The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of computer-based test accommodations to a noncomputer-based test accommodation and to no accommodation on mathematics performance assessment (PA) scores for secondary students with learning disabilities. Over four weeks, each student (N = 81) was tested on four parallel PAs, each time under a different condition: (a) standard administration (SA), (b) teacher-read (TR), (c) computer-read (CR), and (d) CR with video (CRV). PA alternate forms and order of conditions were counterbalanced across classrooms. After each PA administration, a student questionnaire assessed perceptions of the benefits of the testing condition. Results indicated that providing a reader, either human or computer, increases scores, but no significant difference was seen among TR, CR, and CRV. Implications are discussed with respect to reading accommodations, computerized testing, and the effects of reading accommodations on students with differing reading achievement levels.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakkenJ.P.MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. Journal of Special Education, 31, 300–324.
2.
BottgeB.A.HasselbringT.S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59, 556–566.
3.
BristorV.J. (1993). Enhancing text structure with video for improving reading comprehension. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 216–223.
4.
BurkM. (1998). Computerized test accommodations: A new approach for inclusion and success for students with disabilities. Washington, DC: A.U. Software Incorporated.
5.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.
6.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.
7.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991b). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 31(5), 34–40.
8.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45–58.
9.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.EatonS.HamlettC.L.KarnsK. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65–85.
10.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.HamlettC.L.WaltzL.GermannG. (1994). Formative evaluation of student progress: How much growth should we expect?School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.
11.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.KazdanS.KarnsK.CalhoonM.B.HamlettC.L.HewlettS. (2000). The effects of workgroup structure and size on student productivity during collaborative work on complex tasks. Elementary School Journal, 100, 183–212.
12.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.KarnsK.HamlettC.L.DutkaS.KatzaroffM. (2000). The importance of providing background information on the structure and scoring of performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 1–34.
13.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.KarnsK.HamlettC.L.KatzaroffM. (1999). Mathematics performance assessment in the classroom: Effects on teacher planning and student learning. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 609–646.
14.
GajriaM.SalendS.J.HemrickM. (1994). Teacher acceptability of testing modifications for mainstreamed students. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9, 236–243.
15.
GreensteinJ.StrainsP.S. (1977). The utility of the KeyMath Diagnostic Arithmetic Test for adolescent learning disabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 14, 275–282.
16.
HanleyT.V. (1995). The need for technological advances in assessment related to national educational reform. Exceptional Children, 61, 222–229.
17.
HigginsE.L.RaskindM.H. (1997). The compensatory effectiveness of optical character recognition/speech synthesis on reading comprehension of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 8(2), 75–87.
18.
HoweM.E.ThamesD.G.KazelskisR. (1997). The relationship between third grade students' definitions of reading, self-perceptions as readers, and their reading performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Memphis, TN.
19.
Kansas State Board of Education. (1991). Kansas quality performance accreditation. Topeka: Author.
20.
McLeodT.M.ArmstrongS.W. (1982). Learning disabilities in mathematics—Skill deficits and remedial approaches at the intermediate and secondary level. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 305–311.
21.
MeansB.KnappM.S. (1991). Cognitive approaches to teaching advanced skills to educationally disadvantaged students. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 282–289.
22.
MillerS.P.MercerC.D. (1997). Educational aspects of mathematics disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 47–56.
23.
RunyanM.K. (1991). Reading comprehension performance of learning disabled and non-learning disabled college and university students under timed and untimed conditions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
24.
SchummJ.S.VaughnS. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers' perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12(4), 18–27.
25.
SmithC.R. (1994). Learning disabilities: The interaction of learner, task, and setting (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
26.
TindalG.HeathB.HollenbeckK.AlmondP.HarnissM. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64, 439–450.
27.
WigginsG. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 703–713.
