Including Students with Deafblindness in Large Scale Assessment Systems
|
Including Students with Deafblindness in Large Scale Assessment Systems
|
|
Accommodation Study Literature Review
 |
Florida
Department of Education. (2000).
Guidelines for determining accommodations for assessment of students with
disabilities. Bureau of
Instructional Support and Community Services Division of Public Schools and
Community Education. This
paper reviews information on the law behind the use of accommodations during
instruction and assessments (e.g., IDEA 1997). It also describes the
distinctions between accommodations and modifications and provides a guide for
determining appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities.
Categories (5) of accommodations are also outlined.
An accommodations checklist and rubric for determining accommodations is
attached.
Florida Department of Education.
(2000). Testing
accommodations for students with disabilities.
Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services Division of Public
Schools and Community Education. This
article suggests that there are four categories of testing accommodations
available for students with disabilities. These
categories are: Setting, Scheduling, Responding and
Presentation. Guidelines for determining these accommodations are also
provided in the article. First,
information on state policies regarding accommodations should be shared with all
school personnel, especially those who will be administering the statewide
assessments. Second appropriate
accommodations should be reviewed and discussed by school personnel and those
administering the assessment (e.g., there should be a plan).
Third, students should be trained in test taking strategies and given the
opportunity to practice these strategies. Fourth,
accommodations used during assessment should be aligned with those used in the
classroom (i.e., they should be the same).
Lastly, the test accommodations should be outlines on the student's IEP
or 504 plan. Elliot,
S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & McKevitt, B.
(1999). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing
accommodations on the scores of students with and without disabilities:
Mid-project results. Paper
presented at a conference. An initial description and definition of accommodations and modifications is offered at the beginning of this article. Accommodations are defined as, “a change in an assessment that is intended to maintain or facilitate the measurement goals of the assessment so that scores the accommodated test would measure the same attributed as scores on the un-accommodated test. Testing accommodations are intended to increase the validity of the inference made from the test score.” The most frequently used accommodations in this study are, extra time, assistance with directions and reading support. Modifications are defined as, “an alteration of test content…that changes what a test measures.” Modifications alter the validity of the inferences that can be made from the test scores.
The study compared students with and without disabilities taking the same
test with and without accommodations. The
findings indicated that students with disabilities performed nearly one standard
deviation lower when they did not have accommodations compared to when they did
have accommodations on the test. Students
with disabilities, using accommodations, performed better or equal to their
non-disabled peers tested without accommodations.
Students without disabilities also performed better with accommodations
than they did without them.
Elliot, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & Schulte, A. G.
(1999). Assessment
Accommodations Checklist. Monterey,
CA: CTB/McGraw Hill.
The Assessment Accommodations Checklist, devised by Elliot, Kratochwill,
and Schulte (1999), offers educators a format for determining the appropriate
accommodations for students with disabilities.
This checklist may help educators fulfill the requirements stipulated in
the 1997 amendments to IDEA, which necessitates that all students participate in
statewide assessments. In addition,
authors suggest guidelines for determining the appropriate accommodations for
the testing environment (ideally these should match with what is provided to the
student during instruction). Test
changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations.
Project Forum at NASDSE. A
synthesis brief. (1999).
Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special
Education. This
article is a thorough review of the Tindal & Fuchs paper published by the
MSRRC at IHDI. The Tindal &
Fuchs (2000) paper is intended to aid states as they begin to develop
accommodation guidelines for statewide accountability testing. An accommodation is defined as something that "does not
alter the construct of what is being tested, is based on individual needs, and
is effective for students who need the change and is not effective for others
(p. 5)." Consequently, when
these criteria are not met, then the change is a modification.
114 studies were examined by the authors, all of which included the use
of some accommodation among students with disabilities on a large-scale
assessment. Research on timing,
setting, computer presentation, examiner familiarity, presentation/response,
dictation/scribe, cooperative testing, the use of word processors,
calculators, reinforcement, instruction on test taking strategies, and
out-of-level testing is presented. http://www.act.org/aap/disab/index.html
(1999). ACT assessment:
Services for students with disabilities. ACT,
Inc. Options
for students with disabilities include: standard time national testing with
accommodations, extended time national testing (up to 5 hours), special testing
with extended time and alternate formats available (not offered as part of
national testing). This third
option is appropriate only if the student; normally uses more than 50%
additional time for test in school or, requires testing over more than one day
due to the nature of the disability, or normally uses other test formats such as
Braille, audio cassette, or a reader.
http://www.ets.org/distest/info.html
(1999). Information about
testing accommodations. The
Educational Testing Service Network. ADA
mandates that testing accommodations must be individualized for each student.
Approved accommodations for CBT include: extended time, additional
breaks, selectable background and foreground colors, test reader and sign
language interpreter (for check-in only). Approved
accommodations for paper and pencil test include: extended time, additional
breaks, writer to record answers, reader to dictate questions, sign language
interpreter (for spoken directions only) and other aids customarily used.
Alternate test forms include: Braille, enlarged print, large print, large
print answer sheet, audio cassette with large print figure supplement, audio
cassette with Braille figure supplement. ETS
will accommodate students with the following, documented disabilities: ADD/ADHD,
blind or visually impaired, deaf or HH, learning disability, physical
disability, and psychiatric disability.
http://www.gre.org/search97cgi/s97_cgi
(1999). Registration
procedures for test takers with disabilities.
Graduate Record Examinations. Accommodations
that can be applied include for the CBT: extended time, additional breaks,
selectable background and foreground colors, test reader, recorder of answers,
sign language interpreter (for spoken directions only).
For paper based testing, accommodations include: extended time,
additional breaks, writer/recorder of answers, test reader, sign language
interpreter (for spoken directions only), other aids customarily used.
Alternate formats for the paper test include: large print, large print
answer sheet, or other arrangements made through Disability Services.
Biser, E., Rubel, L., & Toscano, R. M.
(1998). Mediated texts: A
heuristic for academic writing. Journal
of Basic Writing, 17 (1), 56-72. Accommodation
for students with disabilities is not meant to alter the fundamental nature of
an educational program or assessment. Therefore,
it is incumbent upon educators to find ways to educate students with
disabilities without compromising the nature of the educational program or
assessment. In this study,
students petitioned for an alternative way to demonstrate competency in academic
writing. In response, mediated
texts were tested with 2 participant students signing their initial responses,
receiving a written copy and making changes to this copy.
These mediated texts were compared to texts written without any
accommodations. The qualitative
analysis revealed that the mediated texts were of a significantly higher
quality. The researchers determined
that these mediated texts were an appropriate accommodation, because they
allowed students to think and write in the same language (sign).
However, there are concerns about the amount of time required for an
interpreter and a translator, what happens when these students leave the
educational environment, and possible forgery or exploitation of the
accommodation.
Burns, E. (1998).
Test accommodations for students with disabilities.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Authors note that to determine
reliable and valid accommodations for a student the pre-accommodation need must
be considered. “Does the
disability limit an adequate sampling of the ability or introduce random error?
Does the disability detract from what the test measures?” In addition, the benefit of the accommodation must also be
considered. “Does the
accommodation restrict the item sample or introduce random error? Does the accommodation alter what the test measures?”
-
Authors indicate that valid accommodations include: developing test
taking skills, individual administration, enhanced instructions, Braille,
physical accommodations and large print. Possibly
valid accommodations include: extended time, eliminating biased items, reading
content questions, examiner aid, calculator for math problems, using a scribe.
Invalid accommodations include: reading reading-test questions, changing
test content, eliminating difficult items, practicing with exact test,
calculator for math facts, non-authored test responses. -
Less than .1% of all students with disabilities are categorized as
deafblind. -
Four areas to consider in designing test accommodations: 1) possible test
accommodations, 2) permissibility of using test accommodations, 3) test-related
accommodations, 4) disability-related accommodations. -
Regarding test accommodations, the IEP should be used to: 1) ensure that
parents, teachers, and school personnel are aware of all necessary
accommodations, 2) determine and resolve the need for test accommodations, 3)
specify resources necessary to provide the test accommodations, 4) oversee the
provision of test accommodations, 5) demonstrate compliance with regulations, 6)
determine the ability to participate in a gen ed testing program. -
Written documentation must be provided in the IEP for all accommodations. -
Provides list of possible accommodations and details on how to determine
when to implement accommodations of various types. Elliot,
S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & Schulte, A. G.
(1998). The assessment accommodation checklist: Who, what, when,
where, why and how? Teaching
Exceptional Children, 31 (2), 10-14. This
article provides some background about the use of accommodations among students
with disabilities. It does not, however, address issues specific to students who
are deafblind. Elliot, Kratochwill,
and Schulte (1999) review state guidelines about the utilization of
accommodations during statewide assessments and the Assessment Accommodation
Checkilist (AAC) are described. A
sample protocol of the AAC is, with a step-by-step guide for applying this tool
in the classroom. The AAC organizes
accommodations into 8 areas: Motivation,
Assistance (prior to testing), Scheduling, Setting, Assessment directions,
Assistance (during assessment), Use of Assistive Technology, Changes in test
format (e.g., Braille) Elliot,
J., Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., & Erickson, R. (1998).
What about assessment and accountability?
Practical implications for educators.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 31 (1), 18-27. Discusses the purpose of assessment and the need for assessment to be linked to what students are learning in the classroom. The authors also stress the importance of including all students in the assessment process, since assessment results drive policy and educational changes. If all students are not included, then their needs are not being met by the educational system. The authors discuss some common reasons that students with disabilities are not included in the assessment process, as well as concerns that accommodations may not be fair. The authors provide tables with some examples of accommodations and 6 categories of different types of assessment. The authors point out that many teachers and parents are ill informed about assessment for students with disabilities and the types of accommodations that are appropriate. The authors suggests that teachers need more training and professional development in these areas, that parents need to be more included in the process and that students should have the opportunity to participate in decisions about their accommodations.
Erickson, R., Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., & Elliot, J.
(1998). Inclusive
assessments and accountability systems: Tools of the trade in educational
reform. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 31 (2), 4-9. Discusses accountability testing and the need to include students with disabilities in this testing. In particular, addressed the issue of accommodations, and concerns that have been raised that accommodations may jeopardize the reliability and validity of the assessment. Finally, the authors outline four groups of accommodations and suggest some potential accommodations that would fit into each group.
Fitzsimmons, M. K. (1998).
Including students with disabilities in large-scale testing: Emerging
practices. ERIC/OSEP Digest. There has been much concern over the appropriateness of accommodations and how to determine what accommodations a student needs. The author points out that students with physical or sensory deficits are often provided with accommodations, but students with cognitive or learning difficulties are not. The author describes some research by Tindal and indicates that he believes that “testing accommodations should take into account the learner’s needs, the task demands, and the purpose of the accommodation.” Hollenbeck, K., Tindal, G., & Almond, P.
(1998). Teachers’
knowledge of accommodations as a validity issue in high-stakes testing.
The Journal of Special Education, 32 (3), 175-183. This
article defines the differences between accommodations and modifications.
An accommodation is defined as an aide to enable students to complete a
test without other confounding influences.
The accommodations do not change the nature of the test.
Modifications result in a change in the test.
The purpose of the study described in this article was to determine
teachers’ knowledge of allowable accommodations on statewide assessments.
Overall, only about 50% of teachers had a clear understanding of how to
apply accommodations in accordance with the state regulations.
The authors suggest that teachers could benefit from preservice/inservice
training on appropriate use of accommodations and modifications.
Additionally, the authors recommend that the Department of Education
codify testing accommodations, and that accommodations be matched to a
student’s disability, rather than allowing any accommodation once the
disability has been documented.
Kearns,
J. F., Kleinert, H. L., Clayton, J., Burdge, M., & Williams, M.
(1998). Principal supports
for inclusive assessment: A Kentucky story.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 31 (2), 16-23. This
article reviews the 1990 Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA), which seems to
have been the impetus for much of the national education reform.
The majority of the information provided refers to the Alternate
Portfolio Assessment System, however some guidelines are listed for those
students participating in the regular assessment with accommodations.
These include: (1) accommodations must be documented on the student's IEP;
(2) accommodations listed on the IEP must also be used during the student's
classroom instruction (i.e., not solely during testing); and (3) accommodations
cannot interfere with the validity of the assessment. Landau,
J. K., Vohs, J. R., & Romano, C. A. (1998).
All kids count. Boston,
MA: Federation for Children with Special Needs. This
paper was published by a nonprofit organization working to educate parents and
improve services for children with disabilities. State-wide accommodation policies and assessment systems are
reviewed. In concordance with the
law, the organization asserts that accommodations be made on an individualized
basis. The four categories of
accommodations are described and extensive examples are provided.
Luckner, J.,
& Denzin, P. (1998).
In the mainstream: Adaptations for students who are deaf or hard of
hearing. Perspectives in
Education and Deafness, 17 (1). Reports
that the number of deaf and HH children educated in self-contained classrooms
has decreased as more and more kids are being integrated into regular
classrooms. To help deaf and HH
students succeed, special adaptations are necessary.
Accommodations focus on how students access and demonstrate learning.
Modifications substantially change what students are expected to learn.
This article lists many different adaptations for lots of different
classroom activities. For
evaluations, suggested accommodations include, but are not limited to, using a
peer tutor, providing short tests on a more frequent basis, allowing students to
use notes, providing graphic cues on answer booklets, and allowing test items to
be signed and responded to in sign.
National Center on Educational
Outcomes. (1998).
Performance trends and use of accommodations on a statewide assessment:
Students with disabilities in the KIRIS on-demand assessments from 1992-93
trough 1996-96. Maryland/Kentucky
Report 3: NCEO. Reviews
KY's accountability system, and informs that 4-10% of KY's students are
identified as having disabilities when participating in the KIRIS assessments.
3-9% of the total population used accommodations on the assessments (with
more using them at 4th than 12th grade).
That is 62-89% of students with disabilities using accommodations (again
more at 4th than 12th grade). Accommodations on assessments can be grouped into 8 classes:
none, reader/oral, scribe/dictation, cueing, paraphrasing, interpreter,
technological, other. Most
frequently used accommodations are paraphrasing and oral presentation.
In general, students with disabilities are showing improvements in
testing at a more rapid rate than students without disabilities. Sacks,
S. Z., & Silberman, R. K. (1998).
Educating students who have visual impairments with other
disabilities. Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes. This
book provides a definition of deafblindness and reviews some of the various
forms of the disorder. Deafblindness
is considered to be an "information gathering disability."
Due to the diversity of this population, it is assumed that care should
be taken to determine the instructional and communication needs of each
individual with deafblindness. The
author makes suggestions for determining the appropriate instructional program
for students with deafblindness: A)
Motivate students to interact with people and their environment. B)
Help students learn to take in and
use information (e.g., optimize the use of their sensory strengths, use a
multisensory approach, be cognizant that these students may experience
fluctuations in their hearing and vision).
C)
Adapt the environment, materials, and activities to make them more
accessible and meaningful for students (e.g., instructors should think "deafblind,"
conduct an environmental analysis based on the individuals individual needs,
determine sensory enhancements (accommodations) that will make materials more
accessible for the student, and make use of assisstive technology.
D)
Seek out information about and use effective techniques and strategies. E)
Make communication a top priority ( p153). In
sum, the author affirms that by making attempts to understand the students
individual needs, educators can develop effective and meaningful instructional
programming for these students.
Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M.
(1998). Accommodating
students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study.
Exceptional Children, 64 (4), 439-450. Children
in both regular and special education classrooms took a math and a reading test
under normal conditions and with accommodations. Regular education children performed equally well regardless
of condition. Special education
children showed no difference in performance when the accommodation involved
answering on the test booklet as opposed to bubbling answers in on a bubble
sheet. However, they did show
significant improvement on the math test, when the test was read aloud as
opposed to reading it themselves.
Trimble, S.
(1998). Performance tends and use of accommodations on a statewide
assessment: Students with disabilities in the KIRIS on-demand assessments from
1992-93 through 1995-96. The
Maryland Kentucky NCEO Assessment Project. Discusses
performance of students in KIRIS on-demand assessments at 4th, 8th
and 12thgrade. Results
indicate that student performance is improving more rapidly than general
education students. Findings also
show that 4th graders have the most students using accommodations and
the highest test scores in comparison to general education classmates.
Durgin, J.
(1997). Testing accommodations and equal access.
Parent Education Advocacy Training Center.
Present
a variety of standard and nonstandard testing accommodations and explains when
students can be exempted from testing completely. Koegel, L. K.,
Koegel, R. L., & Smith, A. (1997).
Variables related to differences in standardized test outcome for
children with autism. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27 (3), 233-243. Autistic
children completed a standardized test in either the normal testing condition,
or with accommodations to adjust for attention and motivation (specifically
designed for the child). Results
showed that improving motivation and attention for the children lead to greater
test performance.
Koretz, D.
(1997). The assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky.
(CSE Technical Report 431). Students
with visual and hearing impairments are few in number, and so they are not
individually assessed. Reports
looking at these children may be very different than reports on other disabled
students. Specific
accommodations allowed by KIRIS are: breaks; large print/Braille; paraphrasing;
oral presentation; dictation; cueing; use of interpreter; technological aids.
There are specific guidelines for when and how to use these.
There are questions about the appropriateness of some of these
accommodations. about 10% of
students in KY are served under IDEA. (.06% are visually impaired, .11% are
hearing impaired, and .00% are deaf-blind).
Children with a communication problem represent 12% of students with
disabilities. 81% of KY 4th
graders with disabilities are given at least one accommodation, 66% more than
one. Most
frequently used accommodations are: 4th
grade - oral presentation,
dictation, paraphrasing 8th
grade - oral presentation,
paraphrasing, none 11th
grade - paraphrasing, oral presentation, none for
students with a communication disability - none, oral presentation,
paraphrasing, dictation average
scores (neg indicates number of standard deviations below mean for general ed)
on assessment: 4th
grade - (-.3), 8th grade - (-1.0), 11th grade - (-1.2), CD
- (-.4 in 4th grade) students
with disabilities with and without accommodations scored: 4th
grade - with (-.15), without (-.7) 8th
grade - with (-1), without (-1.15) 11th
grade - with (-1.2), without (-1.35) students
who received accommodations of oral/dictation or oral/dictation/paraphrasing
scored significantly better than students who received none, oral, or
oral/paraphrasing pervasiveness
of accommodations (especially in 4th grade) is concerning KDE
instruct using the least intrusive accommodations, but this is not happening.
Concern
that accommodations are biasing scores upward Use
of accommodations was fairly stable across grades w/ exception of 2 that
markedly decline (oral presentation and dictation). For dictation goes 50% - 14% - 5%. This suggests that the 4th grade assessments may
be used in part to off set poor reading/writing skills. Thus it is not an accommodation for a reading disability.
This is understandable b/c it can be hard to distinguish these two things. Association
between test scores and accommodations raises doubts about the quality of
assessment results for some students with disabilities.
Large variation in scores among students receiving different
accommodations. Students with mild
MR assessed with oral pres/paraphrasing/dictation, scored near the mean for gen
ed students – this is implausible. Some
LD students scored above average with accommodations (also implausible). In
practice: need to reconcile inclusiveness and high standards (if we want to
include kids with disabilities in regular classrooms, we can’t have such high
standards). Also, need to better
regulate the use of accommodations.
National Center on Educational Outcomes.
(1997). NCEO policy
directions: Providing assessment accommodations for students with disabilities
in state and district assessments. Number
7: NCEO. An
assessment accommodation is an alteration in the way a test is administered.
Accommodations can be categorized into 6 types: setting, presentation,
timing, response, scheduling and other. There
is no set of universally approved assessment accommodations. Often one state will allow an accommodation that another
state bans. Most decisions about
accommodations are made by the student's IEP team. Thurlow, M. L.,
Seyfarth, A. L., Scott, D. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E.
(1997). State assessment
policies on participation and accommodations doe students with disabilities:
1997 Update. Provides
a thorough review of different states participating in all school assessment.
Details types of accommodations allowed by each state and who determines
the necessity of any given accommodation. Reveals
that the most commonly used accommodations are Braille, large print, proctor or
scribe, extended time, and individual/small-group assessments. Erickson, R.,
Thurlow, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (1996).
Neglected numerators, drifting denominators, and fractured fractions:
Determining participation tares for students with disabilities in statewide
assessment programs (Synthesis Report 23).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational
Outcomes. Review
of the literature indicates that between 40 and 50% of students with
disabilities are being excluded from assessments. These students are often excluded b/c schools receive awards
based on high scores and these students typically bring scores down.
Participation rates are also very elusive b/c of 1) lack of data on the
students taking the tests, 2) differences in determining eligible populations,
3) misaligned data collection procedures. Efforts
need to be undertaken to identify test takers with special education needs.
Gordon, R. P., Stump, K., & Glaser, B. A. (1996). Assessment of individuals with hearing impairments: Equity in testing procedures and accommodations. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 111-118 States
that many significant decisions are made through the use of tests (e.g., school
placement, college, employment), therefore it is essential that appropriate
testing accommodations be determined for persons with disabilities. This article
briefly reviews the literature on testing accommodations for persons with
hearing impairments (roughly, 20 million Americans). The provision of testing
accommodations for persons with disabilities, including the hearing impaired, is
outlined in both the ADA and Section 504v of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The author asserts problems associated with standardized assessments
encountered by the hearing impaired include: 1) test reliability and validity,
2)cultural differences, 3) difficulties with the English Language (such as
reading), and 4) many modes of communication used by persons with hearing
impairments may not match what is required on the test. Furthermore, it is
suggested that rather than using the SAT to determine college entrance, the
TOEFL should be used because for persons who are deaf or severely hard of
hearing because English is in many ways a second language for them.
When test measuring reading and language skills are administered without
the use of accommodations to persons with hearing impairments, the assessment
may actually be measuring the individual's disability rather than ability level.
Some recommendations regarding the use of accommodations on standardized teats
are made: 1) testing format may need to be modified (use of CCTV and/or use of
an interpreter), 2) response format may also need modifications (use of sign
language), 3) changes to the testing environment may also be needed (room size).
In addition, persons with hearing impairments may also benefit from the
use of time extensions on times portions of standardized assessments.
Nonetheless, more empirical research is needed to determine for certain
what accommodations are essential and beneficial for persons with disabilities.
Jayanthi, M., Epstein, M. H., Polloway, E. A., Bursuck, W. D. (1996).
A national survey of general education teacher's perceptions of testing
adaptations. The Journal of
Special Education, 30 (1), 99-115. Teachers
responded to a variety of questions regarding testing adaptations.
Teachers indicated that the easy accommodations to make are using b/w
copies, providing extra space for answering, giving practice questions, giving
open book test, and giving individual help with directions.
Difficult accommodations were allowing word processors and teaching
students test taking skills. Helpful
adaptations include giving individual help with directions, reading test
questions to students, and simplifying wording on tests.
Less helpful were giving take home tests, allowing answers in outline
format, and allowing word processors.
Almost 67% of teachers indicated that accommodations were not fair,
mostly b/c all students should be allowed accommodations.
Pomplun, M. (1996). Cooperative groups: Alternative assessment for students with
disabilities? The Journal of
Special Education, 30 (1), 1-17. An
analysis of testing with accommodations examined the meaning of scores for
students with disabilities from a science state assessment.
Specifically asked, 1) were their scores consistent with expectations, 2)
were their scores measuring the same abilities as fir general education
students? Also looked at how a
student with a disability's participation affected the group.
Within the students with disabilities, students with hearing or vision
impairments performed the best. Overall,
groups that included a child with a disability were rated lower than groups
without. Students with a hearing impairment were rated as highest on
cooperation and lowest were the vision impaired. Students with a disability may have been excluded from group
processes. Students with
disabilities do not negatively affect group scores, as they are achieving as
expected. There are some concerns
about the comparability of the assessment of students with disabilities and
general education students.
Thurlow, M. L., Erickson, R., Spicuzza, R., Vieburg, K., & Ruhland,
A. (1996).
Accommodations for students with disabilities: Guidelines from states
with graduation exams. Minnesota
Report 5: NCEO. Most
states agree that students should only be allowed to use accommodations in
testing that they are already using in the classroom. States allow accommodations to format/ equipment, scheduling,
setting/administration, and response.
Thurlow, M. L., Hurley, C., Spicuzza, R., & El Sawaf, H. (1996). A review
of the literature on testing accommodations for students with disabilities.
Minnesota Report 9: NCEO. Found
that for timing accommodations, students always complete more when given more
time (both disabled and non). Two to three times the normal time was required
for visually impaired students using Braille or cassette tape.
Deaf or HH students required somewhat less than double the time.
In general, students performed better in an untimed condition versus the
timed condition (even when they used the same amount of time).
There is very little data on the effects of testing accommodations.
Article also reviews legal considerations of testing accommodations and
provides a set of questions to consider before making any accommodations: 1)
Will format changes or alterations in testing conditions change the skill
being measured? 2)
Will the scores of examinees tested under standard conditions have a
different meaning from scores of examinees tested with accommodations? 3)
Would examinees without disabilities benefit if allowed the same
accommodation? 4)
Does the examinee with the disability have any capability for adapting to
standard test administration conditions? 5)
In the disability evidence or testing accommodations policy based on
procedures with doubtful validity or reliability? Article
also reviews teachers and students perceptions of accommodations.
67% of teachers feel it is unfair to provide accommodations only to those
students with identified disabilities. Accommodations
rated most helpful were: giving individual help with directions on a test, and
simplifying wording of test questions. Least
helpful were: allowing answers in outline format, and giving take home tests.
Examined
teachers opinions of the acceptability of testing modifications for mainstreamed
students. Results suggested that
although teachers may be familiar with a lot of the modifications, they do not
implement many of them because they see them as ineffective, difficult to
implement or a threat to the integrity of the test.
Teachers were more likely to select modifications that could be used with
all students, typically pertaining to changes in test design rather than
administration procedures. 90% of
teachers allocated more time to students as an accommodation.
Horton, S. V.,
& Lovitt, T. C. (1994).
A comparison of two methods of administering group reading inventories to
diverse learners. Remedial and
Special Education, 15 (6), 378-390. LD,
remedial and normally achieving students completed group reading inventories in
two different condition, computer versus pencil and paper.
Results indicated that, on factual questions, students performed better
on the computer. On interpretive test items, there was no difference in
method.
Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled
rights. Applied Measurement in
Education, 7 (2), 93-120. Reviews
court cases and laws on providing accommodations for the disabled.
Discusses how these accommodations must not alter the validity of the
test (change what the test is measuring), or else an addendum must be provided
to explain this change in the testing. Provides
guidelines for when it is not appropriate to use accommodations.
Under public law, disabled students are guaranteed access to
communication, but not specific results (i.e. a diploma).
Epsin, C. A.,
& Sindelar, P. t. (1988).
Auditory feedback and writing: Learning disabled and nondisabled
students. Exceptional Children,
55 (1), 45-51. Learning
disabled students were compared with nondisabled same age peers and nondisabled
same reading level peers on identifying grammar errors in reading passages.
Students either read and searched for errors on their own, or had the
passages read aloud to them. For
all groups, students found significantly more errors when listening to the
passages. Bennett, R. E., Rock, D. A., & Jirele, T. (1987). GRE score level test completion, and reliability for visually impaired, physically handicapped, and nonhandicapped groups. Journal of Special Education, 21 (3), 9-21 Compared
handicapped and visually impaired students taking the standard administration of
the GRE to visually impaired students taking a large type, extended time
version. There were only a few
differences between groups. The
handicapped students scored significantly below the other groups on quantitative
and analytical sections, while the large type visually impaired students scored
significantly higher than the other groups on the analytical section. Bennett, R. E.,
Rock, D. A., & Kaplan, B. A. (1987).
SAT differential item performance for nine handicapped groups.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 24 (1), 41-55. Students
with a variety of disabilities completed the SAT under varying conditions.
Regular type condition was
administered to learning disabled, visually impaired, hearing impaired, and
physically handicapped students. Large
type was administered to learning disabled and visually impaired students.
Braille was administered to visually impaired students, and cassette
and cassette and regular type were administered to learning disabled
students. Overall, students
performed equally in all conditions. The
few noted differences (all in the math section) include: difficulty for visually
impaired students using the Braille edition; facility for hearing impaired
students with the regular exam; and facility for learning disabled students
taking the cassette administration.
Lee, J., Moreno, K. E., &
Sympson, J. B. (1986).
The effects of mode of test administration on test performance.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 467-474. Subjects
completed an arithmetic reasoning test in either the paper and pencil condition
or on a computer. A significant
main effect was found for mode, with mean score on the computer significantly
lower than mean score for the paper and pencil test. Beattie, S., Grise, P., & Algozzine, B.
(1983). Effects of test
modifications on the minimum competency performance of learning disabled
students. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 6, 75-77. A
subgroup of LD students completed a standardized test in third grade with
multiple accommodations in either regular or large type print. Modifications
made included: 1) ordering items to reflect a hierarchical progression of
difficulty, 2) complete sentences of reading comprehension items were left
unjustified in format, 3) answer bubbled were placed to the right of vertically
arranged multiple choice options, 4) reading comprehension items were placed in
shaded boxes immediately preceding the items relating to them, 5) examples were
prepared for each skills set within the test, 6) arrows were placed in the lower
right hand corner of pages which were continuing sections of the test.
Students in both groups performed well, with students in the large type
group answering 86% correct and students in regular type group answering 82%
correct. Grise, P.,
Beatttie, S., Algozzine, B. (1982).
Assessment of minimum competency in fifth grade learning disabled
students: Test modifications make a difference.
Journal of Educational Research, 76 (1), 35-40. An
experimental study comparing the use of modified and regular assessment tests
with LD 5th graders. The
changes that were made for the modified tests were purely structural and did not
alter the content of the test. These
changes are listed in the article. In addition, the two versions of the test were available in
both regular and large print. Results
indicate that the overall performance of students tested with regular print test
was significantly better than the performance of students using large print
tests. In general, students using
the modified tests had higher scores and demonstrated mastery of more items than
the children using the non-modified tests. These results suggest that a variety of simple structural
modifications can enhance students’ performance on assessment tests.
However, there does not seem to be any utility in using the large print
tests. Curtis, H. A.,
& Kropp, R. P. (1961).
A comparison of scores obtained by administering a test normally and
visually. Journal of Experimental
Education, 29 (3), 249-260. Comparison
of students taking a standardized test under normal conditions, or projected on
a screen, either one at a time or three at a time. There was limited support for the visually presented
material. |