Navigating the Test Accommodation Process Between Secondary and

Postsecondary Settings

Nicole Ofiesh, Ph.DUniversity of Arizona

California State University, East BayMarch 2006

Major Differences between School Age and Postsecondary

• School Age– IDEA & 504.– Focus is prescriptive.– Accommodations for

instruction and on state tests.– Decisions made by IEP team

based on curriculum-based or performance-based evaluations.

– Parents are advocates.

• Postsecondary– Section 504 & ADA.– Not a focus on remediation;

primarily access to education through accommodations.

– Accommodations for instruction and tests.

– Decisions based on nature of disability and diagnostic evaluation.

– Individuals must self-advocate.

Similarities• Accommodations both based on disability• Disability can be present but not substantial

enough to warrant special education at the k-12 level under IDEA or 504, or accommodations at the postsecondary level under 504 or ADA

Quote from teacher

• …I looked down at the list of accommodations for the first time and felt like I had this wonderful menu of desserts to choose from that just happened to be calorie-free-- so I started with the apple pie ala mode, then the fudge brownie, then I thought oh what the heck throw in the cheesecake with chocolate raspberry sauce…

In general…

• There is a need for IEP teams to make decisions regarding accommodations based on:– History of accommodation use– Data collected in the classroom– Psychoeducational tests– Knowledge of the research surrounding the

accommodation– Student characteristics– Educational goals– Construct of the test– Format of the test (multiple choice, essay, etc.)

Focus of Decisions at Postsecondary Level

• Test construct;• Maintenance of test validity once

accommodations are granted;• Once in college service providers look at

essential requirement of program of study;• Link between the functional limitation(s) of

the disability and the format of the test;• Severity of the disability with respect to

“average person” interpretation of the law.

Sign language interpreters need to read

signs fast!

…or else?

Essential requirement of

program of study

Current Model

• Determine if documentation meets standards.• Confirm LD exists.• Determine what area(s) the LD impacts and

severity of impairment.• Consider the interaction between LD & test

content and format.

• Evaluate additional information.• Ofiesh, Hughes, Scott (2004)

Caveat on determining impairment

• For high functioning students with LD, an impairment can still exist when scores are in the average range. For ALL individuals, but especially these individuals, critical indicators are:– History– Endorsement from teachers and evaluators– Description of test behavior– Evidence of intense remediation

New Directions for Decision Making with Respect to IDEA and RTI

• In response to section 614 of IDEA (2004) in which it is proposed that schools should exit students from high school with a “summary of performance,” various groups dedicated to the successful transition of students with disabilities have proposed what would make this kind of document effective.

Summary of Performance• No definitive template or model at this time.• Strong consensus:

• document will be used for accommodation decisions after high school for standardized tests

• postsecondary service delivery• Less consensus:

• The SOP would replace psychoeducational documentation as a basis for accommodations

• Should include:• Test data from most recent testing• Teacher evaluations• IEPs• History of accommodation use and service delivery• Grades• Any curriculum-based documentation of performance• Additional information: medication, initial diagnosis of disability, dual

diagnoses.

Research on Speeded Tasks• Students with LD perform slower and more variably

on the majority of speeded tasks…despite similar intelligence.

• The impact of this condition is seen in the use of all basic academic skills which are the foundation for higher learning.

Impact of LD on reading fluency• College students with phonological and orthographic

weaknesses frequently remain dysfluent readers even when word identification and comprehension are at grade level;

• In general students with LD who demonstrate deficits in reading need more time to identify new or non-routine text, comprehend what is read, and respond to as many test items as their nondisabled peers.

Impact of LD on writing fluency• An LD can impact handwriting, spelling, and/or

written expression.• When the actual process of writing is inefficient, a

student may sacrifice lengthier written expression and accurate spelling in order to simplify the task.– Research strongly suggests students who are provided

with a spellchecker receive higher grades on content.

Impact of LD on math fluency• Strawser and Miller (2001) explain the processing of

students with math-based LD interferes with:• Predicting or completing patterns• Findings and correcting errors in a problem• Interpreting graphs and tables• “deeper” interpretation of components of math problems

• All of these associated problems interfere with the speed with which students can solve problems.

It’s just not calculus if it’s not done fast!

…and then what exactly does it become…sloowwwcalculus?

Test Validity

17

x 3

20

Student with orthographic dyslexia and math

Student read the problem aloud as 13 + 7, and misread multiplier for addition.

Research on Extended Time

• Results from several studies have indicated that:– Students with LD make statistically significant greater

gains than students without LD.– Performance of students with LD under extended

time mimics performance of students without LD under standard time.

Research on Extended Time

020406080

100120140160

LD NLD

Hill (1984)/ACT

TimedExtend

0

20

40

60

80

100

LD NLD

Runyan (1991a)

TimedExtend

Research on Extended Time

0

20

40

60

80

100

LD NLD

Runyan (1991b)

Timed Extend

270280290300310320330

LDColl

NLDColl

LDUni

NLDUni

Weaver (1993)

Timed Extend

Research on Extended Time

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

LD NLD

Alster (1997)

TimedExtend

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

LD NLD

Ofiesh (1997)

TimedExtend

Research on Extended Time

290

295

300

305

310

LD NLD

Shoemaker & Mazurek (1998)

TimedExtend

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

LD NLD

Ofiesh (2004)

TimedExtend

Summary• This research is still used to underscore the point

that students with and without disabilities, specifically LD perform differently under timed situations

• Not an issue of IQ• Students without disabilities most often do not make

the same gains as students with disabilities• Provides rationale for new directions and research in

test development.