To investigate the impact of universal testing accommodations on a computer-based reading comprehension test, accessibility, reliability, and validity were evaluated. Tests with and without accommodations were administered to 131 twelfth-grade students in three U.S. schools. Scores on Curriculum-Based Measurement probes determined groups of students without functional impairment (n = 83) and students with functional impairment (n = 44) in the access skill of reading fluency. Results indicated that ability in access skills is associated with use of accommodations, and that high accessibility can assist in removing the impact of construct-irrelevant skill. No score boost or differential boost was found; validity evaluation offered meaningful results. No reliability change was found. The results of this study support child study team members individualizing accommodations to target deficits in access skills, selecting accommodations on criteria other than differential boost, and offering appropriate accommodations more universally.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Author.
2.
AttaliY. (2016). Effort in low-stakes assessments: What does it take to perform as well as in a high-stakes setting?Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(6), 1045–1058. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164416634789
3.
BaderL. A. (2005). Bader reading and language inventory (5th ed.). Pearson.
4.
BeddowP. A. (2012). Accessibility theory for enhancing the validity of test results for students with special needs. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(1), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.654966
BeddowP. A.ElliottS. N.KettlerR. J. (2013). Test accessibility: Item reviews and lessons learned from four state assessments. Educational Research International, 2013, Article ID 952704. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/952704
7.
BoltS. E.ThurlowM. L. (2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy synthesis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 25(3), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250030201
8.
Center for Universal Design. (1997). What is universal design?North Carolina State University.
9.
CookL.EignorD.SawakiY.SteinbergJ.ClineF. (2010). Using factor analysis to investigate accommodations used by students with disabilities on an English-language arts assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 23, 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957341003673831
10.
DembitzerL.KettlerR. (2018). Testing adaptations: Research to guide practice. In ElliottS. N.KettlerR. J.BeddowP. A.KurzA. (Eds.), Handbook of accessible instruction and testing practices: Issues, innovations, and applications (pp. 213–230). Springer International Publishing.
11.
ElliottS. N.KettlerR. J.BeddowP. A.KurzA.ComptonE.McGrathD.BruenC.HintonK.PalmerP.RodriguezM. C.BOLTD.RoachA. T. (2010). Effects of using modified items to test students with persistent academic difficulties. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 475–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600406
12.
ElliottS. N.MarquartA. M. (2004). Extended time as a testing accommodation: Its effects and perceived consequences. Exceptional Children, 70(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000306
13.
FeldtL. S.KimS. (2006). Testing the difference between two alpha coefficients with small samples of subjects and raters. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 589–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282488
14.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound test accommodation decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00018
15.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.CapizziA. M. (2005). Identifying appropriate test accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(6), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v37i6.6812
16.
GrahamJ. W.OlchowskiA. E.GilreathT. D. (2007). How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prevention Science, 8(3), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9
17.
HahnM. E.MuellerC. M.GorlewiczJ. L. (2019). The comprehension of STEM graphics via a multisensory tablet electronic device by students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 113(5), 404–418. http://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X19876463
18.
HigginsJ.FedorchakG.KatzM. (2012). Assignment of accessibility tools for digitally delivered assessments: Key findings. Measured Progress.
19.
HollenbeckK. (2005). Validity issues and decisions about testing accommodations. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31(7), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724770503100102
20.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2012). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. Guilford Press.
KeenanJ. M.BetjemannR. S.OlsonR. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802132279
24.
Ketterlin-GellerL. R. (2005). Knowing what all students know: Procedures for developing UD for assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(2). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ848519.pdf
25.
KettlerR. J. (2012). Testing accommodations: Theory and research to inform practice. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.654952
26.
KettlerR. J.BradenJ. P.BeddowP. A. (2011). Test-taking skills and their impact on accessibility for all students. In ElliottS. N.KettlerR. J.BeddowP. A.KurzA. (Eds.), Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students (pp. 147–159). Springer.
27.
KettlerR. J.DembitzerL. (2022). Fairness and test adaptations for students with functional impairments. In JonsonJ. L.GeisingerK. F. (Eds.), Fairness in educational and psychological testing: Examining theoretical, research, practice, and policy implications of 2014 Standards (pp. 333–354). AERA.
28.
KettlerR. J.Feeney-KettlerK. A. (2011). Screening systems and decision making at the preschool level: Application of a comprehensive validity framework. Psychology in the Schools, 48(5), 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20565
29.
KettlerR. J.RodriguezM. R.BoltD. M.ElliottS. N.BeddowP. A.KurzA. (2011). Modified multiple-choice items for alternate assessments: Reliability, difficulty, and differential boost. Applied Measurement in Education, 24(3), 210–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2011.580620
30.
KlaudaS. L.GuthrieJ. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 310–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.310
31.
LazarusS. S.QuanbeckM.GoldstoneL. (2021). Extended time: States’ accessibility policies, 2020. National Center on Educational Outcomes.
32.
LewandowskiL. J.LovettB. J.RogersC. L. (2008). Extended time as a testing accommodation for students with reading disabilities does a rising tide lift all ships?Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26(4), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282908315757
33.
McCormackA. (2019). An investigation into the use of the “tests read” accommodation for the New York State 4th grade ELA assessment, the impact on reported scores, and the reported knowledge and beliefs of administrators regarding the assignment and purpose of accommodations (Publication No. 13899837) [Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
PinnellG. S.PikulskiJ. J.WixsonK. K.CampbellJ. R.GoughP. B.BeattyA. S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud. U.S. Department of Education.
40.
QuanbeckM.LazarusS. S.GoldstoneL. (2022). Recorded oral delivery: States’ accessibility policies, 2021 (NCEO Accommodations Toolkit #17b). National Center on Educational Outcomes.
41.
RoachA. T.BeddowP. A.KurzA.KettlerR. J.ElliottS. N. (2010). Incorporating student input in developing alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. Exceptional Children, 77, 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029100770010
42.
RogersC. M.ThurlowM. L.LazarusS. S.RessaV. A.SwadekG. S. (2022). A summary of the research on the effects of K-12 test accommodations: 2019 (NCEO Report 433). National Center on Educational Outcomes.
43.
RussellM.HoffmanT.HigginsJ. (2009). NimbleTools: A universally designed test delivery system. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(2), 6–12.
44.
ShinnM. R.GoodR. H.KnutsonN.TillyW. D.CollinsV. L. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to readings. School Psychology Review, 21(3), 469–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1992.12085629
45.
SireciS. G.ScarpatiS. E.LiS. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 457–490. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075004457
46.
ThompsonS. J.JohnstoneC. J.ThurlowM. L. (2002). UD applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
