Minimal research has been conducted contrasting the effectiveness of various testing accommodations for college students diagnosed with ADHD. The current assumption is that these students are best served by extending the time they have to take a test. It is the supposition of these investigators that paced item presentation may be a more beneficial accommodation than extended time. To test the effects of paced item presentation, the investigators designed a mixed methods sequential explanatory study to explore the relationship between computer-paced and student-paced item presentation on the academic test performance in college students diagnosed with ADHD. The participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 testing conditions. Half of the participants were provided a computer-paced testing condition, and half were provided a student-paced testing condition within a computer-based environment. Interviews were conducted after the test administration to discern the students' perceptions of the value of the various components of the testing environment. No significant differences were found in performance scores between the students tested under the two conditions; however, the interview data illuminated the quantitative findings in that the students reported that the computer-based testing environment itself, as well as other environmental variables, provided a beneficial structure and format conducive to their overall successful performance under both accommodations. The practicability of university disability offices offering a computerized format for students diagnosed with ADHD is also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllsoppD.MinskoffE., & BoltL. (2005). Individualized course-specific strategy instruction for college students with learning disabilities and ADHD: Lessons learned from a model demonstration project. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(2), 103.
2.
AlsterE. H. (1997). The effects of extended time on algebra test scores for college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 222–227.
BrownP. J., & AugustineA. (2001). Screen reading software as an assessment accommodation: Implications for instruction and student performance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED458273) Retrieved February 2, 2008, from ERIC database.
6.
BurkM. (1998). Computerized test accommodations: A new approach for inclusion and success for students with disabilities. Paper presented at Office of Special Education Program Cross Project Meeting “Technology and the Education of Children with Disabilities: Steppingstones to the 21st Century.”
7.
CalhoonM. B.FuchsL. S., & HamlettC. L. (2000). Effects of computer-based test accommodations on mathematics performance assessments for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(4), 271–282.
8.
CarnevaleD. (2006). Blackboard sues rival over alleged patent infringement. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(49), A30.
9.
CarnevaleD. (2007). Blackboard pledges to ease enforcement of controversial patent. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(23), A35.
10.
CurtisH. A., & KroppR. P. (1961). A comparison of scores obtained by administering a test normally and visually. Journal of Experimental Education, 29, 249–260.
11.
DowrickP. W.AndersonJ.HeyerK., & AcostaJ. (2005). Postsecondary education across the USA: Experiences of adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 41–47.
12.
DuPaulG. J., & EckertT. L. (1998). Academic interventions for students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14(1), 59–82.
13.
DuPaulG. J.GuevermontD. C., & BarkleyR. A. (1991). Attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder in adolescence: Critical assessment parameters. Clinical Psychological Review, 11, 233–245.
14.
DuPaulG. J., & WeyandtL. L. (2006). School based interventions for children and adolescents with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Enhancing academic and behavioral outcomes. Education and Treatment of Children29(2), 341–358.
15.
ElliottS. N.McKevittB. C., & KettlerR. J. (2002). Testing accommodations research and decision making: The case of ‘good’ scores being highly valued but difficult to achieve for all students. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 35(3), 153–167.
16.
FarrellE. F. (2003). Paying attention to students who can't. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(5), 50–52.
17.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD., & CapizziA. M. (2005). Identifying appropriate test accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(6), 1–8.
18.
GetzelE. E.McManusS., & BrielL. W. (2004). An effective model for college students with learning disabilities and attention deficit hyperactivity disorders. LD Online. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from http://www.txstate.edu/education/sped/
19.
HeiligensteinE.GuentherG.LevyA.SavinoF., & FulwilerJ. (1999). Psychological and academic functioning in college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of American College Health, 47(4), 181–185.
20.
HelwigR.Rozek-TedescoM. A., & TindalG. (2002). An oral versus a standard administration of a large-scale mathematics test. Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 39–47.
21.
HelwigR.AlmondP. J.Rozek-TedescoM. A.TindalG., & HeathB. (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.
22.
HoffmanK. I., & LundbergG. D. (1976). A comparison of computer-monitored group tests with paper-and-pencil tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36(4), 791–809.
23.
HollenbeckK.Rozek-TedescoM. A.TindalG., & GlasgowA. (2000). An exploratory study of student-paced versus teacher-paced accommodations for large-scale math tests. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(2), 27–36.
24.
HollenbeckK.TindalG., & AlmondP. (1999). Reliability and decision consistency: An analysis of writing mode at two times on a statewide test. Educational Assessment, 6(1), 23–33. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database.
25.
KesslerR. C.AdlerL.BarkleyJ.BiedermanJ.ConnersC. K.DemlerO. (2006). The prevalence and correlates of adult ADHD in the United States: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey replication. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(4), 716–723.
26.
KirkR. E. (2008). Statistics: An introduction (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning.
27.
LancasterS.MellardD., & HoffmanL. (2001). Experiences of students with disabilities in selected community and technical colleges. The individual accommodations model: Accommodating students with disabilities in post-secondary settings.Lawrence, KS: Kansas University, Center for Research on Learning (ED452617).
28.
MedinaJ. G. (2000). Classroom testing accommodations for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: The empirical gap. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 60(7–A), 2372.
29.
NieblingB. C., & ElliottS. N. (2005). Testing accommodations and inclusive assessment practices. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31(1), 1–6.
30.
QuinnP. O.RateyN. A., & MaitlandT. L. (2000). Coaching college students with AD/HD.Silver Spring, MD: Advantage Books.
31.
RussellM., & PlatiT. (2000). Mode of administration effects on MCAS composition performance for grades four, eight, and ten. A report of findings submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Education. NBETPP Statements World Wide Web Bulletin. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED456142) Retrieved February 2, 2008, from ERIC database.
SwartzS. L.PrevattF., & ProctorB. E. (2005). A coaching intervention for college students with attention deficity/hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 42(6), 647–655.
34.
TagayunaA.StoddenR. A.ChangC.ZeleznikM. E., & WhelleyT. A. (2005). A two-year comparison of support provision for persons with disabilities in post-secondary education. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22(1), 13–21.
35.
ThompsonS.BlountA., & ThurlowM. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001. Technical Report.67 pp. (ED475047) Full Text from ERIC.
36.
TindalG., & FuchsL. (2000). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. 125 pp. (ED442245) Full Text from ERIC by Ebsco Host.
37.
TindalG.GlasgowA.HelwigB.HollenbeckK., & HeathB. (1998). Accommodations in large scale tests for students with disabilities: An investigation of reading math tests using video technology. Unpublished manuscript with Council of Chief State School Officer, Washington, DC.
38.
WallaceB. A.WinslerA., & NeSmithP. (1999, April). Factors associated with success for college students with ADHD: Are standard accommodations helping? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
39.
WeaverS. M. (2000). The efficacy of extended time on tests for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(2), 47–56.
40.
WeyandtL. L., & DuPaulG. (2006). ADHD in college students. Journal of Attention Disorders, 10(1), 9–19.
41.
WiseS. L., & PlakeB. S. (1989). Research on the effects of administering tests via computers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 8(3), 5–10.
42.
ZuriffG. E. (2000). Extra examination time for students with learning disabilities: An examination of the maximum. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(1), 99–118 (AN 3341986).
43.
ZwartL. M., & KallemeynL. M. (2001). Peer-based coaching for college students with ADHD and learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 15(1), 1–15.
