a summary of the research on the effects of test

Technical Report 65

A Summary of the Research on the Effects of Test Accommodations: 2009-2010

N A T I O N A L

C E N T E R O N

E D U C AT I O N A L

O U T C O M E S

In collaboration with:Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)

Supported by:U.S. Office of Special Education Programs

Technical Report 65

A Summary of the Research on the Effects of Test Accommodations: 2009-2010

Christopher M. Rogers • Elizabeth M. Christian • Martha L. Thurlow

November 2012

All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Rogers, C. M., Christian, E. M., & Thurlow, M. L. (2012). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2009-2010 (Technical Report 65). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

National Center on Educational OutcomesUniversity of Minnesota • 207 Pattee Hall150 Pillsbury Dr. SE • Minneapolis, MN 55455Phone 612/626-1530 • Fax 612/624-0879http://www.nceo.info

The University of Minnesota shall provide equal access to and opportunity in its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

This document is available in alternative formats upon request.

N A T I O N A LC E N T E R O NE D U C AT I O N A LO U T C O M E S

The Center is supported through Cooperative Agreements (#H326G110002) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Pro-grams, U.S. Department of Education. Additional support for targeted projects, including those on English language learners, is provided by other federal and state agencies. The Center is affiliated with the Institute on Community Integration at the College of Education and Human De-velopment, University of Minnesota. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it.

NCEO Core Staff

Martha L. Thurlow, DirectorDeb A. AlbusManuel T. BarreraLaurene L. ChristensenLinda GoldstoneJames HattenChristopher J. JohnstoneJane L. KrentzSheryl S. Lazarus

Kristi K. LiuRoss E. MoenMichael L. MooreRachel F. QuenemoenRebekah RiekeChristopher RogersMiong VangYi-Chen Wu

Executive Summary

The use of accommodations in instruction and assessments continues to be of great importance for students with disabilities. This importance is reflected in an emphasis on research to investigate the effects of accommodations. Key issues under investigation include how accommodations affect test scores, how educators and students perceive accommodations, and how accommoda-tions are selected and implemented.

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the state of the research on testing ac-commodations as well as to identify promising future areas of research. Previous reports by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) have covered research published since 1999. We summarize the research to review current research trends and enhance understand-ing of the implications of accommodations use in the development of future policy directions, implementation of current and new accommodations, and valid and reliable interpretations when accommodations are used in testing situations. In 2009 and 2010, 48 published research studies on the topic of testing accommodations were found. Among the main points of the 2009-10 research are:

Purpose: The majority of the research included in this review sought to evaluate the comparability of test scores when assessments were administered with and without accommodations. The second most common purpose for research was to report on perceptions and preferences about accommodations use. The majority of studies ad-dressed multiple purposes.

Research design: Over 60% of the studies reported primary data collection on the part of the researchers, rather than drawing on existing archival data sets. Over half of the studies involved quasi-experimental designs. Researchers also drew on survey techniques and carried out literature meta-analyses.

Types of assessments, content areas: A wide variety of instrument types were used in these studies. Tests and descriptive surveys were the most common data collection methods used in the studies reviewed, as developed by the researchers for the purpose of the study. A large number of the studies involved academic content items drawn from specified sources outside of the researchers’ work. Other studies used state criterion-referenced test data, norm-referenced measures, or multiple types of data in various combinations. Mathematics and reading were the most common content areas included in the 2009-2010 research. Other content areas were writing, other language arts, science, social studies, and psychology. Approximately one-quarter of all studies addressed more than one content area in the assessments used.

Participants: Participants were most frequently students, spanning a range of grade levels from K-12 to college/university students, although several studies included educators and parents as participants, in various combinations, as well. Studies varied in the number of participants; some studies included fewer than 20 participants, whereas other studies involved tens of thousands of participants.

Disabilities categories: Learning disabilities were the most common disabilities exhibited by participants in the research, accounting for over half of the studies. Attention problems and emotional behavioral disabilities were each the next most commonly studied. Low-incidence disabilities were included in about 40% of the studies.

Accommodations: Presentation accommodations were the most frequently studied cat-egory, with the Read Aloud accommodation being the most studied within this category (and across categories). Other commonly studied accommodations included Computer-ized Administration and Extended-time. There was a small number, about one-eighth of the studies, that analyzed relatively uncommon or unique accommodations from among various categories.

Findings: Most of the oral presentation and computer administration accommodations empirically tested showed positive effects on test scores. In addition, the read-aloud ac-commodation did not alter the construct being tested. Among studies of the perception of different accommodations, students often indicated a preference for one accommodation over others, whereas educator preferences were mixed regarding accommodations use. The most broadly-supported research finding was that accommodations provided during testing did not alter the academic constructs tested—including for mathematics, reading, science, and writing.

Limitations: Researchers often cited small sample size as well as a general lack of representativeness on age, grade level, and race as primary limitations of their research. Methodological issues such as the use of bundled (vs. individually administered) accom-modations and non-random sampling of participants were also mentioned as limitations.

Directions for future research: A number of promising suggestions were noted, particu-larly for varying or improving on research methods to test the effects of specific accom-modations, improving the representativeness of samples, and improving test development practices to reduce the need for accommodations. In many cases, researchers also found

that the results of their studies generated many suggestions for further investigation, such as concurrent validity studies using other measures.

The studies in 2009-2010 demonstrated several similarities when viewing them in comparison with previous research, especially in relation to the 2007-2008 studies examined in the previ-ous accommodations research review. However, there were several differences, or shifts, as well. There were increases in research examining science assessment accommodations and decreases in reading assessment accommodations. There was a rise in multi-purpose study designs, and accordingly, more studies employed multiple data collection methods and instru-ments. Test performance of students in elementary and middle school received increased at-tention. The number of accommodations receiving focused examination – including common and unique accommodations – expanded to 10 in the current review. There were decreases in studies measuring impact of the extended-time accommodation, as well as a small increase in examining response accommodations. Further, students with disabilities were reported not to have benefited from extended-time in half of the relevant studies, and to have benefited in the other half of the studies. Research provided more support for the benefits of computerized ad-ministration, along with demonstrated score equivalency with and without this accommodation, indicating no problematic concern regarding academic construct validity. In fact, attention to the effects of accommodations on construct validity has increased in general, and only 2 of 21 separate findings indicated that academic constructs were different in the accommodated and non-accommodated testing conditions.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... iii

Overview .............................................................................................................................................1

Review Process ............................................................................................................................1

Results .................................................................................................................................................3

Publication Type ..........................................................................................................................3

Purposes of the Research .............................................................................................................4

Research Type and Data Collection Source ................................................................................6

Data Collection Methods and Instruments ..................................................................................7

Content Area Assessed .................................................................................................................9

Research Participants ................................................................................................................10

School Level .............................................................................................................................12

Disability Categories ..................................................................................................................13

Types of Accommodations .........................................................................................................14

Research Findings ......................................................................................................................14

Limitations and Future Research ...............................................................................................31

Discussion .........................................................................................................................................32

Research Purposes .....................................................................................................................32

Research Types and Data Collection Sources ............................................................................33

Data Collection Methods ...........................................................................................................33

Participants .................................................................................................................................33

Accommodations .......................................................................................................................34

Limitations .................................................................................................................................36

Future Research .........................................................................................................................37

Trends .........................................................................................................................................37

1NCEO

Overview

Federal legislation has spurred states to include all students in statewide assessment, and vast improvements in inclusion have taken place over the past decade. For many students with dis-abilities, access to tests necessitates the provision of assessment accommodations. As the use of accommodations has increased, there has been a concurrent need to attend to the implementation of accommodations and to ensure the validity of results when accommodations are used. States look to educational research for answers about which accommodations have proven successful in increasing the validity of results for students with disabilities. Often this effort means look-ing for increased scores for students with disabilities, along with evidence that the constructs measured or the validity of inferences that can be drawn from results are not changed.

To synthesize research efforts, NCEO has provided reports on accommodations research com-pleted over time. The time periods included 1999-2001 (Thompson, Blount, & Thurlow, 2002), 2002-2004 (Johnstone, Altman, Thurlow, & Thompson, 2006), 2005-2006 (Zenisky & Sireci, 2007), and 2007-2008 (Cormier, Altman, Shyyan, & Thurlow, 2010).

The purpose of this document is to provide a synthesis of the research on test accommodations published in 2009 and 2010. The research described here encompasses empirical studies of score comparability and validity studies as well as investigations into accommodations use and perceptions of their effectiveness. Taken together, the current research casts a wide net in explor-ing the issues surrounding test accommodations practices, with a number of efforts made on key accommodations. Reporting the findings of current research studies was a primary goal of this analysis; a second goal was to identify areas requiring continued investigation in the future.

Review Process

Similar to the process used in past accommodations research syntheses (Cormier, Altman, Shyyan, & Thurlow, 2010; Johnstone et al., 2006; Thompson, Blount, & Thurlow, 2002; Zenisky & Sireci, 2007), a number of sources were accessed to complete the review of the accommoda-tions research published in 2009 and 2010. Specifically, five research databases were consulted, including Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, Digital Dissertations, and Educational Abstracts. To confirm the thoroughness of our searches, we used the Web search engine Google Scholar to search for additional research. In addition, a hand-search of 30 journals was completed to ensure that no qualifying study was missed. A list of hand-searched journals is available on the National Center on Educational Outcomes website (www.nceo.info/OnlinePubs/AccommBibliography/AccomStudMethods.htm).

Online archives of several organizations were also searched for relevant publications. These organizations include Behavioral Research and Teaching (BRT) at the University of Oregon

References .........................................................................................................................................39

Report References ......................................................................................................................39

2009 and 2010 Accommodation References ..............................................................................42

Appendix A: Research Purposes ........................................................................................................47

Appendix B: Research Characteristics ...............................................................................................59

Appendix C: Instrument Characteristics ............................................................................................63

Appendix D: Participant and Sample Characteristics ........................................................................79

Appendix E: Accommodations Studied .............................................................................................83

Appendix F: Research Findings .........................................................................................................91

Appendix G: Study Limitations and Future Research .....................................................................123

2 3NCEO NCEO

(http://brt.uoregon.edu/), the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Stu-dent Testing (CRESST; http://www.cse.ucla.edu/), and the Wisconsin Center for Educational Research (WCER; http://www.wcer .wisc.edu/testacc).

The initial search was completed in December, 2010. A second search was completed in April, 2011 to ensure that all articles published in 2009 and 2010 were found and included in this review. Within each of these research databases and publications archives, we used a sequence of search terms. Terms searched for this review were:

• standardized (also large-scale, state, standards-based) test (also testing) changes• standardized (also large-scale, state, standards-based) test (also testing) modification(s)• standardized (also large-scale, state, standards-based) test (also testing)• accommodation(s)• test changes• test modifications• test accommodations

Many of these search terms were used as delimiters when searches yielded large pools of docu-ments found to be irrelevant to the searches.

The research documents from these searches were then considered for inclusion in this review with respect to several criteria. First, the decision was made to focus only on research published or defended in doctoral dissertations in 2009 and 2010. Second, the scope of the research was limited to investigations of accommodations for regular assessment (hence, articles specific to alternate assessments, accommodations for instruction or learning, and universal design in general were not part of this review). Third, research involving English language learners (ELLs) was included only if the target population was ELLs with disabilities. Fourth, presentations from professional conferences were not searched or included in this review, based on the researchers’ criteria to include only research that would be accessible to readers and that had gone through the level of peer review typically required for publication in professional journals or through a doctoral committee review. (This criterion was implemented for the first time during the 2007-2008 review) Finally, in order to be included in the online bibliography and summarized in this report, studies needed to involve either (1) experimental manipulation of an accommodation, (2) investigation of the comparability of test scores across accommodated and non-accommodated conditions, or (3) examination of survey results on teachers’ knowledge and/or perceptions of accommodations.

Results

The results of our analyses of the 48 studies published from January 2009 through December 2010 are presented in substantial detail. We provide the studies’ publication types, as well as the range of research purposes. We specify the types of research approaches and the primary and secondary sources of data collection. We also describe the data collection methods and in-struments. We provide the academic content areas covered in the research. We depict research participants in terms of their being students, educators, and parents, their ages or grade levels, the participant sample sizes and disability status, and the disability categories. We report the types of accommodations studied. We also explicate the research findings in terms of the impact of accommodations as well as perceptions about accommodations, incidence of accommoda-tions use, and implementation. Additional sections offer perspectives on accommodations in postsecondary education, the accommodations decision-making process, and the association of accommodations to academic discipline. Finally, limitations and future research directions in the assembled body of research literature are presented as reported by the researchers.

Publication Type

The results of the review process showed a total of 48 studies about accommodations were published during the period from January 2009 through December 2010. As shown in Figure 1, of these 48 studies, 36 were journal articles, 10 were dissertations, and 2 were published professional reports released by research organizations (e.g., National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Oregon Behavioral Research and Teaching).

Figure 1. Percentage of Accommodations Studies by Publication Type

Dissertation(n=10)

21%

Journal(n=36)75%

Report(n=2)4%

The total number of studies published on accommodations in 2009-2010 (n=48) increased since the previous report examining accommodations research published in 2007-2008 (n=40). There was also an increase in the number of journal articles (n=25 in 2007-2008; n=36 in 2009-2010),

4 5NCEO NCEO

and a slight decrease in the number of dissertations published on accommodations (n=13 in 2007-2008; n=10 in 2009-2010). The increase in journal articles included in this report may be due, in part, to an increased number of journals that published research on accommodations in 2009-2010. The report on accommodations research in 2007-2008 included articles from 19 journals; the articles described in the current report were found in 24 journals.

Purposes of the Research

A number of purposes were identified in the accommodations research published in 2009 and 2010. Table 1 provides a view of the predominant focus of each of these 48 studies. In some cases, a work had only one expressed purpose; this describes 11 of the studies (see Appendix A-1). The majority of studies sought to accomplish multiple purposes. In those cases, we identi-fied the “primary purpose” according to the title of the work or the first-mentioned purpose in the text of the work.

Table 1. Primary Purpose of Reviewed Research

Purpose Number of Studies

Compare scores only students with disabilities (7 studies) only students without disabilities (0 studies) both students with and without disabilities (8 studies)

15

Study/compare perceptions and preferences about use 11

Compare test items 6

Evaluate test structure 5

Summarize research on test accommodations 4

Report on implementation practices and accommodations use 3

Investigate test validity 3

Identify predictors of the need for test accommodations 1

Discuss issues 0

Total 48

The most common primary purpose for research published during 2009-2010 was to report on the effect of accommodations on test scores (31%), through comparing scores of students who received accommodations to those who did not. The next most common primary purpose was studying perceptions of the accommodations and preferences between or among a small num-ber of accommodations of a certain type (23%). Other primary purposes included comparing test items, which refers to whether item difficulty or other item-specific content validity issues changed when test format changed from print-based to electronic (e.g., Kim & Huynh, 2010), or to audio presentation (e.g., Cook et al., 2009), among others. The purpose of evaluating test

structure focused on the effects of accommodations on academic constructs. Factor structure was examined by comparing the tests with and without accommodations.

We identified the primary purpose of summarizing research in works that were expressly written as literature reviews; for example, Lindstrom (2010) inquired about the impact of different types of accommodations on the mathematics test scores of students with high-incidence disabilities. The purpose of reporting on implementation practices and accommodations use was fairly un-common as a primary study purpose, yet an example was when Johnstone and his colleagues (2009) inquired about factors that may have affected use of assistive technology.

The investigation of test validity was the primary purpose of only three studies (Elliott et al., 2010; Laitusis, 2010; Lovett et al., 2010). For example, Laitusis (2010) used an external validation measure of teacher rating of comprehension abilities to analyze correlational data and regression procedures to examine possible connections with comprehension as measured by a standardized test both with and without a form of the oral presentation accommodation. The least common primary purpose was to identify predictors of the need for test accommodations, which was the primary focus of one study (Cawthon, 2009) in which relationships across instructional factors and the effect of accommodations use were explored (see Appendix A-2).

Table 2 provides a more detailed view of the body of literature showing the multiple purposes of many studies. For example, some efforts included analyses of score comparisons between students with disabilities and students without disabilities when using accommodations, yet also sought students’ comments through survey or interview about their test-taking experience.

Table 2. All Purposes of Reviewed Research

PurposeProportion of

Studiesa

Compare scores only students with disabilities (19%) only students without disabilities (2%) both students with and without disabilities (31%)

52%

Study/compare perceptions and preferences about use 40%

Discuss issues 38%

Report on implementation practices and accommodations use 21%

Compare test items 19%

Summarize research on test accommodations 17%

Evaluate test structure 10%

Investigate test validity 6%

Identify predictors of the need for test accommodations 2%a The total of these percentages is >100% due to the multiple purposes identified in most (37) of the studies; 23 of the studies had 2 identified purposes, and 14 of the studies had 3 identified purposes.

6 7NCEO NCEO

The most common single purpose of the 2009-2010 published studies was to demonstrate the effect of accommodations on test scores; this was included in over half of the works (52%). Study approaches either compared test scores of students with disabilities and students without disabilities when using accommodations, or compared test scores of students with disabilities when using and not using accommodations. The former approach was the most common, com-prising fully two-thirds of this category of research. An additional study (Lovett et al., 2010) considered the impact of using supports commonly implemented as accommodations—word-processing and extra time—on the quality of essay-based college-level course examinations completed only by students without disabilities. Another purpose we identified in over one-third of the studies was a focus on discussing issues, usually noted when the researchers offered a detailed consideration of a central issue related to accommodations. For instance, Bayles (2009) presented discussion related to instructional and curricular access for students with disabilities, Lazarus and her colleagues (2009) discussed the trend line of accommodations policy develop-ment, Freeland and her colleagues (2010) considered training and experience with technology as a possible intervening variable, and Lovett (2010) structured his literature review around answering questions about the extended-time accommodation.

The purpose of reporting on implementation practices and accommodations use was present in about

one-fifth of all studies. For instance, in the course of summarizing research about ac-

commodations in technology-supported assessments, Salend (2009) also reported about related accommodations practices. The purpose of comparing test items co-occurred in many studies on comparing scores between accommodated and non-accommodated tests, yet added the focus on analyzing differential item functioning (DIF). For instance, Stone and her colleagues (2010) examined differential benefits of standard print, large-print, and braille formats for students with and without blindness or visual impairments. We made a judgment call as to which of these purposes was predominant for these types of studies, tending to note that comparing scores came first in the study text or encompassed more of the results reporting than comparing items. The purpose of summarizing accommodations research was identified when the researcher included a comprehensive review of literature; other than those studies that were written as literature reviews, examples of the level of comprehensiveness we sought occurred in dissertations where another purpose predominated but a substantive research summary was also completed.

Research Type and Data Collection Source

Just over half of the accommodations research reviewed here used a quasi-experimental research design to gather data on the research purposes. As seen in Table 3, the number of descriptive quantitative research studies decreased slightly in 2010 compared to 2009, while the number of studies using a quasi-experimental design remained about the same. Though few studies were

reported to use experimental, longitudinal, or meta-analytic designs, these categories also were rarely included in past reports. The data reported here may reflect an increase in the use of these designs in accommodations research. Furthermore, there appeared to be a large difference be-tween data collection sources, with about twice as many studies using primary versus secondary sources of data overall and within each year. This is a change from the previous report, in which approximately equal numbers of studies used primary and secondary data sources. Primary data sources included actual data collection procedures that researchers undertook to obtain their data. Secondary data collection included the use of archival or extant data.

Table 3. Research Type and Data Collection Source by Year

Research Design Data Collection SourceResearch

Type Tools

Primary Secondary

2009 2010 2009 2010

Quasi-experimental 8 8 4 5 25

Descriptive quantitative 5 4 1 0 10

Descriptive qualitative 3 2 0 2 7

Correlation/prediction 0 1 1 0 2

Experimental 1 1 0 1 3

Longitudinal 0 0 0 0 0

Meta-Analysis 0 0 1 0 1

Year Totals 17 16 7 8 48

Source Totals Across Years 33 15 48

Data Collection Methods and Instruments

The researchers collected study data gathered through primary or secondary procedures using various methods and tools, as seen in Figure 2. The majority of the research included in this synthesis for 2009-2010 used data acquired through academic content testing. Just over half of the studies employed surveys to gather data. Interviews, observations, and focus groups were used much less frequently. For this analysis, we considered “articles” the method or source for those studies that reviewed research, including one study that employed formal meta-analysis. One study used state policies as the data source for the descriptive analyses completed. Fewer than half of the studies reported using more than one method or tool to gather data.

8 9NCEO NCEO

Figure 2. Data Collection Methods Used in 2009-2010 Research

17

1

2

3

3

7

25

31

Multiple

State Policy

Focus Group

Articles

Observation

Interview

Survey

Test

Met

hod

Number of Studies

Note: Of the 48 studies reviewed for this report, 12 reported using two data collection methods, and 5 reported using three data collection methods.

Nearly all of the studies used data collection instruments of one form or another; only four studies did not employ any instruments. Table 4 presents the types of data collection instruments used in studies. Surveys presented items of an attitudinal or self-report nature. Tests were course- or classroom-based. Assessments were statewide or large-scale in scope. Protocols refer to non-academic sets of questions, usually presented in an interview or focus group format. Measures referred to norm-referenced academic or cognitive instruments. All of these instruments were placed into five categories: protocols or surveys developed by study authors, norm-referenced cognitive ability measures, norm-referenced academic achievement measures, state criterion-referenced academic assessments. and surveys or academic tests developed by education profes-sionals or drawn by researchers from other sources. Non-test protocols developed by the author or authors of the studies – the most commonly-used instrument type – included performance tasks, questionnaires or surveys, and interview or focus-group protocols, among others. Surveys or academic tests developed by education professionals or researchers used sources outside of current studies, and were exemplified by attitudinal surveys such as the Attitudes Toward Requesting Accommodations (ATRA) scale, or by subsets of items drawn from released or otherwise-available pools such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, as well as course-content exams. State criterion-referenced assessments included those of Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin, as well as some from states that remained unidentified in the research. Norm-referenced academic achievement measures included the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT). Norm-referenced cognitive ability measures included the Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency (TOSWRF), among others. A substantial minority – 10 studies in all

—used instrumentation of more than one kind. Additionally, a small number of studies used multiple instruments in each of them, often of the same kind (Laitusis, 2010; Logan, 2009; Lovett et al., 2010; Parks, 2009). A small number (n=5) of the instruments was used in more than one study: Attitudes Toward Requesting Accommodations (ATRA) survey, the Principles and NCTM standards for school mathematics test, the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT), the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Academic Achievement measure, and the South Carolina Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (SC PACT) assessment. We present a complete listing of the instruments used in each of the studies in Appendix C, including the related studies that served as sources for these instruments, when available.

Table 4. Data Collection Instrument Types

Instrument Type Number of Studies

Non-academic protocols or surveys developed by study author/s 19

Surveys or academic tests developed by professionals or researchers using sources outside of current study

17

State criterion-referenced assessments 11

Norm-referenced academic achievement measures 8

Norm-referenced cognitive ability measures 2

None 4

Multiple (types) 10

Content Area Assessed

A number of studies published during 2009-2010 focused on accommodations used in certain academic content areas. As shown in Table 5, math and reading were the two most commonly assessed content areas. Table 5 also provides a comparison to content areas in NCEO’s previ-ous reports on accommodations (Cormier et al., 2010; Zenisky & Sireci, 2007). In general, the emphasis on reading and math is consistent across reviews. The number of studies on writing, social studies, and psychology has remained fairly consistent since 2005. An increase in science studies is apparent across years. There were no studies citing Civics/US History as a content area in the 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 reports. All studies published in 2009-2010 specified a content area. This is a change from past reports, in which at least one study did not cite the content area studied.

10 11NCEO NCEO

Table 5. Academic Content Area Assessed Across Three Reports

Content Area Assessed 2005-2006a 2007-2008b 2009-2010c

Mathematics 17 15 20

Reading 14 18 16

Writing 4 4 3

Other Language Artsd 9 4 4

Science 1 3 7

Social Studies 1 1 2

Civics/US History 1 0 0

Psychology 1 1 1

Not Specific 7 1 0

Multiple Content 14 10 13a Studies in 2005-2006 including examinations of more than one content area ranged in number of areas as-sessed from 2 to 6.b Studies in 2007-2008 including examinations of more than one content area ranged in number of areas as-sessed from 2 to 4.c Studies in 2009-2010 including examinations of more than one content area ranged in number of areas as-sessed from 2 to 5.d Detailed descriptions of what constituted ‘Other Language Arts’ for each of the four studies from 2009-2010 can be found in Appendix C, Table C-2.

Research Participants

Researchers drew participants from differing roles in education (see Figure 3 and Appendix D, Table D-1). A large majority studied only students – 32 of the 48 studies from 2009-2010. The next largest participant group studied was ‘educators only,’ describing or analyzing the educator perspective on accommodations. Additional data are reported about combinations of participant groups, as well as noting that some studies did not specify participants; these were usually the topical literature review documents.

Figure 3. Types of Research Participants

7

32

1

2

1

5

Educators only

Students only

Educators & Parents

Educators & Students

Educators, Parents, & Students

Not Applicable

Number of Studies

Part

icip

ant T

ype

Table 6 shows details about the size and composition of the participant groups in the research studies published during 2009 and 2010; this information is displayed in more detail by study in Appendix D. The size of the samples varied from 12 (Mastergeorge & Martinez, 2010) to 61,270 (Anjorin, 2009). In 2009-2010, there was a larger number of studies in which at least 50% of the participants were people with disabilities (n=17) than there were studies where at least 50% of the participants were people without disabilities (n=15). Eleven studies examined participant groups composed primarily of people with disabilities, which are reported in the 75-100% column. In fact, 10 of these 11 studies focused only on students with disabilities. Most studies involving participants with disabilities had numbers between 25-299, and only 2

studies had participant numbers of 1,000 or more. Alternately, studies with 24% or fewer of the participants having disabilities tended to number 1,000 participants or more. Also, the studies with mostly participants without disabilities included studies focused on educator input and perspectives.

Table 6. Participant Sample Sizes and Ratio of Individuals with Disabilities

Number of Research Participants by Study

Number of Studies by Proportion of Sample Comprising Individuals with Disabilities

0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-100% Unavail.1 Total

1-9 0 0 0 0 0 0

10-24 0 1 1 0 1 3

25-49 0 1 1 3 3 8

50-99 0 0 0 3 0 3

100-299 3 1 0 3 3 10

300-499 0 1 0 0 2 3

500-999 0 0 1 0 1 2

1000 or more 5 3 3 2 1 14

Total 8 7 6 11 11 432

1 11 of the studies did not specify the proportion of participants who had disabilities.2 5 of the studies did not specify the number of participants.

12 13NCEO NCEO

Analyzing the proportions more closely, a finer distinction is indicated in the center columns, in which the studies examined samples that had somewhat more participants without disabili-ties (25-49%) and somewhat more participants with disabilities (50-74%). These two columns have almost equivalent overall numbers, with a total of 6-7 studies in each. These studies, with relatively similar ratios of people with and without disabilities, tended to examine data from at least 500 participants (n=7) compared with 2 studies with 100-499 participants, and 4 studies with 10-49 participants. Finally, about ¼ of the studies with participant numbers reported did not specify the proportions of participants with or without disabilities; 7 of these 11 studies collected data only from educator participants.

School Level

Research on accommodations published during 2009 and 2010 involved kindergarten through college-aged participants (see Table 7). Previous reports included research with participants in kindergarten through postsecondary (see Appendix D for more detail); the category postsecond-ary/college represents a change from past reports.

As seen in Table 7, a plurality of the studies published in 2009 and 2010 focused on middle school students (n=18). Thirteen studies involved elementary school students, and ten involved high school students. About one quarter of the studies (n=12) involved samples from across more than one grade-level cluster; most of these studies included relatively larger groups of 50 or more participants (about 67%), and secondary data sources (see Appendices B and D). Put another way, these multiple grade-level studies were primarily analyses of extant large-scale as-sessment data sets, often drawn at the state level. Although not more common than K-12 studies, there was a noteworthy number of studies that examined accommodations use and implementa-tion at the postsecondary/college level. Twelve studies did not involve students as participants.

Table 7. Grade Level of Research Participants

Education Level of Participants in Studies Number of Studies

Elementary school (K-5) 13

Middle school (6-8) 18

High school (9-12) 10

Postsecondary 7

Multiple grade-level clusters 12

Not applicable (No age) 12

Disability Categories

A broad range of disability categories was included in samples in the 2009-2010 research (see Appendix D for details). As shown in Table 8, seven studies did not specify disability categories of participants, and eight studies did not include students in the sample. Of the remaining 33 studies, the most commonly studied disability category was learning disabilities (n = 26); nine of these studies had only participants with learning disabilities. In comparison to the previous reporting period, 2007-2008, the proportion of studies with participants with learning disabilities changed from about three-eighths of the studies to over half of the studies. Approximately one third of these remaining 33 studies included participants with an attention problem, an emotional behavioral disability, blindness/visual impairment, or deafness/hearing impairment. The least common disability category was autism, and all of the studies specifying that category also included participants with other categories as well. Sixteen studies included participant groups with various disabilities, rather than all having one specific category of disability. Only eight studies reported participants with “multiple disabilities”; that is, they included participants who each had more than one disability identified.

Table 8. Disabilities Reported for Research Participants

Disabilities of Research Participants Number of Studies

Learning disabilities 26

Attention problem 11

Emotional behavioral disability 11

Blindness/Visual impairment 10

Deafness/Hearing impairment 9

Physical disabilitya 9

Speech/Language 7

Intellectual disabilitiesb 8

Autism 5

Multiple disabilitiesc 8

No disability 11

Not specifiedd 7

Not applicablee 8a Physical disability = mobility and/or impairment with arm use.b Intellectual disabilities = students who were referred to as having “mental retardation” in previous report; also, this number includes one European study (Peltenburg et al., 2009) that applied the term “learning disability” to its participants who were reportedly ages 8-12 but were identified as appropriate for assessment items at the educational level of grade 2.c Multiple disabilities = individual students who were specifically categorized as having more than one disability.

14 15NCEO NCEO

d Not specified = those studies or reviews (3) of studies that did not report about or provide detail as to the partici-pants’ disabilities.e Not applicable = those documents that had only non-students as participants; this includes an NCEO policy review.

Types of Accommodations

The number of times specific categories of accommodations were included in 2009-2010 published research is summarized in Table 8. Presentation accommodations were the most fre-quently studied category (n=28), and within this category the most common accommodations were read-aloud (n=20) and computer administration (n=9). The next most frequent category studied was response, and in that category, computer administration (n=9) was the most com-mon accommodation. It should be noted that the computer administration accommodation fits into three categories: presentation, equipment/materials, and response. Several studies (n=15) analyzed accommodations from more than one category. Three studies – Bayles (2009), Bublitz (2009), and Mastergeorge and Martinez (2010) – examined accommodations as naturalistically identified in students’ IEPs, but were not specified by the researchers. One study – Altman et al. (2010) – examined accommodations naturalistically identified in students’ IEPs, but these were too numerous to mention, and their specific effects on score data were not the central focus of the study. A complete listing of accommodations studied is provided in Appendix E.

Table 8. Accommodations in Reviewed Research

Accommodation Category Number of Studies

Presentation 28

Equipment/Materials 10

Response 19

Timing/Scheduling 16

Setting 9

Multiple accommodations 15

Research Findings

The findings of the body of research literature on accommodations published from 2009-2010 are summarized in Tables 9-19. We present information according to the nature of the studies, in keeping with their varying purposes and focuses. The findings included reviews of percep-tions about accommodations, including those of student test-takers as well as educators and other stakeholders, primarily parents. We summarize the findings of the research on specific accommodations, including read-aloud, computerized administration, extended-time, calcula-tor, and aggregated sets of accommodations commonly called “bundles.” We also summarize the findings on unique accommodations – those examined in only one study each – including

scribing, word-processing, a virtual manipulative tool, a resource guide modification, American sign language (ASL) via avatar, and braille and large-print. Separate summaries of findings include varying implementation conditions as well as incidence of use of various accommoda-tions across large data sets. The findings from studies in postsecondary educational contexts, which have numbered about 6-7 in 2005-2006, 2007-2008, and 2009-2010, receive separate attention. We also report separately accommodations decision making as addressed by five studies. This report also presents findings by academic content areas: math, reading, writing, other language arts, science, and social studies. In Appendix F, we provide substantial detail on an individual study level.

Impact of Accommodations

Research examining the effect of accommodations on assessment performance for students with disabilities comprised 34 studies published in 2009 and 2010 (see Table 9; see also Appendix F, Tables F-1 to F-6 for details about each study of this type). In a continuing trend, oral adminis-tration, or the “read-aloud” accommodation, was the single most investigated accommodation in 2009-2010, with nearly one-third of the accommodation-specific studies (n=11). Several of the studies found that the academic construct was not altered by the inclusion of read-aloud to support test-takers. Three studies indicated that read-aloud provided a differential boost for students with disabilities in comparison with students without disabilities, while two studies showed that read-aloud helped to improve performance for all students, and one study showed that it helped improve scores for students with disabilities in comparison to their scores without read-aloud. One of the studies finding differential boost reported the effects of read-aloud alone although it actually implemented the read-aloud accommodation in an accommodations bundle that included 150% extended-time and recording answers in the test booklet. (See Appendix F, Table F-1.)

Computerized administration was another frequently-examined accommodation in the 2009-2010 published literature, with seven studies. The findings were somewhat mixed, with some studies affirming this test mode as supporting construct validity and the needs of students with disabilities, and others finding the opposite. Three studies indicated that this accommodation helped to improve performance of students with disabilities, yet one study found that there was no difference in test results for students with learning disabilities. One study indicated that test mode had no effect on the test construct, and one study – a meta-analysis of 81 studies – indi-cated that the computerized presentation of tests was comparable to paper-based assessments in science, but not in reading or other language arts, not in social studies, and not in mathematics. Finally, one study (Russell et al., 2009b) examined the relative impact of two different ways of providing ASL – through a recording of a human signing and an avatar signing – and found that neither had more impact on test scores of students with hearing impairments or deafness than the other. (See Appendix F, Table F-2.)

16 17NCEO NCEO

The extended-time accommodation was examined primarily as to its impact on assessment scores of students with disabilities. In comparison with no additional time, students with disabilities did not score differently when given extended-time to complete testing, according to three studies. Alternately, two studies indicated that, in comparison with students without disabilities, students with disabilities differentially benefited from extended-time – that is, extended-time provided a “differential boost” for students with disabilities. (See Appendix F, Table F-3.)

Effects of the calculator accommodation were explored in three studies. One study found that students without disabilities were provided a differential boost when using a graphing calculator, in comparison with students with disabilities. Another study comparing performance of students with learning disabilities and students with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder who received or did not receive the calculator accommodation resulted in no improvement in performance and no overall decrease in math anxiety for students in either group – in fact, some individual students with disabilities experienced higher math anxiety when using the calculator accom-modation. The third study yielded no difference in scores when using a graphing calculator compared with using a four-function calculator for either students with disabilities or students without disabilities. (See Appendix F, Table F-4.)

Two studies scrutinized effects of different aggregated sets of accommodations – also called accommodations bundles. One study combined unique extended-time and unique read-aloud approaches, comparing effects for accommodated and standard administrations for students with disabilities and students without disabilities, and reported that the accommodations package helped to improve scores of all students – both those with and those without disabilities – yet not consistently across both accommodations. Another study compared performance when provided IEP-specified accommodations for students with disabilities as well as teacher-recommended accommodations for students without accommodations to performance when provided with a package of accommodations – read-aloud directions, paraphrase directions, verbal encour-agement, and extended-time – for students with disabilities and students without disabilities. Most students with disabilities (78%) benefited from accommodations in comparison to the no accommodations condition, and about half of the scores of students without disabilities (55%) improved, although about the same proportion of scores of the students without disabilities improved from the teacher-specified accommodations as improved from the standard package of accommodations. (See Appendix F, Table F-5.)

We categorized six studies as having inspected the effect of unique accommodations – that is, accommodations included in only one study. Most of these studies considered accommoda-tions that were novel or otherwise not typical in their design or implementation. For instance, a virtual manipulative tool offered through a computer-based test platform assisted with basic operations for most students with learning disabilities (Peltenburg et al., 2009), as defined in the

Netherlands context, in which students ages 8-12 were performing at the level of “end Grade 2” (p. 276). (See Table 9 for detail about findings of each study; also, see Appendix F, Table F-6.)

Table 9. Summary of Research Findings by Specific Accommodation

Accommodation Studied (total) Finding Number of

Studies

Read-aloud (11)

Did not alter the construct being tested 5

Provided a differential boost for scores of students with dis-abilities compared to those of students without disabilities

3

Improved performance of all students 2

Improved performance of students with disabilities 1

Computerized administration (7)

Improved performance of students with disabilities 3

Did not improve performance of students with disabilities 1

Changed the construct being tested 1

Did not change the construct being tested 1

Two different types did not benefit students with disabilities more in comparison to one another

1

Extended-time (5)


Provided a differential boost for scores of students with dis-abilities compared to those of students without disabilities

2

Calculator (3)

Provided a differential boost for scores of students without disabilities compared to those of students with disabilities

1


Two different types did not benefit students with disabilities more in comparison to one another

1

Aggregated set (2)Had mixed effects on performance of students with disabilities 1

Had positive effect on scores for students without disabilities 1

Partial scribing (1)

Perceptions of students, parents, and teachers varied about familiarity with implementation practices, including “partial scribing” method, during state English and mathematics as-sessments

1

Word-processing (1)

During course examinations, college students typed more words in the essay and speed tasks than they handwrote, but there were no differences in quality measures; in combina-tion with extended-time, word-processed essays increased in length and improved in quality in comparison to handwritten essays

1

18 19NCEO NCEO

Accommodation Studied (total) Finding Number of

Studies

Virtual manipula-tives (1)

Improved performance of most students with LD (as defined in Netherlands context) even when this “100 board” was not fully used for every mathematics item

1

Resource guide (modification) (1)

Had negative effect on scores for grade 4 and grade 7 stu-dents with disabilities, and mixed effects on performance for students without disabilities, on state reading assessment

1

ASL via avatar (1)

Had no different effect on scores for students who were deaf or had hearing impairments, at varying performance levels, in comparison with ASL accommodation through recorded human interpreters. About 2/3 of test-takers expressed prefer-ence for human interpreter, and 1/3 expressed preference for avatar interpreter.

1

Braille and large-print (1)

Had mixed effects on students who were blind or had visual impairments, varying by grade level (grades 4 and 8) and by ELA area (reading and writing), in comparison with students without disabilities.

1

Perceptions about Accommodations

Table 10 shows the results of research on perceptions about accommodations. More than one-half of the studies (n=9) reported on student perceptions, with most of those studies (n=5) relating to preferring one accommodation of some kind over another – for instance, some students preferred the human ASL interpreter over an avatar (Russell et al., 2009b). Further, student preferences tended to support computerized test administration over a paper-and-pencil format, according to three studies (Arce-Ferrer & Guzman, 2009; Kingston, 2009; Russell et al., 2009a), although one study (Lee et al., 2010) found the opposite. Students also indicated a complicated view of the modifications in one study (Roach et al., 2010) and of the accommodations in another study (Logan, 2009). The perceptions of educators about accommodations were mixed in three studies, and were primarily positive in one study. The mixed nature of educator perceptions was related in one study to a concern about altering the exam itself (Byrd, 2010), yet many educators affirmed the inherent value of supporting students through test accommodations but with reservations (Zhang et al., 2010). One study noted that educators tended to support IEP-specified accom-modations, but not accommodations that were not planned in advance (Elliott et al., 2009). One study indicated that educators had primarily a positive view of accommodations, due in part to the fairness in test results that they established (Mastergeorge & Martinez, 2010). One study presented the varying understandings and frames of reference on accommodations for research participants, including students, teachers, and parents (Jordan, 2009). (See Appendix F, Table F-7 for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)

Table 10. Summary of Research Findings on Perceptions about Accommodations

Study FindingsNumber of

Studies

Student perceptions indicated a preference for one accommodation over others 5

Educator perceptions were mixed regarding use of accommodations 3

Participant groups had differing perspectives about accommodations provided 1

Student perceptions were mixed about the accommodations studied 2

Student perceptions were mixed about the modifications studied 1

Findings were inconclusive about student’s perceptions of accommodations 1

Educator perceptions were mostly positive about use of accommodations, and sup-portive of equal treatment of test results for tests using accommodations

1

Implementation and Use of Accommodations

Table 11 shows several studies (n=10) that reported on incidence of accommodations use and implementation-related matters. Most of these findings (n=7) reported on common accommoda-tions in use in various settings and with specific disability categories; for instance, five studies indicated that the state assessments examined most commonly offered small group administration as an accommodation. Findings also focused on the manner in which some accommodations are implemented, with one study reporting on the computer as medium for different accommo-dations practices (Salend, 2009), and another on implementation of read aloud (Lazarus et al., 2009). Finally, one study expounded the variety of factors associated with the implementation of accommodations, including educator training and knowledge (Bayles, 2009). (See Appendix F, Table F-8 for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)

Table 11. Summary of Research Findings on the Implementation of Accommodations


Studies

The most common accommodation involved small group administration 5

Common accommodations for students with visual impairments on reading assess-ments included audio recordings, enlarged print or page, read-aloud by teacher, and magnification tools, as well as tactile graphics on mathematics assessments

2

Accommodations presented through computer-based platforms have had variations in their implementation

1

The read-aloud accommodation has had variations in its implementation 1

Educators have had varying degrees of familiarity with accommodations, depending in part on school grade level

1

Table 9. Summary of Research Findings by Specific Accommodation (continued)

20 21NCEO NCEO

Accommodations in Postsecondary Education

Table 12 presents a set of research findings for nine studies that were focused specifically on accommodations in educational settings beyond the K-12 school setting. This report marks the first time we have separated these findings from the findings for other groups. Studies sought to investigate effects of accommodations on test performance, test-takers’ experiences using accommodations, and stakeholder groups’ perceptions of accommodations, along with imple-mentation and decision-making issues. The studies (n=4) on the perceptions of postsecondary students with disabilities of accommodations provided insights into factors that were related to students’ decisions to seek accommodations support in coursework and course examinations – including aspects of the university size and type (relative enrollment numbers and public or private institution), as well as the learning environment (in-person or online), and the nature of disabilities (visible or invisible to peers or others). Another group of findings pertained to accom-modation effects; computerized administration compared favorably to paper-and-pencil format, and extended-time added complexity to the effects (Lee et al., 2010); further, word-processed essays composed with extended-time were scored highly, yet there were mitigating elements limiting this pattern (Lovett et al., 2010); and finally, students with disabilities completing selected response course exams performed equivalently to their peers without disabilities (Ricketts et al., 2010). (See Appendix F, Table F-9 for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)

Table 12. Summary of Research Findings on Accommodations at the Postsecondary Level


Studies

Perceptions of university students with disabilities about whether they sought ac-commodations varied, and were affected by university characteristics, the learning environment, and the relative visibility or invisibility of their disabilities, among other factors.

4

University student performance on course-related exams improved with various accommodations under specified conditions, and students preferred some accom-modations over others.

3

University faculty perceptions about accommodations were primarily positive, and students had a sense that their professors were supportive in providing accommo-dations; faculty perceptions may have been specific to types of accommodations, were related to personal beliefs about education of students with disabilities, knowl-edge about legal responsibilities, and institutional support, among other factors.

2

Accommodations Decision-making Process

Another small number of studies (n=5) provided insight into the nature of, and factors related to, the process of selecting accommodations (i.e., accommodations decision making). Research

findings are presented in Table 13. Two of these studies (Bublitz, 2009; Mariano et al., 2009) focused only on seeking findings about accommodations decision making, whereas the other three studies (Altman et al., 2010; Cawthon, 2010; Lovett, 2010) also reported additional find-ings other than those pertaining to decision making. Three studies specifically examined fac-tors that influence decision making. For instance, one study (Mariano et al., 2009) compared educator training on different decision-making models, and the possible effects of educators trained with one model recommending significantly more presentation accommodations than educators trained with the other model. Two studies relayed educators’ conscious considerations in selecting accommodations. For instance, one study (Cawthon, 2010) identified the pieces of evidence that educators of students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing used in decision making. (See Appendix F, Table F-10 for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)

Table 13. Summary of Research Findings on Accommodations Decision-making Processes


Studies

Researchers factored out considerations best influencing and not influencing ac-commodations selection decisions

3

Educators reported about considerations in making accommodations selection decisions

2

Accommodations by Academic Content Assessments

For the first time in this report, we analyzed findings according to academic content area. This focus reflected a recognition that many accommodations are associated with specific academic content. Some examples of these cases include: calculators for math and science assessments, and word-processing for writing assessments or constructed responses on reading, other English language arts assessments, and science assessments. Some accommodations, such as oral ad-ministration, may be presented differently depending on the academic construct being assessed.

We present findings for each content area here according to the frequency with which the content areas were identified in the set of 48 research studies reviewed: 27 findings from 20 studies in mathematics, 20 findings from 16 studies in reading, 7 findings from 7 studies in science, 4 find-ings from 4 studies in other language arts, 3 findings from 3 studies in writing, and 2 findings from 2 studies in social studies (see Figure 4). Analysis of findings for each content area are the same as those we employed earlier in this report, including the impact of accommodations on assessment performance, perceptions about accommodations, construct validity of accom-modated assessments, and matters of implementation and instances of use of accommodations.

22 23NCEO NCEO

Figure 4. Research Findings by Content Area

27

18

7

5

3

2

Mathematics

Reading

Science

Writing

Other Language Arts

Social Studies

Number of Findings

Con

tent

Are

a

Note: The number of findings does not equate with the number of studies, because many studies reported more than one finding.

Table 14 displays the 27 research findings for accommodations in 20 studies of mathematics assessments, sorted by frequency according to the nature of the findings. The most common individual finding was that accommodations did not change the mathematics construct or constructs assessed, noted in five studies. These studies focused on over 10 accommodations, including calculator, read-aloud directions, read-aloud questions, alternate test setting, extended-time, computerized administration, small group administration, and checking comprehension of directions. Eleven of the math findings were unique; we present them individually in Table 14 and Table F-11, by signifying that only one study produced each of the findings.

Twelve studies of mathematics provided insights on the performance of students using accom-modations – including one study examining the impact of modifications (Elliott et al., 2010). Half of the performance findings (n=6) resulted from a comparison of scores between students with disabilities and students without disabilities, and these findings diverged widely from one another. Four findings pertained to the differential score increases that accommodations brought to some students in comparison to others; these findings were for teacher-recommended accom-modations and a standard accommodations package (Elliott et al., 2009), as well as computerized administration (Russell et al., 2009a), a virtual manipulative tool (Peltenburg et al., 2009), and various modifications (Roach et al., 2010). However, three findings indicated that both students with disabilities and students without disabilities improved when provided supports – such as four-function and graphing calculators (Bouck, 2010) and some specific modifications (Elliott et al., 2010), and one study using the graphing calculator yielded that not all students with dis-abilities improved in scores (Bouck, 2009). Further, two studies found that accommodations did not assist students with disabilities in improving more than students without disabilities, and

one study (Lindstrom, 2010) found that students without disabilities improved more when using read-aloud accommodations than did students with disabilities. In the remaining two studies, the findings were complex in the literature review (Lindstrom, 2010), and the other (Parks, 2009) found that calculator use did not improve test results.

In the other six studies, which compared effects of accommodations use to non-use for students with disabilities, there was more concurrence in the findings. Three studies found that these students’ scores were higher for those using supports than those who did not. These studies in-volved the following supports: virtual manipulative tool (Peltenburg et al., 2009), a set of accom-modations offered through an online platform (Russell et al., 2009a), and a set of modifications (Roach et al., 2010). Two studies compared the relative benefit of two accommodations of the same type, and found that neither supported students with disabilities more than the other. The accommodations were four-function and graphing calculators (Bouck, 2001), and American Sign Language (ASL) through recording of human or avatar signer (Russell et al., 2009b). Finally, only one study found that students with disabilities scored essentially the same whether using accommodations or not (Freeland et al., 2010).

Approximately one-fourth of the findings (n=7) pertained to perceptions about accommodations offered in math testing, and most of the perspectives reported (n=6) were those of the test-takers themselves. In two studies, students with disabilities in general offered information about ac-commodations preferences including that accommodations offered through a computer-based test administration platform are preferable to their previous testing experiences in which ac-commodations are offered in non-digital formats (Russell et al., 2009a; Russell et al., 2009b), and that they prefer a specific version of an American Sign Language (ASL) – when humans sign rather than avatars signing (Russell et al., 2009b). When comparing perceptions about ac-commodations between students with disabilities and others, two studies found apparent con-tradictions: that students with ADHD and LD experienced higher anxiety during the test than students without disabilities, and sustained the anxiety whether or not they received a calculator accommodation (Parks, 2009), yet that students with a typical variety of disabilities had similar preferences for using calculators as students without disabilities (Bouck, 2010). Additionally, one study (Jordan, 2009) reported on the differing views of students with disabilities and their educators and parents. Two other studies reported their uniquely specific findings about the effect of accommodations on students’ (Roach et al., 2010) and educators’ perspectives (Mastergeorge & Martinez, 2010).

Finally, two studies reported patterns of use of specific accommodations – one comparing stu-dents with disabilities and students without disabilities (Bouck, 2010), and the other comparing students with disabilities and their educators (Schoch, 2010). A single study (Cawthon, 2010) reported findings related to educators’ accommodations decision-making processes and accom-

24 25NCEO NCEO

modations practices. (See Appendix F, Table F-11 for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)

Table 14. Summary of Research Findings on Accommodations in Mathematics Assessments (from 20 studies)


Studies

PERFORMANCE 12

All Students 6

The accommodations and modifications DID NOT provide a differential boost for scores of students with disabilities as compared to those of students without dis-abilities; all students benefited from the accommodations

2

The accommodations provided a differential boost for scores of students without disabilities as compared to those of students with disabilities as a whole; NOT all students with disabilities benefited from the accommodations

1

The accommodations provided a differential boost for scores of students with dis-abilities as compared to those of students without disabilities; all students benefited from the accommodations

1

Students with disabilities and students without disabilities who used the accommo-dations experienced mixed results in comparison to one another and in comparison to those who did not use accommodations

1

Students with disabilities and students without disabilities who used accommoda-tions did NOT perform significantly better than those who did not use accommoda-tions

1

Students with Disabilities 6

Students with disabilities who used the accommodations performed significantly better than those who did not use the accommodations

3

Students with disabilities using two different accommodations benefited from nei-ther accommodation more in comparison to the other

2

Students with disabilities who used the accommodations DID NOT perform signifi-cantly better than those who did not use accommodations

1

PERCEPTIONS 7

Students’ and other participant groups’ perceptions differed or were mixed regard-ing the accommodations studied

2

Students with disabilities expressed preference for one version of an accommoda-tion over another

2

Students with disabilities and students without disabilities indicated similar benefits when using accommodations

1

Educators evidenced no bias in rating scores of students with disabilities in com-parison with scores of students without disabilities

1

Students with disabilities indicated benefits when using accommodations 1

VALIDITY 5

The accommodations DID NOT change the construct/s 5

INCIDENCE OF USE 2

Students with and without disabilities reported similar accommodations use pat-terns

1

Educators and students reported about their accommodations use patterns 1

DECISION MAKING 1

Educators reported about their decision-making processes and accommodations practices for assessments

1

Note: Some of these 20 studies reported support for more than one category of findings.

Table 15 details the 18 findings for accommodations in reading assessments. Similar to the math findings, the finding with the researchers agreeing most, in 6 studies, was that the ac-commodations on the reading assessments did not change the academic construct or constructs being tested. The accommodations examined included read-aloud (Cook et al., 2009; Cook et al., 2010; Snyder, 2010), computerized administration (Kingston, 2009), various state-allowed accommodations (Roxbury, 2010), and braille (Stone et al., 2010).

Seven studies reported findings about the performance of students using test supports – includ-ing three studies examining impact of modifications. Most of the performance findings (n=5) resulted from a comparison of scores between students with disabilities and students without disabilities, and these findings were mostly convergent on the point that accommodations like read-aloud (Cook et al., 2009) or modifications (Elliott et al., 2010; Randall & Engelhard, 2010; Roach et al., 2010) supported students both with and without disabilities. From among all of the data of these four studies, there was only one instance of differential benefit in comparing students with disabilities and students without disabilities: the grade 3 students with disabilities using the read-aloud modification on the reading assessment improved more than their peers without disabilities, although this differential benefit was not present for the grade 7 students in the same study (Randall & Engelhard, 2010). In contrast, two studies found that accommoda-tions benefited students with disabilities more than students without disabilities. These studies examined a bundled set of accommodations (Fletcher et al., 2009) and read-aloud for students with learning disabilities (Laitusis, 2010). The remaining performance study, comparing ac-commodations use and non-use for students with disabilities, found that students with visual

Table 14. Summary of Research Findings on Accommodations in Mathematics Assessments (continued)

26 27NCEO NCEO

impairments scored essentially the same whether using various unspecified access technologies or not (Freeland et al., 2010).

A small number of the findings (n=3) pertained to perceptions about accommodations offered on reading assessments. These studies generally supported the idea that the perceptions were mixed; that is, use of accommodations was not reflected in only positive attitudes and feel-ings. Each of the three studies demonstrated more complex results. One study (Jordan, 2009) reported on the views of students with disabilities and their educators and parents. In another study (Logan, 2009), the researchers found unexpected results: students with a set of motiva-tions or attitudes, termed “achievement goals” according to the questionnaire, did not have positive experiences using accommodations on the reading assessment. The last study of this type (Roach et al., 2010) yielded uniquely specific findings about students’ preferences for or against the available accommodations.

Finally, one study (Roxbury, 2010) reported patterns of use of accommodations, comparing stu-dents with disabilities and students without disabilities. Another study (Cawthon, 2010) reported findings related to educators’ accommodations decision-making processes and accommodations practices. (See Appendix F, Table F-12 for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)

Table 15. Summary of Research Findings on Accommodations in Reading Assessments (from 16 studies)


Studies

PERFORMANCE 7

All Students 6

The modifications and accommodations assisted students with disabilities and students without disabilities in improving assessment performance

4


1

Students with disabilities using two different accommodations benefited from one accommodation more in comparison to the other, and the same accommodation provided a differential boost for scores of students with disabilities as compared to those of students without disabilities

1


Students with disabilities who used accommodations did NOT perform significantly better than those who did not use accommodations

1

VALIDITY 6

The accommodations DID NOT change the construct/s1 6

PERCEPTIONS 3

Students and other participant groups differed or were mixed about perceptions regarding the accommodations studied

3

INCIDENCE OF USE 1

Students not provided accommodations (without disabilities) performed better than students provided accommodations (with disabilities)

1

DECISION MAKING 1


1

Note: Some of these 16 studies reported support for more than one category of findings. 1 This finding indicates that read-aloud served not as a modification on the reading test, but rather was an accommodation.

Table 16 presents the findings for the science assessment accommodations. The most common individual finding was that accommodations did not change the science construct or constructs assessed, a finding supported by four studies. The accommodations examined included read-aloud (Kim et al., 2009a; Kim et al., 2009b), computerized administration (Kingston, 2009), and various state-allowed accommodations (Roxbury, 2010). The remaining three studies reported unique findings, each not supporting the others. Two of the findings pertained to the effects of accommodations on performance. In a comparison of the science scores of students with dis-abilities and students without disabilities, the standard accommodations package assisted both groups in improving their scores, yet students with disabilities benefited differentially more than their peers without disabilities (Elliott et al., 2009). In a comparison of the assessment results of students with disabilities using accommodations with those not using accommodations, both groups had similar results, indicating no benefit of access technologies on a computer-based test (Freeland et al., 2010). The last study (Cawthon, 2010) provided insights into the accom-modations decision-making process for special educators. (See Appendix F, Table F-13 for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)

28 29NCEO NCEO

Table 16. Summary of Research Findings on Accommodations in Science Assessments (from 7 studies)


Studies

VALIDITY 4


PERFORMANCE 2

All Students 1


1



1

DECISION MAKING 1


1

Table 17 shows findings of four studies on accommodations offered in assessments on “other language arts,” an academic construct which explicitly excludes reading and writing. This narrow body of literature yielded five separate findings, most of which illuminated the area of construct validity, but with divergent results. Two studies (Finch et al., 2009; Kim & Huynh, 2010) indicated that the tests with accommodations did not change the academic constructs tested by the non-accommodated assessment, while one study (Kingston, 2009) indicated that accommodations changed the construct. One study (Kim & Huynh, 2010) informed the impact of accommodations on performance, comparing scores of students with disabilities and students without disabilities, in both conditions of testing with and without accommodations. This study found that students with disabilities did not benefit from using accommodations and that students without disabilities did benefit from accommodations, at a minimal yet significant degree. Fi-nally, one study (Mastergeorge & Martinez, 2010) demonstrated that educators had primarily a positive view of accommodations, due in part to the fairness in test results that they established. (See Appendix F, Table F-14 for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)

Table 17. Summary of Research Findings on Accommodations in Other Language Arts Assessments (from 4 studies)


Studies

VALIDITY 3


The accommodations changed the construct/s 1

PERFORMANCE 1

All Students 1

Students with disabilities who used accommodations DID NOT perform significantly better than those who did not use accommodations; students without disabilities who used accommodations performed significantly better yet at a minimal increase over those who did not use accommodations

1

PERCEPTIONS 1

Educators evidenced no bias in rating scores of students with disabilities in com-parison with scores of students without disabilities

1

Note: Some of these 4 studies reported support for more than one category of findings.

Table 18 shows findings of three studies on accommodations in writing assessments. The majority of the findings (n=2) pertain to construct validity, converging to indicate that accommodations did not change the writing constructs assessed (Cook et al., 2010; Stone et al., 2010). One study (Lovett et al., 2010) compared scores of students with disabilities who tested with accommoda-tions to those who did not do so. The result of this study indicated that students with disabilities showed no improvement when using accommodations. (See Appendix F, Table F-15 for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)

Table 18. Summary of Research Findings on Accommodations in Writing Assessments (from 3 studies)


Studies

VALIDITY 2


PERFORMANCE 1



1

30 31NCEO NCEO

The fewest findings were reported about accommodations used in social studies assessments (see Table 19). Both of the studies (Freeland et al., 2010; Kingston, 2009) reporting these findings were not solely focused on analyzing data from social studies tests, but rather had included this content area along with assessment scores from tests in math, reading, and science, among others. Accommodations did not support students with disabilities to improve their scores over when they had taken the test without accommodations – in fact, students with visual impairments and students with total blindness scored higher without access technologies than with them (Freeland et al., 2010). Pertaining to construct validity, the other study – a meta-analysis of two studies with social studies scores – found that test-takers scored higher on computer-administered tests than the tests presented in a standard administration, meaning that these assessments were test-ing qualitatively different academic constructs, but with a low effect size (Kingston, 2009). (See Appendix F, Table F-16 for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)

Table 19. Summary of Research Findings on Accommodations in Social Studies Assessments (from 2 studies)


Studies

PERFORMANCE 1



1

VALIDITY 1

The accommodations changed the construct/s 1

Across the academic content areas, accommodations research from 2009 through 2010 supported a few consistent findings. Regarding construct validity, the literature indicated that accommo-dated tests were not different from non-accommodated tests as far as the nature of the content being tested, as supported by 20 out of 21 findings. Regarding the impact of accommodations on assessment outcomes, the areas of convergence in the findings did not seem to cross academic content areas, at least beyond mathematics and reading. An exception to this pattern was that students with disabilities did not perform significantly better when provided accommodations than when not provided them for assessments on other language arts, writing, and social studies; however, these findings were reported by relatively few studies (n=3), so these are not necessarily strong conclusions. Alternately, most of the findings were narrowed to content areas, and were affected by limited numbers of studies. Findings about perceptions of accommodations varied, and only three academic content areas were studied – mathematics, reading, and other language arts. Research areas that had limited findings included accommodations decision making by

educators – represented by only one study (Cawthon, 2010) and incidence of accommodations use, which addressed only mathematics (n=2) and reading (n=1).

Limitations and Future Research

As is often the case in research, many of the studies reviewed discussed limitations in order to provide context for the results that were observed (n=38). As seen in Table 20, limitations were summarized under five broad categories. A study was counted for a given category when it provided at least one limitation under that category. A more comprehensive description of limitations for each individual study is available in Appendix G.

The most commonly cited category of limitations in the research was methodology, where fre-quently the use of bundled (vs. individually administered) accommodations and non-random sampling of participants were referenced. Many authors also identified sample characteristics as a limitation to the research. Specifically, common limitations were sample size and the rep-resentativeness of the samples obtained on variables such as age, grade level, and race. More detailed information regarding specific limitations of each study is also available in Appendix G-1.

Table 20. Categorized Limitations Identified by Authors

Limitation Category Number of Studiesa

Methodology 29

Sample Characteristics 22

Results 12

No Limitations Listed 10

Test/Test Context 8

Other 6aTwenty-six studies included more than one category of limitations, represented in 2 to 4 limitations categories.

As would be expected, methodology and sample characteristics were also often highlighted as areas that needed to be addressed in future research—as seen in Table 21. However, we found that researchers recognized more instances where the test or test context used in the study led to implications for future research than was the case when identifying limitations (Table 21). More detailed information about suggestions for future research is available in Appendix G-2.

32 33NCEO NCEO

Table 21. Categorized Areas of Future Research Identified by Authors

Future Research Number of Studiesa

Methodology 26

Sample Characteristics 15

Test/Test Context 15

No Future Directions Listed 9

Other 6

Results 5aTwenty studies listed directions for future research that fit into multiple categories.

Discussion

Several themes are evident in the research studies published in 2009 and 2010, especially in relation to the research studies from 2007 and 2008, which were reported in the previous NCEO accommodations research review (Cormier et al., 2010). We address here themes in terms of purposes, research designs, assessment types, study participant characteristics, accommodations, academic content areas and research findings associated with them, and study limitations and future research directions. We conclude with several comments on promising trends overall.

Research Purposes

The nature of the research literature on accommodations has continued to change. Many of the studies in 2009-2010 combined the effect of accommodations on performance and their effect on assessment constructs. Many also combined quantitative and qualitative research on the im-pact of accommodations on students with disabilities, in that they examined accommodations’ effects on test scores as well as their effects on perceptions of test takers. There were several differences between the purposes identified in the 2007-2008 and the purposes in the 2009-2010 studies. First of all, there was a much lower proportion of studies focused on comparing scores in the current set of studies: 63% in 2007-2008 and 31% in 2009-2010. About one-fourth (23%) of the current set of studies was focused on examining perceptions and preferences on use, a much larger proportion than the 13% of the 2007-2008 studies. The proportion of studies that described implementation practices and accommodations use was 20% of 2007-2008 studies, but a much lower 6% in 2009-2010 studies. Test validity was the purpose for a similarly low proportion in both reports: 6% for 2009-2010 and 3% for 2007-2008.

Research Types and Data Collection Sources

The research studies in 2009-2010 were mostly experimental (6%) or quasi-experimental (52%), which was a larger proportion than in 2007-2008. On the other hand, there was a much smaller proportion of studies using a descriptive quantitative design (21%) compared with 2009-2010 (55%). Further, the source of data in 2007-2008 was reported to be just over one-half from pri-mary sources – that is, collected by researchers rather than drawn from extant data – whereas in 2009-2010, the data came from primary sources for over two-thirds of the studies.

Data Collection Methods

Data collection methods generally were quite different between studies published in 2007-2008 and 2009-2010. With multiple purposes, there often was more than one data collection method and more than one instrument used. Over one-third of the 2009-2010 studies used more than one data collection method. Although the most common data collection method was content testing in both 2007-2008 and 2009-2010, there was a large difference in the use of surveys, from about one-fifth of 2007-2008 studies to over half of 2009-2010 studies. This shift seemed to be related to researchers’ efforts to uncover students’ and educators’ experiences during the implementation of accommodations. Other methods used often in 2009-2010 included inter-views and observations.

Participants

Grade Level

Research on accommodations has varied in terms of the focus on different grade level clus-ters – elementary, middle school, and high school – and the 2009-2010 studies differ from the 2007-2008 studies on this variable as well. First, a larger proportion of 2009-2010 published research analyzed accommodations across more than one grade level cluster than in 2007-2008. Second, although the proportion of high school and postsecondary participants were each about the same across the two periods, there was a larger proportion of studies published in 2009-2010 with elementary participants and with middle school students than in the research published in 2007-2008.

Disability Categories

The disability categories of study participants with disabilities were also somewhat different 2009-2010 compared to 2007-2008. The overall proportion of participants in many disability categories increased. The studies with participants with learning disabilities increased in propor-tion from 38% in 2007-2008 to 54% in 2009-2010. Similar increases occurred for participants

34 35NCEO NCEO

with attention problems: from 8% in 2007-2008 to 23% in 2009-2010. Additional increases are reported here in descending order of difference: for blindness/visual impairment, from 6% in 2007-2008 to 21% in 2009-2010; for deafness/hearing impairment, from 5% to 19%; for emotional behavioral disability, from 10% to 23%, and for intellectual disabilities, from 5% to 17%. Some of these increases might be due to researchers providing data about their participants’ disability categories; a smaller proportion of studies in the current review failed to specify par-ticipant disability categories. Another possible source of the increase is that a larger proportion of individual participants were identified as having more than one disability, 12% in 2007-2008 and 17% in 2009-2010. The increases in the proportion of participants’ disabilities did not seem to be due to changes in the proportion of studies using large secondary data sets because fewer studies (31%) in 2009-2010 used this type of data, in comparison with 45% of the 2007-2008 studies. More studies both collected disability data and also utilized comparative procedures to measure the impact of accommodations use by participants with various disabilities, yielding more findings about the effects of specific accommodations for students with specific disabilities.

Accommodations

The 2009-2010 studies included 10 specific accommodations, in four of the five accommodation categories. In the presentation category, read-aloud, braille, and large-print were represented. In the equipment/materials category, computerized administration, calculator, and sign-language recording were included. In the response category, partial-scribe, word-processing, and virtual manipulative were represented. In the timing/scheduling category, extended-time was the focus of research. In comparison, in 2007-2008 studies, four specific accommodations were exam-ined: read-aloud and segmenting text (presentation), computerized administration (equipment/materials), and extended-time (timing/scheduling).

The specific accommodations were examined through a higher number of studies using pri-mary data sources in 2009-2010 (33 of 48 studies – 69%), compared to 2007-2008 (22 of 40 studies – 55%). There seemed to be some shifts in attention to specific accommodations. The read-aloud accommodation and computerized administration both maintained the same propor-tion of studies from 2007-2008 to 2009-2010, at 23% and 15% respectively. Examination of extended-time decreased from 25% of the 40 studies in 2007-2008 to 10% of the 48 studies in 2009-2010. Aggregated or bundled accommodations were studied less frequently, decreasing from 5 studies (13%) in 2007-2008 to 2 studies (4%) in 2009-2010.

Content Areas and Associated Research Findings

Accommodations for mathematics and reading continued to be the most commonly examined in 2009-2010 studies, yet attention to accommodations for science assessments seemed to be increasing. The researchers of the 2009-2010 studies showed more interest in investigating

accommodations used during science tests, and somewhat more interest in mathematics ac-commodations, than those involved with 2007-2008 studies. This difference might be related to the increase in attention to the performance of students with disabilities on statewide sci-ence assessments during the 2007-2008 school year, which is the federally-required timeline of implementing science tests, and reporting data on this performance (Thurlow, Rogers, & Christensen, 2010). On the other hand, slightly fewer of the studies reported on accommoda-tions for reading assessments. Another difference in the studies published in 2009-2010 was that a larger number, and a slightly higher proportion, of them examined accommodations used in more than one content area.

When examining the findings by specific accommodation, some interesting comparisons and contrasts can be observed for the 2009-2010 studies compared to the 2007-2008 studies. In 2009-2010, three findings indicated that read-aloud provided a differential benefit for students with disabilities, and two findings indicated that all students benefited when taking tests using read-aloud. An identical number of study findings in 2007-2008 reported these results. A chief difference between these sets of findings was that only one study (Temple, 2007) involved read-ing assessments in 2007-2008, whereas most of the 2009-2010 studies (all except Lindstrom, 2010) involved reading.

Findings on the impact of the use of computerized administration received new attention in studies published in 2009-2010, with 3 of the 4 relevant studies finding that this accommoda-tion benefited students with disabilities. In 2007-2008, no studies examined the comparative impact of computerized administration. The 2007-2008 studies focused primarily on analyses of potential effects of computerized administration on construct validity, with 5 of 6 relevant studies indicating no problematic effects on construct validity. The 2009-2010 published studies included a meta-analysis that found computerized delivery changed the academic constructs involved (Kingston, 2009); and another study found that this accommodation changed the con-structs of the intelligence test (Arce-Ferrer & Guzman, 2009).

Impact of the calculator response accommodation was studied more often in 2009-2010 (three studies) than in 2007-2008 (one study – Sharoni & Vogel, 2007). The findings tended to be more negative in 2009-2010, with none of the three studies indicating differential benefits for students with disabilities, and only one study indicating any benefit for students with disabilities (Bouck, 2010).

The 2009-2010 studies yielded contested benefits for students with disabilities. Three studies measuring the impact of extended-time – on introductory psychology course exams (Lee et al., 2010), a literature review with many academic content areas (Lovett, 2010), and a writing assessment (Lovett et al., 2010) found that students with disabilities did not benefit from ex-tended time. Two studies indicated that students with disabilities did differentially benefit from

36 37NCEO NCEO

extended-time: on a math assessment (Lindstrom, 2010), and in undergraduate medical course examinations (Ricketts et al., 2010). These studies were generally in contrast to those published in 2007-2008, where effects were generally minimal, but more often found on K-12 assessments.

In 2009-2010, there seemed to be increased research attention to the potential for problematic effects of accommodated tests on construct validity. In 2007-2008, there were 8 study findings relevant to construct validity, and in 2009-2010, there were 21 relevant findings. In 2007-2008, at least four findings (about half) indicated that accommodations – including computer admin-istration and read-aloud – offered on math and reading tests affected the construct being tested. In 2009-2010, the studies’ results showed that various accommodations did not affect the aca-demic constructs being assessed. That is, the 2009-2010 studies indicated that accommodations were not associated with construct validity concerns. This was the case across academic content areas, including mathematics, reading, science, writing, and a majority of studies in the other content areas. In fact, accommodations were found only to change the constructs in 2 of the 21 findings examining construct validity. These two findings focused on the same accommoda-tion – computerized administration – in the same study (Kingston, 2009) with the academic constructs of other language arts and social studies. Another study (Arce-Ferrer & Guzman, 2009) found that computerized administration did not change the constructs measured on an intelligence test. Further, the read-aloud accommodation was found not to alter the construct being tested in mathematics, reading, and science. A growing set of studies in academic content areas examined perceptions about using accommodations during testing. In comparison with only 12.5% of all studies published in 2007-2008, perceptions were investigated in 25% of the mathematics studies, 17% of the reading studies, and 20% of the other language arts studies in 2009-2010. Further, all of the 2007-2008 studies examined educators’ perceptions of accommo-dations, whereas about half of the 2009-2010 studies identified student test-takers’ perceptions.

Limitations

The most noticeable difference between the accommodations research published in 2007-2008 and that published in 2009-2010 is the increase in researchers identifying methodological issues as limitations. Although identifying sample characteristics has remained the same between the two sets of years method choices such as having no control group or engaging in non-random sampling has been increasingly noted as a limitation. Researchers have pointed out that the unit of analysis has been the classroom rather than the individual student. Random assignment of research participants to differing conditions – such as testing with accommodations or test-ing without accommodations – has not occurred by participant, but rather has sometimes been implemented at the classroom or school level. Further, researchers note that accommodations have been implemented differently across conditions. These decisions indicated that studies are not true experiments but rather have used quasi-experimental designs.

Other limitations noted more often by researchers whose work was published in 2009-2010 included test and test context. Researchers commented in some studies that the test used was different somehow from tests typically used in the participants’ school or district, or that the test segment presented to participants did not use typical administration conditions. Test context issues also included inconsistency of tests across grade levels, different test forms being used in different accommodated conditions, participants running out of time in test administration sessions, more than typical incidence of missing data, and in some cases, suspicions that par-ticipants did not respond honestly to survey questions.

Researchers also reported more results-oriented limitations. For example, some studies used results that were not truly independent, such as when study participant scores from both academic years were linked to one another. Another concern pertained to analyses in which the effects of accommodations were difficult to distinguish from the effects of students’ disabilities. Several limitations from studies published in 2009-2010 did not seem to fit into categories used in pre-vious reports. The “other” category of limitations included that students’ prior knowledge was not reported through alternative data sources, which could have helped to clarify any issues with the test and accommodations used. Another limitation was that researchers could not pinpoint all of the potential sources of differential item functioning (DIF). Finally, well more than twice as many studies in the current report (n=26) cited limitations that could be described as fitting more than one limitations category. This compared to the limitations of the 10 studies reported in studies published in 2007 to 2008.

Future Research

There were a few differences in the potential future research directions that researchers identified in the 2009-2010 studies compared to 2007-2008. First, a larger proportion of the 2009-2010 studies indicated a need for more research with improved methodology, such as investigating impact and functionality of accommodations through single-subject designs, and inquiring about practitioners’ knowledge and perceptions of accommodations. Second, a smaller proportion of the studies indicated need for more research involving improvements in results. An example of results improvements that have decreased is the need to replicate the results in order to dem-onstrate their validity or generalizability. This change may be related to a larger proportion of studies focused on validity of accommodations in 2009-2010. Finally, more than twice as many studies (n=20) in 2009-2010 identified future research directions, compared to the nine studies in 2007 to 2008 doing so.

Trends

Some themes we recognized in the literature included a steady rise in investigating accom-modations for science assessments, increased activity in collecting data simultaneously across

38 39NCEO NCEO

grade level clusters – elementary, middle school, and high school – and increased examination of secondary large data sets, at the district and state levels. Another trend was that researchers crafted multi-purpose study designs – that is, test data were collected to measure the impact of accommodations, and survey and interview data were collected about students’ experiences in using accommodations. The literature paid continued attention in the current review to students with low-incidence disabilities – including perceptual impairments in seeing and hearing. Ad-ditionally, we observed fewer studies on the extended-time accommodation, as well as a small increase in examining response accommodations.

References

Report References

Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., & Lechtenberger, D. (2008, March). How student attitudes toward requesting accommodations are related to academic achievement in postsecondary education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Bishop-Temple, C. (2007). The effects of interactive read-alouds on the reading achievement of middle grade reading students in a core remedial program. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(10), 4179.

Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. (1993). Nelson-Denny Reading Test, Form H. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Cawthon, S., & The Online Research Lab. (2006). Findings from the National Survey on Accommodations and Alternate Assessments for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(3), 337–359.

Cormier, D. C., Altman, J. R., Shyyan, V., & Thurlow, M. L. (2010). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2007-2008 (Technical Report 56). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1997). TerraNova Multiple Assessment Battery. Monterey, CA: Author.

Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., DaFonseca, D., & Moller, A. C. (2006). The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 666-679.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501-519.

Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309-334.

Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1996). Test of Written Language. (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Hopko, D. R., Mahadevan, R., Bare, R. L., & Hunt, M. K. (2003). The abbreviated math anxiety scale (AMAS): Construction, validity, and reliability. Assessment, 10(2), 178-182.

40 41NCEO NCEO

Janssen, J., Scheltens, F., & Kraemer, J. (2005). Leerling- en onderwijsvolgsysteem. Rekenen-wiskunde groep 4. Handleiding [Student and education monitoring system. Mathematics grade 2. Teachers guide]. Arnhem, The Netherlands: CITO.

Johnstone, C. J., Altman, J., Thurlow, M. L., & Thompson, S. J. (2006). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 2002 through 2004 (Technical Report 45). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Second Edition (KTEA-II) administration and scoring manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Lewandowski, L. J., Lovett, B. J., Parolin, R., Gordon, M., & Codding, R. S. (2007). Extended time accommodations and the mathematics performance of students with and without ADHD. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25(1), 17-28.

Lewandowski, L. J., Lovett, B. J., & Rogers, C. L. (2008). Extended time as a testing accom-modation for students with reading disabilities: Does a rising tide lift all ships? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26(4), 315-324.

MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests–Manual for scoring and interpretation. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Mastergeorge, A. M., & Martinez, J. F. (2010). Rating performance assessments of students with disabilities: A study of reliability and bias. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(6), 536-550.

Mather, N., Hammill, D. D., Allen, E. A., & Roberts, R. (2004). TOSWRF: Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency: Examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and NCTM standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

Northwest Evaluation Association. (2009). NWEA technical manual for Measures of Academic Process and Measures of Academic Progress for primary grades. Portland, OR: Author.

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Perry, R. P., Kramer, K., Hochstadt, M., & Molfenter, S. (2004). Beyond test anxiety: Development and validation of the test emotions questionnaire. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 17(3), 287-316.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predic-tive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 803-813.

Raven, J. (2000). The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 1-48.

Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. (1993). Test de matrices progresivas: manual para la aplicacia¨n [Standard progressive matrices test: Direction for administration manual]. Buenos Aires: Paida¨s.

Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24,3-13.

Sharoni, V., & Vogel, G. (2007). Entrance test accommodations, admission and enrollment of students with learning disabilities in teacher training colleges in Israel. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 255-270.

Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Technical Report 34). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M., Rogers, C., & Christensen, L. (2010). Science assessments for students with disabilities in school year 2006-2007: What we know about participation, performance, and accommodations (Synthesis Report 77). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. (3rd ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Woodcock, R., Mather, N., & Schrank, F. A. (2004). Woodcock-Johnson III: Diagnostic Reading Battery. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Zenisky, A. L., & Sireci, S. G. (2007). A summary of the research on the effects of test accom-modations: 2005-2006 (Technical Report 47). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

42 43NCEO NCEO

2009 and 2010 Accommodation References

Altman, J. R., Cormier, D. C., Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Holbrook, M., Byers, M., Chambers, D., Moore, M., & Pence, N. (2010). Accommodations: Results of a survey of Alabama special education teachers. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Anjorin, I. (2009). High-stakes tests for students with specific learning disabilities: Disability-based differential item functioning. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 71(02).

Arce-Ferrer, A. J., & Guzman, E. M. (2009). Studying the equivalence of computer-delivered and paper-based administrations of the Raven standard progressive matrices test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(5), 855-867. doi:10.1177/0013164409332219

Barnard-Brak, L., & Sulak, T. (2010). Online versus face-to-face accommodations among college students with disabilities. The American Journal of Distance Education, 24(2), 81-91. doi:10.1080/08923641003604251

Barnard-Brak, L., Davis, T., Tate, A., & Sulak, T. (2009). Attitudes as a predictor of college students requesting accommodations. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 31(3), 189-198. doi:10.3233/JVR-2009-0488

Barnard-Brak, L., Sulak, T., Tate, A., & Lechtenberger, D. (2010). Measuring college students’ attitudes toward requesting accommodations: A national multi-institutional study. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(3), 141-147. doi:10.1177/1534508409358900

Bayles, M. (2009). Perceptions of educators and parents of the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) requirement for students with disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 71(04).

Bouck, E. C. (2009). Calculating the value of graphing calculators for seventh-grade students with and without disabilities: A pilot study. Remedial and Special Education, 30(4), 207-215. doi:10.1177/0741932508321010

Bouck, E. (2010). Does type matter: Evaluating the effectiveness of four-function and graphing calculators. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(1), 5-17.

Bublitz, D. F. (2009). Special education teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and decision-making about high-stakes testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 70(04).

Byrd, T. D. M. (2010). East Tennessee State University faculty attitudes and student perceptions in providing accommodations to students with disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 71(10).

Cawthon, S. W. (2009). Accommodations for students who are deaf or hard of hearing in large-scale, standardized assessments: Surveying the landscape and charting a new direc-tion. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(2), 41-49. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00147.x

Cawthon, S. W. (2010). Science and evidence of success: Two emerging issues in assessment accommodations for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 15(2), 185-203. doi:10.1093/deafed/enq002

Cook, L., Eignor, D., Steinberg, J., Sawaki, Y., & Cline, F. (2009). Using factor analysis to investigate the impact of accommodations on the scores of students with disabilities on a reading comprehension assessment. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 10(2). doi:10.1080/08957341003673831

Cook, L., Eignor, D., Sawaki, Y., Steinberg, J., & Cline, F. (2010). Using factor analysis to investigate accommodations used by students with disabilities on an English-language arts as-sessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 23(2), 187-208.

Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., McKevitt, B. C., & Malecki, C. K. (2009). The effects and perceived consequences of testing accommodations on math and science performance assess-ments. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(4), 224-239. doi: 10.1037/a0018000

Elliott, S. N., Kettler, R. J., Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., Compton, E., McGrath, D., Bruen, C., Hinton, K., Palmer, P., Rodriguez, M. C., Bolt, D., & Roach, A. T. (2010). Effects of using modified items to test students with persistent academic difficulties. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 475-495.

Finch, H., Barton, K., & Meyer, P. (2009). Differential item functioning analysis for ac-commodated versus non-accommodated students. Educational Assessment, 14(1), 38-56. doi:10.1080/10627190902816264

Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., O’Malley, K. Copeland, K., Mehta, P., Caldwell, C. J., Kalinowski, S., Young, V., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Effects of a bundled accommodations package on high-stakes testing for middle school students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 447-463.

44 45NCEO NCEO

Freeland, A. L., Emerson, R. W., Curtis, A. B., & Fogarty, K. (2010). Exploring the relationship between access technology and standardized test scores for youths with visual impairments: Secondary analysis of the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104(3), 170-182.

Johnstone, C., Thurlow, M., Altman, J., Timmons, J., & Kato, K. (2009). Assistive technology approaches for large-scale assessment: Perceptions of teachers of students with visual impair-ments. Exceptionality, 17(2), 66-75. doi:10.1080/09362830902805756

Jordan, A. S. (2009). Appropriate accommodations for individual needs allowable by state guide-lines. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 70(10).

Kim, D. H., & Huynh, H. (2010). Equivalence of paper-and-pencil and online administration modes of the statewide English test for students with and without disabilities. Educational Assessment, 15(2), 107-121. doi:10.1080/10627197.2010.491066

Kim, D. H., Schneider, C., & Siskind, T. (2009). Examining the underlying factor structure of a statewide science test under oral and standard administrations. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(4), 323-333. doi:10.1177/0734282908328632

Kim, D., Schneider, C., & Siskind, T. (2009). Examining equivalence of accommodations on a statewide elementary-level science test. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(2), 144-163. doi:10.1080/08957340902754619

Kingston, N. M. (2009). Comparability of computer- and paper-administered multiple-choice tests for K-12 populations: A synthesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(1), 22-37. doi:10.1080/08957340802558326

Laitusis, C. C. (2010). Examining the impact of audio presentation on tests of reading compre-hension. Applied Measurement in Education, 23(2), 153-167. doi:10.1080/08957341003673815

Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Lail, K. E., & Christensen, L. (2009). A longitudinal analysis of state accommodations policies: Twelve years of change, 1993-2005. The Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 67-80. doi:10.1177/0022466907313524

Lee, K. S., Osborne, R. E., & Carpenter, D. N. (2010). Testing accommodations for university students with AD/HD: Computerized vs. paper-pencil/regular vs. extended time. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(4), 443-458. doi:10.2190/EC.42.4.e

Lindstrom, J. H. (2010). Mathematics assessment accommodations: Implications of differential boost for students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(1), 5-12. doi:10.1177/1053451210369517

Logan, J. P. (2009). The affective and motivational impact of the test accommodation extended time based on students’ performance goal orientations. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 70(06).

Lovett, B. J. (2010). Extended time testing accommodations for students with disabilities: Answers to five fundamental questions. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 611-638.

Lovett, B. J., Lewandowski, L. J., Berger, C., & Gathje, R. A. (2010). Effects of response mode and time allotment on college students’ writing. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40(2), 64-79.

Mariano, G., Tindal, G., Carrizales, D., & Lenhardt, B. (2009). Analysis of teacher accommo-dation recommendations for a large-scale test. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching.

Mastergeorge, A. M., & Martinez, J. F. (2010). Rating performance assessments of students with disabilities: A study of reliability and bias. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(6), 536-550. doi:10.1177/0734282909351022

Parks, M. Q. (2009). Possible effects of calculators on the problem solving abilities and math-ematical anxiety of students with learning disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 70(07).

Peltenburg, M., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Doig, B. (2009). Mathematical power of special-needs pupils: An ICT-based dynamic assessment format to reveal weak pupils’ learn-ing potential. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 273-284. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00917.x

Randall, J., & Engelhard, G., Jr. (2010). Performance of students with and without disabilities un-der modified conditions: Using resource guides and read-aloud test modifications on a high-stakes reading test. The Journal of Special Education, 44(2), 79-93. doi:10.1177/0022466908331045

Ricketts, C., Brice, J., & Coombes, L. (2010). Are multiple choice tests fair to medical students with specific learning disabilities? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(2), 265-275. doi:10.1007/s10459-009-9197-8

Roach, A. T., Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2010). Incorporating student input in developing alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. Exceptional Children, 77(1), 61-80.

46 47NCEO NCEO

Roxbury, T. L. (2010). A psychometric evaluation of a state testing program: Accommodated versus non-accommodated students. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 71(06).

Russell, M., Hoffmann, T., & Higgins, J. (2009). A universally designed test delivery system. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 42(2), 6-12.

Russell, M., Kavanaugh, M., Masters, J., Higgins, J., & Hoffmann, T. (2009). Computer-based signing accommodations: Comparing a recorded human with an avatar. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 10(3).

Salend, S. (2009). Using technology to create and administer accessible tests. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(3), 40-51.

Schoch, C. S. (2010). Teacher variations when administering math graphics items to students with visual impairments. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 72(02).

Snyder, J. (2010). Audio adapted assessment data: Does the addition of audio to written items modify the item calibration? Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 71(05).

Stone, E., Cook L., Cahalan Laitusis, C., & Cline, F. (2010). Using differential item functioning to investigate the impact of testing accommodations on an English-language arts assessment for students who are blind or visually impaired. Applied Measurement in Education, 23(2), 132-152. doi:10.1080/08957341003673773

Zhang, D., Landmark, L., Reber, A., Hsu, H. Y., Kwok, O., & Benz, M. (2010). University fac-ulty knowledge, beliefs, and practices in providing reasonable accommodations to students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 31(4), 276-286. doi:10.1177/0741932509338348

Appendix A

Research Purposes

Table A-1. Purpose Category: Compare Scores from Standard/Nonstandard Administration Conditions

Author/s Stated Research Purpose Also

Only students with disabilities

Finch et al. (2009)

Investigate the effects of accommodations on the performance of students with disabilities, in comparison with not using accommo-dations; also, identify possible negative impacts of accommoda-tions use on test results.

A-5, A-6

Fletcher et al. (2009)Examine the impact of using a bundle of accommodations -- read-aloud questions (without passage) + multiple-day scheduling -- on performance on a reading test for students with reading disability.

N/A

Freeland et al. (2010)Investigate the effect of receiving training in access technologies for students with partial visual impairment to total blindness taking a broad battery of content tests using access technologies.

A-3

Lee et al. (2010)

Examine the benefits of computer-based administration and re-sponse, along with extended-time, on the performance of college students with attentional difficulties on an introductory psychology course exam.

A-2

Peltenburg & van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (2009)

Examine effects of a unique virtual manipulative tool for students with math-related learning disabilities on a subset of items from a large-scale mathematics test.

A-3

Russell et al. (2009a)

Examine the impact for students with multiple disabilities (includ-ing LD and attention difficulties) of a set of accommodations offered through the computer administration of a set of released items from the New Hampshire grade 10 mathematics test, and report on student perspectives on the accommodations experi-ence.

A-2

48 49NCEO NCEO

Russell et al. (2009b)

Examine the impact of a unique accommodation of a virtual avatar using American Sign Language (ASL) and a recorded human ASL interpreter for students with deafness and hearing impairments who completed released items from the National As-sessment of Educational Progress for mathematics, and report on student perspectives on the accommodations experience.

A-2

Schoch (2010)

Examine effects of a series of accommodations, including tactile and large print, for students with visual impairments who com-pleted a set of publicly-available sample mathematics items from four statewide assessments, and report about differing accommo-dations practices

A3, A4

Snyder (2010)Examine the influence of audio recording on results of reading and math tests developed from items drawn from an item bank for students with various disabilities.

A-5

Only students without disabilities

Lovett et al. (2010)

Examine the impact of word-processing response and extended-time on an essay-based exam for college students without dis-abilities, and investigate the associations of results with results on other achievement tests.

A-3, A-8

Both students with disabilities and students without disabilities

Anjorin (2009)

Examine differential item functioning (DIF) based on learning disability group membership on a state mathematics exit assess-ment, to discern potential biases toward receiving or not receiving accommodations.

A4, A5

Bouck (2009)Compare item-level and overall performance of students with dis-abilities and without disabilities on math test using and not using graphing calculator accommodation.

A-5

Bouck (2010)

Compare performance of students with and without disabilities on math test using two different calculators -- four-function and graphing -- as accommodations; also, inquire about students’ perspectives about accommodations.

A-2

Cook et al. (2009)

Examine the impact of using a unique read-aloud accommodation on the constructs of comprehension; additionally, compare per-formance of students with and without learning disabilities when using and not using this accommodation.

A-5, A-6

Elliott et al. (2009)

Compare effects of IEP-specified accommodations and also an aggregated group of accommodations on the performance of students with and without disabilities on math and science tests, and also report on validity and fairness of accommodations usage patterns.

A-2


Examine the effects of modifications on performance of students with and without disabilities on math and reading tests, compare the test forms by items, and also evaluate the appropriateness of identifying students with disabilities for modified assessments.

A-5, A-8

Kim & Huynh (2010)Compare effects of mode of administration (paper-and-pencil vs. computerized) on the performance of students with learning dis-abilities using item-level analyses.

A-5

Kingston (2009)Synthesize 81 grade-subject combinations in 14 studies between 1997 and 2007 that investigated the comparability of computer-administered and paper-administered tests.

A-2, A-3

Laitusis (2010)

Compare effects of oral administration / read aloud accommoda-tion using a CD recording for students with and without learning disabilities on several reading evaluations, including describing the differential boost for students with disabilities, as well as vali-dating construct (using teacher survey) and confirming research methods (using student survey).

A-2, A-8

Parks (2009)Compare effects of calculator use for students without disabilities and students with specific disabilities (LD and ADHD) on a math skill assessment, and analyze possible influence of math anxiety.

A-3

Randall & Engelhard (2010)

Compare effects of oral administration and resource guide modifi-cations for students without disabilities, and students with dis-abilities who were and were not eligible for a modified version of a statewide reading assessment.

N/A

Ricketts et al. (2010)

Compare effects of extra time and modified format (colored paper or filters) for undergraduate medical students without disabilities and students with a specific disability (SLD/dyslexia) on course exam results.

N/A

Roach et al. (2010)

Compare effects of a set of modifications for students without disabilities, and students with disabilities who were and were not eligible for a modified version of statewide reading and mathemat-ics assessment, through a series of studies utilizing quantitatively- and qualitatively-derived data.

A-2, A-3

50 51NCEO NCEO

Roxbury (2010)

Compare effects of accommodations as a whole for students with and without disabilities on statewide mathematics, reading, and science assessments, and analyze differential item functioning (DIF) to determine the degree to which bias has occurred despite that no clarity would be found due to research specific item ef-fects.

A-4, A-7

Stone et al. (2010)Analyze test items from a statewide English-language arts test for differential item functioning (DIF) pertaining to the performance of students with visual impairments and students without disabilities.

A-5

Table A-2. Purpose Category: Study or Compare Perceptions of Accommodation Use


Arce-Ferrer & Guzman (2009)

Examine the effect of administration mode (paper-and-pencil vs. computer-based) on accuracy, distribution, and meaning of per-formance scores by a general education population where the number of students with disabilities was unreported.

A-5, A-6

Barnard-Brak & Sulak (2010)

Compare attitudes of college students with disabilities about requesting accommodations in online and in-person learning set-tings.

N/A

Barnard-Brak et al. (2009)

Investigate predictive factors related to attitudes about and behav-ior of requesting accommodations by college students with disabili-ties.

N/A


Demonstrate the stability of a measure of attitudes about and behavior of requesting accommodations by college students with disabilities.

N/A

Bouck (2010)

Compare performance of students with and without disabilities on math test using two different calculators -- four-function and graph-ing -- as accommodations; also, inquire about students’ perspec-tives about accommodations.

A-1

Bublitz (2009) Explore perspectives of special educators regarding accommoda-tions; specifically, relationships among training, knowledge, atti-tudes, and decision-making accuracy.

N/A

Byrd (2010)

Investigate university faculty attitudes about accommodations for students with disabilities; also, inquired about students’ perceptions of faculty attitudes based on their interactions with faculty mem-bers.

A-3, A-6


Compare effects of IEP-specified accommodations and also an aggregated group of accommodations on the performance of students with and without disabilities on math and science tests, and also report on validity and fairness of accommodations usage patterns.

A-1

Jordan (2009)

Comparatively analyze content of surveys and interviews with teachers, parents, and students regarding experience of statewide math and reading tests; specifically, report on perspectives about dictated response/scribing accommodations.

A-3


A-1, A-3

Laitusis (2010)

Compare effects of oral administration / read aloud accommoda-tion using a CD recording for students with and without learning disabilities on several reading evaluations, including describing the differential boost for students with disabilities, as well as validating construct (using teacher survey) and confirming research methods (using student survey).

A-1, A-8

Lee et al. (2010)

Examine the benefits of computer-based administration and re-sponse, along with extended-time, on the performance of college students with attentional difficulties on an introductory psychology course exam.

A-1

Logan (2009)Investigate self-efficacy of high school students with learning dis-abilities using extended-time on a reading task.

N/A

Mariano et al. (2009)Investigate special educator accommodations decision-making processes, including application of two different models.

A-3

Mastergeorge & Marti-nez (2010)

Examine test scorer bias for rating performance assessments com-pleted by students with and students without disabilities.

N/A

Roach et al. (2010)

Compare effects of a set of modifications for students without dis-abilities, and students with disabilities who were and were not eli-gible for a modified version of statewide reading and mathematics assessment, through a series of studies utilizing quantitatively- and qualitatively-derived data.

A-1, A-3


Examine the impact for students with multiple disabilities (including LD and attention difficulties) of a set of accommodations offered through the computer administration of a set of released items from the New Hampshire grade 10 mathematics test, and report on student perspectives on the accommodations experience.

A-1

52 53NCEO NCEO


Examine the impact of a unique accommodation of a virtual avatar using American Sign Language (ASL) and a recorded human ASL interpreter for students with deafness and hearing impairments who completed released items from the National Assessment of Educational Progress for mathematics, and report on student per-spectives on the accommodations experience.

A-1

Zhang et al. (2010)Investigate the knowledge base of university faculty pertaining to accommodations practices, and the relationship of factors predic-tive of their use of accommodations practices.

N/A

Table A-3. Purpose Category: Discuss Issues Related to Accommodations


Altman et al. (2010)Investigate the thinking process of special educators statewide about the nature of making and implementing accommodations decisions.

A-4

Bayles (2009)Investigate the similarities (if any) among educators and parents regarding need for and fairness of accommodations use for stu-dents with disabilities on a state exit assessment.

A-4

Byrd (2010)

Investigate university faculty attitudes about accommodations for students with disabilities; also, inquired about students’ perceptions of faculty attitudes based on their interactions with faculty mem-bers.

A-2, A-6

Cawthon (2010)

Investigate accommodations practices for students with deaf-ness and hearing impairments, in terms of how teachers gather evidence of effectiveness of accommodations in science assess-ments.

A-4

Freeland et al. (2010)Investigate the effect of receiving training in access technologies for students with partial visual impairment to total blindness taking a broad battery of content tests using access technologies.

A1

Jordan (2009)

Comparatively analyze content of surveys and interviews with teachers, parents, and students regarding experience of statewide math and reading tests; specifically, report on perspectives about dictated response/scribing accommodations.

A-2

Kim et al. (2009a)

Compare effects of specific accommodations and accommodations in general for students with and without disabilities on statewide science assessment, as well as analyze factor structure and inter-pret meaning of achievement scores.

A-7


A-1, A-2

Lazarus et al. (2009)Analyze information collected by the National Center on Educa-tional Outcomes to report how state accommodations policies changed across time between 1993 and 2005.

A-4, A-6

Lindstrom (2010)

Synthesize results of 11 studies from between 2000 and 2009 which investigated the impacts of both individual accommodations and groups of accommodations specifying the viability of the “dif-ferential boost hypothesis.”

A-6

Lovett (2010)Synthesize results of 20 studies which investigated the influence of the extended-time accommodation on construct validity of various large-scale assessments, as well as other implementation issues.

A-6



A-1, A-8

Mariano et al. (2009)Investigate special educator accommodations decision-making processes, including application of two different models.

A-2

Parks (2009)Compare effects of calculator use for students without disabilities and students with specific disabilities (LD and ADHD) on a math skill assessment, and analyze possible influence of math anxiety.

A-1


Examine effects of a unique virtual manipulative tool for students with math-related learning disabilities on a subset of items from a large-scale mathematics test.

A-1

Roach et al. (2010)

Compare effects of a set of modifications for students without dis-abilities, and students with disabilities who were and were not eli-gible for a modified version of statewide reading and mathematics assessment, through a series of studies utilizing quantitatively- and qualitatively-derived data.

A-1, A-2

Salend (2009)

Summarize research and report on the breadth of accommoda-tions practices in technology-supported assessments, offer guid-ance in evaluating technology, and discuss issues such as student motivation and student and teacher preparation.

A-4, A-6

Schoch (2010)

Examine effects of a series of accommodations, including tactile and large print, for students with visual impairments who complet-ed a set of publicly-available sample mathematics items from four statewide assessments, and report about differing accommoda-tions practices

A1, A4

54 55NCEO NCEO

Table A-4. Purpose Category: Report on Implementation Practices and Accommodations Use


Altman et al. (2010)Investigate the thinking process of special educators statewide about the nature of making and implementing accommodations decisions.

A-3

Anjorin (2009)


A-1, A-5

Bayles (2009)Investigate the similarities (if any) among educators and parents regarding need for and fairness of accommodations use for stu-dents with disabilities on a state exit assessment.

A-3

Cawthon (2009)

Examine accommodations practices by special educators for stu-dents with deafness and hearing impairments, including exploring relationships among instructional factors and the use of accom-modations.

A-9

Cawthon (2010)

Investigate accommodations practices for students with deaf-ness and hearing impairments, in terms of how teachers gather evidence of effectiveness of accommodations in science assess-ments.

A-3

Johnstone et al. (2009)

Explore perspectives of special educators of students with visual impairments regarding accommodations; specifically, discern any differences in use of assistive technology tools based on teaching and learning setting.

N/A


A-3, A-6

Roxbury (2010)

Compare effects of accommodations as a whole for students with and without disabilities on statewide mathematics, reading, and science assessments, and analyze differential item functioning (DIF) to determine the degree to which bias has occurred despite that no clarity would be found due to research specific item effects.

A-1, A-7

Salend (2009)


A-3, A-6

Schoch (2010)

Examine effects of a series of accommodations, including tactile and large print, for students with visual impairments who complet-ed a set of publicly-available sample mathematics items from four statewide assessments, and report about differing accommoda-tions practices

A1, A3

Table A-5. Purpose Category: Compare Test Items across Assessment Formats


Anjorin (2009)


A-1, A-4

Bouck (2009)Compare item-level and overall performance of students with dis-abilities and without disabilities on math test using and not using graphing calculator accommodation.

A-1

Cook et al. (2009)


A-1, A-6



A-1, A-8

Finch et al. (2009)


A-1, A-6

Kim & Huynh (2010)Compare effects of mode of administration (paper-and-pencil vs. computerized) on the performance of students with learning dis-abilities using item-level analyses.

A-1

Kim et al. (2009b)

Compare effects of oral administration / read aloud accommoda-tion for students with and without disabilities on statewide science assessment, as well as analyze factor structure and interpret meaning of achievement scores.

A-7

Snyder (2010)Examine the influence of audio recording on results of reading and math tests developed from items drawn from an item bank for students with various disabilities.

A-1

Stone et al. (2010)Analyze test items from a statewide English-language arts test for differential item functioning (DIF) pertaining to the performance of students with visual impairments and students without disabilities.

A-1

56 57NCEO NCEO

Table A-6. Purpose Category: Summarize Research Literature about Accommodations



Examine the effect of administration mode (paper-and-pencil vs. computer-based) on accuracy, distribution, and meaning of per-formance scores by a general education population where the number of students with disabilities was unreported.

A-2, A-7

Byrd (2010)

Investigate university faculty attitudes about accommodations for students with disabilities; also, inquired about students’ percep-tions of faculty attitudes based on their interactions with faculty members.

A-2, A-3

Cook et al. (2009)


A-1, A-5

Finch et al. (2009)


A-1, A-5


A-3, A-4

Lindstrom (2010)

Synthesize results of 11 studies from between 2000 and 2009 which investigated the impacts of both individual accommodations and groups of accommodations specifying the viability of the “dif-ferential boost hypothesis.”

A-3

Lovett (2010)Synthesize results of 20 studies which investigated the influence of the extended-time accommodation on construct validity of various large-scale assessments, as well as other implementation issues.

A-3

Salend (2009)


A-3, A-4

Table A-7. Purpose Category: Evaluate Test Structure



Examine the effect of administration mode (paper-and-pencil vs. computer-based) on accuracy, distribution, and meaning of performance scores by a general education population where the number of students with disabilities was unreported.

A-2, A-6

Cook et al. (2010)Discern the possible effects of IEP-specified accommodations and also the read-aloud accommodation on the measurement of ELA constructs (reading and writing).

N/A

Kim et al. (2009a)

Compare effects of specific accommodations and accommoda-tions in general for students with and without disabilities on state-wide science assessment, as well as analyze factor structure and interpret meaning of achievement scores.

A-3

Kim et al. (2009b)

Compare effects of oral administration / read aloud accommoda-tion for students with and without disabilities on statewide science assessment, as well as analyze factor structure and interpret meaning of achievement scores.

A-5

Roxbury (2010)

Compare effects of accommodations as a whole for students with and without disabilities on statewide mathematics, reading, and science assessments, and analyze differential item functioning (DIF) to determine the degree to which bias has occurred despite that no clarity would be found due to research specific item ef-fects.

A-1, A-4

58 59NCEO NCEO

Table A-8. Purpose Category: Investigate Test Validity under Accommodated Conditions




A-1, A-5

Laitusis (2010)

Compare effects of oral administration / read aloud accommoda-tion using a CD recording for students with and without learning disabilities on several reading evaluations, including describing the differential boost for students with disabilities, as well as validating construct (using teacher survey) and confirming research meth-ods (using student survey).

A-1, A-2



A-1, A-3

Table A-9. Purpose Category: Identify Predictors of the Need for Test Accommodation/s


Cawthon (2009)

Examine accommodations practices by special educators for stu-dents with deafness and hearing impairments, including exploring relationships among instructional factors and the use of accom-modations.

A-4

Appendix B

Research Characteristics

Table B-1. Reference Types, Research Types, Research Designs, Data Collection Sources, and Collection Instruments

Authors Reference

Type Research

Type Research

Design

Data Collection

Source

Collection Instrument

Altman et al. (2010) Report QuantitativeDescriptive Quantitative

Primary Survey

Anjorin (2009) Dissertation QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-

mentalSecondary Test


Journal QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-

mentalPrimary Survey, Test


Journal QuantitativeDescriptive Quantitative

Primary Survey



PrimaryInterview Protocol, Survey



Primary Survey

Bayles (2009) Dissertation QualitativeDescriptive Qualitative


Bouck (2009) Journal Quantitative Experimental Primary Test

Bouck (2010) Journal QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-


Bublitz (2009) Dissertation QuantitativeDescriptive Quantitative

Primary Survey

Byrd (2010) Dissertation MixedDescriptive Qualitative


Cawthon (2009) Journal MixedCorrelation / Prediction

Secondary Survey

Cawthon (2010) Journal MixedDescriptive Qualitative

Primary Survey

Cook et al. (2009) Journal QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-

mentalPrimary Test

Cook et al. (2010) Journal Quantitative Experimental Secondary Test

Elliott et al. (2009) Journal QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-

mentalPrimary

Observa-tions, Survey,

Test

60 61NCEO NCEO

Authors Reference

Type Research

Type Research

Design

Data Collection

Source




mentalPrimary

Observa-tions, Test




Ricketts et al. (2010) Journal QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-


Roach et al. (2010) Journal MixedQuasi-Experi-

mentalPrimary

Interview Protocol,

Survey, Test

Roxbury (2010) Dissertation QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-


Russell et al. (2009a) Journal MixedQuasi-Experi-

mentalPrimary

Focus Group, Ob-servations,

Test

Russell et al. (2009b) Journal MixedQuasi-Experi-

mentalPrimary

Focus Group, Sur-

vey, Test

Salend (2009) JournalExpository /

OpinionDescriptive Qualitative

Secondary Articles

Schoch (2010) Dissertation MixedQuasi-Experi-

mentalPrimary

Interview Protocol,

Test

Snyder (2010) Dissertation QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-

mentalPrimary Test

Stone et al. (2010) Journal QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-

mentalPrimary Test

Zhang et al. (2010) Journal QuantitativeCorrelation / Prediction

Primary Survey

Authors Reference

Type Research

Type Research

Design

Data Collection

Source


Elliott et al. (2010) Journal Quantitative Experimental Primary Survey, Test

Finch et al. (2009) Journal QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-


Fletcher et al. (2009) Journal QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-

mentalPrimary Test

Freeland et al. (2010) Journal MixedQuasi-Experi-

mentalSecondary Survey, Test



Primary Survey

Jordan (2009) Dissertation QualitativeDescriptive Qualitative


Kim & Huynh (2010) Journal QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-


Kim et al. (2009a) Journal QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-


Kim et al. (2009b) Journal QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-


Kingston (2009) Journal Quantitative Meta-analysis Secondary Survey, Test

Laitusis (2010) Journal QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-


Lazarus et al. (2009) JournalExpository /

OpinionDescriptive Quantitative

Secondary Survey

Lee et al. (2010) Journal MixedQuasi-Experi-

mentalPrimary

Interview Protocol,

Survey, Test

Lindstrom (2010) JournalExpository /


Secondary Articles

Logan (2009) Dissertation QuantitativeDescriptive Quantitative

Primary Survey

Lovett (2010) JournalExpository /


Secondary Articles

Lovett et al. (2010) Journal QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-

mentalPrimary Test

Mariano et al. (2009) Report QuantitativeDescriptive Quantitative

Primary Survey



Primary Survey

Parks (2009) Dissertation QuantitativeQuasi-Experi-

mentalPrimary Test

62 63NCEO NCEO

Ap

pen

dix

C

Inst

rum

ent C

hara

cter

istic

s

Tab

le C

-1. I

nst

rum

ent T

ypes

an

d S

pec

ific

Inst

rum

ents

Use

d, a

nd

th

eir

So

urc

es

Au

tho

rs

No

n-A

cad

emic

P

roto

cols

or

Su

rvey

s D

evel

op

ed b

y S

tud

y A

uth

or/

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Co

gn

itiv

e A

bili

ty

Mea

sure

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Aca

dem

ic A

chie

vem

ent

Mea

sure

s

Sta

te C

rite

rio

n-

refe

ren

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Su

rvey

s o

r A

cad

emic

Te

sts

Dev

elo

ped

by

Pro

fess

ion

als

or

Res

earc

her

s U

sin

g

So

urc

es O

uts

ide

of

Cu

rren

t S

tud

y

Altm

an e

t al.

(201

0)S

urve

y fo

r ed

ucat

ors

Anj

orin

(20

09)

U

nspe

cifie

d st

ate’

s gr

ade

10 m

athe

mat

ics

test

Arc

e-F

erre

r &

G

uzm

an (

2009

)

Rav

en S

tand

ard

Pro

-gr

essi

ve M

atric

es te

st

[gen

eral

inte

llige

nce]

(R

aven

, 200

0; R

aven

et

al.,

199

3)

Bar

nard

-Bra

k &

S

ulak

(20

10)

Atti

tude

s To

war

d R

e-qu

estin

g A

ccom

mod

a-tio

ns (

ATR

A; B

arna

rd

et a

l., 2

008)

Bar

nard

-Bra

k et

al

. (20

09)

Pho

ne in

terv

iew

pro

to-

col f

or s

tude

nts

Atti

tude

s To

war

d R

e-qu

estin

g A

ccom

mod

a-tio

ns (

ATR

A; B

arna

rd

et a

l., 2

008)

Bar

nard

-Bra

k et

al

. (20

10)

Atti

tude

s To

war

d R

e-qu

estin

g A

ccom

mod

a-tio

ns (

ATR

A; B

arna

rd

et a

l., 2

008)

64 65NCEO NCEO

Au

tho

rs

No

n-A

cad

emic

P

roto

cols

or

Su

rvey

s D

evel

op

ed b

y S

tud

y A

uth

or/

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Co

gn

itiv

e A

bili

ty

Mea

sure

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Aca

dem

ic A

chie

vem

ent

Mea

sure

s

Sta

te C

rite

rio

n-

refe

ren

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Su

rvey

s o

r A

cad

emic

Te

sts

Dev

elo

ped

by

Pro

fess

ion

als

or

Res

earc

her

s U

sin

g

So

urc

es O

uts

ide

of

Cu

rren

t S

tud

y

Bay

les

(200

9)In

terv

iew

pro

toco

l and

/or

sur

vey

for

pare

nts

and

educ

ator

s

Bou

ck (

2009

)

Cla

ssro

om-b

ased

m

ath

asse

ssm

ent

base

d on

num

ber

and

oper

atio

n st

rand

s of

P

rinci

ples

and

NC

TM

st

anda

rds

for

scho

ol

mat

hem

atic

s do

cu-

men

t (N

atio

nal C

ounc

il of

Tea

cher

s of

Mat

h-em

atic

s, 2

000)

Bou

ck (

2010

)

Cla

ssro

om-b

ased

m

ath

asse

ssm

ent

base

d on

num

ber

and

oper

atio

n st

rand

s of

P

rinci

ples

and

NC

TM

st

anda

rds

for

scho

ol

mat

hem

atic

s do

cu-

men

t (N

atio

nal C

ounc

il of

Tea

cher

s of

Mat

h-em

atic

s, 2

000)

Au

tho

rs

No

n-A

cad

emic

P

roto

cols

or

Su

rvey

s D

evel

op

ed b

y S

tud

y A

uth

or/

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Co

gn

itiv

e A

bili

ty

Mea

sure

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Aca

dem

ic A

chie

vem

ent

Mea

sure

s

Sta

te C

rite

rio

n-

refe

ren

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Su

rvey

s o

r A

cad

emic

Te

sts

Dev

elo

ped

by

Pro

fess

ion

als

or

Res

earc

her

s U

sin

g

So

urc

es O

uts

ide

of

Cu

rren

t S

tud

y

Bub

litz

(200

9)

Thr

ee s

urve

ys m

ea-

surin

g pr

e-se

rvic

e ed

ucat

ors

on k

now

l-ed

ge o

f, at

titud

es

tow

ard,

and

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g ac

cura

cy

abou

t acc

omm

oda-

tions

; a m

easu

re o

f am

ount

of t

rain

ing

base

d on

num

ber

of

trai

ning

hou

rs

Byr

d (2

010)

Atti

tudi

nal s

urve

ys

for

educ

ator

s, a

nd

inte

rvie

w p

roto

col f

or

stud

ents

Caw

thon

(20

09)

Edu

cato

rs’ r

epor

ted

uses

of a

ccom

mod

a-tio

ns w

ith th

eir

stu-

dent

s, a

s m

easu

red

by th

e “T

hird

Ann

ual

Sur

vey

of A

sses

smen

t A

ccom

mod

atio

ns fo

r S

tude

nts

who

are

D

eaf o

r H

ard

of H

ear-

ing”

(C

awth

on &

The

O

nlin

e R

esea

rch

Lab,

20

06)

66 67NCEO NCEO

Au

tho

rs

No

n-A

cad

emic

P

roto

cols

or

Su

rvey

s D

evel

op

ed b

y S

tud

y A

uth

or/

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Co

gn

itiv

e A

bili

ty

Mea

sure

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Aca

dem

ic A

chie

vem

ent

Mea

sure

s

Sta

te C

rite

rio

n-

refe

ren

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Su

rvey

s o

r A

cad

emic

Te

sts

Dev

elo

ped

by

Pro

fess

ion

als

or

Res

earc

her

s U

sin

g

So

urc

es O

uts

ide

of

Cu

rren

t S

tud

y

Caw

thon

(20

10)

Edu

cato

rs’ s

urve

y on

ac

com

mod

atio

ns u

se

and

evid

ence

of e

f-fe

ctiv

enes

s

Coo

k et

al.

(200

9)

Gat

es M

acG

initi

e R

eadi

ng T

est (

GM

RT

),

subt

est o

n co

mpr

e-he

nsio

n (M

acG

initi

e et

al

., 20

00)

Coo

k et

al.

(201

0)

Uns

peci

fied

stat

e’s

grad

e 4

Eng

lish-

lan-

guag

e ar

ts te

st

Elli

ott e

t al.

(200

9)

Ass

essm

ent A

ccom

-m

odat

ions

Che

cklis

t (A

AC

) fo

r ed

ucat

ors

Wis

cons

in S

tude

nt

Ass

essm

ent S

ys-

tem

(W

SA

S)

grad

e 4

perf

orm

ance

test

s on

mat

hem

atic

s an

d sc

ienc

e

Elli

ott e

t al.

(201

0)

Rea

ding

and

mat

h-em

atic

s te

sts

deve

l-op

ed b

y dr

awin

g 39

ite

ms

in c

ompu

ter-

base

d fo

rmat

from

D

isco

very

Edu

catio

n A

sses

smen

t nat

iona

l ite

m p

ool (

Hal

adyn

a et

al

., 20

02; R

odrig

uez,

20

05)

Au

tho

rs

No

n-A

cad

emic

P

roto

cols

or

Su

rvey

s D

evel

op

ed b

y S

tud

y A

uth

or/

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Co

gn

itiv

e A

bili

ty

Mea

sure

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Aca

dem

ic A

chie

vem

ent

Mea

sure

s

Sta

te C

rite

rio

n-

refe

ren

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Su

rvey

s o

r A

cad

emic

Te

sts

Dev

elo

ped

by

Pro

fess

ion

als

or

Res

earc

her

s U

sin

g

So

urc

es O

uts

ide

of

Cu

rren

t S

tud

y

Fin

ch e

t al.

(200

9)

Nat

iona

l nor

m-

refe

renc

ed a

chie

ve-

men

t tes

t (Te

rraN

ova

Mul

tiple

Ass

essm

ent

Bat

tery

) on

lang

uage

ar

ts a

nd m

athe

mat

ics

(CT

B/M

cGra

w-H

ill,

1997

)

Fle

tche

r et

al.

(200

9)

Exp

erim

enta

l ver

sion

of

the

Texa

s A

sses

s-m

ent o

f Kno

wle

dge

and

Ski

lls g

rade

7

read

ing

test

Free

land

et a

l. (2

010)

Woo

dcoc

k Jo

hnso

n III

Tes

ts o

f Aca

dem

ic

Ach

ieve

men

t (W

ood-

cock

et a

l., 2

001)

John

ston

e et

al.

(200

9)S

urve

y fo

r ed

ucat

ors

Jord

an (

2009

)

Sur

vey

and

inte

rvie

w

prot

ocol

for

stud

ents

, pa

rent

s, a

nd e

duca

-to

rs

68 69NCEO NCEO

Au

tho

rs

No

n-A

cad

emic

P

roto

cols

or

Su

rvey

s D

evel

op

ed b

y S

tud

y A

uth

or/

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Co

gn

itiv

e A

bili

ty

Mea

sure

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Aca

dem

ic A

chie

vem

ent

Mea

sure

s

Sta

te C

rite

rio

n-

refe

ren

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Su

rvey

s o

r A

cad

emic

Te

sts

Dev

elo

ped

by

Pro

fess

ion

als

or

Res

earc

her

s U

sin

g

So

urc

es O

uts

ide

of

Cu

rren

t S

tud

y

Kim

& H

uynh

(2

010)

Uns

peci

fied

stat

e’s

stat

ewid

e E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge a

rts

9th-

grad

e en

d-of

-cou

rse

exam

, add

ress

ing

five

cont

ent a

reas

whi

ch

incl

uded

: Rea

ding

I -

Und

erst

andi

ng a

nd

Usi

ng L

itera

ry T

exts

, R

eadi

ng I

I - U

nder

-st

andi

ng a

nd U

sing

In

form

atio

nal T

exts

, R

eadi

ng II

I – B

uild

ing

Voc

abul

ary,

Writ

ing–

Dev

elop

ing

Writ

ten

Com

mun

icat

ions

, and

R

esea

rchi

ng –

App

ly-

ing

the

Ski

lls o

f Inq

uiry

an

d O

ral C

omm

unic

a-tio

n

Kim

et a

l. (2

009a

)

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Pal

-m

etto

Ach

ieve

men

t C

halle

nge

Test

(PA

CT

) in

sci

ence

at g

rade

s 3,

4,

and

5

Kim

et a

l. (2

009b

)

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Pal

-m

etto

Ach

ieve

men

t C

halle

nge

Test

(PA

CT

) in

sci

ence

at g

rade

s 6,

7,

and

8

Au

tho

rs

No

n-A

cad

emic

P

roto

cols

or

Su

rvey

s D

evel

op

ed b

y S

tud

y A

uth

or/

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Co

gn

itiv

e A

bili

ty

Mea

sure

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Aca

dem

ic A

chie

vem

ent

Mea

sure

s

Sta

te C

rite

rio

n-

refe

ren

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Su

rvey

s o

r A

cad

emic

Te

sts

Dev

elo

ped

by

Pro

fess

ion

als

or

Res

earc

her

s U

sin

g

So

urc

es O

uts

ide

of

Cu

rren

t S

tud

y

Kin

gsto

n (2

009)

Met

a-an

alys

is a

p-pr

oach

dev

elop

ed fo

r th

ese

81 g

rade

-sub

-je

ct c

ombi

natio

ns in

14

stu

dies

whi

ch u

sed

vario

us c

onte

nt te

sts

and

surv

eys

Laitu

sis

(201

0)S

urve

y fo

r ed

ucat

ors,

su

rvey

for

stud

ents

2 flu

ency

scr

een-

ing

test

s in

clud

ed:

Woo

dcoc

k-Jo

hnso

n III

Dia

gnos

tic R

eadi

ng

Bat

tery

(W

J-III

DR

B)

Rea

ding

Flu

ency

su

btes

t (W

oodc

ock

et a

l., 2

004)

; Tes

t of

Sile

nt W

ord

Rea

ding

F

luen

cy (

TOS

WR

F;

Mat

her

et a

l., 2

004)

/

4th

gra

d-er

s al

so r

ecei

ved

two

othe

r su

btes

ts o

f WJ-

III D

RB

on

lette

r-w

ord

iden

tifica

tion

and

wor

d at

tack

(W

oodc

ock

et

al.,

2004

)

Gat

es-M

cGin

itie

Rea

ding

Tes

ts

(GM

RT

) F

ourt

h E

ditio

n su

btes

t on

com

pre-

hens

ion

(Mac

Gin

itie

et

al.,

2000

)

Laza

rus

et a

l. (2

009)

70 71NCEO NCEO

Au

tho

rs

No

n-A

cad

emic

P

roto

cols

or

Su

rvey

s D

evel

op

ed b

y S

tud

y A

uth

or/

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Co

gn

itiv

e A

bili

ty

Mea

sure

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Aca

dem

ic A

chie

vem

ent

Mea

sure

s

Sta

te C

rite

rio

n-

refe

ren

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Su

rvey

s o

r A

cad

emic

Te

sts

Dev

elo

ped

by

Pro

fess

ion

als

or

Res

earc

her

s U

sin

g

So

urc

es O

uts

ide

of

Cu

rren

t S

tud

y

Lee

et a

l. (2

010)

Par

ticip

ants

’ vie

ws

of

thei

r te

stin

g ex

peri-

ence

s as

rep

orte

d on

a s

urve

y an

d in

a

follo

w-u

p in

terv

iew

C

ours

e ex

am in

intr

o-du

ctor

y ps

ycho

logy

[u

npub

lishe

d]

Lind

stro

m

(201

0)

Loga

n (2

009)

Nel

son-

Den

ny R

ead-

ing

Test

, Com

preh

en-

sion

sec

tion

(Bro

wn

et

al.,

1993

)

3 in

clud

ed th

ose

of

posi

tive

emot

ions

, ne

gativ

e em

otio

ns,

and

self-

effic

acy

as

mea

sure

d by

par

tici-

pant

sel

f-ra

ting

scal

es:

Ach

ieve

men

t Goa

l Q

uest

ionn

aire

(E

lliot

&

McG

rego

r, 20

01;

Cur

y, E

lliot

, DaF

on-

esca

, & M

olle

r, 20

06),

Te

st E

mot

ions

Que

s-tio

nnai

re (

Pek

run

et

al.,

2004

, 200

6), a

nd

Mot

ivat

ed S

trat

egie

s fo

r Le

arni

ng Q

uest

ion-

naire

(P

intr

ich

et a

l.,

1991

, 199

3).

Love

tt (2

010)

Au

tho

rs

No

n-A

cad

emic

P

roto

cols

or

Su

rvey

s D

evel

op

ed b

y S

tud

y A

uth

or/

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Co

gn

itiv

e A

bili

ty

Mea

sure

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Aca

dem

ic A

chie

vem

ent

Mea

sure

s

Sta

te C

rite

rio

n-

refe

ren

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Su

rvey

s o

r A

cad

emic

Te

sts

Dev

elo

ped

by

Pro

fess

ion

als

or

Res

earc

her

s U

sin

g

So

urc

es O

uts

ide

of

Cu

rren

t S

tud

y

Love

tt et

al.

(201

0)

One

-min

ute

sam

ple

of w

ritin

g to

mea

sure

ha

ndw

ritin

g an

d ty

ping

sp

eed

2 te

sts:

Tes

t of W

ritte

n La

ngua

ge, T

hird

Edi

-tio

n (T

OW

L-3)

, For

m

B (

Ham

mill

& L

arse

n,

1996

); W

oodc

ock-

John

son

Test

s of

A

chie

vem

ent,

Thi

rd

Edi

tion,

For

m A

(W

J-III

), w

ritin

g flu

ency

su

btes

t (W

oodc

ock

et

al.,

2001

)

Mar

iano

et a

l. (2

009)

Sur

vey

for

educ

ator

s

Mas

terg

eorg

e &

M

artin

ez (

2010

)S

urve

y fo

r ed

ucat

ors

Sta

ndar

ds T

est t

o E

valu

ate

the

Per

for-

man

ce o

f Stu

dent

s (S

TE

PS

; Mas

ter-

geor

ge &

Mar

tinez

, 20

10)

Par

ks (

2009

)

Kau

fman

Tes

t of

Edu

catio

nal A

chie

ve-

men

t, S

econ

d E

ditio

n (K

TE

A-I

I) s

ubsc

ale

on

Mat

h C

once

pts

and

App

licat

ions

(K

aufm

an

& K

aufm

an, 2

004)

A

bbre

viat

ed M

ath

Anx

iety

Sca

le (

AM

AS

; H

opko

et a

l., 2

003)

72 73NCEO NCEO

Au

tho

rs

No

n-A

cad

emic

P

roto

cols

or

Su

rvey

s D

evel

op

ed b

y S

tud

y A

uth

or/

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Co

gn

itiv

e A

bili

ty

Mea

sure

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Aca

dem

ic A

chie

vem

ent

Mea

sure

s

Sta

te C

rite

rio

n-

refe

ren

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Su

rvey

s o

r A

cad

emic

Te

sts

Dev

elo

ped

by

Pro

fess

ion

als

or

Res

earc

her

s U

sin

g

So

urc

es O

uts

ide

of

Cu

rren

t S

tud

y

Pel

tenb

urg

&

van

den

Heu

-ve

l-Pan

huiz

en

(200

9)

Item

s dr

awn

from

C

ITO

Mon

itorin

g Te

st

for

Mat

hem

atic

s E

nd

Gra

de 2

(Ja

nsse

n et

al

., 20

05)

Ran

dall

& E

ngel

-ha

rd (

2010

)

Geo

rgia

Crit

erio

n R

ef-

eren

ce C

ompe

tenc

y Te

sts

(GA

CR

CT

) in

R

eadi

ng a

t the

four

th

grad

e an

d se

vent

h gr

ade

Ric

ketts

et a

l. (2

010)

Fou

r co

nten

t-ba

sed

mul

tiple

-cho

ice

test

s of

125

item

s gi

ven

as

stat

us c

heck

s ac

ross

co

urse

[unp

ublis

hed]

Roa

ch e

t al.

(201

0)

Sur

vey

for

stud

ents

; co

gniti

ve la

b in

terv

iew

pr

otoc

ol

Uns

peci

fied

stat

e’s

field

test

of a

n A

l-te

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t ba

sed

on M

odifi

ed

Ach

ieve

men

t Sta

n-da

rds

(AA

-MA

S)

Rox

bury

(20

10)

Uns

peci

fied

stat

e’s

grad

e 8

test

for

mat

h-em

atic

s, r

eadi

ng, a

nd

scie

nce

Au

tho

rs

No

n-A

cad

emic

P

roto

cols

or

Su

rvey

s D

evel

op

ed b

y S

tud

y A

uth

or/

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Co

gn

itiv

e A

bili

ty

Mea

sure

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Aca

dem

ic A

chie

vem

ent

Mea

sure

s

Sta

te C

rite

rio

n-

refe

ren

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Su

rvey

s o

r A

cad

emic

Te

sts

Dev

elo

ped

by

Pro

fess

ion

als

or

Res

earc

her

s U

sin

g

So

urc

es O

uts

ide

of

Cu

rren

t S

tud

y

Rus

sell

et a

l. (2

009a

)

Two

pilo

t tes

ts w

ith

item

s dr

awn

from

re

leas

ed it

ems

of th

e N

H s

tate

10t

h-gr

ade

mat

h te

st, f

or s

epar

ate

part

icip

ant g

roup

s [u

npub

lishe

d]

Rus

sell

et a

l. (2

009b

)S

urve

y fo

r st

uden

ts;

focu

s gr

oup

prot

ocol

Rel

ease

d-ite

ms

draw

n fr

om g

rade

8 N

a-tio

nal A

sses

smen

t of

Edu

catio

nal P

rogr

ess

(NA

EP

) fo

r m

athe

mat

-ic

s

Sal

end

(200

9)

Sch

och

(201

0)In

terv

iew

pro

toco

l for

ed

ucat

ors

R

elea

sed-

item

s w

ere

draw

n fr

om fo

ur s

tate

s’

mat

hem

atic

s te

sts

Sny

der

(201

0)

Mat

hem

atic

s an

d re

adin

g ite

ms

draw

n fr

om th

e M

easu

res

of

Aca

dem

ic P

rogr

ess

(MA

P)

item

ban

k (N

orth

wes

t Eva

luat

ion

Ass

ocia

tion,

200

9)

Sto

ne e

t al.

(201

0)

Uns

peci

fied

stat

e’s

Eng

lish

lang

uage

art

s te

st

74 75NCEO NCEO

Au

tho

rs

No

n-A

cad

emic

P

roto

cols

or

Su

rvey

s D

evel

op

ed b

y S

tud

y A

uth

or/

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Co

gn

itiv

e A

bili

ty

Mea

sure

s

No

rm-r

efer

ence

d

Aca

dem

ic A

chie

vem

ent

Mea

sure

s

Sta

te C

rite

rio

n-

refe

ren

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Su

rvey

s o

r A

cad

emic

Te

sts

Dev

elo

ped

by

Pro

fess

ion

als

or

Res

earc

her

s U

sin

g

So

urc

es O

uts

ide

of

Cu

rren

t S

tud

y

Zha

ng e

t al.

(201

0)

Edu

cato

r su

rvey

m

easu

ring

mul

tiple

co

nstr

ucts

, inc

ludi

ng

Leve

l of C

omfo

rt w

ith

Stu

dent

s w

ith D

is-

abili

ties,

Kno

wle

dge

of L

egal

Res

pons

ibili

-tie

s, P

erso

nal B

elie

fs

Reg

ardi

ng th

e E

duca

-tio

n of

Stu

dent

s w

ith

Dis

abili

ties,

Per

ceiv

ed

Inst

itutio

nal S

uppo

rt,

and

Pro

visi

on o

f Ac-

com

mod

atio

ns to

Stu

-de

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

TOTA

L (

nu

mb

er

of

stu

die

s)19

28

1117

Table C-2. Content Areas Assessed

Au

tho

r/s

Mat

h

Rea

din

g

Wri

tin

g

Oth

er L

A

Sci

ence

So

cial

Stu

die

s

Inte

llig

ence

Tes

t

Psy

cho

log

y

No

t S

pec

ific

N

Altman ◘ et al. (2010) 0

Anjorin (2009) • 1


• 1


0


0


0

Bayles (2009) 0

Bouck (2009) • 1

Bouck (2010) • 1

Bublitz (2009) 0

Byrd (2010) 0

Cawthon (2009) 0

Cawthon (2010) • • • 3

Cook et al. (2009) • 1

Cook et al. (2010) • • 2

Elliott et al. (2009) • • 2

Elliott et al. (2010) • • 2

Finch et al. (2009) • •1 2

Fletcher et al. (2009) • 1

Freeland et al. (2010) • • • • 4


0

Jordan (2009) • • 2

76 77NCEO NCEO

Au

tho

r/s

Mat

h

Rea

din

g

Wri

tin

g

Oth

er L

A

Sci

ence

So

cial

Stu

die

s

Inte

llig

ence

Tes

t

Psy

cho

log

y

No

t S

pec

ific

N

Schoch (2010) • 1

Snyder (2010) • • 2

Stone et al. (2010) • • 2

Zhang et al. (2010) 0

Total 20 16 5 4 7 2 1 1 0

1 Other LA = a subset of items from the TerraNova test were used; unspecified areas of “language arts” were tested2 Other LA = one researching section3 Other LA = in this meta-analysis of 81 studies, the language-related content areas were specified by the researcher to include reading as well as language arts, but not including writing4 Other LA = performance test in language arts, in addition to writing component

Au

tho

r/s

Mat

h

Rea

din

g

Wri

tin

g

Oth

er L

A

Sci

ence

So

cial

Stu

die

s

Inte

llig

ence

Tes

t

Psy

cho

log

y

No

t S

pec

ific

N

Kim & Huynh (2010) •2 •2 •2 3

Kim et al. (2009a) • 1

Kim et al. (2009b) • 1

Kingston (2009) • •3 •3 • • 5

Laitusis (2010) • 1

Lazarus et al. (2009) 0

Lee et al. (2010) • 1

Lindstrom (2010) • 1

Logan (2009) • 1

Lovett (2010) 0

Lovett et al. (2010) • 1

Mariano et al. (2009) 0


• •4 •4 3

Parks (2009) • 1


• 1


• 1

Ricketts et al. (2010) 0

Roach et al. (2010) • • 2

Roxbury (2010) • • • 3

Russell et al. (2009a) • 1

Russell et al. (2009b) • 1

Salend (2009) 0

78 79NCEO NCEO

Appendix D

Participant and Sample Characteristics

Table D-1. Unit of Analysis, Total Sample Sizes, Grade/Education Level, and Types of Disabilities

Au

tho

rs

Un

it o

f

A

nal

ysis

Sam

ple

Siz

e

Per

cen

t o

f S

amp

le w

ith

D

isab

iliti

es

Gra

de

/ E

du

cati

on

Lev

el

Dis

abili

ty

Cat

ego

ries

In

clu

ded

in

Sam

ple

Altman et al. (2010)

educators 2,336 N/A N/A N/A

Anjorin (2009)

students 61,270 11% 10 LD


students 300 no info High School Not Specified


students 83 100%Postsecond-

aryLD, Mult, PD



aryEBD, HI, LD, Mult, PD,

S/L, VI



aryEBD, LD, PD

Bayles (2009)

educators / parents

27 N/A N/A N/A

Bouck (2009) students 40 33% 7 AP, EBD, LD, None

Bouck (2010) students 108 23% 8 AP, EBD, LD, None

Bublitz (2009)

educators 38 N/A N/A N/A

Byrd (2010)educators /

students126 5%

Postsecondary (Undergrad &

Grad)

AP, EBD, HI, LD, Mult, PD, VI

Cawthon (2009)


Cawthon (2010)

educators 290 N/A N/AEBD, HI, ID, LD, Mult,

VI

80 81NCEO NCEO

Au

tho

rs

Un

it o

f

A

nal

ysis

Sam

ple

Siz

e

Per

cen

t o

f S

amp

le w

ith

D

isab

iliti

es

Gra

de

/ E

du

cati

on

Lev

el

Dis

abili

ty

Cat

ego

ries

In

clu

ded

in

Sam

ple

Cook et al. (2009)

students 2,028 45% 4, 8 LD

Cook et al. (2010)



students 218 33% 4 LD


students 755 64% 8AP, A, EBD, HI, ID, LD,

PD, S/L, VI, None

Finch et al. (2009)

students 3,550 100% 3 thru 8AP, A, EBD, HI, ID, LD,

PD, S/L, VI

Fletcher et al. (2009)

students 359 47% 7 S/L

Freeland et al. (2010)

students 168 100% Age: 13-21 VI



Jordan (2009)

educators/ parents / students

21 29% 3, 4, 7 LD

Kim & Huynh (2010)


Kim et al. (2009a)

students 21,332 50% 6, 7, 8A, EBD, HI, ID, LD, Mult, PD, S/L, VI,

None

Kim et al. (2009b)

students 20,101 70% 3, 4, 5A, EBD, HI, ID, LD, Mult, PD, S/L, VI

Kingston (2009)

meta-anal-ysis

N/A N/A K thru 12 Not Specified

Laitusis (2010)

students 2,028 45% 4, 8 LD

Lazarus et al. (2009)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lee et al. (2010)


aryAP

Au

tho

rs

Un

it o

f

A

nal

ysis

Sam

ple

Siz

e

Per

cen

t o

f S

amp

le w

ith

D

isab

iliti

es

Gra

de

/ E

du

cati

on

Lev

el

Dis

abili

ty

Cat

ego

ries

In

clu

ded

in

Sam

ple

Lindstrom (2010)

N/A N/A N/AElementary &

SecondaryAP, ID, LD

Logan (2009)

students 90 100% 9 thru 12 LD

Lovett (2010) N/A N/A N/A N/A Not Specified



aryNone

Mariano et al. (2009)


Master-george & Martinez (2010)

educators 12 N/A N/A Not Specified, None

Parks (2009) students 45 67% Middle School AP, LD, None

Peltenburg et al. (2009)

students 37 100%Ages: 8-12; grades 3-6

ID


students 1,940 46% 4, 7AP. A, EBD, HI, ID,

LD, Mult, PD, S/H, VI, None


students 1,604 6%Postsecond-

aryLD

Roach et al. (2010)

students 1,412 64% 8 Not Specified, None

Roxbury (2010)

students 15,274 16 8 AP, LD, None


students 40 100%10th grade-

level test items

AP, LD, Mult


students 96 100% 8 thru 11 HI

Salend (2009)

N/A N/A N/A N/A Not Specified

Schoch (2010)

educators / students

20 50% 9 thru 12 VI

Snyder (2010)

students 624 no info 3 thru 6 Not Specified

82 83NCEO NCEO

Au

tho

rs

Un

it o

f

A

nal

ysis

Sam

ple

Siz

e

Per

cen

t o

f S

amp

le w

ith

D

isab

iliti

es

Gra

de

/ E

du

cati

on

Lev

el

Dis

abili

ty

Cat

ego

ries

In

clu

ded

in

Sam

ple

Stone et al. (2010)

students 60,473 <1% 4, 8 VI, None

Zhang et al. (2010)


AP: Attention Problem ID: Intellectual Disability RD: Reading Disability

A: Autism LD: Learning Disability S/L: Speech/Language Disability

EBD: Emotional/Behavioral Disability Mult: Multiple Disability V/I: Visual Impairment / Blindness

HI: Hearing Impairment / Deafness PD: Physical Disability None: Students without Disabilities

Appendix E

Accommodations Studied

Table E-1. Presentation Accommodations Itemized by Study

Au

tho

r/s

Bra

ille

Cla

rify

d

irec

tio

ns

Co

mp

ute

r ad

min

istr

atio

n

Cu

ein

g

Dic

tio

nar

y

Exa

min

er

fam

iliar

ity

Fo

rmat

Inte

rpre

ter

Inte

rpre

ter

for

inst

ruct

ion

s

Anjorin (2009) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1


0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cawthon (2009) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cawthon (2010) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Cook et al. (2009) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cook et al. (2010) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Elliott et al. (2009) 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Fletcher et al. (2009) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jordan (2009) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kim & Huynh (2010) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kim et al. (2009a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kim et al. (2009b) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kingston (2009) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Laitusis (2010) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lazarus et al. (2009) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Lee et al. (2010) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lindstrom (2010) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ricketts et al. (2010) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

84 85NCEO NCEO

Au

tho

r/s

Bra

ille

Cla

rify

d

irec

tio

ns

Co

mp

ute

r ad

min

istr

atio

n

Cu

ein

g

Dic

tio

nar

y

Exa

min

er

fam

iliar

ity

Fo

rmat

Inte

rpre

ter

Inte

rpre

ter

for

inst

ruct

ion

s

Roxbury (2010) 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Russell et al. (2009a) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Russell et al. (2009b) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Salend (2009) 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0

Schoch (2010) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Snyder (2010) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stone et al. (2010) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 5 2 9 2 2 2 2 3 1

Table E-1. [Continued]

Au

tho

r/s

Lar

ge

pri

nt

Par

aph

rasi

ng

Rea

d a

lou

d

Rea

d

dir

ecti

on

s

Sig

ned

ad

min

istr

atio

n

Sim

plifi

ed

lan

gu

age

Stu

den

t re

ad

alo

ud

Vis

ual

cu

es

TOTA

L

Anjorin (2009) 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 7

Arce-Ferrer & Guz-man (2009)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Cawthon (2009) 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3

Cawthon (2010) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3

Cook et al. (2009) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Cook et al. (2010) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

Elliott et al. (2009) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 8

Fletcher et al. (2009) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1


1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4

Jordan (2009) 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3

Kim & Huynh (2010) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Kim et al. (2009a) 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2

Kim et al. (2009b) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1A

uth

or/

s

Lar

ge

pri

nt

Par

aph

rasi

ng

Rea

d a

lou

d

Rea

d

dir

ecti

on

s

Sig

ned

ad

min

istr

atio

n

Sim

plifi

ed

lan

gu

age

Stu

den

t re

ad

alo

ud

Vis

ual

cu

es

TOTA

L

Kingston (2009) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Laitusis (2010) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Lazarus et al. (2009) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

Lee et al. (2010) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Lindstrom (2010) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1


0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3


0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Ricketts et al. (2010) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Roxbury (2010) 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5

Russell et al. (2009a) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

Russell et al. (2009b) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

Salend (2009) 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 10

Schoch (2010) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Snyder (2010) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Stone et al. (2010) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

TOTAL 7 1 20 5 6 1 2 1 71

86 87NCEO NCEO

Table E-2. Equipment Accommodations Itemized by Study

Au

tho

r/s

Au

dio

cas

sett

e

Co

mp

ute

r ad

min

istr

atio

n

Phy

sica

l su

pp

ort

s

Scr

een

dis

pla

y

Tech

no

log

ical

ai

d

TOTA

L


0 1 0 0 0 1

Cook et al. (2010) 1 0 0 0 0 1


1 1 0 1 0 3

Kim & Huynh (2010) 0 1 0 0 0 1

Kingston (2009) 0 1 0 0 0 1

Lee et al. (2010) 0 1 0 0 0 1


0 1 0 0 0 1

Russell et al. (2009a) 0 1 0 1 0 2

Russell et al. (2009b) 0 1 0 0 0 1

Salend (2009) 0 1 1 1 1 4

TOTAL 2 9 1 3 1 16

Tab

le E

-3. R

esp

on

se A

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

Item

ized

by

Stu

dy

Author/s

Calculator

Computer administration

Dictated response

Interpreter

Mark answer in test booklet

Speech recognition system

Tape recorder

Signed response

Spell-checker

Word-processor

TOTAL

Anj

orin

(20

09)

10

01

00

00

00

2

Arc

e-F

erre

r &

Guz

man

(2

009)

01

00

00

00

00

1

Bou

ck (

2009

)1

00

00

00

00

01

Bou

ck (

2010

)1

00

00

00

00

01

Caw

thon

(20

09)

00

00

00

01

00

1

Caw

thon

(20

10)

00

01

00

00

00

1

Coo

k et

al.

(201

0)0

01

01

01

10

15

John

ston

e et

al.

(200

9)0

10

00

00

00

01

Jord

an (

2009

)0

01

00

00

00

12

Kim

& H

uynh

(20

10)

01

00

00

00

00

1

Kin

gsto

n (2

009)

01

00

00

00

00

1

Laza

rus

et a

l. (2

009)

10

01

00

00

10

3

Lee

et a

l. (2

010)

01

00

00

00

00

1

Par

ks (

2009

)1

00

00

00

00

01

Pel

tenb

urg

& v

an d

en

Heu

vel-P

anhu

izen

(2

009)

01

00

00

00

00

1

88 89NCEO NCEO

Author/s

Calculator

Computer administration

Dictated response

Interpreter

Mark answer in test booklet

Speech recognition system

Tape recorder

Signed response

Spell-checker

Word-processor

TOTAL

Rox

bury

(20

10)

00

10

00

00

01

2

Rus

sell

et a

l. (2

009a

)1

10

00

00

00

0 2

Rus

sell

et a

l. (2

009b

)0

10

00

00

00

0 1

Sal

end

(200

9)0

11

00

10

11

1 6

TOTA

L6

94

31

11

32

434

Table E-4. Scheduling Accommodations Itemized by Study

Au

tho

r/s

Ext

end

ed

tim

e

Mu

ltip

le d

ay

Test

bre

aks

TOTA

L

Byrd (2010) 1 0 0 1

Cawthon (2009) 1 0 0 1

Cawthon (2010) 1 0 0 1

Cook et al. (2010) 1 1 1 3

Elliott et al. (2009) 1 0 0 1

Fletcher et al. (2009) 0 1 0 1

Jordan (2009) 1 0 1 2

Laitusis (2010) 1 0 0 1

Lazarus et al. (2009) 1 0 0 1

Lee et al. (2010) 1 0 0 1

Lindstrom (2010) 1 0 0 1

Logan (2009) 1 0 0 1

Lovett (2010) 1 0 0 1

Lovett et al. (2010) 1 0 0 1

Ricketts et al. (2010) 1 0 0 1

Roxbury (2010) 1 1 1 3

TOTAL 15 3 3 21

90 91NCEO NCEO

Table E-5. Setting Accommodations Itemized by Study

Au

tho

r/s

Ind

ivid

ual

Sm

all g

rou

p

Sp

ecia

lized

se

ttin

g

TOTA

L

Anjorin (2009) 0 1 1 2

Byrd (2010) 0 0 1 1

Cawthon (2009) 1 1 0 2

Cawthon (2010) 0 1 1 2

Cook et al. (2010) 0 0 1 1

Elliott et al. (2009) 0 0 1 1

Jordan (2009) 0 1 0 1

Parks (2009) 1 0 0 1

Roxbury (2010) 1 1 1 3

TOTAL 3 5 6 14

Ap

pen

dix

F

Res

earc

h F

indi

ngs

Tab

le F

-1. F

ind

ing

s fo

r S

tud

ies

Exa

min

ing

Ora

l Pre

sen

tati

on

Acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

T

he

read

-alo

ud

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

DID

NO

T a

lter

th

e co

nst

ruct

bei

ng

tes

ted

Coo

k et

al.

(200

9)1

Exp

lora

tory

and

con

firm

ator

y an

alys

es b

oth

indi

cate

d th

at th

e G

ates

Mac

Gin

itie

Rea

ding

Tes

t com

preh

ensi

on s

ubte

st

“mea

sure

s th

e sa

me

unde

rlyin

g co

nstr

ucts

whe

n ad

min

iste

red

with

and

with

out a

rea

d-al

oud

test

cha

nge”

(fr

om A

b-st

ract

).

Coo

k et

al.

(201

0)

Thi

s st

udy

com

pare

d E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge a

rts

test

res

ults

for

grad

e 4

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s ta

king

the

stan

dard

test

ad

min

istr

atio

n, s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

unde

r st

anda

rd te

st a

dmin

istr

atio

n, s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

who

use

d IE

P o

r 50

4 pl

an-s

peci

fied

acco

mm

odat

ions

, and

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s us

ing

read

-alo

ud a

ccom

mod

atio

n.

Sin

gle

and

mul

ti-gr

oup

confi

rmat

ory

fact

or a

naly

sis

(CFA

) su

ppor

ted

a si

ngle

und

erly

ing

cons

truc

t for

all

grou

ps o

n bo

th

read

ing

and

writ

ing

test

s, b

ut a

dditi

onal

sta

tistic

s di

d no

t pre

sent

as

clea

r-cu

t a p

ictu

re. T

he a

utho

rs n

ever

thel

ess

con-

clud

e th

at th

ere

is e

vide

nce

for

equa

lity

of fa

ctor

str

uctu

re a

cros

s th

e fo

ur g

roup

s.

Kim

et a

l. (2

009)

The

stu

dy e

xam

ines

the

mea

ning

of t

he s

tate

test

res

ults

for

stud

ents

rec

eivi

ng th

e or

al a

dmin

istr

atio

n ac

com

mod

a-tio

n. T

he a

naly

sis

of th

e as

sess

men

t’s fa

ctor

str

uctu

re y

ield

s th

at th

e fa

ctor

s w

ere

inva

riant

with

one

ano

ther

; tha

t is,

the

mea

ning

of t

he s

cien

ce te

st s

core

s fo

r th

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s re

ceiv

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

was

the

sam

e as

the

scor

es fo

r th

e st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

not r

ecei

ving

acc

omm

odat

ions

.

Kim

et a

l. (2

009)

The

stu

dy e

xam

ined

the

fact

or s

truc

ture

for

a st

atew

ide

scie

nce

asse

ssm

ent,

incl

udin

g sc

ores

of s

tude

nts

rece

ivin

g an

ora

l adm

inis

trat

ion

(rea

d-al

oud)

acc

omm

odat

ion,

non

-set

ting

acco

mm

odat

ions

as

a w

hole

, and

acc

omm

odat

ions

in

gene

ral.

The

ana

lysi

s of

the

asse

ssm

ent’s

fact

or s

truc

ture

yie

lds

that

the

fact

ors

wer

e in

varia

nt w

ith o

ne a

noth

er; t

hat i

s,

the

mea

ning

of t

he s

cien

ce te

st s

core

s fo

r th

e st

uden

ts r

ecei

ving

ora

l acc

omm

odat

ions

is th

e sa

me

as th

e sc

ores

for

the

stud

ents

not

rec

eivi

ng a

ccom

mod

atio

ns.

Sny

der

(201

0)

The

acc

omm

odat

ion

exam

ined

was

the

addi

tion

of a

n au

dio

reco

rdin

g of

item

s fo

r th

e re

adin

g an

d m

ath

test

s. U

nder

st

udy

was

whe

ther

the

addi

tion

of a

udio

rec

ordi

ng m

odifi

ed (

or r

e-ca

libra

ted)

the

diffi

culty

leve

l of p

rinte

d ite

ms.

The

find

-in

gs in

clud

e th

at th

ere

is n

o si

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

the

initi

al it

em c

alib

ratio

n an

d th

e ca

libra

tion

of th

e ite

ms

in

the

audi

o pr

esen

tatio

n m

odifi

catio

n, fo

r th

e re

adin

g te

st a

nd fo

r th

e m

ath

test

as

a w

hole

. Rev

iew

ed in

divi

dual

ly, s

ome

of

the

item

s be

cam

e m

ore

diffi

cult,

oth

ers

beca

me

easi

er, a

nd s

ome

rem

aine

d un

chan

ged

-- b

ut n

otab

le is

that

thes

e di

ffer-

ence

s in

diffi

culty

wer

e ne

utra

lized

acr

oss

the

item

gro

ups

as a

who

le.

92 93NCEO NCEO

T

he

read

-alo

ud

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

pro

vid

ed a

dif

fere

nti

al b

oo

st fo

r sc

ore

s o

f st

ud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es c

om

par

ed

to t

ho

se o

f st

ud

ents

wit

ho

ut

dis

abili

ties

Laitu

sis

(201

0)

The

aud

io p

rese

ntat

ion

acco

mm

odat

ion2

-- u

sing

CD

and

hea

dset

--

was

offe

red

alon

g w

ith r

ecor

ding

ans

wer

s in

test

bo

okle

t ins

tead

of o

n an

swer

she

et a

nd 1

50%

ext

ende

d-tim

e. In

add

ition

to fi

ndin

g lo

wer

test

sco

res

for

stud

ents

with

re

adin

g di

sabi

litie

s th

an fo

r st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties,

a d

iffer

entia

l boo

st w

as id

entifi

ed fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith L

D w

ho

rece

ived

the

audi

o pr

esen

tatio

n ac

com

mod

atio

n at

bot

h th

e fo

urth

and

eig

hth

grad

e le

vels

--

alth

ough

the

boos

t was

de

term

ined

to b

e la

rger

in th

e lo

wer

than

the

high

er g

rade

.

Lind

stro

m

(201

0)

Thi

s re

view

of r

esea

rch

liter

atur

e su

mm

ariz

es s

tudi

es c

ondu

cted

from

200

0 fo

rwar

d w

hich

per

tain

to o

ral a

dmin

istr

atio

n,

exte

nded

-tim

e, a

nd m

ultip

le a

ccom

mod

atio

ns. O

f the

11

stud

ies

feat

ured

, 3 o

f the

m s

uppo

rted

the

“diff

eren

tial b

oost

hy

poth

esis

.” T

he a

rtic

le g

oes

on to

offe

r re

com

men

datio

ns o

n de

term

inin

g ap

prop

riate

acc

omm

odat

ions

, and

pre

sent

s a

disc

ussi

on o

f im

plic

atio

ns fo

r pr

actic

e.

Ran

dall

& E

ngel

-ha

rd (

2010

)3

The

use

of t

he r

ead-

alou

d m

odifi

catio

n pr

oduc

ed a

diff

eren

tial b

oost

for

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

for

stud

ents

com

plet

ing

the

Geo

rgia

Crit

erio

n R

efer

ence

Com

pete

ncy

Test

(C

RC

T)

in R

eadi

ng a

t the

four

th g

rade

leve

l.

T

he

read

-alo

ud

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

imp

rove

d t

he

asse

ssm

ent

per

form

ance

of

all s

tud

ents

Coo

k et

al.

(200

9)1

The

ach

ieve

men

t pat

tern

for

part

icip

ants

dem

onst

rate

s th

at s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s w

ho r

ecei

ved

the

read

-alo

ud

acco

mm

odat

ions

sco

red

high

er th

an th

e gr

oup

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s w

ho d

id n

ot r

ecei

ve th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n. B

oth

of th

e gr

oups

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s sc

ored

hig

her

than

the

grou

p of

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s re

ceiv

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

, who

sc

ored

hig

her

than

the

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

not r

ecei

ving

acc

omm

odat

ions

.

Ran

dall

& E

ngel

-ha

rd (

2010

)3

The

use

of t

he r

ead-

alou

d m

odifi

catio

n by

sev

enth

gra

de s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

did

not d

emon

stra

te a

n in

crea

se o

n th

e G

eorg

ia C

riter

ion

Ref

eren

ce C

ompe

tenc

y Te

st (

CR

CT

) in

Rea

ding

gre

ater

than

that

of s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s.

T

he

read

-alo

ud

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

imp

rove

d t

he

asse

ssm

ent

per

form

ance

of

stu

den

ts w

ith

dis

abili

ties

Jord

an (

2009

)T

he s

tude

nts

expr

esse

d in

inte

rvie

ws

that

the

havi

ng th

e te

st r

ead

alou

d by

a te

st a

dmin

istr

ator

was

hel

pful

for

com

pre-

hend

ing

test

item

s.1 T

his

stud

y in

clud

ed te

st c

onte

nt a

naly

sis

as w

ell a

s sc

ore

com

paris

ons.

2 Thi

s re

ad-a

loud

acc

omm

odat

ion

was

bun

dled

in th

e “n

atur

alis

tic” m

anne

r with

the

othe

r acc

omm

odat

ions

, and

pr

esen

ted

as a

stu

dy fi

ndin

g fo

r

th

e ef

fect

s of

read

-alo

ud a

lone

.3 I

n th

is s

tudy

, find

ings

var

ied

by g

rade

leve

l.

Tab

le F

-2. F

ind

ing

s fo

r S

tud

ies

Exa

min

ing

Co

mp

ute

rize

d A

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

T

he

com

pu

teri

zed

ad

min

istr

atio

n a

cco

mm

od

atio

n im

pro

ved

th

e as

sess

men

t p

erfo

rman

ce o

f st

ud

ents

wit

h d

is-

abili

ties

Lee

et a

l. (2

010)

The

res

ults

yie

lded

that

par

ticip

ants

(co

llege

stu

dent

s w

ith A

DH

D)

perf

orm

ed s

igni

fican

tly b

ette

r on

the

com

pute

r-ba

sed

exam

than

thos

e co

mpl

etin

g th

e ex

am in

pap

er-a

nd-p

enci

l for

mat

. As

the

stud

y al

so e

xam

ined

the

exte

nded

-tim

e ac

com

-m

odat

ion,

ther

e w

as a

sm

all a

nd n

on-s

igni

fican

t int

erac

tion

effe

ct: p

artic

ipan

ts w

ith e

xten

ded-

time

on th

e co

mpu

ter-

base

d ex

am s

core

d be

tter

than

par

ticip

ants

with

ext

ende

d-tim

e on

the

pape

r-an

d-pe

ncil

exam

.

Pel

tenb

urg

et a

l. (2

009)

The

res

ults

indi

cate

d th

at m

ost s

tude

nts

with

LD

impr

oved

thei

r sc

ores

whe

n us

ing

com

pute

r pr

esen

tatio

n in

clud

ing

the

virt

ual m

anip

ulat

ive

tool

. Mor

eove

r, th

e av

aila

bilit

y of

the

tool

and

eve

n pa

rtia

l-use

of t

he to

ol b

enefi

ted

stud

ents

in s

olvi

ng

subt

ract

ion

prob

lem

s re

quiri

ng b

orro

win

g. D

ata

wer

e al

so r

epor

ted

for

thos

e w

ho d

id n

ot d

emon

stra

te im

prov

ed p

erfo

r-m

ance

whe

n us

ing

the

acco

mm

odat

ion.

Rus

sell

et a

l. (2

009a

)

In th

e fir

st p

ilot t

est,

obse

rvat

ions

and

stu

dent

feed

back

pro

vide

d va

rious

info

rmat

ion

with

whi

ch to

impr

ove

the

acce

s-si

bilit

y an

d us

e of

onl

ine

com

pute

rized

acc

omm

odat

ions

tool

s. In

the

seco

nd p

ilot t

est,

com

parin

g st

uden

ts’ s

core

s on

th

e pa

per-

and-

penc

il te

st a

nd th

e co

mpu

teriz

ed v

ersi

on w

ith N

imbl

eToo

ls a

ccom

mod

atio

ns -

- in

clud

ing

read

-alo

ud to

ol,

mag

nific

atio

n to

ol, t

alki

ng c

alcu

lato

r, an

d m

aski

ng to

ol -

- st

uden

ts s

core

d hi

gher

at a

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant l

evel

.

T

he

com

pu

teri

zed

ad

min

istr

atio

n a

cco

mm

od

atio

n D

ID N

OT

imp

rove

th

e as

sess

men

t p

erfo

rman

ce o

f st

ud

ents

w

ith

dis

abili

ties

Kim

& H

uynh

(2

010)

Firs

t of a

ll, th

e st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

on a

vera

ge s

core

d sl

ight

ly b

ette

r on

the

pape

r-an

d-pe

ncil

form

, yet

stil

l at a

le

vel o

f sta

tistic

al s

igni

fican

ce. T

he s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

scor

ed s

imila

rly o

n bo

th te

st fo

rms,

with

no

stat

isti-

cally

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

in m

ean

scor

es. S

ome

diffe

renc

es in

the

cont

ent a

reas

, with

sm

all e

ffect

siz

es, w

ere

note

d.

The

re w

ere

no d

iffer

ence

s in

diffi

culty

leve

l for

the

onlin

e an

d pa

per-

and-

penc

il gr

oups

for

eith

er th

e st

uden

ts w

ith o

r w

ithou

t lea

rnin

g di

sabi

litie

s. F

inal

ly, t

here

wer

e no

ne to

mild

DIF

res

ults

on

the

item

-leve

l ana

lyse

s; h

owev

er, a

t the

bun

dle

(con

tent

are

a) le

vel,

the

DIF

res

ults

wer

e si

gnifi

cant

but

min

imal

in m

agni

tude

. In

sum

mar

y, th

e te

st a

dmin

istr

atio

n m

odes

de

mon

stra

ted

com

para

ble

resu

lts fo

r bo

th g

roup

s --

that

is, s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s sc

ored

sim

ilarly

on

both

onl

ine

and

pape

r ve

rsio

ns o

f the

test

, as

did

stud

ents

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties.

T

he

com

pu

teri

zed

ad

min

istr

atio

n a

cco

mm

od

atio

n c

han

ged

th

e co

nst

ruct

bei

ng

tes

ted

Kin

gsto

n (2

009)

Acc

ordi

ng to

this

met

a-an

alyt

ic s

tudy

, som

e fa

ctor

s se

emed

to h

ave

an e

ffect

on

the

com

para

bilit

y of

com

pute

r-ad

min

-is

tere

d an

d pa

per-

adm

inis

tere

d te

sts,

whi

le o

ther

s di

d no

t. C

onte

nt a

rea

affe

cted

com

para

bilit

y, s

uch

that

stu

dent

s (n

ot

spec

ifica

lly s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties)

sco

red

high

er o

n co

mpu

ter-

adm

inis

tere

d E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge a

rts

and

soci

al s

tudi

es

test

, with

sm

all e

ffect

siz

es (

0.11

and

0.1

5, r

espe

ctiv

ely)

; stu

dent

s sc

ored

hig

her

on p

aper

-adm

inis

tere

d m

athe

mat

ics

test

s, w

ith s

mal

l effe

ct s

ize

(-0.

06).

Gra

de le

vel a

ppea

red

to h

ave

no e

ffect

on

com

para

bilit

y.

94 95NCEO NCEO

T

he

com

pu

teri

zed

ad

min

istr

atio

n a

cco

mm

od

atio

n D

ID N

OT

ch

ang

e th

e co

nst

ruct

bei

ng

tes

ted

Arc

e-F

erre

r &

G

uzm

an (

2009

)R

esul

ts c

ompa

ring

com

pute

r-ba

sed

asse

ssm

ents

and

pap

er-a

nd-p

enci

l for

mat

s sh

ow a

lack

of t

est m

ode

effe

ct o

n di

stri-

butio

n, a

ccur

acy,

and

mea

ning

of r

aw s

core

s.

Tw

o d

iffe

ren

t co

mp

ute

rize

d a

dm

inis

trat

ion

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s D

ID N

OT

ben

efit

stu

den

ts w

ith

dis

abili

ties

mo

re in

co

mp

aris

on

to

on

e an

oth

er

Rus

sell

et a

l. (2

009b

)

The

re w

ere

no s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ces

in p

erfo

rman

ce b

etw

een

the

two

vers

ions

of t

he c

ompu

ter-

base

d A

SL

acco

mm

oda-

tion

-- v

ideo

of h

uman

sig

ning

and

ava

tar

sign

ing

-- e

ven

whe

n ex

amin

ing

part

icip

ants

’ sco

res

at v

aryi

ng p

erfo

rman

ce

leve

ls.

Tab

le F

-3. F

ind

ing

s fo

r S

tud

ies

Exa

min

ing

Ext

end

ed-t

ime

Sch

edu

ling

Acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

T

he

exte

nd

ed-t

ime

acco

mm

od

atio

n D

ID N

OT

imp

rove

th

e as

sess

men

t p

erfo

rman

ce o

f st

ud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es

Lee

et a

l. (2

010)

The

res

ults

yie

lded

that

par

ticip

ants

(co

llege

stu

dent

s w

ith A

DH

D)

perf

orm

ed n

o be

tter

with

the

exte

nded

-tim

e ac

com

-m

odat

ion

than

thos

e co

mpl

etin

g th

e te

st w

ithou

t ext

ende

d-tim

e. A

s th

e st

udy

also

exa

min

ed c

ompu

ter

acco

mm

odat

ions

, th

ere

was

a s

mal

l and

non

-sig

nific

ant i

nter

actio

n ef

fect

: par

ticip

ants

with

ext

ende

d-tim

e on

the

com

pute

r-ba

sed

exam

sc

ored

bet

ter

than

par

ticip

ants

with

ext

ende

d-tim

e on

the

pape

r-an

d-pe

ncil

exam

.

Love

tt (2

010)

Thi

s lit

erat

ure

revi

ew s

ough

t and

offe

red

answ

ers

to v

ario

us is

sues

incl

udin

g ho

w e

xten

ded-

time

influ

ence

s co

nstr

uct

valid

ity a

nd th

e po

ssib

ility

of b

enefi

ts o

f ext

ende

d-tim

e fo

r st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

Love

tt et

al.

(201

0)

The

res

ults

of t

he c

ompa

rison

s be

twee

n ac

com

mod

atio

n co

nditi

ons,

and

acr

oss

the

inte

ract

ions

, wer

e co

mpl

ex a

cros

s th

e pe

rfor

man

ce ta

sks.

The

ext

ende

d-tim

e ac

com

mod

atio

n w

as a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith a

n in

crea

se in

ess

ay le

ngth

, but

onl

y w

hen

prod

uced

with

wor

d pr

oces

sing

, not

han

dwrit

ing.

The

leng

th o

f ess

ays

was

not

rel

ated

to th

eir

qual

ity w

hen

hand

-w

ritte

n, b

ut lo

nger

wor

d-pr

oces

sed

essa

ys s

core

d hi

gher

.

T

he

exte

nd

ed-t

ime

acco

mm

od

atio

n p

rovi

ded

a d

iffe

ren

tial

bo

ost

for

sco

res

of

stu

den

ts w

ith

dis

abili

ties

co

m-

par

ed t

o t

ho

se o

f st

ud

ents

wit

ho

ut

dis

abili

ties

Lind

stro

m

(201

0)

Thi

s re

view

of r

esea

rch

liter

atur

e su

mm

ariz

es s

tudi

es c

ondu

cted

from

200

0 fo

rwar

d w

hich

per

tain

to o

ral a

dmin

istr

a-tio

n, e

xten

ded-

time,

and

mul

tiple

acc

omm

odat

ions

. Of t

he 1

1 st

udie

s fe

atur

ed, 3

of t

hem

sup

port

ed th

e “d

iffer

entia

l boo

st

hypo

thes

is.”

The

art

icle

goe

s on

to o

ffer

reco

mm

enda

tions

on

dete

rmin

ing

appr

opria

te a

ccom

mod

atio

ns, a

nd p

rese

nts

a di

scus

sion

of i

mpl

icat

ions

for

prac

tice.

Ric

ketts

et a

l. (2

010)

Acc

omm

odat

ions

on

cour

se-b

ased

pro

gres

s ch

eck

test

s in

clud

ed e

xtra

tim

e, w

hich

was

spe

cifie

d as

an

extr

a 20

min

utes

pe

r ho

ur o

f tes

t tim

e. N

o si

gnifi

cant

sco

re d

iffer

ence

s w

ere

foun

d ac

ross

UK

und

ergr

adua

te m

edic

al s

tude

nt p

artic

ipan

ts’

dem

ogra

phic

gro

ups

-- n

eith

er b

ased

on

ethn

icity

, sex

, nor

dis

abili

ty s

tatu

s; th

at is

, all

stud

ent g

roup

s pe

rfor

med

equ

iva-

lent

ly to

one

ano

ther

on

the

test

s. S

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties,

ther

efor

e, w

ere

conc

lude

d to

hav

e be

nefit

ed s

uffic

ient

ly fr

om

acco

mm

odat

ions

suc

h th

at th

e m

ultip

le-c

hoic

e te

sts

wer

e co

nsid

ered

fair

to s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties.

Tab

le F

-4. F

ind

ing

s fo

r S

tud

ies

Exa

min

ing

Cal

cula

tor

Res

po

nse

Acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

T

he

calc

ula

tor

acco

mm

od

atio

n p

rovi

ded

a d

iffe

ren

tial

bo

ost

for

sco

res

of

stu

den

ts w

ith

ou

t d

isab

iliti

es c

om

par

ed

to t

ho

se o

f st

ud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es

Bou

ck (

2009

)

Stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ho u

sed

a gr

aphi

ng c

alcu

lato

r on

the

post

-ass

essm

ent a

fter

not u

sing

one

on

the

pre-

asse

ss-

men

t mad

e ga

ins

acro

ss th

ese

two

test

con

ditio

ns. S

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s pe

rfor

med

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

antly

bet

ter

on th

e po

st-a

sses

smen

t tha

n di

d st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s; th

ey a

lso

impr

oved

mor

e th

an s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties.

The

re

sults

indi

cate

that

the

grap

hing

cal

cula

tors

pro

vide

d lim

ited

bene

fit to

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s.

T

he

calc

ula

tor

acco

mm

od

atio

n D

ID N

OT

imp

rove

th

e as

sess

men

t p

erfo

rman

ce o

f st

ud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es

Par

ks (

2009

)

Res

ults

of t

his

com

paris

on a

mon

g st

uden

ts w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s (L

D),

stu

dent

s w

ith a

ttent

ion

defic

it hy

pera

ctiv

ity d

is-

orde

r (A

DH

D),

and

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

show

ed th

at th

e sc

ores

in m

ath

prob

lem

-sol

ving

ski

lls o

f stu

dent

s w

ith L

D

and

thos

e w

ith A

DH

D w

ere

sign

ifica

ntly

low

er th

an th

e sc

ores

of t

hose

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s. F

urth

er, t

here

wer

e no

sig

nifi-

cant

effe

cts

on th

e sc

ores

of e

ither

dis

abili

ty g

roup

for

thos

e re

ceiv

ing

the

calc

ulat

or a

ccom

mod

atio

n co

mpa

red

to s

tu-

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ho d

id n

ot u

se c

alcu

lato

rs. A

dditi

onal

ly, t

he u

se o

f the

cal

cula

tor

acco

mm

odat

ion

had

no s

igni

fican

t ef

fect

on

the

mat

h an

xiet

y of

any

gro

up, i

nclu

ding

stu

dent

s w

ith L

D a

nd s

tude

nts

with

AD

HD

. How

ever

, stu

dent

s in

bot

h di

sabi

lity

grou

ps d

id e

xper

ienc

e si

gnifi

cant

ly h

ighe

r m

ath

anxi

ety

than

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

The

aut

hor

note

d th

at,

in fa

ct, s

ome

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

actu

ally

exp

erie

nced

hig

her

mat

h an

xiet

y w

hen

usin

g th

e ca

lcul

ator

acc

omm

oda-

tion,

and

rec

omm

ende

d th

at te

ache

rs o

ught

to b

e ca

refu

l abo

ut th

e fit

of t

his

acco

mm

odat

ion

to s

peci

fic s

tude

nts

with

LD

an

d w

ith A

DH

D.

96 97NCEO NCEO

Tw

o d

iffe

ren

t ca

lcu

lato

r ac

com

mo

dat

ion

s D

ID N

OT

ben

efit

stu

den

ts w

ith

dis

abili

ties

mo

re in

co

mp

aris

on

to

on

e an

oth

er

Bou

ck (

2010

)

In th

is s

tudy

, stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s an

d st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

com

plet

ed tw

o te

sts

-- o

ne w

ith a

four

-fun

ctio

n ca

lcul

ator

and

one

with

a g

raph

ing

calc

ulat

or. T

he r

esul

ts in

dica

te th

at s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

and

stud

ents

with

out d

is-

abili

ties

perf

orm

ed e

qual

ly w

ell i

n bo

th c

alcu

lato

r ac

com

mod

atio

ns c

ondi

tions

, mea

ning

that

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s di

d no

t rec

eive

a d

iffer

entia

l im

pact

or

boos

t fro

m th

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns in

com

paris

on to

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

Fur

ther

, ne

ither

acc

omm

odat

ion

bene

fitte

d ei

ther

gro

up in

an

enha

nced

man

ner

over

the

othe

r.

Tab

le F

-5. F

ind

ing

s fo

r S

tud

ies

Exa

min

ing

Ag

gre

gat

ed A

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

A

n a

gg

reg

ated

set

of

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

had

mix

ed e

ffec

ts o

n p

erfo

rman

ce o

f st

ud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es

Fle

tche

r et

al.

(200

9)

The

bun

dled

acc

omm

odat

ions

pac

kage

stu

died

incl

uded

the

stru

ctur

ed e

xten

sion

of t

estin

g in

to tw

o pa

rts

on s

ucce

ssiv

e da

ys (

inst

ead

of tw

o da

ys o

f unl

imite

d tim

e), t

he r

eadi

ng a

loud

of p

rope

r no

uns,

and

the

read

ing

alou

d of

ste

ms

and

of

answ

er c

hoic

es to

the

com

preh

ensi

on s

tem

s, a

t the

con

clus

ion

of s

tude

nts

read

ing

the

pass

ages

. Firs

t of a

ll, th

e ex

pect

ed

inte

ract

ion

effe

ct b

etw

een

abili

ty g

roup

and

sco

re d

id n

ot o

ccur

--

whi

ch m

eans

that

bot

h th

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s an

d th

e st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

bene

fited

from

the

acco

mm

odat

ion

pack

age.

Spe

cific

ally

, sco

res

wer

e hi

gher

for

stud

ents

w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

who

par

ticip

ated

in th

e 1-

day

and

2-da

y ad

min

istr

atio

ns in

com

paris

on w

ith th

e st

anda

rd a

dmin

istr

a-tio

n. H

owev

er, s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

did

bene

fit d

iffer

entia

lly fr

om th

e re

ad-a

loud

acc

omm

odat

ion

in c

ompa

rison

to th

e st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

A

n a

gg

reg

ated

set

of

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

had

a p

osi

tive

eff

ect

on

sco

res

for

stu

den

ts w

ith

ou

t d

isab

iliti

es

Elli

ott e

t al.

(200

9)

Acc

omm

odat

ions

incl

uded

thos

e sp

ecifi

ed b

y th

e IE

Ps

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

-- w

hich

incl

uded

ext

ende

d-tim

e, r

ead-

alou

d di

rect

ions

, exa

min

er fa

mili

ar to

stu

dent

, and

re-

read

ing

inst

ruct

ions

on

subt

asks

, am

ong

othe

rs -

- as

wel

l as

othe

rs

reco

mm

ende

d by

teac

hers

for

stud

ent w

ith a

nd s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s. A

com

paris

on c

ondi

tion

was

incl

uded

for

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s w

hich

invo

lved

a “

stan

dard

pac

kage

” of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns -

- in

clud

ing

read

-alo

ud d

irect

ions

, pa

raph

rase

dire

ctio

ns, v

erba

l enc

oura

gem

ent,

and

exte

nded

-tim

e. R

esul

ts o

f dat

a an

alys

es y

ield

ed th

at m

ost s

tude

nts

rece

ivin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns -

- bo

th th

ose

with

(78

%)

and

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s (5

5%)

-- s

core

d be

tter

on th

e pe

rfor

man

ce

task

s. H

owev

er, s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s di

d no

t sco

re d

iffer

ently

in th

e re

com

men

ded-

acco

mm

odat

ions

con

ditio

n or

th

e “s

tand

ard

pack

age”

con

ditio

n.

Tab

le F

-6. F

ind

ing

s fo

r S

tud

ies

Exa

min

ing

Un

iqu

e A

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

P

arti

al s

crib

ing

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

, a u

niq

ue

resp

on

se a

cco

mm

od

atio

n

Jord

an (

2009

)

Thi

s st

udy

was

bui

lt up

on th

e re

cogn

ition

from

initi

al s

urve

ying

of t

each

ers

that

par

tial s

crib

ing

acco

mm

odat

ion

need

ed

exam

inat

ion.

Dat

a dr

awn

from

inte

rvie

win

g te

ache

rs, s

tude

nts,

and

par

ents

pro

vide

d in

sigh

t abo

ut s

tude

nt-d

icta

ted

resp

onse

. The

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

clas

sroo

m s

crib

ing

prac

tices

and

the

stat

e’s

curr

ent a

llow

ance

s fo

r st

uden

t-di

ctat

ed

resp

onse

dur

ing

stat

e te

stin

g, te

rmed

the

“par

tial s

crib

e” m

etho

d, w

ere

elab

orat

ed. T

he fi

ndin

gs o

f the

stu

dy o

vera

ll pe

r-ta

ined

to a

ttitu

des

and

feel

ings

abo

ut a

ccom

mod

atio

ns b

y th

e st

udy

part

icip

ants

, inc

ludi

ng s

tude

nts,

par

ents

, and

teac

h-er

s. F

or in

stan

ce, s

tude

nts

indi

cate

d re

lativ

e co

mfo

rt a

nd fa

mili

arity

with

thei

r be

ing

offe

red

acco

mm

odat

ions

as

they

are

si

mila

r in

inst

ruct

ion

and

asse

ssm

ent s

ettin

gs, t

each

ers

indi

cate

d m

ixed

und

erst

andi

ng o

f stu

dent

s’ p

ersp

ectiv

es y

et fu

ll aw

aren

ess

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns p

rovi

ded,

and

par

ents

had

mix

ed le

vels

of u

nder

stan

ding

abo

ut a

ccom

mod

atio

ns p

rovi

ded

to th

eir

child

ren.

W

ord

-pro

cess

ing

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

for

wri

tin

g e

ssay

s o

n e

xam

s, a

un

iqu

e re

spo

nse

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

Love

tt et

al.

(201

0)

Thi

s st

udy

exam

ined

effe

cts

of w

ord-

proc

essi

ng a

nd e

xten

ded-

time

acco

mm

odat

ions

for

colle

ge s

tude

nts

on e

ssay

ex

ams.

The

res

ults

of t

he c

ompa

rison

s be

twee

n ac

com

mod

atio

n co

nditi

ons,

and

acr

oss

the

inte

ract

ions

, wer

e co

mpl

ex

acro

ss th

e pe

rfor

man

ce ta

sks.

Not

sur

pris

ingl

y, s

tude

nts

type

d m

ore

wor

ds in

the

essa

y an

d sp

eed

task

s th

an th

ey h

and-

wro

te; h

owev

er, t

here

wer

e no

diff

eren

ces

in q

ualit

y be

twee

n ha

ndw

ritte

n an

d w

ord-

proc

esse

d re

spon

ses.

The

ext

ende

d-tim

e ac

com

mod

atio

n w

as a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith a

n in

crea

se in

ess

ay le

ngth

, but

onl

y w

hen

prod

uced

with

wor

d pr

oces

sing

, not

ha

ndw

ritin

g. T

he le

ngth

of e

ssay

s w

as n

ot r

elat

ed to

thei

r qu

ality

whe

n ha

ndw

ritte

n, b

ut lo

nger

wor

d-pr

oces

sed

essa

ys

scor

ed h

ighe

r.

V

irtu

al m

anip

ula

tive

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

for

mat

h p

erfo

rman

ce t

asks

, a u

niq

ue

resp

on

se a

cco

mm

od

atio

n

Pel

tenb

urg

et a

l. (2

009)

Thi

s st

udy

of s

tude

nts

with

mat

hem

atic

s-re

late

d le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s, in

spe

cial

edu

catio

n sc

hool

s in

the

Net

herla

nds,

who

w

ere

com

plet

ing

basi

c m

ath

perf

orm

ance

task

s, e

xam

ined

the

effe

cts

of th

e “1

00 b

oard

” --

a m

anip

ulat

ive

tool

pro

vide

d th

roug

h a

com

pute

r pl

atfo

rm. T

he r

esul

ts in

dica

ted

that

mos

t stu

dent

s w

ith L

D im

prov

ed th

eir

scor

es w

hen

usin

g th

e vi

rtua

l man

ipul

ativ

e to

ol. M

oreo

ver,

the

avai

labi

lity

of th

e to

ol a

nd e

ven

part

ial-u

se o

f the

tool

ben

efite

d st

uden

ts in

sol

ving

su

btra

ctio

n pr

oble

ms

requ

iring

bor

row

ing.

Dat

a w

ere

also

rep

orte

d fo

r th

ose

who

did

not

dem

onst

rate

impr

oved

per

for-

man

ce w

hen

usin

g th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n.

R

eso

urc

e g

uid

e m

od

ifica

tio

n fo

r st

atew

ide

read

ing

ass

essm

ent,

a u

niq

ue

mo

difi

cati

on

to

tes

t p

rese

nta

tio

n

Ran

dall

& E

ngel

-ha

rd (

2010

)

In th

is s

tudy

com

parin

g pe

rfor

man

ce o

n st

atew

ide

elem

enta

ry a

nd m

iddl

e sc

hool

rea

ding

ass

essm

ents

whi

ch u

sed

the

read

-alo

ud a

ccom

mod

atio

n, th

e re

sour

ce g

uide

mod

ifica

tion,

and

the

stan

dard

ass

essm

ent a

dmin

istr

atio

n, d

ata

from

bo

th s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

and

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s w

ere

anal

yzed

. The

info

rmat

ion

in th

e re

sour

ce g

uide

was

se

en a

s pr

ovid

ing

scaf

fold

ed s

uppo

rt -

- su

ch a

s te

rmin

olog

y de

finiti

ons

and

exam

ples

--

by w

hich

stu

dent

s m

ay a

rriv

e at

an

swer

s. T

he u

se o

f the

res

ourc

e gu

ide

mod

ifica

tion

prod

uced

a d

eclin

e in

per

form

ance

for

all g

rade

4 s

tude

nts,

and

als

o a

decl

ine

for

grad

e 7

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

and

a sl

ight

incr

ease

in p

erfo

rman

ce fo

r st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

Thi

s fin

ding

was

see

n as

sug

gest

ing

that

this

sup

port

may

hav

e be

en a

dis

trac

tion

for

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties.

98 99NCEO NCEO

S

ign

lan

gu

age

acco

mm

od

atio

n p

rovi

ded

by

a co

mp

ute

r-g

ener

ated

ava

tar

on

a m

ath

emat

ics

asse

ssm

ent,

a u

niq

ue

pre

sen

tati

on

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

Rus

sell

et a

l. (2

009b

)

In th

is s

tudy

, the

pre

sent

atio

n of

the

mid

dle

scho

ol a

nd h

igh

scho

ol m

athe

mat

ics

asse

ssm

ent w

as a

dmin

iste

red

usin

g a

com

pute

r pl

atfo

rm, u

sing

an

Am

eric

an S

ign

Lang

uage

(A

SL)

acc

omm

odat

ion,

pre

sent

ed e

ither

with

a r

ecor

ded

imag

e of

a

hum

an in

terp

rete

r or

thro

ugh

an a

vata

r si

gnin

g. T

he fi

ndin

gs s

how

ed n

o si

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ces

in p

erfo

rman

ce b

etw

een

the

two

vers

ions

of t

he A

SL

acco

mm

odat

ion,

eve

n w

hen

exam

inin

g pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ s

core

s at

var

ying

per

form

ance

leve

ls.

Als

o, a

bout

2/3

of t

he p

artic

ipan

ts in

dica

ted

a pr

efer

ence

for

the

hum

an r

ecor

ding

and

the

othe

r 1/

3 fo

r th

e av

atar

.

B

raill

e an

d la

rge-

pri

nt

acco

mm

od

atio

n, a

no

t-fr

equ

entl

y-st

ud

ied

pre

sen

tati

on

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

Sto

ne e

t al.

(201

0)

In th

is s

tudy

com

parin

g E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge a

rts

(ELA

) te

st s

core

s fo

r gr

ades

4 a

nd 8

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

and

stud

ents

with

blin

dnes

s an

d vi

sual

impa

irm

ents

usi

ng la

rge

prin

t or

brai

lle a

ccom

mod

atio

ns, t

he te

st it

ems

com

pris

ing

read

ing

and

writ

ing

stan

dard

s w

ere

anal

yzed

for

com

para

bilit

y ac

ross

con

ditio

n us

ing

the

Man

tel-H

aens

zel d

iffer

entia

l ite

m fu

nctio

ning

(D

IF)

met

hod.

Ove

rall,

out

of t

he 7

5-ite

m te

st, 5

rea

ding

and

5 w

ritin

g ite

ms

indi

cate

d D

IF in

gra

de 4

, an

d 8

read

ing

and

2 w

ritin

g ite

ms

indi

cate

d D

IF in

gra

de 8

. Mor

e sp

ecifi

cally

, onl

y 1

item

in e

ach

grad

e le

vel -

- in

gra

de 4

w

ritin

g an

d gr

ade

8 re

adin

g --

wer

e re

port

ed to

hav

e sh

own

larg

e de

gree

of D

IF, w

hich

favo

red

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ili-

ties

in b

oth

case

s. A

ll of

this

sug

gest

s th

at th

e us

e of

thes

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns d

id n

ot a

ffect

the

valid

ity o

f the

con

stru

cts

bein

g m

easu

red.

In lo

okin

g at

the

com

plex

pat

tern

of i

tem

s di

spla

ying

inte

rmed

iate

DIF

, som

e ad

ditio

nal o

bser

vatio

ns m

ay

be m

ade.

For

the

grad

e 4

stud

ents

with

blin

dnes

s an

d vi

sual

impa

irm

ents

, the

re w

ere

mor

e w

ritin

g ite

ms

on w

hich

they

sc

ored

wor

se, a

nd m

ore

read

ing

item

s on

whi

ch th

ey s

core

d be

tter,

than

the

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s. H

owev

er, f

or th

e gr

ade

8 st

uden

ts w

ith b

lindn

ess

and

visu

al im

pair

men

ts, t

here

wer

e m

ore

read

ing

item

s on

whi

ch th

ey s

core

d w

orse

, and

m

ore

writ

ing

item

s on

whi

ch th

ey s

core

d be

tter,

than

the

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s.

Tab

le F

-7. F

ind

ing

s fo

r S

tud

ies

Exa

min

ing

Per

cep

tio

ns

abo

ut

Acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

T

he

mo

st c

om

mo

n a

cco

mm

od

atio

n o

n s

tate

ass

essm

ents

invo

lved

sm

all g

rou

p a

dm

inis

trat

ion

Altm

an e

t al.

(201

0)A

ccor

ding

to th

is s

tate

wid

e ed

ucat

or s

urve

y st

udy,

the

mos

t-us

ed a

ccom

mod

atio

n is

sm

all g

roup

or

indi

vidu

al a

dmin

istr

a-tio

n (6

7% o

f res

pond

ents

), a

nd th

e le

ast-

used

is “

tem

plat

es” (

2% o

f res

pond

ents

).

Anj

orin

(20

09)

On

this

sta

tew

ide

grad

e 10

mat

hem

atic

s te

st, a

ccom

mod

atio

ns w

ere

give

n ei

ther

indi

vidu

ally

or

in p

acka

ges/

com

bina

tions

as

sta

ted

in s

tude

nt’s

IEP.

The

mos

t com

mon

pac

kage

s w

ere:

sm

all g

roup

/rea

d al

oud

dire

ctio

ns/s

ign

inte

rpre

t dire

ctio

ns/

clar

ify d

irect

ions

; sm

all g

roup

/cal

cula

tor;

cal

cula

tor/

num

ber

char

t/man

ipul

ativ

es; s

mal

l gro

up a

lone

.

Caw

thon

(20

10)

Stu

dy p

artic

ipan

ts, w

ho w

ere

educ

ator

s fr

om th

roug

hout

38

stat

es a

nd D

C, t

each

ing

stud

ents

who

are

dea

f or

hard

of

hear

ing,

iden

tified

var

ious

test

acc

omm

odat

ions

for

mat

hem

atic

s, r

eadi

ng, a

nd s

cien

ce a

sses

smen

ts. T

he m

ost c

omm

on-

ly-o

ffere

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns w

ere

repo

rted

to b

e in

divi

dual

or

smal

l gro

up a

dmin

istr

atio

n, th

e ex

tend

ed-t

ime

acco

mm

oda-

tion,

as

wel

l as

the

test

dire

ctio

ns in

terp

rete

d.

Caw

thon

(20

09)

Stu

dy p

artic

ipan

ts, c

ompr

isin

g a

natio

nal s

ampl

e of

edu

cato

rs fo

r st

uden

ts w

ho a

re d

eaf o

r ha

rd-o

f-he

arin

g, r

epor

ted

abou

t use

of v

ario

us te

st a

ccom

mod

atio

ns fo

r ei

ther

or

both

rea

ding

and

mat

h as

sess

men

ts. M

ore

than

two-

third

s of

pa

rtic

ipan

ts u

sed

the

follo

win

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns: s

mal

l gro

up a

dmin

istr

atio

n, e

xten

ded-

time,

and

inte

rpre

ting

test

dire

c-tio

ns, r

ead-

alou

d te

st it

ems,

and

inte

rpre

ting

test

item

s. H

owev

er, o

nly

smal

l gro

up a

dmin

istr

atio

n, e

xten

ded

time,

and

in

terp

retin

g te

st d

irect

ions

wer

e us

ed m

ost o

ften,

and

a m

ajor

ity o

f the

tim

e, fo

r st

uden

ts o

n bo

th a

sses

smen

ts. F

urth

er,

the

stud

ents

sig

ning

res

pons

e w

as n

ot u

sed

by a

t lea

st 7

0% o

f par

ticip

ants

for

thei

r st

uden

ts. A

ddre

ssin

g pr

edic

tors

of a

c-co

mm

odat

ions

use

, non

e of

the

fact

ors

exam

ined

--

incl

udin

g ed

ucat

iona

l set

ting,

lang

uage

of i

nstr

uctio

n, a

nd g

rade

leve

l --

had

sig

nific

ant p

redi

ctiv

e va

lue

rela

ted

to a

ccom

mod

atio

ns u

se.

Rox

bury

(20

10)

In th

is a

naly

sis

of s

tate

wid

e in

cide

nce

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns u

se, t

he m

ost c

omm

only

-use

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns o

n th

e gr

ade

8 as

sess

men

ts in

mat

hem

atic

s, r

eadi

ng, a

nd s

cien

ce, i

nclu

ded

smal

l gro

up a

dmin

istr

atio

n, e

xten

ded-

time,

and

che

ckin

g co

mpr

ehen

sion

of d

irect

ions

, am

ong

othe

rs.

C

om

mo

n a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

for

stu

den

ts w

ith

vis

ual

imp

airm

ents

on

rea

din

g a

sses

smen

ts in

clu

ded

au

dio

rec

ord

-in

gs,

en

larg

ed p

rin

t o

r p

age,

rea

d-a

lou

d b

y te

ach

er, a

nd

mag

nifi

cati

on

to

ols

, as

wel

l as

tact

ile g

rap

hic

s o

n m

ath

-em

atic

s as

sess

men

ts

John

ston

e et

al.

(200

9)

The

res

ults

of t

his

stud

y ex

amin

ing

the

acco

mm

odat

ion

prac

tices

rep

orte

d by

edu

cato

rs o

f stu

dent

s w

ith v

isua

l im

pair-

men

ts y

ield

ed th

at m

any

assi

stiv

e te

chno

logy

tool

s w

ere

in c

omm

on u

se in

cla

ssro

oms,

dep

endi

ng o

n th

e sc

hool

set

-tin

g ty

pe, a

s w

ell a

s du

ring

adm

inis

trat

ion

of te

sts.

Com

mon

ly u

sed

acco

mm

odat

ions

for

read

ing

by s

tude

nts

with

vis

ual

impa

irm

ents

incl

uded

aud

io r

ecor

ding

s as

wel

l as

com

pute

rized

ora

l acc

omm

odat

ions

like

JA

WS

for W

indo

ws,

rea

d-al

oud

by te

ache

r, an

d co

mpu

ter-

base

d or

tech

nolo

gy-b

ased

mag

nific

atio

n to

ols.

Sch

och

(201

0)

Fin

ding

s re

gard

ing

this

com

bina

tion

of v

erba

l inp

ut w

ith e

nlar

ged

prin

t and

tact

ile g

raph

ics

acco

mm

odat

ions

, pro

vide

d fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith v

isua

l im

pair

men

ts, i

nclu

ded

com

men

ts fr

om b

oth

educ

ator

s an

d st

uden

ts. I

nter

view

s w

ith te

ache

rs

reve

aled

that

they

pro

vide

d m

ore

supp

ort t

o st

uden

ts u

sing

tact

ile g

raph

ics

than

they

did

to s

tude

nts

usin

g la

rge

prin

t. A

l-th

ough

ther

e w

ere

no it

em d

esig

n di

ffere

nces

bet

wee

n ty

pe o

f mat

h gr

aphi

c, s

tude

nts

mad

e th

e m

ost e

rror

s on

pro

blem

s w

ith c

ircle

gra

phs.

A

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

pre

sen

ted

th

rou

gh

co

mp

ute

r-b

ased

pla

tfo

rms

hav

e h

ad v

aria

tio

ns

in t

hei

r im

ple

men

tati

on

Sal

end

(200

9)

The

res

ults

of t

his

liter

atur

e re

view

and

exp

osito

ry r

epor

t on

tech

nolo

gy-b

ased

test

s yi

elde

d de

scrip

tion

of n

umer

ous

ac-

com

mod

atio

ns, a

s w

ell a

s gu

idan

ce o

n pr

inci

ples

of u

nive

rsal

des

ign,

list

s of

exe

mpl

ary

reso

urce

s, a

nd c

ateg

oriz

atio

n of

m

any

aspe

cts

of te

st d

esig

n an

d ad

min

istr

atio

n. A

dditi

onal

issu

es s

uch

as s

tude

nt m

otiv

atio

n an

d pr

epar

atio

n, te

ache

r pr

epar

atio

n, a

nd h

igh-

tech

che

atin

g w

ere

disc

usse

d, a

nd g

uida

nce

in e

valu

atin

g te

chno

logy

was

pre

sent

ed.

100 101NCEO NCEO

T

he

read

-alo

ud

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

has

had

var

iati

on

s in

its

imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Laza

rus

et a

l. (2

009)

Thr

ough

out t

he 1

990s

, sta

te a

ccom

mod

atio

ns p

olic

ies

ofte

n so

ught

to le

vel t

he p

layi

ng fi

eld

for

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties.

In

rec

ent y

ears

, mor

e em

phas

is h

as b

een

plac

ed o

n se

ekin

g to

ens

ure

that

the

acco

mm

odat

ions

per

mit

valid

mea

sure

-m

ent o

f tes

t con

stru

cts.

Acc

omm

odat

ions

that

invo

lve

the

use

of te

chno

logy

and

the

exte

nded

-tim

e ac

com

mod

atio

n ar

e ge

nera

lly b

ette

r ac

cept

ed n

ow th

an in

the

past

. The

re c

ontin

ues

to b

e no

con

sens

us a

cros

s st

ates

abo

ut h

ow s

ever

al

acco

mm

odat

ions

, inc

ludi

ng r

ead

alou

d qu

estio

ns, a

s w

ell a

s ca

lcul

ator

, sig

n in

terp

ret q

uest

ions

, and

spe

ll-ch

ecke

r, sh

ould

be

incl

uded

in th

e po

licie

s, a

nd s

tate

s m

ay w

ant t

o co

nsid

er fo

cusi

ng o

n th

e cr

eatio

n of

hig

h-qu

ality

, uni

vers

ally

des

igne

d as

sess

men

ts th

at m

inim

ize

the

need

for

acco

mm

odat

ions

.

E

du

cato

rs h

ave

had

var

yin

g d

egre

es o

f fa

mili

arit

y w

ith

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s, d

epen

din

g in

par

t o

n s

cho

ol g

rad

e le

vel

Bay

les

(200

9)

The

deg

ree

of d

etai

l in

the

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e to

pro

fess

iona

ls v

arie

d ba

sed

on e

duca

tiona

l lev

el, w

ith h

igh

scho

ol e

du-

cato

rs h

avin

g m

ost f

amili

arity

with

det

ails

per

tain

ing

to s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties;

ther

e w

as in

cons

iste

nt c

omm

unic

atio

n am

ong

the

part

icip

ant g

roup

s at

the

elem

enta

ry a

nd m

iddl

e sc

hool

leve

ls. F

indi

ngs

wer

e re

flect

ed in

som

e th

emes

rel

ated

to

acc

ount

abili

ty a

nd s

tand

ardi

zed

curr

icul

um, a

s w

ell a

s te

ache

r ef

fect

iven

ess

in u

sing

acc

omm

odat

ions

, alth

ough

ther

e w

as d

iffer

ent a

pplic

atio

n of

cor

e cu

rric

ulum

mat

eria

ls fo

r th

eir

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties.

Mos

t tea

cher

s no

ted

that

the

use

of s

peci

ally

sel

ecte

d an

d ap

prop

riate

sup

plem

enta

l mat

eria

ls a

llow

ed th

eir

stud

ents

to a

cces

s th

e st

anda

rdiz

ed c

urric

u-lu

m. A

dditi

onal

det

ails

of t

he u

se o

f acc

omm

odat

ions

wer

e re

port

ed b

y th

e pr

ofes

sion

als.

Tab

le F

-8. F

ind

ing

s fo

r S

tud

ies

Exa

min

ing

th

e Im

ple

men

tati

on

of

Acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

T

he

mo

st c

om

mo

n a

cco

mm

od

atio

n o

n s

tate

ass

essm

ents

invo

lved

sm

all g

rou

p a

dm

inis

trat

ion

Altm

an e

t al.

(201

0)A

ccor

ding

to th

is s

tate

wid

e ed

ucat

or s

urve

y st

udy,

the

mos

t-us

ed a

ccom

mod

atio

n is

sm

all g

roup

or

indi

vidu

al a

dmin

istr

a-tio

n (6

7% o

f res

pond

ents

), a

nd th

e le

ast-

used

is “

tem

plat

es” (

2% o

f res

pond

ents

).

Anj

orin

(20

09)

On

this

sta

tew

ide

grad

e 10

mat

hem

atic

s te

st, a

ccom

mod

atio

ns w

ere

give

n ei

ther

indi

vidu

ally

or

in p

acka

ges/

com

bina

tions

as

sta

ted

in s

tude

nt’s

IEP.

The

mos

t com

mon

pac

kage

s w

ere:

sm

all g

roup

/rea

d al

oud

dire

ctio

ns/s

ign

inte

rpre

t dire

ctio

ns/

clar

ify d

irect

ions

; sm

all g

roup

/cal

cula

tor;

cal

cula

tor/

num

ber

char

t/man

ipul

ativ

es; s

mal

l gro

up a

lone

.

Caw

thon

(20

10)

Stu

dy p

artic

ipan

ts, w

ho w

ere

educ

ator

s fr

om th

roug

hout

38

stat

es a

nd D

C, t

each

ing

stud

ents

who

are

dea

f or

hard

of

hear

ing,

iden

tified

var

ious

test

acc

omm

odat

ions

for

mat

hem

atic

s, r

eadi

ng, a

nd s

cien

ce a

sses

smen

ts. T

he m

ost c

omm

on-

ly-o

ffere

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns w

ere

repo

rted

to b

e in

divi

dual

or

smal

l gro

up a

dmin

istr

atio

n, th

e ex

tend

ed ti

me

acco

mm

oda-

tion,

as

wel

l as

the

test

dire

ctio

ns in

terp

rete

d.

Caw

thon

(20

09)

Stu

dy p

artic

ipan

ts, c

ompr

isin

g a

natio

nal s

ampl

e of

edu

cato

rs fo

r st

uden

ts w

ho a

re d

eaf o

r ha

rd-o

f-he

arin

g, r

epor

ted

abou

t use

of v

ario

us te

st a

ccom

mod

atio

ns fo

r ei

ther

or

both

rea

ding

and

mat

h as

sess

men

ts. M

ore

than

two-

third

s of

pa

rtic

ipan

ts u

sed

the

follo

win

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns: s

mal

l gro

up a

dmin

istr

atio

n, e

xten

ded

time,

and

inte

rpre

ting

test

dire

c-tio

ns, r

ead-

alou

d te

st it

ems,

and

inte

rpre

ting

test

item

s. H

owev

er, o

nly

smal

l gro

up a

dmin

istr

atio

n, e

xten

ded

time,

and

in

terp

retin

g te

st d

irect

ions

wer

e us

ed m

ost o

ften,

and

a m

ajor

ity o

f the

tim

e, fo

r st

uden

ts o

n bo

th a

sses

smen

ts. F

urth

er,

the

stud

ents

sig

ning

res

pons

e w

as n

ot u

sed

by a

t lea

st 7

0% o

f par

ticip

ants

for

thei

r st

uden

ts. A

ddre

ssin

g pr

edic

tors

of a

c-co

mm

odat

ions

use

, non

e of

the

fact

ors

exam

ined

--

incl

udin

g ed

ucat

iona

l set

ting,

lang

uage

of i

nstr

uctio

n, a

nd g

rade

leve

l --

had

sig

nific

ant p

redi

ctiv

e va

lue

rela

ted

to a

ccom

mod

atio

ns u

se.

Rox

bury

(20

10)

In th

is a

naly

sis

of s

tate

wid

e in

cide

nce

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns u

se, t

he m

ost c

omm

only

-use

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns o

n th

e gr

ade

8 as

sess

men

ts in

mat

hem

atic

s, r

eadi

ng, a

nd s

cien

ce, i

nclu

ded

smal

l gro

up a

dmin

istr

atio

n, e

xten

ded

time,

and

che

ckin

g co

mpr

ehen

sion

of d

irect

ions

, am

ong

othe

rs.

C

om

mo

n a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

for

stu

den

ts w

ith

vis

ual

imp

airm

ents

on

rea

din

g a

sses

smen

ts in

clu

ded

au

dio

rec

ord

-in

gs,

en

larg

ed p

rin

t o

r p

age,

rea

d-a

lou

d b

y te

ach

er, a

nd

mag

nifi

cati

on

to

ols

, as

wel

l as

tact

ile g

rap

hic

s o

n m

ath

-em

atic

s as

sess

men

ts

John

ston

e et

al.

(200

9)

The

res

ults

of t

his

stud

y ex

amin

ing

the

acco

mm

odat

ion

prac

tices

rep

orte

d by

edu

cato

rs o

f stu

dent

s w

ith v

isua

l im

pair-

men

ts y

ield

ed th

at m

any

assi

stiv

e te

chno

logy

tool

s w

ere

in c

omm

on u

se in

cla

ssro

oms,

dep

endi

ng o

n th

e sc

hool

set

-tin

g ty

pe, a

s w

ell a

s du

ring

adm

inis

trat

ion

of te

sts.

Com

mon

ly u

sed

acco

mm

odat

ions

for

read

ing

by s

tude

nts

with

vis

ual

impa

irm

ents

incl

uded

aud

io r

ecor

ding

s as

wel

l as

com

pute

rized

ora

l acc

omm

odat

ions

like

JA

WS

for W

indo

ws,

rea

d-al

oud

by te

ache

r, an

d co

mpu

ter-

base

d or

tech

nolo

gy-b

ased

mag

nific

atio

n to

ols.

Sch

och

(201

0)

Fin

ding

s re

gard

ing

this

com

bina

tion

of v

erba

l inp

ut w

ith e

nlar

ged

prin

t and

tact

ile g

raph

ics

acco

mm

odat

ions

, pro

vide

d fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith v

isua

l im

pair

men

ts, i

nclu

ded

com

men

ts fr

om b

oth

educ

ator

s an

d st

uden

ts. I

nter

view

s w

ith te

ache

rs

reve

aled

that

they

pro

vide

d m

ore

supp

ort t

o st

uden

ts u

sing

tact

ile g

raph

ics

than

they

did

to s

tude

nts

usin

g la

rge

prin

t. A

l-th

ough

ther

e w

ere

no it

em d

esig

n di

ffere

nces

bet

wee

n ty

pe o

f mat

h gr

aphi

c, s

tude

nts

mad

e th

e m

ost e

rror

s on

pro

blem

s w

ith c

ircle

gra

phs.

A

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

pre

sen

ted

th

rou

gh

co

mp

ute

r-b

ased

pla

tfo

rms

hav

e h

ad v

aria

tio

ns

in t

hei

r im

ple

men

tati

on

Sal

end

(200

9)

The

res

ults

of t

his

liter

atur

e re

view

and

exp

osito

ry r

epor

t on

tech

nolo

gy-b

ased

test

s yi

elde

d de

scrip

tion

of n

umer

ous

ac-

com

mod

atio

ns, a

s w

ell a

s gu

idan

ce o

n pr

inci

ples

of u

nive

rsal

des

ign,

list

s of

exe

mpl

ary

reso

urce

s, a

nd c

ateg

oriz

atio

n of

m

any

aspe

cts

of te

st d

esig

n an

d ad

min

istr

atio

n. A

dditi

onal

issu

es s

uch

as s

tude

nt m

otiv

atio

n an

d pr

epar

atio

n, te

ache

r pr

epar

atio

n, a

nd h

igh-

tech

che

atin

g w

ere

disc

usse

d, a

nd g

uida

nce

in e

valu

atin

g te

chno

logy

was

pre

sent

ed.

102 103NCEO NCEO

T

he

read

-alo

ud

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

has

had

var

iati

on

s in

its

imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Laza

rus

et a

l. (2

009)

Thr

ough

out t

he 1

990s

, sta

te a

ccom

mod

atio

ns p

olic

ies

ofte

n so

ught

to le

vel t

he p

layi

ng fi

eld

for

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties.

In

rec

ent y

ears

, mor

e em

phas

is h

as b

een

plac

ed o

n se

ekin

g to

ens

ure

that

the

acco

mm

odat

ions

per

mit

valid

mea

sure

-m

ent o

f tes

t con

stru

cts.

Acc

omm

odat

ions

that

invo

lve

the

use

of te

chno

logy

and

the

exte

nded

tim

e ac

com

mod

atio

n ar

e ge

nera

lly b

ette

r ac

cept

ed n

ow th

an in

the

past

. The

re c

ontin

ues

to b

e no

con

sens

us a

cros

s st

ates

abo

ut h

ow s

ever

al

acco

mm

odat

ions

, inc

ludi

ng r

ead

alou

d qu

estio

ns, a

s w

ell a

s ca

lcul

ator

, sig

n in

terp

ret q

uest

ions

, and

spe

ll-ch

ecke

r, sh

ould

be

incl

uded

in th

e po

licie

s, a

nd s

tate

s m

ay w

ant t

o co

nsid

er fo

cusi

ng o

n th

e cr

eatio

n of

hig

h-qu

ality

, uni

vers

ally

des

igne

d as

sess

men

ts th

at m

inim

ize

the

need

for

acco

mm

odat

ions

.

E

du

cato

rs h

ave

had

var

yin

g d

egre

es o

f fa

mili

arit

y w

ith

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s, d

epen

din

g in

par

t o

n s

cho

ol g

rad

e le

vel

Bay

les

(200

9)

The

deg

ree

of d

etai

l in

the

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e to

pro

fess

iona

ls v

arie

d ba

sed

on e

duca

tiona

l lev

el, w

ith h

igh

scho

ol e

du-

cato

rs h

avin

g m

ost f

amili

arity

with

det

ails

per

tain

ing

to s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties;

ther

e w

as in

cons

iste

nt c

omm

unic

atio

n am

ong

the

part

icip

ant g

roup

s at

the

elem

enta

ry a

nd m

iddl

e sc

hool

leve

ls. F

indi

ngs

wer

e re

flect

ed in

som

e th

emes

rel

ated

to

acc

ount

abili

ty a

nd s

tand

ardi

zed

curr

icul

um, a

s w

ell a

s te

ache

r ef

fect

iven

ess

in u

sing

acc

omm

odat

ions

, alth

ough

ther

e w

as d

iffer

ent a

pplic

atio

n of

cor

e cu

rric

ulum

mat

eria

ls fo

r th

eir

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties.

Mos

t tea

cher

s no

ted

that

the

use

of s

peci

ally

sel

ecte

d an

d ap

prop

riate

sup

plem

enta

l mat

eria

ls a

llow

ed th

eir

stud

ents

to a

cces

s th

e st

anda

rdiz

ed c

urric

u-lu

m. A

dditi

onal

det

ails

of t

he u

se o

f acc

omm

odat

ions

wer

e re

port

ed b

y th

e pr

ofes

sion

als.

Tab

le F

-9. F

ind

ing

s fo

r S

tud

ies

Exa

min

ing

Acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s in

Po

stse

con

dar

y S

etti

ng

s

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

U

niv

ersi

ty s

tud

ent

per

cep

tio

ns

Bar

nard

-Bra

k &

S

ulak

(20

10)

Uni

vers

ity s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

did

not h

ave

sign

ifica

ntly

diff

eren

t atti

tude

s ab

out r

eque

stin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns in

the

face

-to-

face

lear

ning

env

ironm

ent i

n co

mpa

rison

to th

e on

line

lear

ning

env

ironm

ent.

Whe

n fo

cusi

ng in

on

stud

ents

with

vi

sibl

e an

d hi

dden

dis

abili

ties,

atti

tude

s di

ffere

d: s

tude

nts

with

vis

ible

dis

abili

ties

had

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e po

sitiv

e at

titud

es

abou

t see

king

acc

omm

odat

ions

in th

e on

line

setti

ng o

ver

the

in-p

erso

n se

tting

whe

n co

mpa

red

to s

tude

nts

with

hid

den

disa

bilit

ies

-- w

hose

atti

tude

s ab

out r

eque

stin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns w

ere

sim

ilar

for

both

lear

ning

env

ironm

ents

.

Bar

nard

-Bra

k et

al

. (20

09)

Of t

he c

olle

ge s

tude

nt p

artic

ipan

ts, a

bout

54%

req

uest

ed a

ccom

mod

atio

ns a

nd 4

6% r

epor

ted

that

they

did

not

req

uest

ac

com

mod

atio

ns. M

odel

fit a

naly

sis

yiel

ds th

at, o

f all

the

poss

ible

fact

ors

iden

tified

, onl

y tw

o ap

pear

pre

dict

ive

of th

e de

ci-

sion

to r

eque

st a

ccom

mod

atio

ns: u

nive

rsity

cha

ract

eris

tics

(sm

all a

nd p

rivat

e, a

nd la

rge

publ

ic)

and

thei

r A

ttitu

des

Tow

ard

Req

uest

ing

Acc

omm

odat

ions

(AT

RA

) sc

ale

scor

es.

Bar

nard

-Bra

k et

al

. (20

10)

The

res

ults

of t

his

stud

y pr

ovid

ed s

uppo

rt fo

r th

e st

abili

ty o

f the

Atti

tude

s To

war

d R

eque

stin

g A

ccom

mod

atio

ns (

ATR

A)

mea

sure

, yet

als

o pr

ovid

e de

tail

abou

t the

asp

ects

of t

he a

ttitu

de o

f col

lege

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s re

gard

ing

seek

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

. The

AT

RA

had

a m

axim

um p

ossi

ble

raw

sco

re o

f 160

, ind

icat

ing

a hi

gh d

egre

e of

neg

ativ

e pe

rcep

tions

ab

out s

eeki

ng a

ccom

mod

atio

ns. T

o th

is e

nd, t

his

grou

p of

par

ticip

ants

sco

red

an o

vera

ll m

ean

of a

bout

87

poin

ts, w

ith

a ra

nge

of 3

4 to

116

. Add

ition

ally

, all

four

of t

he s

ubsc

ales

con

trib

uted

rel

ativ

ely

even

ly to

eith

er a

low

er o

r hi

gher

AT

RA

sc

ore.

Byr

d (2

010)

1

Con

tent

ana

lysi

s of

stu

dent

par

ticip

ants

’ int

ervi

ew r

espo

nses

yie

lds

that

they

per

ceiv

ed fa

culty

mem

bers

’ atti

tude

s ab

out

acco

mm

odat

ions

to b

e ge

nera

lly p

ositi

ve, y

et in

clud

ed d

etai

ls a

bout

a s

tude

nt’s

neg

ativ

e ex

perie

nce.

Stu

dent

exp

ecta

tions

ab

out p

erso

nal c

hara

cter

istic

s w

hich

are

ass

ocia

ted

with

pos

itive

pro

fess

or a

ttitu

des

are

confi

rmed

by

the

stud

y da

ta. S

tu-

dent

s su

gges

ted

way

s to

bet

ter

info

rm u

nive

rsity

facu

lty o

f acc

omm

odat

ions

info

rmat

ion,

and

als

o no

ted

that

a p

ossi

ble

sour

ce o

f res

olut

ion

is in

crea

sed

use

of te

chno

logy

, inc

ludi

ng a

ltern

ate/

com

pute

rized

form

ats

of c

ours

e m

ater

ials

.

U

niv

ersi

ty s

tud

ent

per

form

ance

Lee

et a

l. (2

010)

The

res

ults

yie

lded

that

uni

vers

ity s

tude

nt p

artic

ipan

ts p

erfo

rmed

sig

nific

antly

bet

ter

on th

e co

mpu

ter-

base

d ex

am th

an

the

pape

r-an

d-pe

ncil

form

at, a

nd p

artic

ipan

ts r

ecei

ving

the

exte

nded

-tim

e ac

com

mod

atio

n pe

rfor

med

no

bette

r th

an

thos

e co

mpl

etin

g th

e te

st w

ithou

t ext

ende

d-tim

e. T

here

was

a s

mal

l and

non

-sig

nific

ant i

nter

actio

n ef

fect

: par

ticip

ants

with

ex

tend

ed-t

ime

on th

e co

mpu

ter-

base

d ex

am s

core

d be

tter

than

par

ticip

ants

with

ext

ende

d-tim

e on

the

pape

r-an

d-pe

ncil

exam

. Par

ticip

ants

’ tes

ting

pref

eren

ces

incl

uded

a q

uiet

roo

m w

ith m

inim

al fu

rnis

hing

s an

d m

inim

al a

ctiv

ity, w

ith n

atur

al

light

, cal

min

g m

usic

, mod

erat

e te

mpe

ratu

re, a

nd c

omfo

rtab

le s

eatin

g an

d sp

ace,

am

ong

othe

rs. P

artic

ipan

ts a

lso

indi

-ca

ted

that

qui

et s

ettin

g an

d ex

tend

ed-t

ime

wer

e th

e m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t acc

omm

odat

ions

. Mor

e pr

efer

red

pape

r-an

d-pe

ncil

form

at o

ver

com

pute

rized

form

at, a

nd in

dica

ted

that

thei

r de

sire

d ite

m la

yout

was

one

-item

-at-

a-tim

e, if

com

pute

rized

fo

rmat

was

nec

essa

ry.

Love

tt et

al.

(201

0)

The

res

ults

of t

he c

ompa

rison

s be

twee

n ac

com

mod

atio

n co

nditi

ons,

and

acr

oss

the

inte

ract

ions

, wer

e co

mpl

ex a

cros

s th

e pe

rfor

man

ce ta

sks.

Not

sur

pris

ingl

y, c

olle

ge s

tude

nt p

artic

ipan

ts ty

ped

mor

e w

ords

in th

e es

say

and

spee

d ta

sks

than

they

han

dwro

te; h

owev

er, t

here

wer

e no

diff

eren

ces

in q

ualit

y be

twee

n ha

ndw

ritte

n an

d w

ord-

proc

esse

d re

spon

ses.

T

he e

xten

ded-

time

acco

mm

odat

ion

was

ass

ocia

ted

with

an

incr

ease

in e

ssay

leng

th, b

ut o

nly

whe

n pr

oduc

ed w

ith w

ord

proc

essi

ng, n

ot h

andw

ritin

g. T

he le

ngth

of e

ssay

s w

as n

ot r

elat

ed to

thei

r qu

ality

whe

n ha

ndw

ritte

n, b

ut lo

nger

wor

d-pr

oces

sed

essa

ys s

core

d hi

gher

.

Ric

ketts

et a

l. (2

010)

For

thes

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts, w

ho w

ere

unde

rgra

duat

e m

edic

al s

tude

nts

taki

ng m

ultip

le c

hoic

e co

urse

exa

ms,

no

sign

ifica

nt

scor

e di

ffere

nces

wer

e fo

und

acro

ss d

emog

raph

ic g

roup

s --

nei

ther

bas

ed o

n et

hnic

ity, s

ex, n

or d

isab

ility

sta

tus;

that

is, a

ll st

uden

t gro

ups

perf

orm

ed e

quiv

alen

tly to

one

ano

ther

on

the

test

s. S

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties,

ther

efor

e, w

ere

conc

lude

d to

ha

ve b

enefi

ted

suffi

cien

tly fr

om a

ccom

mod

atio

ns s

uch

that

the

mul

tiple

-cho

ice

test

s w

ere

cons

ider

ed fa

ir to

stu

dent

s w

ith

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties.

104 105NCEO NCEO

U

niv

ersi

ty f

acu

lty

per

cep

tio

ns

Byr

d (2

010)

1

Sur

vey

anal

ysis

res

ults

indi

cate

d th

at fa

culty

mem

bers

exp

ress

ed a

gree

men

t tha

t tes

t acc

omm

odat

ions

are

nec

essa

ry

for

stud

ent s

ucce

ss, a

t a r

ate

of 7

8% o

f res

pond

ents

. Whe

n id

entif

ying

spe

cific

acc

omm

odat

ions

, 85%

agr

eed/

stro

ngly

ag

reed

with

com

fort

allo

win

g ex

tend

ed-t

ime,

and

92%

with

low

-dis

trac

tion

setti

ng. R

egar

ding

test

alte

ratio

ns, 4

7% in

di-

cate

d co

mfo

rt w

ith a

lterin

g th

e ex

am, a

nd 8

7% w

ith p

rovi

ded

an a

ltern

ate

answ

er s

heet

.

Zha

ng e

t al.

(201

0)

Firs

t of a

ll, th

ere

wer

e no

sys

tem

atic

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s in

dem

ogra

phic

s re

late

d to

the

way

s th

at p

artic

ipan

ts s

core

d on

the

surv

ey. T

hat i

s, u

nive

rsity

facu

lty m

embe

rs d

id n

ot v

ary

sign

ifica

ntly

in th

eir

scor

es o

n ea

ch o

f the

con

stru

cts

mea

-su

red

by th

e su

rvey

, bas

ed o

n th

eir

dem

ogra

phic

cha

ract

eris

tics.

The

re a

re a

naly

ses

of fi

ndin

gs r

elat

ive

to th

e ot

her

con-

stru

cts

mea

sure

d by

the

surv

ey. F

ocus

ing

on th

e co

nstr

uct o

f Pro

visi

on o

f Acc

omm

odat

ions

to S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties,

pa

rtic

ipan

ts s

core

d a

mea

n of

3.1

1 (S

D =

0.6

3), i

ndic

atin

g th

at fa

culty

mem

bers

did

not

fully

sup

port

the

prov

isio

n of

ac-

com

mod

atio

ns to

thei

r st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s. F

urth

er, s

core

s on

Per

sona

l Bel

iefs

Reg

ardi

ng th

e E

duca

tion

of S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

was

con

firm

ed a

s th

e m

ost i

nflue

ntia

l fac

tor

on th

e fa

culty

mem

bers

’ pro

visi

on o

f acc

omm

odat

ions

. The

pe

rson

al b

elie

fs c

onst

ruct

incl

udes

the

facu

lty m

embe

rs’ p

erce

ptio

ns o

f stu

dent

s’ n

eeds

for

acco

mm

odat

ions

, the

effi

cacy

of

thos

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns, a

nd o

ther

fact

ors.

Add

ition

ally

, an

asso

ciat

ion

was

foun

d be

twee

n fa

culty

mem

bers

’ Kno

wle

dge

of L

egal

Res

pons

ibili

ties

and

Per

ceiv

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Sup

port

pre

dict

ing

the

varia

nce

in th

e P

erso

nal B

elie

fs c

onst

ruct

, in

dica

ting

an in

fluen

ce o

f the

se fa

ctor

s on

thei

r pe

rson

al b

elie

fs.

1 In

this

stu

dy, s

tude

nt p

erce

ptio

ns a

nd fa

culty

per

cept

ions

wer

e bo

th a

naly

zed.

Tab

le F

-10.

Fin

din

gs

for

Stu

die

s E

xam

inin

g A

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

Dec

isio

n M

akin

g

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

R

esea

rch

ers

fact

ore

d o

ut

con

sid

erat

ion

s b

est

infl

uen

cin

g a

nd

no

t in

flu

enci

ng

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s se

lect

ion

dec

i-si

on

s

Bub

litz

(200

9)Te

ache

rs’ k

now

ledg

e ab

out a

ccom

mod

atio

ns, a

nd n

ot th

eir

attit

udes

abo

ut a

ccom

mod

atio

ns o

r tr

aini

ng o

n ac

com

mod

a-tio

ns, h

ad a

n in

fluen

ce o

n ac

cura

cy o

f acc

omm

odat

ions

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g. In

con

tras

t, at

titud

es a

bout

acc

omm

odat

ions

an

d tr

aini

ng o

n ac

com

mod

atio

ns d

id n

ot h

ave

an in

fluen

ce o

n ac

cura

cy o

f dec

isio

ns.

Love

tt (2

010)

Thi

s lit

erat

ure

revi

ew a

ddre

ssed

issu

es a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith a

ccom

mod

atio

ns d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing,

am

ong

othe

r ar

eas.

One

con

-cl

usio

n re

ache

d af

ter

som

e di

scus

sion

is th

at th

ere

is in

suffi

cien

t sup

port

for

mak

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

dec

isio

ns b

ased

on

iden

tified

dis

abili

ties,

as

diag

nosi

s of

dis

abili

ties,

esp

ecia

lly th

ose

of h

igh-

inci

denc

e, a

re li

mite

d in

rel

iabi

lity

and

valid

ity.

Fur

ther

, the

res

earc

her

sugg

este

d th

at a

ccom

mod

atio

ns d

ecis

ions

ove

rall

have

lim

ited

relia

bilit

y an

d va

lidity

.

Mar

iano

et a

l. (2

009)

The

res

ults

incl

ude

a co

mpa

rison

of t

he a

ccom

mod

atio

ns r

ecom

men

datio

ns m

ade

by p

artic

ipan

t gro

ups

usin

g tw

o di

ffer-

ent d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

mod

els:

the

man

ual p

ublis

hed

by th

e C

ounc

il of

Chi

ef S

tate

Sch

ool O

ffice

rs (

CC

SS

O)

and

the

inte

r-ac

tive

onlin

e A

sses

smen

t Dec

isio

n-m

akin

g S

uppo

rt S

yste

m (

AD

SS

). T

he o

vera

ll nu

mbe

r of

acc

omm

odat

ions

, as

aver

-ag

ed fo

r ea

ch c

ase

exam

ple

(stu

dent

s na

med

Sar

ah a

nd D

anie

l), d

id n

ot d

iffer

bet

wee

n th

e m

anua

l and

the

onlin

e gu

ides

. H

owev

er, t

he ty

pes

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns r

ecom

men

ded

diffe

red,

in th

at th

e gr

oup

usin

g th

e on

line

mod

el r

ecom

men

ded

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e pr

esen

tatio

n ac

com

mod

atio

ns o

n av

erag

e th

an th

e gr

oup

usin

g th

e pr

int m

anua

l mod

el. A

dditi

onal

ly,

the

aver

age

amou

nt o

f tim

e th

at e

ach

grou

p to

ok to

com

plet

e th

e de

cisi

on-m

akin

g pr

oces

s fo

r ea

ch s

tude

nt d

id n

ot d

iffer

si

gnifi

cant

ly b

etw

een

mod

els.

The

impl

icat

ions

of t

he fi

ndin

gs a

re d

etai

led,

incl

udin

g in

dica

ting

that

teac

hers

nee

d m

ore

trai

ning

and

add

ition

al to

ol d

evel

opm

ent f

or im

prov

ing

fam

iliar

ity o

f acc

omm

odat

ions

.

E

du

cato

rs r

epo

rted

ab

ou

t co

nsi

der

atio

ns

in m

akin

g a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

sele

ctio

n d

ecis

ion

s

Altm

an e

t al.

(201

0)

The

find

ings

of t

his

stud

y su

rvey

ing

spec

ial e

duca

tors

incl

ude

that

the

mos

t com

mon

ly-e

ndor

sed

cons

ider

atio

n fo

r m

ak-

ing

asse

ssm

ent a

ccom

mod

atio

ns d

ecis

ions

in in

stru

ctio

n is

stu

dent

s’ c

hara

cter

istic

s, w

here

as th

e m

ost o

ften-

endo

rsed

co

nsid

erat

ion

in a

sses

smen

t is

succ

ess

in u

se o

f the

acc

omm

odat

ion

in th

e cl

assr

oom

.

Caw

thon

(20

10)

Stu

dy p

artic

ipan

ts, w

ho w

ere

educ

ator

s of

stu

dent

s w

ho a

re d

eaf o

r ha

rd-o

f-he

arin

g, r

epor

ted

abou

t mak

ing

deci

sion

s ab

out s

elec

ting

acco

mm

odat

ions

for

eith

er o

r bo

th r

eadi

ng a

nd m

ath

asse

ssm

ents

. In

resp

onse

to a

n op

en-e

nded

item

, th

ey in

dica

ted

that

they

use

d m

any

diffe

rent

pie

ces

of e

vide

nce

to d

eter

min

e ef

fect

iven

ess

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns -

- in

clud

ing

whe

ther

the

acco

mm

odat

ion

was

nam

ed o

n th

e IE

P, w

heth

er s

tude

nts

wer

e sa

tisfie

d w

ith th

eir

asse

ssm

ent e

xper

ienc

e,

the

test

sco

re, a

nd th

e re

lativ

e su

cces

s on

oth

er c

lass

room

ass

essm

ents

whe

n us

ing

the

acco

mm

odat

ion(

s).

Tab

le F

-11.

Fin

din

gs

for

Stu

die

s E

xam

inin

g A

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

for

Mat

hem

atic

s A

sses

smen

ts

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

A

ll S

tud

ents

T

he

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

and

mo

difi

cati

on

s D

ID N

OT

pro

vid

e a

dif

fere

nti

al b

oo

st fo

r m

ath

emat

ics

sco

res

of

stu

den

ts

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es a

s co

mp

ared

to

th

ose

of

stu

den

ts w

ith

ou

t d

isab

iliti

es; a

ll st

ud

ents

ben

efite

d f

rom

th

e ac

com

mo

-d

atio

ns

Bou

ck (

2010

)

The

res

ults

indi

cate

d th

at s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

and

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s pe

rfor

med

equ

ally

wel

l in

both

ac-

com

mod

atio

ns c

ondi

tions

– fo

ur-f

unct

ion

calc

ulat

or a

nd g

raph

ing

calc

ulat

or –

in c

ompa

rison

with

the

asse

ssm

ent w

ithou

t ac

com

mod

atio

ns, m

eani

ng th

at s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

did

not r

ecei

ve a

diff

eren

tial i

mpa

ct o

r bo

ost f

rom

the

acco

mm

o-da

tions

.

106 107NCEO NCEO

Elli

ott e

t al.

(201

0)

The

gro

up o

f stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

scor

ed h

ighe

r in

clud

ing

on m

ath

than

the

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

not e

ligib

le fo

r th

e A

A-M

AS

, who

se s

core

s w

ere

high

er th

an th

e sc

ores

of t

he s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

elig

ible

for

the

AA

-MA

S. A

ll th

ree

grou

ps s

core

d hi

gher

in th

e m

odifi

ed c

ondi

tion

– in

clud

ing

text

seg

men

tatio

n, r

emov

al o

f lea

st p

laus

ible

dis

trac

tor,

and

bold

ing

impo

rtan

t wor

ds, a

mon

g ot

hers

– th

an in

the

non-

mod

ified

con

ditio

n. F

urth

er, n

o gr

oup,

as

a w

hole

, diff

eren

tially

be

nefit

ed fr

om th

e m

odifi

catio

ns; h

owev

er, s

light

ly m

ore

stud

ents

elig

ible

for

AA

-MA

S s

core

d be

tter

in th

e m

odifi

ed c

ondi

-tio

n.

T

he

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

pro

vid

ed a

dif

fere

nti

al b

oo

st fo

r m

ath

emat

ics

sco

res

of

stu

den

ts w

ith

ou

t d

isab

iliti

es a

s co

mp

ared

to

th

ose

of

stu

den

ts w

ith

dis

abili

ties

as

a w

ho

le; N

OT

all

stu

den

ts w

ith

dis

abili

ties

ben

efite

d f

rom

th

e ac

com

mo

dat

ion

s

Bou

ck (

2009

)

Stu

dent

s di

d no

t use

a g

raph

ing

calc

ulat

or o

n th

e m

ath

pre-

asse

ssm

ent b

ut a

ppro

xim

atel

y ha

lf (5

2.5%

) ha

d ac

cess

to a

gr

aphi

ng c

alcu

lato

r on

the

post

-ass

essm

ent.

The

res

ults

indi

cate

that

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s (L

D, O

HI,

& E

BD

) m

ade

gain

s fr

om p

re-a

sses

smen

t to

post

-ass

essm

ent.

Stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

perf

orm

ed s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

tly b

ette

r on

the

post

-ass

essm

ent t

han

did

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties,

F(1

, 35)

= 4

.322

, p =

0.0

45. T

he r

esul

ts in

dica

te th

at g

raph

ing

calc

ulat

ors

prov

ided

lim

ited

bene

fit to

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s, a

nd r

aise

d co

ncer

n ab

out t

he v

alid

ity o

f the

se a

ccom

mo-

datio

ns fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s.

T

he

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

pro

vid

ed a

dif

fere

nti

al b

oo

st fo

r m

ath

emat

ics

sco

res

of

stu

den

ts w

ith

dis

abili

ties

as

com

-p

ared

to

th

ose

of

stu

den

ts w

ith

ou

t d

isab

iliti

es; a

ll st

ud

ents

ben

efite

d f

rom

th

e ac

com

mo

dat

ion

s

Elli

ott e

t al.

(200

9)

Par

ticip

ants

who

rec

eive

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns –

incl

udin

g ex

tend

ed ti

me,

rea

d-al

oud

dire

ctio

ns, e

xam

iner

fam

iliar

to s

tude

nt,

and

re-r

eadi

ng in

stru

ctio

ns o

n su

btas

ks –

on

the

mat

h pe

rfor

man

ce ta

sks

scor

ed b

ette

r th

an th

ose

who

did

not

. For

stu

-de

nts

with

dis

abili

ties,

thos

e w

ho u

sed

acco

mm

odat

ions

sco

red

abou

t 1 s

tand

ard

devi

atio

n hi

gher

on

aver

age

than

thos

e w

ho d

id n

ot. F

or s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s, th

ose

rece

ivin

g a

stan

dard

acc

omm

odat

ions

pac

kage

– in

clud

ing

read

-alo

ud

dire

ctio

ns, p

arap

hras

e di

rect

ions

, ver

bal e

ncou

rage

men

t, an

d ex

tend

ed ti

me

– sc

ored

abo

ut 1

/2 s

tand

ard

devi

atio

n hi

gher

th

an th

ose

who

did

not

, and

thos

e re

ceiv

ing

teac

her-

reco

mm

ende

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns s

core

d ab

out 1

/2 s

tand

ard

devi

atio

n hi

gher

on

aver

age

than

thos

e w

ho d

id n

ot. A

lso,

the

expe

rt r

evie

wer

s’ p

erce

ptio

ns o

f the

acc

omm

odat

ions

pro

vide

d du

ring

the

mat

h pe

rfor

man

ce ta

sks

for

both

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s an

d st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

wer

e ra

ted

as v

alid

and

fair,

w

ith r

are

exce

ptio

n. F

urth

er, t

he a

ccom

mod

atio

ns th

at w

ere

reco

mm

ende

d by

teac

hers

wer

e ra

ted

as m

ore

valid

and

fair

than

thos

e pr

ovid

ed in

a s

tand

ard

pack

age

not i

ndiv

idua

lized

to s

tude

nt n

eeds

.

S

tud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es a

nd

stu

den

ts w

ith

ou

t d

isab

iliti

es w

ho

use

d t

he

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

on

th

e m

ath

emat

ics

test

exp

erie

nce

d m

ixed

res

ult

s in

co

mp

aris

on

to

on

e an

oth

er a

nd

in c

om

par

iso

n t

o t

ho

se w

ho

did

no

t u

se a

c-co

mm

od

atio

ns

Lind

stro

m

(201

0)

The

acc

omm

odat

ions

of i

nter

est i

nclu

ded

oral

adm

inis

trat

ion,

ext

ende

d tim

e, a

nd m

ultip

le a

ccom

mod

atio

ns. O

f the

11

stud

ies

feat

ured

, pub

lishe

d be

twee

n 20

00 a

nd 2

007,

3 o

f the

m s

uppo

rted

the

“diff

eren

tial b

oost

hyp

othe

sis”

; how

ever

, in

5 st

udie

s, b

oth

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

and

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s be

nefit

ed s

imila

rly, a

nd in

2 s

tudi

es, s

tude

nts

with

-ou

t dis

abili

ties

bene

fited

mor

e th

an s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

(one

stu

dy la

cked

an

expe

rimen

tal g

roup

of s

tude

nts

with

out

disa

bilit

ies,

so

a co

mpa

rison

cou

ld n

ot b

e m

ade)

.

S

tud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es a

nd

stu

den

ts w

ith

ou

t d

isab

iliti

es w

ho

use

d a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

on

th

e m

ath

emat

ics

test

d

id N

OT

per

form

sig

nifi

can

tly

bet

ter

than

th

ose

wh

o d

id n

ot

use

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s

Par

ks (

2009

)

The

com

paris

on o

f the

sco

res

of th

e th

ree

grou

ps -

- st

uden

ts w

ith L

D, s

tude

nts

with

AD

HD

, and

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

-tie

s --

on

the

mat

h sk

ills

test

yie

lded

com

plex

res

ults

. The

sco

res

in m

ath

prob

lem

-sol

ving

ski

lls o

f stu

dent

s w

ith L

D a

nd

thos

e w

ith A

DH

D w

ere

sign

ifica

ntly

low

er th

an th

e sc

ores

of t

hose

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s. T

he c

alcu

lato

r ac

com

mod

atio

n ha

d no

sig

nific

ant e

ffect

s on

the

scor

es o

f stu

dent

s w

ith L

D a

nd s

tude

nts

with

AD

HD

com

pare

d to

the

scor

es o

f eac

h gr

oup

of

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

who

did

not

use

cal

cula

tors

.

S

tud

ents

wit

h D

isab

iliti

es

S

tud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es w

ho

use

d t

he

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

on

th

e m

ath

emat

ics

test

per

form

ed s

ign

ifica

ntl

y b

ette

r th

an t

ho

se w

ho

did

no

t u

se t

he

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

Pel

tenb

urg

et a

l. (2

009)

The

res

ults

indi

cate

d th

at m

ost g

rade

3 th

roug

h gr

ade

6 st

uden

ts w

ith L

D im

prov

ed th

eir

mat

h sc

ores

whe

n us

ing

the

virt

ual m

anip

ulat

ive

tool

, ca

lled

the

“100

boa

rd,”

in c

ompa

rison

to th

eir

perf

orm

ance

on

a st

anda

rd p

enci

l-and

-pap

er te

st

form

at. M

oreo

ver,

the

avai

labi

lity

of th

e to

ol a

nd e

ven

part

ial-u

se o

f the

tool

ben

efite

d st

uden

ts in

sol

ving

sub

trac

tion

prob

-le

ms

requ

iring

bor

row

ing.

Roa

ch e

t al.

(201

0)

Stu

dy 1

: Per

form

ance

on

an it

em s

ubse

t fro

m th

e st

ate

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t bas

ed o

n M

odifi

ed A

chie

vem

ent S

tand

ards

(A

A-M

AS

) di

ffere

d by

stu

dent

gro

up. I

n m

athe

mat

ics,

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

tend

ed to

sco

re h

ighe

r on

the

unm

odi-

fied

item

s, w

hile

bot

h gr

oups

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

scor

ed h

ighe

r on

the

mod

ified

item

s, w

hich

use

d bo

ld-f

ont

voca

bula

ry o

r ke

y te

rms,

vis

uals

and

oth

er g

raph

ics,

cha

ngin

g an

alog

y fo

rmat

s, a

nd r

educ

ed n

umbe

r of

ans

wer

cho

ices

. T

he r

elat

ive

size

of t

his

sam

ple

may

not

per

mit

gene

raliz

abili

ty. S

tudy

2: T

he p

erfo

rman

ce r

esul

ts in

dica

ted

that

the

larg

est

effe

ct s

izes

wer

e in

the

AA

-MA

S-e

ligib

le s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

whe

n us

ing

the

acco

mm

odat

ions

from

Stu

dy 1

alo

ng

with

voi

ce r

ecor

ding

rea

ding

item

dire

ctio

ns a

nd s

tem

s.

Rus

sell

et a

l. (2

009a

)

In th

e se

cond

pilo

t tes

t, st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s sc

ored

hig

her

at a

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant l

evel

on

the

com

pute

rized

ve

rsio

n of

the

mat

h te

st w

ith N

imbl

eToo

ls –

rea

d-al

oud,

mag

nific

atio

n, ta

lkin

g ca

lcul

ator

, and

mas

king

acc

omm

odat

ions

–

than

they

did

on

the

pape

r-an

d-pe

ncil

test

.

S

tud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es u

sin

g t

wo

dif

fere

nt

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

on

th

e m

ath

emat

ics

test

ben

efite

d f

rom

nei

ther

ac

com

mo

dat

ion

mo

re in

co

mp

aris

on

to

th

e o

ther

Bou

ck (

2010

)N

eith

er c

alcu

lato

r ty

pe -

- fo

ur-f

unct

ion

and

grap

hing

--

bene

fited

eith

er s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

or s

tude

nts

with

out d

is-

abili

ties

in a

n en

hanc

ed m

anne

r ov

er th

e ot

her

calc

ulat

or ty

pe.

Rus

sell

et a

l. (2

009b

)

The

re w

ere

no s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ces

in p

erfo

rman

ce fo

r st

uden

ts w

ho w

ere

deaf

bet

wee

n th

e tw

o ve

rsio

ns o

f the

AS

L ac

-co

mm

odat

ion,

del

iver

ed b

y re

cord

ed h

uman

and

by

avat

ar, e

ven

whe

n ex

amin

ing

stud

ents

’ sco

res

at v

aryi

ng p

erfo

rman

ce

leve

ls.

108 109NCEO NCEO

S

tud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es w

ho

use

d t

he

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

on

th

e m

ath

emat

ics

test

DID

NO

T p

erfo

rm s

ign

ifica

ntl

y b

ette

r th

an t

ho

se w

ho

did

no

t u

se a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

Free

land

et a

l. (2

010)

Res

ults

of a

naly

ses

incl

ude

desc

riptiv

e da

ta o

n pe

rfor

man

ce b

y gr

oup

(sex

, age

, eth

nici

ty, e

tc.)

and

by

cont

ent o

f sub

test

, as

wel

l as

whe

ther

par

ticip

ants

had

low

vis

ion

or to

tal b

lindn

ess.

Per

form

ance

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

whe

n us

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

wer

e no

t sta

tistic

ally

diff

eren

t tha

n pe

rfor

man

ce w

hen

not u

sing

acc

omm

odat

ions

. Stu

dent

s w

ith to

tal

blin

dnes

s w

ho d

id n

ot u

se a

cces

s te

chno

logi

es ty

pica

lly s

core

d be

tter

on th

e ap

plie

d pr

oble

ms

and

mat

hem

atic

cal

cula

-tio

n su

btes

ts th

an th

ose

who

use

d ac

cess

tech

nolo

gies

. Stu

dent

s w

ith lo

w v

isio

n, w

ho g

ener

ally

sco

red

high

er th

an th

ose

with

tota

l blin

dnes

s, a

lso

had

the

sam

e pa

ttern

of p

erfo

rmin

g be

tter

with

out a

cces

s te

chno

logi

es th

an w

ith th

em.

PE

RC

EP

TIO

NS

S

tud

ents

’ an

d o

ther

par

tici

pan

t g

rou

ps’

per

cep

tio

ns

dif

fere

d o

r w

ere

mix

ed r

egar

din

g t

he

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

on

th

e m

ath

emat

ics

test

Jord

an (

2009

)

The

find

ings

of t

he s

tudy

per

tain

ed to

atti

tude

s an

d fe

elin

gs a

bout

acc

omm

odat

ions

offe

red

durin

g th

e co

urse

of a

dmin

is-

trat

ion

of a

sta

tew

ide

test

on

read

ing

and

mat

hem

atic

s. In

quir

y w

as m

ade

abou

t the

se p

erce

ptio

ns o

f the

test

as

a w

hole

. C

onse

quen

tly, t

here

wer

e no

sep

arat

e fin

ding

s fo

r re

adin

g an

d m

ath.

Stu

dent

s in

dica

ted

rela

tive

com

fort

and

fam

iliar

ity

with

thei

r be

ing

offe

red

acco

mm

odat

ions

as

they

are

sim

ilar

in in

stru

ctio

n an

d as

sess

men

t set

tings

, tea

cher

s in

dica

ted

mix

ed u

nder

stan

ding

of s

tude

nts’

per

spec

tives

yet

full

awar

enes

s of

acc

omm

odat

ions

pro

vide

d, a

nd p

aren

ts h

ad m

ixed

le

vels

of u

nder

stan

ding

abo

ut a

ccom

mod

atio

ns p

rovi

ded

to th

eir

child

ren.

Par

ks (

2009

)

The

com

paris

on o

f the

sco

res

of th

e th

ree

grou

ps -

- st

uden

ts w

ith L

D, s

tude

nts

with

AD

HD

, and

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

-ab

ilitie

s --

on

the

mat

h an

xiet

y sc

ale

yiel

ded

com

plex

res

ults

. Stu

dent

s in

bot

h di

sabi

lity

grou

ps e

xper

ienc

ed s

igni

fican

tly

high

er m

ath

anxi

ety

than

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

The

use

of t

he c

alcu

lato

r ac

com

mod

atio

n ha

d no

sig

nific

ant e

ffect

on

the

mat

h an

xiet

y of

any

par

ticip

ant g

roup

, inc

ludi

ng s

tude

nts

with

LD

and

stu

dent

s w

ith A

DH

D. T

he r

esea

rche

r no

ted

that

, in

fact

, som

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s ac

tual

ly e

xper

ienc

ed h

ighe

r m

ath

anxi

ety

whe

n us

ing

the

calc

ulat

or a

ccom

mo-

datio

n, a

nd r

ecom

men

ded

that

teac

hers

oug

ht to

be

care

ful a

bout

the

fit o

f thi

s ac

com

mod

atio

n to

spe

cific

stu

dent

s w

ith

LD a

nd w

ith A

DH

D.

S

tud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es e

xpre

ssed

pre

fere

nce

for

on

e ve

rsio

n o

f an

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

ove

r an

oth

er o

n t

he

mat

h-

emat

ics

test

s

Rus

sell

et a

l. (2

009a

)

In th

e fir

st p

ilot t

est,

obse

rvat

ions

and

feed

back

from

par

ticip

ants

, who

wer

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s, h

elpe

d to

impr

ove

the

acce

ssib

ility

and

use

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns to

ols,

incl

udin

g th

e ea

se o

f use

of t

he r

ead-

alou

d to

ol a

nd th

e ad

ditio

n of

tu

toria

l dire

ctio

ns to

cla

rify

use

of th

e m

agni

ficat

ion

tool

. Fur

ther

, stu

dent

s in

dica

ted

cons

iste

ntly

pos

itive

rem

arks

abo

ut

the

com

pute

r-ba

sed

test

in c

ompa

rison

with

pre

viou

s te

stin

g ex

perie

nces

. In

the

seco

nd p

ilot t

est,

stud

ents

indi

cate

d in

fo

cus

grou

p di

scus

sion

s th

eir

pref

eren

ce fo

r th

e co

mpu

ter-

base

d as

sess

men

t with

acc

omm

odat

ions

, and

offe

red

spec

ific

feed

back

abo

ut th

eir

expe

rienc

es.

Rus

sell

et a

l. (2

009b

)

Com

parin

g tw

o ve

rsio

ns o

f the

AS

L ac

com

mod

atio

n, a

bout

2/3

of t

he s

tude

nts

who

wer

e de

af in

dica

ted

a pr

efer

ence

for

the

hum

an r

ecor

ding

and

the

othe

r 1/

3 fo

r th

e av

atar

. The

stu

dent

s pr

ovid

ed a

dditi

onal

com

men

ts a

bout

asp

ects

of e

ach

vers

ion

of th

e A

SL

acco

mm

odat

ion.

Fur

ther

, stu

dent

s ex

pres

sed

posi

tive

reac

tions

to th

e co

mpu

ter-

base

d de

liver

y of

the

item

s an

d th

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns. A

dditi

onal

ana

lyse

s ch

ecki

ng fo

r co

rrel

atio

ns b

etw

een

surv

ey r

espo

nses

and

test

per

for-

man

ce in

dica

ted

no p

atte

rns

base

d on

the

vers

ion

of th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n.

S

tud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es a

nd

stu

den

ts w

ith

ou

t d

isab

iliti

es in

dic

ated

sim

ilar

ben

efits

wh

en u

sin

g a

cco

mm

od

a-ti

on

s o

n t

he

mat

hem

atic

s te

st

Bou

ck (

2010

)B

oth

stud

ents

with

and

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

repo

rted

thro

ugh

the

surv

ey th

at th

ey h

ad s

imila

r ca

lcul

ator

pre

fer-

ence

pat

tern

s, th

at is

, the

re w

as n

o pr

efer

ence

diff

eren

ce b

ased

on

disa

bilit

y st

atus

.

E

du

cato

rs e

vid

ence

d n

o b

ias

in r

atin

g m

ath

emat

ics

sco

res

of

stu

den

ts w

ith

dis

abili

ties

in c

om

par

iso

n w

ith

sc

ore

s o

f st

ud

ents

wit

ho

ut

dis

abili

ties

Mas

terg

eorg

e &

M

artin

ez (

2010

)

The

res

ults

of t

his

bias

and

rel

iabi

lity

stud

y, in

volv

ing

a se

t of m

athe

mat

ics

and

lang

uage

art

s pe

rfor

man

ce a

sses

smen

ts,

the

Sta

ndar

ds T

est t

o E

valu

ate

the

Per

form

ance

of S

tude

nts

(ST

EP

S),

indi

cate

that

teac

hers

did

not

intr

oduc

e bi

as in

to

the

ratin

gs o

f stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ho h

ad r

ecei

ved

vario

us (

unsp

ecifi

ed)

acco

mm

odat

ions

, in

com

paris

on w

ith

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s no

t rec

eivi

ng a

ccom

mod

atio

ns. R

atin

g re

liabi

lity

decr

ease

d w

hen

rate

rs w

ere

mad

e aw

are

that

test

sco

res

wer

e th

ose

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

rece

ivin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns, i

n co

mpa

rison

to w

hen

rate

rs w

ere

not

awar

e of

this

fact

. In

mat

hem

atic

s, s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

scor

ed c

onsi

sten

tly lo

wer

on

aver

age

than

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t di

sabi

litie

s, w

ith s

core

s of

bot

h gr

oups

in s

even

th g

rade

bei

ng m

ost s

imila

r an

d in

third

gra

de b

eing

mos

t diff

eren

t. In

te

rms

of g

ener

aliz

abili

ty th

eory

, the

inte

ract

ion

of p

erso

n by

task

was

larg

e fo

r m

ath

for

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s, y

et

smal

ler

for

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties,

whi

ch m

ay h

ave

indi

cate

d le

ss b

enefi

t of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns. F

urth

er, m

ain

effe

cts

by

rate

r ar

e m

inim

al, i

ndic

atin

g eq

ually

rig

orou

s ev

alua

tion

of a

ll st

uden

t wor

k; a

lso,

rat

ers

indi

cate

d th

eir

view

that

teac

hers

sh

ould

not

per

mit

diffe

ring

trea

tmen

t of t

est r

esul

ts fr

om s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

rece

ivin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns.

S

tud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es in

dic

ated

ben

efits

wh

en u

sin

g a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

on

th

e m

ath

emat

ics

test

Roa

ch e

t al.

(201

0)

Stu

dy 1

: Stu

dent

s el

igib

le fo

r an

AA

-MA

S e

xpre

ssed

that

the

mod

ifica

tions

of a

ddin

g vi

sual

s an

d us

ing

bold

type

wer

e he

lpfu

l and

that

rem

ovin

g an

ans

wer

cho

ice

was

not

esp

ecia

lly h

elpf

ul. S

tudy

2: T

he p

erce

ptio

n of

mos

t of t

his

sam

e gr

oup

of s

tude

nts

was

that

the

two

mod

ified

con

ditio

ns w

ere

posi

tive

or h

elpf

ul, a

nd th

at th

e se

cond

con

ditio

n w

hich

had

m

odifi

catio

ns a

long

with

rea

ding

sup

port

(re

cord

ed r

ead-

alou

d of

dire

ctio

ns a

nd it

em s

tem

s) w

as e

spec

ially

hel

pful

--

yet

perf

orm

ance

was

not

par

ticul

arly

impr

oved

with

rea

ding

sup

port

add

ed.

110 111NCEO NCEO

VAL

IDIT

Y

T

he

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

DID

NO

T c

han

ge

the

mat

hem

atic

s co

nst

ruct

/s b

ein

g t

este

d

Anj

orin

(20

09)

Des

crip

tive

stat

istic

s re

veal

ed th

at m

ean

scor

es fo

r st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

(SW

OD

) w

ere

10+

poi

nts

high

er th

an fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith s

peci

fic le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s (S

LD).

Whe

n ex

amin

ing

the

leve

l of D

IF in

per

form

ance

bet

wee

n S

WO

D a

nd

stud

ents

with

SLD

, 62%

of t

he it

ems

exhi

bite

d no

DIF

, and

38%

of i

tem

s ex

hibi

ted

varia

ble

DIF

favo

ring

eith

er g

roup

(19

%

favo

red

SW

OD

, 19%

favo

red

SLD

stu

dent

s). T

he it

ems

that

favo

red

stud

ents

with

SLD

wer

e m

ost o

ften

item

s on

whi

ch

they

cou

ld u

se a

cal

cula

tor,

whi

ch w

as o

ne o

f the

mos

t com

mon

ly p

rovi

ded

acco

mm

odat

ions

for

this

sta

te m

ath

test

. Ite

ms

that

favo

red

stud

ents

with

SLD

als

o w

ere

foun

d to

be

mor

e di

fficu

lt to

com

pute

. Mor

e D

IF it

ems

wer

e fo

und

to fa

vor

the

SW

OD

gro

up.

Fin

ch e

t al.

(200

9)

The

mat

hem

atic

s te

st d

emon

stra

ted

mor

e un

iform

than

non

-uni

form

DIF

; tha

t is,

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s no

t rec

eivi

ng

acco

mm

odat

ions

sco

red

high

er o

n m

ore

item

s w

ith D

IF th

an s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

rece

ivin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns. T

he

acco

mm

odat

ions

incl

uded

rea

d-al

oud

dire

ctio

ns a

nd q

uest

ions

, alte

rnat

e te

st s

ettin

g, a

nd e

xten

ded-

time,

am

ong

othe

rs.

The

re s

eem

ed to

be

no p

atte

rn in

uni

form

DIF

res

ults

rel

ated

to c

onte

nt o

f ind

ivid

ual m

ath

item

s. F

or th

e no

n-un

iform

DIF

ite

ms

iden

tified

, low

-per

form

ing

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

not r

ecei

ving

acc

omm

odat

ions

sco

red

high

er th

an s

tude

nts

with

di

sabi

litie

s re

ceiv

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

. How

ever

, for

hig

hly-

perf

orm

ing

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties,

the

reve

rse

was

true

: th

ose

rece

ivin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns w

ere

favo

red

over

thos

e no

t rec

eivi

ng a

ccom

mod

atio

ns. A

n un

expe

cted

find

ing

was

that

D

IF d

id n

ot a

lway

s fa

vor

stud

ents

rec

eivi

ng a

ccom

mod

atio

ns: f

or it

ems

requ

iring

hea

vy n

avig

atio

nal l

oad

-- s

uch

as c

hart

s an

d m

aps

-- it

is s

uspe

cted

that

acc

omm

odat

ions

may

hav

e in

volv

ed d

istr

actio

n or

inte

rfer

ence

.

Kin

gsto

n (2

009)

Acc

ordi

ng to

this

met

a-an

alyt

ic s

tudy

whi

ch in

clud

ed a

naly

sis

of 1

2 m

athe

mat

ics

cont

ent-

rela

ted

stud

ies,

var

ious

fac-

tors

see

med

to h

ave

mix

ed e

ffect

s on

the

scor

e co

mpa

rabi

lity

of c

ompu

ter-

adm

inis

tere

d an

d pa

per-

adm

inis

tere

d m

ath

test

s. G

rade

leve

l app

eare

d to

hav

e no

sig

nific

ant e

ffect

on

com

para

bilit

y fo

r m

ath

test

sco

res.

How

ever

, con

side

ring

only

m

ath

test

sco

res,

ther

e w

as a

sig

nific

ant e

ffect

rel

ated

to a

cade

mic

sub

ject

, suc

h th

at s

tude

nts

(not

spe

cific

ally

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s) s

core

d hi

gher

on

pape

r-ad

min

iste

red

mat

hem

atic

s te

sts,

with

wei

ghte

d m

ean

effe

ct s

ize

of -

0.06

. Ove

r-al

l, so

cioe

cono

mic

fact

ors

did

not a

ffect

com

para

bilit

y, in

clud

ing

race

/eth

nici

ty, g

ende

r, an

d so

cioe

cono

mic

sta

tus

(SE

S)

-- w

ith th

e ex

cept

ion

of o

ne s

tudy

usi

ng a

mat

h co

mpu

ting

skill

s te

st, w

hich

favo

red

pape

r-an

d-pe

ncil

adm

inis

trat

ion

with

lo

w-S

ES

stu

dent

s.

Rox

bury

(20

10)

Thi

s an

alys

is o

f sta

tew

ide

data

exa

min

ed p

erfo

rman

ce o

n th

e m

athe

mat

ics

stat

ewid

e te

st b

y gr

ade

8 st

uden

ts u

sing

ac

com

mod

atio

ns (

N=

2,22

7) a

nd s

tude

nts

not u

sing

acc

omm

odat

ions

(N

=12

,694

), a

nd o

ffer

info

rmat

ion

abou

t the

func

-tio

ning

, by

acad

emic

sub

ject

, of t

he te

st r

egar

ding

fair

ness

for

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties.

Acc

omm

odat

ions

var

ied

and

incl

uded

thos

e w

hich

wer

e of

fere

d w

ithin

a s

tate

for

all t

est-

take

rs, i

nclu

ding

man

y w

ithin

eac

h ca

tego

ry: t

imin

g, s

ettin

g,

pres

enta

tion,

and

res

pons

e. T

he m

ost c

omm

on w

ere

smal

l gro

up a

dmin

istr

atio

n, e

xten

ded-

time,

and

che

ckin

g co

mpr

e-he

nsio

n of

dire

ctio

ns. F

indi

ngs

incl

ude

that

, on

the

mat

h te

st, s

tude

nts

who

use

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns s

core

d si

gnifi

cant

ly

low

er th

an s

tude

nts

who

did

not

use

acc

omm

odat

ions

, with

a s

mal

l effe

ct s

ize

(0.1

37).

Per

form

ance

leve

l diff

eren

ces

wer

e al

so r

epor

ted

for

the

mat

hem

atic

s te

st. A

naly

sis

of d

imen

sion

ality

for

the

mat

h te

st in

dica

ted

one

or p

ossi

bly

two

dim

en-

sion

s, fo

r bo

th s

tude

nts

usin

g, a

nd s

tude

nts

not u

sing

, acc

omm

odat

ions

. Diff

eren

tial i

tem

func

tioni

ng (

DIF

) an

alys

es w

ere

perf

orm

ed, i

ndic

atin

g in

par

t tha

t out

of 3

2 m

ath

item

s, 2

2 di

d no

t fav

or e

ither

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t or

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties;

4

favo

red

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s, a

nd 7

favo

red

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties.

In o

ther

wor

ds, t

he m

ath

test

app

eare

d to

va

lidly

mea

sure

abi

lity

diffe

renc

e an

d no

t som

e ot

her

fact

or, s

uch

as th

e us

e or

non

-use

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns. I

t mus

t be

note

d th

at li

mita

tions

of t

he r

esea

rch

desi

gn d

o no

t allo

w c

lear

con

clus

ions

as

to w

heth

er D

IF is

acc

ount

ed fo

r by

bia

s or

im

pact

.

Sny

der

(201

0)

The

find

ings

incl

ude

that

ther

e is

no

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

bet

wee

n th

e in

itial

item

cal

ibra

tion

and

the

calib

ratio

n of

the

item

s in

the

audi

o pr

esen

tatio

n co

nditi

on, f

or th

e m

ath

test

as

a w

hole

. Rev

iew

ed in

divi

dual

ly, s

ome

of th

e ite

ms

beca

me

mor

e di

fficu

lt, o

ther

s be

cam

e ea

sier

, and

som

e re

mai

ned

unch

ange

d --

but

it is

not

able

that

thes

e di

ffere

nces

in d

ifficu

lty

wer

e ne

utra

lized

acr

oss

the

mat

h ite

ms

as a

who

le.

INC

IDE

NC

E O

F U

SE

S

tud

ents

wit

h a

nd

wit

ho

ut

dis

abili

ties

rep

ort

ed s

imila

r u

se p

atte

rns

on

th

e m

ath

emat

ics

test

Bou

ck (

2010

)B

oth

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

and

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s re

port

ed th

roug

h th

e su

rvey

that

they

had

sim

ilar

calc

ulat

or

use

patte

rns,

exc

ept t

hat s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

tend

ed to

use

cal

cula

tors

rou

tinel

y on

test

s in

com

paris

on to

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

E

du

cato

rs a

nd

stu

den

ts r

epo

rted

ab

ou

t th

eir

use

pat

tern

s o

n t

he

mat

hem

atic

s te

st

Sch

och

(201

0)

Fin

ding

s re

gard

ing

this

com

bina

tion

of v

erba

l inp

ut w

ith e

nlar

ged

prin

t and

tact

ile g

raph

ics

acco

mm

odat

ions

, pro

vide

d fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith v

isua

l im

pair

men

ts, i

nclu

ded

com

men

ts fr

om b

oth

educ

ator

s an

d st

uden

ts. I

nter

view

s w

ith te

ache

rs

reve

aled

that

they

pro

vide

d m

ore

supp

ort t

o st

uden

ts u

sing

tact

ile g

raph

ics

than

they

did

to s

tude

nts

usin

g la

rge

prin

t. A

l-th

ough

ther

e w

ere

no it

em d

esig

n di

ffere

nces

bet

wee

n ty

pe o

f mat

h gr

aphi

c, s

tude

nts

mad

e th

e m

ost e

rror

s on

pro

blem

s w

ith c

ircle

gra

phs.

112 113NCEO NCEO

DE

CIS

ION

-MA

KIN

G

E

du

cato

rs r

epo

rted

ab

ou

t th

eir

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g p

roce

sses

an

d a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

pra

ctic

es fo

r as

sess

men

ts,

incl

ud

ing

mat

hem

atic

s

Caw

thon

(20

10)

Edu

cato

rs o

f stu

dent

s w

ho a

re d

eaf o

r ha

rd-o

f-he

arin

g re

port

ed in

a s

urve

y th

at m

ore

than

hal

f of t

hem

offe

red

spec

ific

acco

mm

odat

ions

dur

ing

mat

hem

atic

s as

sess

men

ts: s

mal

l gro

up/in

divi

dual

adm

inis

trat

ion

(73%

), e

xten

ded-

time

(65%

),

and

test

dire

ctio

ns in

terp

rete

d (6

0%);

othe

r ac

com

mod

atio

ns -

- te

st it

ems

read

alo

ud a

nd te

st it

ems

inte

rpre

ted

-- w

ere

offe

red

by a

bout

1/2

of t

each

ers.

Fur

ther

, tea

cher

s re

port

ed in

res

pons

e to

an

open

-end

ed it

em th

at th

ey u

sed

man

y di

f-fe

rent

pie

ces

of e

vide

nce

to d

eter

min

e ef

fect

iven

ess

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns -

- in

clud

ing

whe

ther

the

acco

mm

odat

ion

was

na

med

on

the

IEP,

whe

ther

stu

dent

s w

ere

satis

fied

with

thei

r as

sess

men

t exp

erie

nce,

the

test

sco

re, a

nd th

e re

lativ

e su

c-ce

ss o

n ot

her

clas

sroo

m a

sses

smen

ts w

hen

usin

g th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n(s)

. Tea

cher

s al

so c

omm

ente

d on

the

valid

ity o

f the

ac

com

mod

ated

test

sco

res,

and

fact

ors

cons

ider

ed w

hen

sele

ctin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns fo

r st

uden

ts.

Tab

le F

-12.

Fin

din

gs

for

Stu

die

s E

xam

inin

g A

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

for

Rea

din

g A

sses

smen

ts

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

A

ll S

tud

ents

T

he

mo

difi

cati

on

s an

d a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

assi

sted

stu

den

ts w

ith

dis

abili

ties

an

d s

tud

ents

wit

ho

ut

dis

abili

ties

in

imp

rovi

ng

rea

din

g a

sses

smen

t p

erfo

rman

ce

Coo

k et

al.

(200

9)

Stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

who

rec

eive

d th

e re

ad-a

loud

acc

omm

odat

ions

sco

red

high

er th

an th

ose

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s w

ho d

id n

ot r

ecei

ve th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n. B

oth

of th

e gr

oups

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s sc

ored

hig

her

than

the

grou

p of

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s re

ceiv

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

, who

sco

red

high

er th

an th

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s no

t rec

eivi

ng a

ccom

mo-

datio

ns.

Elli

ott e

t al.

(201

0)

The

gro

up o

f stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

scor

ed h

ighe

r in

clud

ing

on r

eadi

ng th

an th

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s no

t elig

ible

fo

r th

e A

A-M

AS

, who

se s

core

s w

ere

high

er th

an th

e sc

ores

of t

he s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

elig

ible

for

the

AA

-MA

S. A

ll th

ree

grou

ps s

core

d hi

gher

in th

e m

odifi

ed c

ondi

tion

than

in th

e no

n-m

odifi

ed c

ondi

tion.

Fur

ther

, no

grou

p, a

s a

who

le,

diffe

rent

ially

ben

efite

d fr

om th

e m

odifi

catio

ns; h

owev

er, s

light

ly m

ore

stud

ents

elig

ible

for

AA

-MA

S s

core

d be

tter

in th

e m

odifi

ed c

ondi

tion.

Ran

dall

& E

ngel

-ha

rd (

2010

)

The

use

of t

he r

esou

rce

guid

e m

odifi

catio

n pr

oduc

ed a

dec

line

in s

tate

rea

ding

ass

essm

ent p

erfo

rman

ce fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith

disa

bilit

ies

and

a sl

ight

incr

ease

in p

erfo

rman

ce fo

r st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

The

use

of t

he r

ead-

alou

d m

odifi

catio

n pr

oduc

ed a

diff

eren

tial b

oost

for

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

for

stud

ents

com

plet

ing

the

CR

CT

at t

he lo

wer

gra

de le

vel,

yet

seve

nth

grad

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s di

d no

t dem

onst

rate

an

incr

ease

gre

ater

than

that

of s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s.

Roa

ch e

t al.

(201

0)

Stu

dy 1

: Per

form

ance

on

an it

em s

ubse

t fro

m th

e st

ate

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t bas

ed o

n M

odifi

ed A

chie

vem

ent S

tand

ards

(A

A-M

AS

) di

ffere

d by

stu

dent

gro

up. I

n re

adin

g, s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s an

d st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s no

t elig

ible

for

an A

A-M

AS

tend

ed to

sco

re s

imila

rly a

cros

s th

e un

mod

ified

and

mod

ified

item

s, a

nd th

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s el

igib

le

for

an A

A-M

AS

sco

red

high

er in

the

mod

ified

con

ditio

n co

mpa

red

to th

e un

mod

ified

con

ditio

n. T

he r

elat

ive

size

of t

his

sam

ple

may

not

per

mit

gene

raliz

abili

ty.

Stu

dy 2

: The

per

form

ance

res

ults

indi

cate

d th

at th

e la

rges

t effe

ct s

izes

wer

e in

th

e A

A-M

AS

-elig

ible

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s. T

hat i

s, th

is g

roup

of s

tude

nt te

st-t

aker

s im

prov

ed in

sco

re th

e m

ost i

n co

m-

paris

on w

ith th

e ot

hers

.

Two

dif

fere

nt

acco

mm

od

atio

n c

on

dit

ion

s o

n t

he

read

ing

tes

t h

ad m

ixed

eff

ects

, in

th

at o

ne

agg

reg

ated

acc

om

-m

od

atio

ns

con

dit

ion

ben

efite

d s

tud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es m

ore

in c

om

par

iso

n t

o t

he

oth

er, a

nd

th

e sa

me

acco

m-

mo

dat

ion

s p

acka

ge

pro

vid

ed a

dif

fere

nti

al b

oo

st fo

r sc

ore

s o

f st

ud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es a

s co

mp

ared

to

th

ose

of

stu

den

ts w

ith

ou

t d

isab

iliti

es

Fle

tche

r et

al.

(200

9)

The

bun

dled

acc

omm

odat

ions

pac

kage

stu

died

incl

uded

the

stru

ctur

ed e

xten

sion

of t

estin

g in

to tw

o pa

rts

on s

ucce

ssiv

e da

ys (

inst

ead

of tw

o da

ys o

f unl

imite

d tim

e), t

he r

eadi

ng a

loud

of p

rope

r no

uns,

and

the

read

ing

alou

d of

ste

ms

and

of

answ

er c

hoic

es to

the

com

preh

ensi

on s

tem

s, a

t the

con

clus

ion

of s

tude

nts

read

ing

the

pass

ages

. Firs

t of a

ll, th

e ex

pect

ed

inte

ract

ion

effe

ct b

etw

een

abili

ty g

roup

and

sco

re d

id n

ot o

ccur

--

whi

ch m

eans

that

bot

h th

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s an

d th

e st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

bene

fited

from

the

acco

mm

odat

ion

pack

age.

Spe

cific

ally

, sco

res

wer

e hi

gher

for

stud

ents

w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

who

par

ticip

ated

in th

e 1-

day

and

2-da

y ad

min

istr

atio

ns in

com

paris

on w

ith th

e st

anda

rd a

dmin

istr

a-tio

n. H

owev

er, s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

did

bene

fit d

iffer

entia

lly fr

om th

e re

ad-a

loud

acc

omm

odat

ion

in c

ompa

rison

to th

e st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

T

he

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

pro

vid

ed a

dif

fere

nti

al b

oo

st fo

r re

adin

g s

core

s o

f st

ud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es a

s co

mp

ared

to

th

ose

of

stu

den

ts w

ith

ou

t d

isab

iliti

es; a

ll st

ud

ents

ben

efite

d f

rom

th

e ac

com

mo

dat

ion

s

Laitu

sis

(201

0)

In a

dditi

on to

find

ing

low

er r

eadi

ng a

chie

vem

ent t

est s

core

s fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith r

eadi

ng d

isab

ilitie

s th

an fo

r st

uden

ts w

ithou

t di

sabi

litie

s, a

diff

eren

tial b

oost

was

iden

tified

for

stud

ents

with

LD

who

rec

eive

d th

e au

dio

pres

enta

tion

acco

mm

odat

ion

at b

oth

the

four

th a

nd e

ight

h gr

ade

leve

ls -

- al

thou

gh th

e bo

ost w

as d

eter

min

ed to

be

larg

er in

the

low

er th

an th

e hi

gher

gr

ade.

Add

ition

al a

naly

ses

acco

unte

d fo

r re

adin

g flu

ency

and

cei

ling

effe

cts,

exc

ludi

ng th

eir

pote

ntia

l im

pact

on

the

data

.

114 115NCEO NCEO

S

tud

ents

wit

h D

isab

iliti

es

S

tud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es w

ho

use

d a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

did

NO

T p

erfo

rm s

ign

ifica

ntl

y b

ette

r o

n t

he

read

ing

tes

t th

an t

ho

se w

ho

did

no

t u

se a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

Free

land

et a

l. (2

010)

The

per

form

ance

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

whe

n us

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

was

not

sta

tistic

ally

diff

eren

t tha

n pe

rfor

man

ce

whe

n no

t usi

ng a

ccom

mod

atio

ns. S

tude

nts

with

tota

l blin

dnes

s w

ho d

id n

ot u

se a

cces

s te

chno

logi

es ty

pica

lly s

core

d be

t-te

r on

the

pass

age

com

preh

ensi

on a

nd s

ynon

yms/

anto

nym

s su

btes

ts th

an th

ose

who

use

d ac

cess

tech

nolo

gies

. Stu

-de

nts

with

low

vis

ion,

who

gen

eral

ly s

core

d hi

gher

than

thos

e w

ith to

tal b

lindn

ess,

als

o ha

d th

e sa

me

patte

rn o

f per

form

-in

g be

tter

with

out a

cces

s te

chno

logi

es th

an w

ith th

em.

VAL

IDIT

Y

T

he

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

DID

NO

T c

han

ge

the

read

ing

co

nst

ruct

/s b

ein

g t

este

d

Coo

k et

al.

(200

9)

Exp

lora

tory

and

con

firm

ator

y an

alys

es b

oth

indi

cate

d th

at th

e un

itary

rea

ding

con

stru

ct m

easu

red

by th

e G

ates

Mac

Gin

i-tie

Rea

ding

Tes

t’s c

ompr

ehen

sion

sub

test

was

not

alte

red

whe

n th

e re

ad-a

loud

acc

omm

odat

ion

was

incl

uded

dur

ing

its

adm

inis

trat

ion.

Coo

k et

al.

(201

0)

The

re w

ere

thre

e di

ffere

nt a

ccom

mod

atio

ns c

ondi

tions

: stu

dent

s w

ho r

ecei

ved

no a

ccom

mod

atio

ns, s

tude

nts

who

re-

ceiv

ed a

ccom

mod

atio

ns a

s sp

ecifi

ed in

thei

r IE

P o

r 50

4 pl

an, a

nd s

tude

nts

who

rec

eive

d th

e re

ad-a

loud

acc

omm

odat

ion.

T

his

stud

y co

mpa

red

Eng

lish

lang

uage

art

s sc

ore

patte

rns

for

grad

e 4

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s ta

king

the

stan

dard

te

st a

dmin

istr

atio

n, s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

unde

r st

anda

rd te

st a

dmin

istr

atio

n, s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

who

use

d IE

P o

r 50

4 pl

an-s

peci

fied

acco

mm

odat

ions

, and

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s us

ing

read

-alo

ud a

ccom

mod

atio

n.

Sin

gle

and

mul

ti-gr

oup

confi

rmat

ory

fact

or a

naly

sis

(CFA

) su

ppor

ted

a si

ngle

und

erly

ing

cons

truc

t for

all

grou

ps o

n re

ad-

ing

test

s, b

ut a

dditi

onal

sta

tistic

s di

d no

t pre

sent

as

clea

r-cu

t a p

ictu

re. T

he a

utho

rs n

ever

thel

ess

conc

lude

that

ther

e is

ev

iden

ce fo

r eq

ualit

y of

fact

or s

truc

ture

acr

oss

the

four

gro

ups,

and

that

the

read

-alo

ud s

uppo

rt fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ili-

ties

on th

e re

adin

g te

st c

ould

be

cons

ider

ed a

n ac

com

mod

atio

n, n

ot a

mod

ifica

tion.

1

Kin

gsto

n (2

009)

Acc

ordi

ng to

this

met

a-an

alyt

ic s

tudy

whi

ch in

clud

ed a

naly

sis

of 8

rea

ding

con

tent

-rel

ated

stu

dies

, var

ious

fact

ors

seem

ed

to h

ave

mix

ed e

ffect

s on

the

scor

e co

mpa

rabi

lity

of c

ompu

ter-

adm

inis

tere

d an

d pa

per-

adm

inis

tere

d m

ath

test

s. G

rade

le

vel a

ppea

red

to h

ave

no s

igni

fican

t effe

ct o

n co

mpa

rabi

lity

for

read

ing

test

sco

res.

Fur

ther

, con

side

ring

only

rea

ding

test

sc

ores

, the

re w

as n

o si

gnifi

cant

effe

ct r

elat

ed to

aca

dem

ic s

ubje

ct, w

ith w

eigh

ted

mea

n ef

fect

siz

e of

-0.

01. O

vera

ll, s

ocio

-ec

onom

ic fa

ctor

s --

incl

udin

g ra

ce/e

thni

city

, gen

der,

and

soci

oeco

nom

ic s

tatu

s --

did

not

affe

ct c

ompa

rabi

lity.

Rox

bury

(20

10)

Exa

min

atio

n of

the

test

s --

but

not

the

item

s, w

hich

wer

e no

t rel

ease

d, s

o no

t ava

ilabl

e --

yie

lds

that

eac

h co

nten

t are

a te

st w

as u

nidi

men

sion

al fo

r bo

th th

e ac

com

mod

ated

and

non

-acc

omm

odat

ed s

tude

nts.

Tha

t is,

the

grou

ps w

ere

not b

eing

so

meh

ow te

sted

on

diffe

rent

con

stru

cts,

so

acco

mm

odat

ions

did

not

cha

nge

the

cons

truc

ts. F

urth

er, D

IF a

naly

sis

indi

-ca

ted

that

som

e ite

ms

exhi

bite

d di

ffere

ntia

l ite

m fu

nctio

ning

, alth

ough

lack

ing

the

spec

ific

item

text

s m

eant

that

pos

sibl

e re

ason

s co

uld

not b

e of

fere

d fo

r th

e ba

sis

of th

e bi

as. T

he r

esea

rche

r co

nclu

ded

that

the

stat

ewid

e re

adin

g as

sess

men

t w

as fa

ir fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s.

Sny

der

(201

0)

The

find

ings

incl

ude

that

ther

e is

no

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

bet

wee

n th

e in

itial

item

cal

ibra

tion

and

the

calib

ratio

n of

the

item

s in

the

audi

o pr

esen

tatio

n co

nditi

on, f

or th

e re

adin

g te

st a

s a

who

le. R

evie

wed

indi

vidu

ally

, som

e of

the

item

s be

-ca

me

mor

e di

fficu

lt, o

ther

s be

cam

e ea

sier

, and

som

e re

mai

ned

unch

ange

d --

but

it is

not

able

that

thes

e di

ffere

nces

in

diffi

culty

wer

e ne

utra

lized

acr

oss

the

read

ing

item

s as

a w

hole

.

Sto

ne e

t al.

(201

0)

In th

is s

tudy

com

parin

g te

st s

core

s fo

r gr

ades

4 a

nd 8

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

and

stud

ents

with

blin

dnes

s an

d vi

sual

im

pair

men

ts u

sing

larg

e pr

int o

r br

aille

acc

omm

odat

ions

, the

test

item

s co

mpr

isin

g re

adin

g st

anda

rds

wer

e co

mpa

red

usin

g di

ffere

ntia

l ite

m fu

nctio

ning

(D

IF).

Ove

rall,

out

of t

he 7

5-ite

m te

st, 5

rea

ding

item

s in

dica

ted

DIF

in g

rade

4, a

nd 8

re

adin

g ite

ms

indi

cate

d D

IF in

gra

de 8

. Mor

e sp

ecifi

cally

, onl

y 1

read

ing

item

in g

rade

8 w

as r

epor

ted

to h

ave

show

n la

rge

degr

ee o

f DIF

, whi

ch fa

vore

d st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

All

of th

is s

ugge

sts

that

the

use

of th

ese

acco

mm

odat

ions

did

no

t affe

ct th

e va

lidity

of t

he c

onst

ruct

s be

ing

mea

sure

d. In

look

ing

at th

e co

mpl

ex p

atte

rn o

f ite

ms

disp

layi

ng in

term

edi-

ate

DIF

, som

e ad

ditio

nal o

bser

vatio

ns m

ay b

e m

ade.

For

the

grad

e 4

stud

ents

with

blin

dnes

s an

d vi

sual

impa

irm

ents

, th

ere

wer

e m

ore

read

ing

item

s on

whi

ch th

ey s

core

d be

tter

than

the

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s. H

owev

er, f

or th

e gr

ade

8 st

uden

ts w

ith b

lindn

ess

and

visu

al im

pair

men

ts, t

here

wer

e m

ore

read

ing

item

s on

whi

ch th

ey s

core

d w

orse

than

the

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s.

PE

RC

EP

TIO

NS

S

tud

ents

’ an

d o

ther

par

tici

pan

t g

rou

ps’

per

cep

tio

ns

dif

fere

d o

r w

ere

mix

ed r

egar

din

g t

he

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

on

th

e re

adin

g t

ests

Jord

an (

2009

)

The

find

ings

of t

he s

tudy

per

tain

ed to

atti

tude

s an

d fe

elin

gs a

bout

acc

omm

odat

ions

elic

ited

durin

g th

e co

urse

of a

dmin

is-

trat

ion

of a

sta

tew

ide

test

on

read

ing

and

mat

hem

atic

s. In

quir

y w

as m

ade

abou

t the

se p

erce

ptio

ns o

f the

test

as

a w

hole

. C

onse

quen

tly, t

here

wer

e no

sep

arat

e fin

ding

s fo

r re

adin

g an

d m

ath.

Stu

dent

s in

dica

ted

rela

tive

com

fort

and

fam

iliar

ity

with

thei

r be

ing

offe

red

acco

mm

odat

ions

as

they

are

sim

ilar

in in

stru

ctio

n an

d as

sess

men

t set

tings

, tea

cher

s in

dica

ted

mix

ed u

nder

stan

ding

of s

tude

nts’

per

spec

tives

yet

full

awar

enes

s of

acc

omm

odat

ions

pro

vide

d, a

nd p

aren

ts h

ad m

ixed

le

vels

of u

nder

stan

ding

abo

ut a

ccom

mod

atio

ns p

rovi

ded

to th

eir

child

ren.

The

acc

omm

odat

ion

of m

ost a

ttent

ion

was

the

part

ial-s

crib

ing

met

hod,

yet

als

o in

clud

ed r

ead-

alou

d qu

estio

ns a

nd s

mal

l gro

up a

dmin

istr

atio

n, a

mon

g ot

hers

.

Loga

n (2

009)

The

ext

ende

d-tim

e ac

com

mod

atio

n di

d no

t brin

g ab

out p

ositi

ve e

mot

ion

and

self-

effic

acy

for

thos

e st

uden

ts w

ith a

n ap

-pr

oach

orie

ntat

ion,

and

incr

ease

d sc

ores

in n

egat

ive

emot

ion

and

decr

ease

s in

sel

f-ef

ficac

y, c

ontr

adic

ting

rese

arch

er

expe

ctat

ions

. Ins

tead

, the

opp

osite

inte

ract

ion

occu

rred

: stu

dent

s pr

ovid

ed e

xten

ded-

time

tend

ed n

ot to

exp

erie

nce

such

en

hanc

emen

ts w

hen

com

pare

d to

thos

e no

t rec

eivi

ng th

is a

ccom

mod

atio

n. F

indi

ngs

did

affir

m th

at s

tude

nts

with

diff

eren

t or

ient

atio

ns a

bout

task

com

plet

ion

do d

emon

stra

te d

iffer

ent t

ypes

of e

mot

ion

and

diffe

rent

deg

rees

of s

elf-

effic

acy.

Roa

ch e

t al.

(201

0)

Stu

dy 1

: Stu

dent

s el

igib

le fo

r an

AA

-MA

S e

xpre

ssed

that

the

mod

ifica

tions

of a

ddin

g vi

sual

s an

d us

ing

bold

type

wer

e he

lpfu

l and

that

rem

ovin

g an

ans

wer

cho

ice

was

not

esp

ecia

lly h

elpf

ul. S

tudy

2: T

he p

erce

ptio

n of

mos

t of t

he s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

elig

ible

for

the

AA

-MA

S w

as th

at th

e tw

o m

odifi

ed c

ondi

tions

wer

e po

sitiv

e or

hel

pful

, and

that

the

seco

nd

cond

ition

whi

ch h

ad m

odifi

catio

ns a

long

with

rea

ding

sup

port

(re

cord

ed r

ead-

alou

d of

dire

ctio

ns a

nd it

em s

tem

s) w

as

espe

cial

ly h

elpf

ul -

- ye

t per

form

ance

was

not

par

ticul

arly

impr

oved

with

rea

ding

sup

port

add

ed.

116 117NCEO NCEO

INC

IDE

NC

E O

F U

SE

S

tud

ents

no

t p

rovi

ded

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s (w

ith

ou

t d

isab

iliti

es)

per

form

ed b

ette

r o

n t

he

read

ing

tes

t th

an s

tud

ents

p

rovi

ded

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s (w

ith

dis

abili

ties

)

Rox

bury

(20

10)

The

sin

gle-

inst

ance

col

lect

ion

of d

ata

on th

e pe

rfor

man

ce b

etw

een

acco

mm

odat

ed a

nd n

on-a

ccom

mod

ated

gro

ups

on a

st

atew

ide

read

ing

asse

ssm

ent y

ield

ed a

bas

ic c

ompa

rison

. Acc

omm

odat

ions

var

ied

and

incl

uded

thos

e w

hich

wer

e na

tu-

ralis

tical

ly p

rovi

ded

for

test

-tak

ers

need

ing

supp

ort.

Stu

dent

s w

ho u

sed

acco

mm

odat

ions

sco

red

sign

ifica

ntly

low

er th

an

stud

ents

(w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties)

who

did

not

use

acc

omm

odat

ions

.

DE

CIS

ION

-MA

KIN

G

E

du

cato

rs r

epo

rted

ab

ou

t th

eir

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g p

roce

sses

an

d a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

pra

ctic

es fo

r as

sess

men

ts,

incl

ud

ing

on

rea

din

g

Caw

thon

(20

10)

Edu

cato

rs o

f stu

dent

s w

ho a

re d

eaf o

r ha

rd-o

f-he

arin

g re

port

ed in

a s

urve

y th

at m

ore

than

hal

f of t

hem

offe

red

spec

ific

acco

mm

odat

ions

dur

ing

read

ing

asse

ssm

ents

: sm

all g

roup

/indi

vidu

al a

dmin

istr

atio

n (7

4%),

ext

ende

d-tim

e (6

7%),

and

test

di

rect

ions

inte

rpre

ted

(59%

); ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ions

--

test

item

s re

ad a

loud

and

test

item

s in

terp

rete

d --

wer

e of

fere

d by

ab

out 1

/3 o

f tea

cher

s. F

urth

er, t

each

ers

repo

rted

in r

espo

nse

to a

n op

en-e

nded

item

that

they

use

d m

any

diffe

rent

pie

ces

of e

vide

nce

to d

eter

min

e ef

fect

iven

ess

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns -

- in

clud

ing

whe

ther

the

acco

mm

odat

ion

was

nam

ed o

n th

e IE

P, w

heth

er s

tude

nts

wer

e sa

tisfie

d w

ith th

eir

asse

ssm

ent e

xper

ienc

e, th

e te

st s

core

, and

the

rela

tive

succ

ess

on o

ther

cl

assr

oom

ass

essm

ents

whe

n us

ing

the

acco

mm

odat

ion(

s). T

each

ers

also

com

men

ted

on th

e va

lidity

of t

he a

ccom

mo-

date

d te

st s

core

s, a

nd fa

ctor

s co

nsid

ered

whe

n se

lect

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

for

stud

ents

.

Tab

le F

-13.

Fin

din

gs

for

Stu

die

s E

xam

inin

g A

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

for

Sci

ence

Ass

essm

ents

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

VAL

IDIT

Y

T

he

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

DID

NO

T c

han

ge

the

scie

nce

co

nst

ruct

/s b

ein

g t

este

d

Kim

et a

l. (2

009a

)

The

ana

lysi

s of

the

asse

ssm

ent’s

fact

or s

truc

ture

yie

lds

that

the

fact

ors

wer

e in

varia

nt w

ith o

ne a

noth

er; t

hat i

s, th

e m

ean-

ing

of th

e sc

ienc

e te

st s

core

s fo

r th

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s re

ceiv

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

– in

clud

ing

read

-alo

ud, n

on-s

et-

ting

acco

mm

odat

ions

, and

acc

omm

odat

ions

in g

ener

al –

was

the

sam

e as

the

scor

es fo

r th

e st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

not r

ecei

ving

acc

omm

odat

ions

.

Kim

et a

l. (2

009b

)

The

ana

lysi

s of

the

asse

ssm

ent’s

fact

or s

truc

ture

yie

lds

that

the

fact

ors

wer

e in

varia

nt w

ith o

ne a

noth

er; t

hat i

s, th

e m

ean-

ing

of th

e sc

ienc

e te

st s

core

s fo

r th

e st

uden

ts r

ecei

ving

ora

l acc

omm

odat

ions

was

the

sam

e as

the

scor

es fo

r th

e st

u-de

nts

not r

ecei

ving

acc

omm

odat

ions

.

Kin

gsto

n (2

009)

Acc

ordi

ng to

this

met

a-an

alyt

ic s

tudy

whi

ch in

clud

ed a

naly

sis

of 4

sci

ence

con

tent

-rel

ated

stu

dies

, var

ious

fact

ors

seem

ed

to h

ave

no e

ffect

on

the

scor

e co

mpa

rabi

lity

of c

ompu

ter-

adm

inis

tere

d an

d pa

per-

adm

inis

tere

d sc

ienc

e te

sts.

For

in-

stan

ce, g

rade

leve

l app

eare

d to

hav

e no

sig

nific

ant e

ffect

on

com

para

bilit

y fo

r sc

ienc

e te

st s

core

s. F

urth

er, c

onsi

derin

g on

ly s

cien

ce te

st s

core

s, th

ere

was

no

sign

ifica

nt e

ffect

rel

ated

to a

cade

mic

sub

ject

, with

wei

ghte

d m

ean

effe

ct s

ize

of

0.03

. Ove

rall,

soc

ioec

onom

ic fa

ctor

s al

so d

id n

ot a

ffect

com

para

bilit

y, in

clud

ing

race

/eth

nici

ty, g

ende

r, an

d so

cioe

cono

mic

st

atus

.

Rox

bury

(20

10)

Exa

min

atio

n of

the

test

s --

but

not

the

item

s, w

hich

wer

e no

t rel

ease

d, s

o no

t ava

ilabl

e --

yie

lds

that

eac

h co

nten

t are

a te

st w

as u

nidi

men

sion

al fo

r bo

th th

e ac

com

mod

ated

and

non

-acc

omm

odat

ed s

tude

nts.

Tha

t is,

the

grou

ps w

ere

not b

eing

so

meh

ow te

sted

on

diffe

rent

sci

ence

con

stru

cts,

so

acco

mm

odat

ions

did

not

cha

nge

the

cons

truc

ts. F

urth

er, D

IF a

naly

sis

indi

cate

d th

at s

ome

item

s ex

hibi

ted

diffe

rent

ial i

tem

func

tioni

ng, a

lthou

gh la

ckin

g th

e sp

ecifi

c ite

m te

xts

mea

nt th

at p

os-

sibl

e re

ason

s co

uld

not b

e of

fere

d fo

r th

e ba

sis

of th

e bi

as. T

he r

esea

rche

r co

nclu

ded

that

the

stat

ewid

e sc

ienc

e as

sess

-m

ent w

as fa

ir fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s.

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

A

ll S

tud

ents

T

he

acco

mm

od

atio

n/s

pro

vid

ed a

dif

fere

nti

al b

oo

st fo

r sc

ien

ce s

core

s o

f st

ud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es a

s co

mp

ared

to

th

ose

of

stu

den

ts w

ith

ou

t d

isab

iliti

es; p

arti

cip

ants

all

ben

efite

d f

rom

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s in

co

mp

aris

on

to

no

ac

com

mo

dat

ion

s

Elli

ott e

t al.

(200

9)

Par

ticip

ants

who

rec

eive

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns o

n th

e sc

ienc

e pe

rfor

man

ce ta

sks

scor

ed b

ette

r th

an th

ose

who

did

not

. For

st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s, th

ose

who

use

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns s

core

d ab

out 1

sta

ndar

d de

viat

ion

high

er o

n av

erag

e th

an

thos

e w

ho d

id n

ot. F

or s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s, th

ose

rece

ivin

g a

stan

dard

acc

omm

odat

ions

pac

kage

sco

red

abou

t 1/

2 st

anda

rd d

evia

tion

high

er th

an th

ose

who

did

not

, and

thos

e re

ceiv

ing

teac

her-

reco

mm

ende

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns s

core

d le

ss th

an 1

/2 s

tand

ard

devi

atio

n hi

gher

on

aver

age

than

thos

e w

ho d

id n

ot. A

lso,

the

expe

rt r

evie

wer

s’ p

erce

ptio

ns o

f the

ac

com

mod

atio

ns p

rovi

ded

durin

g th

e sc

ienc

e pe

rfor

man

ce ta

sks

for

both

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s an

d st

uden

ts w

ithou

t di

sabi

litie

s w

ere

rate

d as

val

id a

nd fa

ir, w

ith r

are

exce

ptio

n. F

urth

er, t

he a

ccom

mod

atio

ns th

at w

ere

reco

mm

ende

d by

te

ache

rs w

ere

rate

d as

mor

e va

lid a

nd fa

ir th

an th

ose

prov

ided

in a

sta

ndar

d pa

ckag

e no

t ind

ivid

ualiz

ed to

stu

dent

nee

ds.

118 119NCEO NCEO

S

tud

ents

wit

h D

isab

iliti

es

S

tud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es w

ho

use

d a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

on

th

e sc

ien

ce t

est

did

NO

T p

erfo

rm s

ign

ifica

ntl

y b

ette

r th

an t

ho

se w

ho

did

no

t u

se a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

on

th

e sa

me

scie

nce

tes

t

Free

land

et a

l. (2

010)

Res

ults

of a

naly

ses

incl

ude

desc

riptiv

e da

ta o

n pe

rfor

man

ce b

y gr

oup

(sex

, age

, eth

nici

ty, e

tc.)

and

by

cont

ent o

f sub

test

, as

wel

l as

whe

ther

par

ticip

ants

had

low

vis

ion

or to

tal b

lindn

ess.

Per

form

ance

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

whe

n us

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

wer

e no

t sta

tistic

ally

diff

eren

t tha

n pe

rfor

man

ce w

hen

not u

sing

acc

omm

odat

ions

. Stu

dent

s w

ith to

tal

blin

dnes

s w

ho d

id n

ot u

se a

cces

s te

chno

logi

es ty

pica

lly s

core

d be

tter

on th

e sc

ienc

e su

btes

t tha

n th

ose

who

use

d ac

cess

te

chno

logi

es. S

tude

nts

with

low

vis

ion,

who

gen

eral

ly s

core

d hi

gher

than

thos

e w

ith to

tal b

lindn

ess,

als

o ha

d th

e sa

me

patte

rn o

f per

form

ing

bette

r w

ithou

t acc

ess

tech

nolo

gies

than

with

them

.

DE

CIS

ION

-MA

KIN

G

E

du

cato

rs r

epo

rted

ab

ou

t th

eir

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g p

roce

sses

an

d a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

pra

ctic

es fo

r as

sess

men

ts,

incl

ud

ing

on

sci

ence

Caw

thon

(20

10)

Edu

cato

rs o

f stu

dent

s w

ho a

re d

eaf o

r ha

rd-o

f-he

arin

g re

port

ed in

a s

urve

y th

at a

bout

hal

f of t

hem

offe

red

spec

ific

ac-

com

mod

atio

ns d

urin

g sc

ienc

e as

sess

men

ts: s

mal

l gro

up/in

divi

dual

adm

inis

trat

ion

(55%

), e

xten

ded-

time

(48%

), a

nd te

st

dire

ctio

ns in

terp

rete

d (4

6%);

othe

r ac

com

mod

atio

ns -

- te

st it

ems

read

alo

ud a

nd te

st it

ems

inte

rpre

ted

-- w

ere

offe

red

by

abou

t 1/3

of t

each

ers.

Fur

ther

, tea

cher

s re

port

ed in

res

pons

e to

an

open

-end

ed it

em th

at th

ey u

sed

man

y di

ffere

nt p

iece

s of

evi

denc

e to

det

erm

ine

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

acc

omm

odat

ions

--

incl

udin

g w

heth

er th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n w

as n

amed

on

the

IEP,

whe

ther

stu

dent

s w

ere

satis

fied

with

thei

r as

sess

men

t exp

erie

nce,

the

test

sco

re, a

nd th

e re

lativ

e su

cces

s on

oth

er

clas

sroo

m a

sses

smen

ts w

hen

usin

g th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n(s)

. Tea

cher

s al

so c

omm

ente

d on

the

valid

ity o

f the

acc

omm

o-da

ted

test

sco

res,

and

fact

ors

cons

ider

ed w

hen

sele

ctin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns fo

r st

uden

ts.

Tab

le F

-14.

Fin

din

gs

for

Stu

die

s E

xam

inin

g A

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

for

Oth

er L

ang

uag

e A

rts

Ass

essm

ents

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

VAL

IDIT

Y

T

he

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

DID

NO

T c

han

ge

the

lan

gu

age

arts

co

nst

ruct

/s b

ein

g t

este

d

Fin

ch e

t al.

(200

9)

The

lang

uage

test

had

a la

rge

prop

ortio

n of

item

s w

hich

dis

play

ed n

on-u

nifo

rm D

IF. W

hile

stu

dent

s di

d no

t diff

er in

sco

res

in s

ixth

gra

de a

nd h

ighe

r re

gard

less

of r

ecei

ving

or

not r

ecei

ving

acc

omm

odat

ions

, the

re w

ere

com

plex

pat

tern

s at

the

low

er g

rade

leve

ls. S

peci

fical

ly, s

tude

nts

in e

arly

gra

des

not r

ecei

ving

acc

omm

odat

ions

sco

red

bette

r th

an th

ose

not r

e-ce

ivin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns. P

ut a

noth

er w

ay, s

tude

nts

at lo

wer

pro

ficie

ncy

leve

ls in

ear

ly g

rade

s se

emed

less

abl

e to

ben

efit

from

acc

omm

odat

ions

in c

ompa

rison

with

thos

e w

ho h

ad h

ighe

r pr

ofici

ency

. An

unex

pect

ed fi

ndin

g w

as th

at D

IF d

id n

ot

alw

ays

favo

r st

uden

ts r

ecei

ving

dis

abili

ties:

for

item

s re

quiri

ng h

eavy

nav

igat

iona

l loa

d --

suc

h as

cha

rts

and

map

s --

it is

su

spec

ted

that

acc

omm

odat

ions

may

hav

e in

volv

ed d

istr

actio

n or

inte

rfer

ence

.

Kim

& H

uynh

(2

010)

Acc

ordi

ng to

the

diffe

rent

ial i

tem

func

tioni

ng (

DIF

) an

alys

is o

f ext

ant s

tate

wid

e E

nglis

h te

st d

ata,

whe

n co

mpa

ring

pape

r-an

d-pe

ncil

and

onlin

e te

st fo

rms,

ther

e w

ere

none

to m

ild D

IF r

esul

ts o

n th

e ite

m-le

vel a

naly

ses.

At t

he it

em b

undl

e le

vel

-- a

s th

ere

wer

e fiv

e se

para

te s

ub-c

onst

ruct

s be

ing

test

ed -

- th

e D

IF r

esul

ts w

ere

sign

ifica

nt b

ut m

inim

al in

mag

nitu

de.

How

ever

, the

net

res

ult w

as th

at th

e co

mpo

site

sco

res

-- th

e on

ly s

core

on

the

test

--

indi

cate

d no

impa

ct o

f the

form

at o

n th

e E

nglis

h co

nstr

uct a

s a

who

le.

T

he

acco

mm

od

atio

ns

chan

ged

th

e la

ng

uag

e ar

ts c

on

stru

ct/s

bei

ng

tes

ted

Kin

gsto

n (2

009)

Acc

ordi

ng to

this

met

a-an

alyt

ic s

tudy

whi

ch in

clud

ed a

naly

sis

of 4

Eng

lish

lang

uage

art

s (E

LA)

cont

ent-

rela

ted

stud

ies,

va

rious

fact

ors

seem

ed to

hav

e m

ixed

effe

cts

on th

e sc

ore

com

para

bilit

y of

com

pute

r-ad

min

iste

red

and

pape

r-ad

min

is-

tere

d E

LA te

sts.

Gra

de le

vel a

ppea

red

to h

ave

no s

igni

fican

t effe

ct o

n co

mpa

rabi

lity

for

ELA

test

sco

res.

How

ever

, con

sid-

erin

g on

ly E

LA te

st s

core

s, th

ere

was

a s

igni

fican

t effe

ct r

elat

ed to

aca

dem

ic s

ubje

ct, s

uch

that

stu

dent

s (n

ot s

peci

fical

ly

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties)

sco

red

high

er o

n co

mpu

ter-

adm

inis

tere

d E

LA te

sts,

with

wei

ghte

d m

ean

effe

ct s

ize

of 0

.11.

O

vera

ll, s

ocio

econ

omic

fact

ors

also

did

not

affe

ct c

ompa

rabi

lity,

incl

udin

g ra

ce/e

thni

city

, gen

der,

and

soci

oeco

nom

ic s

ta-

tus.

120 121NCEO NCEO

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

A

ll S

tud

ents

S

tud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es w

ho

use

d a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

DID

NO

T p

erfo

rm s

ign

ifica

ntl

y b

ette

r o

n t

he

lan

gu

age

arts

te

st t

han

th

ose

wh

o d

id n

ot

use

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s; s

tud

ents

wit

ho

ut

dis

abili

ties

wh

o u

sed

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s p

er-

form

ed s

ign

ifica

ntl

y b

ette

r ye

t at

a m

inim

al in

crea

se o

ver

tho

se w

ho

did

no

t u

se a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

Kim

& H

uynh

(2

010)

The

stu

dent

s w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s sc

ored

sim

ilarly

on

both

the

pape

r-an

d-pe

ncil

and

onlin

e E

nglis

h te

st fo

rms,

with

no

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

in m

ean

scor

es. T

he s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s on

ave

rage

sco

red

slig

htly

bet

ter

on

the

pape

r-an

d-pe

ncil

form

, yet

stil

l at a

leve

l of s

tatis

tical

sig

nific

ance

. Som

e di

ffere

nces

in s

core

pat

tern

s be

twee

n E

nglis

h co

nten

t are

as, w

ith s

mal

l effe

ct s

izes

, wer

e no

ted.

The

re w

ere

no d

iffer

ence

s in

diffi

culty

leve

l for

the

onlin

e an

d pa

per-

and-

penc

il gr

oups

for

eith

er th

e st

uden

ts w

ith o

r w

ithou

t lea

rnin

g di

sabi

litie

s. T

he r

esea

rche

rs n

oted

that

the

test

adm

inis

-tr

atio

n m

odes

dem

onst

rate

d co

mpa

rabl

e re

sults

for

both

gro

ups

-- th

at is

, stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

scor

ed s

imila

rly o

n bo

th o

nlin

e an

d pa

per

vers

ions

of t

he te

st, a

s di

d st

uden

ts w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s.

PE

RC

EP

TIO

NS

E

du

cato

rs e

vid

ence

d n

o b

ias

in r

atin

g la

ng

uag

e ar

ts s

core

s o

f st

ud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es in

co

mp

aris

on

wit

h

sco

res

of

stu

den

ts w

ith

ou

t d

isab

iliti

es

Mas

terg

eorg

e &

M

artin

ez (

2010

)

The

res

ults

of t

his

bias

and

rel

iabi

lity

stud

y, in

volv

ing

a se

t of r

eadi

ng a

nd m

athe

mat

ics

perf

orm

ance

ass

essm

ents

, the

S

tand

ards

Tes

t to

Eva

luat

e th

e P

erfo

rman

ce o

f Stu

dent

s (S

TE

PS

), in

dica

te th

at te

ache

rs d

id n

ot in

trod

uce

bias

into

the

ratin

gs o

f stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ho h

ad r

ecei

ved

vario

us (

unsp

ecifi

ed)

acco

mm

odat

ions

, in

com

paris

on w

ith s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s no

t rec

eivi

ng a

ccom

mod

atio

ns. R

atin

g re

liabi

lity

decr

ease

d w

hen

rate

rs w

ere

mad

e aw

are

that

test

sc

ores

wer

e th

ose

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

rece

ivin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns, i

n co

mpa

rison

to w

hen

rate

rs w

ere

not a

war

e of

this

fact

. In

lang

uage

art

s (L

A),

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s sc

ored

con

sist

ently

low

er o

n av

erag

e th

an s

tude

nts

with

out

disa

bilit

ies,

with

sco

res

in th

ird g

rade

bei

ng m

ost s

imila

r an

d in

sev

enth

gra

de b

eing

mos

t diff

eren

t. In

term

s of

gen

eral

iz-

abili

ty th

eory

, the

inte

ract

ion

of r

ater

by

pers

on is

larg

e fo

r LA

, whe

n th

e ta

sk w

as w

ritin

g a

com

posi

tion,

for

stud

ents

with

-ou

t dis

abili

ties,

yet

eve

n la

rger

for

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties,

pos

sibl

y in

dica

ting

wid

er d

isag

reem

ent a

mon

g ra

ters

reg

ard-

ing

the

qual

ity o

f wor

k of

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s. F

urth

er, m

ain

effe

cts

by r

ater

are

min

imal

, ind

icat

ing

equa

lly r

igor

ous

eval

uatio

n of

all

stud

ent w

ork;

als

o, r

ater

s in

dica

ted

thei

r vi

ew th

at te

ache

rs s

houl

d no

t per

mit

diffe

ring

trea

tmen

t of t

est

resu

lts fr

om s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

rece

ivin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns.

Tab

le F

-15.

Fin

din

gs

for

Stu

die

s E

xam

inin

g A

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

for W

riti

ng

Ass

essm

ents

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

VAL

IDIT

Y

T

he

acco

mm

od

atio

n/s

DID

NO

T a

lter

th

e E

LA

/wri

tin

g c

on

stru

ct b

ein

g t

este

d

Coo

k et

al.

(201

0)

Thi

s st

udy

com

pare

d E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge a

rts

test

res

ults

for

grad

e 4

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s ta

king

the

stan

dard

test

ad

min

istr

atio

n, s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

unde

r st

anda

rd te

st a

dmin

istr

atio

n, s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

who

use

d IE

P o

r 50

4 pl

an-s

peci

fied

acco

mm

odat

ions

, and

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s us

ing

the

read

-alo

ud a

ccom

mod

a-tio

n. S

ingl

e an

d m

ulti-

grou

p co

nfirm

ator

y fa

ctor

ana

lysi

s (C

FA)

supp

orte

d a

sing

le u

nder

lyin

g co

nstr

uct f

or a

ll gr

oups

on

writ

ing

test

s, b

ut a

dditi

onal

sta

tistic

s di

d no

t pre

sent

as

clea

r-cu

t a p

ictu

re. T

he a

utho

rs n

ever

thel

ess

conc

lude

that

ther

e is

ev

iden

ce fo

r eq

ualit

y of

fact

or s

truc

ture

acr

oss

the

four

gro

ups.

Sto

ne e

t al.

(201

0)

In th

is s

tudy

com

parin

g te

st s

core

s fo

r gr

ades

4 a

nd 8

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

and

stud

ents

with

blin

dnes

s an

d vi

sual

im

pair

men

ts u

sing

larg

e pr

int o

r br

aille

acc

omm

odat

ions

, the

test

item

s co

mpr

isin

g w

ritin

g st

anda

rds

wer

e co

mpa

red

usin

g di

ffere

ntia

l ite

m fu

nctio

ning

(D

IF).

Ove

rall,

out

of t

he 7

5-ite

m te

st, 5

writ

ing

item

s in

dica

ted

DIF

in g

rade

4, a

nd 2

w

ritin

g ite

ms

indi

cate

d D

IF in

gra

de 8

. Mor

e sp

ecifi

cally

, onl

y 1

writ

ing

item

in g

rade

4 w

as r

epor

ted

to h

ave

show

n la

rge

degr

ee o

f DIF

, whi

ch fa

vore

d st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

All

of th

is s

ugge

sts

that

the

use

of th

ese

acco

mm

odat

ions

did

no

t affe

ct th

e va

lidity

of t

he c

onst

ruct

s be

ing

mea

sure

d. In

look

ing

at th

e co

mpl

ex p

atte

rn o

f ite

ms

disp

layi

ng in

term

edia

te

DIF

, som

e ad

ditio

nal o

bser

vatio

ns m

ay b

e m

ade.

For

the

grad

e 4

stud

ents

with

blin

dnes

s an

d vi

sual

impa

irm

ents

, the

re

wer

e m

ore

writ

ing

item

s on

whi

ch th

ey s

core

d w

orse

than

the

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s. H

owev

er, f

or th

e gr

ade

8 st

u-de

nts

with

blin

dnes

s an

d vi

sual

impa

irm

ents

, the

re w

ere

mor

e w

ritin

g ite

ms

on w

hich

they

sco

red

bette

r th

an th

e st

uden

ts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s.

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

S

tud

ents

wit

h D

isab

iliti

es

S

tud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es w

ho

use

d a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

did

NO

T p

erfo

rm s

ign

ifica

ntl

y b

ette

r th

an t

ho

se w

ho

did

n

ot

use

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s

Love

tt et

al.

(201

0)

Thi

s st

udy

exam

ined

effe

cts

of w

ord-

proc

essi

ng a

nd e

xten

ded-

time

acco

mm

odat

ions

for

colle

ge s

tude

nts

on e

ssay

ex

ams.

The

res

ults

of t

he c

ompa

rison

s be

twee

n ac

com

mod

atio

n co

nditi

ons,

and

acr

oss

the

inte

ract

ions

, wer

e co

mpl

ex

acro

ss th

e pe

rfor

man

ce ta

sks.

Not

sur

pris

ingl

y, s

tude

nts

type

d m

ore

wor

ds in

the

essa

y an

d sp

eed

task

s th

an th

ey h

and-

wro

te; h

owev

er, t

here

wer

e no

diff

eren

ces

in q

ualit

y be

twee

n ha

ndw

ritte

n an

d w

ord-

proc

esse

d re

spon

ses.

The

ext

ende

d-tim

e ac

com

mod

atio

n w

as a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith a

n in

crea

se in

ess

ay le

ngth

, but

onl

y w

hen

prod

uced

with

wor

d pr

oces

sing

, not

ha

ndw

ritin

g. T

he le

ngth

of e

ssay

s w

as n

ot r

elat

ed to

thei

r qu

ality

whe

n ha

ndw

ritte

n, b

ut lo

nger

wor

d-pr

oces

sed

essa

ys

scor

ed h

ighe

r.

122 123NCEO NCEO

Tab

le F

-16.

Fin

din

gs

for

Stu

die

s E

xam

inin

g A

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

for

So

cial

Stu

die

s A

sses

smen

ts

Au

tho

rsF

ind

ing

s

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

S

tud

ents

wit

h D

isab

iliti

es

S

tud

ents

wit

h d

isab

iliti

es w

ho

use

d a

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

did

NO

T p

erfo

rm s

ign

ifica

ntl

y b

ette

r th

an t

ho

se w

ho

did

n

ot

use

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

s o

n t

he

soci

al s

tud

ies

test

Free

land

et a

l. (2

010)

Res

ults

of a

naly

ses

incl

ude

desc

riptiv

e da

ta o

n pe

rfor

man

ce b

y gr

oup

(sex

, age

, eth

nici

ty, e

tc.)

and

by

cont

ent o

f sub

test

, as

wel

l as

whe

ther

par

ticip

ants

had

low

vis

ion

or to

tal b

lindn

ess.

Per

form

ance

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

whe

n us

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

wer

e no

t sta

tistic

ally

diff

eren

t tha

n pe

rfor

man

ce w

hen

not u

sing

acc

omm

odat

ions

. Stu

dent

s w

ith to

tal

blin

dnes

s w

ho d

id n

ot u

se a

cces

s te

chno

logi

es ty

pica

lly s

core

d be

tter

on th

e so

cial

stu

dies

sub

test

than

thos

e w

ho u

sed

acce

ss te

chno

logi

es. S

tude

nts

with

low

vis

ion,

who

gen

eral

ly s

core

d hi

gher

than

thos

e w

ith to

tal b

lindn

ess,

als

o ha

d th

e sa

me

patte

rn o

f per

form

ing

bette

r w

ithou

t acc

ess

tech

nolo

gies

than

with

them

. Deg

ree

of v

isua

l im

pair

men

t int

erac

ted

with

acc

ess

tech

nolo

gy u

se o

n so

me

subt

ests

. For

inst

ance

, par

ticip

ants

with

tota

l blin

dnes

s us

ing

acce

ss te

chno

logy

in

only

one

wav

e sc

ored

sig

nific

antly

low

er in

soc

ial s

tudi

es th

an p

artic

ipan

ts w

ith lo

w v

isio

n no

t usi

ng a

cces

s te

chno

logy

at

all.

VAL

IDIT

Y

T

he

com

pu

ter

adm

inis

trat

ion

acc

om

mo

dat

ion

ch

ang

ed t

he

soci

al s

tud

ies

con

stru

ct/s

bei

ng

tes

ted

Kin

gsto

n (2

009)

Acc

ordi

ng to

this

met

a-an

alyt

ic s

tudy

whi

ch in

clud

ed a

naly

sis

of 1

soc

ial s

tudi

es c

onte

nt-r

elat

ed s

tudi

es, v

ario

us fa

ctor

s se

emed

to h

ave

mix

ed e

ffect

s on

the

scor

e co

mpa

rabi

lity

of c

ompu

ter-

adm

inis

tere

d an

d pa

per-

adm

inis

tere

d so

cial

stu

dies

te

sts.

Gra

de le

vel a

ppea

red

to h

ave

no s

igni

fican

t effe

ct o

n co

mpa

rabi

lity

for

soci

al s

tudi

es te

st s

core

s. H

owev

er, c

onsi

der-

ing

only

soc

ial s

tudi

es te

st s

core

s, th

ere

was

a s

igni

fican

t effe

ct r

elat

ed to

aca

dem

ic s

ubje

ct, s

uch

that

stu

dent

s (n

ot s

pe-

cific

ally

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s) s

core

d hi

gher

on

com

pute

r-ad

min

iste

red

soci

al s

tudi

es te

sts,

with

wei

ghte

d m

ean

effe

ct

size

of 0

.15.

Ove

rall,

soc

ioec

onom

ic fa

ctor

s al

so d

id n

ot a

ffect

com

para

bilit

y, in

clud

ing

race

/eth

nici

ty, g

ende

r, an

d so

cio-

econ

omic

sta

tus.

It m

ust b

e no

ted

that

the

smal

l num

ber

of s

tudi

es r

elat

ed to

this

con

tent

are

a m

ay s

kew

thes

e re

sults

.

Appendix G

Study Limitations and Future Research

Table G1. Study LimitationsLimitations

Authors Methodology Sample Characteristics Results Test / Test

Context Other


Inferential and non-parametric statistics could not be used due to the nature of the survey items and non-random sampling.

Anjorin (2009)

Sample not randomly selected, and not representative of the U.S. school population.

Mathematics test examined did not include the same standards/requirements as other high-stakes tests in the nation (107-108).

Unable to pinpoint all potential sources of DIF (108).



Volunteer sample results in limited generalizability.


Low response rate; Homogenous sample; Students only recruited from two locations; Volunteer sample results in limited generalizability.



The necessity of accommodations for students in the sample (which can influence attitudes toward requesting accommodations) was unknown.

No limitations were provided in this document by the researchers.

124 125NCEO NCEO

Limitations

Authors Methodology Sample Characteristics Results Test / Test

Context Other


Inferential and non-parametric statistics could not be used due to the nature of the survey items and non-random sampling.

Anjorin (2009)

Sample not randomly selected, and not representative of the U.S. school population.

Mathematics test examined did not include the same standards/requirements as other high-stakes tests in the nation (107-108).

Unable to pinpoint all potential sources of DIF (108).





Low response rate; Homogenous sample; Students only recruited from two locations; Volunteer sample results in limited generalizability.



The necessity of accommodations for students in the sample (which can influence attitudes toward requesting accommodations) was unknown.


Cawthon (2009)

Survey data is anonymous, making it difficult to confirm the accuracy of the self-report data; Delay between participant taking assessment and reporting on it.

Relatively high level of missing data for some survey questions (47).

Cawthon (2010)

The unit of analysis used makes comparisons between subject areas difficult; Time delay between students receiving accommodations, and teachers taking the survey.

Results are only a rough estimate of actual practices; Only a subset of teachers offered justifications for their ratings about accommodations implementation (198).

Cook et al. (2009)

Findings may not be generalizable beyond the test (GMRT).

Cook et al. (2010)


Accommodations were tested in packages rather than individually, making it difficult to determine the effects of individual accommodations on scores; Different groups received different accommodations, making comparisons between groups difficult.

Large amounts of variability were observed in the effect sizes (237).

Students' prior math and science skills not assessed; Experts reviewed only one administration in math and science.


Testing accommodations were not used (though some modifications were).

Study focused only on eighth-graders.

Used short tests (as compared to typical achievement tests), which covered only a portion of content domains.


126 127NCEO NCEO

Finch et al. (2009)

Participants were not randomly assigned to accommodations conditions; Some participants received multiple types of accommodations.

Small sample sizes may have made it difficult to identify items that exhibit DIF (53).


The experimental TAKS was administered after the state-administered test.

Difficulty explaining the absence of an interaction effect (461).


Large number of missing variables (180); Limited examination of confounding variables; Findings reported are unweighted results and are thus not generalizable to the larger population (180).


Jordan (2009)

Did not use empirically based assessments to determine appropriate accommodations (70).

Single researcher collected and analyzed all data; May have led to biased interpretation.

Lack of research disseminated by the state to prove/disprove the effects of accommodations.

Kim & Huynh (2010)

Students were not randomly assigned to conditions (118); Lack of control for potential confounding factors.

Archival data files were used; Study only had students with LD (118).

Kim et al. (2009a)

Students were not randomly assigned to conditions (331); Lack of control for potential confounding factors (332).

Archival data files were used.


Kim et al. (2009b)

May have been variations in how accommodations were implemented during testing (159); Most students received a combination of accommodations (160).

Results of the study cannot answer questions related to specific disability type.

Kingston (2009)

Laitusis (2010)

Used teacher ratings as a criterion measure of performance (165); Ratings from teachers were collected early in the year and may not be as accurate as ratings collected later; The assessment used in this study may not be generalizable to state reading assessments (165).

Random assignment at the school level, not at the individual student level.

Some results showed that test forms interacted with the order of administration and format in some way that is not easily explained (165).


Lee et al. (2010)

Small sample size limits generalizability.

Lindstrom (2010)

No limitations were provided in this document by the researcher.



128 129NCEO NCEO

Logan (2009)

Significance may not have been reached in part because the use of median splits may have increased error; Attempts were made to reproduce a real-life testing situation but a sense of educational or personal consequence for poor performance may have been missing.

There was no differentiation between different types of learning disabilities, so it is not known whether students with an SLD in math would respond differently than students with an SLD in reading.

Lovett (2010)

Several methodological limitations are noted for the studies reviewed.

Small sample sizes and heterogenous disability groups in several of the studies discribed in this article.

Many studies could not distinguish between accommodation effects and disability effects.

Different research designs across studies makes comparisons difficult.


No group of participants with disabilities (made it difficult to explore the effects of accommodations).


Mastergeorge & Martinez (2010)

Residual error variance remains unaccounted for, which could suggest that important measurement facets were omitted (547).

Parks (2009)

Test-retest design may have resulted in rehearsal effects.

Peltenburg et al (2009) No limitations were provided in this document by the researchers.



Long period of time between test administrations caused curriculum misalignment.

Random assignment at the school level, not at the individual student level (92).

Lack of student motivation on second administration of exam.


Results are not truly independent because of the many students present in both academic years (273).

Roach et al. (2010)

Limited support and guidance for posttest questionnaire.

Small sample size.

Roxbury (2010)

Test items not individually available and so DIF analysis could not consider possible reasons for the basis of the bias.

Dichotomous data (however the author states that this was a manageable limitation).



No comparison was made to any control group not using accommodations.

Convenience sample limits generalizability.

Salend (2009)



130 131NCEO NCEO

Schoch (2010)

Test was conducted in three different states, and standardized accommodations vary from state to state (88); No comparative study was completed between visually impaired students and their sighted peers (88); Videotaping students and teachers may have negatively impacted the results (88).

Small sample of participants.

No pretests were given, so some items may have contained information that students hadn't been exposed to yet.

Snyder (2010)

Timing of test could have affected teacher and student participation (tests needed to occur during the fall, which is a busy time of year for students and teachers) (6).

Stone et al. (2010)

It was not always clear how accommodations were applied.

Small sample sizes; There are many varieties of visual impairments, meaning that students may have had different challenges when taking the test (149).

Researchers did not examine a brailled version of the test; Used DIF analysis procedures, which are limited in this research scenario.

Zhang et al. (2010)

Survey design means participants might have answered in the way they thought was right, rather than according to their true beliefs.

Small sample represents only a small portion of the faculty in the university (285); Only nine universities included in study.

*Quotations from the article appear in italics with page number in parentheses.

Table G2. Future Research

Authors Methodology SampleCharacteristics

Test / Test Context Other Results


Anjorin (2009)

Arce-Ferrer & Guzman(2009)

Barnard-Brak& Sulak (2010)

Replications are needed; Examinewhy students with visible disabilities may have more positive attitudes toward requesting accomodations in the online vs. face-to-face learning environment (87).

Barnard-Braket al. (2009)

Survey disability service providers across institutions of higher education to examine the utilization of staffing and services (194); Examine college choice as a function of universitycharacteristicsamong students with disabilities (195); Examinefactors that influence how a student with a disability selects his/her institution of higher education and their attitudes toward requesting accommodations(195).

Future Research

No future research directions provided in this document by the researcher.

No future research directions provided in this document by the researchers.


132 133NCEO NCEO

Barnard-Braket al. (2010)

Examine how the hypothesizedsubscales and total scale of the ATRA are associated with academicachievement as measured by GPA and degree completion among college students with disabilities (145); Inquireabout how attitudes toward requestingaccomodations is associated with the behavior of requestingaccommodations(145); Explore the interaction of demographiccharacteristics and attitudes toward requestingaccommodationsamong college students with disabilities (146).

Consider the use of the ATRA to identify students with disabilities who are unlikely to requestaccommodations,and develop interventions for these students as early as possible (146).

Bayles (2009)

Investigate the impact of a certificate of completion on the future of disabled students (vs. a diploma).

Study the impact of the CAHSEE graduationrequirement for students with disabilities in a district with demographics that are more representative of the overall diversity of California public schools (136); Study the impact of the CAHSEE on the population of students with disabilities who do not meet the requirements;Explore parent and general education teachers'perceptions of the CAHSEE.

134 135NCEO NCEO

Bouck (2009)

Explore whether there a differential affect on performance for calculator use depending on the type of calculator being used (graphing vs. four function) (214); Explore howcalculators/graphing tools are used in the classroom; Inquireabout preservice and inservice teachers' beliefs about graphing calculators, and how their beliefs affect the use of graphingcalculators in the classroom by students with disabilities (214).

Involve larger sample sizes; Include students with disabilities and graphing calculator use, especially at the middle grades (214).

Bouck (2010)

Explore the effects of different types of calculators, as well as the effect of calculator vs. no calculator on the performance of students with disabilities.

Use larger sample sizes when examining the relationshipbetween calculator type and ability.

Inquire about less-common or less-frequently-studiedaccommodations.

Cook et al. (2009)Cook et al. (2010)


Researchersshould continue to study the effect of accommodationsprovided in isolation to students with and without disabilities (237).


The relationship betweenmodifications and accommodationsand their effects on test scores for students with and without disabilities should be examined (492).

Replications of the current study with elementary and high school students is needed.

Should use comprehensivemodified tests to be compared to existingunmodified tests.

Finch et al. (2009)

Focus on identifying how changes to accommodationscan be made so that young lower proficiencyindividuals could benefit from them (44).


Focus on older students with clearly identified disabilities and comparisons of performance on accommodatedandnonaccommodated versions of tests (462).



136 137NCEO NCEO

Cook et al. (2009)Cook et al. (2010)


Researchersshould continue to study the effect of accommodationsprovided in isolation to students with and without disabilities (237).


The relationship betweenmodifications and accommodationsand their effects on test scores for students with and without disabilities should be examined (492).

Replications of the current study with elementary and high school students is needed.

Should use comprehensivemodified tests to be compared to existingunmodified tests.

Finch et al. (2009)

Focus on identifying how changes to accommodationscan be made so that young lower proficiencyindividuals could benefit from them (44).


Focus on older students with clearly identified disabilities and comparisons of performance on accommodatedandnonaccommodated versions of tests (462).




Clearly define access technology to examine fully the quality, quantity, and specific access technology that is utilized and its impact on academicperformance(181).

Standardize the services provided by access technology.

Monitor academic outcomes for youths with visual impairmentsthroughout coming years as technologiesadvance.


Inquire about the benefits provided by various technologies.

Jordan (2009)

Examine the construct validity, enhancing factors, and overall usefulness of the partial and full scribeaccommodations(62).

Kim & Huynh (2010)

Account for confoundingeffects of accommodations.

Examine the effects of administrationmode on various types of disability (119); Data should be collected on why students choose to take tests on line vs. paper and pencil; Replications are needed.

Kim et al. (2009a)

Address the limitationsdiscussed.

Kim et al. (2009b)

Address how IEP teams identify neededaccommodationsfor individual students.

Address the effects of accommodationsfor subpopulations of students with specific disabilities, at multiple ages.

138 139NCEO NCEO

Kingston(2009)

Expand reporting of effect sizes and characteristics that affect the heterogeneity in effect sizes in research (i.e., item characteristics,differenthardware).

Laitusis(2010)

These data should be further analyzed in the following ways: 1) examining factors that contribute to score boost, 2) the relationshipbetween listening and reading comprehension by grade and disability status, 3) DIF across populations (165).

Collect more accuratemeasures of reading to use as an external criterion in the validity analyses (165).

Findings from this study should be investigated in future research, due to the limited external validity of the teacher ratings.


Research less frequently studied accommodations(78); Research is needed on the assumptionsunderlyingaccommodationspolicies so states can make better decisionsregarding their policies and how to include accommodations.

Lee et al. (2010)

Larger sample size.

Lindstrom(2010)


Logan (2009)

Continueinvestigating the relationshipbetween students' achievement goals and their reactions to test accommodationsin order to assist students in achievingmotivation (31); Expand and deepen analyses of students' beliefs and attitudes toward testing accommodations.

Lovett (2010)


Examine the effects of task characteristics on the writing performance of students with and without disabilities.


Examine what specificaccommodationsarerecommended,why teachers are recommendingthem, and how teachers make accommodationsdecisions (23).

Mastergeorge& Martinez (2010)

Assess students on multiple occasions to separate rating occasion from testing occasion variance (547).

The generalizability of these findings about teacher ratings needs to be investigatedfurther.

Examine reliability for different types of disabilities and whether teacher knowledge and ability to recognize disability types influences the reliability of rating scores (548).


140 141NCEO NCEO

Parks (2009)

Inquire about whether calculator type (scientific, four function) affects the problem-solving skills or anxiety levels of students with LD or ADHD; Investigate the effect of the calculatoraccommodationwith other tests besides the KTEA-II; Examine the construct validity of the math subtests of Georgia's CRCT to determine if calculators cause a differential boost for students with LD and/or ADHD (96).

Determine whether the findings from the present study are due to the KTEA-II's good construct validity, or to the fact that that calculators do not have an effect on students' math anxiety and/or problem-solvingabilities.

Peltenburg et al. (2009)

Expand participant population.

Extend to more mathematicalcontent domains; Collect more data on the use of the 100 board (and other tools) and student'sstrategies with tool use.

Randall & Engelhard(2010)

Qualitativeresearch with students with and without disabilities may be needed to explore the differing effects of accommodationsat different grade levels.


Replicate current study using a sensitive statistical approach, such as repeated-measures analysis of variance (273).

Increase sample sizes, particularly of learning disabled students and those from ethnic minorities (273).

Roach et al. (2010)

With posttests, use forced-choiceresponse method.

Study a broader sample of students with academic disabilities; Se ek to understand elementary or high school students' perceptions of test-item modifications (78).

Roxbury(2010)

Look at group differences across the different types ofaccommodations(59); Exploreusing SEM models that purposely constrain specific items or allow previouslyidentified suspect items to be freely estimated across groups (60).

Russell et al. (2009a) No future research directions provided in this document by the researchers.

142 143NCEO NCEO


Focus more narrowly on the affects of NimbleTools in narrowly focused age groups (a single grade or a few grades); Participatingstudents should be pre-tested for reading proficiency and participants should be selected at various skill levels for comparison of relative benefits of usingaccommodations.

Explore whether the use of a human or avatar as a sign interpreter differs for students at different levels of readingproficiency (17);Compare a live human, a recorded human, an avatar, and no accommodationsconditions.

Examine the cost-effectiveness of different types of interpreters (i.e.: live vs. avatar); Examine the consistency of live humaninterpreters.

Salend (2009)

Schoch(2010)

Address styles and approaches teachers may use when providing verbal and physicalassistance to students using tactual graphics, and what type of teaching style best helps students without altering the psychometricproperties of the test (90).

Use larger sample sizes.

In the area of tactile and large print math graphics,determine why students are scoring low on these types of problems (89); In the area of verbal description of math graphics, inquire whether verbal descriptionsimprove math scores; Examine the feasibility of an alternate test for visually impaired students when the test items on the regular test is considered 'too visual.'


Snyder(2010)

Calculate RIT (Rasch unIT-anequal interval scale used for interpreting student achievement and growth over time) scores for English and Spanish audio items.

Expand participant population.

InvestigateSpanish audio accommodations;Examine the calibrationbetween English and Spanish items (both print and audio).

Stone et al. (2010)

Investigate larger numbers of each type of item; Study the responses to the same items across multiple administrations of the test used in this research.

Zhang et al. (2010)

Attempt to collect more objective data; Developinnovativeprograms and interventions and investigate the effects of them on faculty members' provision of accommodationsto students with disabilities (285).

Use a national sample with a larger sample size.

*Quotations from the article appear in italics with page number in parentheses.

144 NCEO

NCEO is an affiliated center of the Institute on Community Integration

a summary of the research on the effects of test

Documents