Kratochwill, T.R. (2001). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations on students' standardized achievement test scores. School Psychology Review, 30, 527—547.
33.
Shriner, J.G., & DeStefano, L. (2003). Participation and accommodation in state assessment: The role of individualized education programs. Exceptional Children, 69, 147—161.
34.
Sireci, S., Scarpati, S., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457—490.
35.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 360—407.
36.
Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Tech. Rep. No. 34). Retrieved March 11, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical34.htm
37.
Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Rep. No. 44). Retrieved November 2, 2002, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.html
38.
Thurlow, M.L., Moen, R., & Altman, J. (2006). Annual performance reports: 2003—2004 state assessment data. Retrieved December 11, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/APR2003-04.pdf
39.
Tindal, G. (1998). Models for understanding task comparability in accommodated testing. Retrieved May 19, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Accomm/TaskComparability.htm
40.
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, 439—450.
41.
Weston, T. (1999, April). The validity of oral presentation in testing . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA .
