A Summary of the Research on the Effects of Test ... · In collaboration with: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) National Association of State . Directors of Special

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

NCEO Report 402

A Summary of the Research on

the Effects of Test Accommodations:

2013-2014

NCEO Report 402

A Summary of the Research on the Effects of Test Accommodations: 2013-2014

Christopher M. Rogers, Sheryl S. Lazarus, and Martha L. Thurlow

May 2016

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., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2016). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2013-2014 (NCEO Report 402). 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.

NCEO Core Staff

Martha L. Thurlow, DirectorDeb A. AlbusLaurene L. ChristensenLinda GoldstoneSheryl S. LazarusKristi K. Liu

Michael L. MooreRachel F. QuenemoenChristopher RogersVitaliy ShyyanYi-Chen Wu

The Center is supported through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326G110002) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. The Center is affiliated with the Institute on Community Integration at the College of Education and Human Develop-ment, University of Minnesota. The contents of this report were developed under the Cooperative Agreement from the U.S. Department of Education, but does not necessarily represent the policy or opinions of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it. Readers should not assume endorsement by the federal government.

Project Officer: David Egnor

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 af-fect test scores, how educators and students perceive accommodations, and how accommodations are selected and implemented.

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the state of the research on testing accommo-dations 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 sum-marize the research to review current research trends and enhance understanding of the implica-tions 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 2013 and 2014, 53 published research studies on the topic of testing accommodations were found. Among the main points of the 2013-14 research are:

Purpose: More than 40 percent of the research was to evaluate the comparability of test scores when assessments were administered with and without accommodations. The next most common purpose was to report on perceptions and preferences about accommodations use. The majority of studies addressed multiple purposes.

Research design: About 72% of the studies reported primary data collection on the part of the researchers, rather than drawing on existing (extant) data sets. Over two-fifths of the studies involved quasi-experimental designs. Researchers also drew on a variety of other quantitative and qualitative methodologies, including survey methodologies and meta-analyses.

Types of assessments, content areas: A wide variety of instrument types were used in these studies. About half of the studies used non-academic protocols or surveys developed by the study authors. Other studies used academic content items drawn from specified sources out-side of the researchers’ work, including state criterion-referenced test data, norm-referenced measures, or multiple types of data. Mathematics and reading were the most common content areas included in the 2013-2014 research. Other content areas included science and writing. About 17 percent 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 postsecondary students, although several studies included educators as par-ticipants. Studies varied in the number of participants; some studies included fewer than 10 participants, whereas other studies involved hundreds of thousands of participants.

Disability categories: Learning disabilities was the most common disability category exhibited by participants in the research, accounting for over half of the studies. Atten-tion problems, emotional behavioral disability, and autism were the next most commonly studied. Low-incidence disabilities were included in more than one-third of the studies.

Accommodations: Presentation accommodations were the most frequently studied category, with oral delivery (read-aloud) accommodations being the most studied within this category (and across categories). Another commonly studied accommodation was extended time.

Findings: Empirical studies investigating performance effects of the extended time ac-commodation showed a positive impact on assessment scores for students with disabilities. There were not conclusive findings for the oral delivery accommodation; two studies found a differential boost for students with disabilities when compared to students without, three found performance improvements for both students with and without disabilities, and one found no significant benefits. The two studies that addressed calculators both showed positive, although nuanced, support for students with disabilities’ performance. The two studies that addressed setting accommodations did not find significant evidence that there was a benefit of separate, low-distraction settings for students with disabilities. Two-thirds of the studies that looked at student perceptions found that most or all par-ticipants viewed accommodations as helping them perform better on assessments. About half of the studies of educators’ perceptions of test enhancements (accommodations and modifications) found that educators believed that they were beneficial to student test-takers’ performance and to students’ emotional state and self-esteem.

Limitations: Several limitations of the studies were identified. The most frequently listed limitation was related to small sample size, and other sampling issues. The next most frequently mentioned limitation was methodological limitations and issues related to the lack of authenticity of the testing circumstances.

Directions for future research: A number of promising suggestions were noted, par-ticularly the need for more rigorous studies that used stronger sampling methods. Many studies also noted a need for future studies that had an improved interface between ac-commodations and naturalistic testing conditions (test/test context).

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

Purposes of the Research .............................................................................................................3

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

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

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

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

School Level ..............................................................................................................................11

Disability Categories ..................................................................................................................12

Types of Accommodations .........................................................................................................13

Research Findings ......................................................................................................................13

Limitations and Future Research Directions ..............................................................................26

Discussion ..........................................................................................................................................28

References ..........................................................................................................................................30

Report References ......................................................................................................................30

2013 and 2014 Accommodation References ..............................................................................32

Appendix A: Research Purposes ........................................................................................................39

Appendix B: Reference Types, Research Types, Research Designs, Data Collection Sources, and

Collection Instruments ...............................................................................................................51

Appendix C: Instrument Characteristics ............................................................................................55

Appendix D: Participant and Sample Characteristics ........................................................................73

Appendix E: Accommodations Studied .............................................................................................77

Appendix F: Findings ........................................................................................................................83

Appendix G: Limitations and Future Research ...............................................................................109

1NCEO

Overview

All students, including students with disabilities, are required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 and Title I of the 2015 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to participate in assessments used for accountability. Some students need accommodations to meaningfully access assessments. States and assessment con-sortia look to accommodations research when making policy decisions about accommodations.

To synthesize accommodations research efforts completed across the years, the National Cen-ter on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has published a series of reports on accommodations research. The time periods included 1999-2001 (Thompson, Blount, & Thurlow, 2002), 2002-2004 (Johnstone, Altman, Thurlow, & Thompson, 2006), 2005-2006 (Zenisky & Sireci, 2007), 2007-2008 (Cormier, Altman, Shyyan, & Thurlow, 2010), 2009-2010 (Rogers, Christian, & Thurlow, 2012), and 2011-2012 (Rogers, Lazarus, & Thurlow, 2014). This report covers the time period 2013-2014.

The purpose of this report is to present a synthesis of the research on test accommodations published in 2013 and 2014. The literature described here encompasses empirical studies of score comparability and validity studies as well as investigations into accommodations use, implementation practices, and perceptions of their effectiveness. As a whole, the current re-search body offers a broad view and a deep examination of issues pertaining to assessment accommodations. Reporting the findings of current research studies was a primary goal of this analysis; a secondary goal was to identify areas requiring continued investigation in the future.

Review Process

Similar to the process used in past accommodations research syntheses (Cormier et al., 2010; Johnstone et al., 2006; Rogers et al., 2012; Rogers et al., 2014; Thompson et al., 2002; Zenisky & Sireci, 2007), a number of sources were accessed to complete the review of the accommoda-tions research published in 2013 and 2014. Specifically, five research databases were consulted: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, Digital Dissertations, and Educational Abstracts. To help confirm the thoroughness of our searches, we used the search engine Google Scholar to search for additional research. In addition, a hand-search of 47 journals was completed, in efforts to ensure that no qualifying study was missed. A list of hand-searched journals is available on the NCEO website (www.nceo.info/OnlinePubs/AccommBibliography/AccomStudMethods.htm).

Online archives of several organizations also were searched for relevant publications. These organizations included Behavioral Research and Teaching (BRT) at the University of Oregon (http://brt.uoregon.edu), the College Board Research Library http://research.collegeboard.org),

2 NCEO

the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST; http://www.cse.ucla.edu), and the Wisconsin Center for Educational Research (WCER; http://testacc.wceruw.org/).

The initial search was completed in December, 2014. A second search was completed in May, 2015, to ensure that all articles published in 2013 and 2014 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 using several criteria. First, this analysis included only research published or defended (in doctoral dissertations) in 2013 and 2014. Second, the scope of the research was limited to investigations of accommodations for regular assessment; hence, articles specific to alternate assessments, ac-commodations for instruction or learning, and universal design in general were not part of this review. Third, research involving English learners (ELs) was included only if the target population was ELs 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, to be included in the online bibliography and summarized in this report, studies needed to involve: (a) experimental manipulation of an accommodation, (b) investigation of the comparability of test scores across accommodated and non-accommodated conditions, or (c) examination of survey results or interview data sets about students’ or teachers’ knowledge or perceptions of accommodations.

To reflect the wide range of accommodations research that was conducted in 2013 and 2014, the studies are summarized and compared in the following ways: (a) publication type, (b) purposes of research, (c) research type and data collection source, (d) assessment or data collection focus,

3NCEO

(e) characteristics of the independent and dependent variables under study, (f) comparability of findings between studies in similar domains, and (g) limitations and directions of future research.

Results

Publication Type

A total of 53 studies was published between January 2013 and December 2014. As shown in Figure 1, of the 53 studies, 37 were journal articles, 14 were dissertations, and 2 were published professional reports released by research organizations or entities (e.g., ETS).

Figure 1. Percentage of Accommodations Studies by Publication TypeFigure 1. Percentage of Accommodations Studies by Publication Type

Reports 4%

Dissertations 26%

Journal articles70%

The total number of studies published on accommodations in 2013-2014 (N=53) increased slightly from accommodations research published in 2011-2012 (n=49). The number of jour-nal articles was nearly the same (n=37 in 2013-2014; n=39 in 2011-2012), but the number of dissertations published on accommodations doubled (n=14 in 2013-2014; n=7 in 2011-2012). The report on accommodations research in 2011-2012 (Rogers et al., 2014) included 39 articles from 23 journals; the 37 articles described in the current report were published in 27 journals. (Appendix B, Table B-1, presents individual study information about publication type.)

Purposes of the Research

A number of purposes were identified in the accommodations research published in 2013 and 2014. Table 1 shows the primary focus of each of these 53 studies. Eight studies each listed a single purpose (see Appendix A, Table A-1). The majority of studies reviewed sought to ac-complish multiple purposes. In those cases, we identified the “primary purpose” based on the title of the work or the first-mentioned purpose in the text.

4 NCEO

Table 1. Primary Purpose of Reviewed Research

Purpose Number of Studies

Percent of Studies

Compare scores

23 43% only students with disabilities (6 studies) only students without disabilities (2 studies) both students with and without disabilities (16 studies)Study/compare perceptions and preferences about use 12 23%Report on implementation practices and accommodations use 8 15%Summarize research on test accommodations 8 15%Develop test 1 2%Investigate test validity 1 2%Compare test items 0 0%Discuss issues 0 0%Identify predictors of the need for test accommodations 0 0%Total 53 100%

The most common primary purpose for research published during 2013-2014 was to report on the effect of accommodations on test scores (43%) by comparing scores of students who received accommodations to those who did not (see Appendix A). The next most common primary purpose was studying perceptions of accommodations, including preferences between or among a small number of accommodations (23%). The third most common purposes were reporting on implementation practices and accommodations use (15%), and also summarizing research on test accommodations (15%).

Reviews of research on accommodations included explorations of the research: (a) on a specific accommodation’s effect for assessment participants (Nees & Berry, 2013), (b) on various accom-modations for students with a single disability category (Cawthon & Leppo, 2013), and (c) about a specific accommodation for students with a single disability category (Lewandowski, Cohen, & Lovett, 2013). A specific type of literature review—meta-analysis—as a primary purpose, was exemplified by Li (2014). In this analysis, test development and investigating test validity each were represented by a single study. Test development was investigated by Ketterlin-Geller, Crawford, and Huscroft-D’Angelo (2014) and test validity was examined in Cawthon, Leppo, Carr, and Kopriva (2013).

Table 2 shows the multiple purposes of many studies. Several studies with more than one purpose had two purposes—for example, some studies (Abedi & Ewers, 2013; Cawthon & Leppo, 2013; Li, 2014; Lovett, 2014; Lovett & Leja, 2013; Nees & Berry, 2013) both reviewed the literature and discussed pressing accommodations issues. Other studies (Berger & Lewandowski, 2013; Higgins & Katz, 2013; Meyer & Bouck, 2014) included analyses of score comparisons between

5NCEO

students with disabilities and students without disabilities when using accommodations, while also analyzing students’ perceptions based on responses from surveys or interviews.

Table 2. All Purposes of Reviewed Research

Purpose Number of Studies

Percent of Studies

Compare scores

25 46% only students with disabilities (11% of studies) only students without disabilities (4% of studies) both students with and without disabilities (31% of studies)Summarize research on test accommodations 22 44%Study/compare perceptions and preferences about use 22 44%Discuss issues 17 32%Report on implementation practices and accommodations use 14 26%Investigate test validity 8 15%Compare test items 2 4%Identify predictors of the need for test accommodations 1 2%Develop test 1 2%

The total of these percentages is >100% due to the multiple purposes identified in most (45) of the studies; 34 studies had 2 identified purposes, 9 studies had 3 identified purposes, and 2 studies had 4 identified purposes.

When all purposes (i.e., primary, secondary) are included, the most common single purpose of the 2013-2014 studies was demonstrating the effect of accommodations on test scores (46% of studies). Study approaches 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, or compared test scores of students without disabilities when using and not using accommodations. Of these three approaches to studying the effects of accommodations on performance, comparing scores of students with disabilities and students without disabilities was the most frequent—fully two-thirds (n=17) of the relevant 25 studies (see Appendix A, Table A-1). The second most frequent research purpose was summarizing research on test accommodations, typically reviewing research on the effects of accommodations in various assessment contexts. The frequency of this purpose is due to the number of dissertations; every dissertation had a substantive literature review. The third most common purpose was studying perceptions of accommodations.

Another purpose we identified in almost one-third of the studies was discussing issues. Although not reported as a primary purpose for any of the studies, discussing issues was often noted as a second purpose. For example, Freeman (2013) discussed issues of transitioning some students with disabilities from taking the alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) to taking the state’s general assessment. The purpose of reporting on implementa-tion practices or accommodations use was part of over one-fourth of the studies. For instance,

6 NCEO

Barnhill (2014) reported on postsecondary faculty members’ current accommodations practices with students with Asperger Syndrome, and Schreuer and Sachs (2014) reported on accommo-dations commonly used by postsecondary students with disabilities in general.

The purpose of investigating test validity when students used accommodations was explored in some studies (n=8). Typically, studies having this purpose sought to analyze whether use of accommodations fundamentally changed the construct being assessed. For example, Lin and Lin (2013) examined the construct validity of a mathematics assessment when selected setting accommodations were used, while Stone, Cook, and Laitusis (2013) examined the construct validity of oral delivery of an assessment of reading comprehension.

This analysis of accommodations research found that some of the least common purposes were comparing test items, predicting accommodations need, and developing tests. Huggins and El-baum (2013) performed a score equity assessment, analyzing item-level responses for equating invariance. The purposes of identifying predictors of the need for test accommodations, and developing a test, were both exemplified by Ketterlin-Geller, Crawford, and Huscroft-D’Angelo (2014), who developed an accommodations assignment screening test and analyzed factors disrupting accurate mathematics performance scores and indicating students’ needs for specific accommodations.

Research Type and Data Collection Source

Over 40% of the 2013-2014 accommodations research used a quasi-experimental research de-sign. As displayed in Table 3, the researchers themselves gathered the data (i.e., primary source data) in over three times as many quasi-experimental studies (n=17) compared to studies with secondary data sources using extant or archival data (n=5). The number of quasi-experimental research studies decreased in 2014 compared to 2013. Likewise, descriptive quantitative analy-ses and descriptive qualitative analyses also decreased from 2013 to 2014, consistent with an overall decrease in studies from 2013 (n=30) to 2014 (n=23). In 2013 and 2014 researchers also conducted few studies using correlational, experimental, and meta-analytic designs. No studies used longitudinal designs. The relative frequency of the selected research designs is consistent with previous biennial periods examined in past reports, though in the past a few studies typi-cally had longitudinal designs.

We also observed a similarity in data collection sources between the current reporting period and the previous reporting period. In 2013-2014, primary data were used in 38 studies (72%) and secondary data were used in 15 studies (28%). This difference between data sources is even larger than the previous report (Rogers et al., 2014) in which about twice as many studies used primary data in comparison to secondary data sources. (Appendix B, Table B-1, presents research designs and data collection sources for individual studies.)

7NCEO

Table 3. Research Design and Data Collection Source by Year

Research Design Data Collection Source Total Sources

Primary Secondary

2013 2014 2013 2014

Quasi-experimental 10 7 3 2 22Descriptive quantitative 7 5 1 1 14Descriptive qualitative 5 3 4 1 13Correlation/prediction 0 0 0 1 1Experimental 0 1 0 0 1Longitudinal 0 0 0 0 0Meta-analysis 0 0 0 2 2Year Totals 22 16 8 7 53Source Totals Across Years 38 15 53

Data Collection Methods and Instruments

The research included in this analysis used the methods shown in Figure 2 to collect study data. Nearly half of the research (n=24, 46%) used performance data acquired through academic content testing. In some of the cases, tests were administered as part of the study; in other cases, extant data sources were used. Surveys were also another common data source, while interviews, observations, and focus groups were less commonly used methods of collecting data. Another less frequently used method was “articles.” This term refers to eight studies that reviewed re-search literature, including two studies that employed formal meta-analysis techniques. Only one study (Schreuer & Sachs, 2014) collected other data (i.e., student course grades) as one of its measures. About one-third of the studies reported using more than one method or tool to gather data. (See Appendix B, Table B-1, for additional details about each study’s data collec-tion methods.)

Nearly all of the 2013-2014 studies used some type of data collection instrument; only five studies did not employ any instruments (e.g., literature reviews). Table 4 shows the types of data collection instruments used. 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 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: non-test protocols or surveys developed by study authors, surveys or academic tests developed by education professionals or drawn by researchers from other sources, norm-referenced academic achievement measures, norm-referenced cognitive ability measures, and state criterion-referenced academic assessments. Non-test protocols developed by the author or authors of the studies—the most commonly-used instrument (in 49% of stud-

8 NCEO

ies)—included performance tasks, questionnaires or surveys, and interview and 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 perception surveys such as the State Self-Esteem Scale (SSES; Heatherton & Polivy, 1991, as in Wadley & Liljeq-uist, 2013), or by English language arts test items based on the reading framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (National Assessment Governing Board, 2008, as cited in Stone et al., 2013).

State criterion-referenced assessments included those of Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Ontario, Canada, and released items from state assessments in Arizona, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Virginia, as well as assessments from states that remained unidentified in the research. Fifteen norm-referenced academic achievement measures were used in one or more studies, including the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), the Nelson-Denny Reading Test (NDRT), and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Second Edition (WIAT-II). Norm-referenced cognitive ability measures were used in three studies, and included the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities III (WJIII), among others. A substantial mi-nority—19 studies in all—used instrumentation of more than one kind. We present a complete listing of the instruments used in each of the studies in Table C-1 in Appendix C, including the related studies that served as sources for these instruments, when available.

Figure 2. Data Collection Methods Used in 2013-2014 ResearchFigure 2. Data Collection Methods Used in 2013-2014 Research

Note. Of the 53 studies reviewed for this report, 15 reported using two data collection methods, and 2 reported using three data collection methods.

17

1

2

3

8

11

23

24

Multiple

Other Data

Focus Group

Observation

Articles

Interview

Survey

Test

Met

hod

Number of Studies

Note. Of the 53 studies reviewed for this report, 15 reported using two data collection methods, and 2 reported using three data collection methods.

9NCEO

Table 4. Data Collection Instrument Types

Instrument Type Number of Studies

Percent of Studies

Non-academic protocols or surveys developed by study author/s 26 49%Surveys or academic tests developed by professionals or researchers using sources outside of current study 13 25%

Norm-referenced academic achievement measures 15 28%State criterion-referenced assessments 15 28%Norm-referenced cognitive ability measures 3 6%Othera 2 4%Noneb 5 9%Multiple (types) 19 36%

a Other: 1 study used the Learning Achievement Test in geometry, developed by study researchers based on instructional content (Lee & Chen, 2014), 1 study used an extant data set of interview responses (Newman & Madaus, 2014).b None: 5 studies were literature reviews of studies employing various data collection approaches and/or instru-ments (Abedi & Ewers, 2013; Barnhill, 2014; Lovett, 2014; Lovett & Leja, 2013; Nees & Berry, 2013).

Content Area Assessed

A number of studies published during 2013-2014 focused on accommodations used in specific academic content areas. As shown in Table 5, math and reading were the two most commonly studied content areas. Table 5 also provides a comparison to content area frequency found in NCEO’s previous analyses of accommodations research (Rogers et al., 2012, 2014). Across the years, reading and mathematics have been the most common content areas for this research; however, the number and the proportion of studies addressing math and reading assessments, and nearly all other content assessments (except science), have decreased. This decrease is related to a general decrease in the number of studies that used assessment data in 2013-2014. There has been little change across years in the percentage of studies addressing science. The number of studies on writing, social studies, and psychology has remained fairly consistent since 2005. There have been no accommodations research studies in the areas of Civics/U.S. History since 2005-2006, so we did not include this content area in the current report. All studies with assessment data published in 2013-2014 reported their associated content areas. This marks a change from the previous report, in which two studies did not specify the content areas of the assessments and their accommodations. (See Appendix C, Table C-2, for additional details about the content areas.)

10 NCEO

Table 5. Academic Content Area Assessed Across Three Reports

Content Area Assessed 2009-2010a 2011-2012b 2013-2014c

Mathematics 20 (42%) 22 (45%) 14 (26%)Reading 16 (33%) 19 (39%) 16 (30%)Writing 3 (6%) 5 (10%) 2 (4%)Other language artsd 4 (8%) 2 (4%) 3 (6%)Science 7 (15%) 4 (8%) 5 (9%)Social studies 2 (4%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%)Psychology 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Not specific 0 (0%) 2 (4%) 0 (0%)Multiple content 13 (27%) 16 (33%) 9 (17%)

a Studies in 2009-2010 included examinations of more than one content area ranged in number of areas as-sessed from 2 to 5.b Studies in 2011-2012 included examinations of more than one content area ranged in number of areas as-sessed from 2 to 4.c Studies in 2013-2014 included examinations of more than one content area ranged in number of areas as-sessed from 2 to 3.d Detailed descriptions of what constituted “Other Language Arts” for each of the three states from 2013-2014 can be found in Appendix C, Table C-2.

Research Participants

The studies in this analysis of accommodations research included participants in several roles (see Figure 3 and Appendix D, Table D-1). In 2013-2014, a majority of the studies included only students—35 of the 53 studies (66%). The next largest participant group studied (19% of studies) was “educators only.” This refers to studies that described or analyzed the educator perspective on accommodations. Both educators and students were included in three studies. The other participant category in 2013-2014 was educators, parents, and students. Only one study (Torres, 2014) was in this group. Five studies did not draw data from research participants.

Table 6 details the composition and size of the participant groups in the research studies published during 2013 and 2014. This information is displayed in more detail by study in Appendix D, Table D-1. The size of the participant groups varied from 3 (Meyer & Bouck, 2014) to 191,906 (Huggins & Elbaum, 2013). The number of participants was fairly evenly spread across the continuum of percentages represented by those numbers, according to data reported in Appendix Table D-1. In addition, the number of studies in which there were more participants without disabilities (n=29) was higher than the number of studies in which there were more students with disabilities (n=20). When the studies with only educator participants (n=10) were taken into account, the composition of the participant groups was fairly even across studies with more students with disabilities and those with more students without disabilities.

11NCEO

Figure 3. Types of Research Participants (n=48)

22013-2014 Accommodations Research Report final authors review

Chris Rogers 042016

Figure 3. Types of Research Participants (n=48)

In the process of checking Figure 3 data for accuracy, I made one change that you will notice above: “Students only” should total 34 (instead of 35) and the studies that had identified participants should therefore total 48.

1

3

10

34

Educators, Parents, & Students

Educators & Students

Educators only

Students only

Part

icip

ant T

ype

Number of Studies

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% Unavailable Total1-9 1 0 0 4 0 510-24 1 0 1 3 0 525-49 1 0 0 2 0 350-99 1 2 1 0 0 4100-149 3 3 0 2 0 8150-199 0 0 0 2 0 2200-299 3 0 1 1 0 5300-499 3 0 0 0 0 3500-999 2 1 0 1 0 41000 or more 6 2 0 2 0 10Unavailable 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 21 8 3 17 0 49

School Level

Similar to the previous report on accommodations research (Rogers et al., 2014), research dur-ing 2013-2014 involved kindergarten through postsecondary participants (see Table 7). See Appendix D for more detail. Postsecondary refers to both university students and other partici-pants in postsecondary settings. For example, Young (2013) investigated the accommodations knowledge and practices of academic advisors in the college environment. The largest number of studies published in 2013 and 2014 focused on elementary students (n=16; 30%), followed by postsecondary students (n=14; 26%) and middle school students (n=12; 23%). The lowest proportion of studies was at the high school level (11% of studies; n=6). Only 8 studies included students in more than one grade-level cluster.

12 NCEO

Table 7. School Level of Research Participants

Education Level of Participants in Studies Number of Studies Percent of StudiesElementary school (K-5) 16 30%Middle school (6-8) 12 23%High school (9-12) 6 15%Postsecondary 14 26%Multiple grade-level clusters 8 15%No age 10 19%Not applicable 5 9%

Disability Categories

The accommodations research in 2013-2014 addressed a broad range of disability categories (see Appendix D for details). As shown in Table 8, only five studies did not specify disability categories of student participants and 10 studies did not include students in the sample. Of the remaining 37 studies, the most commonly studied student disability category was learning dis-abilities (n=31); five of these studies had only participants with learning disabilities, and 10 more compared students with learning disabilities to students without disabilities.

Table 8. Disabilities Reported for Research Participants

Disabilities of Research Participants Number of Studiesa Percent of StudiesLearning disabilities 31 58%Attention problem 13 25%Emotional behavioral disability 13 25%Autism 12 23%Multiple disabilitiesb 12 23%Physical disabilityc 11 21%Deafness/Hearing impairment 10 19%Blindness/Visual impairment 9 17%Intellectual disabilities 8 15%Speech/Language 7 13%Traumatic brain injury 1 2%No disability 22 42%Not specifiedd 5 9%Not applicablee 10 19%

aStudies sometimes included student participant groups from more than one disability category.bMultiple disabilities = individual students who were each specifically categorized as having more than one dis-abilitycPhysical disability = mobility impairments and/or impairment with arm use.dNot specified = those studies (4) or reviews of studies (1) that did not report about or provide detail as to the participants’ disabilities.eNot applicable = those documents that had only non-students as participants.

13NCEO

About one-third of the remaining 37 studies included students with attentional difficulties (n=13), students with emotional behavioral disabilities (n=12), students with autism-related disabilities (n=12), and students with “multiple disabilities” (n=12). Almost one-fourth of the relevant studies included students with physical disabilities (n=11), or students with deafness or hearing impairments (n=10). About one-fourth included students with blindness or visual disabilities (n=9), or students with intellectual disabilities (n=8). About one-fifth of the studies included students with speech/language impairments (n=7). One study (Freeman, 2013) specifi-cally mentioned including students with traumatic brain injuries. Over one-half of the relevant studies included students without disabilities as comparison groups. Except for studies that addressed accommodations and students with learning disabilities, very few studies examined accommodations for only participants with one specific category of disability.

Types of Accommodations

The number of times specific categories of accommodations were included in 2013-2014 pub-lished research is summarized in Table 9. Presentation accommodations were the most frequently studied category (n=22), and within this category the most common accommodation was oral delivery—including human reader and various technology approaches (e.g., text-to-speech)—followed by computer administration (n=6). The second most frequent category studied was scheduling accommodations (n=17); all of these studies examined extended time. One study (Lewandowski, Lambert, Lovett, Panahon, & Sytsma, 2014) included breaks from testing as an additional scheduling accommodation. Several studies (n=19) analyzed accommodations from more than one category. A complete listing of accommodations examined in each study is provided in Appendix E.

Table 9. Accommodations in Reviewed Research

Accommodations Category Number of Studies

Presentation 22Equipment/Materials 9Response 12Timing/Scheduling 17Setting 11Multiple accommodations 19

Research Findings

The findings of the studies about accommodations published in 2013 and 2014 are summarized according to the nature of the studies, in keeping with the range of their purposes and focuses. The findings included sets of research about specific accommodations: oral delivery, computer administration, extended-time, calculator, and aggregated sets of accommodations commonly

14 NCEO

called “bundles.” We also report the findings about unique accommodations—those examined in only one study—including word processing, computer display screen and font color, three (instead of four) response options, students reading test items aloud, noise-reducing headphones, and student familiarity with test administrator. We also report about accounts of perceptions about accommodations, including those of student test-takers as well as educators and parents. We summarize the findings of the accommodations, and describe a range of implementation conditions as well as incidence of use of various accommodations across large data sets. The findings from studies in postsecondary educational contexts, which have grown over time from 6 to 11 in past reports, to 15 studies in this report, are given separate attention. This report also presents findings by academic content areas: math, reading, science, and writing. In Appendix F, we provide substantial detail about individual studies.

Impact of Accommodations

Research examining the effects of accommodations on assessment performance for students with disabilities comprised 25 studies published in 2013 and 2014 (see Figure 4; see also Ap-pendix F, Table F-1, for details about each study of this type). We report the effects of these four discrete accommodations—oral delivery, extended time, calculator, and separate/specialized setting—along with a list of aggregated accommodations and uncommon accommodations.

Figure 4. Effects of Specific Accommodations (n=25)Figure 4. Effects of Specific Accommodations (n=25)

Note: Three studies examined the effects of accommodations in general, but did not specify comparisons of individual accommodations with one another.

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

4

6

Aggregated set

Word processing

Virtual manipulatives

Three response options

Sign (language) interpreter

Screen and font color display

Noise-reducing earphones

Item formats

Integrated object representation

Familiar test administrator

Audio presentation rules

Separate or specialized setting

Calculator

Extended time

Oral delivery

Number of Studies

Spec

ific

Acc

omm

odat

ions

Note: Three studies examined the effects of accommodations in general, but did not specify comparisons of individual accommodations with one another.

15NCEO

Oral delivery, provided using text-to-speech devices or human reader, was the single most investigated accommodation in 2013-2014, in seven different studies. For clarity in this report, as in the previous report (Rogers et al., 2014) we used “oral delivery” in place of “read aloud” to recognize the range of media formats used, including human readers, recordings of assess-ment items or instructions, and text-reading software or text-to-speech devices. The delivery methods that do not use human delivery (“read aloud”) of the accommodation have continued to receive increased attention in research.

Of the six studies investigating oral delivery, two studies (Brumfield, 2014; Li, 2014) supported differential benefits for students with learning disabilities when receiving oral delivery (over not receiving accommodation), in comparison to students without disabilities. Three studies sup-ported performance improvements for study participants including both students with and without disabilities. Only one study indicated no significant benefits: Meyer and Bouck (2014) reported that the small group of participants with learning disabilities did not show higher comprehension scores when receiving text to speech, nor higher oral reading fluency scores, although when asked, the participants perceived accommodations benefits. Researchers suggested potential factors affecting the score improvements. For instance, Buzick and Stone (2014) reported that grade level of participants and the ways that the accommodations were provided mitigated the variability of the effect sizes in their meta-analysis. Fincher (2013) indicated that poor reading skills for grade 4 students with and without disabilities had a role in the higher degree of benefit of oral delivery in reading, as well as the setting in which students were educated (e.g., time in general education settings), among other factors. Li (2014) noted in a meta-analysis that the strongest factors for oral delivery’s effects included when in-person readers delivered the oral test administration, when students were in elementary school, and when extra time was con-currently permitted along with oral delivery (in comparison with oral delivery alone). Worland (2014) concurred with the larger benefits of oral delivery for younger students—grade 3 versus grade 5—and also when students were producing narrative writing.

The four extended-time accommodation studies engaged students at the postsecondary level in investigations about the impact of this accommodation on academic performance. All four had comparison groups of students without disabilities. All four studies’ researchers reported that the accommodations provided did not differentially support students with disabilities (ADHD)—either learning disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—in comparison with students without disabilities. Two studies (Lewandowski et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2013) examined comparisons between employing 150% time and 200% time, that is, one-and-a-half times to twice as much time as was used in the non-accommodated condition. One of these (Lewandowski et al., 2013) found that students with learning disabilities scored significantly better in the longer extended-time condition than in the shorter time frame, and the other (Miller et al., 2013) found that there was no difference, on average, for students with ADHD in number of items correct based on the time spans allowed. However, when comparing participant groups

16 NCEO

in terms of the number of items attempted and completed, some studies diverged. Lewandowski and colleagues (2013) indicated that students without disabilities completed more items and got more correct responses than students with learning disabilities. Similarly, May and Stone (2014) indicated that students with learning disabilities completed fewer items and skipped answering more items than did students without disabilities in both test conditions. Conversely, Miller and colleagues (2013) indicated that students with ADHD attempted and completed more items when using extended time than students without disabilities not using accommodations. Wadley and Liljequist (2013) indicated that students with ADHD used about the same amount of time for math placement testing, whether they were told that they had the standard administration time or the extended-time accommodation.

The two studies (Russell, 2014; Yakubova & Bouck, 2014) examining the impact of calculators both compared the performance of students with disabilities using and not using calculators, without a comparison group of students without disabilities. Both studies found that students with disabilities benefited from calculator use on their state mathematics assessment (Russell, 2014) and items involving computation and word problem solving (Yakubova & Bouck, 2014). Additionally, Russell (2014) found that students with learning disabilities in various special education placements all benefited similarly and not to differential degrees when using the calculator accommodation. Yakubova and Bouck (2014) reported that students with mild intel-lectual disabilities, while a small participant sample, experienced varying benefits and prefer-ences between the scientific calculator and the graphing calculator.

Both studies examining setting accommodations (Lin & Lin, 2013; Lin & Lin, 2014) reported that there was no significant evidence indicating a benefit of separate, low-distraction setting for exceptional students—students with disabilities and English learners—on large scale as-sessments. Lin and Lin (2013) reported that English learners (ELs) with learning disabilities, and students with learning disabilities who were not ELs, did not score differently on math as-sessments than all students with learning disabilities. Lin and Lin (2014), examining a separate data set, found that there were no significant benefits for students with learning disabilities using separate settings during either reading or math assessments, at least not benefits that could be shown separate from being male, speaking a language other than English at home, and having less positive attitudes toward learning reading and math.

Only one study (Overton (2013) yielded findings pertaining chiefly and expressly to an aggre-gated set, or bundle, of accommodations. This researcher reported that grade 5 students with reading-related difficulties and disabilities had no significant score differences when using a combination of student reading aloud with unlimited time, in comparison to reading silently with unlimited time. As a result of finding interaction effects when analyzing data with the accom-modation and the text type as factors, the findings suggested that students with reading difficul-ties and disabilities could benefit from reading narrative text aloud, but expository text silently.

17NCEO

We classified 10 studies as having investigated the impact of unique accommodations (i.e., ac-commodations that were the focus of just one study during the two years included in this report). Four studies indicated that the unique accommodations supported improved performance for students with disabilities: three response options (Freeman, 2013), noise-reducing headphones (Smith & Riccomini, 2013), familiar test administrators (Szarko et al., 2013), and integrated object representation (Zhang et al., 2014). Three studies yielded that the unique accommoda-tions did not support improved performance for students with disabilities: word-processing for writing essays—although students did indicate preference for word-processing over handwriting (Berger & Lewandowski, 2013); American Sign Language (ASL; Cawthon & Leppo, 2013); and item format adaptations such as visuals and page layout (Cawthon et al., 2013a). Finally, the other three studies pertained to comparing forms of presentation accommodations. Two stud-ies showed that there were no significant differences in performance between accommodations compared: black screen/white print and white screen/black print (Botello, 2014), and virtual versus physical manipulatives for students with low prior geometry knowledge (Lee and Chen, 2013b). One study showed very few differences in the effects of accommodations—that is, for the literal form (rather than the interpretive form) of parenthesis in audio presentation rules (Higgins & Katz, 2013).

Perceptions about Accommodations

Figure 5 displays the data for the 21 studies on perceptions about accommodations. More than one-half of them (n=12) provided findings about student perceptions only, while one-third (n=7) provided findings about educator perceptions only, and two studies (Lewis & Nolan, 2013; Torres, 2014) reported about accommodations perceptions indicated by more than one participant group.

Eight of the 12 studies on student perceptions (only) found that most or all participants viewed accommodations as helping them perform better on assessments (Berger & Lewandowski, 2013; Lewandowski et al., 2014; Lovett & Leja, 2013; Meyer & Bouck, 2014; Schreuer & Sachs, 2014; Stein, 2013; Stone, 2013; Wizikowski, 2013). One of these studies (Meyer & Bouck, 2014) also indicated that accommodations supported students while taking assessments by benefiting them in other ways, and that same study found that there was no significant performance benefit for using the accommodation despite students’ perceptions. Further, of the eight studies that found favorable impressions about accommodations among its student participants, three studies (which included both students with disabilities and students without disabilities) indicated that both groups had similar perceptions (Berger & Lewandowski, 2013; Lewandowski et al., 2014; Lovett & Leja, 2013). One study offered feedback for improving the accommodations studied (Higgins & Katz, 2013). In five studies (Lovett & Leja, 2013; Lyman, 2013; May & Stone, 2014; Smith, 2014; Stein, 2013), researchers also inquired about circumstances or conditions for accommodations provision, including students’ challenges in benefiting from accommoda-tions. Finally, one study (Higgins & Katz, 2013), a study of math accommodations, observed

18 NCEO

that students preferred some accommodation strategies over others. There was a preference for interpretive forms of audio presentation for some math terminology and features such as ex-ponents and tables, and the literal form for parentheses; there were also differences of opinion between students with and without disabilities about some audio presentation rules and features.

Figure 5. Accommodations Perceptions (n=21)


Chris Rogers 042016

Figure 5. Accommodations Perceptions (n=21)

In the process of checking the data accuracy of Figure 5, I noticed a needed word change in the text on page 19. The second paragraph starting with “Several studies …” should read “Two studies …”

1

1

7

12

Students, Educators, and Parents

Students and Educators

Educators only

Students only

Number of Studies

Stud

y Pa

rtic

ipan

ts

About half of the studies of educators’ perceptions of test enhancements (accommodations and modifications) found that educators believed that they were beneficial to student test-takers’ per-formance (n=3: Cawthon et al., 2013b; Crawford & Ketterlin-Geller, 2013; Zebehazy & Wilton, 2014), and to students’ emotional state and self-esteem (Crawford & Ketterlin-Geller, 2013). Two studies (Alkahtani, 2013; Zebehazy & Wilton, 2014) indicated that some educators had less than favorable attitudes toward accommodations. Specifically, during the interview phase of the study, Alkahtani found that educators had a complicated view of assistive technology; they believed that it can provide access to the curriculum, but that students can also become overly dependent on assistive technology for learning. Zebehazy and Wilton reported that most respondents, who were teachers of students with blindness and visual impairments, perceived that tactile graphics were not appropriately adapted; however, the study did indicate that these teachers thought that they could make tactile graphics understandable and usable. Another study (Hawpe, 2013) found that willingness to provide some accommodations and modifica-tions differed in degree among general and special educators. Yet another study (May, 2013) indicated that the survey respondents’ knowledge, attitudes, and intent were not all aligned in a correlated manner, particularly that knowledge is not significantly associated with intent to provide accommodations.

Many of the studies of educator perceptions also reported findings about educators’ knowledge, based on either assessment of accommodations facts and state guidelines (n=4: Crawford & Ket-terlin-Geller, 2013; May, 2013; Young, 2013; Zebehazy & Wilton, 2014) or self-reported levels of awareness (Alkahtani, 2013). In these four studies, educators at various levels were reported

19NCEO

to have widely varying levels of knowledge about accommodations based on their responses to questionnaires; K-12 teacher participants demonstrated a higher degree of knowledge than did postsecondary faculty members and advisors. Alkahtani reported that nearly all participants, both general and special educators, estimated their knowledge of assistive technology as mostly low, and their preparation to provide assistive technology as poor or absent. Most of the stud-ies (n=6: Alkahtani, 2013; Cawthon et al., 2013b; Crawford & Ketterlin-Geller, 2013; Hawpe, 2013; Young, 2013; Zebehazy & Wilton, 2014) also reported about current accommodations practices acknowledged by educators.

Two studies examined the perceptions of multiple groups. In the study that reported details about the perceptions of students as well as educators (Lewis & Nolan, 2013), students and educators concurred about their perceptions of the helpfulness of the separate setting (e.g., small group, individual administration) accommodation, including supporting their assessment performance, yet also identified ways in which the separate testing setting could be improved. A single study (Torres, 2014) engaged the perspectives of students with autism, their parents, and the students’ disability services provider; the researcher reported these perspectives in general and as they applied to academic accommodations use, finding positive perceptions about use of extended time and separate low distraction setting, and challenges of self-disclosing and advocating for accommodations. (See Appendix F, Table F-1 for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)

Implementation and Use of Accommodations

Sixteen studies reported findings about incidence of accommodations use and implementation-related matters. Ten studies (Alkahtani, 2013; Barnhill, 2014; Cawthon et al., 2013b; Crawford & Ketterlin-Geller, 2013; Hawpe, 2013; Leppo et al., 2014; Newman & Madaus, 2014; Schreuer & Sachs, 2014; Stein, 2013; and Wizikowski, 2013) detailed use patterns as reported by study participants. Almost half of these studies (n=5: Alkahtani, 2013; Crawford & Ketterlin-Geller, 2013; Hawpe, 2013; Leppo et al., 2014; and Nees & Berry, 2013) presented assessment accom-modations use only in the primary and secondary education levels. These five studies’ findings varied in their scope, with one study (Leppo et al., 2014) reporting that students with deafness and hearing impairments used similar accommodations, regardless of whether they also had other disabilities. Other studies described several accommodations in frequent use at the second-ary level (Hawpe, 2013), and the five most common accommodations used in middle schools: extended time, separate setting, small group administration, directions or items read-aloud, and frequent breaks (Crawford & Ketterlin-Geller, 2013). The use-related findings from some studies at the postsecondary level indicated that the most common accommodations provided during examinations were extended time, and separate and specialized setting (Barnhill, 2014; Newman & Madaus, 2014; Stein, 2013); one study (Schreuer & Sachs, 2014) reported extended time and alternate formats were the most common. Additional postsecondary findings were

20 NCEO

that accommodations were offered at a much lower rate than at the secondary level (Cawthon et al., 2013b; Newman & Madaus, 2014). Wizikowski (2013) estimated a much higher rate of exam-related accommodations—approximately 73 percent—compared to these lower rates.

Six studies (Abedi & Ewers, 2013; Klehm, 2014; Nees & Berry, 2013; Smith, 2014; Young, 2013; and Zebehazy & Wilton, 2014) provided findings about accommodations implementa-tion practices and issues. These studies offered few common themes. For instance, two studies (Abedi & Ewers, 2013; Klehm, 2014) discussed the purposes of accommodations—including eliminating the effects of disability during testing—and how implementation can limit the validity of testing. Nees and Berry (2013) reported on the expanding implementation of audio assistive technology for students with visual impairments, and the implementation difficulties such as technical concerns and preparation of educators. Smith (2014) reported postsecondary students’ consideration of practices in their experience, describing personal development issues, chiefly learning interdependence, connected with accommodations practices as they transition from secondary to postsecondary education. Young (2013) described how different approaches to postsecondary advising lead to differing degrees of attention to the underlying needs of students for accessing accommodations. Zebehazy and Wilton (2014) reported on the implementation of tactile graphics for students with visual impairments, from the perspective of their teachers, including that the best presentation format is a combination of tactile graphics with written ex-planations. (See Appendix F, Table F-1 for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)

Validity

In Figure 6, we report on the six studies (Cawthon et al., 2013a; Finch & Finch, 2013a; Finch & Finch, 2013b; Huggins & Elbaum, 2013; Lewandowski et al., 2013; Stone, 2013) that pro-vided findings about academic construct validity when accommodations were used on large-scale assessments. Five studies reported findings pertaining to reading, including one study (Cawthon et al., 2013a) that examined the constructs of English language arts and science, and one study (Finch & Finch, 2013b) that examined reading and math assessments. Cawthon and her colleagues (2013b) indicated that the construct validity of both English language arts and science were complicated by item adaptations, according to most of the participant groups’ performance scores. Finch and Finch (2013a, 2013b) investigated the use of multilevel Rasch mixture models for examining differential item functioning related to disabilities and accom-modations, concluding that this was a successful approach, and finding concerns with assessment validity. Similarly, Lewandowski and colleagues (2013) found that extended time complicated the validity of reading comprehension performance for postsecondary students with and without learning disabilities. In contrast, Stone (2013) concluded that a two-stage condition-adaptive testing system simultaneously produced valid reading comprehension performance scores for students with reading disabilities when using oral delivery accommodations; these test-takers also produced oral reading fluency scores separately. As previously mentioned, math assess-

21NCEO

ment validity was reported to be compromised when students with disabilities were provided accommodations (Finch & Finch, 2013b).

Figure 6. Construct Validity (n=6)Figure 6. Construct Validity (n=6)

1

1

1

3

Reading and Science

Mathematics and Reading

Science only

Reading only

Number of Studies

Con

tent

Are

as

The construct validity of science assessments was examined in two studies (Cawthon et al., 2013a; Huggins & Elbaum, 2013). Cawthon and colleagues indicated construct validity concerns in science for elementary students. Huggins and Elbaum (2013) applied “score equity assessment” and indicated that the science assessment scores of older elementary students with disabilities using accommodations were more comparable to the general population of test-takers than were scores of students with disabilities not using accommodations. (See Appendix F, Table F-1 for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)

Accommodations in Postsecondary Education

Fifteen studies reported findings about accommodations at the postsecondary education level. Researchers investigated effects of accommodations on test performance, test-takers’ experi-ences using accommodations, and faculty members’ perceptions of accommodations, along with implementation practices and uses of accommodations; seven studies each reported findings in two of these areas. The four studies examining accommodations effects included three studies on extended time (May & Stone, 2014; Miller et al., 2013; Wadley & Liljequist, 2013) and one study that was a meta-analysis of 19 studies about the effects of American sign language (ASL) spanning primary, secondary, and postsecondary education (Cawthon & Leppo, 2013). The three studies on the effects of extended time yielded convergent findings: there were no differential benefits for postsecondary students with disabilities.

Eleven studies provided findings about perceptions in postsecondary education; seven inquired only about students’ perceptions and three inquired only about educators’ perceptions, while one study reported about the perceptions of students, educators, and students’ parents. The find-

22 NCEO

ings of the seven studies (Lewandowski et al., 2014; Lyman, 2013; May & Stone, 2014; Smith, 2014; Stein, 2013; Torres, 2014; Wizikowski, 2013) about postsecondary students’ perceptions were complex and diverse. Many studies indicated that students perceived accommodations as generally supportive, yet the researchers often sought additional information about the limits to accommodations at the postsecondary level. Students with disabilities were significantly more positive than students without disabilities about separate room test setting, but both students with and without disabilities indicated that their performance would be improved if using extended time, separate exam rooms, extra breaks, and word processors (Lewandowski et al., 2014).

Students at the postsecondary level with various disabilities believed that accommodations could be helpful, yet also detailed several barriers to accessing accommodations. The barriers included: students’ own concerns about how they were perceived by other students and by themselves as well, limited knowledge of their professors about accommodations, and resource limitations in their universities (Lyman, 2013). Students with learning disabilities were not affected by ste-reotype threat, a concern about potentially confirming stereotypes about themselves and other students with learning disabilities. In other words, these postsecondary students did not appear self-conscious about their need for or use of accommodations (May & Stone, 2014). Students with non-visible disabilities experienced developmental challenges as they transitioned from secondary to postsecondary education, including identity maturation, desiring credibility, and controlling information. All of these challenges were related to the students seeking and receiv-ing accommodations (Smith, 2014).

Students with mental health related disabilities described their accommodations experiences, including the complexity of the separate quiet testing space in that it can decrease distress yet also remove opportunity to interact with course instructors (Stein, 2013). Academic stress, in this case experienced by students with autism spectrum disorders, was investigated by Torres (2014), who found that study participants experienced exam accommodations as supportive, yet the process to access them was socially challenging. Students with various disabilities across public and private universities indicated that exam accommodations were mostly useful and that their experiences were relatively satisfying; also, their perceptions were that accommodations knowledge by relevant university personnel was satisfactory (Wizikowski, 2013).

The three studies reporting on the perceptions of postsecondary faculty and other personnel yielded varying findings: positive perceptions about interpreter, captioning, and speech-to-text technology accommodations (Cawthon et al., 2013b); slightly positive intent of nursing faculty members to provide accommodations in general (May & Stone, 2014); the academic advisors’ approach had an impact on their involving disability services’ accommodations resources (Young 2013). Finally, one study (Newman & Madaus, 2014) provided findings on the perceptions of students, their disability services provider, and their parents. This study found, in part, that about

23NCEO

half of the student participants perceived that they were no longer in need of accommodations and that they in fact did not have disabilities any longer.

Four studies reported on use patterns and implementation practices for students with disabilities at the postsecondary level. Two studies had contradictory findings about the use frequency of accommodations during course examinations by students with disabilities, with Newman and Madaus (2014) estimating rates of less than 10 percent for students early in their postsecond-ary experience (e.g., reader for tests and assignments: 4%), and Wizikowski (2013) reporting that about 73 percent of study participants reported using exam accommodations at some point during their postsecondary education. The former study (Newman & Madaus) gathered infor-mation from students at a different point in their postsecondary experience than the latter study (Wizikowski), which might partially explain the difference in findings. The other two studies reported on the manner by which accommodations were implemented in the postsecondary setting. Smith (2014) inquired about students’ perceptions as well as how those perceptions af-fected the implementation of accommodations, and described students’ reluctantly embracing interdependence on academic resources. Young (2013) examined the perspectives of academic advisors, and how their demographic characteristics and working circumstances interacted with their approaches to assisting students with disabilities in assessment accommodations. One finding was that advisors who used a prescriptive approach to advising were associated with failing to refer students with disabilities to disability services offices.

One study (Lovett, 2014) was a literature review about the implications of accommodations research in relation to the Department of Justice implementation guidelines on the Americans with Disabilities Act amendments of 2008, yielding a set of five major points. (See Appendix F, Table F-1 for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)

Accommodations by Academic Content Assessments

As in previous reports, we analyzed findings according to the academic content area that was the focus of the research. We present findings for each content area according to the frequency with which the content areas were identified, with most prevalent content areas presented first: 15 studies in reading, 11 studies in mathematics, 4 studies in science, and 1 study in writing (see Figure 7). For each content area, we examined the impact of accommodations on assess-ment performance, perceptions about accommodations, construct validity of accommodated assessments, and implementation and use of accommodations. (See Appendix F, Table F-1 for more detailed explanation of the findings of each study.)

24 NCEO

Figure 7. Findings by Content Areas (n=24)


Chris Rogers 042016

Figure 7. Findings by Content Areas (n=25)

1

1

3

1

2

7

10

Mathematics, Reading, and Science

Reading and Science

Mathematics and Reading

Writing

Science only

Mathematics only

Reading only

Number of Studies

Con

tent

Are

as

Reading. The findings of the 15 studies in reading included those from 10 studies in reading only (Botello, 2014; Cawthon & Leppo, 2013; Finch & Finch, 2013a; Fincher, 2013; Lewandowski et al., 2013; Meyer & Bouck, 2014; Miller et al., 2013; Overton, 2013; Smith & Riccomini, 2013; Stone, 2013), those from three studies in reading and math (Buzick & Stone, 2014; Finch & Finch, 2013b; Li, 2014), those from a study in English language arts and science (Cawthon et al., 2013a), and those from a study in reading, math, and science (Freeman, 2013). All of these studies—except for Stone (2013)—reported on the effects of various accommodations during math assessments, and five of these 15 studies yielded other findings as well. Four stud-ies (Cawthon et al., 2013a; Finch & Finch, 2013a; Finch & Finch, 2013b; Lewandowski et al., 2013) also reported about validity, and one study (Meyer & Bouck, 2014) also reported about student perceptions.

The accommodations and modifications benefited the reading performance of at least some students with disabilities in seven studies, especially in relation to comparisons with students without disabilities. These studies included three of the four oral delivery studies (Buzick & Stone, 2014; Fincher, 2013; Li, 2014), one study (Cawthon et al., 2013a) with various item adaptations, one study (Overton, 2013) on student reads aloud combined with unlimited time, one study (Smith & Riccomini, 2013) on noise-reduction headphones, and one study (Freeman, 2013) on three response options. One study (Miller et al., 2013) indicated that both students with and students without disabilities improved in both items completed and items correct across the standard administration and the two extended time conditions, suggesting that extended time did not differentially benefit students with disabilities. Another study (Lewandowski et al., 2013) reported that students without disabilities improved even more than students with disabilities when provided extended time. Also, one study (Finch & Finch, 2013b) showed that students improved in reading, but that there was a suspected validity concern complicating this finding. In contrast, three studies showed no significant benefit of accommodations for students with

25NCEO

disabilities: for American sign language (in comparison to English print) (Cawthon & Leppo, 2013), for oral delivery (Meyer & Bouck, 2014), and for accommodations in general (Finch & Finch, 2013a). One study (Botello, 2014) which compared two screen and font color options for all students (with a subset of students with disabilities included), reported that there were no significant differences in comprehension across these conditions. Four studies also included findings on construct validity for reading assessments, reporting concerns about the construct validity of reading due to accommodations in general (Finch & Finch, 2013a, Finch & Finch, 2013b) and extended time (Lewandowski et al., 2013). Also, Cawthon and her colleagues (2013b) indicated that a set of item adaptations might have affected validity for part of the participant group. Finally, Stone (2013) reported that students with disabilities believed they scored bet-ter when using oral delivery than when they did not; further, the researcher concluded that the condition-adaptive assessment format was able to measure separate reading components without affecting test validity.

Mathematics. The findings of the 11 studies in math included those from seven studies in math only (Higgins & Katz, 2013; Ketterlin-Geller et al., 2014; Lee & Chen, 2014; Russell, 2014; Wadley & Liljequist, 2013; Yakubova & Bouck, 2014; Zhang et al., 2014), those from three studies in math and reading (Buzick & Stone, 2014; Finch & Finch, 2013b; Li, 2014) and those from a study in math, reading, and science (Freeman, 2013). Nearly all of these studies—except for Ketterlin-Geller et al. (2014)—reported on the effects of various accommodations during math assessments, and only two of these 10 studies yielded other findings: one study (Higgins & Katz, 2013) reported about students’ perceptions, and one study (Finch & Finch, 2013b) re-ported about construct validity. The accommodations benefited the performance of students with disabilities in math in five studies, including both calculator studies (Russell, 2014; Yakubova & Bouck, 2014), one study on oral delivery (Li, 2014), one study on three response options (Freeman, 2013), and one study on integrated object representation (Zhang et al., 2014). In contrast, one study (Buzick & Stone, 2014) showed that there was a similar degree of benefit of the oral delivery accommodation for both students with and students without disabilities. Also, one study (Finch & Finch, 2013b) showed that students improved in math but that there was a suspected validity concern complicating this finding. Further, one study (Wadley & Liljequist, 2013) indicated that students with disabilities did not benefit from extended time. Two studies that compared versions of accommodations reported differing findings: Higgins and Katz (2013) indicated that only one audio presentation rule (pertaining to parentheses) showed a benefit in performance for students with disabilities, and Lee and Chen (2014) reported that there was no significant difference in performance between virtual and physical manipulatives.

Science. The findings of the four studies in science included those from two studies in science only (Brumfield, 2014; Huggins & Elbaum, 2013), those from one study in science and English language arts (Cawthon et al., 2013a), and those from one study in science, math, and reading (Freeman, 2013). These findings included those pertaining to performance effects, as well as

26 NCEO

validity. Three studies reported that, during science assessments, students with disabilities were supported to a greater degree than students without disabilities by oral delivery (Brumfield, 2014), by a set of format adaptations for grade 3 students (Cawthon et al., 2013a), by accom-modations in general (Huggins & Elbaum, 2013), and by three response options (as opposed to four; Freeman, 2013). The validity findings were divided: Huggins and Elbaum reported that validity of the science construct was not affected by the accommodations that students received, and Cawthon and her colleagues (2013b) reported that the science construct may have been affected by the set of item format adaptations for part of the participant group.

Writing. There was a single study (Worland, 2014) providing findings related to writing. Worland reported that oral delivery during a writing assessment was supportive for students in grade 3, including students with learning disabilities. This study also reported about the impact of accommodations use related to writing genres.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

The researchers of most of the studies (n=44) in this body of research literature discussed limi-tations that provided context for the results they reported. Table 10 presents the categories of limitations for the 101 limitations that were noted by researchers: methodology, sample charac-teristics, results, test/test context, and other. Of the 44 studies, 34 of them identified more than one category of limitation; the overall average was about two limitation categories per study.

Table 10. Categorized Limitations Identified by Authors

Limitation Category Number of Studiesa

Sample characteristics 35Methodology 22Test/Test context 22Results 18No limitation listed 8Other 3

a Thirty-four studies included more than one category of limitations, represented in 2 to 4 limitations categories.

The most commonly reported category of limitations in 2013-2014 studies was sample char-acteristics (n=35), which usually referred to the issue that the sample was smaller or narrower than intended or required. This issue yielded a challenge to population representativeness, limiting the generalizability of the findings beyond the research participants. The next most frequent categories (with 22 studies each) were limitations about methodology, and about test and test context. Methodology limitations referred to flaws in research design or practices. Test and test context limitations referred to the degree of authenticity of the testing circumstances, especially pertaining to accommodations. Limitations about results (n=18) indicated that con-

27NCEO

founding factors constrained the accuracy or consistency of the data, limiting the confidence readers should have about the study’s results. (See Appendix G, Table 1 for additional details about the study limitations.)

The researchers of most of the studies (n=42) in the body of research literature included in this analysis discussed several future research directions that provided indicators of lessons they learned as well as their views of the next steps to take. Table 11 presents the categories of the 100 future research directions listed by researchers: methodology, sample characteristics, re-sults, test/test context, and other. Of the 42 studies, 31 studies identified more than one future research direction category; the overall average was approximately two categories per study.

The most commonly reported category of future research directions in 2013-2014 studies was sample characteristics (n=32). Typical directions about sample characteristics were engaging different types of students to affirm or find exceptions to the current studies’ findings. The second most common category was research ideas about test and test context (n=26), where researchers indicated the need for improvements in assessments in terms of accessibility, and the need for deeper understandings of how accommodations might support this goal. The third most frequently identified area for future research pertained to methodology (n=17), where re-searchers pointed to additional angles that could be taken to increase the field’s knowledge and understanding about accommodations—sometimes suggesting qualitative methods to uncover meaning beneath quantitative findings. Research ideas about results (n=15) were just a little less common than those about methodology. These addressed investigating possible outcomes or aspects of the findings that could further explain them, often suggesting ways to address the limitations of the current studies’ data. Finally, the “other” category included 10 studies with a variety of directions that were outside of the categories, such as inquiring about the effects of professional development for educators about accommodations (Hawpe, 2013; Klehm, 2014). (See Appendix G, Table 2 for additional details about future research directions.)

Table 11. Categorized Future Research Directions Identified by Authors

Future Research CategoryNumber of Studiesa

Sample characteristics 32Test/Test context 26Methodology 17Results 15Other 10No future research listed 8

a Thirty-four studies listed directions for future research that fit into multiple categories, represented in 2 to 5 future research directions categories.

28 NCEO

Discussion

This report provides a snapshot of accommodations research literature in 2013-2014. It addresses the types of accommodations that were studied, the purposes of the research, the research type, data sources, characteristics of the independent and dependent variables under study, compa-rability of findings between studies in similar domains, and limitations and directions of future research.

As in the past, mathematics and reading were the content areas most frequently addressed in the studies included in this analysis. Students were the participant group in about two-thirds of the studies. Students with learning disabilities (LD) were more likely to be included in the research samples than other groups, which was expected because LD is the more prevalent disability category.

Accommodations research continues to be an area where a substantial amount of research is occurring. There is interest in exploring a wide range of topics related to accommodations. For example, as more assessments shift from paper and pencil tests to technology-based assessments there are new issues and questions.

As in previous reports (Cormier et al., 2010; Johnstone et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2002; Rogers et al., 2012; Rogers et al., 2014; Zenisky et al., 2007), the findings for a specific ac-commodation were often mixed. For example, for the oral delivery accommodation, two stud-ies found a differential boost for students with disabilities when compared to students without (Brumfield, 2014; Li, 2014), three found performance improvements for both students with and without disabilities (Buzick & Stone, 2014; Fincher, 2013; Worland, 2014), and one found no significant benefits (Meyer & Bouck, 2014).

Most of the studies included in this analysis identified study limitations. Issues related to the sample characteristics and other aspects of the methodology were the most frequently identi-fied limitations. Limitations were also noted related to the lack of authenticity of the test or testing context. As would be expected, the researchers also identified a need for future studies with stronger methodology and sample characteristics, and the need for studies that take place in more natural and authentic contexts.

The recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) gives states more flexibility in how they annually assess students on statewide tests for accountability purposes, but there is a continued focus on ensuring that the assessments are accessible to students with disabilities. New issues related to embedded ac-commodations on computer-based tests, the compatibility of assistive technology with computer platforms, the validity of inferences, and adaptive testing will continue to arise as states and

29NCEO

consortia refine their assessment systems. There will continue to be a need for accommodations research that addresses these and other emerging issues.

30 NCEO

References

Report References

(References in the report to papers that were part of the 2013-2014 accommodations research analysis are not included in this list. They are in the separate list titled: 2013 and 2014 Accom-modation References.)

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

Cawthon, S., & Research and Evidence Synthesis Team. (2012). Pepnet 2 needs assessment final report. Retrieved from pepnet 2 website: www.pepnet.org

Cormier, D. C., Altman, J., Shyyan, V., & Thurlow, M. L. (2010). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2007-2008 (Technical Report 56). Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/onlinepubs/Tech56/default.htm

Educational Testing Service. (2010). GRE General Test. Princeton, NJ: Author.

Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 895-910. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.895

Hoover, H. D., Dunbar, S. B., Frisbie, D. A., Oberley, K, R., Bray, G. B., Naylor, R. J., Lewis, J. C., Ordman, V. L., & Qualls, A. L. (2003). The Iowa tests: Interpretive guide for school ad-ministrators. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Hresko, W. P., Herron, S. R., Peak, P. K., & Hicks, D. I. (2012). Test of early written language—Third edition (TEWL-3). Hydesville, CA: Psychological and Educational Publications, Inc.

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. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Tech45/default.html

Klehm, M. (2013). High-stakes testing and students with disabilities: A teacher attitude survey (HST-SWD). Teacher attitudes: The effects of teacher beliefs on teaching practices and achieve-ment of students with disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rhode Island, Kingston.

31NCEO

Kuh, G. D., Gonyea, R. M., Kish, K. E., Muthiah, R., & Thomas, A. (2003). College student experiences questionnaire: Norms for the 4th edition. Bloomington, IN: Center for Postsecond-ary Research and Planning, Indiana University.

Lambert, D., Dodd, J. M., Christensen, L., & Fishbaugh, M. S. E. (1996). Rural secondary teachers’ willingness to provide accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 15(2), 36-42. Retrieved from http://acres-sped.org/journal

Lee, C. Y., & Yuan, Y. (2010). Gender differences in the relationship between Taiwanese adoles-cents’ mathematics attitudes and their perceptions toward virtual manipulatives. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(5), 937-950. doi:10.1007/s10763-010-9193-8

Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2011). Qualitative reading inventory-5. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Lu, J. A., Cheng, L. P., & Lu, C. M. (1991). Junior high school instruction manual of intelligence test. Taipei City, Taiwan: China Behavioral Science Community.

National Assessment Governing Board. (2008, Spring). Reading framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/reading09.pdf

Pace, C. R., & Kuh, G. D. (1998). College Experiences Questionnaire (4th ed.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning.

Pauk, W. (2010). Six-way paragraphs, middle level: 100 passages for developing the six essential categories of education (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: Jamestown.

Renaissance Learning. (2012). STAR Reading. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning. Retrieved from http://www.renaissance.com/Products/Star-Assessments.

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. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Tech65/TechnicalReport65.pdf

Rogers, C. M., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2014). A summary of the research on the ef-fects of test accommodations, 2011-2012 (Synthesis Report #94). Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Synthesis94/Synthesis94.pdf

Schopler, E., Reichler, R. J., Bashford, A., Lansing, M D., & Marcus, I. M. (1990). Individual-ized assessment and treatment for autistic and developmentally disabled children: Vol 1. Psy-choeducational Profile—Revised (PEP-R). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

32 NCEO

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. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical34.htm

University of Oregon. (2006-2012). easyCBM Lite Edition [software]. Retrieved from http://easycbm.com

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 54(6), 1063-1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Wechsler, D. (2002). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psy-chological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (2004). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. London, UK: Pearson Assess-ments.

Wechsler, D. (2005). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. London, UK: The Psychological Corporation.

Woodcock, R. W. (1987/1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised/Normative Update. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments.

Woodcock, R. W., Mather, N., & McGrew, K. S. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cogni-tive Abilities Examiner’s Manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Yuker, H. E., & Block, J. R. (1986). Research with the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP) 1960-1985. Hempstead, NY: Hofstra University.

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. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Tech47/TechReport47.pdf

2013 and 2014 Accommodation References

2013 (N=30)

Abedi, J., & Ewers, N. (2013). Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium: Accommodations for English language learners and students with disabilities: A research-based decision algo-rithm. Olympia, WA. Retrieved from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Accomodations-for-under-represented-students.pdf

33NCEO

Alkahtani, K. D. F. (2013). Teachers’ knowledge and use of assistive technology for students with special educational needs. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(2), 65-86. doi:10.5296/jse.v3i2.3424

Berger, C. L., & Lewandowski, L. (2013). The effect of a word processor as an accommodation for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Writing Research, 4(3), 300-318. Retrieved from http://jowr.org/articles/vol4_3/JoWR_2013_vol4_nr3_Berger_Lewandowski.pdf

Cawthon, S., & Leppo, R. (2013). Assessment accommodations on tests of academic achieve-ment for students who are deaf or hard of hearing: A qualitative meta-analysis of the research literature. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(3), 363-376. doi:10.1353/aad.2013.0023

Cawthon, S., Leppo, R., Carr, T., & Kopriva, R. (2013a). Toward accessible assessments: The promises and limitations of test item adaptations for students with disabilities and English language learners. Educational Assessment, 18(2), 73-98. doi:10.1080/10627197.2013.789294

Cawthon, S. W., Leppo, R., & the PEPNET 2 Research and Evidence Synthesis Team. (2013b). Accommodations quality for students who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(4), 438-452. doi:10.1353/aad.2013.0031

Crawford, L., & Ketterlin-Geller, L. R. (2013). Middle school teachers’ assignment of test ac-commodations. The Teacher Educator, 48(1), 29-45. doi:10.1080/08878730.2012.740152

Finch, W. H., & Finch, M. E. H. (2013a). Differential item functioning analysis using a multi-level Rasch mixture model: Investigating the impact of disability status and receipt of testing accommodations. Journal of Applied Measurement, 15(2), 133-151. Retrieved from http://www.jampress.org/

Finch, W. H., & Finch, M. E. H. (2013b). Investigation of specific learning disability and test-ing accommodations based differential item functioning using a multilevel multidimensional mixture item response theory model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 973-993. doi:10.1177/0013164413494776

Fincher, M. (2013). Investigating the effects of a read-aloud alteration on the third-grade Read-ing Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) for students with disabilities. Georgia State University. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/epse_diss/87/

Freeman, S. R. (2013). How many are enough? A quantitative analysis of the effects of the num-ber of response options on the academic performance of students with disabilities on large-scale assessments. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 74(12).

34 NCEO

Hawpe, J. C. (2013). Secondary teachers’ attitudes toward and willingness to provide accom-modations and modifications for students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.bakeru.edu/soe-prospective-students2/edd/dissertations

Higgins, J., & Katz, M. (2013). A comparison of audio representations of mathematics content. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28(3), 59-66. Retrieved from http://www.tamcec.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/JSET-283-Digital_sec.pdf#page=63

Huggins, A. C., & Elbaum, B. (2013). Test accommodations and equating invariance on a fifth-grade science exam. Educational Assessment, 18(1), 49-72. doi:10.1080/10627197.2013.761536

Lewandowski, L., Cohen, J., & Lovett, B. J. (2013). Effects of extended time allotments on reading comprehension performance of college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(3), 326-336. doi:10.1177/0734282912462693

Lewis, K., & Nolan, C. (2013). Examination accommodations for students with sensory defen-siveness. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(2), 163-181. Retrieved from http://www.ahead.org/publications/jped

Lin, P.-Y., & Lin, Y.-C. (2013). The impact of setting accommodation on large-scale assessment of English language learners with and without learning disabilities: Balanced vs. unbalanced data in latent class analyses. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(2), 1-19. doi:10.5296/jse.v3i2.3371

Lovett, B. J., & Leja, A. M. (2013). Students’ perceptions of testing accommodations: What we know, what we need to know, and why it matters. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 29(1), 72-89. doi:10.1080/15377903.2013.751477

Lyman, M. J. (2013). Barriers to accommodation use for students with disabilities in postsec-ondary education. Retrieved from http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd

May, K. G. (2013). Assessing faculty knowledge of disability-related law and providing academic accommodation. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 76(03).

Miller, L. A., Lewandowski, L. J., & Antshel, K. M. (2013). Effects of extended time for college students with and without ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1087054713483308

Nees, M. A., & Berry, L. F. (2013). Audio assistive technology and accommodations for students with visual impairments: Potentials and problems for delivering curricula and educational as-sessments. Performance Enhancement & Health, 2(3), 101-109. doi:10.1016/j.peh.2013.08.016

35NCEO

Overto n, A. M. (2013). Examining comprehension when using a student-reads-aloud accom-modation on two text types. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 74(08).

Smith, G. W., & Riccomini, P. J. (2013). The effect of a noise reducing test accommodation on elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(2), 89-95. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12010

Stein, K. F. (2013). DSS and accommodations in higher education: Perceptions of students with psychological disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(2), 145-161. Retrieved from http://www.ahead.org/publications/jped

Stone, E., Cook, L., & Laitusis, C. (2013). Evaluation of a condition-adaptive test of reading comprehension for students with reading-based learning disabilities (ETS RR-13-20). Princeton, NJ. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-13-20.pdf

Szarko, J. E., Brown, A. J., & Watkins, M. W. (2013). Examiner familiarity effects for children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 29(1), 37-51. doi:10.1080/15377903.2013.751475

Wadley, M. N., & Liljequist, L. (2013). The effect of extended test time for students with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 26(3), 263-271. Retrieved from http://ahead.org/publications/jped/vol_26

Wizikowski, H. T. (2013). Academic support experiences and perceptions of postsecondary students with disabilities: A public and private university comparison. Retrieved from http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgu_etd/76/

Young, R. E. (2013). Advisor knowledge of disability-related needs, laws, and accommodation requirements in postsecondary academic advisement practices. Dissertation Abstracts Interna-tional: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 75(04)E.

2014 (N=23)

Barnhill, G. P. (2014). Supporting students with Asperger Syndrome on college campuses: Current practices. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1088357614523121

Botello, J. A. (2014). Comparing the effect of two types of computer screen background light-ing on students’ reading engagement and achievement. (Doctoral dissertation, Lindenwood University). Retrieved from http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/1530298552.html

36 NCEO

Brumfield, G. A. (2014). The effectiveness of reading accommodations for high school stu-dents with reading disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 75(05).

Buzick, H., & Stone, E. (2014). A meta-analysis of research on the read aloud accommodation. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(3), 17-30. doi:10.1111/emip.12040

Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Crawford, L., & Huscroft-D’Angelo, J. N. (2014). Screening to assign accommodations: Using data to make decisions. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(2), 73-86. Retrieved from http://ldaamerica.org/learning-disabilities-a-multidisci-plinary-journal/

Klehm, M. (2014). The effects of teacher beliefs on teaching practices and achievement of students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(3), 216-240. doi:10.1177/0888406414525050

Lee, C.-Y., & Chen, M. (2014). The impacts of virtual manipulatives and prior knowledge on geometry learning performance in junior high school. Journal of Educational Computing Re-search, 50(2), 179-201.

Leppo, R. H. T., Cawthon, S. W., & Bond, M. P. (2014). Including deaf and hard-of-hearing students with co-occurring disabilities in the accommodations discussion. Journal of Deaf Stud-ies and Deaf Education, 19(2), 189-202. doi:10.1093/deafed/ent029

Lewandowski, L., Lambert, T. L., Lovett, B. J., Panahon, C. J., & Sytsma, M. R. (2014). Col-lege students’ preferences for test accommodations. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 29(2), 116-126. doi:10.1177/0829573514522116

Li, H. (2014). The effects of read-aloud accommodations for students with and without disabili-ties: A meta-analysis. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(3), 3-16. doi:10.1111/emip.12027

Lin, P.-Y., & Lin, Y.-C. (2014). Examining student factors in sources of setting accommodation DIF. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(5), 759-794. doi:10.1177/0013164413514053

Lovett, B. J. (2014). Testing accommodations under the amended Americans with Disabili-ties Act: The voice of empirical research. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25(2), 81-90. doi:10.1177/1044207312469830

May, A. L., & Stone, C. A. (2014). An initial investigation into the role of stereotype threat in the test performance of college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Educa-tion & Disability, 27(1), 89-106. Retrieved from http://www.ahead.org/publications/jped.htm

37NCEO

Meyer, N. K., & Bouck, E. C. (2014). The impact of text-to-speech on expository reading for adolescents with LD. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29(1), 21-34. Retrieved from http://www.tamcec.org/jset/

Newman, L. A., & Madaus, J. W. (2014). Reported accommodations and supports pro-vided to secondary and postsecondary students with disabilities: National perspective. Ca-reer Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2165143413518235

Russell, R. (2014). The impact of using calculators as an accommodation on the math achieve-ment of students with learning disabilities. Grand Canyon University. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1564022570

Schreuer, N., & Sachs, D. (2014). Efficacy of accommodations for students with disabilities in higher education. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 40(1), 27-40. doi:10.3233/JVR-130665

Smith, L. A. (2014). The experiences and sense-making of students with non-visible disabilities on their transition to college and utilization of academic accommodations: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/theses_and_dissertations

Torres, E. S. (2014). Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD): The first-year postsec-ondary educational experience. (Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University). Retrieved from http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/1497034008.html

Worland, K. M. (2014). The effects of prompt condition and genre on the writing performance of students in 3rd and 5th grade. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://drum.lib.umd.edu/

Yakubova, G., & Bouck, E. C. (2014). Not all created equally: Exploring calculator use by students with mild intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49(1), 111-126. doi:none

Zebehazy, K. T., & Wilton, A. P. (2014). Quality, importance, and instruction: The perspectives of teachers of students with visual impairments on graphics use by students. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 108(1), 5-16. Retrieved from http://www.afb.org/jvib/jvib_main.asp

Zhang, D., Wang, Q., Ding, Y., & Liu, J. J. (2014). Testing accommodation or modification? The effects of integrated object representation on enhancing geometry performance in chil-dren with and without geometry difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(6), 569-583. doi:10.1177/00222194135

38 NCEO

39NCEO

Appendix A

Table A. Research Purposes

40 NCEO

Aut

hors

Sta

ted

Res

earc

h Pu

rpos

e/s

Purp

ose

Cat

egor

y Id

entifi

er

A-Effects [SwD]

A-Effects [non]

A-Effects [both]

B-Perceptions

C-Reviews

D-Issues

E-Implement/Use

F-Items

G-Validity

H-Develop

I-Accomm. Need

Abe

di &

Ew

ers

(201

3)

Sum

mar

ize

rese

arch

-bas

ed e

vide

nce

rega

rdin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns fo

r th

e S

mar

ter B

alan

ced

Ass

essm

ent C

onso

rtium

(SB

AC

) to

deve

lop

a co

mm

on a

sses

smen

t sys

tem

; als

o, d

iscu

ss is

sues

of n

eede

d co

ndi-

tions

for d

evel

opin

g a

cros

s-st

ate

acco

mm

odat

ions

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g sy

stem

.

PX

Alk

ahta

ni (2

013)

Inqu

ire a

bout

gen

eral

edu

cato

rs’ a

nd s

peci

al e

duca

tors

’ pre

para

tion

for,

know

ledg

e ab

out,

and

attit

udes

abo

ut p

rovi

ding

ass

istiv

e te

chno

logy

to

thei

r stu

dent

s; a

lso,

repo

rt on

thes

e ed

ucat

ors’

cur

rent

acc

omm

oda-

tions

pra

ctic

es.

P

X

Bar

nhill

(201

4)R

epor

t on

post

seco

ndar

y fa

culty

mem

bers

’ cur

rent

acc

omm

odat

ions

pr

actic

es w

ith s

tude

nts

with

Asp

erge

r Syn

drom

e.

P

Ber

ger &

Lew

an-

dow

ski (

2013

)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of p

osts

econ

dary

stu

dent

s’ u

se o

f a w

ord

proc

esso

r an

d ty

pica

l han

dwrit

ten

cour

se e

xam

resp

onse

s; a

lso,

inqu

ire fr

om

post

seco

ndar

y st

uden

ts a

bout

thei

r exp

erie

nce

usin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns,

incl

udin

g re

lativ

e pr

efer

ence

for c

ompl

etin

g te

sts

in h

andw

ritin

g an

d vi

a w

ord

proc

esso

r.

PX

Bot

ello

(201

4)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of s

cree

n di

spla

y co

lors

on

read

ing

com

preh

ensi

on

scor

es a

nd te

st-ta

king

beh

avio

rs o

f ele

men

tary

stu

dent

s; a

lso,

sum

ma-

rize

rese

arch

per

tain

ing

to la

rge

scal

e st

anda

rdiz

ed te

stin

g vi

a co

m-

pute

r for

mat

s.

P

X

Bru

mfie

ld (2

014)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of a

n or

al d

eliv

ery

acco

mm

odat

ion

on s

cien

ce a

sses

s-m

ent p

erfo

rman

ce fo

r hig

h sc

hool

stu

dent

s w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t rea

ding

di

sabi

litie

s; a

lso,

sum

mar

ize

rese

arch

con

cern

ing

oral

del

iver

y ac

com

-m

odat

ions

on

asse

ssm

ents

of r

eadi

ng c

ompr

ehen

sion

.

P

X

41NCEO

Aut

hors

Sta

ted

Res

earc

h Pu

rpos

e/s

Purp

ose

Cat

egor

y Id

entifi

er

A-Effects [SwD]

A-Effects [non]

A-Effects [both]

B-Perceptions

C-Reviews

D-Issues

E-Implement/Use

F-Items

G-Validity

H-Develop

I-Accomm. Need

Buz

ick

& S

tone

(2

014)

Sum

mar

ize

rese

arch

on

the

effe

cts

of o

ral d

eliv

ery

on m

athe

mat

ics

and

read

ing

scor

es fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties;

als

o, e

xam

ine

cons

truct

val

idity

rela

ted

to o

ral d

eliv

ery

acco

mm

odat

ions

; als

o, a

na-

lyze

effe

ct s

izes

for m

ath

and

read

ing

item

s; fi

nally

, dis

cuss

issu

es o

f di

ffere

nt e

ffect

s by

con

tent

are

a an

d sc

hool

ing

leve

l.

P

X

Caw

thon

& L

eppo

(2

013)

Sum

mar

ize

rese

arch

, em

ploy

ing

qual

itativ

e m

eta-

anal

ysis

, con

cern

ing

asse

ssm

ent a

ccom

mod

atio

ns p

rovi

ded

in v

ario

us c

onte

xts

to s

tude

nts

with

dea

fnes

s an

d he

arin

g im

pairm

ents

; als

o, d

iscu

ss is

sues

per

tain

ing

to fa

ctor

s re

late

d to

thes

e st

uden

ts’ a

sses

smen

t and

acc

omm

odat

ion

expe

rienc

es.

PX

Caw

thon

et a

l. (2

013a

)

Exa

min

e co

nstru

ct v

alid

ity re

late

d to

ada

ptat

ions

to s

cien

ce te

st it

ems;

al

so, c

ompa

re e

ffect

s of

var

ious

type

s of

test

item

ada

ptat

ions

on

sci-

ence

per

form

ance

sco

res

for e

arly

ele

men

tary

stu

dent

s w

ith le

arni

ng

disa

bilit

ies,

stu

dent

s w

ith h

earin

g im

pairm

ents

, and

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t di

sabi

litie

s.

X

P

Caw

thon

et a

l. (2

013b

)

Rep

ort o

n va

rious

edu

cato

rs’ c

urre

nt a

ccom

mod

atio

n pr

actic

es w

ith

stud

ents

with

dea

fnes

s an

d he

arin

g im

pairm

ents

; als

o, d

iscu

ss is

sues

ab

out a

cces

s, q

ualit

y, a

nd c

onsi

sten

cy o

f acc

omm

odat

ions

; fina

lly, i

n-qu

ire a

bout

var

ious

edu

cato

rs’ p

erce

ptio

ns a

bout

pro

vidi

ng a

ccom

mo-

datio

ns fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith d

eafn

ess

and

hear

ing

impa

irmen

ts, i

nclu

ding

ac

com

mod

atio

ns q

ualit

y.

X

X

P

Cra

wfo

rd &

K

ette

rlin-

Gel

ler

(201

3)

Inqu

ire a

bout

mid

dle

scho

ol s

peci

al e

duca

tion

teac

hers

’ per

spec

tives

re

gard

ing

unde

rsta

ndin

g an

d pr

ovid

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

to s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties,

incl

udin

g de

cisi

on-m

akin

g pr

oces

ses;

als

o, d

iscu

ss is

-su

es a

bout

com

mon

kno

wle

dge

amon

g th

ese

educ

ator

s re

gard

ing

ac-

com

mod

atio

ns, a

nd li

mita

tions

ther

eof;

final

ly, re

port

on m

iddl

e sc

hool

sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n te

ache

rs’ c

urre

nt a

ccom

mod

atio

ns p

ract

ices

.

P

X

X

42 NCEO

Aut

hors

Sta

ted

Res

earc

h Pu

rpos

e/s

Purp

ose

Cat

egor

y Id

entifi

er

A-Effects [SwD]

A-Effects [non]

A-Effects [both]

B-Perceptions

C-Reviews

D-Issues

E-Implement/Use

F-Items

G-Validity

H-Develop

I-Accomm. Need

Finc

h &

Fin

ch

(201

3a)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of v

ario

us ty

pes

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns o

n la

ngua

ge p

er-

form

ance

sco

res

for e

lem

enta

ry s

tude

nts

with

var

ious

dis

abili

ties

and

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s; a

lso,

exa

min

e co

nstru

ct v

alid

ity re

late

d to

th

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns.

P

X

Finc

h &

Fin

ch

(201

3b)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of v

ario

us ty

pes

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns, i

ndiv

idua

lly a

nd

in c

ombi

natio

n, o

n m

athe

mat

ics

and

lang

uage

per

form

ance

sco

res

for

a na

tiona

lly re

pres

enta

tive

sam

ple

of e

lem

enta

ry s

tude

nts

with

and

w

ithou

t lea

rnin

g di

sabi

litie

s; a

lso,

exa

min

e co

nstru

ct v

alid

ity re

late

d to

th

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns.

P

X

Finc

her (

2013

)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of th

e or

al d

eliv

ery

(rea

d-al

oud)

acc

omm

odat

ion

durin

g re

adin

g as

sess

men

t for

a s

tratifi

ed ra

ndom

sam

ple

of e

xtan

t el

emen

tary

stu

dent

sta

te d

ata;

als

o, s

umm

ariz

e re

sear

ch c

once

rnin

g or

al d

eliv

ery

of re

adin

g as

sess

men

ts.

P

X

Free

man

(201

3)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of p

rovi

ding

thre

e or

four

resp

onse

cho

ices

on

a st

ate’

s al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent b

ased

on

mod

ified

ach

ieve

men

t sta

n-da

rds

(AA

-MA

S),

utili

zing

ext

ant d

ata

sets

; als

o, d

iscu

ss is

sues

abo

ut

trans

ition

ing

som

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s fro

m ta

king

the

AA

-MA

S to

ta

king

the

stat

e’s

gene

ral a

sses

smen

t; fin

ally,

sum

mar

ize

rese

arch

on

test

des

ign

and

test

ing

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties.

P

XX

Haw

pe (2

013)

Inqu

ire a

bout

the

attit

udes

and

will

ingn

ess

of s

econ

dary

teac

hers

abo

ut

prov

idin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns a

nd m

odifi

catio

ns; a

lso,

repo

rt on

acc

om-

mod

atio

ns a

nd m

odifi

catio

ns a

nd th

eir u

se in

a s

peci

fic s

tate

; als

o,

sum

mar

ize

the

rese

arch

on

educ

ator

s’ a

ttitu

des

and

perc

eptio

ns a

bout

di

sabi

litie

s an

d ac

tions

rega

rdin

g ac

cess

ibili

ty; fi

nally

, dis

cuss

issu

es

rega

rdin

g fa

ctor

s re

late

d to

acc

omm

odat

ions

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g.

P

XX

X

43NCEO

Aut

hors

Sta

ted

Res

earc

h Pu

rpos

e/s

Purp

ose

Cat

egor

y Id

entifi

er

A-Effects [SwD]

A-Effects [non]

A-Effects [both]

B-Perceptions

C-Reviews

D-Issues

E-Implement/Use

F-Items

G-Validity

H-Develop

I-Accomm. Need

Hig

gins

& K

atz

(201

3)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of tw

o or

al d

eliv

ery

/ aud

io re

pres

enta

tion

appr

oach

-es

, lite

ral a

nd in

terp

retiv

e, v

ia te

xt-to

-spe

ech,

on

mat

h as

sess

men

t sc

ores

; als

o, in

quire

from

mid

dle

and

high

sch

ool s

tude

nts

with

and

w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

abou

t the

ir pe

rcep

tions

and

pre

fere

nces

for l

itera

l or

inte

rpre

tive

item

pre

sent

atio

n.

PX

Hug

gins

& E

l-ba

um (2

013)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of v

ario

us a

ccom

mod

atio

ns p

rovi

ded

durin

g st

ate

sci-

ence

ass

essm

ents

for a

n ex

tant

dat

a se

t of e

lem

enta

ry s

choo

l stu

dent

s w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties;

als

o, a

scer

tain

con

stru

ct v

alid

ity re

late

d to

var

ious

type

s of

acc

omm

odat

ions

; fina

lly, p

erfo

rm a

sco

re e

quity

as-

sess

men

t, th

at is

, ana

lyze

item

-leve

l res

pons

es fo

r equ

atin

g in

varia

nce.

P

X

X

Ket

terli

n-G

elle

r et

al. (

2014

)

Dev

elop

an

acco

mm

odat

ions

ass

ignm

ent s

cree

ning

test

; als

o, a

na-

lyze

fact

ors

disr

uptin

g ac

cura

te m

athe

mat

ics

perfo

rman

ce s

core

s an

d in

dica

ting

stud

ents

’ nee

d fo

r spe

cific

acc

omm

odat

ions

; fina

lly, d

iscu

ss

issu

es re

late

d to

col

lect

ing

info

rmat

ion

for a

ccom

mod

atio

ns s

elec

tion.

X

X

P

Kle

hm (2

014)

Inqu

ire a

bout

mid

dle

scho

ol g

ener

al e

duca

tors

’ and

spe

cial

edu

cato

rs’

attit

udes

abo

ut e

ngag

ing

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

in h

igh-

stak

es la

rge-

scal

e as

sess

men

ts a

nd im

plem

entin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s; a

lso,

repo

rt on

thes

e ed

ucat

ors’

cur

rent

acc

omm

oda-

tions

pra

ctic

es.

P

X

Lee

& C

hen

(201

4)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of p

hysi

cal v

ersu

s vi

rtual

man

ipul

ativ

es o

n le

arni

ng

and

perfo

rman

ce in

geo

met

ry fo

r mid

dle

scho

ol s

tude

nts

with

diff

eren

t le

vels

of p

rior k

now

ledg

e.

P

Lepp

o et

al.

(201

4)

Rep

ort o

n ac

com

mod

atio

ns u

se b

y st

uden

ts w

ith d

eafn

ess

and

hear

-in

g im

pairm

ents

, alo

ng w

ith c

o-oc

curr

ing

disa

bilit

ies;

als

o, s

umm

ariz

e re

sear

ch a

bout

acc

omm

odat

ions

use

by

stud

ents

with

dea

fnes

s an

d he

arin

g im

pairm

ents

; fina

lly, d

iscu

ss is

sues

abo

ut a

ccom

mod

atio

ns u

se

patte

rns

in re

latio

n to

dis

abili

ty c

ateg

orie

s.

XX

P

44 NCEO

Aut

hors

Sta

ted

Res

earc

h Pu

rpos

e/s

Purp

ose

Cat

egor

y Id

entifi

er

A-Effects [SwD]

A-Effects [non]

A-Effects [both]

B-Perceptions

C-Reviews

D-Issues

E-Implement/Use

F-Items

G-Validity

H-Develop

I-Accomm. Need

Lew

ando

wsk

i et

al. (

2013

)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of tw

o ve

rsio

ns o

f ext

ende

d tim

e fo

r pos

tsec

onda

ry

stud

ents

with

and

with

out l

earn

ing

disa

bilit

ies

on re

adin

g co

mpr

e-he

nsio

n pe

rform

ance

; als

o, e

xam

ine

cons

truct

val

idity

rela

ted

to th

e ex

tend

ed-ti

me

acco

mm

odat

ion.

P

X

Lew

ando

wsk

i et

al. (

2014

)In

quire

abo

ut th

e pe

rcep

tions

of p

osts

econ

dary

stu

dent

s w

ith a

nd w

ith-

out d

isab

ilitie

s ab

out e

xam

inat

ion

acco

mm

odat

ions

.

P

Lew

is &

Nol

an

(201

3)

Inqu

ire a

bout

the

perc

eptio

ns o

f pos

tsec

onda

ry s

tude

nts

with

sen

sory

de

fens

iven

ess

abou

t low

-dis

tract

ion

acco

mm

odat

ions

pro

vide

d du

r-in

g ex

amin

atio

ns; a

lso,

dis

cuss

issu

es re

late

d to

dis

tract

edne

ss d

urin

g co

urse

exa

ms

whe

n st

uden

ts w

ere

usin

g ot

her a

ccom

mod

atio

ns.

P

X

Li (2

014)

Sum

mar

ize

rese

arch

con

cern

ing

oral

del

iver

y of

read

ing

asse

ssm

ents

; al

so, d

iscu

ss is

sues

of t

he fa

ctor

s m

ost s

trong

ly in

fluen

cing

ora

l del

iv-

ery’

s ef

fect

s on

ass

essm

ent p

erfo

rman

ce.

PX

Lin

& L

in (2

013)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of v

ario

us a

ltern

ate

setti

ng a

ccom

mod

atio

ns fo

r m

iddl

e sc

hool

Eng

lish

lang

uage

lear

ners

with

and

with

out l

earn

ing

disa

bilit

ies

on m

athe

mat

ics

asse

ssm

ent p

erfo

rman

ce; a

lso,

asc

erta

in

cons

truct

val

idity

rela

ted

to s

ettin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns.

P

X

Lin

& L

in (2

014)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of v

ario

us s

ettin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns, o

n m

athe

mat

ics

scor

es fo

r mid

dle

scho

ol s

tude

nts

with

and

with

out l

earn

ing

disa

bilit

ies;

al

so, d

iscu

ss is

sues

abo

ut it

em c

ompl

etio

n ra

tes

amon

g pa

rtici

pant

gr

oups

.

P

Love

tt (2

014)

Sum

mar

ize

rece

nt e

mpi

rical

rese

arch

on

acco

mm

odat

ions

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g, e

spec

ially

con

trast

ing

post

seco

ndar

y an

d K

-12

proc

esse

s;

also

, add

ress

issu

es o

f the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Jus

tice

impl

emen

tatio

n gu

idel

ines

of t

he A

mer

ican

s W

ith D

isab

ilitie

s A

ct 2

008

amen

dmen

ts in

re

latio

n to

rece

nt e

mpi

rical

rese

arch

find

ings

.

PX

45NCEO

Aut

hors

Sta

ted

Res

earc

h Pu

rpos

e/s

Purp

ose

Cat

egor

y Id

entifi

er

A-Effects [SwD]

A-Effects [non]

A-Effects [both]

B-Perceptions

C-Reviews

D-Issues

E-Implement/Use

F-Items

G-Validity

H-Develop

I-Accomm. Need

Love

tt &

Lej

a (2

013)

Sum

mar

ize

liter

atur

e on

the

perc

eptio

ns, p

refe

renc

es, a

nd re

actio

ns o

f st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s re

gard

ing

spec

ific

acco

mm

odat

ions

or a

ccom

-m

odat

ions

in g

ener

al; a

lso,

dis

cuss

issu

es in

clud

ing

test

-take

rs’ s

ense

of

acc

omm

odat

ions

’ effe

ctiv

enes

s an

d he

lpfu

lnes

s, a

nd in

clud

ing

ben-

efits

suc

h as

redu

ctio

n of

dis

com

fort

and

anxi

ety

durin

g as

sess

men

t.

PX

Lym

an (2

013)

Inqu

ire a

bout

the

perc

eptio

ns o

f pos

tsec

onda

ry s

tude

nts

with

var

ious

di

sabi

litie

s re

gard

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

and

bar

riers

to th

eir u

se; a

lso,

su

mm

ariz

e th

e lim

ited

rese

arch

on

barr

iers

to a

ccom

mod

atio

n us

e;

final

ly, d

iscu

ss is

sues

abo

ut p

osts

econ

dary

stu

dent

s fa

cing

var

ious

dif-

ficul

ties

acce

ssin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns.

P

XX

May

(201

3)

Inqu

ire a

bout

the

attit

udes

, int

ent t

o pr

ovid

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns, a

nd

know

ledg

e of

dis

abili

ty le

gisl

atio

n, o

f pos

tsec

onda

ry n

ursi

ng fa

culty

m

embe

rs; a

lso,

sum

mar

ize

rese

arch

on

perc

eptio

ns a

nd a

war

enes

s of

ac

com

mod

atio

ns a

t the

pos

tsec

onda

ry le

vel.

P

X

May

& S

tone

(2

014)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of th

e ex

tend

ed ti

me

acco

mm

odat

ion

for p

osts

econ

d-ar

y st

uden

ts w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t lea

rnin

g di

sabi

litie

s du

ring

a si

mul

ated

gr

adua

te a

dmis

sion

ass

essm

ent f

ram

ed in

diff

erin

g te

rms

to p

artic

i-pa

nts;

als

o, s

umm

ariz

e re

sear

ch c

once

rnin

g po

stse

cond

ary

stud

ents

’ pe

rform

ance

on

larg

e-sc

ale

asse

ssm

ents

.

P

X

Mey

er &

Bou

ck

(201

4)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of o

ral d

eliv

ery

via

text

-to-s

peec

h on

read

ing

as-

sess

men

t sco

res

on c

ompr

ehen

sion

, flue

ncy,

and

com

plet

ion

time,

for

mid

dle

scho

ol s

tude

nts

with

read

ing

disa

bilit

ies;

als

o, in

quire

abo

ut

stud

ents

’ per

cept

ions

of t

he a

ccom

mod

atio

n.

PX

Mill

er e

t al.

(201

3)C

ompa

re e

ffect

s of

ext

ende

d tim

e fo

r pos

tsec

onda

ry s

tude

nts

with

and

w

ithou

t atte

ntio

n-re

late

d di

sabi

litie

s du

ring

a la

rge-

scal

e re

adin

g as

-se

ssm

ent.

P

Nee

s &

Ber

ry

(201

3)

Sum

mar

ize

rese

arch

on

oral

del

iver

y ac

com

mod

atio

ns v

ia te

xt-to

-sp

eech

sys

tem

s; a

lso,

dis

cuss

issu

es s

uch

as th

e te

nden

cy to

cou

ple

oral

del

iver

y an

d ex

tend

ed ti

me

acco

mm

odat

ions

.

P

X

46 NCEO

Aut

hors

Sta

ted

Res

earc

h Pu

rpos

e/s

Purp

ose

Cat

egor

y Id

entifi

er

A-Effects [SwD]

A-Effects [non]

A-Effects [both]

B-Perceptions

C-Reviews

D-Issues

E-Implement/Use

F-Items

G-Validity

H-Develop

I-Accomm. Need

New

man

&

Mad

aus

(201

4)

Usi

ng d

ata

from

the

Nat

iona

l Lon

gitu

dina

l Tra

nsiti

on S

tudy

–2, r

epor

t on

acco

mm

odat

ions

use

and

impl

emen

tatio

n pr

actic

es in

a p

osts

econ

dary

se

tting

; als

o, in

quire

from

a n

atio

nally

repr

esen

tativ

e co

hort

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

abou

t the

ir pe

rspe

ctiv

es o

f pos

tsec

onda

ry p

rogr

ams,

in

clud

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

.

X

P

Ove

rton

(201

3)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of th

e te

st-ta

kers

read

ing

alou

d an

d si

lent

ly o

n re

ad-

ing

com

preh

ensi

on fo

r ele

men

tary

stu

dent

s w

ith re

adin

g di

sabi

litie

s;

also

, sum

mar

ize

the

liter

atur

e on

acc

omm

odat

ions

’ effe

cts

on re

adin

g co

mpr

ehen

sion

of p

assa

ge re

adin

g; fi

nally

, ana

lyze

the

scor

ing

pat-

tern

s fo

r nar

rativ

e an

d ex

posi

tory

text

type

s an

d st

uden

ts’ n

eed

for

acco

mm

odat

ion.

P

X

Rus

sell

(201

4)

Ana

lyze

ext

ant m

athe

mat

ics

asse

ssm

ent d

ata

for e

ffect

s of

cal

cula

tor

use

or n

on-u

se fo

r mid

dle

scho

ol s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties;

al

so, s

umm

ariz

e th

e lit

erat

ure

on c

alcu

lato

r acc

omm

odat

ions

for s

tu-

dent

s w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s.

P

X

Sch

reue

r & S

achs

(2

014)

Rep

ort a

bout

acc

omm

odat

ions

com

mon

ly u

sed

by p

osts

econ

dary

stu

-de

nts

with

dis

abili

ties;

als

o, in

quire

abo

ut p

osts

econ

dary

stu

dent

s w

ith

disa

bilit

ies’

app

rais

als

of e

ffica

cy o

f acc

omm

odat

ions

, as

part

of e

stab

-lis

hing

the

valid

ity a

nd re

liabi

lity

of th

e P

hysi

cal,

Hum

an a

nd A

cade

mic

A

ccom

mod

atio

n S

ervi

ces

(PH

AA

S) s

urve

y.

X

P

Sm

ith (2

014)

Inqu

ire a

bout

the

perc

eptio

ns o

f pos

tsec

onda

ry s

tude

nts

with

invi

sibl

e di

sabi

litie

s re

gard

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

exp

erie

nces

, inc

ludi

ng in

rela

-tio

n to

pre

viou

s hi

gh s

choo

l exp

erie

nces

; als

o, re

port

on re

cent

acc

om-

mod

atio

ns u

se a

nd b

arrie

rs to

use

; fina

lly, s

umm

ariz

e th

e re

sear

ch o

n po

stse

cond

ary

stud

ents

’ acc

ess

to a

nd b

arrie

rs to

usi

ng a

ccom

mod

a-tio

ns.

P

X

X

47NCEO

Aut

hors

Sta

ted

Res

earc

h Pu

rpos

e/s

Purp

ose

Cat

egor

y Id

entifi

er

A-Effects [SwD]

A-Effects [non]

A-Effects [both]

B-Perceptions

C-Reviews

D-Issues

E-Implement/Use

F-Items

G-Validity

H-Develop

I-Accomm. Need

Sm

ith &

Ric

com

ini

(201

3)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of n

oise

-red

ucin

g he

adph

ones

on

read

ing

com

pre-

hens

ion

perfo

rman

ce fo

r ele

men

tary

stu

dent

s w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t lea

rnin

g di

sabi

litie

s.

P

Ste

in (2

013)

Rep

ort o

n ac

com

mod

atio

ns e

xper

ienc

es o

f pos

tsec

onda

ry s

tude

nts

with

men

tal h

ealth

dis

abili

ties;

inqu

ire a

bout

thes

e po

stse

cond

ary

stu-

dent

s’ p

erce

ptio

ns o

f ben

efits

and

cha

lleng

es o

f acc

omm

odat

ions

.

X

P

Sto

ne (2

013)

Inqu

ire a

bout

the

perc

eptio

ns o

f stu

dent

s w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s ab

out a

dapt

ive

test

ing

and

acco

mm

odat

ions

; als

o, e

xam

ine

cons

truct

va

lidity

rela

ted

to th

e or

al d

eliv

ery

acco

mm

odat

ion.

P

X

Sza

rko

et a

l. (2

013)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of fa

mili

ar a

nd u

nfam

iliar

test

adm

inis

trato

r on

verb

al

and

perfo

rman

ce s

core

s of

cog

nitiv

e te

stin

g no

rmed

on

stud

ents

with

au

tism

, inc

ludi

ng o

bser

vatio

n of

stu

dent

s’ te

st-ta

king

beh

avio

rs.

P

Torr

es (2

014)

Rep

ort o

n ca

se s

tudi

es o

f the

firs

t-yea

r pos

tsec

onda

ry e

duca

tiona

l tra

nsiti

on a

nd e

xper

ienc

e of

stu

dent

s w

ith A

utis

m S

pect

rum

Dis

orde

rs

(AS

D),

incl

udin

g th

eir p

erce

ptio

ns o

f acc

omm

odat

ions

; als

o, s

umm

a-riz

e th

e lim

ited

rese

arch

on

post

seco

ndar

y st

uden

ts w

ith A

SD

and

thei

r ex

perie

nces

from

hig

h sc

hool

to c

olle

ge.

P

X

Wad

ley

& L

iljeq

-ui

st (2

013)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of e

xten

ded

time

for p

osts

econ

dary

stu

dent

s w

ith a

nd

with

out a

ttent

ion-

rela

ted

disa

bilit

ies

durin

g a

larg

e-sc

ale

mat

hem

atic

s pl

acem

ent a

sses

smen

t; al

so, d

iscu

ss is

sues

rega

rdin

g m

ood

and

self-

este

em re

late

d to

ass

essm

ent.

P

X

Wiz

ikow

ski (

2013

)

Rep

ort o

n re

cent

acc

omm

odat

ions

use

by

post

seco

ndar

y st

uden

ts w

ith

disa

bilit

ies,

incl

udin

g in

pub

lic a

nd p

rivat

e hi

gher

edu

catio

n in

stitu

tions

; al

so, i

nqui

re a

bout

per

cept

ions

of p

osts

econ

dary

stu

dent

s w

ith v

ario

us

disa

bilit

ies

abou

t acc

omm

odat

ions

and

sup

ports

; fina

lly, s

umm

ariz

e th

e re

sear

ch a

bout

pos

tsec

onda

ry s

tude

nts’

acc

omm

odat

ions

exp

erie

nces

.

X

X

P

48 NCEO

Aut

hors

Sta

ted

Res

earc

h Pu

rpos

e/s

Purp

ose

Cat

egor

y Id

entifi

er

A-Effects [SwD]

A-Effects [non]

A-Effects [both]

B-Perceptions

C-Reviews

D-Issues

E-Implement/Use

F-Items

G-Validity

H-Develop

I-Accomm. Need

Wor

land

(201

4)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of p

rom

ptin

g co

nditi

ons

(uns

uppo

rted

and

supp

orte

d)

on e

lem

enta

ry s

tude

nts’

writ

ing

perfo

rman

ce in

info

rmat

iona

l rep

ort,

narr

ativ

e, a

nd p

ersu

asiv

e ge

nres

; als

o, s

umm

ariz

e re

sear

ch o

n w

ritin

g pe

rform

ance

rela

ted

to p

rior k

now

ledg

e an

d ta

sk.

P

X

Yaku

bova

&

Bou

ck (2

014)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of tw

o ty

pes

of c

alcu

lato

rs, s

cien

tific

and

grap

hing

, on

mat

hem

atic

s pe

rform

ance

in c

ompu

tatio

n an

d w

ord

prob

lem

s, fo

r el

emen

tary

stu

dent

s w

ith in

telle

ctua

l dis

abili

ties;

als

o, in

quire

abo

ut th

e st

uden

ts’ p

erce

ptio

ns a

nd p

refe

renc

es re

gard

ing

the

calc

ulat

ors.

P

X

Youn

g (2

013)

Rep

ort o

n re

cent

acc

omm

odat

ions

impl

emen

tatio

n an

d us

e as

pro

-vi

ded

by p

osts

econ

dary

facu

lty; a

lso,

inqu

ire a

bout

kno

wle

dge

and

perc

eptio

ns o

f pos

tsec

onda

ry a

dvis

ors

abou

t acc

omm

odat

ions

; fina

lly,

sum

mar

ize

the

rese

arch

abo

ut p

ersp

ectiv

es a

nd p

ract

ices

of a

cade

mic

ad

viso

rs re

gard

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

and

sup

ports

.

X

X

P

Zebe

hazy

& W

il-to

n (2

014)

Inqu

ire a

bout

the

perc

eptio

ns o

f tea

cher

s of

stu

dent

s w

ith v

isua

l im

-pa

irmen

ts a

bout

prin

t and

tact

ile g

raph

ics

used

par

ticul

arly

in s

cien

ce

clas

sroo

ms

and

on s

cien

ce a

sses

smen

ts; a

lso,

repo

rt on

gra

phic

s us

e in

sci

ence

ass

essm

ent a

ccom

mod

atio

ns.

P

X

Zhan

g et

al.

(201

4)

Com

pare

effe

cts

of a

n in

tegr

ated

obj

ect r

epre

sent

atio

n (IO

R) a

ccom

-m

odat

ion

on th

e ge

omet

ry a

sses

smen

t per

form

ance

for e

lem

enta

ry

stud

ents

with

and

with

out g

eom

etry

-rel

ated

dis

abili

ties.

P

A-E

ffect

s [S

wD

] = C

ompa

re e

ffect

s of

acc

omm

odat

ions

on

asse

ssm

ent s

core

s [o

nly

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties]

A-E

ffect

s [n

on] =

Com

pare

effe

cts

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns o

n as

sess

men

t sco

res

[onl

y st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties]

A-E

ffect

s [b

oth]

Com

pare

effe

cts

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns o

n as

sess

men

t sco

res

[bot

h st

uden

ts w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t dis

-ab

ilitie

s]

B-P

erce

ptio

ns =

Stu

dy/c

ompa

re p

erce

ptio

ns a

nd p

refe

renc

es a

bout

use

C-R

evie

ws

= S

umm

ariz

e re

sear

ch o

n te

st a

ccom

mod

atio

ns

49NCEO

D-Is

sues

= D

iscu

ss is

sues

E-Im

plem

ent/U

se =

Rep

ort o

n im

plem

enta

tion

prac

tices

and

acc

omm

odat

ions

use

F-Ite

ms

= C

ompa

re te

st it

ems

G-V

alid

ity =

Inve

stig

ate

test

val

idity

H-D

evel

op =

Dev

elop

test

I-Acc

omm

. Nee

d =

Iden

tify

pred

icto

rs o

f the

nee

d fo

r tes

t acc

omm

odat

ions

P =

Prim

ary

Pur

pose

X =

Oth

er P

urpo

se

50 NCEO

51NCEO

Appendix B

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

AuthorsReference

Type Research Type Research Design

Data Col-lection Source

Collection Instrument

Abedi & Ewers (2013) Report Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Secondary Articles

Alkahtani (2013) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Pro-tocol, Survey

Barnhill (2014) Journal Quantitative Descriptive Quantita-tive Primary Interview Pro-

tocol, Survey

Berger & Lewan-dowski (2013) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Survey, Test

Botello (2014) Dissertation Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Observations, Test

Brumfield (2014) Dissertation Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Articles, Test

Buzick & Stone (2014) Journal Quantitative Meta-analysis Secondary Articles

Cawthon & Leppo (2013) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Secondary Articles

Cawthon et al. (2013a) Journal Mixed Descriptive Quantita-

tive Primary Test

Cawthon et al. (2013b) Journal Mixed Quasi-Experimental Primary

Focus Group, Interview Pro-tocol, Survey

Crawford & Ketter-lin-Geller (2013) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview

Protocol

Finch & Finch (2013a) Journal Quantitative Descriptive Quantita-

tive Primary Test

Finch & Finch (2013b) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Secondary Test

Fincher (2013) Dissertation Mixed Quasi-Experimental Primary Survey, Test

Freeman (2013) Dissertation Quantitative Descriptive Quantita-tive Secondary Test

Hawpe (2013) Dissertation Quantitative Descriptive Quantita-tive Primary Survey

Higgins & Katz (2013) Journal Mixed Quasi-Experimental Primary Interview Pro-

tocol, Test

Huggins & Elbaum (2013) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Secondary Test

52 NCEO

AuthorsReference




Ketterlin-Geller et al. (2014) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Survey

Klehm (2014) Journal Mixed Descriptive Quantita-tive Primary Survey

Lee & Chen (2014) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Test

Leppo et al. (2014) Journal Quantitative Correlation/Prediction Secondary Survey

Lewandowski et al. (2013) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Survey, Test

Lewandowski et al. (2014) Journal Quantitative Descriptive Quantita-

tive Primary Survey

Lewis & Nolan (2013) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Focus Group.

Survey

Li (2014) Journal Quantitative Meta-analysis Secondary Articles

Lin & Lin (2013) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Secondary Test

Lin & Lin (2014) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Secondary Test

Lovett (2014) Journal Expository/Opinion Descriptive Qualitative Secondary Articles

Lovett & Leja (2013) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Secondary Articles

Lyman (2013) Dissertation Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol

May (2013) Dissertation Quantitative Descriptive Quantita-tive Primary Survey

May & Stone (2014) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Survey, Test

Meyer & Bouck (2014) Journal Mixed Experimental Primary Interview Pro-

tocol, Test

Miller et al. (2013) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Survey, Test

Nees & Berry (2013) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Secondary Articles

Newman & Madaus (2014) Journal Quantitative Descriptive Quantita-

tive Secondary Interview Protocol

Overton (2013) Dissertation Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Test

Russell (2014) Dissertation Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Secondary Test

Schreuer & Sachs (2014) Journal Quantitative Descriptive Quantita-

tive Primary Grades, Survey

Smith (2014) Dissertation Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol

53NCEO

AuthorsReference




Smith & Riccomini (2013) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Test

Stein (2013) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol

Stone et al. (2013) Report Quantitative Descriptive Quantita-tive Primary Survey

Szarko et al. (2013) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Observations, Test

Torres (2014) Dissertation Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol

Wadley & Liljequist (2013) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Survey, Test

Wizikowski (2013) Dissertation Mixed Descriptive Quantita-tive Primary Survey

Worland (2014) Dissertation Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Test

Yakubova & Bouck (2014) Journal Mixed Quasi-Experimental Primary Observations,

Survey, Test

Young (2013) Dissertation Mixed Descriptive Quantita-tive Primary Survey

Zebehazy & Wilton (2014) Journal Quantitative Descriptive Quantita-

tive Primary Survey

Zhang et al. (2014) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Test

54 NCEO

55NCEO

Appendix C

Instrument Characteristics

56 NCEO

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

Aut

hors

Non

-Aca

dem

ic P

roto

cols

or

Sur

veys

Dev

elop

ed b

y St

udy

Aut

hors

Surv

eys

or A

cade

mic

Te

sts

Dev

elop

ed b

y Pr

o-fe

ssio

nals

or R

esea

rche

rs

Usi

ng S

ourc

es O

utsi

de o

f C

urre

nt S

tudy

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t M

easu

res

Stat

e C

riter

ion-

refe

r-en

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Mea

sure

sA

bedi

& E

wer

s (2

013)

No

inst

rum

ent i

nfor

mat

ion

for t

his

liter

atur

e re

view

stu

dy

Alk

ahta

ni

(201

3)

Onl

ine

surv

ey a

bout

teac

h-er

s’ k

now

ledg

e ab

out a

nd

use

of a

ssis

tive

tech

nolo

gy

Bar

nhill

(201

4)N

o in

stru

men

t inf

orm

atio

n fo

r thi

s lit

erat

ure

revi

ew s

tudy

Ber

ger &

Le

wan

dow

ski

(201

3)

Sur

vey

gath

erin

g de

mo-

grap

hic

data

, inf

orm

atio

n on

acc

omm

odat

ions

exp

eri-

ence

as

wel

l as

past

writ

ing

diffi

culti

es, t

utor

ing

in w

ritin

g,

com

pute

r exp

erie

nce,

and

id

entif

ying

rela

tive

pref

eren

c-es

abo

ut w

ord

proc

essi

ng

and

hand

writ

ing;

als

o, N

um-

ber W

ritin

g Ta

sk m

easu

ring

typi

ng s

peed

Cal

cula

tion

subt

est a

nd

Writ

ing

Flue

ncy

subt

est

of th

e W

oodc

ock

John

-so

n III

Tes

ts o

f Ach

ieve

-m

ent (

WJ-

III; W

oodc

ock,

M

cGre

w, &

Mat

her,

2001

); W

ritte

n E

xpre

ssio

n su

btes

t of t

he W

echs

ler

Indi

vidu

al A

chie

vem

ent

Test

-Sec

ond

Edi

tion

(WIA

T-II,

Wec

hsle

r, 20

02)

Bot

ello

(201

4)

Teac

her o

bser

vatio

n of

pos

i-tiv

e te

st e

ngag

emen

t beh

av-

iors

for a

sub

set o

f stu

dent

pa

rtici

pant

s

STA

R E

nter

pris

e R

ead-

ing

(Ren

aiss

ance

Lea

rn-

ing,

201

2) —

a 3

5-ite

m

read

ing

com

preh

ensi

on

asse

ssm

ent a

dmin

iste

red

via

com

pute

r

2012

Mis

sour

i Ass

ess-

men

t Pro

gram

(MA

P)

com

mun

icat

ion

arts

as-

sess

men

t dat

a (2

013)

Bru

mfie

ld

(201

4)

Geo

rgia

Hig

h S

choo

l G

radu

atio

n Te

st (G

HS

-G

T) in

sci

ence

57NCEO

Aut

hors

Non

-Aca

dem

ic P

roto

cols

or

Sur

veys

Dev

elop

ed b

y St

udy

Aut

hors

Surv

eys

or A

cade

mic

Te

sts

Dev

elop

ed b

y Pr

o-fe

ssio

nals

or R

esea

rche

rs

Usi

ng S

ourc

es O

utsi

de o

f C

urre

nt S

tudy

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t M

easu

res

Stat

e C

riter

ion-

refe

r-en

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Mea

sure

s

Buz

ick

&

Sto

ne (2

014)

In th

is m

eta-

anal

ysis

, in

divi

dual

stu

dy re

sults

w

ere

exam

ined

usi

ng

stat

e ac

adem

ic c

on-

tent

ass

essm

ent d

ata

thro

ugho

ut g

rade

s K

-12

for m

athe

mat

ics

and

read

ing

Caw

thon

&

Lepp

o (2

013)

Focu

s gr

oups

of p

rofe

s-si

onal

s an

d st

uden

ts w

ho

wer

e de

af o

r har

d of

hea

ring

adm

inis

tere

d at

regi

onal

and

na

tiona

l con

fere

nces

Onl

ine

surv

ey o

f pro

fess

ion-

als

beyo

nd s

cope

of

this

st

udy

(Caw

thon

& R

esea

rch

and

Evi

denc

e S

ynth

esis

Te

am, 2

012)

Caw

thon

et a

l. (2

013a

)

The

field

test

(with

nin

e ite

ms

per g

rade

) of a

st

ate

asse

ssm

ent i

n sc

ienc

e an

d E

nglis

h la

n-gu

age

arts

for s

tude

nts

in g

rade

s 3,

4, a

nd 5

58 NCEO

Aut

hors

Non

-Aca

dem

ic P

roto

cols

or

Sur

veys

Dev

elop

ed b

y St

udy

Aut

hors

Surv

eys

or A

cade

mic

Te

sts

Dev

elop

ed b

y Pr

o-fe

ssio

nals

or R

esea

rche

rs

Usi

ng S

ourc

es O

utsi

de o

f C

urre

nt S

tudy

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t M

easu

res

Stat

e C

riter

ion-

refe

r-en

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Mea

sure

s

Caw

thon

et a

l. (2

013b

)

In th

is m

eta-

anal

ysis

, in

divi

dual

stu

dy re

sults

w

ere

exam

ined

usi

ng

larg

e-sc

ale

and

clas

s-ro

om a

sses

smen

ts

thro

ugho

ut g

rade

s K

-12

and

post

seco

ndar

y; th

e ac

adem

ic c

onte

nt m

ea-

sure

d in

clud

ed m

athe

-m

atic

s, re

adin

g, s

cien

ce,

and

hist

ory

In th

is m

eta-

anal

ysis

, in

divi

dual

stu

dy re

sults

w

ere

exam

ined

, inc

lud-

ing

one

usin

g an

inte

l-lig

ence

test

Cra

wfo

rd

& K

ette

rlin-

Gel

ler (

2013

)

A se

ries

of in

terv

iew

que

s-tio

ns d

esig

ned

to d

isce

rn

teac

her p

artic

ipan

ts’ k

now

l-ed

ge o

f and

atti

tude

s to

war

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns a

nd

acco

mm

odat

ions

pol

icie

s,

and

thei

r acc

omm

odat

ions

de

cisi

on-m

akin

g pr

oces

ses

Finc

h &

Fin

ch

(201

3a)

20 it

ems

from

an

un-

spec

ified

nat

iona

l Eng

lish

lang

uage

arts

ach

ieve

-m

ent t

est

Finc

h &

Fin

ch

(201

3b)

Uns

peci

fied

natio

nal

achi

evem

ent t

est o

f E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge a

rts a

nd

mat

hem

atic

s

59NCEO

Aut

hors

Non

-Aca

dem

ic P

roto

cols

or

Sur

veys

Dev

elop

ed b

y St

udy

Aut

hors

Surv

eys

or A

cade

mic

Te

sts

Dev

elop

ed b

y Pr

o-fe

ssio

nals

or R

esea

rche

rs

Usi

ng S

ourc

es O

utsi

de o

f C

urre

nt S

tudy

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t M

easu

res

Stat

e C

riter

ion-

refe

r-en

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Mea

sure

s

Finc

her (

2013

)

Par

ticip

ant s

tude

nts’

teac

h-er

s co

mpl

eted

sur

veys

ab

out t

he n

atur

e of

stu

dent

s’

spec

ial e

duca

tion

inst

ruct

ion

(e.g

., pr

opor

tion

of a

cade

mic

tim

e in

gen

eral

edu

catio

n,

grad

e le

vel o

f ins

truct

ion

for

thes

e fo

urth

gra

ders

), an

d te

ache

rs’ r

atin

g of

deg

ree

of

stud

ents

’ dis

abili

ties

Iow

a Te

st o

f Bas

ic S

kills

(H

oove

r, D

unba

r, Fr

isbi

e,

Obe

rley,

Bra

y, N

aylo

r, Le

wis

, Ord

man

, & Q

ualls

, 20

03) s

core

s w

ere

also

ac

cess

ed b

y th

e re

-se

arch

er fo

r ide

ntify

ing

read

ing

skill

leve

ls

Geo

rgia

Crit

erio

n-R

efer

-en

ced

Com

pete

ncy

Test

in

read

ing,

3rd

gra

de

leve

l, w

ere

colle

cted

fro

m th

ese

grad

e 4

par-

ticip

ants

Free

man

(2

013)

Nor

th C

arol

ina

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t bas

ed o

n m

odifi

ed a

sses

smen

t st

anda

rds

(NC

EX

-TE

ND

2)

Haw

pe (2

013)

Dem

ogra

phic

sur

vey

Atti

tude

s To

war

ds P

erso

ns

with

Dis

abili

ties

(ATD

P)

Sca

les

(Yuk

er, B

lock

, &

Cam

pbel

l, 19

86),

with

ter-

min

olog

y ad

just

men

ts; a

nd

acco

mm

odat

ions

sur

vey

(Lam

bert,

Dod

d, C

hris

-te

nsen

, & F

ishb

augh

, 199

6),

adap

ted

for p

artic

ipan

ts a

nd

cont

ext

60 NCEO

Aut

hors

Non

-Aca

dem

ic P

roto

cols

or

Sur

veys

Dev

elop

ed b

y St

udy

Aut

hors

Surv

eys

or A

cade

mic

Te

sts

Dev

elop

ed b

y Pr

o-fe

ssio

nals

or R

esea

rche

rs

Usi

ng S

ourc

es O

utsi

de o

f C

urre

nt S

tudy

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t M

easu

res

Stat

e C

riter

ion-

refe

r-en

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Mea

sure

s

Hig

gins

& K

atz

(201

3)

Sur

vey

item

s ab

out s

tude

nt

pref

eren

ces

rega

rdin

g th

e lit

eral

and

inte

rpre

tive

form

s,

alon

g w

ith c

ogni

tive

labs

, a

sem

i-stru

ctur

ed in

terv

iew

fo

rmat

Rel

ease

d ite

ms

from

st

ate

mat

hem

atic

s as

sess

men

ts in

Ohi

o,

Virg

inia

, Mas

sach

uset

ts,

and

Ariz

ona;

10-

12 it

ems

wer

e us

ed in

eac

h st

udy

in s

ets

of tw

o si

mila

r ite

ms

each

, in

orde

r to

com

pare

the

audi

o re

pres

enta

tion

of th

e ite

ms

in b

oth

liter

al a

nd

inte

rpre

tive

form

s

Hug

gins

& E

l-ba

um (2

013)

Item

-leve

l sco

res

for t

he

191,

906

stud

ents

who

co

mpl

eted

the

(uns

peci

-fie

d) s

tate

sci

ence

as-

sess

men

t in

2009

Ket

terli

n-G

elle

r et a

l. (2

014)

Scr

eeni

ng to

Ass

ign

Acc

om-

mod

atio

ns T

ool (

SA

AT)

61NCEO

Aut

hors

Non

-Aca

dem

ic P

roto

cols

or

Sur

veys

Dev

elop

ed b

y St

udy

Aut

hors

Surv

eys

or A

cade

mic

Te

sts

Dev

elop

ed b

y Pr

o-fe

ssio

nals

or R

esea

rche

rs

Usi

ng S

ourc

es O

utsi

de o

f C

urre

nt S

tudy

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t M

easu

res

Stat

e C

riter

ion-

refe

r-en

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Mea

sure

s

Kle

hm (2

014)

Hig

h-st

akes

Tes

ting

and

Stu

dent

s w

ith D

isab

ilitie

s:

A Te

ache

r Atti

tude

Sur

vey

(HS

T-S

WD

; Kle

hm, 2

013)

Par

ticip

ants

’ stu

dent

s’

grou

p ac

hiev

emen

t dat

a on

the

New

Eng

land

C

omm

on A

sses

smen

t P

rogr

am a

chie

vem

ent

test

(rea

ding

, mat

h,

and

scie

nce)

, fro

m th

e In

foW

orks

Rho

de Is

land

w

ebsi

te

Lee

& C

hen

(201

4)

Mat

hem

atic

s at

titud

e sc

ale

(Lee

& Y

uan,

201

0)

In

telli

genc

e te

st (L

u,

Che

ng, &

Lu,

199

1)

Lepp

o et

al.

(201

4)

Dem

ogra

phic

dat

a co

llect

ed

from

and

abo

ut s

choo

ls

at w

hich

par

ticip

ants

wer

e em

ploy

ed

Nat

iona

l Lon

gitu

dina

l Tra

n-si

tion

Stu

dy 2

(NLT

S2)

dat

a se

t, in

clud

ing

the

disa

bilit

y st

atus

es o

f dea

f and

har

d-of

-hea

ring

with

any

add

ition

-al

dis

abili

ty (n

=310

), de

af

and

hard

-of-h

earin

g w

ith

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

(LD

; n=

90),

and

deaf

and

har

d-of

-hea

ring

with

atte

ntio

n de

ficit

hype

ract

iviti

y di

sord

er

(AD

HD

; n=1

10)

62 NCEO

Aut

hors

Non

-Aca

dem

ic P

roto

cols

or

Sur

veys

Dev

elop

ed b

y St

udy

Aut

hors

Surv

eys

or A

cade

mic

Te

sts

Dev

elop

ed b

y Pr

o-fe

ssio

nals

or R

esea

rche

rs

Usi

ng S

ourc

es O

utsi

de o

f C

urre

nt S

tudy

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t M

easu

res

Stat

e C

riter

ion-

refe

r-en

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Mea

sure

s

Lew

ando

wsk

i et

al.

(201

3)

Dem

ogra

phic

sur

vey,

whi

ch

incl

uded

acc

omm

odat

ions

ex

perie

nce

ques

tions

Nel

son-

Den

ny R

eadi

ng

Test

(Bro

wn,

Fis

hco,

&

Han

na, 1

993)

For

ms

G

and

H, s

ubte

st o

n re

adin

g co

mpr

ehen

sion

Lew

ando

wsk

i et

al.

(201

4)

Sur

vey

mea

surin

g pe

rcep

-tio

ns a

bout

the

exte

nt to

w

hich

eac

h ac

com

mod

atio

n w

ould

hel

p (o

r not

) on

eith

er

a cl

assr

oom

exa

m o

r a h

igh-

stak

es a

sses

smen

t, al

ong

with

dem

ogra

phic

dat

a an

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns e

xper

ienc

e

Lew

is &

Nol

an

(201

3)

Que

stio

nnai

re (d

esig

ned

by

occu

patio

nal t

hera

pist

s an

d di

sabi

lity

serv

ice

pers

on-

nel s

tudy

par

ticip

ants

) with

Li

kert-

scal

e an

d op

en-e

nded

ite

ms

abou

t exp

erie

nces

w

ith te

stin

g sp

aces

in w

hich

au

dito

ry (i

.e.,

nois

e le

vels

) an

d vi

sual

dis

tract

ions

, as

wel

l as

ambi

ent t

empe

ra-

ture

con

ditio

ns; f

ocus

gro

up

ques

tion

serie

s ab

out t

he

pilo

ting

of lo

w d

istra

ctio

n ex

am s

ettin

gs

63NCEO

Aut

hors

Non

-Aca

dem

ic P

roto

cols

or

Sur

veys

Dev

elop

ed b

y St

udy

Aut

hors

Surv

eys

or A

cade

mic

Te

sts

Dev

elop

ed b

y Pr

o-fe

ssio

nals

or R

esea

rche

rs

Usi

ng S

ourc

es O

utsi

de o

f C

urre

nt S

tudy

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t M

easu

res

Stat

e C

riter

ion-

refe

r-en

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Mea

sure

s

Li (2

014)

This

met

a-an

alys

is h

ad

stud

ies

usin

g m

athe

mat

-ic

s an

d re

adin

g as

sess

-m

ents

adm

inis

tere

d to

gr

ade

K-1

2 st

uden

ts

Lin

& L

in

(201

3)

2005

-200

6 m

athe

mat

ics

test

dat

a fro

m O

ntar

io’s

pr

ovin

cial

sta

ndar

dize

d te

stin

g pr

ogra

m

Lin

& L

in

(201

4)

2005

and

200

6 m

ath-

emat

ics

and

read

ing

test

dat

a fro

m O

ntar

io’s

pr

ovin

cial

sta

ndar

dize

d te

stin

g pr

ogra

m

Love

tt (2

014)

No

inst

rum

ent i

nfor

mat

ion

for t

his

liter

atur

e re

view

stu

dyLo

vett

& L

eja

(201

3)N

o in

stru

men

t inf

orm

atio

n fo

r thi

s lit

erat

ure

revi

ew s

tudy

64 NCEO

Aut

hors

Non

-Aca

dem

ic P

roto

cols

or

Sur

veys

Dev

elop

ed b

y St

udy

Aut

hors

Surv

eys

or A

cade

mic

Te

sts

Dev

elop

ed b

y Pr

o-fe

ssio

nals

or R

esea

rche

rs

Usi

ng S

ourc

es O

utsi

de o

f C

urre

nt S

tudy

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t M

easu

res

Stat

e C

riter

ion-

refe

r-en

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Mea

sure

s

Lym

an (2

013)

Inte

rvie

w q

uest

ions

per

tain

-in

g to

par

ticip

ants

’ exp

eri-

ence

s of

bar

riers

to a

ccom

-m

odat

ions

use

May

(201

3)

Onl

ine

surv

ey a

bout

pos

t-se

cond

ary

nurs

ing

facu

lty

mem

bers

’ atti

tude

s, in

tent

to

pro

vide

acc

omm

odat

ions

, an

d kn

owle

dge

of d

isab

ility

la

w a

nd p

olic

y

May

& S

tone

(2

014)

Verb

al s

ectio

n of

Gra

du-

ate

Rec

ord

Exa

min

atio

n (G

RE

; Edu

catio

nal T

est-

ing

Ser

vice

, 201

0)

Mey

er &

B

ouck

(201

4)

Inte

rvie

w q

uest

ions

abo

ut

parti

cipa

nts’

exp

erie

nces

w

ith a

ccom

mod

atio

ns

Wec

hsle

r Ind

ivid

ual

Ach

ieve

men

t Tes

t-S

econ

d E

ditio

n (W

IAT-

II;

Wec

hsle

r, 20

05),

Woo

d-co

ck R

eadi

ng M

aste

ry

Test

s-R

evis

ed/N

orm

ativ

e U

pdat

e (W

RM

T-R

/NU

; W

oodc

ock,

198

7/19

98),

Six

-Way

Par

agra

phs,

M

iddl

e Le

vel (

Pau

k,

2010

), C

BM

Lite

Edi

tion

(Uni

vers

ity o

f Ore

gon,

20

06-2

012)

Wec

hsle

r Int

ellig

ence

S

cale

for C

hild

ren

(WIS

C-IV

; Wec

hsle

r, 20

04) a

nd W

oodc

ock-

John

son

Test

s of

Cog

-ni

tive

Abi

litie

s III

(WJI

II;

Woo

dcoc

k, M

athe

r, &

M

cGre

w, 2

001)

65NCEO

Aut

hors

Non

-Aca

dem

ic P

roto

cols

or

Sur

veys

Dev

elop

ed b

y St

udy

Aut

hors

Surv

eys

or A

cade

mic

Te

sts

Dev

elop

ed b

y Pr

o-fe

ssio

nals

or R

esea

rche

rs

Usi

ng S

ourc

es O

utsi

de o

f C

urre

nt S

tudy

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t M

easu

res

Stat

e C

riter

ion-

refe

r-en

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Mea

sure

s

Mill

er e

t al.

(201

3)

Nel

son-

Den

ny R

ead-

ing

Test

(ND

RT;

Bro

wn,

Fi

shco

, & H

anna

, 199

3)

Form

s G

& H

, sub

test

on

read

ing

com

preh

ensi

on

Nee

s &

Ber

ry

(201

3)N

o in

stru

men

t inf

orm

atio

n fo

r thi

s lit

erat

ure

revi

ew s

tudy

New

man

&

Mad

aus

(201

4)2

Ove

rton

(201

3)

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n te

ach-

ers

of th

e el

even

stu

dent

pa

rtici

pant

s al

so c

ompl

eted

de

mog

raph

ic in

form

atio

n fo

rms

abou

t the

stu

dent

s

Rea

ding

com

preh

ensi

on

as m

easu

red

usin

g re

adin

g pa

ssag

es a

nd it

ems

from

th

e Q

ualit

ativ

e R

eadi

ng In

-ve

ntor

y 5t

h E

ditio

n (Q

RI-5

; Le

slie

& C

aldw

ell,

2011

) and

In

form

al R

eadi

ng In

vent

ory,

E

ight

h E

ditio

n (IR

I; R

oe &

B

urns

, 201

1)

66 NCEO

Aut

hors

Non

-Aca

dem

ic P

roto

cols

or

Sur

veys

Dev

elop

ed b

y St

udy

Aut

hors

Surv

eys

or A

cade

mic

Te

sts

Dev

elop

ed b

y Pr

o-fe

ssio

nals

or R

esea

rche

rs

Usi

ng S

ourc

es O

utsi

de o

f C

urre

nt S

tudy

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t M

easu

res

Stat

e C

riter

ion-

refe

r-en

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Mea

sure

s

Rus

sell

(201

4)

IEP

reco

rds

wer

e ex

amin

ed

as p

art o

f the

initi

al s

ampl

ing

proc

edur

e, a

nd to

dev

elop

pa

rtici

pant

com

paris

on

grou

ps

Sou

th C

arol

ina’

s P

al-

met

to A

sses

smen

t of

Sta

te S

tand

ards

(PA

SS

); fo

r com

paris

on p

urpo

ses

(bet

wee

n gr

ade

leve

ls),

the

tota

l sca

le s

core

s w

ere

conv

erte

d in

to

Nor

mal

cur

ve e

quiv

alen

t sc

ores

Sch

reue

r &

Sac

hs (2

014)

Stu

dent

par

ticip

ants

com

-pl

eted

a s

urve

y tit

led

the

Phy

sica

l, H

uman

and

A

cade

mic

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Ser

vice

s (P

HA

AS

) sca

le,

whi

ch in

quire

d bo

th a

bout

st

uden

ts’ u

se o

f and

ap-

prai

sal o

f the

use

fuln

ess

of

vario

us a

ccom

mod

atio

ns;

and

also

s

urve

y ite

ms

abou

t dem

ogra

phic

s, g

rade

po

int a

vera

ges,

and

the

num

ber o

f cou

rses

take

n pe

r ye

ar, a

nd d

isab

ility

-rel

ated

qu

estio

ns s

uch

as d

iagn

o-se

s, a

ge a

t ons

et o

f dis

abil-

ity, a

nd d

egre

e of

inde

pen-

denc

e

Col

lege

Stu

dent

Exp

erie

nc-

es Q

uest

ionn

aire

(CS

EQ

, P

ace

& K

uh, 1

998;

Kuh

, G

onye

a, K

ish,

Mut

hiah

, &

Thom

as, 2

003)

67NCEO

Aut

hors

Non

-Aca

dem

ic P

roto

cols

or

Sur

veys

Dev

elop

ed b

y St

udy

Aut

hors

Surv

eys

or A

cade

mic

Te

sts

Dev

elop

ed b

y Pr

o-fe

ssio

nals

or R

esea

rche

rs

Usi

ng S

ourc

es O

utsi

de o

f C

urre

nt S

tudy

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t M

easu

res

Stat

e C

riter

ion-

refe

r-en

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Mea

sure

s

Sm

ith (2

014)

Sem

i-stru

ctur

ed in

terv

iew

pr

otoc

ol

Sm

ith &

Ric

-co

min

i (20

13)

Rea

ding

com

preh

en-

sion

as

asse

ssed

usi

ng

the

Qua

litat

ive

Rea

ding

In

vent

ory-

5 (L

eslie

&

Cal

dwel

l, 20

11)

Ste

in (2

013)

Inte

rvie

w q

uest

ions

Sto

ne e

t al.

(201

3)

Eng

lish

lang

uage

arts

test

ite

ms

wer

e ba

sed

on th

e re

adin

g fra

mew

ork

for t

he

2009

Nat

iona

l Ass

essm

ent

of E

duca

tiona

l Pro

gres

s (N

atio

nal A

sses

smen

t Gov

-er

ning

Boa

rd, 2

008)

68 NCEO

Aut

hors

Non

-Aca

dem

ic P

roto

cols

or

Sur

veys

Dev

elop

ed b

y St

udy

Aut

hors

Surv

eys

or A

cade

mic

Te

sts

Dev

elop

ed b

y Pr

o-fe

ssio

nals

or R

esea

rche

rs

Usi

ng S

ourc

es O

utsi

de o

f C

urre

nt S

tudy

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t M

easu

res

Stat

e C

riter

ion-

refe

r-en

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Mea

sure

s

Sza

rko

et a

l. (2

013)

Obs

erva

tions

of s

tude

nt

test

-take

rs d

urin

g te

sts

wer

e m

ade

by in

depe

nden

t ob

serv

ers

not a

war

e of

test

pa

rtici

pant

s’ a

ssig

ned

test

co

nditi

ons

(fam

iliar

or u

nfa-

mili

ar e

xam

iner

), pe

rtain

ing

to (1

) num

ber o

f exa

min

er

prom

pts,

(2) n

umbe

r of i

tem

s re

fuse

d by

stu

dent

, and

(3)

inst

ance

s of

aty

pica

l beh

av-

iors

exh

ibite

d

Psy

choe

duca

tiona

l P

rofil

e-R

evis

ed (S

chop

ler,

Rei

chle

r, B

ashf

ord,

Lan

-si

ng, &

Mar

cus,

199

0),

cogn

itive

per

form

ance

an

d co

gniti

ve v

erba

l sub

-te

sts

(for s

tude

nts

with

au

tism

)

Torr

es (2

014)

Inte

rvie

w q

uest

ions

Wad

ley

&

Lilje

quis

t (2

013)

Mea

sure

s of

moo

ds a

nd

emot

ions

: the

Pos

itive

Affe

ct

Neg

ativ

e A

ffect

Sch

edul

e (P

AN

AS

; Wat

son,

Cla

rk,

& T

elle

gen,

198

8) a

nd th

e S

tate

Sel

f-Est

eem

Sca

le

(SS

ES

; Hea

ther

ton

& P

oliv

y,

1991

)

Mat

hem

atic

s po

stse

cond

-ar

y pl

acem

ent e

xam

ina-

tion

scor

es, a

s m

easu

red

by th

e K

entu

cky

Onl

ine

Test

ing

prog

ram

(KY

OTE

)

69NCEO

Aut

hors

Non

-Aca

dem

ic P

roto

cols

or

Sur

veys

Dev

elop

ed b

y St

udy

Aut

hors

Surv

eys

or A

cade

mic

Te

sts

Dev

elop

ed b

y Pr

o-fe

ssio

nals

or R

esea

rche

rs

Usi

ng S

ourc

es O

utsi

de o

f C

urre

nt S

tudy

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t M

easu

res

Stat

e C

riter

ion-

refe

r-en

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Mea

sure

s

Wiz

ikow

ski

(201

3)

Stu

dent

par

ticip

ant s

urve

y ab

out a

ccom

mod

atio

ns

and

supp

orts

use

pat

tern

s,

incl

udin

g us

eful

ness

and

sa

tisfa

ctio

n ra

tings

Wor

land

(2

014)

Ana

lytic

rubr

ic o

f writ

ing

qual

ity m

odel

ed a

fter r

ubric

s fro

m th

e PA

RC

C a

nd S

BA

C

cons

ortia

; cur

ricul

um b

ased

m

easu

re o

f tot

al w

ord

coun

t

Con

text

ual W

ritin

g su

b-te

st o

f the

Tes

t of E

arly

W

ritte

n La

ngua

ge-II

I (T

EW

L-III

; Hre

sko,

Her

-ro

n, P

eak,

& H

icks

, 201

2)

Eng

lish

lang

uage

arts

/ re

adin

g di

stric

twid

e as

-se

ssm

ent s

core

s w

ere

used

as

an in

depe

nden

t re

fere

nce

poin

t

Yaku

bova

&

Bou

ck (2

014)

Acc

urac

y—m

easu

red

in

scor

es o

n a

set o

f five

mat

h-em

atic

al p

robl

em-s

olvi

ng

item

s an

d fiv

e co

mpu

tatio

n ite

ms

requ

iring

sub

tract

ion,

an

d ef

ficie

ncy—

mea

sure

d in

tim

e du

ratio

n fo

r com

plet

ing

each

item

Youn

g (2

013)

Sur

vey

abou

t edu

cato

rs’

perc

eptio

ns o

f gra

phic

s qu

ality

and

gra

phic

s us

e by

st

uden

ts w

ith v

isua

l im

pair-

men

ts

70 NCEO

Aut

hors

Non

-Aca

dem

ic P

roto

cols

or

Sur

veys

Dev

elop

ed b

y St

udy

Aut

hors

Surv

eys

or A

cade

mic

Te

sts

Dev

elop

ed b

y Pr

o-fe

ssio

nals

or R

esea

rche

rs

Usi

ng S

ourc

es O

utsi

de o

f C

urre

nt S

tudy

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t M

easu

res

Stat

e C

riter

ion-

refe

r-en

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Nor

m-r

efer

ence

d C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Mea

sure

s

Zebe

hazy

&

Wilt

on (2

014)

Onl

ine

surv

ey in

quiri

ng

abou

t edu

cato

rs’ p

erce

ptio

ns

abou

t gra

phic

s qu

ality

and

gr

aphi

cs u

se b

y st

uden

ts

with

vis

ual i

mpa

irmen

ts

Zhan

g et

al.

(201

4)

Geo

met

ry p

robl

em s

olvi

ng

test

item

s w

ere

deve

lope

d fro

m F

lorid

a C

ompr

ehen

sive

A

sses

smen

t Tes

t cur

ricul

um

supp

lem

enta

l mat

eria

ls

TOTA

L26

1315

153

71NCEO

Appendix C Table C-2. Content Areas Assessed

Authors

Mat

h

Rea

ding

Writ

ing

Oth

er L

A

Scie

nce

Soci

al S

tudi

es

Inte

llige

nce

Test

Psyc

holo

gy

Not

Spe

cific

NBerger & Lewandowski (2013) • 1

Botello (2014) • 1

Brumfield (2014) • 1

Buzick & Stone (2014) • 1

Cawthon & Leppo (2013) • • • 3

Cawthon et al. (2013a) •a • 2

Finch & Finch (2013a) •b 1

Finch & Finch (2013b) • • 2

Fincher (2013) • 1

Freeman (2013) • • • 3

Higgins & Katz (2013) • 1

Huggins & Elbaum (2013) • 1

Lee & Chen (2014) • 1

Lewandowski et al. (2013) • 1

Li (2014) • • 2

Lin & Lin (2013) • 1

Lin & Lin (2014) • • 2

Lovett (2014) • • 2

May & Stone (2014) • • 2

Meyer & Bouck (2014) • 1

72 NCEO

Authors

Mat

h

Rea

ding

Writ

ing

Oth

er L

A

Scie

nce

Soci

al S

tudi

es

Inte

llige

nce

Test

Psyc

holo

gy

Not

Spe

cific

N

Miller et al. (2013) • 1

Nees & Berry (2013) • • 2

Overton (2013) • 1

Russell (2014) • 1

Smith & Riccomini (2013) • 1

Szarko et al. (2013) • 1

Wadley & Liljequist (2013) • 1

Worland (2014) • 1

Yakubova & Bouck (2014) • 1

Zhang et al. (2014) • 1

TOTAL 14 16 2 3 5 0 1 0 0 41

Note: This table encompasses the subset of studies (n=30) which used assessments or tests on academic con-tent area/s or cognitive skills; studies that were excluded used surveys or other data collection mechanisms only.a In this study, other LA = a state’s English language arts performance score, which was not termed “reading.”b In this study, other LA = a national language achievement test score, which was not termed “reading.”

73NCEO

Appendix D

Participant and Sample Characteristics

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

AuthorsUnit of

AnalysisSample

Size

Percent of Sample with Disabilities

Grade / Edu-cation Level

Disability Types Included in

SampleAbedi & Ewers (2013) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AAlkahtani (2013) Educators 127 0% No age N/ABarnhill (2014) Educators 30 0% No age N/ABerger & Lewandowski (2013) Students 98 31% Postsecondary LD, None

Botello (2014) Students 316 0% Grades 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 None

Brumfield (2014) Students 18 50% Grade 11 LD, None

Buzick & Stone (2014) Students 17442 37%Elementary, Middle school, High school

LD, None

Cawthon & Leppo (2013) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cawthon et al. (2013a) Students 16468 10% Grades 3, 4, & 5 HI, LD, None

Cawthon et al. (2013b) Educators 1350 0% No age N/ACrawford & Ketterlin-Geller (2013) Educators 20 0% No age N/A

Finch & Finch (2013a) Students 5966 11% Grade 3AP, A, EBD, HI, ID, LD, PD, S/L, V/I, Mult., None

Finch & Finch (2013b) Students 2553 21% Grade 3 EBD, ID, LD, S/L, None

Fincher (2013) Students 664 48% Grade 4 AP, A, EBD, HI, ID, LD, PD, S/L, None

Freeman (2013) Students 2404 100% Grades 3-8, 9, 10

A, EBD, HI, ID, LD, PD, S/L, TBI, VI, Mult.

Hawpe (2013) Educators 529 0% No age N/A

Higgins & Katz (2013) Students 229 55% Grades 5-8, 9-12 LD, VI, None

Huggins & Elbaum (2013) Students 191906 15% Grade 5AP, A, EBD, HI, ID, LD, PD, S/L, VI, Mult., None

Ketterlin-Geller et al. (2014) Educators 6 0% No age N/A

74 NCEO

AuthorsUnit of

AnalysisSample

Size




SampleKlehm (2014) Educators 218 0% No age N/ALee & Chen (2014) Students 145 0% Grade 8 None

Leppo et al. (2014) Students 630 100% ages 13-17 AP, A, HI, LD, Mult., VI

Lewandowski et al. (2013) Students 76 34% Postsecondary LD, None

Lewandowski et al. (2014) Students 612 22% Postsecondary AP, EBD, HI, LD, PD, VI, Mult., None

Lewis & Nolan (2013) Educators, Students 102 100% Postsecondary AP, A

Li (2014) Students 114 47%Elementary, Middle school, High school

LD, None

Lin & Lin (2013) Students 114034 2% Grade 6 LD, NoneLin & Lin (2014) Students 8831 45% Grade 6 LD, NoneLovett (2014) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ALovett & Leja (2013) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lyman (2013) Students 16 100% Postsecondary AP, A, EBD, LD, PD, VI

May & Stone (2014) Students 101 29% Postsecondary LD, NoneMay (2013) Educators 231 0% No age N/AMeyer & Bouck (2014) Students 3 100% Grades 7 & 8 LD

Miller et al. (2013) Students 76 50% Postsecondary AP, EBD, LD, Mult., None

Nees & Berry (2013) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Newman & Madaus (2014) Educators, Students 3190 100% High school,

Postsecondary

AP, A, EBD, HI, ID, LD, PD, S/L, VI, Mult.

Overton (2013) Educators, Students 11 100% Grade 5 LD

Russell (2014) Students 42 100% Grades 6, 7, & 8 LD

Schreuer & Sachs (2014) Students 170 100% Postsecondary EBD, HI, PD, VI, Mult.

Smith & Riccomini (2013) Students 254 20% Grades 3, 4, & 5

AP, A, EBD, LD, PD, S/L, Mult., None

Smith (2014) Students 5 100% Postsecondary AP, LD, PD, Mult.

Stein (2013) Students 16 100% Postsecondary AP, EBD, LD, Mult.

Stone et al. (2013) Students 262 100% Grade 8 LD

75NCEO

AuthorsUnit of

AnalysisSample

Size




SampleSzarko et al. (2013) Students 26 100% ages 4-7 A

Torres (2014)Educators, Parents, Students

4 100% Postsecondary A

Wadley & Liljequist (2013) Students 129 47% Postsecondary AP, LD, None

Wizikowski (2013) Students 113 100% Postsecondary A, EBD, HI, ID, LD, PD, VI, Mult.

Worland (2014) Students 63 19% Grades 3 & 5 LD, NoneYakubova & Bouck (2014) Students 5 100% Grade 5 IDYoung (2013) Educators 399 0% No age N/AZebehazy & Wilton (2014) Educators 306 0% No age N/AZhang et al. (2014) Students 118 14% Grades 3-5 LD, None

AP: Attention Problem

A: Autism

EBD: Emotional/Behavioral Disability

HI: Hearing Impairment / Deafness

ID: Intellectual Disability

LD: Learning Disability

PD: Physical Disability

S/L: Speech/Language Disability

TBI: Traumatic Brain Injury

V/I: Visual Impairment / Blindness

Mult.: Multiple Disabilities

None: Students without Disabilities

76 NCEO

77NCEO

Appendix E

Accommodations Studied

Table E-1. Presentation Accommodations Itemized by Study

AuthorsB

raill

e

Cla

rify

Dire

ctio

ns

Com

pute

r A

dmin

istr

atio

n

Exam

iner

Fa

mili

arity

Form

at

Larg

e Pr

int

Botello (2014) 1 Brumfield (2014) Buzick & Stone (2014) Cawthon & Leppo (2013) Finch & Finch (2013a) 1 Finch & Finch (2013b) Fincher (2013) Freeman (2013) 1 Hawpe (2013) 1 Higgins & Katz (2013) 1 Huggins & Elbaum (2013) 1 1Lee & Chen (2014) 1 Lewandowski et al. (2014) 1Li (2014) Lovett & Leja (2013) Meyer & Bouck (2014) 1 Nees & Berry (2013) Overton (2013) Schreuer & Sachs (2014) 1Stone et al. (2013) 1 Szarko et al. (2013) 1 Zhang et al. (2014) TOTAL 1 1 5 1 2 3

78 NCEO

Table E-1 (continued). Presentation Accommodations Itemized by Study

Authors

Rea

d A

loud

/ O

ral D

eliv

ery

Rea

d D

irect

ions

Sign

ed A

dmin

-is

trat

ion

Stud

ent R

ead

Alo

ud

Visu

al C

ues

TOTA

L

Botello (2014) 1Brumfield (2014) 1 1Buzick & Stone (2014) 1 1Cawthon & Leppo (2013) 1 1 2Finch & Finch (2013a) 1 1 3Finch & Finch (2013b) 1 1 2Fincher (2013) 1 1Freeman (2013) 1Hawpe (2013) 1Higgins & Katz (2013) 1 2Huggins & Elbaum (2013) 2Lee & Chen (2014) 1 2Lewandowski et al. (2014) 1 2Li (2014) 1 1Lovett & Leja (2013) 1 1Meyer & Bouck (2014) 1 2Nees & Berry (2013) 1 1Overton (2013) 1 1Schreuer & Sachs (2014) 1 2Stone et al. (2013) 1 2Szarko et al. (2013) 1Zhang et al. (2014) 1 1TOTAL 14 2 1 2 2

79NCEO

Table E-2. Equipment Accommodations Itemized by Study

Authors

Com

pute

r A

dmin

istr

atio

n

Phys

ical

Su

ppor

ts

Scre

en D

ispl

ay

Tech

nolo

gica

l A

id

TOTA

L

Botello (2014) 1 1 2Cawthon & Leppo (2013) 1 1Higgins & Katz (2013) 1 1Huggins & Elbaum (2013) 1 1Lee & Chen (2014) 1 1Meyer & Bouck (2014) 1 1Smith & Riccomini (2013) 1 1Stone et al. (2013) 1 1Zebehazy & Wilton (2014) 1 1TOTAL 5 1 1 3

Table E-3. Response Accommodations Itemized by Study

Authors

Cal

cula

tor

Com

pute

r A

dmin

istr

atio

n

Dic

tate

d R

espo

nse

TOTA

L

Botello (2014) 1 1Finch & Finch (2013a) 1 1Finch & Finch (2013b) 1 1 2Hawpe (2013) 1 1 2Higgins & Katz (2013) 1 1Lee & Chen (2014) 1 1Lewandowski et al. (2014) 1 1Meyer & Bouck (2014) 1 1Russell (2014) 1 1Schreuer & Sachs (2014) 1 1Stone et al. (2013) 1 1Yakubova & Bouck (2014) 1 1TOTAL 4 5 5

80 NCEO

Table E-4. Scheduling Accommodations Itemized by Study

Authors

Exte

nded

Ti

me

Test

Bre

aks

TOTA

L

Barnhill (2014) 1 1Cawthon & Leppo (2013) 1 1Crawford & Ketterlin-Geller (2013) 1 1Finch & Finch (2013a) 1 1Finch & Finch (2013b) 1 1Hawpe (2013) 1 1Huggins & Elbaum (2013) 1 1Lewandowski et al. (2013) 1 1Lewandowski et al. (2014) 1 1 2Lovett & Leja (2013) 1 1May & Stone (2014) 1 1Miller et al. (2013) 1 1Overton (2013) 1 1Schreuer & Sachs (2014) 1 1Smith (2014) 1 1Stein (2013) 1 1Wadley & Liljequist (2013) 1 1TOTAL 17 1

81NCEO

Table E-5. Setting Accommodations Itemized by Study

Authors

Indi

vidu

al

Smal

l Gro

up

Spec

ializ

ed

Setti

ng

TOTA

L

Barnhill (2014) 1 1Finch & Finch (2013a) 1 1Finch & Finch (2013b) 1 1Lewandowski et al. (2014) 1 1Lewis & Nolan (2013) 1 1 1 3Lin & Lin (2013) 1 1Lin & Lin (2014) 1 1Lovett & Leja (2013) 1 1Overton (2013) 1 1Smith (2014) 1 1Stein (2013) 1 1TOTAL 3 1 9

82 NCEO

83NCEO

Appendix F

Findings

84 NCEO

Tab

le F

-1. A

cco

mm

od

atio

ns

Fin

din

gs

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Abe

di &

Ew

ers

(201

3)

The

auth

ors

high

light

ed fi

ve m

ajor

cha

ract

eris

tics

need

ed fo

r acc

omm

odat

ions

: effe

c-tiv

enes

s, v

alid

ity, d

iffer

entia

l im

pact

, rel

evan

ce, a

nd fe

asib

ility

. Acc

omm

odat

ions

nee

d to

rend

er a

sses

smen

ts e

ffect

ivel

y m

ore

acce

ssib

le to

test

-take

rs, i

nclu

ding

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s. T

est c

onst

ruct

s ne

ed to

be

valid

ly a

sses

sed,

and

acc

omm

odat

ions

ne

ed n

ot a

lter t

he c

onst

ruct

s. A

ccom

mod

atio

ns n

eed

to h

ave

a di

ffere

ntia

l im

pact

for

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties,

and

be

sens

itive

to e

ach

stud

ent’s

bac

kgro

und.

Acc

omm

o-da

tions

nee

d to

be

inte

ntio

nally

rele

vant

to te

st-ta

kers

. Acc

omm

odat

ions

nee

d to

be

feas

ible

to p

rovi

de d

urin

g te

st a

dmin

istra

tion.

The

aut

hors

em

phas

ized

the

impo

rtanc

e of

acc

omm

odat

ions

’ effe

ctiv

enes

s in

that

they

nee

d to

be

supp

orte

d by

rese

arch

—an

d va

lidity

—to

allo

w fo

r the

sta

tes’

acc

ount

abili

ty fo

r stu

dent

lear

ning

. The

impl

icat

ions

of

thes

e ch

arac

teris

tics

for r

ecom

men

ded

acco

mm

odat

ions

, esp

ecia

lly b

alan

cing

ef-

fect

iven

ess

and

valid

ity, w

ere

exam

ined

in c

onsi

dera

tion

of th

e st

ates

of t

he S

mar

ter

Bal

ance

d A

sses

smen

t Con

sorti

um.

X

Alk

ahta

ni

(201

3)

The

rese

arch

er re

porte

d th

at le

ss th

an 1

0% o

f sur

vey

resp

onde

nts

had

requ

este

d as

sist

ive

tech

nolo

gy e

valu

atio

ns fo

r stu

dent

s or

con

side

red

assi

stiv

e te

chno

logy

(AT)

w

hen

plan

ning

stu

dent

s’ IE

Ps,

and

less

than

10%

indi

cate

d av

aila

bilit

y of

AT

devi

ces

in th

e sc

hool

s, w

heth

er lo

w-te

ch, m

ediu

m-te

ch, o

r hig

h-te

ch. M

ost r

espo

nden

ts (a

bout

94

%) a

lso

rate

d th

eir d

egre

e of

kno

wle

dge

as m

ostly

low

, and

mos

t (ab

out 9

4%) e

sti-

mat

ed th

eir p

repa

ratio

n to

pro

vide

stu

dent

s w

ith A

T as

poo

r or a

bsen

t, w

ith a

bout

two

perc

ent h

avin

g ha

d co

urse

s on

AT

and

abou

t six

per

cent

hav

ing

one

or tw

o AT

wor

k-sh

op o

r tra

inin

gs. M

ost r

espo

nden

ts (8

4%) e

ndor

sed

high

inte

rest

in re

ceiv

ing

train

-in

g ab

out A

T, w

ith p

refe

renc

es fo

r ind

ivid

ualiz

ed o

r gro

up h

ands

-on

train

ing,

and

for

wor

ksho

ps o

r con

fere

nce

sess

ions

(ove

r for

mal

ized

cou

rsew

ork)

. Slig

htly

mor

e th

an

50 p

erce

nt o

f res

pond

ents

resp

onde

d ne

utra

lly to

sta

tem

ents

abo

ut a

ssis

tive

tech

nol-

ogy

eith

er h

elpi

ng o

r hin

derin

g le

arni

ng, w

hile

few

dis

agre

ed th

at A

T he

lps

and

few

ag

reed

that

AT

hind

ers

stud

ents

. Mos

t (70

%) r

espo

nded

neu

trally

to th

e pr

oble

m th

at

AT is

exc

essi

vely

tim

e-co

nsum

ing,

with

12

perc

ent a

gree

ing

and

13 p

erce

nt d

isag

ree-

ing.

The

inte

rvie

wee

s co

nfirm

ed th

e th

emes

that

they

wan

t and

nee

d m

ore

AT in

form

a-tio

n. T

he in

terv

iew

ees’

com

men

ts a

lso

refle

cted

the

mix

ed p

erce

ptio

n of

AT

devi

ces

as

bene

fittin

g st

uden

ts’ a

cces

s to

the

curr

icul

um b

ut a

lso

build

ing

over

-dep

ende

nce

on A

T fo

r lea

rnin

g.

E

X

85NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Bar

nhill

(201

4)

Sur

vey

resu

lts p

rovi

ded

info

rmat

ion

abou

t cur

rent

sup

port

prac

tices

for s

tude

nts

with

A

sper

ger S

yndr

ome

(AS

) and

aut

ism

spe

ctru

m d

isor

der (

AS

D).

Two

of th

e m

ost c

om-

mon

sup

ports

—pr

ovid

ed b

y 29

of t

he 3

0 in

stitu

tions

—fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith A

S a

nd A

SD

w

ere

the

exam

inat

ion

acco

mm

odat

ions

of e

xten

ded

time

and

alte

rnat

e si

te. S

ome

also

pr

ovid

ed o

ral d

eliv

ery

of e

xam

inat

ions

.

X

Ber

ger &

Le

wan

dow

ski

(201

3)

The

wor

d-pr

oces

sing

resp

onse

form

at w

as e

xpec

ted

to re

sult

in a

sig

nific

antly

larg

er

impr

ovem

ent o

ver t

he h

andw

ritte

n fo

rmat

for s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties,

in

com

paris

on to

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t lea

rnin

g di

sabi

litie

s; h

owev

er, t

his

resu

lt di

d no

t occ

ur.

Sco

res

for e

ssay

s pr

oduc

ed u

sing

wor

d-pr

oces

sing

wer

e hi

gher

than

han

dwrit

ten

essa

ys fo

r bot

h st

uden

ts w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s an

d st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

Fu

rther

, it w

as e

xpec

ted

that

the

wor

d-pr

oces

sing

resp

onse

form

at w

ould

resu

lt in

di

ffere

ntia

lly lo

nger

ess

ays,

by

tota

l wor

d co

unt,

for s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

than

for s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s, in

com

paris

on to

eac

h gr

oup’

s ha

ndw

ritte

n es

-sa

ys. H

owev

er, t

he re

sult

was

that

bot

h st

uden

ts w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s an

d st

uden

ts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s pr

oduc

ed lo

nger

wor

d-pr

oces

sed

essa

ys, a

nd th

e in

crea

sed

leng

th

was

sim

ilar b

etw

een

the

parti

cipa

nt g

roup

s. F

inal

ly, it

was

hyp

othe

size

d th

at s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

wou

ld s

pend

mor

e tim

e w

orki

ng o

n es

says

(with

the

10-m

in-

ute

limit)

than

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties,

no

mat

ter w

hich

test

resp

onse

form

at w

as

used

. Ins

tead

, the

resu

lt w

as th

at b

oth

grou

ps to

ok s

imila

r am

ount

s of

tim

e on

ave

rage

fo

r han

dwrit

ten

essa

ys—

with

mos

t stu

dent

s us

ing

the

entir

e 10

min

utes

. In

cont

rast

, si

gnifi

cant

ly fe

wer

stu

dent

s w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s us

ed th

e en

tire

time

than

did

st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

whe

n pr

oduc

ing

essa

ys u

sing

wor

d-pr

oces

sing

. Sur

vey

re-

sults

indi

cate

d th

at b

oth

stud

ents

with

and

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s pr

efer

red

wor

d-pr

oces

s-in

g ov

er h

andw

ritin

g to

a s

imila

r deg

ree

(74%

of b

oth

grou

ps) a

nd th

at 6

1% o

f stu

dent

s in

bot

h gr

oups

indi

cate

d th

at ty

ping

was

eas

ier t

han

hand

writ

ing

thei

r ess

ays.

US

86 NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Bot

ello

(201

4)

Com

paris

ons

betw

een

grou

p m

eans

of e

lem

enta

ry s

tude

nts

(com

bini

ng s

tude

nts

with

an

d w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

in g

ener

al e

duca

tion

setti

ng) r

ecei

ving

eac

h of

the

com

pute

r sc

reen

col

or c

ondi

tions

wer

e co

mpl

eted

for e

ach

of th

e fo

ur g

rade

s’ a

dmin

istra

tions

of

the

read

ing

com

preh

ensi

on a

sses

smen

t, yi

eldi

ng th

at th

ere

wer

e no

sig

nific

ant

diffe

renc

es in

mea

n en

gage

men

t beh

avio

r sco

res

betw

een

stud

ents

in th

e te

stin

g co

nditi

ons.

Als

o, th

e re

sear

cher

com

pare

d st

uden

t gro

ups’

per

form

ance

s ac

ross

the

four

test

ing

sess

ions

thro

ugho

ut th

e ye

ar fo

r eac

h gr

ade,

and

foun

d no

sig

nific

ant

diffe

renc

es in

the

mea

n re

adin

g co

mpr

ehen

sion

sco

res

for s

tude

nts

in e

ach

scre

en

and

prin

t col

or c

ondi

tion.

Fin

ally,

a m

ean

com

paris

on w

as d

one

for a

ll re

adin

g sc

ores

in

the

blac

k sc

reen

/whi

te p

rint a

nd in

the

whi

te s

cree

n/bl

ack

prin

t con

ditio

ns, a

nd n

o si

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ces

in c

ompr

ehen

sion

wer

e de

tect

ed. D

espi

te th

e po

ssib

ility

that

bl

ack

scre

ens

with

whi

te p

rint c

ould

pro

vide

a b

enefi

t to

stud

ents

ove

r the

typi

cal w

hite

sc

reen

s w

ith b

lack

prin

t, no

diff

eren

ces

reac

hed

sign

ifica

nt le

vels

.

U

R

Bru

mfie

ld

(201

4)

The

stud

ent p

artic

ipan

ts w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s sc

ored

sig

nific

antly

hig

her o

n th

e sc

ienc

e gr

adua

tion

(hig

h sc

hool

) ass

essm

ent i

tem

s w

hen

rece

ivin

g th

e or

al a

dmin

is-

tratio

n (“

read

-alo

ud”)

acc

omm

odat

ion

than

whe

n no

t doi

ng s

o. S

tude

nts

with

out d

is-

abili

ties

did

not s

core

sig

nific

antly

diff

eren

tly w

heth

er p

rovi

ded

read

-alo

ud o

r not

. The

re

wer

e no

inte

ract

ions

bet

wee

n st

uden

t dis

abili

ty (o

r not

) con

ditio

n an

d ac

com

mod

atio

n (o

r not

) con

ditio

n.

O

S

Buz

ick

&

Sto

ne (2

014)

The

met

a-an

alys

is’ e

ffect

siz

es in

dica

ted

that

read

-alo

ud (o

r ora

l-del

iver

y) a

ccom

mo-

datio

ns s

uppo

rt K

-12

stud

ents

bot

h w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

in h

ighe

r ach

ieve

men

t in

read

ing

and

to a

less

er e

xten

t, m

athe

mat

ics.

Fur

ther

, rea

ding

sco

re d

iffer

ence

s w

ere

larg

er fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s th

an fo

r stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

The

rese

arch

-er

s al

so d

iscu

ssed

that

gra

de le

vel a

nd th

e m

anne

r by

whi

ch th

e or

al d

eliv

ery

acco

m-

mod

atio

ns w

ere

pres

ente

d w

ere

fact

ors

cont

ribut

ing

to v

aria

tion

in e

ffect

siz

es.

O

M

,R

87NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Caw

thon

&

Lepp

o (2

013)

Man

y of

the

stud

ies

in th

is ra

ndom

-effe

cts

met

a-an

alys

is o

f 19

stud

ies

exam

ined

the

effe

cts

of a

sses

smen

ts a

dmin

iste

red

in A

mer

ican

sig

n la

ngua

ge (A

SL)

in c

ompa

rison

w

ith E

nglis

h pr

int,

ofte

n re

sulti

ng in

littl

e ef

fect

of A

SL

on s

core

s fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith d

eaf-

ness

or h

earin

g im

pairm

ent,

incl

udin

g fro

m e

lem

enta

ry s

choo

l thr

ough

the

post

seco

nd-

ary

leve

l. A

sign

ifica

nt c

ompl

icat

ion

limiti

ng c

lear

find

ings

was

tran

slat

ion

of te

sts

from

E

nglis

h in

to A

SL.

How

ever

, one

stu

dy a

ckno

wle

dged

a p

ositi

ve c

orre

latio

n be

twee

n tw

o fa

ctor

s, A

SL

use

in c

lass

room

s an

d E

nglis

h re

adin

g pr

ofici

ency

, and

resu

lting

as

sess

men

t sco

res.

Add

ition

ally,

AS

L ad

min

istra

tion

with

AS

L re

spon

ding

by

stud

ents

w

as s

how

n in

stu

dies

to y

ield

low

er s

core

s th

an E

nglis

h-pr

inte

d te

sts.

The

rese

arch

ers

note

d th

at A

SL

was

dem

onst

rate

d no

t to

be c

entra

l to

faci

litat

ing

asse

ssm

ent a

cces

s fo

r pos

tsec

onda

ry s

tude

nts.

Ass

essm

ents

usi

ng d

igita

l pla

tform

s ex

pand

ed fo

rmat

op

tions

for a

ccom

mod

atio

ns (e

.g.,

beyo

nd in

-per

son

AS

L in

terp

reta

tion)

; the

se o

ther

fo

rmat

s w

ere

dete

rmin

ed to

be

equa

lly v

alid

and

not

cha

ngin

g ac

adem

ic c

onst

ruct

s.

Test

-rel

ated

fact

ors,

suc

h as

item

form

at (c

onst

ruct

ed-r

espo

nse,

e.g

., es

say;

and

se-

lect

ed-r

espo

nse,

e.g

., m

ultip

le c

hoic

e), a

nd it

em d

ifficu

lty, a

nd s

tude

nt-r

elat

ed fa

ctor

s,

such

as

degr

ee o

f AS

L pr

ofici

ency

and

leve

l of h

earin

g lo

ss, w

ere

desc

ribed

thro

ugh

deta

iled

revi

ew o

f the

stu

dies

exa

min

ed.

U

XR

Caw

thon

et a

l. (2

013a

)

The

stud

y co

mpr

ised

a s

econ

dary

dat

a an

alys

is, a

fter i

tem

dev

elop

men

t (w

ith a

dapt

a-tio

n of

item

s), s

calin

g, a

nd d

iffer

entia

l ite

m fu

nctio

ning

wer

e al

read

y co

mpl

eted

. Com

-pa

rison

s of

stu

dent

per

form

ance

mea

ns o

n st

anda

rd it

ems

and

adap

ted

item

s w

ere

mad

e at

gra

des

3, 4

, and

5 fo

r stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

and

stud

ents

with

lear

ning

di

sabi

litie

s (L

D) a

nd s

tude

nts

with

HI (

hear

ing

impa

irmen

ts).

Add

ition

ally,

the

mea

n sc

ores

for e

ach

of th

e ad

apta

tions

wer

e re

porte

d fo

r the

par

ticip

ant g

roup

s. G

roup

pe

rform

ance

com

paris

ons

yiel

ded

that

, in

grad

es 4

and

5, s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s an

d st

uden

ts w

ith H

I sco

red

sign

ifica

ntly

bet

ter i

n bo

th s

cien

ce a

nd E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge

arts

than

stu

dent

s w

ith L

D. W

hen

com

parin

g sc

ores

by

item

form

ats,

in g

rade

3,

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s sc

ored

sim

ilarly

on

both

sta

ndar

d an

d ad

apte

d ite

ms,

but

st

uden

ts w

ith H

I and

LD

sco

red

bette

r on

adap

ted

item

s th

an s

tand

ard

item

s. A

ll gr

ade

4 st

uden

ts—

with

or w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties—

perfo

rmed

bet

ter o

n th

e ad

apte

d ite

ms

than

th

e st

anda

rd it

ems,

and

all

grad

e 5

stud

ents

—w

ith o

r with

out d

isab

ilitie

s—pe

rform

ed

bette

r on

the

stan

dard

item

s th

an th

e ad

apte

d ite

ms.

U

R

,S

R,S

88 NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Caw

thon

et a

l. (2

013b

)

The

acco

mm

odat

ions

mos

t com

mon

ly re

porte

d by

sec

onda

ry a

nd p

osts

econ

dary

edu

-ca

tors

and

ser

vice

pro

vide

rs fo

r the

ir st

uden

ts in

clud

ed in

terp

rete

rs (7

5%),

capt

ioni

ng

med

ia (6

4%),

and

soun

d am

plifi

catio

n (6

3%).

The

setti

ngs

in w

hich

acc

omm

odat

ions

us

e in

cide

nce

wer

e re

porte

d in

clud

ed a

t the

sec

onda

ry le

vel—

with

82%

usi

ng c

aptio

n-in

g an

d 81

% u

sing

inte

rpre

ters

—an

d po

stse

cond

ary

leve

l—w

ith 9

2% u

sing

inte

rpre

t-er

s an

d 76

% u

sing

cap

tioni

ng. T

he p

rovi

sion

of i

nter

pret

ers

by v

ideo

rem

ote

was

ver

y un

com

mon

at t

he s

econ

dary

leve

l but

muc

h m

ore

com

mon

at t

he p

osts

econ

dary

leve

l, an

d th

e re

sear

cher

s no

ted

the

pote

ntia

l for

stu

dent

s tra

nsiti

onin

g to

pos

tsec

onda

ry

educ

atio

n se

tting

s to

ben

efit f

rom

bei

ng o

rient

ed to

tech

nolo

gy re

sour

ces.

The

re-

sear

cher

s in

dica

ted

that

par

ticip

ants

end

orse

d so

me

acco

mm

odat

ions

as

both

hig

h in

qu

ality

and

hig

h in

con

sist

ency

, inc

ludi

ng in

terp

rete

r, ca

ptio

ning

, and

spe

ech

to te

xt.

E

X

X

Cra

wfo

rd

& K

ette

rlin-

Gel

ler (

2013

)

The

mos

t com

mon

ly u

sed

acco

mm

odat

ions

, rep

orte

d by

mos

t mid

dle

scho

ol s

peci

al

educ

atio

n te

ache

rs a

nd d

irect

ors,

wer

e ex

tend

ed ti

me,

sep

arat

e se

tting

, sm

all g

roup

ad

min

istra

tion,

dire

ctio

ns a

nd/o

r ite

ms

read

-alo

ud, a

nd fr

eque

nt b

reak

s. M

any

of th

e te

ache

rs (7

0%) i

ndic

ated

that

acc

omm

odat

ions

wer

e ef

fect

ive

for t

heir

stud

ents

. Onl

y a

coup

le te

ache

rs m

ade

deci

sion

s al

one,

with

90%

repo

rted

IEP

team

invo

lvem

ent;

only

on

e te

ache

r sou

ght i

nput

from

stu

dent

s. T

he re

sear

cher

s re

porte

d th

at a

ssig

nmen

t of

acco

mm

odat

ions

typi

cally

did

not

dra

w o

n st

uden

t dat

a, w

ith o

nly

thre

e te

ache

rs in

di-

catin

g da

ta w

ere

used

, and

that

mor

e of

ten,

con

veni

ence

and

teac

hers

’ int

uitio

n an

d ju

dgm

ent w

ere

prim

ary

fact

ors.

Whe

n di

scus

sing

ratio

nale

for a

ccom

mod

atio

ns d

eci-

sion

s, n

early

all

(n=1

8) te

ache

rs re

porte

d pr

oced

ural

ans

wer

s in

clud

ing

stat

e po

licie

s;

with

out s

tate

pol

icie

s an

d pr

oced

ures

, nin

e te

ache

rs in

dica

ted

that

they

wou

ld te

st

stud

ents

at t

heir

inst

ruct

iona

l lev

el ra

ther

than

thei

r gra

de le

vel.

Onl

y th

ree

teac

hers

in

dica

ted

that

the

purp

ose

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns w

as a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith te

st s

core

val

idity

an

d co

mpa

rabi

lity,

and

mos

t ide

ntifi

ed a

ccom

mod

atio

ns’ e

ffect

on

stud

ents

’ wel

l-bei

ng,

such

as

thei

r em

otio

nal s

tate

and

sel

f-est

eem

.

E

X

89NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Finc

h &

Fin

ch

(201

3a)

Nat

iona

l lan

guag

e ac

hiev

emen

t ass

essm

ent d

ata

for g

rade

3 s

tude

nts

with

and

with

-ou

t dis

abili

ties

coul

d be

repr

esen

ted

by fi

ve d

istin

ct re

spon

se p

atte

rns,

with

two

dist

inct

se

ts a

t the

sch

ool l

evel

. Stu

dent

s in

the

high

est-p

erfo

rmin

g gr

oup

had

the

low

est o

ver-

all d

isab

ility

rate

, and

stu

dent

s in

the

low

est-p

erfo

rmin

g gr

oup

had

the

high

est o

vera

ll di

sabi

lity

rate

. Stu

dent

s in

the

mid

dle

thre

e pe

rform

ance

leve

l gro

ups

had

sim

ilar

over

all d

isab

ility

rate

s. T

hese

tren

ds in

the

asso

ciat

ion

betw

een

perfo

rman

ce a

nd p

res-

ence

of d

isab

ilitie

s w

as n

ot c

onne

cted

with

any

spe

cific

dis

abili

ty ty

pes

or c

ateg

orie

s.

Sim

ilarly

, hig

her-

perfo

rmin

g st

uden

t gro

ups

had

low

er in

cide

nce

of b

eing

pro

vide

d ac

-co

mm

odat

ions

, whi

ch th

e re

sear

cher

s co

nnec

ted

to th

e po

int t

hat r

ecei

ving

acc

omm

o-da

tions

is a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith h

avin

g di

sabi

litie

s. T

he m

ultil

evel

Ras

ch m

ixtu

re m

odel

dat

a sh

owed

that

ther

e w

ere

patte

rns

at th

e sc

hool

leve

l, hi

gher

and

low

er a

chie

vem

ent,

and

that

the

high

er-a

chie

ving

sch

ools

had

low

er in

cide

nce

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

in g

ener

al a

nd s

peci

fic d

isab

ilitie

s in

par

ticul

ar. L

ower

-ach

ievi

ng s

choo

ls h

ad h

ighe

r pr

opor

tions

of s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

and

inte

llect

ual d

isab

ilitie

s, a

nd s

tu-

dent

s re

ceiv

ed e

xten

ded

time

and

oral

del

iver

y of

test

dire

ctio

ns a

t hig

her r

ates

. The

re

sear

cher

s co

nclu

ded

that

, whe

n ex

amin

ing

diffe

rent

ial i

tem

func

tioni

ng re

late

d to

dis

-ab

ilitie

s an

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns u

se, t

he m

ultil

evel

Ras

ch m

ixtu

re m

odel

dem

onst

rate

s be

nefit

s.

A

R

R

Finc

h &

Fin

ch

(201

3b)

The

exam

inee

-leve

l lat

ent c

lass

es in

clud

ed s

tude

nts

with

hig

h m

ean

perfo

rman

ce o

n bo

th m

ath

and

read

ing;

stu

dent

s w

ith lo

w m

ean

perfo

rman

ce o

n bo

th m

ath

and

read

-in

g, a

nd w

ho h

ave

high

er in

cide

nce

of m

ath

and

read

ing

disa

bilit

ies

and

of re

ceiv

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

; and

stu

dent

s w

ith h

igh

mat

h an

d lo

w re

adin

g pe

rform

ance

, who

ha

d hi

gher

inci

denc

e of

read

ing

disa

bilit

ies

than

the

first

gro

up. S

ever

al it

ems

in b

oth

asse

ssm

ents

exh

ibite

d di

ffere

ntia

l ite

m fu

nctio

ning

(DIF

) for

at l

east

two

late

nt c

lass

es,

sugg

estin

g va

lidity

con

cern

s. T

he re

sear

cher

s co

nclu

ded

that

the

mod

el u

sed

in th

is

anal

ysis

, as

appl

ied

to th

e ex

amin

ee-le

vel d

ata,

per

mitt

ed s

imul

tane

ous

anal

yses

of

diffe

rent

aca

dem

ic c

onst

ruct

s w

hich

per

mitt

ed a

cle

arer

dem

onst

ratio

n of

the

com

plex

pi

ctur

e of

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s, th

eir p

erfo

rman

ce, a

nd th

e co

nnec

tions

with

ac-

cess

to s

peci

fic a

ccom

mod

atio

ns.

A

M

,R

M,R

90 NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Finc

her (

2013

)

Gra

de 4

stu

dent

s (b

oth

with

and

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s) re

ceiv

ing

oral

del

iver

y ac

com

mo-

datio

ns s

core

d si

gnifi

cant

ly h

ighe

r in

read

ing

than

stu

dent

s no

t rec

eivi

ng a

ccom

mod

a-tio

ns a

cros

s al

l rea

ding

ski

ll le

vels

. Fur

ther

, stu

dent

s w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

who

ha

d po

or re

adin

g sk

ills

(vs.

ave

rage

and

abo

ve-a

vera

ge re

ader

s) h

ad th

e si

gnifi

cant

ly

larg

est d

iffer

ence

s in

sco

res

betw

een

thos

e re

ceiv

ing

and

not r

ecei

ving

acc

omm

oda-

tions

. Stu

dent

s w

hose

teac

hers

rate

d th

em a

s ha

ving

mild

dis

abili

ties

scor

ed s

igni

fi-ca

ntly

hig

hest

, whe

ther

rece

ivin

g or

not

rece

ivin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns, t

han

stud

ents

with

m

oder

ate

or p

rofo

und

disa

bilit

y ra

tings

. Whe

ther

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s re

ceiv

ed

spec

ific

deco

ding

inte

rven

tions

did

not

see

m to

be

a fa

ctor

in d

iffer

ence

sco

res.

S

tude

nts

rece

ivin

g or

al d

eliv

ery

who

spe

nt m

ore

than

hal

f of t

heir

acad

emic

tim

e in

ge

nera

l edu

catio

n ha

d a

larg

er s

core

gai

n, o

n av

erag

e, th

an s

tude

nts

who

spe

nt le

ss

than

hal

f of t

heir

acad

emic

tim

e in

gen

eral

edu

catio

n. F

inal

ly, s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

prov

ided

ora

l del

iver

y m

ade

larg

er s

core

impr

ovem

ents

whe

n th

ey re

ceiv

ed o

n-gr

ade-

leve

l ins

truct

ion,

com

pare

d to

stu

dent

s w

ho re

ceiv

ed b

elow

-gra

de-le

vel i

nstru

ctio

n.

O

R

Free

man

(2

013)

The

rese

arch

er re

porte

d si

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ces

in th

e th

ree

com

paris

ons

of g

roup

as-

sess

men

t dat

a. T

he p

erfo

rman

ce o

f all

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

taki

ng a

sses

smen

ts

with

thre

e re

spon

se o

ptio

ns w

ere

high

er th

an th

e sc

ores

on

asse

ssm

ents

with

four

re

spon

se o

ptio

ns. W

hen

data

wer

e an

alyz

ed b

y sc

hool

ing

leve

l, th

e co

mpa

rison

s be

twee

n sc

ores

of a

sses

smen

ts w

ith th

ree

optio

ns in

dica

ted

they

wer

e hi

gher

than

sc

ores

of a

sses

smen

ts w

ith fo

ur o

ptio

ns a

t the

ele

men

tary

leve

l, th

e m

iddl

e sc

hool

le

vel,

and

the

high

sch

ool l

evel

. Whe

n da

ta w

ere

anal

yzed

by

acad

emic

con

tent

, as-

sess

men

t sco

res

for t

he th

ree

resp

onse

opt

ion

test

s w

ere

high

er th

an th

e sc

ores

for

the

four

resp

onse

opt

ion

test

s fo

r all

thre

e co

nten

t are

as: m

ath,

read

ing,

and

sci

ence

.

U

M

,R,S

91NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Haw

pe (2

013)

Sec

onda

ry te

ache

rs’ g

roup

sur

vey

resp

onse

mea

ns a

bout

thei

r will

ingn

ess

to p

rovi

de

vario

us a

ccom

mod

atio

ns a

nd m

odifi

catio

ns fo

r the

ir st

uden

ts w

ere

calc

ulat

ed, a

nd

com

pare

d w

ith th

e ne

utra

l res

pons

e, th

e m

id-p

oint

in th

e ra

nge

of p

ossi

ble

resp

onse

s.

All

of th

e re

spon

ses

wer

e si

gnifi

cant

ly a

bove

ave

rage

, ind

icat

ing

that

the

tend

ency

was

fo

r res

pond

ents

to e

ndor

se u

sing

acc

omm

odat

ions

, inc

ludi

ng: a

ltern

ativ

e fo

rms

of e

x-am

s, re

phra

sing

s of

test

item

s, e

xtra

test

tim

e, s

tude

nt d

icta

tion

of a

nsw

ers

to a

per

son

reco

rdin

g th

e re

spon

ses,

ora

l res

pons

es to

ess

ay q

uest

ions

, cal

cula

tors

, and

no

scor

e di

ffere

nces

for s

truct

ural

err

ors

(pun

ctua

tion,

spe

lling

, and

gra

mm

ar).

As

for m

odifi

ca-

tions

, the

ave

rage

resp

onse

was

sig

nific

antly

diff

eren

t tha

n th

e ne

utra

l res

pons

e fo

r aw

ards

of p

artia

l cre

dit f

or p

roce

ss (s

epar

ate

from

fina

l sol

utio

n), b

ut n

ot s

igni

fican

tly

diffe

rent

from

the

neut

ral r

espo

nse

for a

djus

tmen

ts to

gra

ding

crit

eria

to a

ssis

t stu

-de

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

to p

ass.

Whe

n di

vers

e as

pect

s of

the

resp

onde

nt g

roup

wer

e co

mpa

red

for d

iffer

ence

s in

will

ingn

ess

to p

rovi

de a

ccom

mod

atio

ns a

nd m

odifi

catio

ns,

som

e re

spon

se d

iffer

ence

s w

ere

dete

cted

for a

sses

smen

t acc

omm

odat

ions

. Spe

cial

ed

ucat

ion

teac

hers

wer

e m

ore

will

ing

than

gen

eral

edu

catio

n te

ache

rs to

pro

vide

al

tern

ativ

e fo

rms

of te

sts,

to a

llow

stu

dent

ora

l res

pons

es to

ess

ay it

ems,

and

to a

llow

ca

lcul

ator

s du

ring

test

ing.

Tea

cher

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ere

mor

e w

illin

g th

an te

ache

rs

with

no

disa

bilit

ies

to p

rovi

de d

iffer

ent t

est f

orm

s, a

nd to

allo

w c

alcu

lato

rs d

urin

g te

st-

ing.

Reg

ardi

ng te

st m

odifi

catio

ns, s

peci

al e

duca

tion

teac

hers

wer

e m

ore

will

ing

than

ge

nera

l edu

catio

n te

ache

rs to

adj

ust g

radi

ng c

riter

ia to

hel

p st

uden

ts p

ass.

Add

ition

al

gend

er a

nd g

rade

-leve

l lin

ks w

ith w

illin

gnes

s to

pro

vide

spe

cific

acc

omm

odat

ions

wer

e re

porte

d. O

n av

erag

e, th

e re

spon

dent

gro

up a

s a

who

le h

ad p

ositi

ve a

ttitu

des

tow

ard

peop

le w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s, y

et th

ere

wer

e no

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

s ba

sed

on g

ende

r, sc

hool

leve

l tau

ght,

teac

hing

ass

ignm

ent,

teac

hers

’ per

sona

l dis

abili

ty, o

r fam

ily m

em-

bers

with

or w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

Cor

rela

tiona

l ana

lyse

s be

twee

n w

illin

gnes

s to

pro

vide

ac

com

mod

atio

ns o

r mod

ifica

tions

and

atti

tude

tow

ard

peop

le w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s de

m-

onst

rate

d re

latio

nshi

ps b

etw

een

the

fact

ors

in s

peci

fic in

stan

ces.

For

inst

ance

, the

re

wer

e w

eak,

but

sig

nific

ant,

corr

elat

ion

betw

een

posi

tive

attit

ude

tow

ard

peop

le w

ith

disa

bilit

ies

and

incr

ease

d w

illin

gnes

s to

allo

w s

tude

nt o

ral r

espo

nses

to e

ssay

que

s-tio

ns, t

o al

low

cal

cula

tor u

se d

urin

g te

stin

g, a

nd to

no

scor

e di

ffere

nces

whe

n st

uden

ts

mad

e st

ruct

ural

err

ors

in c

ompo

sitio

ns.

E

X

92 NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Hig

gins

& K

atz

(201

3)

Ana

lysi

s of

the

mat

h pe

rform

ance

dat

a fro

m m

iddl

e sc

hool

and

hig

h sc

hool

stu

dent

s w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t spe

cific

dis

abili

ties

indi

cate

d th

at th

e st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

varie

d as

to w

hich

type

of a

udio

pre

sent

atio

n (li

tera

l or i

nter

pret

ive)

sho

wed

hig

her

scor

es o

n av

erag

e, a

cros

s di

ffere

nt ty

pes

of it

ems—

thos

e co

ntai

ning

par

enth

eses

, ex

pone

nts,

tabl

es, a

nd g

raph

s. D

espi

te th

is v

aria

tion,

onl

y on

e sc

orin

g di

ffere

nce

was

si

gnifi

cant

: stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

scor

ed s

igni

fican

tly b

ette

r whe

n pr

esen

ted

with

th

e lit

eral

form

for p

aren

thes

es (“

open

/clo

se p

aren

thes

es”)

. Stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s sh

owed

a s

imila

r pat

tern

, sco

ring

sign

ifica

ntly

bet

ter o

n pa

rent

hese

s ite

ms

with

the

liter

al fo

rm o

f aud

io p

rese

ntat

ion.

A d

iffer

ent p

atte

rn e

mer

ges

but n

ot to

a le

vel o

f sta

-tis

tical

sig

nific

ance

, for

the

othe

r typ

es o

f ite

ms

for s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties.

Reg

ardi

ng

stud

ent p

refe

renc

es a

bout

the

audi

o sc

ript,

the

view

s of

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

and

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

wer

e m

ostly

sim

ilar,

but s

omet

imes

diff

eren

t. D

urin

g th

e su

rvey

s, m

ajor

ities

of a

ll st

uden

ts (w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties)

pre

ferr

ed th

e in

terp

re-

tive

form

for e

xpon

ents

and

tabl

es a

nd th

e lit

eral

form

for p

aren

thes

es. H

owev

er, a

m

ajor

ity (6

9%) o

f stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s pr

efer

red

the

liter

al fo

rm o

f the

gra

phs

with

ke

ys it

ems.

In c

ontra

st, a

bout

hal

f of t

he s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s pr

efer

red

eith

er

the

liter

al o

r int

erpr

etiv

e fo

rm fo

r gra

phs

with

key

s. T

he in

terv

iew

dat

a sh

owed

a fe

w

maj

or th

emes

. Stu

dy p

artic

ipan

ts e

xpre

ssed

com

fort

with

usi

ng th

e co

mpu

ter p

latfo

rm

and

the

embe

dded

ora

l del

iver

y so

ftwar

e to

acc

ess

the

asse

ssm

ent i

tem

s. T

he te

st

item

con

tent

, at g

rade

leve

l, w

as c

halle

ngin

g to

par

ticip

ants

. Som

e pa

rtici

pant

s in

di-

cate

d th

at th

ey w

ere

unaw

are,

unt

il it

was

poi

nted

out

, tha

t the

re w

as a

nyth

ing

diffe

rent

ab

out t

he w

ay th

e ite

ms

wer

e pr

esen

ted.

Par

ticip

ants

als

o in

dica

ted

thei

r tho

ught

s an

d re

ason

s fo

r the

ir pr

efer

ence

s fo

r spe

cific

lite

ral o

r int

erpr

etiv

e ite

m fo

rms.

US

M

93NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Hug

gins

& E

l-ba

um (2

013)

Gra

de 5

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

scor

ed h

ighe

st, o

n av

erag

e, a

s a

grou

p on

sta

te

scie

nce

asse

ssm

ents

; the

nex

t-hig

hest

sco

res

wer

e fro

m th

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ho d

id n

ot re

ceiv

e va

rious

IEP

-iden

tified

acc

omm

odat

ions

, and

the

low

est-s

corin

g gr

oup

was

the

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

usin

g th

eir t

ypic

al a

ccom

mod

atio

ns. T

he

rese

arch

ers

note

d th

at th

is s

tudy

use

d ex

tant

dat

a an

d di

d no

t con

trol a

sses

smen

t co

nditi

ons,

and

mea

n ab

ility

diff

eren

ces

appe

ar to

hav

e co

nfou

nded

thes

e fin

ding

s.

How

ever

, the

pur

pose

of t

he s

tudy

was

to a

pply

“sco

re e

quity

ass

essm

ent”

in o

rder

to

asc

erta

in b

oth

com

para

bilit

y an

d eq

uity

of s

core

s ac

ross

pop

ulat

ion

subg

roup

s.

Ana

lyse

s in

dica

te th

at s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

(and

Eng

lish

lang

uage

lear

ners

) who

us

ed v

ario

us a

sses

smen

t acc

omm

odat

ions

evi

denc

ed a

slig

htly

hig

her d

egre

e of

mea

-su

rem

ent c

ompa

rabi

lity

to th

e ge

nera

l pop

ulat

ion

of te

st-ta

kers

than

did

stu

dent

s w

ith

disa

bilit

ies

(and

Eng

lish

lang

uage

lear

ners

) not

usi

ng a

ccom

mod

atio

ns.

A

S

S

Ket

terli

n-G

elle

r et a

l. (2

014)

The

rese

arch

ers

prop

ound

ed a

pro

cess

and

tool

for e

xam

inin

g us

eful

info

rmat

ion

to

disc

ern

appr

opria

te a

ccom

mod

atio

ns fo

r stu

dent

s ne

edin

g su

ppor

ts fo

r mat

hem

atic

s as

sess

men

t. Th

e re

sults

are

the

tool

itse

lf, y

et a

lso

a de

scrip

tion

of th

e co

nsid

erat

ions

in

dev

elop

ing

the

tool

, and

the

usab

ility

and

feas

ibili

ty fo

und

by p

artic

ipan

t-rev

iew

ers.

C

ompl

etio

n of

the

tool

resu

lts in

the

form

ulat

ion

of a

set

of i

nfor

mat

ion—

from

edu

-ca

tors

, par

ents

, and

stu

dent

s—ab

out s

tude

nts’

aca

dem

ic e

ngag

emen

t in

term

s of

pe

rcei

ved

acad

emic

task

pro

ficie

ncy,

bar

riers

to th

at p

rofic

ienc

y, a

nd s

olut

ions

for o

ver-

com

ing

barr

iers

. Rev

iew

ers

asse

nted

that

the

info

rmat

ion

asse

mbl

ed b

y th

e to

ol w

as

usef

ul, a

nd th

at th

e co

llect

ion

proc

ess

was

feas

ible

and

rela

tivel

y br

ief a

nd e

ffici

ent.

M

Kle

hm (2

014)

Sev

eral

find

ings

wer

e re

porte

d fo

r sev

eral

rese

arch

que

stio

ns. M

ost r

elev

ant t

o cu

rren

t us

e of

acc

omm

odat

ions

, a s

light

maj

ority

of r

espo

nden

ts (5

5%) i

ndic

ated

agr

eem

ent

that

ass

essm

ent a

ccom

mod

atio

ns a

re in

divi

dual

ized

to e

ach

stud

ent,

but a

slig

ht

maj

ority

(56%

) dis

agre

ed w

ith th

e st

atem

ent t

hat a

ccom

mod

atio

ns a

re d

esig

ned

to

rem

ove

disa

bilit

ies’

impa

ct o

n kn

owle

dge

and

skill

s te

sted

, and

a s

light

maj

ority

(54%

) di

sagr

eed

with

the

stat

emen

t tha

t all

IEP

acco

mm

odat

ions

are

cle

ar a

nd im

plem

ente

d pr

ecis

ely.

A la

rger

maj

ority

(80%

) dis

agre

ed w

ith th

e st

atem

ent t

hat t

he a

ctua

l effe

ct

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns h

ave

been

to e

limin

ate

the

impa

ct o

f dis

abili

ties

on te

st re

sults

. Fi

nally

, the

re w

as a

n ev

en a

gree

men

t and

dis

agre

emen

t (50

-50)

in re

spon

se to

the

stat

emen

t tha

t acc

omm

odat

ions

per

mit

mor

e ac

cura

te te

st re

sults

due

to re

mov

ing

dis-

abili

ties’

impa

ct w

hile

not

allo

win

g th

e in

tend

ed te

st c

onst

ruct

s to

cha

nge.

X

94 NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Lee

& C

hen

(201

4)

Stu

dent

s w

ith h

igh

prio

r geo

met

ry k

now

ledg

e sc

ored

sig

nific

antly

hig

her o

n th

e ge

om-

etry

test

whe

n us

ing

virt

ual m

anip

ulat

ives

than

whe

n us

ing

phys

ical

man

ipul

ativ

es.

Stu

dent

s w

ith lo

w p

rior k

now

ledg

e di

d no

t sco

re s

igni

fican

tly d

iffer

ently

bet

wee

n th

e m

anip

ulat

ive

type

s. S

tude

nts

usin

g vi

rtual

man

ipul

ativ

es w

ho h

ad h

igh

prio

r kno

wl-

edge

sco

red

sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her t

han

thos

e w

ith lo

w p

rior k

now

ledg

e. S

tude

nts

usin

g ph

ysic

al m

anip

ulat

ives

did

not

sco

re s

igni

fican

tly d

iffer

ently

whe

ther

they

had

hig

h pr

ior k

now

ledg

e or

low

prio

r kno

wle

dge.

Fin

ally,

stu

dent

s w

ith h

igh

prio

r kno

wle

dge

who

use

d vi

rtual

man

ipul

ativ

es a

lso

had

mor

e po

sitiv

e at

titud

es to

war

d m

ath

than

did

st

uden

ts w

ith lo

w p

rior k

now

ledg

e.

U

M

Lepp

o et

al.

(201

4)

This

stu

dy s

ough

t to

exam

ine

acco

mm

odat

ions

use

pat

tern

s fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith d

eaf-

ness

or h

earin

g im

pairm

ents

who

als

o ha

ve o

ther

dis

abili

ties

in o

rder

to id

entif

y w

hat,

if an

y, d

iffer

ence

s th

ere

may

be

for t

hese

stu

dent

s, in

com

paris

on to

stu

dent

s w

ith

deaf

ness

or h

earin

g im

pairm

ents

who

do

not h

ave

addi

tiona

l dis

abili

ties.

Firs

t, no

ne

of th

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns c

ateg

orie

s w

ere

stat

istic

ally

sig

nific

ant t

o pr

edic

t tha

t the

st

uden

ts w

ith d

eafn

ess

or h

earin

g im

pairm

ents

als

o ha

d an

y ad

ditio

nal d

isab

ilitie

s. In

ot

her w

ords

, acc

omm

odat

ions

use

pat

tern

s of

stu

dent

s w

ith d

eafn

ess

did

not d

iffer

fro

m p

atte

rns

of s

tude

nts

with

dea

fnes

s al

ong

with

oth

er d

isab

ilitie

s. F

urth

er a

naly

ses

yiel

ded

that

the

pred

icto

r var

iabl

es o

ught

to h

ave

relia

bly

dete

cted

a m

eani

ngfu

l effe

ct

if it

had

exis

ted.

How

ever

, whe

n sp

ecify

ing

whi

ch a

dditi

onal

dis

abili

ty, d

iffer

ent a

c-co

mm

odat

ions

use

pat

tern

s w

ere

dete

cted

. In

fact

, stu

dent

s w

ith d

eafn

ess

or h

ear-

ing

impa

irmen

ts a

nd A

DH

D d

emon

stra

ted

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

s in

thei

r use

of t

hree

ac

com

mod

atio

ns c

ateg

orie

s: th

ey w

ere

asso

ciat

ed w

ith le

ss u

se o

f tec

hnol

ogy,

gre

ater

us

e of

ext

ende

d-tim

e fo

r tes

ts o

r ass

ignm

ents

, and

gre

ater

use

of o

ral d

eliv

ery

durin

g as

sess

men

ts. A

lso,

stu

dent

s w

ith d

eafn

ess

or h

earin

g im

pairm

ents

and

LD

tend

ed to

ha

ve s

igni

fican

tly g

reat

er u

se o

f ora

l del

iver

y du

ring

test

ing.

X

95NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Lew

ando

wsk

i et

al.

(201

3)

Ana

lysi

s of

the

inte

ract

ion

hypo

thes

is—

that

priv

ate

post

seco

ndar

y st

uden

ts w

ith

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

wou

ld a

ttain

sig

nific

antly

low

er s

core

s th

an s

tude

nts

with

out d

is-

abili

ties

in th

e st

anda

rd a

dmin

istra

tion

cond

ition

, and

that

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ould

atta

in s

imila

r sco

res

as s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s in

the

acco

mm

odat

ed c

ondi

-tio

n—sh

owed

that

the

inte

ract

ion

hypo

thes

is w

as n

ot s

uppo

rted.

Inst

ead,

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s, w

ho s

core

d si

gnifi

cant

ly lo

wer

dur

ing

the

stan

dard

adm

inis

tratio

n co

nditi

on, s

core

d si

gnifi

cant

ly lo

wer

than

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

on th

e ac

com

-m

odat

ed re

adin

g co

mpr

ehen

sion

ass

essm

ent.

Bot

h gr

oups

sco

red

bette

r, on

ave

rage

, w

hen

they

wer

e pr

ovid

ed e

xten

ded

time,

in c

ompa

rison

to th

eir s

core

s w

hen

they

wer

e no

t. Th

e pa

rtici

pant

s w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s sc

ored

low

est i

n th

e st

anda

rd c

ondi

-tio

n, s

igni

fican

tly h

ighe

r in

the

150%

tim

e co

nditi

on, a

nd s

igni

fican

tly h

ighe

r tha

n th

at

in th

e 20

0% ti

me

cond

ition

. The

num

ber o

f ite

ms

atte

mpt

ed w

as a

lso

mea

sure

d, a

nd

show

ed th

e sa

me

patte

rn fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s. W

hen

calc

ulat

ing

the

perc

ent-

age

corr

ect (

corr

ectly

-ans

wer

ed it

ems

divi

ded

by to

tal i

tem

s at

tem

pted

), th

ere

was

lit

tle d

iffer

ence

for s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

acro

ss th

e th

ree

test

con

ditio

ns.

For s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s, th

ere

wer

e al

so n

o si

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ces

betw

een

test

sco

res

acro

ss th

e te

stin

g co

nditi

ons.

Par

ticip

ants

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s im

prov

ed

even

mor

e th

an p

artic

ipan

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s, c

ompa

ring

the

stan

dard

test

con

ditio

n to

th

e tw

o co

nditi

ons

with

acc

omm

odat

ions

. In

fact

, the

gap

bet

wee

n th

e tw

o pa

rtici

pant

gr

oups

wid

ened

from

the

stan

dard

con

ditio

n to

the

150%

tim

e co

nditi

on to

the

200%

tim

e co

nditi

on, d

ue to

the

larg

er a

vera

ge s

core

gai

ns fo

r stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

H

owev

er, a

com

paris

on o

f the

sco

res

of s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

in th

e 15

0%

time

and

200%

tim

e co

nditi

ons

agai

nst t

he s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s in

the

stan

dard

tim

e co

nditi

on s

how

ed th

at s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s at

tem

pted

mor

e ite

ms

and

also

go

t mor

e ite

ms

corr

ect.

The

rese

arch

ers

obse

rved

that

thes

e re

sults

indi

cate

d th

at th

e ex

tend

ed-ti

me

acco

mm

odat

ions

of 1

50%

and

200

% ti

me

mig

ht c

halle

nge

test

val

idity

, an

d es

timat

ed th

at p

rovi

ding

125

% ti

me

for s

tude

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

wou

ld

perm

it su

ffici

ently

mor

e ite

ms

atte

mpt

ed to

equ

aliz

e th

eir a

cces

s w

ith s

tude

nts

with

out

disa

bilit

ies.

E

R

R

96 NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Lew

ando

wsk

i et

al.

(201

4)

All

resp

onde

nts,

bot

h w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties,

indi

cate

d th

at th

eir p

erfo

rman

ce

wou

ld b

e im

prov

ed w

hen

usin

g (in

dec

reas

ing

popu

larit

y) e

xten

ded

time,

sep

arat

e ex

am ro

oms,

ext

ra b

reak

s, a

nd w

ord

proc

esso

r. A

lso,

acc

omm

odat

ions

wer

e ju

dged

to

be

mor

e he

lpfu

l for

hig

h-st

akes

exa

ms

rath

er th

an c

lass

room

test

s. F

or h

igh-

stak

es

test

s, s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

wer

e si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

posi

tive

(than

stu

dent

s w

ith-

out d

isab

ilitie

s) a

bout

sep

arat

e ro

om s

ettin

g, re

ader

, scr

ibe,

and

wor

d pr

oces

sing

. A

sim

ilar p

ropo

rtion

(jus

t ove

r 2/3

) of s

tude

nts

with

and

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s in

dica

ted

that

al

l stu

dent

s ou

ght t

o ha

ve a

cces

s to

usi

ng a

ccom

mod

atio

ns. M

ore

than

hal

f (60

%) o

f st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

supp

orte

d un

iver

sally

-des

igne

d ex

ams,

whi

le ju

st u

nder

ha

lf (4

8%) o

f stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s su

ppor

ted

the

sam

e.

S

X

Lew

is &

Nol

an

(201

3)

The

thre

e ph

ases

of t

he s

tudy

pro

vide

d va

rious

find

ings

per

tinen

t to

test

ing

setti

ngs,

st

uden

ts w

ith s

enso

ry d

efen

sive

ness

, and

impl

icat

ions

for q

ualit

y pr

actic

es. D

urin

g th

e fir

st p

hase

, 102

stu

dent

s re

porte

d th

eir e

valu

atio

n of

16

Uni

vers

ity te

stin

g ve

n-ue

s th

roug

h a

ques

tionn

aire

, with

abo

ut 8

7% o

f the

par

ticip

ants

indi

catin

g th

at th

ey

wer

e ex

celle

nt, a

nd a

bout

13%

ratin

g th

e ve

nues

as

poor

or u

nacc

epta

ble.

Dur

ing

the

seco

nd p

hase

, an

audi

t of t

he te

stin

g ve

nues

, tw

o oc

cupa

tiona

l the

rapi

sts,

alo

ng w

ith

stud

ents

with

sen

sory

def

ensi

vene

ss, i

dent

ified

that

mos

t of t

he 1

6 te

stin

g sp

aces

had

au

dito

ry, v

isua

l, an

d pr

oxim

ity is

sues

nee

ding

cor

rect

ion.

In th

e th

ird p

hase

, and

usi

ng

thos

e re

com

men

datio

ns, t

wo

smal

l-gro

up te

stin

g sp

aces

and

two

indi

vidu

al te

stin

g sp

aces

wer

e cr

eate

d. T

he te

stin

g sp

aces

wer

e pi

lote

d du

ring

Uni

vers

ity e

xam

inat

ions

, an

d D

isab

ility

Ser

vice

s st

aff m

embe

rs a

nd e

xam

pro

ctor

s al

so p

rovi

ded

feed

back

. The

pe

rspe

ctiv

es o

f the

se s

take

hold

er g

roup

s w

ere

prim

arily

pos

itive

, exp

licat

ing

the

ac-

com

mod

atio

n’s

impr

ovem

ents

.

S

,E

97NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Li (2

014)

This

met

a-an

alys

is’ p

erfo

rman

ce d

ata

from

stu

dent

s in

gra

des

K-1

2, b

oth

with

and

w

ithou

t lea

rnin

g di

sabi

litie

s, in

dica

ted

bene

fits

from

read

-alo

ud (o

r ora

l-del

iver

y) a

c-co

mm

odat

ions

. Fur

ther

, the

ora

l-del

iver

y ef

fect

siz

e fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

as

sign

ifica

ntly

larg

er th

an th

at o

f stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

The

rese

arch

ers

repo

rted

on th

e fa

ctor

s m

ost s

trong

ly in

fluen

cing

ora

l-del

iver

y ac

com

mod

atio

ns’ e

ffect

s, in

clud

-in

g w

hen

oral

del

iver

y w

as p

rovi

ded

by in

-per

son

hum

an re

ader

s (c

ompa

red

to c

om-

pute

r-sy

nthe

size

d vo

ices

and

reco

rdin

gs o

f hum

an v

oice

s), w

hen

acad

emic

con

tent

w

as re

adin

g (c

ompa

red

to m

ath)

, whe

n ex

tra ti

me

was

con

curr

ently

per

mitt

ed a

long

w

ith o

ral d

eliv

ery

(com

pare

d w

ith o

ral d

eliv

ery

alon

e), w

hen

the

rese

arch

des

ign

was

in

depe

nden

t gro

ups

(com

pare

d to

repe

ated

-mea

sure

s), a

nd w

hen

stud

ents

wer

e in

el

emen

tary

sch

ool (

com

pare

d to

stu

dent

s in

mid

dle

scho

ol o

nly,

sin

ce th

e nu

mbe

r of

stud

ies

with

hig

h sc

hool

par

ticip

ants

was

not

dee

med

suf

ficie

nt).

O

M

,R

Lin

& L

in

(201

3)

Sev

eral

sig

nific

ant s

core

diff

eren

ces

wer

e fo

und

betw

een

and

amon

g co

mpa

rison

gr

oups

. Eng

lish

lear

ners

(ELs

) with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

rece

ivin

g se

tting

acc

omm

oda-

tions

wer

e m

ore

likel

y to

hav

e lo

wer

per

form

ance

sco

res

than

Eng

lish

lear

ners

with

out

disa

bilit

ies

not r

ecei

ving

acc

omm

odat

ions

, who

wer

e m

ore

likel

y to

hav

e th

e hi

ghes

t pe

rform

ance

sco

res.

Nat

ive

Eng

lish

spea

kers

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s us

ing

setti

ng a

ccom

-m

odat

ions

had

low

mat

h te

st re

sults

. Stu

dent

s w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s—w

heth

er E

Ls

or n

ativ

e E

nglis

h sp

eake

rs—

usin

g se

tting

acc

omm

odat

ions

did

not

per

form

bet

ter i

n nu

mbe

r sen

se a

nd n

umer

atio

n sk

ills

than

all

stud

ents

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

not

usin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns. T

hese

find

ings

wer

e sh

own

in b

oth

the

bala

nced

and

unb

al-

ance

d da

ta s

ets.

The

rese

arch

ers

conc

lude

d th

at th

ere

was

no

evid

ence

of d

iffer

entia

l bo

ost f

or s

tude

nts

with

LD

, and

als

o th

at it

was

not

like

ly th

at c

onst

ruct

val

idity

was

af

fect

ed b

y se

tting

acc

omm

odat

ions

.

SS

Lin

& L

in

(201

4)

The

fact

ors

affe

ctin

g di

ffere

ntia

l ite

m fu

nctio

ning

(DIF

) inc

lude

d ac

com

mod

atio

n st

a-tu

s—sp

ecifi

cally

low

-dis

tract

ion

setti

ng—

as w

ell a

s ge

nder

, tes

t-tak

er la

tent

abi

litie

s,

attit

udes

tow

ard

lear

ning

read

ing

and

mat

h, a

nd h

ome

lang

uage

s, a

nd th

e in

tera

ctio

n am

ong

thes

e fa

ctor

s. T

he la

tent

cla

ss a

naly

ses

(LC

A) a

ppro

ach

usin

g m

ultip

le c

o-va

riate

s w

as d

emon

stra

ted

to y

ield

bet

ter fi

ts to

the

obse

rved

dat

a. T

he re

sear

cher

s sh

owed

that

rece

ivin

g se

tting

acc

omm

odat

ion

was

ass

ocia

ted

with

bei

ng m

ale,

spe

ak-

ing

a la

ngua

ge o

ther

than

Eng

lish

at h

ome,

and

had

less

pos

itive

atti

tude

s to

war

d le

arni

ng re

adin

g an

d m

ath,

in a

dditi

on to

late

nt a

bilit

ies.

SS

98 NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Love

tt (2

014)

In d

iscu

ssin

g th

e D

epar

tmen

t of J

ustic

e im

plem

enta

tion

guid

elin

es fo

r the

Am

eric

ans

with

Dis

abili

ties

Act

am

endm

ents

of 2

008,

the

rese

arch

er p

rese

nts

five

maj

or p

oint

s pe

rtain

ing

to a

revi

ew o

f acc

omm

odat

ions

rese

arch

. IE

P te

ams

have

bee

n sh

own

to

have

diffi

culti

es w

ith d

isab

ility

det

erm

inat

ions

, and

hav

e te

nded

to m

ake

acco

mm

oda-

tions

dec

isio

ns re

late

d m

ore

to p

oten

tial b

enefi

t tha

n eq

ual a

cces

s fo

r tes

ting.

Priv

ate

clin

icia

ns d

iagn

osin

g po

stse

cond

ary

stud

ents

hav

e al

so d

emon

stra

ted

diffi

culti

es

mak

ing

disa

bilit

y de

term

inat

ions

. Whe

n co

nsid

erin

g ap

prop

riate

acc

omm

odat

ions

in

the

post

seco

ndar

y se

tting

, acc

omm

odat

ions

pro

vide

d du

ring

stud

ents

’ K-1

2 ed

ucat

ion

have

bee

n sh

own

not t

o be

par

ticul

arly

rele

vant

. Fin

ally,

the

rese

arch

er a

rgue

d th

at

evid

ence

that

adu

lt st

uden

ts c

an fe

ign

disa

bilit

ies

to d

emon

stra

te n

eed

for a

ccom

mo-

datio

ns h

as li

mite

d th

e va

lidity

of t

he p

roce

ss.

X

Love

tt &

Lej

a (2

013)

The

rese

arch

ers

high

light

ed th

ree

conc

lusi

ons

of th

e lit

erat

ure

revi

ew o

n th

e ac

com

-m

odat

ions

per

cept

ions

of s

tude

nts

with

var

ious

dis

abili

ties.

Stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s m

ostly

repo

rted

thei

r per

cept

ions

that

acc

omm

odat

ions

ben

efite

d th

em in

dem

onst

rat-

ing

thei

r cap

abili

ties

durin

g te

sts.

Stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

also

per

ceiv

ed a

ccom

-m

odat

ions

as

bene

ficia

l to

them

. Fin

ally,

whe

n st

uden

ts d

id n

ot e

xper

ienc

e be

nefit

s,

the

acco

mm

odat

ions

at i

ssue

wer

e pe

rcei

ved

as p

robl

emat

ic, e

ven

dist

ract

ing.

The

au

thor

s ar

gued

in s

uppo

rt of

see

king

stu

dent

s’ v

iew

s an

d ex

perie

nces

of a

ccom

mod

a-tio

ns, a

nd th

e va

lue

of th

is a

war

enes

s in

pra

ctic

e.

S

99NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Lym

an (2

013)

The

rese

arch

er d

isce

rned

sev

en th

emes

acr

oss

the

inte

rvie

w d

ata

from

16

post

sec-

onda

ry s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties.

Thr

ee o

f the

them

es w

ere

cons

ider

ed s

impl

e an

d ha

d no

sub

them

es, a

nd fo

ur o

f the

them

es w

ere

cons

ider

d co

mpl

ex, h

avin

g se

vera

l su

bthe

mes

. The

bar

riers

to u

sing

acc

omm

odat

ions

that

wer

e un

cove

red

that

wer

e co

nsid

ered

stra

ight

forw

ard

incl

uded

(a) n

egat

ive

expe

rienc

es w

ith p

rofe

ssor

s; (b

) fea

rs

of fu

ture

ram

ifica

tions

, suc

h as

a w

orry

that

acc

omm

odat

ions

may

lim

it th

e sk

ills

and

bene

fits

of h

avin

g co

mpl

eted

pos

tsec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

beca

use

the

skill

s w

ere

not

lear

ned

inde

pend

ent o

f the

se le

arni

ng s

uppo

rts; a

nd fi

nally

, (c)

the

even

tual

ity th

at

acco

mm

odat

ions

are

not

nee

ded,

at l

east

not

in e

very

inst

ance

, in

orde

r for

stu

dent

s to

suc

ceed

in c

ours

es. T

he o

ther

four

bar

riers

to a

ccom

mod

atio

ns w

ere

com

plex

and

ha

d m

any

fact

ors.

(d) T

he d

esire

for s

elf-s

uffic

ienc

y w

as a

sou

rce

of p

ress

ure

whi

ch

resu

lted

in s

tude

nts

valu

ing

inde

pend

ence

to th

e ex

clus

ion

of m

akin

g us

e of

acc

om-

mod

atio

ns to

sup

port

thei

r suc

cess

. Stu

dent

s so

ught

to b

e se

lf-ac

com

mod

atin

g, a

nd to

th

ink

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns a

s a

back

up to

use

onl

y if

thei

r usu

al e

fforts

wer

e no

t eno

ugh

for s

ucce

ss. (

e) P

osts

econ

dary

stu

dent

s’ d

esire

to a

void

neg

ativ

e so

cial

reac

tions

was

lin

ked

to s

tude

nts’

retic

ence

to b

e se

en a

s di

ffere

nt a

nd tr

eate

d in

exp

licitl

y di

ffere

nt

way

s, a

nd e

spec

ially

to b

e ju

dged

as

not d

eser

ving

of,

or ta

king

adv

anta

ge o

f, th

e sp

ecia

l tre

atm

ent t

hat a

ccom

mod

atio

ns c

an a

ppea

r to

be. A

noth

er a

spec

t of a

void

ing

nega

tive

soci

al re

actio

ns w

as s

tude

nts’

des

ire n

ot to

pla

ce a

n un

due

burd

en o

n th

ose

who

wer

e he

lpin

g th

em, w

hich

cou

ld re

sult

in s

tude

nts

not u

sing

acc

omm

odat

ions

that

th

ey n

eed.

(f) A

noth

er b

arrie

r was

insu

ffici

ent k

now

ledg

e ab

out a

ccom

mod

atio

ns, s

uch

as s

tude

nts’

con

cern

that

acc

omm

odat

ions

wer

e no

t fai

r for

them

to re

ceiv

e an

d ot

h-er

s no

t to

rece

ive,

whi

ch th

e re

sear

cher

link

ed to

a li

mite

d un

ders

tand

ing

of s

tude

nts’

ow

n di

sabi

litie

s. A

ccom

mod

atio

ns k

now

ledg

e w

as in

fluen

ced

by th

e de

gree

to w

hich

st

uden

ts w

ere

awar

e of

Dis

abili

ty S

uppo

rt S

ervi

ces

(DS

S),

and

also

ass

ocia

ted

with

a

sens

e th

at o

ne w

as n

ot d

isab

led

enou

gh to

rece

ive

acco

mm

odat

ions

. (g)

The

four

th

com

plex

them

e w

as th

e qu

ality

and

use

fuln

ess

of D

SS

and

acc

omm

odat

ions

. Und

erly

-in

g th

is th

eme

was

pro

blem

atic

exp

erie

nce

with

requ

estin

g an

d re

ceiv

ing

acco

mm

oda-

tions

, inc

ludi

ng in

stan

ces

in w

hich

spe

cific

acc

omm

odat

ions

wer

e no

t ava

ilabl

e, a

nd

whe

n ac

com

mod

atio

ns d

o no

t pro

ve to

be

help

ful o

r effe

ctiv

e.

S

X

100 NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

May

(201

3)

Twen

ty-o

ne p

erce

nt o

f nur

sing

facu

lty re

spon

dent

s ac

hiev

ed a

pas

sing

sco

re (1

8 of

23

item

s co

rrec

t) in

thei

r kno

wle

dge

abou

t the

Am

eric

ans

with

Dis

abili

ties

Act

(AD

A);

the

grou

p’s

mea

n sc

ore

was

abo

ut 1

4.5

out o

f 23

item

s. F

acul

ty re

spon

dent

s, o

n av

er-

age,

indi

cate

d sl

ight

ly p

ositi

ve (1

.3 o

n a

scal

e of

-3 to

+3)

atti

tude

s to

war

d, a

nd s

light

ly

posi

tive

(1.6

) int

ent a

bout

, pro

vidi

ng a

ccom

mod

atio

ns to

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s. A

m

oder

ate

mea

n po

sitiv

e co

rrel

atio

n w

as fo

und

betw

een

know

ledg

e sc

ores

and

at-

titud

e sc

ores

, and

a n

onsi

gnifi

cant

mea

n co

rrel

atio

n w

as fo

und

betw

een

know

ledg

e sc

ores

and

inte

nt s

core

s. C

orre

latio

nal a

naly

ses

wer

e al

so c

ompl

eted

for d

emog

raph

ic

and

expe

rienc

e an

d kn

owle

dge

and

attit

ude,

sho

win

g a

slig

htly

mor

e po

sitiv

e at

titud

e to

war

d st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s by

fem

ale

facu

lty th

an m

ale

facu

lty, a

non

sign

ifica

nt

rela

tions

hip

betw

een

year

s of

exp

erie

nce

and

know

ledg

e, a

nd a

wea

k po

sitiv

e re

latio

n-sh

ip b

etw

een

year

s of

exp

erie

nce

and

attit

udes

tow

ard

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties.

E

X

May

& S

tone

(2

014)

Pos

tsec

onda

ry s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s sc

ored

sim

ilarly

and

took

sim

ilar a

mou

nts

of ti

me

per i

tem

in b

oth

the

ster

eoty

pe th

reat

and

redu

ced

thre

at c

ondi

tions

. Pos

tsec

-on

dary

stu

dent

s w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s in

the

redu

ced

thre

at c

ondi

tion

had

sim

ilar

scor

es, a

nd s

pent

sim

ilar t

ime

per i

tem

, as

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s. In

the

ster

eo-

type

thre

at c

ondi

tion,

stu

dent

s w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s sp

ent m

ore

time

per i

tem

yet

sc

ored

no

bette

r or w

orse

than

in th

e re

duce

d th

reat

con

ditio

n, o

n av

erag

e, o

n th

e ite

ms

they

com

plet

ed. T

his

resu

lt w

as c

ount

er to

rese

arch

ers’

exp

ecta

tions

, whi

ch

wer

e th

at s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties,

whe

n pr

imed

with

ste

reot

ype

expe

ctat

ion

that

th

ey w

ould

not

per

form

com

para

bly

whe

n to

ld th

at th

e ta

sk w

as a

bilit

y-ba

sed,

wou

ld

mee

t the

low

er e

xpec

tatio

ns. O

ther

sco

re p

atte

rns

incl

uded

that

stu

dent

s w

ith le

arn-

ing

disa

bilit

ies

com

plet

ed fe

wer

item

s an

d sk

ippe

d m

ore

item

s in

bot

h co

nditi

ons

than

st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

Thi

s fin

ding

has

impl

icat

ions

on

thes

e st

uden

ts’ p

ossi

bly

not b

enefi

tting

from

ext

ende

d tim

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns—

at le

ast n

ot w

ith th

e E

TS s

corin

g ap

proa

ch, i

n th

at th

eir t

est r

esul

ts w

ere

not s

igni

fican

tly w

orse

whe

n no

t com

plet

ing

as

man

y ite

ms

as s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s.

ES

X

101NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Mey

er &

B

ouck

(201

4)

In c

ompa

rison

with

par

ticip

ants

’ com

preh

ensi

on s

core

s w

ithou

t rec

eivi

ng th

e te

xt-to

-sp

eech

acc

omm

odat

ion,

stu

dent

s di

d no

t see

m to

sco

re s

igni

fican

tly h

ighe

r whe

n re

ceiv

ing

text

to s

peec

h. T

hey

also

did

not

see

m to

impr

ove

in te

rms

of o

ral r

eadi

ng

fluen

cy; t

he re

sear

cher

s ex

plai

ned

that

all

thre

e pa

rtici

pant

s ha

d re

lativ

ely

high

flue

ncy

scor

es w

ithou

t the

sup

port,

so

they

sug

gest

ed th

at th

e ce

iling

effe

ct m

ay h

ave

been

op

eran

t in

this

non

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

. Tas

k co

mpl

etio

n tim

e di

d no

t diff

er w

ithou

t th

an w

ith te

xt to

spe

ech.

In in

terv

iew

s, p

artic

ipan

ts in

dica

ted

thei

r per

cept

ions

that

they

sc

ored

hig

her i

n co

mpr

ehen

sion

and

ora

l rea

ding

flue

ncy,

and

took

less

tim

e to

com

-pl

ete

the

task

s, w

hen

usin

g te

xt-to

-spe

ech

tech

nolo

gy.

OS

R

Mill

er e

t al.

(201

3)

Pos

tsec

onda

ry s

tude

nts

with

atte

ntio

n-de

ficit

hype

ract

ivity

dis

orde

r (A

DH

D) a

nd w

ith-

out d

isab

ilitie

s w

ere

com

para

ble

with

one

ano

ther

in te

rms

of th

eir n

umbe

rs o

f ite

ms

they

atte

mpt

ed a

nd c

ompl

eted

in s

tand

ard,

150

% ti

me

and

200%

tim

e co

nditi

ons;

they

al

so h

ad s

imila

r num

bers

of c

orre

ct a

nsw

ers

as o

ne a

noth

er in

eac

h of

the

time

cond

i-tio

ns. C

ompa

ring

stud

ents

with

AD

HD

with

ext

ende

d-tim

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns a

gain

st

stud

ents

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s w

ith s

tand

ard

adm

inis

tratio

n tim

e, y

ield

ed th

at s

tude

nts

with

AD

HD

atte

mpt

ed a

nd c

ompl

eted

sig

nific

antly

mor

e ite

ms

than

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t di

sabi

litie

s, a

nd th

at s

tude

nts

with

AD

HD

(with

ext

ende

d-tim

e) s

core

d si

gnifi

cant

ly

high

er th

an s

tude

nts

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s (w

ith s

tand

ard-

time)

in re

adin

g co

mpr

ehen

-si

on. S

tude

nts

with

AD

HD

did

not

diff

eren

tially

ben

efit u

nder

ext

ende

d-tim

e co

nditi

ons

to a

gre

ater

deg

ree

than

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties.

E

XR

Nee

s &

Ber

ry

(201

3)

This

lite

ratu

re re

view

yie

lded

find

ings

abo

ut th

e cu

rren

t use

of o

ral d

eliv

ery

acco

mm

o-da

tions

for a

chie

vem

ent a

sses

smen

ts fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith v

isua

l im

pairm

ents

, and

bot

h th

e po

tent

ial a

nd p

robl

ems

asso

ciat

ed w

ith te

chno

logi

cal a

dvan

ces

perm

ittin

g te

xt-to

-sp

eech

test

ing

form

ats,

det

ailin

g te

chni

cal c

once

rns,

atti

tudi

nal a

nd tr

aini

ng c

once

rns

for e

duca

tors

, and

dis

cuss

ed re

late

d is

sues

incl

udin

g co

nstru

ct v

alid

ity.

X

102 NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

New

man

&

Mad

aus

(201

4)

Par

ticip

ants

with

dis

abili

ties

in th

e N

atio

nal L

ongi

tudi

nal T

rans

ition

Stu

dy-2

repo

rted

that

they

use

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns a

t a ra

te o

f 95%

whe

n in

hig

h sc

hool

, yet

onl

y 23

% o

f th

ose

sam

e pe

ople

use

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns o

r oth

er s

uppo

rts w

hen

in p

osts

econ

dary

ed

ucat

ion.

The

mos

t com

mon

ly u

sed

acco

mm

odat

ions

in b

oth

setti

ngs

wer

e te

stin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns, i

nclu

ding

ext

ende

d tim

e an

d se

para

te s

ettin

g. H

igh

scho

ol a

nd p

ost-

seco

ndar

y us

age

rate

s fo

r rea

der f

or te

sts

or a

ssig

nmen

ts w

ere

47%

and

4%

, and

for

spec

ial c

alcu

lato

r use

(inc

ludi

ng te

stin

g) w

ere

33%

and

6%

. The

re w

ere

no s

igni

fican

t di

ffere

nces

in u

sage

rate

acr

oss

diffe

rent

type

s of

pos

tsec

onda

ry in

stitu

tions

. Hal

f of

thes

e po

stse

cond

ary

stud

ents

indi

cate

d th

at th

ey n

o lo

nger

con

side

red

them

selv

es to

ha

ve a

dis

abili

ty; 3

5% d

iscl

osed

hav

ing

a di

sabi

lity

to th

eir d

isab

ility

ser

vice

s of

fices

.

X

X

Ove

rton

(201

3)

Gra

de 5

stu

dent

s w

ith re

adin

g-re

late

d di

fficu

lties

and

dis

abili

ties

show

ed n

o si

gnifi

cant

pe

rform

ance

diff

eren

ces,

bet

wee

n th

e st

uden

t-rea

ds-a

loud

and

sile

nt re

adin

g co

ndi-

tions

—in

com

bina

tion

with

unl

imite

d tim

e—an

d be

twee

n na

rrat

ive

and

expo

sito

ry te

xt

type

s. H

owev

er, t

here

wer

e si

gnifi

cant

inte

ract

ion

effe

cts

whe

n re

adin

g co

nditi

ons

and

text

type

s w

ere

cons

ider

ed s

imul

tane

ousl

y. S

peci

fical

ly, th

e m

ean

scor

es fo

r stu

dent

s re

adin

g na

rrat

ive

text

sile

ntly

wer

e si

gnifi

cant

ly lo

wer

than

mea

n sc

ores

for s

tude

nts

read

ing

expo

sito

ry te

xt a

loud

to th

emse

lves

; how

ever

, the

re w

as li

ttle

perfo

rman

ce

diffe

renc

e w

hen

com

parin

g te

xt ty

pes

that

stu

dent

s re

ad o

rally

. The

rese

arch

er p

oint

ed

out t

hat a

pos

sibl

e co

nsid

erat

ion

of th

ese

resu

lts o

n pr

actic

e w

as th

at u

se o

f stu

dent

-re

ads-

alou

d ac

com

mod

atio

n co

uld

bene

fit s

tude

nts

whe

n m

ater

ial i

s na

rrat

ive

text

, but

m

ay re

sult

in lo

wer

sco

res

for e

xpos

itory

text

.

Agg

R

Rus

sell

(201

4)

The

2012

mea

n st

ate

mat

h pe

rform

ance

of s

tude

nts

with

mat

h-re

late

d le

arni

ng d

isab

il-iti

es in

gra

des

6 th

roug

h 8

was

sig

nific

antly

hig

her,

afte

r usi

ng th

e ca

lcul

ator

acc

om-

mod

atio

n fo

r the

201

1-20

12 s

choo

l yea

r, in

com

paris

on w

ith th

e pr

evio

us y

ear’s

mea

n pe

rform

ance

afte

r the

y di

d no

t use

the

calc

ulat

or a

ccom

mod

atio

n. T

he s

tude

nts

in th

e in

clus

ion

grou

p sc

ored

sig

nific

antly

hig

her t

han

both

the

reso

urce

room

stu

dent

s an

d th

e se

lf-co

ntai

ned

prog

ram

stu

dent

s; th

ese

resu

lts w

ere

cons

iste

nt w

ith th

e di

ffere

nt

plac

emen

ts o

f stu

dent

s, in

that

stu

dent

s in

the

incl

usio

n pr

ogra

m a

lso

had

the

high

-es

t per

form

ance

. How

ever

, the

re w

as n

o in

tera

ctio

n ef

fect

, ind

icat

ing

that

stu

dent

s’

prog

ram

pla

cem

ents

wer

e no

t ass

ocia

ted

with

diff

erin

g be

nefit

s fro

m th

e ca

lcul

ator

ac

com

mod

atio

n.

C

M

103NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Sch

reue

r &

Sac

hs (2

014)

Pos

tsec

onda

ry s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

surv

eyed

indi

cate

d th

at u

sage

rate

s fo

r exa

m-

inat

ion-

rela

ted

acco

mm

odat

ions

incl

uded

abo

ut 7

1 pe

rcen

t for

ext

ende

d tim

e, w

ith 6

2 pe

rcen

t rep

ortin

g be

nefit

ing

from

it, a

nd a

bout

42

perc

ent f

or a

ltern

ativ

e ex

am fo

rmat

s,

with

41

perc

ent b

enefi

ting.

Whe

n ex

amin

ing

the

acad

emic

acc

omm

odat

ion

subs

cale

as

a w

hole

with

par

ticip

atio

n an

d pa

rtici

patio

n sa

tisfa

ctio

n, th

e re

sear

cher

s fo

und

that

th

ere

was

a lo

w d

egre

e of

cor

rela

tion;

all

othe

r acc

omm

odat

ion

subs

cale

s (h

uman

, ph

ysic

al, a

nd o

rgan

izat

iona

l) co

rrel

ated

to a

gre

ater

deg

ree

with

thes

e pa

rtici

patio

n m

easu

res.

S

X

Sm

ith (2

014)

The

rese

arch

er re

porte

d th

ree

supe

rord

inat

e th

emes

, as

findi

ngs

for t

his

inte

rpre

ta-

tive

phen

omen

olog

ical

ana

lysi

s of

stu

dent

s’ e

xper

ienc

es o

f tra

nsiti

on to

the

post

sec-

onda

ry s

ettin

g: d

evel

opin

g id

entit

y, d

esiri

ng c

redi

bilit

y, a

nd c

ontro

lling

info

rmat

ion.

Th

ese

them

es w

ere

refle

cted

in n

este

d th

emes

of s

eeki

ng in

depe

nden

ce, t

rans

ition

-in

g be

twee

n di

scre

te e

nviro

nmen

ts, a

nd v

alui

ng s

amen

ess;

see

king

und

erst

andi

ng

from

oth

ers,

and

val

uing

resp

ect a

nd tr

ust f

rom

oth

ers;

and

des

iring

con

ceal

men

t, an

d re

luct

antly

em

brac

ing

inte

rdep

ende

nce.

The

se th

emes

indi

cate

the

stud

ent p

artic

i-pa

nts’

per

cept

ions

abo

ut s

eeki

ng a

nd re

ceiv

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

and

ther

eby

com

ing

to te

rms

with

thei

r dis

abili

ties

and

need

s as

wel

l as

thei

r int

erde

pend

ence

and

com

pe-

tenc

e.

S

X

X

Sm

ith &

Ric

-co

min

i (20

13)

Gro

upw

ise

read

ing

com

preh

ensi

on m

eans

for t

he fo

ur p

artic

ipan

t gro

ups

wer

e co

m-

pare

d fo

r bot

h th

e st

anda

rd a

dmin

istra

tion

and

acco

mm

odat

ed c

ondi

tion.

The

ave

rage

sc

ores

by

grou

p w

ithou

t acc

omm

odat

ions

wer

e (in

des

cend

ing

orde

r): s

tude

nts

with

out

disa

bilit

ies,

at-r

isk

stud

ents

, stu

dent

s w

ith o

ther

dis

abili

ties,

and

stu

dent

s w

ith le

arni

ng

disa

bilit

ies.

Whe

n pr

ovid

ed n

oise

-red

ucin

g he

adph

ones

, stu

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

-tie

s ha

d th

e sa

me

aver

age

scor

e (a

s w

ithou

t acc

omm

odat

ions

) as

a gr

oup,

at-r

isk

stud

ents

had

a s

mal

l effe

ct s

ize

(impr

ovem

ent),

stu

dent

s w

ith o

ther

dis

abili

ties

had

a hi

gh-m

oder

ate

effe

ct s

ize,

and

stu

dent

s w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s ha

d a

mod

erat

e ef

fect

si

ze. S

igni

fican

ce te

sts

show

ed th

at s

tude

nts

with

oth

er d

isab

ilitie

s w

ere

the

only

gro

up

that

sco

red

sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her o

n av

erag

e w

hen

usin

g no

ise-

redu

ctio

n he

adph

ones

. M

easu

red

anot

her w

ay, t

he la

rges

t pro

porti

on (5

7%) o

f stu

dent

s w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ili-

ties

impr

oved

thei

r sco

res

whe

n us

ing

nois

e re

duct

ion,

and

the

smal

lest

pro

porti

on o

f st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

(nea

rly 3

6%) i

mpr

oved

thei

r sco

res

with

the

acco

mm

oda-

tion.

Indi

vidu

al s

tude

nt c

ompa

rison

s sh

owed

that

som

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s us

ing

the

head

phon

es in

crea

sed

thei

r sco

res

by u

p to

60%

.

U

R

104 NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Ste

in (2

013)

The

rese

arch

er d

etai

led

parti

cipa

nts’

per

cept

ions

of t

he b

enefi

ts a

nd c

halle

nges

of

usin

g ac

adem

ic a

ccom

mod

atio

ns, i

nclu

ding

dur

ing

cour

se e

xam

s. P

artic

ipan

ts re

-po

rted

that

the

mos

t fre

quen

tly u

sed

acco

mm

odat

ions

wer

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns d

urin

g ex

ams

(e.g

., ex

tend

ed ti

me

and

dist

ract

ion

free

setti

ng) a

nd n

ote

take

r or a

cces

s to

in

stru

ctor

s’ n

otes

. The

cha

lleng

es re

late

d to

thei

r dis

abili

ties

incl

uded

lim

its in

abi

lity

to

conc

entra

te d

urin

g cl

asse

s, to

com

plet

e te

stin

g in

a s

et ti

me

or in

a la

rge

grou

p se

tting

, an

d fe

elin

g an

xiou

s w

hen

atte

ndin

g ce

rtain

cla

sses

. The

y no

ted

the

chal

leng

e re

gard

-in

g ta

king

exa

ms

in a

qui

et s

pace

but

with

out a

vaila

bilit

y of

the

prof

esso

r to

clar

ify

exam

que

stio

ns.

S

X

X

Sto

ne e

t al.

(201

3)

The

rese

arch

ers

confi

rmed

that

the

two-

stag

e co

nditi

on-a

dapt

ive

asse

ssm

ent f

orm

at

wou

ld fa

cilit

ate

mea

surin

g bo

th d

ecod

ing

and

com

preh

ensi

on c

ompo

nent

s in

a m

an-

ner t

hat a

ddre

sses

the

need

s of

bot

h su

ppor

ting

stud

ents

with

read

ing-

base

d le

arni

ng

disa

bilit

ies

and

obta

inin

g va

lid s

core

s no

t affe

cted

by

cons

truct

val

idity

con

cern

s. In

ot

her w

ords

, the

pro

visi

on o

f ora

l del

iver

y ac

com

mod

atio

ns fo

r rea

ding

pas

sage

s (fo

r as

sess

ing

com

preh

ensi

on) d

id n

ot c

ompl

icat

e th

e ca

paci

ty o

f the

test

ing

syst

em to

se

para

tely

obt

ain

oral

read

ing

fluen

cy s

core

s fro

m s

tude

nts

with

read

ing-

base

d le

arn-

ing

disa

bilit

ies

(who

read

pas

sage

s al

oud

usin

g he

adse

ts w

ith m

icro

phon

es).

Stu

dent

s w

ith re

adin

g-ba

sed

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

who

resp

onde

d to

the

stud

y su

rvey

indi

cate

d th

at th

e or

al d

eliv

ery

acco

mm

odat

ion

prov

ided

via

MP

3 pl

ayer

met

thei

r nee

ds, a

nd

abou

t 70%

of t

hem

repo

rted

havi

ng u

sed

oral

del

iver

y fo

r the

ent

ire te

st (w

ith a

bout

16

% u

sing

ora

l del

iver

y fo

r mos

t tes

t ite

ms)

. The

se s

tude

nts

also

indi

cate

d th

at th

ey

felt

they

sco

red

bette

r on

the

acco

mm

odat

ed te

st th

an th

e no

n-ac

com

mod

ated

test

.

S

R

R

Sza

rko

et a

l. (2

013)

Com

paris

ons

betw

een

mat

ched

pai

rs o

f you

ng s

tude

nts

with

aut

ism

or p

erva

sive

de-

velo

pmen

tal d

isor

der,

base

d in

par

t on

dem

ogra

phic

s an

d on

lang

uage

func

tioni

ng a

nd

inst

ruct

iona

l lev

el, y

ield

ed th

at b

oth

perfo

rman

ce a

nd v

erba

l sub

test

s’ m

ean

scor

es

for t

he s

tude

nts

with

fam

iliar

exa

min

ers

wer

e si

gnifi

cant

ly h

ighe

r tha

n th

e st

uden

ts

with

unf

amili

ar e

xam

iner

s. T

he b

ehav

iora

l obs

erva

tion

resu

lts s

how

ed n

o si

gnifi

cant

di

ffere

nce

betw

een

the

grou

ps fo

r the

num

ber o

f exa

min

er p

rom

pts

nor f

or th

e nu

m-

ber o

f ite

ms

refu

sed;

the

num

ber o

f aty

pica

l beh

avio

rs w

ere

sign

ifica

ntly

low

er fo

r the

st

uden

ts w

ith fa

mili

ar e

xam

iner

s ye

t the

rese

arch

ers

indi

cate

d th

at m

eans

of l

ess

than

on

e pe

r tes

t (fo

r bot

h gr

oups

) see

med

not

sig

nific

ant i

n pr

actic

e.

U

105NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Torr

es (2

014)

The

findi

ngs

of th

e ca

se s

tudi

es y

ield

ed v

ario

us d

etai

ls a

bout

the

trans

ition

pro

cess

fro

m s

econ

dary

to p

osts

econ

dary

edu

catio

n. P

artic

ipan

ts in

dica

ted

the

impo

rtanc

e of

aca

dem

ic a

nd s

ocia

l sup

ports

, inc

ludi

ng th

e be

nefic

ial i

mpa

ct o

f acc

omm

odat

ions

pr

ovid

ed d

urin

g ex

amin

atio

ns, p

rimar

ily e

xten

ded

time

and

sepa

rate

low

dis

tract

ion

setti

ng. I

n in

terv

iew

s, p

artic

ipan

ts n

oted

exa

m a

ccom

mod

atio

ns th

at w

ere

help

ful,

and

also

the

diffi

culti

es a

nd im

porta

nce

of c

omm

unic

atio

n w

ith fa

culty

mem

bers

rega

rd-

ing

thei

r cha

lleng

es. T

he re

sear

cher

als

o an

alyz

ed d

ata

acro

ss c

ases

, and

alth

ough

se

vera

l the

mes

em

erge

d, h

er e

xam

inat

ion

of a

cade

mic

stre

ss w

as m

ost p

ertin

ent a

nd

info

rmat

ive

rega

rdin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns.

S

,E,P

X

Wad

ley

&

Lilje

quis

t (2

013)

Pos

tsec

onda

ry s

tude

nts

with

AD

HD

sco

red

low

er o

n av

erag

e, a

nd to

ok lo

nger

, on

the

mat

h pl

acem

ent e

xam

than

par

ticip

ants

with

out A

DH

D. S

tude

nts

with

AD

HD

als

o ha

d a

low

er s

elf-e

stee

m s

core

than

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t AD

HD

. Par

ticip

ants

with

AD

HD

did

no

t diff

er s

igni

fican

tly a

cros

s th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n co

nditi

ons;

furth

er, t

hey

used

abo

ut

the

sam

e am

ount

of t

ime,

on

aver

age,

whe

ther

they

wer

e to

ld th

ey h

ad th

e st

anda

rd

adm

inis

tratio

n tim

e or

the

exte

nded

-tim

e ac

com

mod

atio

n. F

inal

ly, a

ll pa

rtici

pant

s, w

ith

or w

ithou

t AD

HD

, did

not

use

all,

or e

ven

near

ly a

ll, th

e tim

e al

lotte

d (4

5 m

inut

es in

bo

th c

ondi

tions

).

E

XM

Wiz

ikow

ski

(201

3)

Acr

oss

both

pub

lic a

nd p

rivat

e un

iver

sitie

s, a

bout

93%

of s

tude

nt p

artic

ipan

ts h

ave

rece

ived

acc

omm

odat

ions

at s

ome

poin

t dur

ing

thei

r pos

tsec

onda

ry s

tudy

. Reg

ard-

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

offe

red

durin

g co

urse

exa

min

atio

ns, a

bout

71%

of r

espo

ndin

g pu

blic

uni

vers

ity s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

rece

ived

thes

e, a

nd a

bout

76%

of t

hose

at

the

priv

ate

univ

ersi

ty re

ceiv

ed th

em, a

vera

ging

72.

5% o

f stu

dent

resp

onde

nts

over

-al

l. E

xam

-rel

ated

acc

omm

odat

ions

wer

e ra

ted

an a

vera

ge o

f 3.6

(with

3=u

sefu

l, an

d 4=

very

use

ful).

As

for t

he d

egre

e of

sat

isfa

ctio

n ab

out a

cade

mic

sup

ports

incl

udin

g ac

-co

mm

odat

ions

, the

re w

ere

no d

iffer

ence

s be

twee

n re

spon

dent

s’ s

atis

fact

ion

base

d on

un

iver

sity

type

. For

inst

ance

, res

pond

ents

indi

cate

d ab

out a

3.5

5 av

erag

e sa

tisfa

ctio

n sc

ore

(with

3=s

atis

fied

and

4=ve

ry s

atis

fied)

rega

rdin

g ac

adem

ic s

uppo

rt of

fice

staf

f ’s

acco

mm

odat

ions

kno

wle

dge.

Oth

er fi

ndin

gs p

erta

ined

to a

spec

ts o

f the

stu

dy u

nre-

late

d to

acc

omm

odat

ions

, suc

h as

stu

dent

sel

f-adv

ocac

y an

d th

e m

anne

r by

whi

ch

stud

ents

sou

ght a

ssis

tanc

e w

ith a

cade

mic

sup

ports

.

S

X

X

106 NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Wor

land

(2

014)

Gra

de 3

par

ticip

ants

per

form

ed b

est o

n av

erag

e in

the

info

rmat

iona

l rep

ort g

enre

of

writ

ing

in c

ompa

rison

with

the

pers

uasi

ve a

nd n

arra

tive

genr

es, w

hile

gra

de 5

par

-tic

ipan

ts d

emon

stra

ted

no s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ce a

mon

g av

erag

e pe

rform

ance

s in

the

thre

e ge

nres

. Writ

ing

quan

tity

in te

rms

of n

umbe

r of w

ords

was

not

a p

redi

ctor

of w

rit-

ing

qual

ity. G

rade

3 p

artic

ipan

ts a

lso

scor

ed b

ette

r on

aver

age

whe

n pr

ovid

ed th

e or

al

deliv

ery

acco

mm

odat

ion

than

with

out,

whi

le g

rade

5 p

artic

ipan

ts p

erfo

rmed

no

diffe

r-en

tly o

n av

erag

e w

ith o

r with

out t

he a

ccom

mod

atio

n. In

term

s of

gen

re, b

oth

grad

e 3

and

grad

e 5

parti

cipa

nts

bene

fited

mos

t fro

m o

ral d

eliv

ery

whe

n pr

oduc

ing

narr

ativ

e w

ritin

g.

O

W

Yaku

bova

&

Bou

ck (2

014)

Gra

de 5

par

ticip

ants

with

mild

inte

llect

ual d

isab

ilitie

s (n

=5) o

n av

erag

e sc

ored

hig

her

on m

ath

test

-type

task

s—bo

th c

ompu

tatio

n an

d w

ord

prob

lem

sol

ving

—w

hen

usin

g ca

lcul

ator

s in

com

paris

on w

ith w

hen

usin

g pa

per a

nd p

enci

ls to

sol

ve. R

esea

rche

rs

repo

rted

that

four

stu

dent

s av

erag

ed 0

% c

orre

ct d

urin

g ba

selin

e an

d 60

-100

% c

orre

ct

durin

g in

terv

entio

n on

wor

d pr

oble

ms.

Als

o, fo

r fou

r stu

dent

s, c

alcu

lato

r use

resu

lted

in

decr

ease

d re

spon

se ti

mes

on

both

item

item

type

s. C

ompa

rison

of r

elat

ive

bene

fit o

f th

e ca

lcul

ator

s w

ith o

ne a

noth

er in

dica

ted

that

two

impr

oved

mor

e w

ith g

raph

ing

cal-

cula

tors

and

two

impr

oved

mor

e w

ith s

cien

tific

calc

ulat

ors,

and

one

stu

dent

impr

oved

si

mila

rly w

ith b

oth

calc

ulat

ors.

Stu

dent

pre

fere

nces

for o

ne ty

pe o

f cal

cula

tor o

ver t

he

othe

r gen

eral

ly fo

llow

ed th

e sa

me

rela

tive

bene

fit p

atte

rn, e

xcep

t for

one

stu

dent

who

pr

efer

red

the

scie

ntifi

c ca

lcul

ator

yet

sco

red

slig

htly

bet

ter u

sing

the

grap

hing

cal

cu-

lato

r. Fi

nally

, the

teac

her i

ndic

ated

that

stu

dent

s be

nefit

ed fr

om u

sing

cal

cula

tors

by

lear

ning

to s

olve

mor

e ad

vanc

ed p

robl

ems

with

out h

avin

g to

use

oth

er s

trate

gies

they

kn

ew, s

uch

as c

ount

ing

on n

umbe

r lin

es. H

owev

er, t

he te

ache

r ind

icat

ed th

at th

ese

type

s of

cal

cula

tors

had

cap

abili

ties

not a

pplie

d at

the

stud

ents

’ cur

rent

mat

h le

vel,

and

indi

cate

d th

at a

bas

ic fo

ur-fu

nctio

n ca

lcul

ator

wou

ld b

e su

ffici

ent.

C

M

107NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Youn

g (2

013)

Qua

litat

ive

data

yie

lded

that

adv

isor

s w

ere

fam

iliar

with

pro

cess

of s

tude

nts’

acc

essi

ng

disa

bilit

y se

rvic

es o

ffice

s fo

r acc

omm

odat

ions

, yet

not

fam

iliar

with

spe

cific

acc

omm

o-da

tions

pro

cedu

res.

Sur

vey

(qua

ntita

tive)

dat

a in

dica

ted

that

mor

e th

an h

alf o

f res

pon-

dent

s w

ere

not t

rain

ed a

bout

dis

abili

ty le

gisl

atio

n an

d ot

herw

ise

less

than

ade

quat

ely

prep

ared

to a

dvis

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s. O

n th

e ad

vise

men

t sce

nario

s in

the

sur-

veys

, jus

t ove

r hal

f of r

espo

nden

ts s

elec

ted

appr

opria

te re

spon

ses

for s

ix to

nin

e of

the

12 q

uest

ions

. Whe

n an

alyz

ing

the

surv

ey re

spon

dent

s’ c

hara

cter

istic

s an

d w

orki

ng c

ir-cu

mst

ance

s, th

e re

sear

cher

iden

tified

that

full-

time

advi

sor s

tatu

s w

as a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith

conn

ectin

g st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s to

aca

dem

ic s

uppo

rts, a

nd th

at p

rivat

e fo

ur-y

ear

inst

itutio

n re

spon

dent

s an

d th

ose

who

use

a p

resc

riptiv

e ap

proa

ch to

adv

isin

g w

ere

asso

ciat

ed w

ith fa

iling

to re

fer s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

to d

isab

ility

ser

vice

s of

fices

.

E

X

X

Zebe

hazy

&

Wilt

on (2

014)

Em

phas

is in

this

sum

mar

y w

as o

n la

rge-

scal

e as

sess

men

t acc

omm

odat

ions

, and

not

th

e pa

rt of

the

stud

y di

scus

sing

acc

omm

odat

ions

in te

xtbo

oks

and

clas

sroo

m te

stin

g.

Sur

vey

resp

onde

nts,

teac

hers

of s

tude

nts

with

vis

ual i

mpa

irmen

ts fr

om th

roug

hout

th

e U

.S. a

nd C

anad

a, re

porte

d on

thei

r per

cept

ions

of t

he q

ualit

y an

d im

porta

nce

of

grap

hic

adap

tatio

ns in

larg

e-sc

ale

asse

ssm

ents

. Whe

n ra

ting

thes

e gr

aphi

cs’ a

ppro

pri-

aten

ess,

few

er th

an h

alf o

f the

resp

onde

nts

agre

ed o

r stro

ngly

agr

eed

that

tact

ile a

nd

prin

t gra

phic

s w

ere

appr

opria

tely

ada

pted

, with

hig

her (

at s

igni

fican

t lev

el) i

ncid

ence

of

agre

emen

t rat

ings

for p

rint g

raph

ics

over

tact

ile g

raph

ics.

How

ever

, mor

e th

an h

alf o

f th

e re

spon

dent

s in

dica

ted

that

they

them

selv

es w

ere

com

forta

ble

mak

ing

tact

ile g

raph

-ic

s bo

th u

nder

stan

dabl

e an

d us

able

, and

that

they

pre

pare

d st

uden

ts in

cla

ss fo

r tac

tile

grap

hics

on

larg

e-sc

ale

asse

ssm

ents

. Nea

rly a

ll re

spon

dent

s co

ncur

red

that

exp

osur

e to

tact

ile g

raph

ics

at a

n ea

rly a

ge w

as im

porta

nt. R

elat

ivel

y fe

w re

spon

dent

s (1

1%)

agre

ed o

r stro

ngly

agr

eed

that

writ

ten

desc

riptio

ns a

ssis

ted

stud

ents

’ und

erst

and-

ing

bette

r tha

n ta

ctile

gra

phic

s; a

lmos

t all

resp

onde

nts

(89%

) con

curr

ed th

at ta

ctile

gr

aphi

cs c

ombi

ned

with

writ

ten

expl

anat

ions

wer

e th

e be

st p

rese

ntat

ion

form

at. W

hen

repo

rting

inst

ruct

iona

l pra

ctic

es a

bout

gra

phic

s, o

nly

22%

of r

espo

nden

ts e

xpre

ssed

ag

reem

ent a

bout

hav

ing

adeq

uate

tim

e. F

urth

er, a

bout

38%

of r

espo

nden

ts c

oncu

rred

th

at th

ey h

ave

skill

s te

achi

ng ta

ctile

gra

phic

s, w

hile

nea

rly a

ll (9

7%) c

onsi

dere

d te

ach-

ing

tact

ile g

raph

ics

as p

art o

f the

ir jo

bs. F

inal

ly, a

bout

67%

of r

espo

nden

ts re

porte

d th

at m

ost o

f the

ir st

uden

ts c

an in

depe

nden

tly u

nder

stan

d pr

int g

raph

ics,

and

21%

re

porte

d th

e sa

me

abou

t tac

tile

grap

hics

.

E

X

108 NCEO

Res

earc

hers

Find

ings

Effects

Perceptions

Implement/Use

Validity

Postsecond-ary

Content

Zhan

g et

al.

(201

4)

Stu

dent

s w

ith g

eom

etry

diffi

culti

es s

core

d si

gnifi

cant

ly b

ette

r, on

ave

rage

, whe

n us

ing

inte

grat

ed o

bjec

t rep

rese

ntat

ion

in c

ompa

rison

with

the

stan

dard

test

ing

cond

ition

. S

tude

nts

with

out g

eom

etry

diffi

culti

es s

core

d a

sign

ifica

ntly

low

er m

ean

whe

n us

ing

the

acco

mm

odat

ion,

com

pare

d to

whe

n th

ey d

id n

ot u

se th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n. A

ddi-

tiona

l ana

lysi

s in

dica

ted

that

ther

e w

as a

n in

tera

ctio

n ef

fect

in th

e re

sults

, in

that

the

stud

ents

with

geo

met

ry d

ifficu

lties

diff

eren

tially

ben

efite

d fro

m th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n.

Furth

er, s

tude

nts

with

geo

met

ry d

ifficu

lties

who

sco

red

rela

tivel

y lo

wer

than

thei

r pee

rs

(als

o w

ith g

eom

etry

diffi

culti

es) o

n th

e st

anda

rd te

st a

lso

scor

ed h

ighe

r tha

n th

ose

sam

e pe

ers

whe

n us

ing

inte

grat

ed o

bjec

t rep

rese

ntat

ion.

U

M

TOTA

L

2522

166

1524

Effe

cts:

A=A

ccom

mod

atio

ns in

gen

eral

, Agg

=Agg

rega

ted

grou

ping

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns, C

=Cal

cula

tor,

E=E

xten

ded

time,

O=O

ral d

eliv

ery,

SS

=Sep

arat

e/sp

ecia

lized

set

ting,

U=U

niqu

e/un

com

mon

Per

cept

ions

: E=E

duca

tors

, P=P

aren

ts, S

=Stu

dent

s

Valid

ity: M

=Mat

h, R

=Rea

ding

, S=S

cien

ce, W

=Writ

ing

Con

tent

: M=M

ath,

R=R

eadi

ng, S

=Sci

ence

, W=W

ritin

g

109NCEO

Appendix G

Limitations and Future Research

110 NCEO

Tab

le G

-1. S

tud

y L

imit

atio

ns

by R

esea

rch

ers

and

Lim

itat

ion

s C

ateg

ory

Not

e. D

irect

quo

tes

from

the

artic

les

appe

ar w

ithin

quo

tatio

n m

arks

.

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Abe

di &

Ew

-er

s (2

013)

“. . .

this

sys

tem

nee

ds to

be

con-

stan

tly re

vise

d as

new

stu

dies

ar

e ad

ded

to th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n lit

erat

ure”

(p. 1

3).

Acc

ordi

ng to

the

rese

arch

ers

of

this

lite

ratu

re re

view

arti

cle,

“. .

. th

ere

are

not e

noug

h st

udie

s in

th

e fie

ld to

she

d lig

ht a

nd h

elp

with

dec

isio

ns o

n m

any

of th

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns c

urre

ntly

use

d by

the

SB

AC

’s m

embe

r sta

tes.

Th

ere

is a

nee

d fo

r and

a c

ur-

rent

tren

d to

war

d re

sear

ch th

at

assi

gns

acco

mm

odat

ions

bas

ed

on in

divi

dual

stu

dent

nee

d so

th

at s

ome

stud

ents

with

spe

cific

ne

eds

wou

ld re

ceiv

e th

e ac

com

-m

odat

ion

and

othe

rs w

ould

not

” (p

. 13)

.

“. . .

sub

ject

ivity

invo

lved

in a

ssig

n-in

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns to

the

diffe

rent

ca

tego

ries

disc

usse

d ab

ove.

Diff

eren

t re

view

ers

of th

e lit

erat

ure

may

mak

e di

ffere

nt ju

dgm

ents

par

ticul

arly

with

th

e st

udie

s th

at p

rovi

ded

inco

nsis

tent

re

sults

” (p.

13)

.

“. . .

acc

omm

odat

ions

that

are

id

entifi

ed b

y th

e sy

stem

to b

e ef

fect

ive

and

valid

may

not

be

cons

iste

nt w

ith th

e po

licie

s of

so

me

SB

AC

’s m

embe

r sta

tes”

(p

. 13)

.

Alk

ahta

ni

(201

3)

The

rela

tivel

y sm

all n

umbe

r of

parti

cipa

nts

limite

d ge

nera

liz-

abili

ty to

the

gene

ral p

opul

atio

n of

teac

hers

.

Bar

nhill

(2

014)

In th

e re

sear

cher

’s re

crui

tmen

t ef

forts

, she

not

ed, s

he fo

und

that

th

e in

form

atio

n ac

cura

cy o

n th

e cu

rren

t sta

tus

of p

osts

econ

dary

pr

ogra

ms

and

serv

ices

des

igne

d fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith A

sper

ger s

yn-

drom

e (A

S) w

ere

prob

lem

atic

; so

me

post

seco

ndar

y in

stitu

tions

di

d no

t hav

e th

em a

nd o

ther

s w

ithou

t rel

evan

t inf

orm

atio

n w

ere

actu

ally

ear

ly in

the

proc

ess

of b

egin

ning

AS

pro

gram

s or

se

rvic

es. “

It w

as a

lso

dete

rmin

ed

that

the

maj

ority

of t

he c

urre

nt

prog

ram

s se

rved

stu

dent

s w

ith

AS

D, i

nclu

ding

AS

, rat

her t

han

excl

usiv

ely

serv

ing

stud

ents

with

A

S” (

p. 1

1).

Follo

w-u

p w

ith th

e st

udy’

s pa

rtici

pat-

ing

post

seco

ndar

y in

stitu

tions

to

iden

tify

whi

ch s

uppo

rts, i

nclu

ding

ac-

com

mod

atio

ns, t

hat t

hey

impl

emen

t-ed

bas

ed o

n fin

ding

s. In

vest

igat

e w

hich

acc

omm

odat

ions

and

oth

er

supp

orts

cou

ld b

enefi

t pos

tsec

ond-

ary

stud

ents

with

aut

ism

-rel

ated

di

sabi

litie

s.

111NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Ber

ger &

Le

wan

dow

ski

(201

3)

The

parti

cipa

ting

stud

ents

w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s ha

d do

cum

enta

tion

for t

heir

disa

bil-

ities

—”p

rofe

ssio

nal d

iagn

oses

th

at h

ave

been

revi

ewed

and

ap

prov

ed b

y an

acc

redi

ted

univ

ersi

ty” (

p. 3

15).

How

ever

, the

re

sear

cher

s no

ted,

the

findi

ng

show

ed n

on-s

igni

fican

t effe

ct

size

diff

eren

ces

betw

een

stu-

dent

s w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t lea

rnin

g di

sabi

litie

s in

writ

ing

fluen

cy a

nd

essa

y qu

ality

and

leng

th. T

he

rese

arch

ers

sugg

este

d th

at “[

i]t c

ould

be

that

stu

dent

s in

the

LD g

roup

wer

e no

t pro

perly

di-

agno

sed

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e D

SM

-IV c

riter

ia, p

artic

ular

ly w

ith

rega

rd to

sig

nific

ant i

mpa

irmen

ts

in a

cade

mic

ski

ll le

vels

” (p.

315

).

“It is

pos

sibl

e th

at th

e LD

dia

gno-

ses

in th

is s

tudy

wer

e va

lid, y

et th

e m

easu

res

used

in th

is s

tudy

wer

e no

t sen

sitiv

e en

ough

to d

etec

t gro

up

diffe

renc

es. T

he o

nly

evid

ence

of a

di

ffere

nce

in g

roup

per

form

ance

was

G

PA. I

t is

poss

ible

that

diff

eren

ces

in G

PA c

ould

hav

e re

sulte

d fro

m a

ny

num

ber o

f rea

sons

incl

udin

g lo

wer

ac

adem

ic e

xpec

tatio

ns b

y th

e LD

gr

oup

or th

e ef

fect

s of

a h

eavy

aca

-de

mic

wor

kloa

d. It

wou

ld h

ave

been

id

eal t

o ha

ve a

larg

e sa

mpl

e of

LD

st

uden

ts th

at a

ctua

lly d

emon

stra

ted

sign

ifica

nt im

pairm

ent i

n a

parti

cula

r as

pect

of w

ritin

g, b

ut w

e co

uld

not

find

such

a g

roup

in a

uni

vers

ity o

f 12

,000

stu

dent

s” (p

. 315

).

Bot

ello

(201

4)

The

parti

cipa

nts

in th

e st

udy

wer

e el

emen

tary

stu

dent

s, s

o te

ach-

ers

faci

litat

ed d

ata

colle

ctio

n an

d pr

ovid

ed d

ata

rega

rdin

g th

eir

obse

rvat

ions

of s

tude

nt p

artic

ipan

ts;

“. . .

the

rese

arch

er o

bser

ved

lack

of

teac

her b

uy-in

. Eve

n th

ough

the

teac

hers

con

sent

ed to

par

ticip

ate

in

the

stud

y, te

ache

rs w

ere

not a

lway

s co

nsis

tent

and

pre

pare

d to

test

. . .

. The

rese

arch

er w

as s

uspi

ciou

s of

th

e re

sults

turn

ed in

, eve

n th

ough

the

tally

mar

ks w

ere

cons

iste

nt w

ith o

ther

be

nchm

ark

obse

rvat

iona

l she

ets”

(p.

103)

.

The

rese

arch

er re

porte

d th

at

test

ing

cond

ition

s w

ere

not i

deal

: “.

. . a

num

ber o

f int

erru

ptio

ns

durin

g th

e te

stin

g of

stu

dent

s. .

. . T

hese

inte

rrup

tions

, ass

oci-

ated

with

the

elem

enta

ry s

choo

l co

mpu

ter l

abor

ator

y se

tting

wer

e fa

ctor

s th

at c

ould

hav

e lim

ited

the

enga

gem

ent o

f stu

dent

s,

as w

ell a

s af

fect

ed th

e re

adin

g co

mpr

ehen

sion

resu

lts” (

pp.

103-

104)

.

112 NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Bru

mfie

ld

(201

4)

Sm

all s

ampl

e si

ze; p

artic

ipan

ts

wer

e st

uden

ts fr

om o

ne u

rban

G

eorg

ia h

igh

scho

ol w

ho h

ad

read

ing-

rela

ted

lear

ning

dis

abili

-tie

s an

d w

ho h

ad n

o di

sabi

litie

s,

and

gene

raliz

atio

n be

yond

thes

e st

uden

ts w

as c

hara

cter

ized

as

limite

d.

The

oral

del

iver

y ac

com

mod

atio

n w

as p

rovi

ded

by te

st a

dmin

istra

-to

rs, “

incr

easi

ng v

aryi

ng re

ader

em

phas

es” (

p. 1

1). T

est-t

aker

s co

uld

not p

ace

the

in-p

erso

n or

al

deliv

ery

acco

mm

odat

ion,

whi

ch

coul

d ha

ve a

ffect

ed s

tude

nts’

m

aint

aini

ng a

ttent

ion,

des

crib

ed

as “a

var

iabl

e th

at w

as n

ot c

on-

trolle

d fo

r” (p

. 11)

. The

acc

om-

mod

ated

con

ditio

n to

ok lo

nger

th

an s

tand

ard

adm

inis

tratio

n, in

-di

catin

g th

at b

oth

exte

nded

tim

e an

d or

al d

eliv

ery

wer

e pr

ovid

ed.

Buz

ick

&

Sto

ne (2

014)

“Our

dec

isio

n to

trea

t gra

de

leve

l ind

epen

dent

ly a

nd in

clud

e m

ultip

le c

ompa

rison

s fro

m th

e sa

me

stud

y in

eac

h of

our

six

m

odel

s m

ay h

ave

cont

ribut

ed to

a

dow

nwar

d bi

as o

n th

e st

anda

rd

erro

rs” (

p. 2

3). “

As

with

any

m

eta-

anal

ysis

, the

influ

ence

of

pas

t stu

dies

on

subs

eque

nt

stud

ies

also

may

hav

e ca

used

a

depe

nden

cy a

mon

g co

mpa

rison

s an

d bi

ased

sta

ndar

d er

rors

” (p.

23

). “W

hile

we

min

imiz

ed o

ther

de

pend

enci

es a

cros

s co

mpa

ri-so

ns b

y es

timat

ing

rand

om

effe

cts

mod

els

sepa

rate

ly fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t dis

-ab

ilitie

s by

con

tent

are

a, th

e co

st o

f thi

s de

cisi

on w

as th

at th

e nu

mbe

r of s

tudi

es w

as to

o sm

all

to p

erfo

rm s

tatis

tical

test

s of

the

influ

ence

of m

oder

ator

var

iabl

es

on th

e ov

eral

l effe

ct s

izes

from

th

e si

x m

odel

s” (p

. 23)

.

“. . .

unl

ike

rand

omiz

ed tr

ials

or

stud

ies

with

nat

iona

l sam

ples

, m

ost o

f the

rese

arch

on

acco

m-

mod

atio

ns c

omes

from

con

ve-

nien

ce s

ampl

es (e

.g.,

stud

ents

fro

m s

ever

al s

choo

ls);

cons

e-qu

ently

, the

est

imat

ed a

vera

ge

effe

cts

of re

ad a

loud

may

not

ge

nera

lize

to a

ll st

uden

ts in

th

e U

nite

d S

tate

s” (p

. 23)

. “. .

. be

caus

e of

the

limite

d nu

mbe

r of

com

paris

ons

with

in e

ach

leve

l of

the

theo

retic

ally

impo

rtant

m

oder

ator

var

iabl

es, w

e w

ere

not a

ble

to s

tatis

tical

ly te

st th

e im

pact

of d

isab

ility

sta

tus,

. . .

or

grad

e le

vel o

n th

e ef

fect

of r

ead

alou

d, n

or w

ere

we

able

to m

odel

th

eir i

nter

actio

n” (p

. 23)

.

“Giv

en th

e in

crea

sed

use

of te

ch-

nolo

gy to

del

iver

ass

essm

ents

, re

ad a

loud

del

iver

ed v

ia d

igita

l or

hum

an-b

ased

text

-to-s

peec

h w

ill li

kely

be

the

mos

t com

mon

de

liver

y m

ode

on fu

ture

ass

ess-

men

ts—

beca

use

of th

e lim

ited

num

ber o

f stu

dies

on

this

mod

e,

our r

esul

ts m

ay n

ot g

ener

al-

ize

to fu

ture

use

s of

read

alo

ud

deliv

ered

via

text

-to-s

peec

h.

How

ever

, as

stud

ies

incr

easi

ngly

em

ploy

this

del

iver

y m

etho

d,

they

sho

uld

be in

corp

orat

ed

into

futu

re m

eta-

anal

yses

. . .

. be

caus

e of

the

limite

d nu

mbe

r of

com

paris

ons

with

in e

ach

leve

l of

the

theo

retic

ally

impo

rtant

m

oder

ator

var

iabl

es, w

e w

ere

not a

ble

to s

tatis

tical

ly te

st th

e im

pact

of

. . .

deliv

ery

mod

e .

. . o

n th

e ef

fect

of r

ead

alou

d,

nor w

ere

we

able

to m

odel

thei

r in

tera

ctio

n” (p

. 23)

.

Caw

thon

&

Lepp

o (2

013)

N/A

— li

tera

ture

revi

ewN

/A —

lite

ratu

re re

view

N/A

— li

tera

ture

revi

ewN

/A —

lite

ratu

re re

view

N/A

— li

tera

ture

revi

ew

113NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Caw

thon

et a

l. (2

013a

)

“. . .

from

a s

tudy

des

ign

per-

spec

tive,

this

ana

lysi

s ev

alua

ted

item

acc

essi

bilit

y af

ter t

he fa

ct,

usin

g a

tool

that

did

not

cle

arly

m

atch

up

with

all

of th

e cr

iteria

us

ed fo

r rev

isio

n in

the

orig

inal

pr

oces

s. O

ccas

tiona

lly, T

AM

I-A

RM

[Tes

t Acc

essi

bilit

y an

d M

od-

ifica

tion

Inve

ntor

y-A

cces

sibi

lity

Rat

ing

Mat

rix] s

corin

g cr

iteria

di

d no

t fit a

ppar

ent s

ubst

antiv

e ch

ange

s in

the

item

form

at. I

n ot

her w

ords

, the

ir ite

m s

core

s di

d no

t see

m to

refle

ct th

e ite

m’s

ac

cess

ibili

ty b

ecau

se th

e fe

atur

e th

at w

as c

hang

ed w

as n

ot c

lear

ly

a pa

rt of

the

TAM

I-AR

M fr

ame-

wor

k. T

his

refle

cts

a lim

itatio

n of

th

e to

ol, o

n on

e ha

nd, a

lthou

gh it

al

low

ed a

diff

eren

t poi

nt o

f vie

w

that

enh

ance

d th

e an

alys

is in

th

is s

tudy

on

the

othe

r” (p

. 94)

. “.

. . m

ore

in d

epth

bac

kgro

und

data

for t

he S

wD

stu

dent

s w

ere

not c

olle

cted

, whi

ch c

ould

hav

e gi

ven

the

stud

y m

ore

info

rmat

ion

to c

onte

xtua

lize

the

eval

uatio

n”

(p. 9

4).

“Thi

s st

udy

carr

ied

with

it m

any

of th

e di

fficu

lties

of a

sec

onda

ry

data

ana

lysi

s. T

here

wer

e va

stly

un

even

sam

ple

size

s ac

ross

st

uden

t gro

ups,

with

a v

ery

smal

l pr

eval

ence

of s

tude

nts

in th

e D

HH

[dea

f or h

ard

of h

earin

g]

grou

p. T

his

data

set

was

refle

c-tiv

e of

the

real

ity th

at D

HH

are

a

low

-inci

denc

e po

pula

tion,

a fa

ct

that

pos

es a

s a

chal

leng

e ev

en

whe

n us

ing

larg

e-sc

ale

asse

ss-

men

t dat

abas

es s

uch

as th

ose

at th

e st

ate

or n

atio

nal l

evel

. H

owev

er, w

ith u

neve

n sa

mpl

es

acro

ss th

e gr

oups

(con

trol,

ELL

, LD

, and

DH

H),

anal

ysis

pro

ce-

dure

s w

ere

limite

d to

thos

e th

at

coul

d ac

com

mod

ate

such

diff

er-

ent g

roup

siz

es e

asily

” (p.

94)

.

Due

to te

chni

cal d

ifficu

lties

gat

herin

g on

line

surv

ey re

spon

ses,

not

all

of

the

resp

onde

nts’

inpu

t was

cap

ture

d.

Lim

ited

num

ber o

f con

tent

as-

sess

men

t ite

ms:

“onl

y 27

pai

rs o

f ite

ms

acro

ss th

ree

grad

es, w

hich

of

cou

rse

limits

the

gene

raliz

abil-

ity o

f the

find

ings

ove

rall”

(p. 9

4).

Als

o, “t

he c

ovar

iate

s ch

osen

in

this

ana

lysi

s, th

e st

atew

ide

sci-

ence

and

ELA

[Eng

lish

lang

uage

ar

ts] a

chie

vem

ent t

est s

core

s,

wer

e an

atte

mpt

to h

elp

acco

unt

for v

aria

tions

with

in e

ach

grou

p.

How

ever

the

stat

e ha

s ac

know

l-ed

ged

that

they

com

plet

ed th

e or

igin

al s

tudy

pre

cise

ly b

ecau

se

they

bel

ieve

d th

at th

eir g

ener

al

test

form

s m

ay n

ot b

e ac

cess

ible

‘e

noug

h,’ s

o th

e st

atew

ide

scor

es

may

alre

ady

have

a b

uilt

in b

ias.

In

add

ition

, alth

ough

the

scop

e of

th

e E

LA te

st, p

artic

ular

ly fo

r thi

rd

grad

e, is

par

tly a

test

of l

itera

cy

skill

s, te

sts

of th

is s

ubje

ct a

lso

in-

clud

e an

ass

essm

ent o

f lite

ratu

re

and

othe

r ski

lls o

nly

tang

entia

lly

rela

ted

to e

ither

sci

ence

or r

ead-

ing

or w

ritin

g” (p

. 94)

.

114 NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Caw

thon

et a

l. (2

013b

)

Par

ticip

ants

in th

e on

line

surv

ey

mig

ht h

ave

had

vary

ing

unde

r-st

andi

ngs

of th

e qu

estio

ns, a

nd

resp

onse

acc

urac

y co

uld

not

be v

erifi

ed. “

Whi

le th

e di

rec-

tions

wer

e pr

esen

ted

in A

SL

[Am

eric

an s

ign

lang

uage

] in

a vi

deo

form

at, t

he m

odul

arity

and

le

ngth

of t

he s

urve

y pr

eclu

ded

a fu

ll A

SL

vers

ion

of th

e su

rvey

its

elf.

We

do n

ot k

now

how

man

y in

divi

dual

s m

ay h

ave

left

the

surv

ey d

ue to

diffi

culti

es w

ith th

e re

adin

g le

vel r

equi

red

to fi

nish

it”

(p. 4

47).

Sur

vey

resp

onde

nts

wer

e lik

ely

to b

e pe

ople

who

wer

e fa

mili

ar

with

pep

net2

; as

such

, the

y w

ere

not n

eces

saril

y re

pres

enta

tive

of

all p

rofe

ssio

nals

. The

rese

arch

te

am g

athe

red

qual

itativ

e da

ta

from

a s

mal

l set

of r

esea

rch

parti

cipa

nts,

who

mig

ht n

ot h

ave

repr

esen

ted

the

popu

latio

n. T

he

inte

rvie

w p

artic

ipan

ts h

ad “t

heir

own

dive

rse

reas

ons

for w

ishi

ng

to c

ontri

bute

thei

r per

spec

tive”

(p

. 447

).

The

data

tran

scrip

ts w

ere

code

d by

tw

o or

mor

e te

am m

embe

rs, a

nd th

e te

am m

et to

dis

cuss

cod

ing

issu

es.

How

ever

, “th

e co

des

and

the

impl

ica-

tions

dra

wn

from

thes

e da

ta w

ere

influ

ence

d by

the

pers

pect

ives

of t

he

team

mem

bers

and

, as

such

, sho

uld

be c

onsi

dere

d ca

refu

lly” (

p. 4

47).

Whe

n pa

rtici

pant

s w

ere

aske

d to

di

scus

s ty

pica

l stu

dent

s, th

ey m

ight

ha

ve h

ad d

ifficu

lties

sum

mar

izin

g th

eir v

arie

d ex

perie

nces

: “th

ere

is a

lim

itatio

n to

ask

ing

prof

essi

onal

s to

m

enta

lly “a

vera

ge” t

he e

xper

ienc

e of

th

eir v

arie

d st

uden

ts a

nd c

lient

s. F

or

exam

ple,

if o

ne s

tude

nt h

ad a

ver

y di

fficu

lt ac

com

mod

atio

ns e

xper

ienc

e an

d an

othe

r had

a v

ery

posi

tive

expe

rienc

e, th

e av

erag

e of

the

two

wou

ld b

e a

mod

erat

e le

vel o

f acc

om-

mod

atio

ns q

ualit

y, m

aski

ng p

oten

tial-

ly im

porta

nt d

imen

sion

s of

thos

e tw

o di

verg

ent e

xper

ienc

es” (

p. 4

48).

Cra

wfo

rd

& K

ette

rlin-

Gel

ler (

2013

)

The

rela

tivel

y sm

all n

umbe

r of

parti

cipa

nts,

spe

cific

ally

onl

y m

iddl

e sc

hool

teac

hers

, lim

ited

gene

raliz

abili

ty to

the

gene

ral

popu

latio

n of

teac

hers

acr

oss

grad

e le

vels

and

stu

dent

cha

rac-

teris

tics.

The

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

-m

ent a

ctiv

ities

that

the

rese

arch

ers

prop

osed

nee

d to

be

view

ed “a

s co

nsid

-er

atio

ns, n

ot e

mpi

rical

ly

valid

ated

inte

rven

tions

” (p.

43

).

Finc

h &

Fin

ch

(201

3a)

none

none

none

none

none

Finc

h &

Fin

ch

(201

3b)

“. . .

the

prop

ortio

ns o

f ind

ivid

uals

w

ith p

artic

ular

iden

tified

dis

abili

-tie

s an

d ac

com

mod

atio

ns w

ere

rela

tivel

y lo

w in

this

sam

ple,

th

ough

it s

houl

d be

not

ed th

at

thes

e ra

tes

are

com

para

ble

to

thos

e in

the

gene

ral p

opul

a-tio

n. G

iven

the

larg

e si

ze o

f the

sa

mpl

e ov

eral

l, m

odel

par

amet

er

estim

atio

n w

as n

ot c

ompr

o-m

ised

” (p.

992

).

The

asse

ssm

ent c

ompr

ised

two

dist

inct

con

stru

cts,

mat

h an

d re

adin

g, w

ith th

e in

tent

ion

that

de

spite

cha

lleng

es, p

artic

ipan

ts

wou

ld b

e m

ore

easi

ly s

epar

ated

“in

to la

tent

cla

sses

with

dis

tinct

ite

m re

spon

se a

nd te

st s

core

m

ean

patte

rns”

(p. 9

92).

115NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Finc

her

(201

3)

Par

ticip

atio

n in

the

stud

y w

as

coor

dina

ted

at th

e sc

hool

leve

l (r

athe

r tha

n th

e in

divi

dual

test

-ta

ker l

evel

), fo

r log

istic

al s

impl

ic-

ity re

ason

s. “W

hile

this

app

roac

h m

ay h

ave

been

less

than

des

ir-ab

le, t

he fa

ct th

at th

e as

sign

men

t of

test

con

ditio

n at

the

scho

ol

leve

l was

rand

om re

duce

s th

e th

reat

to th

e co

nclu

sion

s dr

awn

from

the

stud

y” (p

. 92)

.

The

asse

ssm

ent h

ad a

cei

ling

effe

ct fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith a

bove

av

erag

e re

adin

g sk

ills.

Free

man

(2

013)

The

popu

latio

n da

ta w

ere

exam

-in

ed fo

r stu

dent

s ta

king

the

Nor

th

Car

olin

a al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent

base

d on

mod

ified

ach

ieve

men

t st

anda

rds

(AA

-MA

S; c

alle

d N

CE

XTE

ND

2) in

mat

hem

at-

ics,

read

ing,

and

sci

ence

in th

e 20

10-2

011

scho

ol y

ear.

“Res

ults

ca

n be

gen

eral

ized

acr

oss

the

entir

e po

pula

tion

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

parti

cipa

ting

on

the

NC

EX

TEN

D2

asse

ssm

ent;

how

ever

resu

lts s

houl

d no

t be

gene

raliz

ed fo

r spe

cific

are

as o

f di

sabi

lity

(e.g

. aut

ism

, spe

cific

le

arni

ng d

isab

ility

, oth

er h

ealth

im

paire

d) a

s no

ne o

f the

dat

a co

llect

ed o

r ana

lyze

d fo

cuse

d on

any

one

are

a of

dis

abili

ty. .

. . G

iven

the

leve

l of v

aria

bilit

y in

st

uden

t beh

avio

r and

cha

rac-

teris

tics

with

in a

sin

gle

disa

bilit

y ar

ea, i

nfer

ence

s m

ade

rega

rdin

g th

e pe

rform

ance

of s

tude

nts

with

sp

ecifi

c di

sabi

lity

desi

gnat

ions

w

ould

be

inva

lid” (

p. 8

4).

The

focu

s of

the

stud

y w

as o

n th

e nu

mbe

r of r

espo

nse

optio

ns,

whe

ther

thre

e or

four

. The

effe

cts

of o

ther

acc

omm

odat

ions

wer

e no

t exa

min

ed s

epar

atel

y: “W

hile

so

me

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

wer

e al

so a

llow

ed to

use

ext

erna

l te

st a

ccom

mod

atio

ns to

impr

ove

thei

r acc

ess

to th

e as

sess

men

t, th

e im

pact

of t

hese

acc

omm

oda-

tions

on

thei

r tes

t per

form

ance

w

as n

ot a

mea

sura

ble

fact

or in

th

is re

sear

ch s

tudy

” (p.

84)

.

116 NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Haw

pe (2

013)

“Eve

n th

ough

the

data

col

lect

ed

wer

e co

mpl

etel

y an

onym

ous

and

teac

hers

wer

e re

min

ded

of th

at

seve

ral t

imes

, som

e te

ache

rs

mig

ht h

ave

not p

artic

ipat

ed fo

r fe

ar th

at a

job-

rela

ted

supe

rvis

or

mig

ht h

ave

lear

ned

of th

eir r

e-sp

onse

s to

the

surv

ey it

ems”

(p.

98).

P

artic

ipan

ts m

ight

no

t hav

e co

mpl

eted

the

surv

ey

beca

use

a) th

ey d

id n

ot k

now

the

rese

arch

er, b

) the

y pr

efer

red

to

com

plet

e su

rvey

s in

per

son

or b

y m

ail (

not o

nlin

e), o

r c) t

hey

did

not r

espo

nd to

all

item

s or

faile

d to

sub

mit

the

com

plet

ed s

urve

y.

Hig

gins

&

Kat

z (2

013)

S

mal

l sam

ple

size

s as

a w

hole

; “u

nder

repr

esen

tatio

n of

stu

dent

s w

ith v

isio

n ne

eds”

(p. 6

5).

“.

. . fo

cus

on a

ver

y sm

all

sam

ple

of c

onte

nt ty

pes”

(p. 6

5).

117NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Hug

gins

& E

l-ba

um (2

013)

“. . .

test

exa

min

ees

had

to b

e ag

greg

ated

into

larg

e gr

oups

as

opp

osed

to d

ivid

ed fu

rther

to

bette

r rep

rese

nt h

omog

enou

s gr

oups

(e.g

., S

WD

s an

d E

LLs

had

to b

e gr

oupe

d to

geth

er b

y th

eir c

omm

onal

ities

in a

ccom

-m

odat

ion

use)

. Thi

s le

d to

the

conf

ound

ed n

atur

e of

the

grou

ps

of a

naly

sis;

the

subp

opul

atio

ns

diffe

red

not o

nly

in S

WD

/ELL

st

atus

and

acc

omm

odat

ions

bu

t als

o in

thei

r mea

n ab

ility

le

vels

on

the

asse

ssm

ent.

Eve

n w

ith th

ese

grou

p ad

just

men

ts

to a

ddre

ss th

e su

bpop

ulat

ion

size

con

cern

s, a

ll ot

her e

xam

-in

ees

from

pre

viou

s ye

ars

who

ha

d be

en p

revi

ousl

y ex

pose

d to

the

anch

or it

ems

had

to b

e ad

ded

to th

e an

alys

is fo

r anc

hor

item

cal

ibra

tion.

The

se fa

ctor

s in

hibi

ted

the

use

of a

n eq

uatin

g an

alys

is th

at c

ould

repr

oduc

e th

e re

porte

d sc

ores

from

the

stat

e”

(p. 6

8). “

An

addi

tiona

l sub

popu

-la

tion

size

issu

e th

at h

ad to

be

addr

esse

d by

gro

upin

g st

uden

ts

toge

ther

was

rela

ted

to c

ombi

n-in

g al

l acc

omm

odat

ion

type

s in

to d

icho

tom

ous

clas

sific

atio

ns

assi

gnin

g st

uden

ts a

s ei

ther

ha

ving

or n

ot h

avin

g ac

com

mo-

datio

ns. .

. . t

here

was

no

othe

r w

ay to

div

ide

stud

ents

bas

ed o

n ac

com

mod

atio

ns a

nd s

till h

ave

adeq

uate

sub

popu

latio

n si

zes

to

com

plet

e th

e an

alys

is. H

owev

er,

the

limita

tion

that

this

intro

duce

d sh

ould

not

be

igno

red;

mea

-su

rem

ent c

ompa

rabi

lity

may

be

ach

ieve

d fo

r som

e ty

pes

of

acco

mm

odat

ed te

stin

g si

tuat

ions

bu

t not

for o

ther

s, a

s ac

com

-m

odat

ion

type

s an

d th

e st

uden

ts

who

are

in n

eed

of d

iffer

ent a

c-co

mm

odat

ion

type

s va

ry w

idel

y”

(p. 6

9).

Acc

omm

odat

ion

use

com

pris

ed

info

rmat

ion

docu

men

ted

by te

st

adm

inis

trato

rs a

nd d

ata

man

ag-

ers

at th

e tim

e of

test

ing.

The

re

latio

n of

the

info

rmat

ion

to “t

he

actu

al n

eeds

of s

tude

nts

and/

or

thei

r act

ual u

se o

f the

acc

om-

mod

atio

n ...

is u

nkno

wn”

(p. 6

9),

and

was

repo

rted

as s

imila

r to

test

adm

inis

trato

rs’ i

nteg

rity

of

acco

mm

odat

ions

impl

emen

ta-

tion.

118 NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Ket

terli

n-G

elle

r et a

l. (2

014)

“. . .

we

solic

ited

feed

back

to

docu

men

t ini

tial v

alid

ity e

vi-

denc

e; h

owev

er, w

e sa

mpl

ed a

sm

all p

opul

atio

n of

exp

erts

, and

no

t all

revi

ewer

s w

ho a

gree

d to

pa

rtici

pate

sub

mitt

ed fe

edba

ck”

(p. 8

4).

“. . .

to d

ate

the

SA

AT [S

cree

ning

to

Ass

ign

Acc

omm

odat

ions

Too

l] ha

s no

t bee

n ev

alua

ted

for a

ccur

acy

of

acco

mm

odat

ion

reco

mm

enda

tions

” (p

. 84)

. “S

impl

y id

entif

ying

stu

dent

s w

ho m

ay b

e at

risk

for i

nacc

urat

e m

easu

rem

ent w

ill n

ot e

nsur

e th

at

stud

ents

rece

ive

appr

opria

te a

c-co

mm

odat

ions

; tea

cher

s m

ay n

eed

targ

eted

pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t fo

cuse

d on

how

to im

plem

ent a

ccom

-m

odat

ions

with

fide

lity”

(p. 8

4).

Kle

hm (2

014)

Alth

ough

the

scho

ols

in th

e st

udy

had

the

aver

age

Rho

de Is

land

de

mog

raph

ics,

find

ings

oug

ht to

be

gen

eral

ized

onl

y to

resp

on-

dent

s w

ith s

imila

r dem

ogra

phic

fe

atur

es.

Due

to c

onte

nt in

stru

ctio

n co

ndi-

tions

—th

at te

ache

rs in

gra

des

5 an

d 6

taug

ht s

ever

al c

onte

nt a

reas

—th

e Q

uest

ion

6 re

spon

ses

of te

ache

rs o

f gr

ades

5 a

nd 6

wer

e no

t ana

lyze

d fo

r m

ore

than

one

con

tent

are

a, b

ut w

ere

linke

d to

onl

y on

e of

the

subj

ects

that

th

ey ta

ught

. The

effe

ct w

as th

at th

ese

resp

onse

s co

uld

not b

e an

alyz

ed fo

r th

e “r

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

teac

hers

’ at

titud

es a

nd p

ract

ices

and

pro

ficie

nt

asse

ssm

ent s

core

s of

SW

D [s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties]

by

grad

e le

vel”

(p.

237)

, and

the

inte

rpre

tatio

ns a

bout

th

ese

data

wer

e lim

ited.

“...

the

pote

ntia

l res

pons

e bi

as, a

s th

e in

stru

-m

ent w

as a

sel

f-rep

ort s

urve

y. D

ue

to th

e ite

m c

onte

nt, i

t is

poss

ible

that

te

ache

rs w

ante

d to

pro

vide

soc

ially

de

sira

ble

resp

onse

s, ra

ther

than

the

mos

t hon

est r

espo

nse.

In th

is c

ase,

it

is p

ossi

ble

that

the

resu

lts m

ay h

ave

actu

ally

bee

n m

ore

pron

ounc

ed. A

n at

tem

pt a

t avo

idin

g re

spon

se b

ias

was

thro

ugh

the

assu

ranc

e of

con

-fid

entia

lity

and

that

onl

y gr

oup

data

w

ould

be

repo

rted”

(p. 2

37).

... “s

houl

d fo

cus

on th

e ty

pes

of tr

aini

ng a

nd p

rofe

s-si

onal

dev

elop

men

t tha

t w

ould

be

mos

t ben

efici

al fo

r te

ache

rs o

f inc

lusi

ve p

ro-

gram

s. In

add

ition

, qua

lita-

tive

rese

arch

sho

uld

be c

on-

duct

ed to

inve

stig

ate

why

te

ache

rs h

old

the

dom

inan

t at

titud

es re

porte

d an

d us

e re

sear

ch-b

ased

pra

ctic

es to

th

e ex

tent

that

they

do,

and

to

det

erm

ine

the

reso

urce

s th

at th

ey n

eed

to p

rovi

de

qual

ity in

stru

ctio

n th

at

mee

ts th

e ne

eds

of S

WD

[s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties]

. Th

ere

is a

pre

ssin

g ne

ed

for r

esea

rch

in th

e ar

ea

of p

rovi

ding

AA

[alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

ts] t

o m

ore

SW

D

and

to s

tude

nts

who

hav

e di

agno

sed

disa

bilit

ies

othe

r th

an in

telle

ctua

l dis

abili

ties.

R

esea

rch

is n

eede

d to

de

term

ine

if th

ese

stud

ents

ar

e be

tter a

ble

to d

emon

-st

rate

thei

r kno

wle

dge

on

thes

e ty

pes

of a

sses

smen

ts.

It is

impo

rtant

to fi

nd o

ut if

A

A-G

LAS

[alte

rnat

e as

sess

-m

ents

bas

ed o

n gr

ade-

leve

l ac

hiev

emen

t sta

ndar

ds]

are

mor

e va

lid m

easu

res

than

the

curr

ent s

yste

m o

f as

sess

men

t for

SW

D, a

s th

e va

st m

ajor

ity o

f tea

cher

s fe

el th

at c

urre

nt la

rge-

scal

e as

sess

men

ts a

re n

ot a

val

id

way

to a

sses

s th

e ac

hiev

e-m

ent o

f SW

D” (

p. 2

37).

Lee

& C

hen

(201

4)no

neno

neno

neno

neno

ne

119NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Ket

terli

n-G

elle

r et a

l. (2

014)

“. . .

we

solic

ited

feed

back

to

docu

men

t ini

tial v

alid

ity e

vi-

denc

e; h

owev

er, w

e sa

mpl

ed a

sm

all p

opul

atio

n of

exp

erts

, and

no

t all

revi

ewer

s w

ho a

gree

d to

pa

rtici

pate

sub

mitt

ed fe

edba

ck”

(p. 8

4).

“. . .

to d

ate

the

SA

AT [S

cree

ning

to

Ass

ign

Acc

omm

odat

ions

Too

l] ha

s no

t bee

n ev

alua

ted

for a

ccur

acy

of

acco

mm

odat

ion

reco

mm

enda

tions

” (p

. 84)

. “S

impl

y id

entif

ying

stu

dent

s w

ho m

ay b

e at

risk

for i

nacc

urat

e m

easu

rem

ent w

ill n

ot e

nsur

e th

at

stud

ents

rece

ive

appr

opria

te a

c-co

mm

odat

ions

; tea

cher

s m

ay n

eed

targ

eted

pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t fo

cuse

d on

how

to im

plem

ent a

ccom

-m

odat

ions

with

fide

lity”

(p. 8

4).

Kle

hm (2

014)

Alth

ough

the

scho

ols

in th

e st

udy

had

the

aver

age

Rho

de Is

land

de

mog

raph

ics,

find

ings

oug

ht to

be

gen

eral

ized

onl

y to

resp

on-

dent

s w

ith s

imila

r dem

ogra

phic

fe

atur

es.

Due

to c

onte

nt in

stru

ctio

n co

ndi-

tions

—th

at te

ache

rs in

gra

des

5 an

d 6

taug

ht s

ever

al c

onte

nt a

reas

—th

e Q

uest

ion

6 re

spon

ses

of te

ache

rs o

f gr

ades

5 a

nd 6

wer

e no

t ana

lyze

d fo

r m

ore

than

one

con

tent

are

a, b

ut w

ere

linke

d to

onl

y on

e of

the

subj

ects

that

th

ey ta

ught

. The

effe

ct w

as th

at th

ese

resp

onse

s co

uld

not b

e an

alyz

ed fo

r th

e “r

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

teac

hers

’ at

titud

es a

nd p

ract

ices

and

pro

ficie

nt

asse

ssm

ent s

core

s of

SW

D [s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties]

by

grad

e le

vel”

(p.

237)

, and

the

inte

rpre

tatio

ns a

bout

th

ese

data

wer

e lim

ited.

“...

the

pote

ntia

l res

pons

e bi

as, a

s th

e in

stru

-m

ent w

as a

sel

f-rep

ort s

urve

y. D

ue

to th

e ite

m c

onte

nt, i

t is

poss

ible

that

te

ache

rs w

ante

d to

pro

vide

soc

ially

de

sira

ble

resp

onse

s, ra

ther

than

the

mos

t hon

est r

espo

nse.

In th

is c

ase,

it

is p

ossi

ble

that

the

resu

lts m

ay h

ave

actu

ally

bee

n m

ore

pron

ounc

ed. A

n at

tem

pt a

t avo

idin

g re

spon

se b

ias

was

thro

ugh

the

assu

ranc

e of

con

-fid

entia

lity

and

that

onl

y gr

oup

data

w

ould

be

repo

rted”

(p. 2

37).

... “s

houl

d fo

cus

on th

e ty

pes

of tr

aini

ng a

nd p

rofe

s-si

onal

dev

elop

men

t tha

t w

ould

be

mos

t ben

efici

al fo

r te

ache

rs o

f inc

lusi

ve p

ro-

gram

s. In

add

ition

, qua

lita-

tive

rese

arch

sho

uld

be c

on-

duct

ed to

inve

stig

ate

why

te

ache

rs h

old

the

dom

inan

t at

titud

es re

porte

d an

d us

e re

sear

ch-b

ased

pra

ctic

es to

th

e ex

tent

that

they

do,

and

to

det

erm

ine

the

reso

urce

s th

at th

ey n

eed

to p

rovi

de

qual

ity in

stru

ctio

n th

at

mee

ts th

e ne

eds

of S

WD

[s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties]

. Th

ere

is a

pre

ssin

g ne

ed

for r

esea

rch

in th

e ar

ea

of p

rovi

ding

AA

[alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

ts] t

o m

ore

SW

D

and

to s

tude

nts

who

hav

e di

agno

sed

disa

bilit

ies

othe

r th

an in

telle

ctua

l dis

abili

ties.

R

esea

rch

is n

eede

d to

de

term

ine

if th

ese

stud

ents

ar

e be

tter a

ble

to d

emon

-st

rate

thei

r kno

wle

dge

on

thes

e ty

pes

of a

sses

smen

ts.

It is

impo

rtant

to fi

nd o

ut if

A

A-G

LAS

[alte

rnat

e as

sess

-m

ents

bas

ed o

n gr

ade-

leve

l ac

hiev

emen

t sta

ndar

ds]

are

mor

e va

lid m

easu

res

than

the

curr

ent s

yste

m o

f as

sess

men

t for

SW

D, a

s th

e va

st m

ajor

ity o

f tea

cher

s fe

el th

at c

urre

nt la

rge-

scal

e as

sess

men

ts a

re n

ot a

val

id

way

to a

sses

s th

e ac

hiev

e-m

ent o

f SW

D” (

p. 2

37).

Lee

& C

hen

(201

4)no

neno

neno

neno

neno

ne

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Lepp

o et

al.

(201

4)

“... a

ver

y try

ing

dile

mm

a ex

peri-

ence

d by

rese

arch

ers

seek

ing

to

stud

y ac

com

mod

atio

ns u

se w

ith-

in a

par

ticul

ar d

isab

ility

gro

up.

Whe

n th

e st

uden

t’s d

isab

ility

is

utili

zed

as a

gro

upin

g va

riabl

e, it

is

act

ing

as a

pro

xy fo

r a g

roup

of

cha

ract

eris

tics

assu

med

to b

e ho

mog

eneo

us a

mon

g th

at g

roup

of

stu

dent

s by

virt

ue o

f sha

ring

the

parti

cula

r lab

el. R

ealis

tical

ly,

this

is n

ot a

n as

sum

ptio

n th

at

can

be a

ssur

ed w

hen

exam

inin

g th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n us

e of

dea

f an

d ha

rd-o

f-hea

ring

stud

ents

. H

owev

er, i

n th

is c

ase

we

soug

ht

to a

dd a

laye

r to

tradi

tiona

l an

alys

is, w

hich

exa

min

es S

DH

H

[stu

dent

s w

ho a

re d

eaf o

r har

d of

he

arin

g] o

n th

e ba

sis

of th

at la

bel

alon

e, b

y ex

amin

ing

stud

ents

’ ad

ditio

nal d

isab

ilitie

s. T

he re

sults

of

the

anal

ysis

bea

r out

the

impo

rtanc

e of

inco

rpor

atin

g va

ri-ab

les

that

furth

er s

peci

fies

the

char

acte

ristic

s of

stu

dent

gro

ups

(e.g

., S

DH

H+L

D; S

DH

H+A

DH

D)

whe

n do

ing

grou

p-le

vel a

naly

sis”

(p

. 199

). Fu

rther

, the

stu

dent

s w

ith d

eafn

ess

and

hear

ing

im-

pairm

ents

with

the

leas

t com

mon

ad

ditio

nal d

isab

ilitie

s, s

uch

as

men

tal h

ealth

con

cern

s or

dea

f-bl

indn

ess,

wer

e no

t suf

ficie

nt in

nu

mbe

rs fo

r dat

a an

alys

is. O

ther

in

divi

dual

diff

eren

ces

amon

g pa

rtici

pant

s, s

uch

as d

egre

e of

hea

ring

loss

, wer

e al

so n

ot

exam

ined

, in

term

s of

acc

om-

mod

atio

ns u

se. “

It is

unl

ikel

y th

at

a la

rger

sam

ple

of S

DD

H+

coul

d be

gat

here

d, m

akin

g la

rge-

scal

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns p

acka

ge u

se

anal

ysis

for o

ther

dis

abili

ty c

at-

egor

ies

diffi

cult”

(p. 1

99).

120 NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Lew

ando

wsk

i et

al.

(201

3)

The

sam

ple

of p

osts

econ

dary

st

uden

ts w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s w

ere

cons

ider

ed b

y re

sear

cher

s as

uni

que—

in h

igh

achi

evem

ent

and

poss

ible

low

er d

egre

e of

im

pairm

ent b

y di

sabi

litie

s—an

d no

t rep

rese

ntat

ive

of a

ll st

uden

ts

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties.

The

re

sear

cher

s al

so d

id n

ot e

xper

i-m

enta

lly a

ccou

nt fo

r stu

dent

s’

addi

tiona

l dis

abili

ties,

bes

ides

le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s.

Nel

son-

Den

ny R

eadi

ng T

est

(ND

RT;

read

ing

com

preh

ensi

on);

“unl

ikel

y to

gen

eral

ize

to te

sts

with

ver

y lib

eral

sta

ndar

d tim

e lim

its” (

p. 3

34).

Res

earc

hers

“c

ould

not

sim

ulat

e th

e hi

gh-

stak

es te

st a

tmos

pher

e” (p

. 335

).

Lew

ando

wsk

i et

al.

(201

4)

Par

ticip

ants

’ dis

abili

ties

wer

e no

t ver

ified

usi

ng a

dditi

onal

as

sess

men

t, bu

t rel

ied

only

on

self-

repo

rt.

The

parti

cipa

nts

wer

e sa

mpl

ed

from

thre

e po

stse

cond

ary

inst

itu-

tions

on

a co

nven

ienc

e ba

sis;

pa

rtici

pant

s w

ere

mos

tly fi

rst

year

Cau

casi

an w

omen

stu

dent

s,

and

so w

ere

not n

eces

saril

y re

pres

enta

tive

of a

ll po

stse

cond

-ar

y st

uden

ts. T

he s

tude

nts

with

di

sabi

litie

s ha

d m

ostly

“’hi

gh

inci

denc

e di

sabi

litie

s’ s

uch

as

AD

HD

, LD

, and

anx

iety

. Alth

ough

th

ese

disa

bilit

ies

likel

y re

flect

m

ost u

nive

rsity

dem

ogra

phic

s,

the

stud

y re

sults

wou

ld li

kely

be

diffe

rent

if w

e ha

d m

ore

stud

ents

w

ith lo

w in

cide

nce

disa

bilit

ies

(e.g

., se

nsor

y an

d ph

ysic

al d

is-

abili

ties)

” (p.

123

).

Lew

is &

Nol

an

(201

3)

The

sam

ple

num

bere

d on

ly e

ight

pa

rtici

pant

s at

one

hig

her e

duca

-tio

n in

stitu

tion,

and

the

stud

y w

as

a pi

lot o

f low

-dis

tract

ion

setti

ngs.

“Com

paris

ons

wer

e no

t mad

e w

ith

the

stud

ents

’ aca

dem

ic p

erfo

rman

ce”

(p. 1

70).

The

resu

lts w

ere

not c

on-

side

red

gene

raliz

able

to a

ll st

uden

ts

with

sen

sory

pro

cess

ing

diffi

culti

es,

but r

athe

r wer

e de

emed

use

ful t

o “p

rovi

de a

n al

tern

ativ

e ap

proa

ch” (

p.

170)

.

The

stud

y us

ed a

sses

smen

ts

and

a qu

estio

nnai

re “d

esig

ned

spec

ifica

lly fo

r thi

s re

sear

ch” (

p.

170)

.

121NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Li (2

014)

“A fi

nal n

ote

is to

refle

ct o

n th

e m

etho

dolo

gica

l lim

itatio

ns

invo

lved

in th

e pr

esen

t met

a-an

alys

is (B

erk

& F

reed

man

, 20

03; B

riggs

, 200

5). A

s H

unte

r an

d S

chm

idt (

2004

) war

ned,

the

obse

rved

diff

eren

ces

betw

een

ef-

fect

siz

es a

re p

rodu

ced

in p

art b

y so

me

unav

oida

ble

artif

acts

in a

m

eta-

anal

ysis

, suc

h as

sta

tistic

al

assu

mpt

ions

, ins

trum

ents

with

di

ffere

nt re

liabi

litie

s, a

nd c

oder

re

liabi

lity.

For

exa

mpl

e, o

ne a

s-su

mpt

ion

of th

e va

rianc

e-kn

own

HLM

app

roac

h to

met

a-an

alys

is

is th

at th

e in

clud

ed s

tudi

es a

re

rega

rded

as

a ra

ndom

sam

ple

draw

n fro

m th

e po

pula

tion.

How

-ev

er, b

ecau

se w

e do

not

kno

w

the

actu

al p

opul

atio

n, th

is a

s-su

mpt

ion

is n

ot d

irect

ly te

stab

le.

Als

o, th

e va

rianc

e-kn

own

HLM

ap

proa

ch to

met

a-an

alys

is re

lies

on th

e as

sum

ptio

ns u

nder

lyin

g a

typi

cal H

LM a

naly

sis

(Rau

den-

bush

, & B

ryk,

200

2). W

ithou

t ac

cess

to th

e or

igin

al ra

w d

ata,

w

e ca

nnot

dire

ctly

test

thes

e as

-su

mpt

ions

eith

er” (

p. 1

2).

“The

cla

ssifi

catio

n w

ith d

isab

ility

ve

rsus

with

out d

isab

ility

cou

ld

act a

s a

parti

al p

roxy

for l

ow

read

ing

profi

cien

cy v

ersu

s hi

gh

read

ing

profi

cien

cy. S

till,

it is

just

an

app

roxi

mat

ion.

In fa

ct, g

iven

th

e cl

ose

rela

tions

hip

betw

een

deco

ding

ski

lls a

nd re

ad-a

loud

ac

com

mod

atio

ns, i

f stu

dent

s’

deco

ding

ski

lls w

ere

avai

labl

e in

thos

e st

udie

s, th

is w

ould

ha

ve b

een

a m

ore

mea

ning

ful

pred

icto

r tha

n st

uden

ts’ r

eadi

ng

profi

cien

cy” (

p. 1

1). “

. . .

disa

bilit

y ca

tego

ry w

ould

hav

e be

en a

m

eani

ngfu

l pre

dict

or a

s w

ell.

Bec

ause

read

-alo

ud a

ccom

-m

odat

ions

hel

p st

uden

ts d

ecod

e w

ords

, it i

s re

ason

able

to e

xpec

t st

uden

ts w

ith le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s in

read

ing

(suc

h as

defi

cien

cies

in

dec

odin

g) to

ben

efit m

ore

from

su

ch a

ccom

mod

atio

ns th

an

stud

ents

with

oth

er c

ateg

orie

s of

di

sabi

litie

s” (C

raw

ford

& T

inda

l, 20

04) (

pp. 1

2-13

).

“. . .

stu

dent

s’ c

onte

nt k

now

ledg

e in

m

ath

may

be

conf

ound

ed w

ith th

e ef

-fe

cts

of re

ad-a

loud

acc

omm

odat

ions

(E

lbau

m, 2

007;

Mel

oy e

t al.,

200

2);

how

ever

, we

wer

e no

t abl

e to

incl

ude

cont

ent k

now

ledg

e as

a p

redi

ctor

du

e to

the

lack

of i

nfor

mat

ion

on th

is

poin

t” (p

. 11)

.

“. . .

for m

ath

test

s, d

espi

te th

e im

porta

nt ro

le o

f stu

dent

s’ re

ad-

ing

profi

cien

cy in

read

-alo

ud

acco

mm

odat

ions

, we

wer

e no

t ab

le to

incl

ude

it as

a p

redi

ctor

du

e to

the

lack

of a

uni

vers

al

crite

rion

acro

ss s

tudi

es” (

p. 1

1).

“The

cla

ssifi

catio

n w

ith d

isab

ility

ve

rsus

with

out d

isab

ility

cou

ld

act a

s a

parti

al p

roxy

for l

ow

read

ing

profi

cien

cy v

ersu

s hi

gh

read

ing

profi

cien

cy. S

till,

it is

just

an

app

roxi

mat

ion.

In fa

ct, g

iven

th

e cl

ose

rela

tions

hip

betw

een

deco

ding

ski

lls a

nd re

ad-a

loud

ac

com

mod

atio

ns, i

f stu

dent

s’

deco

ding

ski

lls w

ere

avai

labl

e in

thos

e st

udie

s, th

is w

ould

ha

ve b

een

a m

ore

mea

ning

ful

pred

icto

r tha

n st

uden

ts’ r

eadi

ng

profi

cien

cy (p

. 11)

.

Lin

& L

in

(201

3)

The

mat

h as

sess

men

t was

lim

ited

to s

ix it

ems

incl

udin

g nu

mbe

r sen

se a

nd n

umer

atio

n co

nten

t.

Lin

& L

in

(201

4)no

neno

neno

neno

neno

ne

Love

tt (2

014)

none

none

none

none

none

Love

tt &

Lej

a (2

013)

N/A

— li

tera

ture

revi

ewN

/A —

lite

ratu

re re

view

N/A

— li

tera

ture

revi

ewN

/A —

lite

ratu

re re

view

N/A

— li

tera

ture

revi

ew

122 NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Lym

an (2

013)

The

rese

arch

er d

id n

ot in

volv

e po

stse

cond

ary

stud

ents

with

di

sabi

litie

s in

the

prep

arat

ion

and

desi

gn o

f the

stu

dy, a

lthou

gh

he d

id c

ompl

ete

valid

ity c

heck

s w

ith re

sear

ch p

artic

ipan

ts o

n th

e in

terv

iew

dat

a. T

here

was

on

e re

sear

cher

invo

lved

in d

ata

colle

ctio

n an

d an

alys

is, a

nd it

is

pos

sibl

e th

at th

is fa

ctor

lim

its

obje

ctiv

ity.

In th

is q

ualit

ativ

e st

udy,

the

rese

arch

er c

ondu

cted

inte

rvie

ws

with

stu

dent

s at

one

priv

ate

relig

ious

pos

tsec

onda

ry in

stitu

-tio

n w

ith s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

who

regi

ster

ed w

ith d

isab

ility

se

rvic

es; t

he e

xper

ienc

es o

f st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ho

had

not r

egis

tere

d w

ith d

isab

ility

se

rvic

es w

ere

not d

iscu

ssed

.

“Alth

ough

mos

t of t

he id

entifi

ed

them

es s

eem

ed to

be

supp

orte

d br

oadl

y, re

gard

less

of d

isab

ility

type

, on

e lim

itatio

n of

this

stu

dy is

that

th

ere

was

n’t a

focu

s on

look

ing

at

barr

iers

acc

ordi

ng to

spe

cific

dis

-ab

ilitie

s, w

hich

cou

ld h

ave

prov

ided

gr

eate

r ins

ight

and

spe

cific

ity re

gard

-in

g di

sabi

lity

type

” (p.

71)

.

May

(201

3)P

artic

ipan

ts m

ay n

ot h

ave

parti

cipa

ted

due

to n

ot li

king

to

use

e-m

ail,

the

form

at fo

r dat

a co

llect

ion.

Res

pons

e se

ts m

ight

hav

e be

en

enco

urag

ed, s

uch

as “s

ocia

lly d

esir-

able

resp

onse

s th

at d

o no

t rev

eal

pers

onal

bel

iefs

” (p.

79)

. Pot

entia

l pa

rtici

pant

s m

ight

als

o ex

clud

e th

em-

selv

es b

ased

on

lack

of i

nter

est i

n di

sabi

lity-

rela

ted

issu

es, o

r bec

ause

th

ey w

ere

not p

ositi

ve a

bout

pro

vid-

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

May

& S

tone

(2

014)

“A s

econ

d po

ssib

le e

xpla

natio

n fo

r thi

s st

udy’

s fa

ilure

to fi

nd

the

ST

effe

ct fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith

LD m

ay re

late

to th

e pa

rtici

pant

re

crui

tmen

t pro

cess

. . .

. It i

s th

eref

ore

poss

ible

that

thos

e st

uden

ts w

ith L

D w

ho w

ere

mos

t lik

ely

to fe

el th

reat

ened

by

the

pros

pect

of t

akin

g a

test

wou

ld

not r

espo

nd to

the

parti

cipa

nt-

solic

itatio

n e-

mai

l in

the

first

pl

ace”

(p. 1

01).

The

sam

ple

size

was

rela

tivel

y sm

all,

espe

cial

ly th

e nu

mbe

r of

parti

cipa

nts

with

lear

ning

dis

-ab

ilitie

s.

“One

alte

rnat

ive

expl

anat

ion

for

the

mix

ed fi

ndin

gs re

gard

ing

ST

[ste

reot

ype

thre

at] i

s th

at th

e G

RE

task

use

d in

the

pres

ent

stud

y w

as n

ot s

uffic

ient

ly s

ensi

-tiv

e (a

t lea

st n

ot in

the

30-m

inut

e tim

e lim

it em

ploy

ed h

ere)

to

dete

ct th

e su

btle

per

form

ance

di

ffere

nces

bet

wee

n th

e S

T an

d R

T [re

duce

d th

reat

] con

ditio

ns

that

wer

e or

igin

ally

pre

dict

ed”

(p. 1

01).

123NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Mey

er &

B

ouck

(201

4)

Dat

a w

ere

gath

ered

nea

r the

end

of

the

scho

ol y

ear;

cons

eque

ntly,

th

e tim

ing

of th

e st

udy

limite

d th

e in

terv

entio

n’s

leng

th.

Due

to b

eing

sin

gle-

subj

ect

rese

arch

, not

nec

essa

rily

gene

raliz

able

bey

ond

the

stud

y pa

rtici

pant

s

The

sync

hron

ized

voi

ce’s

m

ispr

onun

ciat

ions

repo

rt-ed

ly d

istra

cted

at l

east

one

pa

rtici

pant

; whe

n th

e sp

eed

was

in

crea

sed,

the

voic

e in

crea

sed

in

mis

pron

unci

atio

ns. W

hen

long

er

narr

ativ

e pa

ssag

es w

ere

used

fo

r mai

nten

ance

, the

resu

lts

mig

ht h

ave

been

con

foun

ded.

Th

e co

mpr

ehen

sion

ass

essm

ent

was

bas

ed o

n “o

nly

six

mul

tiple

-ch

oice

que

stio

ns p

er p

assa

ge,

offe

ring

stud

ents

few

er o

ppor

tu-

nitie

s to

dem

onst

rate

kno

wle

dge”

(p

. 31)

. “R

eadi

ng e

xpos

itory

pa

ssag

es o

utsi

de th

e st

uden

ts’

auth

entic

cur

ricul

um m

ight

hav

e af

fect

ed m

otiv

atio

n fo

r per

form

-in

g at

opt

imal

leve

ls” (

p. 3

1). “

Al-

low

ing

stud

ents

to re

read

par

ts

of th

e pa

ssag

e as

nee

ded

to fi

nd

an a

nsw

er m

ay h

ave

impa

cted

th

e co

mpr

ehen

sion

resu

lts” (

p.

31).

Mill

er e

t al.

(201

3)

“. . .

the

mak

eup

of th

e A

DH

D

grou

p. A

s no

ted

earli

er, t

here

ar

e m

any

fact

ors

that

may

su

gges

t the

stu

dent

s in

clud

ed

in th

e st

udy

may

not

com

pris

e a

repr

esen

tativ

e sa

mpl

e of

all

colle

ge s

tude

nts

with

AD

HD

. Th

ese

fact

ors

incl

ude

legi

timac

y of

dia

gnos

is, p

ossi

ble

high

IQs

and

othe

r res

ourc

es th

at in

sula

te

from

cer

tain

neg

ativ

e ou

tcom

es

of A

DH

D, a

nd th

e pr

esen

ce o

f sy

mpt

oms

but l

ack

of im

pair-

men

t. Th

e re

sults

may

hav

e di

ffere

d ha

d th

e st

udy

incl

uded

co

llege

stu

dent

s at

a v

arie

ty o

f hi

gher

edu

catio

n in

stitu

tions

, su

ch a

s co

mm

unity

col

lege

as

wel

l as

indi

vidu

als

not a

ttend

ing

scho

ol” (

p. 7

). Th

e re

sear

cher

s no

ted

that

the

stud

y pr

otoc

ol

relie

d on

par

ticip

ant s

elf-r

epor

t of

prev

ious

AD

HD

dia

gnos

es.

“. . .

that

par

ticip

ants

in th

e A

DH

D

grou

p w

ere

told

to ta

ke th

eir m

edic

a-tio

n as

they

usu

ally

do.

As

a re

sult,

in

divi

dual

s in

the

AD

HD

who

wer

e tre

ated

with

med

icat

ion

may

hav

e be

en o

n st

imul

ant m

edic

atio

n du

r-in

g te

stin

g. .

. . H

owev

er, t

he s

tudy

pr

otoc

ol d

id n

ot re

quire

par

ticip

ants

to

indi

cate

whe

ther

the

stud

ents

took

th

eir m

edic

atio

n on

the

day

of s

tudy

co

mpl

etio

n. T

here

fore

, the

pos

sibl

e ef

fect

s of

med

icat

ion

on p

erfo

rman

ce

coul

d no

t be

dete

rmin

ed. P

erha

ps

if st

uden

ts w

ere

not a

llow

ed to

take

m

edic

atio

n th

at d

ay, t

he A

DH

D g

roup

pe

rform

ance

wou

ld h

ave

been

low

er”

(p. 7

).

“. . .

in th

e m

easu

re u

sed

to

test

the

read

ing

com

preh

ensi

on

abili

ties

of th

e pa

rtici

pant

s. .

. .

that

the

mea

sure

did

not

requ

ire

stud

ents

to m

aint

ain

vigi

lanc

e fo

r a le

ngth

y pe

riod

of ti

me.

. . .

Th

e de

man

ds o

f thi

s re

sear

ch

stud

y m

ay n

ot h

ave

been

inte

nse

enou

gh to

brin

g ou

t diff

eren

ces

betw

een

the

grou

ps in

term

s of

pe

rform

ance

” (p.

7).

The

test

ing

cond

ition

s w

ere

also

not

like

ly

to h

ave

been

exp

erie

nced

by

parti

cipa

nts

as h

igh-

stak

es, a

nd

ther

efor

e th

e te

st w

as u

nlik

e ty

pi-

cal c

ours

e ex

amin

atio

ns.

124 NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Nee

s &

Ber

ry

(201

3)no

neno

neno

neno

neno

ne

New

man

&

Mad

aus

(201

4)

“Info

rmat

ion

abou

t rec

eipt

of

acco

mm

odat

ions

, mod

ifica

tions

, an

d su

ppor

ts w

as p

rovi

ded

by

diffe

rent

resp

onde

nts

at th

e hi

gh s

choo

l and

pos

tsec

onda

ry

scho

ol le

vels

and

in b

oth

case

s co

uld

not b

e in

depe

nden

tly

verifi

ed. A

t the

hig

h sc

hool

leve

l, sc

hool

sta

ff pr

ovid

ed in

form

atio

n ab

out r

ecei

pt, w

here

as p

ost-

seco

ndar

y ra

tes

of re

ceip

t wer

e ba

sed

on p

aren

t and

pos

tsec

-on

dary

stu

dent

sel

f-rep

ort.

Thus

, po

stse

cond

ary

rate

s m

ay b

e un

derr

epor

ted

beca

use

pare

nts

and

yout

h m

ay b

e le

ss a

war

e of

the

type

s of

pos

tsec

onda

ry

supp

orts

rece

ived

. In

addi

tion,

th

ese

findi

ngs

do n

ot re

port

the

frequ

ency

or e

xten

t of r

ecei

pt o

f ea

ch ty

pe o

f acc

omm

odat

ion,

m

odifi

catio

n, a

nd s

uppo

rt at

the

high

sch

ool o

r pos

tsec

onda

ry

leve

l bec

ause

they

wer

e no

t m

easu

red

in N

LTS

2” (p

. 8).

Ove

rton

(201

3)

Few

stu

dent

par

ticip

ants

ove

rall

No

evid

ence

reco

rd o

f the

num

ber o

f st

uden

t par

ticip

ants

who

follo

wed

the

test

pro

toco

l of u

sing

the

stud

ent-

read

s-al

oud

acco

mm

odat

ion

durin

g th

e or

al p

assa

ges

sect

ion,

“thu

s ne

gativ

ely

affe

ctin

g th

e va

lidity

of

the

resu

lts” (

p. 8

6). “

. . .

the

deci

sion

to

allo

w a

n in

form

al tr

aini

ng [o

f tes

t ad

min

istra

tors

] rat

her t

han

form

al

face

to fa

ce tr

aini

ng w

as a

n er

ror

that

may

hav

e si

gnifi

cant

ly a

ffect

ed

the

fidel

ity o

f im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e st

udy”

(p. 8

7).

. . .

timin

g of

the

stud

y . .

. in

the

last

two

wee

ks o

f the

sch

ool y

ear

whe

n th

ere

was

muc

h le

ss p

res-

sure

on

stud

ents

to p

erfo

rm w

ell

(p. 8

4). “

. . .

amou

nt o

f tra

inin

g of

st

uden

ts in

usi

ng th

e st

uden

t-re

ads-

alou

d ac

com

mod

atio

n pr

ovid

ed to

the

parti

cipa

ting

stud

ents

. . .

no

mea

sure

was

put

in

pla

ce to

ens

ure

the

stud

ents

w

ere

give

n op

portu

nity

to p

rac-

tice

usin

g th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n. .

. . T

he la

ck o

f tim

e fo

r stu

dent

s to

pra

ctic

e us

ing

the

acco

m-

mod

atio

n m

ay h

ave

affe

cted

the

perfo

rman

ce o

utco

mes

” (p.

85)

.

125NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Rus

sell

(201

4)

“The

rese

arch

er w

as u

nabl

e to

ch

oose

a d

iffer

ent d

esig

n du

e to

et

hica

l con

side

ratio

ns, s

ince

ac-

com

mod

atio

ns c

anno

t be

refu

sed

to a

stu

dent

with

dis

abili

ties

for

the

sake

of t

he e

xper

imen

tal

desi

gn” (

p. 1

25).

Sm

all s

ampl

e si

ze a

nd u

niqu

e sa

mpl

e ch

arac

teris

tics,

and

the

scho

ols’

geo

grap

hic

loca

tion

(rur

al S

outh

Car

olin

a) li

mite

d ge

nera

lizab

ility

“The

rese

arch

er d

id n

ot ta

ke

into

con

side

ratio

n ch

ange

in

teac

hers

or c

urric

ulum

whe

n st

uden

ts m

oved

from

one

gr

ade

leve

l to

anot

her,

but

assu

med

that

a s

tand

ards

ba

sed

curr

icul

um w

ith a

p-pr

opria

te s

peci

al e

duca

tion

serv

ices

pro

vide

d in

bot

h as

sess

ed y

ears

wou

ld a

l-lo

w fo

r the

com

paris

on o

f th

e sc

ores

” (p.

124

). “T

he

rese

arch

er w

as in

cha

rge

of p

rovi

ding

the

reso

urce

or

incl

usio

n sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n pr

ogra

m w

hile

the

stu-

dent

s w

ere

in s

ixth

gra

de.

To a

void

any

bia

s, th

e re

sear

cher

cho

se a

n ob

jec-

tive,

qua

ntita

tive,

rese

arch

de

sign

” (p.

125

).

Sch

reue

r &

Sac

hs (2

014)

Whi

le p

artic

ipan

ts w

ere

stud

ents

w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s fro

m p

osts

econ

d-ar

y in

stitu

tions

thro

ugho

ut Is

rael

, th

e sa

mpl

e re

pres

ente

d on

ly

Isra

el, w

hich

rese

arch

ers

note

d “h

as b

een

offe

ring

acco

mm

oda-

tions

to s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

for o

nly

abou

t five

yea

rs” (

p. 3

5).

Sm

ith (2

014)

In th

is q

ualit

ativ

e (p

heno

men

o-lo

gica

l) st

udy,

the

rese

arch

er

cond

ucte

d in

terv

iew

s at

one

po

stse

cond

ary

inst

itutio

n w

ith

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

who

re

gist

ered

with

dis

abili

ty s

er-

vice

s; w

hile

dee

p m

eani

ng w

as

soug

ht a

bout

acc

omm

odat

ions

, th

e “r

elat

ivel

y sm

all n

umbe

r of

parti

cipa

nts

incl

uded

in th

e cu

r-re

nt s

tudy

lim

its th

e fin

ding

s fro

m

bein

g br

oadl

y ap

plic

able

to th

e ge

nera

l pop

ulat

ion”

(p. 5

3).

126 NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Sm

ith &

Ric

-co

min

i (20

13)

Mos

t par

ticip

ants

had

littl

e or

no

expe

rienc

e us

ing

nois

e-re

duci

ng

head

phon

es, a

nd th

eir s

core

s m

ay b

e in

fluen

ced

by th

e no

velty

of

this

acc

omm

odat

ion.

The

sam

ple

was

dra

wn

from

on

ly tw

o sc

hool

s an

d th

is s

mal

l nu

mbe

r of p

artic

ipan

ts c

ould

be

limite

d in

thei

r rep

rese

ntat

ive-

ness

.

The

stud

y em

ploy

ed o

nly

the

Qua

litat

ive

Rea

ding

Inve

ntor

y-5

(QR

I-5) t

o te

st re

adin

g co

m-

preh

ensi

on, w

hich

cou

ld h

ave

influ

ence

d th

e re

liabi

lity

and

valid

ity o

f the

resu

lts o

f usi

ng

nois

e-re

duci

ng h

eadp

hone

s as

th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n.

Ste

in (2

013)

none

none

none

none

none

Sto

ne e

t al.

(201

3)

Dat

a an

alys

is re

veal

ed lo

w c

orre

la-

tion

betw

een

cond

ition

-ada

ptiv

e ro

utin

g te

st a

nd s

tude

nts’

sta

te te

st

scor

es. P

ossi

ble

expl

anat

ions

cou

ld

incl

ude

data

repo

rting

err

ors,

the

test

s m

ight

hav

e ha

d di

ffere

nt te

stin

g co

nditi

ons,

the

test

s’ c

onte

nts

wer

e no

t the

sam

e, o

r the

stu

dent

s w

ere

not s

imila

rly m

otiv

ated

on

the

rout

ing

test

(as

stat

e te

st) s

ince

it w

as n

ot

perc

eive

d as

impo

rtant

.

Sza

rko

et a

l. (2

013)

The

sam

ple

was

sm

all;

sim

ul-

tane

ousl

y, th

e st

uden

ts ra

nged

w

idel

y in

“sev

erity

of c

hara

cter

-is

tic a

nd d

egre

e of

func

tioni

ng”

(p. 4

7). “

Giv

en th

e sm

all s

ampl

e si

ze, t

he p

ostte

st-o

nly

cont

rol

grou

p de

sign

may

hav

e fa

iled

to

cont

rol f

or p

reex

istin

g gr

oup

dif-

fere

nces

. Mat

chin

g th

e ch

ildre

n be

fore

rand

om g

roup

ass

ignm

ent

prov

ided

gre

ater

equ

ival

ence

be

twee

n th

e tw

o ex

perim

enta

l co

nditi

ons,

but

did

not

allo

w fo

r th

e ev

alua

tion

of th

e ef

fect

of f

a-m

iliar

ity” (

p. 4

7) b

ased

on

thes

e w

ide

stud

ent d

iffer

ence

s.

The

char

acte

ristic

s of

the

Psy

-ch

oedu

catio

nal P

rofil

e-R

evis

ed

are

also

impo

rtant

(p. 4

7), a

s it

was

des

igne

d fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith a

utis

m. “

The

task

s ar

e de

sign

ed to

be

visu

ally

inte

rest

-in

g an

d st

imul

atin

g to

chi

ldre

n w

ith a

utis

m a

nd th

e fo

rmat

of

the

test

is m

ore

flexi

ble

than

tra

ditio

nal s

tand

ardi

zed

test

s. .

. .

[ther

efor

e] c

hara

cter

istic

s sh

ould

pr

oduc

e fe

wer

exa

min

er e

ffect

s th

an m

any

test

s, b

ut c

autio

n sh

ould

be

exer

cise

d in

gen

eral

-iz

ing

the

findi

ngs

of th

e pr

esen

t st

udy

to o

ther

test

s” (p

. 48)

. “.

. . th

e ex

amin

ers

in th

e cu

rren

t st

udy

wer

e no

vice

s an

d ha

d lit

tle

or n

o ex

perie

nce

test

ing

child

ren

with

aut

ism

bef

ore

the

expe

ri-m

ent”

(p. 4

8).

127NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Torr

es (2

014)

“. . .

ther

e ar

e ce

rtain

lim

itatio

ns

rela

ted

to b

ias

that

are

inhe

rent

to

qua

litat

ive

rese

arch

. . .

. bia

s is

pos

sibl

e in

a re

sear

ch s

tudy

th

at u

tiliz

es in

terv

iew

ing

as th

e pr

imar

y da

ta c

olle

ctio

n be

caus

e su

ch fa

ctor

s as

the

emot

iona

l st

ate

of th

e in

terv

iew

ee a

t the

tim

e of

the

inte

rvie

w, p

erso

nal

bias

, and

the

rese

arch

er’s

clo

se

role

in th

e in

terv

iew

pro

cess

can

af

fect

the

parti

pant

’s re

spon

se

(Pat

ton,

200

2, p

. 306

)” (p

p. 1

02-

103)

.

In th

is q

ualit

ativ

e ca

se s

tudy

, the

re

sear

cher

ana

lyze

d in

form

a-tio

n fro

m s

tude

nts

with

aut

ism

at

one

pos

tsec

onda

ry in

stitu

tion

with

stu

dent

s w

ith a

utis

m. T

he

rese

arch

er n

oted

that

, “si

nce

post

seco

ndar

y ed

ucat

iona

l in

stitu

tions

offe

r suc

h di

vers

e se

rvic

es fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith d

is-

abili

ties,

con

duct

ing

the

stud

y at

a d

iffer

ent p

osts

econ

dary

ed

ucat

iona

l ins

titut

ion

coul

d in

flu-

ence

the

stud

y’s

findi

ngs

(Duk

es

& S

haw

, 200

4)” (

p. 1

02).

Wad

ley

&

Lilje

quis

t (2

013)

“. . .

dia

gnos

is d

ocum

enta

-tio

n w

as n

ot re

quire

d by

the

rese

arch

ers

to p

artic

ipat

e in

the

stud

y, ra

ther

, ver

ifica

tion

of d

is-

abili

ty s

tatu

s by

the

SD

S o

ffice

w

as d

eem

ed s

uffic

ient

; how

ever

, th

is m

eans

that

the

diag

nose

s w

ere

mad

e by

diff

eren

t pro

fes-

sion

als

and

inte

rrat

er re

liabi

lity

of th

ese

diag

nose

s ca

nnot

be

dem

onst

rate

d” (p

. 269

).

“How

ever

, the

re w

ere

sign

ifica

nt

diffe

renc

es b

etw

een

the

two

stu-

dent

pop

ulat

ions

, stu

dent

s w

ith

and

with

out A

DH

D, r

egar

dles

s of

th

e te

stin

g co

nditi

on. S

tude

nts

with

AD

HD

wer

e m

ore

likel

y to

be

taki

ng s

timul

ant m

edic

atio

n .

. . a

nd w

ere

mor

e lik

ely

to h

ave

othe

r men

tal h

ealth

dia

gnos

es

than

stu

dent

s w

ithou

t AD

HD

. .

. . W

hile

not

sur

pris

ing,

and

dif-

ficul

t to

avoi

d, th

ese

diffe

renc

es

betw

een

grou

ps a

re li

mita

tions

of

the

pres

ent s

tudy

” (p.

269

).

“. . .

stu

dent

s w

ith A

DH

D u

sed

mor

e tim

e to

com

plet

e th

e m

ath

test

and

wer

e m

ore

likel

y to

be

uppe

rcla

ssm

en th

an s

tude

nts

with

out A

DH

D, a

lthou

gh n

eith

er

of th

ese

varia

bles

was

rela

ted

to te

st p

erfo

rman

ce” (

p. 2

69).

“A

s so

me

stud

ents

with

AD

HD

w

ere

taki

ng s

timul

ant m

edic

atio

n to

con

trol t

heir

sym

ptom

s an

d ot

hers

wer

e no

t, th

e st

uden

ts

wer

e lik

ely

copi

ng w

ith v

aryi

ng

sym

ptom

sev

erity

. Dat

a re

gard

-in

g A

DH

D s

ever

ity a

nd th

e ty

pe

of A

DH

D d

iagn

osis

wer

e no

t col

-le

cted

or c

ontro

lled

for a

nd th

is is

a

limita

tion

of th

e st

udy”

(p. 2

69).

128 NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Wiz

ikow

ski

(201

3)

Onl

ine

surv

ey “m

ay h

ave

excl

ud-

ed p

oten

tial r

espo

nden

ts w

ho d

id

not h

ave

the

nece

ssar

y co

mpu

ter

skill

s, a

cces

s to

the

Inte

rnet

, or

a c

ompu

ter.

The

surv

ey w

as

crea

ted

to b

e un

ders

tand

able

an

d as

impa

rtial

as

poss

ible

, but

th

ere

is th

e po

tent

ial t

hat t

here

w

ere

uncl

ear o

r bia

sed

item

s th

at

wou

ld h

ave

affe

cted

the

outc

ome

of th

e re

spon

ses”

(p. 8

7).

Rel

ativ

ely

smal

l sam

ple

size

, w

ith 1

13 s

tude

nt s

urve

y re

spon

-de

nts

from

two

post

seco

ndar

y in

stitu

tions

. Res

pons

e ra

te w

as

10 p

erce

nt. T

he s

ampl

e w

as

desc

ribed

as

base

d on

con

ve-

nien

ce. “

Onl

y st

uden

ts w

ith d

is-

abili

ties

who

had

iden

tified

them

-se

lves

to th

eir a

cade

mic

sup

port

offic

e w

ere

incl

uded

, exc

ludi

ng

stud

ents

at t

he u

nive

rsiti

es w

ho

had

chos

en n

ot to

iden

tify.

Thi

s co

uld

have

pro

duce

d ov

er o

r un

der r

epre

sent

atio

n of

tran

sitio

n ex

perie

nces

for t

his

parti

cula

r sa

mpl

e of

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ili-

ties”

(p. 8

7).

The

data

ana

lyze

d w

ere

base

d on

su

rvey

resp

onde

nts’

sel

f-rep

ort.

“The

re is

no

man

ner t

o en

sure

that

re

spon

dent

s an

swer

ed e

ach

item

ho

nest

ly a

nd to

the

best

of t

heir

abil-

ity”

(p. 8

7).

Wor

land

(2

014)

“. . .

like

lihoo

d fo

r sel

ectio

n bi

as

and

the

influ

ence

of i

ndiv

idua

l di

ffere

nces

on

the

grou

p co

m-

paris

ons

requ

ires

addi

tiona

l re

sear

ch to

gen

erat

e co

nclu

sive

fin

ding

s” (p

. 138

).

“. . .

sam

ple

size

. . .

. sig

nific

ant

limits

to m

y ab

ility

to d

isag

-gr

egat

e st

uden

t per

form

ance

ac

ross

stu

dent

sub

grou

ps s

uch

as s

tude

nts

with

LD

, stu

dent

s w

ho a

re E

L, a

nd s

tude

nts

who

ar

e du

ally

exc

eptio

nal.

. . .

due

to li

mits

in s

ampl

e si

ze a

nd it

s re

sulti

ng e

ffect

on

pow

er, I

was

un

able

to ru

n st

atis

tical

ana

lyse

s fo

r all

outc

ome

varia

bles

that

I co

llect

ed d

ata

for”

(p. 1

35).

“. .

. the

pop

ulat

ion

at m

y se

lect

ed

scho

ol s

ettin

g is

ver

y un

ique

. Th

e co

mbi

natio

n of

its

urba

n se

t-tin

g, im

mer

sion

pro

gram

and

the

dive

rsity

of s

tude

nts

may

pre

sent

th

reat

s to

ext

erna

l val

idity

fac-

tors

suc

h as

gen

eral

izab

ility

of

indi

vidu

als”

(p. 1

36).

“. . .

ver

y lim

ited

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e on

stu

dent

s’ b

asel

ine

skill

s ac

ross

gr

ade

leve

ls a

nd le

arne

r sub

-gro

ups”

(p

. 136

). “.

. . n

ot a

ble

to is

olat

e th

e po

tent

ial e

ffect

s of

inst

ruct

ion

due

to

limite

d ac

cess

to te

ache

rs fo

r fol

low

-up

inte

rvie

ws

rega

rdin

g th

eir r

eadi

ng

and

writ

ing

inst

ruct

ion

prac

tices

in th

e cl

assr

oom

. . .

. Giv

en th

e po

ssib

ility

of

inst

ruct

iona

l effe

cts

on s

tude

nt p

er-

form

ance

, add

ition

al in

form

atio

n on

st

uden

ts’ b

ackg

roun

ds a

nd le

arni

ng

expe

rienc

es in

the

clas

sroo

m w

ould

ha

ve b

een

help

ful t

o co

ntex

tual

ize

the

abov

e fin

ding

s” (p

. 136

). “.

. .

whi

le th

e us

e of

mul

tiple

ass

essm

ent

mea

sure

s an

d m

ultip

le a

sses

smen

ts

help

ed to

con

trol f

or m

ono-

met

hod

bias

and

mon

o-op

erat

ion

bias

, it

may

hav

e le

ad to

thre

ats

to in

tern

al

valid

ity in

the

area

s of

fatig

ue, a

nd

hist

ory”

(p. 1

36).

129NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Yaku

bova

&

Bou

ck (2

014)

The

rese

arch

ers

asse

rted

that

th

eir s

ingl

e su

bjec

t stu

dy w

as

desi

gned

to h

ave

a re

lativ

ely

smal

l num

ber o

f par

ticip

ants

, yet

al

so re

cogn

ized

that

“[h]

avin

g a

larg

e nu

mbe

r of p

artic

ipan

ts m

ay

have

pro

duce

d di

ffere

nt re

sults

in

iden

tifyi

ng th

e m

ore

effe

ctiv

e ty

pe o

f cal

cula

tor .

. .”

(p. 1

24).

The

test

item

s, c

allin

g fo

r com

pu-

tatio

n an

d so

lvin

g w

ord

prob

-le

ms,

“did

not

spe

cific

ally

requ

ire

the

use

of s

cien

tific

or g

raph

ing

calc

ulat

ors.

Stu

dent

s us

ed o

nly

basi

c op

erat

ion

butto

ns o

f bot

h ca

lcul

ator

s to

sol

ve p

robl

ems

that

cou

ld a

lso

be p

erfo

rmed

w

ith a

four

-func

tion

calc

ulat

or”

(p. 1

24).

Youn

g (2

013)

Pha

se 1

(qua

litat

ive)

: lim

ited

to

acad

emic

adv

isor

s in

pos

tsec

-on

dary

inst

itutio

ns in

Ala

bam

a,

Loui

sian

a, M

issi

ssip

pi, a

nd T

en-

ness

ee; m

ay n

ot b

e ge

nera

liz-

able

to o

ther

US

regi

ons.

Pha

se

2 (q

uant

itativ

e): r

ecru

itmen

t was

lim

ited

to a

cade

mic

adv

isor

s w

ho

wer

e m

embe

rs o

f tw

o na

tiona

l an

d 25

sta

te p

rofe

ssio

nal a

s-so

ciat

ions

, or e

mpl

oyed

at 3

00

post

seco

ndar

y di

sabi

lity

or

stud

ent s

uppo

rt se

rvic

es o

ffice

s.

Bec

ause

of t

hese

recr

uitm

ent

stra

tegi

es, a

t lea

st o

ne fa

ctor

m

ay h

ave

intro

duce

d bi

as: p

ro-

fess

iona

ls w

ho w

ork

as fu

ll-tim

e ad

viso

rs a

nd w

ho a

re m

embe

rs

of p

rofe

ssio

nal a

ssoc

iatio

ns

mig

ht a

lso

alig

n th

emse

lves

with

a

deve

lopm

enta

l app

roac

h to

ad

visi

ng.

Zebe

hazy

&

Wilt

on (2

014)

Alth

ough

the

surv

ey re

spon

dent

s w

ere

from

var

ious

par

ts o

f the

U

.S. a

nd C

anad

a, th

e sa

mpl

e w

as n

ot “s

ensi

tive

to re

gion

al

diffe

renc

es” (

p. 1

5).

The

surv

ey e

mpl

oyed

an

onlin

e de

liver

y pl

atfo

rm, s

o th

e re

spon

dent

s’

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

item

s co

uld

have

be

en d

iffer

ent t

han

the

rese

arch

ers’

in

tent

. The

sur

vey

used

a ra

ting

scal

e w

hich

did

not

yie

ld d

etai

ls s

uch

as

reas

ons

for r

espo

nden

ts’ c

once

rns

abou

t ass

essm

ents

not

bei

ng “a

p-pr

opria

tely

ada

pted

” (p.

15)

130 NCEO

Aut

hors

Met

hodo

logy

Sam

ple

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Res

ults

Test

/ Te

st C

onte

xtO

ther

Zhan

g et

al.

(201

4)

The

sam

ple

of s

tude

nts

with

ge

omet

ry d

ifficu

lties

(inc

ludi

ng

both

stu

dent

s w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t di

sabi

litie

s) w

as d

efine

d as

thos

e pa

rtici

pant

s sc

orin

g le

ss th

an

40%

cor

rect

on

the

rese

arch

er-

deve

lope

d te

st th

at u

sed

item

s fro

m th

e st

ate’

s ge

omet

ry c

ur-

ricul

um. T

he s

tudy

was

con

duct

-ed

in th

e so

uthw

este

rn U

.S. i

n a

dist

rict w

ith a

larg

e pr

opor

tion

of s

tude

nts

from

raci

al/e

thni

c m

inor

ities

.

TOTA

L22

3518

223

131NCEO

Tab

le G

-2. F

utu

re R

esea

rch

Dir

ecti

on

s by

Res

earc

her

s an

d F

utu

re R

esea

rch

Cat

ego

ries

Not

e. D

irect

quo

tes

from

the

artic

les

appe

ar w

ithin

quo

tatio

n m

arks

.

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Abe

di &

Ew

ers

(201

3)no

neno

neno

neno

neno

ne

Alk

ahta

ni

(201

3)no

neno

neno

neno

neno

ne

Bar

nhill

(201

4)

Exp

lore

rese

arch

whi

ch

answ

ers

thes

e qu

estio

ns:

“. . .

wha

t is

the

best

way

to

bala

nce

the

inte

grat

ion

of

thes

e st

uden

ts in

to th

e ge

n-er

al c

olle

ge p

opul

atio

n so

th

at th

ey a

re n

ot s

egre

gate

d an

d is

olat

ed a

nd a

t the

sa

me

time

prov

ide

them

the

need

ed s

uppo

rts th

at m

ay

requ

ire in

stru

ctio

n in

a m

ore

indi

vidu

aliz

ed m

anne

r?” (

p.

11);

“. . .

is th

ere

a ne

ed to

de

velo

p m

ore

stru

ctur

ed

adm

issi

on c

riter

ia to

thes

e sp

ecifi

c su

ppor

t pro

gram

s to

det

erm

ine

whi

ch s

tude

nts

mig

ht b

e be

st s

erve

d an

d is

ther

e a

need

to d

evel

op

sum

mer

tran

sitio

n pr

ogra

ms

to a

ssis

t stu

dent

s in

dev

el-

opin

g th

e re

quire

d sk

ills

to

be s

ucce

ssfu

l at c

olle

ge?”

(p

. 11)

.

Ber

ger &

Le

wan

dow

ski

(201

3)

“. . .

wou

ld b

e be

tter s

erve

d if

LD d

iagn

oses

can

be

verifi

ed

thro

ugh

dire

ct te

stin

g, a

nd L

D

parti

cipa

nts

actu

ally

dem

onst

rate

im

pairm

ent i

n ar

eas

for w

hich

th

ey re

ceiv

e ac

com

mod

atio

ns

(i.e.

, writ

ing

fluen

cy o

r spe

lling

)”

(p. 3

15).

“. . .

we

need

rese

arch

th

at is

inte

rnat

iona

l or c

ross

-cu

ltura

l in

desi

gn s

o th

at w

e ca

n be

tter u

nder

stan

d th

e pr

oced

ures

an

d po

licie

s va

rious

cou

ntrie

s us

e fo

r ver

ifyin

g di

sabi

litie

s an

d gr

antin

g te

st a

ccom

mod

atio

ns”

(p. 3

15).

“. . .

cou

ld e

xplo

re th

e us

e of

co

mpu

ters

on

clas

sroo

m-w

ide

exam

s an

d hi

gh-s

take

s te

sts

acro

ss g

rade

leve

ls a

nd ty

pes

of

stud

ents

” (p.

315

).

“Of c

ours

e, th

ere

are

man

y va

riabl

es th

at c

an b

e ex

plor

ed

with

rega

rd to

com

pute

rized

w

ritin

g be

yond

leng

th a

nd q

ualit

y m

easu

res.

The

val

ue o

f a w

ord

proc

esso

r for

spe

lling

, gra

mm

ar,

voca

bula

ry, r

evis

ing,

and

so

on

shou

ld b

e a

focu

s of

rese

arch

fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t dis

-ab

ilitie

s” (p

. 315

).

132 NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Bot

ello

(201

4)

The

rese

arch

er re

com

men

ded

that

stu

dies

use

diff

eren

t dat

a co

llect

ors

who

als

o pr

ovid

ed

obse

rvat

ion

data

: “. .

. an

othe

r in

divi

dual

, oth

er th

an th

e cl

ass-

room

teac

her,

shou

ld ta

lly th

e re

sults

for a

ll gr

oups

of c

hild

ren

thro

ugho

ut th

e te

stin

g w

indo

w. .

. . t

ight

en u

p th

e pr

oced

ures

of t

he

stud

ent e

ngag

emen

t tal

ly s

heet

s by

requ

iring

mor

e ob

serv

atio

ns

of s

tude

nts

per s

essi

on. A

noth

er

way

to im

plem

ent t

his

wou

ld b

e to

vid

eota

pe a

nd re

cord

eac

h ch

ild a

s th

e te

st w

as p

rese

nted

” (p

. 106

).

Incr

ease

sam

ple

size

for s

tudi

es:

addi

tiona

l par

ticip

ant s

ampl

es,

incl

udin

g fo

r gro

upw

ise

com

pari-

sons

, suc

h as

add

ing

rang

e of

so

cioe

cono

mic

sta

tus

dive

rsity

an

d ra

ce/e

thni

city

, and

dire

ctly

co

mpa

ring

perfo

rman

ce s

core

s of

stu

dent

s w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s, a

s w

ell

as s

tude

nts

with

and

with

out

othe

r dis

abili

ties

and

exam

inin

g pe

rform

ance

dat

a fo

r “po

tent

ial

gend

er d

iffer

ence

s” (p

. 105

). “.

. . e

xplo

re re

adin

g co

mpr

ehen

sion

an

d st

uden

t eng

agem

ent d

iffer

-en

ces

of b

lack

com

pute

r scr

een

disp

lays

ver

sus

whi

te c

ompu

ter

scre

en d

ispl

ays

for t

hese

pop

ula-

tion

subg

roup

s of

stu

dent

s . .

.”

(p. 1

05).

“. . .

the

proc

edur

es fo

r the

com

-pu

ter l

ab a

nd th

e ex

pect

atio

n fo

r go

al s

ettin

g sh

ould

be

addr

esse

d . .

. in

cent

ive

mot

ivat

ed s

tude

nts

to p

ay a

ttent

ion

and

perfo

rm th

eir

best

. The

rese

arch

er b

elie

ves

that

all

teac

hers

sho

uld

impl

e-m

ent t

his

ince

ntiv

e in

the

clas

s-ro

om to

hel

p st

uden

ts im

prov

e th

eir r

eadi

ng c

ompr

ehen

sion

and

po

sitiv

ely

impa

ct th

eir s

tude

nt

read

ing

enga

gem

ent.

Inte

rnal

m

otiv

atio

n is

ano

ther

pos

sibl

e av

enue

to e

xplo

re, a

nd a

ddin

g a

qual

itativ

e m

easu

re in

add

ition

to

the

quan

titat

ive

mea

sure

s co

uld

poss

ibly

giv

e so

me

insi

ght

into

stu

dent

mot

ivat

ion

and

incr

ease

s or

dec

reas

es in

read

-in

g co

mpr

ehen

sion

sco

res

and

stud

ent r

eadi

ng e

ngag

emen

t on

a co

mpu

teriz

ed b

ench

mar

k as

-se

ssm

ent”

(pp.

106

-107

).

Bru

mfie

ld

(201

4)

Eng

age

stud

ent p

artic

ipan

ts

with

dis

abili

ties

and

aver

age

inte

llige

nce

from

var

ious

bac

k-gr

ound

s, b

eyon

d th

e lo

w-S

ES

ar

ea in

this

stu

dy’s

sam

ple.

Buz

ick

&

Sto

ne (2

014)

“. . .

it is

impo

rtant

that

rese

arch

-er

s ar

e as

thor

ough

as

poss

ible

w

hen

desc

ribin

g th

eir r

esea

rch

desi

gns.

. . .

som

e st

udie

s di

d no

t spe

cify

feat

ures

suc

h as

di

sabi

lity

subt

ype

or re

ad a

loud

m

ode,

and

this

redu

ced

our

abili

ty to

iden

tify

poss

ible

tren

ds”

(p. 2

3).

“Bec

ause

of t

he la

rge

perc

ent-

age

of v

aria

tion

in e

ffect

siz

es,

our u

nder

stan

ding

of t

he e

ffect

of

read

alo

ud w

ould

ben

efit

from

add

ition

al s

tudi

es (e

.g.,

an

expe

rimen

tal s

tudy

on

text

-to-

spee

ch a

nd o

ne th

at c

ompa

res

grad

e-le

vel e

ffect

s on

the

read

-in

g as

sess

men

t) th

at re

plic

ate

som

e of

the

fact

ors

in p

revi

ous

rese

arch

” (p.

23)

. “In

col

lect

-in

g va

lidity

evi

denc

e, it

is a

lso

criti

cal t

o kn

ow w

hat p

arts

of t

he

test

wer

e re

ad a

loud

in o

rder

to

dete

rmin

e w

heth

er th

e ac

com

-m

odat

ion

chan

ges

the

cons

truct

be

ing

mea

sure

d. T

his

info

rma-

tion

will

be

usef

ul [e

nd o

f p. 2

3]

in c

olle

ctin

g fu

rther

evi

denc

e fo

r ev

alua

ting

the

appr

opria

tene

ss

of te

stin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns” (

pp.

23-2

4).

133NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Caw

thon

&

Lepp

o (2

013)

N/A

— li

tera

ture

revi

ewN

/A —

lite

ratu

re re

view

N/A

— li

tera

ture

revi

ewN

/A —

lite

ratu

re re

view

N/A

— li

tera

ture

revi

ew

Caw

thon

et a

l. (2

013a

)

Unc

over

how

stu

dent

s w

ith

disa

bilit

ies

unde

rsta

nd s

tand

ard

and

adap

ted

item

s th

roug

h st

ud-

ies

usin

g th

ink-

alou

ds o

r oth

er

appr

oach

es. A

lso,

“qua

litat

ive

stud

ies

that

focu

s in

a fi

ne-g

rain

w

ay o

n di

scou

rse

or te

xt/o

ther

se

mio

tic re

pres

enta

tions

diff

er-

ence

s an

d ou

tcom

es w

ould

als

o be

hel

pful

in re

finin

g w

hy a

nd

how

item

feat

ures

wor

k or

don

’t an

d fo

r who

m” (

p. 9

5).

The

rese

arch

ers

indi

cate

d, “F

ull

asse

ssm

ents

, with

eno

ugh

item

s to

pro

vide

the

kind

of r

elia

bilit

y an

d co

vera

ge n

eede

d to

pro

vide

in

form

atio

n ab

out h

ow w

ell t

he

test

func

tions

in a

con

ditio

n in

tend

ed to

reta

in th

e co

gni-

tive

com

plex

ity o

f the

sta

ndar

d ite

ms,

and

per

haps

in a

mod

ified

co

nditi

on fo

r div

erse

sub

grou

ps

of s

tude

nts,

is a

nex

t ste

p in

th

e re

sear

ch p

roce

ss” (

p. 9

5).

Inve

stig

ate

the

effe

cts

of a

dapt

a-tio

ns, s

uch

as a

ddin

g gr

aph-

ics

or re

form

attin

g in

form

atio

n pr

ovid

ed fo

r tes

t ite

ms,

on

othe

r ac

adem

ic c

onte

nt a

sses

smen

ts,

“par

ticul

arly

thos

e th

at b

oth

com

bine

con

tent

are

a kn

owle

dge

and

have

pot

entia

lly v

aryi

ng

dem

ands

on

read

ing

skill

s su

ch

as s

ocia

l stu

dies

or m

athe

mat

ics.

. .

. Th

e or

igin

al p

roje

ct re

vise

d te

st it

ems

for m

ultip

le s

ubje

ct

area

s ac

ross

the

elem

enta

ry

and

mid

dle

grad

es, a

nd fu

ture

an

alys

es w

ill fo

cus

on h

ow th

e ef

fect

s of

ada

ptat

ions

may

diff

er

betw

een

subj

ect a

reas

” (p.

95)

.

Caw

thon

et a

l. (2

013b

)

Dire

ctly

inve

stig

ate

the

expe

ri-en

ces

of s

tude

nts

with

dea

fnes

s an

d he

arin

g im

pairm

ents

abo

ut

thei

r vie

ws

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns

qual

ity (n

ot th

eir e

duca

tors

)

Inve

stig

ate

the

indi

vidu

al c

har-

acte

ristic

s of

stu

dent

s w

ith d

eaf-

ness

and

hea

ring

impa

irmen

ts

“and

the

mat

ch w

ith a

ccom

mo-

datio

ns in

diff

eren

t set

tings

” (p.

44

8).

Cra

wfo

rd

& K

ette

rlin-

Gel

ler (

2013

)

“. . .

com

pare

sch

ools

with

diff

er-

ent d

emog

raph

ics

to d

eter

min

e co

ntin

uity

of t

he fi

ndin

gs re

porte

d he

rein

” (p.

43)

.

“. . .

dev

elop

ing

a qu

antit

ativ

e m

easu

re o

f the

se c

onst

ruct

s ac

ross

a la

rger

sam

ple

of

scho

ols

and

teac

hers

to p

rovi

de

mor

e co

nclu

sive

dat

a ab

out w

hat

teac

hers

kno

w re

gard

ing

assi

gn-

men

t of t

est a

ccom

mod

atio

ns,

and

mor

e im

porta

ntly,

wha

t the

y ne

ed to

kno

w” (

p. 4

3).

134 NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Finc

h &

Fin

ch

(201

3a)

none

none

none

none

none

Finc

h &

Fin

ch

(201

3b)

Incr

ease

sam

ple

size

for e

ach

cate

gory

of s

tude

nt p

artic

ipan

ts,

whi

ch w

ould

then

“pot

entia

lly

[lead

] to

a cl

eare

r pic

ture

of

whi

ch c

ovar

iate

s w

ere

asso

ciat

-ed

with

late

nt tr

ait m

embe

rshi

p”

(p. 9

92).

“. . .

exp

and

this

wor

k by

ex-

amin

ing

the

perfo

rman

ce o

f the

M

MM

ixR

M [m

ultid

imen

sion

al

mul

tilev

el m

ixtu

re R

asch

mod

el]

with

a m

ultid

imen

sion

al s

cale

de

sign

ed to

mea

sure

a m

ore

unita

ry c

onst

ruct

, suc

h as

read

-in

g or

mat

h, a

s op

pose

d to

two

clea

rly d

istin

ct c

onst

ruct

s as

w

as d

one

here

” (p.

992

). “G

iven

th

e in

crea

sing

pop

ular

ity o

f con

-st

ruct

ed re

spon

se it

ems

in m

any

asse

ssm

ents

, . .

. the

ext

ensi

on

of th

e M

MM

ixR

M [m

ultid

imen

-si

onal

mul

tilev

el m

ixtu

re R

asch

m

odel

] to

the

poly

tom

ous

item

ca

se” (

p. 9

92).

Finc

her (

2013

)no

neno

neno

neno

neno

ne

Free

man

(2

013)

Exa

min

e th

e ef

fect

of n

umbe

r of

resp

onse

opt

ions

for s

tude

nts

with

div

erse

dem

ogra

phic

var

i-ab

les

(e.g

. gen

der,

race

/eth

nici

ty,

soci

oeco

nom

ic s

tatu

s). E

xam

ine

the

effe

ct o

f num

ber o

f res

pons

e op

tions

for s

tude

nts

with

dis

-ab

ilitie

s, b

y di

sabi

lity

cate

gory

. “T

here

are

sev

eral

cha

lleng

es

pres

ente

d w

ith tr

ying

to c

reat

e a

univ

ersa

lly d

esig

ned,

acc

essi

ble

asse

ssm

ent f

or s

tude

nts

with

su

ch a

wid

e va

riety

of a

bilit

ies.

In

bette

r und

erst

andi

ng th

e in

trica

-ci

es o

f the

se s

peci

fic e

ligib

ility

ar

eas,

test

dev

elop

ers

wou

ld b

e be

tter e

quip

ped

to m

eet a

nd a

d-dr

ess

thes

e ch

alle

nges

” (p.

86)

.

“. . .

to a

sses

s th

e im

pact

of

stud

ent p

erfo

rman

ce o

ver t

ime.

. .

. an

alyz

e th

e te

st p

erfo

r-m

ance

of s

ame

stud

ents

with

di

sabi

litie

s ov

er s

ever

al y

ears

. . .

. Th

is s

tudy

cou

ld p

rovi

de

mor

e in

form

atio

n re

gard

ing

how

st

uden

t per

form

ance

cha

nges

as

stud

ents

hav

e m

ore

oppo

rtuni

-tie

s to

exp

erie

nce

mul

tiple

cho

ice

test

ing”

(p. 8

7). “

. . .

to a

sses

s th

e im

pact

of e

xter

nal t

estin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns o

n st

uden

t per

-fo

rman

ce. .

. . S

ome

rese

arch

-er

s ar

gue

that

uni

vers

al d

esig

n fo

r lea

rnin

g [p

rinci

ples

], w

hen

prop

erly

impl

emen

ted

durin

g th

e as

sess

men

t dev

elop

men

t, sh

ould

redu

ce th

e ne

ed fo

r ext

er-

nal a

ccom

mod

atio

ns. .

. . c

erta

in

exte

rnal

test

acc

omm

odat

ions

, lik

e re

ad a

loud

, wou

ld a

lter t

he

cons

truct

bei

ng a

sses

sed

and

prov

ide

an u

nfai

r adv

anta

ge to

a

certa

in p

opul

atio

n of

stu

dent

s.

Eva

luat

ing

the

impa

ct o

f tes

ting

acco

mm

odat

ions

wou

ld a

id

test

dev

elop

ers

in a

ddre

ssin

g th

ese

issu

es a

nd p

rovi

de m

ore

info

rmat

ion

rega

rdin

g th

e ut

ility

an

d va

lidity

of t

hese

acc

omm

o-da

tions

” (pp

. 87-

88).

135NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Haw

pe (2

013)

Exp

lore

cor

rela

tions

bet

wee

n at

titud

es to

war

d an

d w

illin

gnes

s to

pro

vide

acc

omm

odat

ions

and

ot

her i

ndiv

idua

l tea

cher

fact

ors

(e.g

., te

ache

r deg

ree

leve

l, su

b-je

cts

taug

ht, g

rade

leve

ls ta

ught

, ye

ars

of te

achi

ng e

xper

ienc

e). “

. . .

repl

icat

e th

is re

sear

ch s

tudy

at

som

e po

int i

n th

e fu

ture

in th

e W

PS

[Wic

hita

Pub

lic S

choo

ls]

and

com

pare

the

resu

lts to

the

curr

ent r

esea

rch

stud

y. T

each

er

attri

tion

and

mob

ility

rate

s m

ay

prov

ide

a di

ffere

nt s

ampl

e in

the

futu

re a

s m

any

staf

f pla

cem

ent

chan

ges

occu

r eve

ry y

ear”

(p.

184)

. “. .

. re

plic

ate

the

cur-

rent

rese

arch

stu

dy in

diff

eren

t sc

hool

dis

trict

s w

ith s

imila

r and

di

ssim

ilar c

hara

cter

istic

s to

the

WP

S [W

ichi

ta P

ublic

Sch

ools

]. S

imila

ritie

s an

d di

ffere

nces

in

seco

ndar

y te

ache

rs’ a

ttitu

des

and

will

ingn

ess

to p

rovi

de

acco

mm

odat

ions

and

mod

ifica

-tio

ns c

ould

be

com

pare

d to

a

rura

l, su

burb

an, a

nd o

ther

urb

an

scho

ol d

istri

cts”

(p. 1

84).

“. . .

repl

icat

e th

e cu

rren

t re-

sear

ch s

tudy

with

adj

ustm

ents

m

ade

to th

e la

ngua

ge o

f the

cur

-re

nt s

urve

y. T

he la

ngua

ge o

f the

su

rvey

cou

ld b

e ch

ange

d to

re-

flect

sta

tem

ents

targ

eted

tow

ard

indi

vidu

als

with

spe

cific

type

s of

di

sabi

litie

s su

ch a

s le

arni

ng d

is-

abili

ties

or a

utis

m” (

p. 1

84).

Use

the

surv

ey a

s a

pre-

an

d po

st-te

st, w

ith th

e in

terv

entio

n of

pro

vidi

ng

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t “r

elat

ed to

atti

tude

s to

war

d pe

rson

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s an

d w

illin

gnes

s to

pro

vide

ac

com

mod

atio

ns a

nd

mod

ifica

tions

” (p.

185

). Th

e pu

rpos

e of

the

surv

ey w

ould

be

ass

ess

any

chan

ges

in

thes

e va

riabl

es, i

n or

der

to “a

id in

iden

tifyi

ng th

e re

latio

nshi

ps b

etw

een

the

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t pr

ovid

ed, a

ttitu

des

tow

ard

pers

ons

with

dis

abili

ties,

an

d w

illin

gnes

s to

pro

vide

ac

com

mod

atio

ns a

nd m

odi-

ficat

ions

” (p.

185

).

Hig

gins

& K

atz

(201

3)

Incr

ease

sam

ple

size

, inc

ludi

ng

stud

ent p

artic

ipan

ts w

ith b

lind-

ness

and

vis

ual i

mpa

irmen

ts “t

o un

ders

tand

how

diff

eren

t aud

io

repr

esen

tatio

ns s

houl

d be

de-

velo

ped

for s

tude

nts

with

vis

ual

acce

ss n

eeds

” (p.

65)

.

“. . .

rese

arch

ers

shou

ld c

on-

side

r brid

ging

the

gap

betw

een

lear

ning

and

ass

essm

ent a

udio

re

pres

enta

tions

to e

nsur

e th

at

stud

ents

rece

ive

cons

iste

nt a

u-di

o su

ppor

t in

the

clas

sroo

m a

nd

durin

g as

sess

men

t. La

rger

sca

le

audi

o re

pres

enta

tion

rese

arch

ha

s th

e po

tent

ial t

o re

veal

mor

e th

emes

and

lead

to th

e de

velo

p-m

ent o

f com

preh

ensi

ve a

udio

gu

idel

ines

that

can

be

appl

ied

to

lear

ning

and

ass

essm

ent c

onte

nt

cons

iste

ntly

in o

rder

to c

reat

e st

anda

rdiz

ed a

udio

repr

esen

ta-

tions

. Thi

s w

ill u

ltim

atel

y im

prov

e te

st re

liabi

lity

and,

ther

efor

e,

valid

ity fo

r stu

dent

s in

nee

d of

au

dio

supp

ort f

or a

sses

smen

t” (6

6).

“Mor

e re

sear

ch a

nd d

evel

opm

ent

is n

eede

d to

cre

ate

com

preh

en-

sive

gui

delin

es th

at e

duca

tors

an

d as

sess

men

t ite

m w

riter

s ca

n us

e to

mak

e m

athe

mat

ics

con-

tent

acc

essi

ble

to s

tude

nts

with

di

ffere

nt a

cces

s ne

eds

(pp.

65-

66).

“. . .

pro

be fo

r und

erst

andi

ng

of d

iffer

ence

s be

twee

n st

uden

t pe

rform

ance

and

pre

fere

nces

” (p

. 66)

.

136 NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Hug

gins

& E

l-ba

um (2

013)

“Fut

ure

stud

ies

usin

g na

tiona

l or

inte

rnat

iona

l dat

a m

ay h

ave

the

capa

city

to d

ivid

e gr

oups

by

type

of a

ccom

mod

atio

n w

hen

perfo

rmin

g S

EA

. Stu

dies

of t

his

natu

re w

ould

be

able

to p

rovi

de

mor

e nu

ance

d in

form

atio

n to

pr

actit

ione

rs a

bout

whi

ch ty

pes

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns a

re le

ast

likel

y to

intro

duce

mea

sure

men

t in

varia

nce

conc

erns

in re

porte

d te

st s

core

s” (p

. 69)

.

“Thi

s st

udy

dem

onst

rate

d th

e ut

ility

of S

EA

for a

sses

sing

this

ty

pe o

f mea

sure

men

t com

pa-

rabi

lity

. . .

Res

earc

hers

are

en

cour

aged

to a

pply

this

met

h-od

olog

y co

nsis

tent

ly to

info

rm

valid

ity c

once

rns

abou

t rep

ortin

g st

anda

rdiz

ed te

st s

core

s fo

r st

uden

ts u

sing

test

acc

omm

oda-

tions

” (p.

70)

.

Ket

terli

n-G

elle

r et a

l (2

014)

Gat

her f

eedb

ack

on th

e S

cree

n-in

g to

Ass

ign

Acc

omm

odat

ions

To

ol (S

AAT

) fro

m a

dditi

onal

pr

ofes

sion

als

and

othe

rs, b

eyon

d th

e “s

mal

l pop

ulat

ion

of e

xper

ts”

(p. 8

4) in

this

stu

dy.

Add

ress

mis

iden

tifica

tion

of

stud

ents

as

at ri

sk o

f or h

avin

g di

sabi

litie

s.

Eva

luat

e th

e us

e of

the

Scr

een-

ing

to A

ssig

n A

ccom

mod

atio

ns

Tool

(SA

AT) f

or it

s ac

cura

cy in

m

akin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns re

com

-m

enda

tions

. Asc

erta

in th

e co

n-se

quen

tial v

alid

ity o

f the

SA

AT.

Kle

hm (2

014)

Exp

and

focu

s ab

out a

ltern

ate

as-

sess

men

ts b

eyon

d st

uden

ts w

ith

inte

llect

ual d

isab

ilitie

s, to

oth

er

disa

bilit

y ca

tego

ries;

exa

min

e w

heth

er s

tude

nts

with

oth

er d

is-

abili

ties

dem

onst

rate

diff

eren

tly

thei

r kno

wle

dge

on a

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ents

.

“It is

impo

rtant

to fi

nd o

ut if

AA

-G

LAS

are

mor

e va

lid m

easu

res

than

the

curr

ent s

yste

m o

f as-

sess

men

t for

SW

D, a

s th

e va

st

maj

ority

of t

each

ers

feel

that

cu

rren

t lar

ge-s

cale

ass

essm

ents

ar

e no

t a v

alid

way

to a

sses

s th

e ac

hiev

emen

t of S

WD

” (p.

237

).

Inve

stig

ate

“the

type

s of

tra

inin

g an

d pr

ofes

sion

al

deve

lopm

ent t

hat w

ould

be

mos

t ben

efici

al fo

r tea

ch-

ers

of in

clus

ive

prog

ram

s”

(p. 2

37).

“. . .

qua

litat

ive

rese

arch

sho

uld

be c

on-

duct

ed to

inve

stig

ate

why

te

ache

rs h

old

the

dom

inan

t at

titud

es re

porte

d an

d us

e re

sear

ch-b

ased

pra

ctic

es to

th

e ex

tent

that

they

do,

and

to

det

erm

ine

the

reso

urce

s th

at th

ey n

eed

to p

rovi

de

qual

ity in

stru

ctio

n th

at

mee

ts th

e ne

eds

of S

WD

” (p

. 237

).

Lee

& C

hen

(201

4)

“. . .

a q

ualit

ativ

e re

sear

ch m

eth-

od c

an b

e ad

opte

d to

und

erst

and

how

virt

ual m

anip

ulat

ives

affe

ct

lear

ning

to p

rovi

de a

refe

renc

e fo

r the

des

ign

of le

arni

ng a

ctiv

i-tie

s us

ing

virtu

al m

anip

ulat

ives

” (p

. 199

).

Incr

ease

sam

ple

size

; exa

min

e pe

rform

ance

and

dat

a pe

rtain

ing

to v

ario

us in

divi

dual

diff

eren

ces

amon

g st

uden

ts (e

.g.,

lear

ning

st

yle)

whe

n us

ing

virtu

al m

anip

u-la

tives

App

lyin

g th

e sa

me

rese

arch

ap

proa

ch, i

nves

tigat

e ef

fect

s of

virt

ual m

anip

ulat

ives

on

per-

form

ance

in o

ther

mat

h co

nten

t (s

uch

as a

lgeb

ra o

r pro

babi

lity)

ot

to o

ther

aca

dem

ic c

onte

nt

(che

mis

try o

r phy

sics

)

“. . .

alth

ough

the

virtu

al a

nd

phys

ical

env

ironm

ents

had

dif-

fere

nt fe

atur

es, b

oth

the

virtu

al

and

phys

ical

man

ipul

ativ

es w

ere

effe

ctiv

e in

sup

porti

ng s

tude

nts’

de

laye

d le

arni

ng in

diff

eren

t w

ays.

Thi

s im

plie

s th

at s

impl

y re

plac

ing

the

phys

ical

mat

eri-

als

with

virt

ual m

ater

ials

doe

s no

t affe

ct s

tude

nts’

del

ayed

le

arni

ng p

erfo

rman

ce a

s lo

ng a

s th

e m

etho

d of

inst

ruct

ion

is p

re-

serv

ed. A

n in

-dep

th e

xam

inat

ion

of th

is is

sue

shou

ld b

e co

nduc

t-ed

in th

e fu

ture

” (p.

198

).

Exa

min

e in

terv

entio

n ef

-fe

cts

of te

achi

ng s

trate

gies

“(

such

as

gam

e-ba

sed

lear

ning

)” (p

. 199

) on

stud

ent p

erfo

rman

ce u

sing

vi

rtual

man

ipul

ativ

es

137NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Lepp

o et

al.

(201

4)no

neno

neno

neno

neno

ne

Lew

ando

wsk

i et

al.

(201

3)

Eng

age

parti

cipa

nts

with

lear

n-in

g di

sabi

litie

s bu

t with

out o

ther

di

sabi

litie

s; a

ltern

atel

y, c

ompa

re

effe

cts

with

stu

dent

s w

ith o

ther

di

sabi

litie

s, s

uch

as a

ttent

ion-

defic

it hy

pera

ctiv

ity d

isor

der o

r an

xiet

y.

Lew

ando

wsk

i et

al.

(201

4)

“. . .

sho

uld

try to

ver

ify s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

and

mat

ch

them

to n

ondi

sabl

ed s

tude

nts

of s

imila

r age

, sex

, rac

e, a

nd

educ

atio

nal a

ttain

men

t” (p

. 123

). “.

. . c

ombi

ne q

uant

itativ

e an

d qu

alita

tive

met

hods

to b

ette

r dis

-ce

rn th

e pe

rcep

tions

of s

tude

nts

abou

t the

use

of t

est a

ccom

mo-

datio

ns” (

p. 1

23).

Rec

ruit

post

seco

ndar

y st

uden

t pa

rtici

pant

s w

ith v

ario

us d

is-

abili

ties

and

com

pare

the

surv

ey

resp

onse

s by

dis

abili

ty g

roup

s re

gard

ing

thei

r acc

omm

odat

ions

pe

rcep

tions

.

“. . .

inve

stig

ate

whe

ther

stu

-de

nts’

per

cept

ions

of b

en-

efits

from

acc

omm

odat

ions

are

re

late

d to

thei

r act

ual d

egre

e of

be

nefit

” (p.

123

).

Lew

is &

Nol

an

(201

3)

“. . .

inve

stig

ate

the

prev

alen

ce

of s

enso

ry d

efen

sive

ness

bot

h w

ithin

spe

cific

gro

ups

of c

olle

ge

stud

ents

with

AD

HD

, Asp

erge

r’s

Syn

drom

e an

d D

CD

and

als

o w

ith th

e ov

eral

l stu

dent

pop

ula-

tion”

(p. 1

71).

Eva

luat

e se

tting

s, fo

r tes

ting

and

othe

rwis

e, in

whi

ch p

osts

ec-

onda

ry s

tude

nts

with

sen

sory

de

fens

iven

ess

have

enc

ount

ered

di

fficu

lties

; the

se s

tudy

resu

lts

coul

d fa

cilit

ate

“the

plan

ning

of

colle

ge b

uild

ings

as

wel

l as

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f oth

er re

ason

-ab

le a

ccom

mod

atio

ns” (

p. 1

71).

Com

pare

stu

dent

per

form

ance

ef

fect

s w

hen

usin

g ty

pes

of lo

w-

dist

ract

ion

test

set

ting

138 NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Li (2

014)

Exa

min

e w

heth

er a

nd h

ow d

is-

abili

ty c

ateg

ory

mig

ht in

tera

ct

with

effe

cts

of o

ral d

eliv

ery

ac-

com

mod

atio

ns

“In a

pre

limin

ary

expl

orat

ion,

we

atte

mpt

ed to

cod

e w

heth

er th

e te

st it

ems

wer

e m

ultip

le-c

hoic

e,

cons

truct

ed-r

espo

nse

ques

tions

, or

bot

h, h

opin

g th

at th

is w

ould

at

leas

t par

tly in

dica

te th

e re

ad-

abili

ty o

f the

test

item

s. H

owev

er,

only

a fe

w s

tudi

es u

sed

test

s in

volv

ing

cons

truct

ed re

spon

se

ques

tions

, and

we

wer

e no

t abl

e to

incl

ude

item

type

as

a pr

edic

-to

r. Th

e in

tera

ctio

n be

twee

n te

st

char

acte

ristic

s an

d re

ad-a

loud

ac

com

mod

atio

ns th

eref

ore

is a

n im

porta

nt is

sue

for f

urth

er s

tudy

(C

awth

on, H

o, P

atel

, Pot

vin,

&

Trun

dt, 2

009;

Ket

terli

n-G

elle

r, Yo

vano

ff, &

Tin

dal,

2007

)” (p

. 12

).

“Tes

ting

setti

ngs,

for

inst

ance

, whe

ther

the

test

is

adm

inis

trate

d to

indi

vidu

als,

to

smal

l gro

ups,

or t

o an

ent

ire

clas

s, w

as a

noth

er re

late

d fa

ctor

th

at w

e w

ere

not a

ble

to in

clud

e.

. . .

it w

ould

be

advi

sabl

e fo

r re

sear

cher

s to

con

trol f

or p

oten

-tia

lly c

onfo

undi

ng fa

ctor

s in

ord

er

to fa

cilit

ate

a be

tter u

nder

stan

d-in

g of

the

effe

cts

of re

ad-a

loud

” (p

. 12)

.

Lin

& L

in

(201

3)

“the

adve

rse

effe

cts

of s

ettin

g ac

com

mod

atio

n” (p

. 10)

for s

tu-

dent

s w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

Lin

& L

in

(201

4)

“. . .

futu

re te

st d

evel

opm

ent a

nd

rese

arch

on

exam

inin

g ac

com

-m

odat

ion-

rela

ted

DIF

[diff

eren

tial

item

func

tioni

ng] s

houl

d co

nsid

er

exam

inee

s’ la

tent

abi

litie

s an

d ch

arac

teris

tics

that

defi

ne th

e st

uden

t pop

ulat

ions

in a

dditi

on

to th

eir a

ccom

mod

atio

n st

atus

” (p

. 785

).

Love

tt (2

014)

none

none

none

none

none

139NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Love

tt &

Lej

a (2

013)

Inve

stig

ate

the

role

and

effe

ct o

f st

uden

ts’ p

ersp

ectiv

es a

bout

ac-

com

mod

atio

ns o

n th

e de

cisi

on-

mak

ing

proc

ess.

Det

erm

ine

the

degr

ee to

whi

ch s

tude

nts

with

di

sabi

litie

s ha

ve id

entifi

ed th

e ac

-tu

al im

pact

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns

on a

sses

smen

t per

form

ance

: “s

tude

nt p

erce

ptio

ns s

houl

d be

ac

com

pani

ed, w

hene

ver p

os-

sibl

e, b

y an

em

piric

al e

xam

ina-

tion

of th

e ac

tual

effe

cts

of th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n on

that

stu

dent

’s

test

per

form

ance

” (p.

86)

.

Lym

an (2

013)

“Pot

entia

lly ri

ch in

form

atio

n re

gard

ing

barr

iers

to a

ccom

-m

odat

ion

use

coul

d be

gai

ned

from

usi

ng a

pop

ulat

ion

of S

WD

[s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties]

who

ar

e no

t reg

iste

red

with

DS

S

[dis

abili

ty s

uppo

rt se

rvic

es].

This

po

tent

ial r

esea

rch

coul

d re

veal

ba

rrie

rs th

at s

impl

y ar

e no

t par

t of

the

expe

rienc

e of

stu

dent

s th

at a

re a

war

e of

and

hav

e us

ed

DS

S” (

p. 7

2).

This

stu

dy a

lso

sugg

ests

be

nefit

in lo

okin

g at

bar

riers

to

acco

mm

odat

ion

use

with

mor

e co

mpl

exity

and

spe

cific

ity (p

. 72)

. Th

e re

sear

cher

not

ed th

at m

any

cont

extu

al fa

ctor

s re

late

d bo

th to

st

uden

ts u

sing

acc

omm

odat

ions

an

d as

pect

s of

the

prov

isio

n of

an

d re

sults

from

acc

omm

oda-

tions

cou

ld b

e in

vest

igat

ed. H

e no

ted,

“[a]

thou

gh th

is ty

pe o

f re

sear

ch m

ay b

e di

fficu

lt, it

cou

ld

pote

ntia

lly p

rovi

de D

SS

[dis

abil-

ity s

uppo

rt se

rvic

es] p

rovi

ders

an

d S

WD

inva

luab

le in

form

a-tio

n in

hel

ping

mak

e de

cisi

ons

rega

rdin

g if

and

whe

n to

util

ize

acco

mm

odat

ions

” (p.

73)

.

140 NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

May

(201

3)

Bec

ause

thes

e fa

culty

hav

e ro

les

of in

stru

ctin

g as

wel

l as

clin

ical

pr

actic

e, th

ere

wer

e in

dica

tions

in

the

stud

y re

sults

abo

ut d

ifficu

l-tie

s in

cla

rifyi

ng a

ccom

mod

atio

ns

issu

es in

inst

ruct

ing

nurs

ing

stud

ents

and

acc

omm

odat

ions

ne

eded

whe

n nu

rsin

g st

uden

ts

prov

ide

patie

nt s

ervi

ces

in c

lini-

cal s

ettin

gs; r

esea

rch

is n

eede

d fo

r ide

ntify

ing

and

diffe

rent

iatin

g th

ese

issu

es. T

he re

sear

cher

po

inte

d ou

t tha

t res

earc

h co

uld

“. . .

exa

min

e th

e va

lidity

of

tech

nica

l sta

ndar

ds th

at n

ursi

ng

stud

ents

are

hel

d to

and

to th

e de

velo

pmen

t and

test

ing

of s

trat-

egie

s am

enab

le to

acc

omm

oda-

tion.

Fea

r and

unc

erta

inty

cou

ld

be re

plac

ed b

y ev

iden

ce-b

ased

pr

actic

e th

at c

ould

impr

ove

the

clin

ical

env

ironm

ent f

or b

oth

stu-

dent

s an

d pa

tient

s al

ike.

. . .

Ad-

ditio

nal r

esea

rch

into

bes

t clin

ical

pr

actic

e w

ould

be

an a

venu

e to

cr

eatin

g th

e id

eal e

nviro

nmen

t fo

r lea

rnin

g in

the

clin

ical

set

ting”

(p

. 116

).

“. . .

focu

s on

the

cont

ext

of th

e so

cial

con

tact

with

pe

ople

with

dis

abili

ties

(e.g

., as

pee

rs, c

olle

ague

s or

pa

tient

) and

the

diffe

renc

es

in a

ttitu

des

asso

ciat

ed w

ith

diffe

rent

type

s of

soc

ial

cont

act.

. . .

the

man

ner i

n w

hich

peo

ple

with

dis

-ab

ilitie

s ar

e re

pres

ente

d in

th

e cu

rric

ulum

(e.g

. fro

m a

he

alth

pro

mot

ion

and

pre-

vent

ion

pers

pect

ive

or fr

om

a m

edic

al o

r dis

ease

mod

el)

coul

d be

exa

min

ed .

. . T

his

type

of r

esea

rch

wou

ld s

hed

light

on

if an

d ho

w n

ursi

ng

stud

ents

are

intro

duce

d to

peo

ple

with

dis

abili

ties

with

in n

ursi

ng a

nd c

ould

pr

ovid

e op

portu

nitie

s to

as-

sess

and

mod

ify th

e pl

ace

that

dis

abili

ty c

onte

nt h

as

in th

e cu

rric

ulum

. Fur

ther

, qu

alita

tive

stud

ies

that

ex

amin

e th

e ex

perie

nces

of

peop

le w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s an

d th

eir p

erce

ptio

ns o

f nur

ses,

nu

rsin

g ca

re a

nd th

e po

ten-

tial f

or a

car

eer i

n nu

rsin

g co

uld

be e

xplo

red.

. . .

Ad-

ditio

nally

, nur

sing

rese

arch

ne

eds

to a

ddre

ss w

ays

that

th

e nu

rsin

g pr

ofes

sion

can

be

mor

e in

clus

ive

of p

eopl

e w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s” (p

p. 1

16-

117)

. “. .

. ex

plor

e av

enue

s to

rem

edy

know

ledg

e de

fi-ci

ts a

nd p

rovi

de e

vide

nce-

base

d pr

ofes

sion

al d

evel

op-

men

t act

iviti

es w

ith th

e po

tent

ial t

o be

tter p

repa

re

facu

lty to

iden

tify

thei

r ow

n le

arni

ng n

eeds

rela

ted

to

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties.

O

ppor

tuni

ties

for i

mpl

e-m

entin

g cr

eativ

e te

achi

ng

and

lear

ning

stra

tegi

es

may

be

born

from

this

type

of

facu

lty a

sses

smen

t and

re

sear

ch” (

p. 1

17).

141NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

May

& S

tone

(2

014)

“. . .

it w

ould

be

expe

cted

that

, if

ST

[ste

reot

ype

thre

at] d

oes

inde

ed im

pact

stu

dent

s w

ith L

D,

the

pote

ntia

l stu

dy p

opul

atio

n w

ould

be

limite

d fu

rther

by

the

fact

that

few

suc

h st

uden

ts w

ould

w

ant t

o pa

rtici

pate

in a

stu

dy

that

wou

ld a

rous

e th

e de

gree

of

disc

omfo

rt ty

pica

lly a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith S

T. O

ne p

ossi

ble

appr

oach

to

add

ress

ing

this

issu

e w

ould

in-

volv

e ac

cess

ing

pote

ntia

l par

tici-

pant

s vi

a th

e gr

adua

tion

reco

rds

of h

igh

scho

ol s

peci

al e

duca

tion

depa

rtmen

ts” (

p. 1

02).

“Bec

ause

ST

[ste

reot

ype

thre

at]

is b

y de

faul

t in

the

‘on’

pos

i-tio

n in

und

ergr

adua

te te

sts

and

beca

use

man

y st

uden

ts, e

ven

thos

e w

ith in

visi

ble

diffe

renc

es,

appe

ar v

ulne

rabl

e to

neg

ativ

e st

ereo

type

s re

gard

ing

thei

r pe

rform

ance

, res

earc

h on

the

test

per

form

ance

of a

ll st

u-de

nts

shou

ld b

e un

derta

ken

to d

eter

min

e ho

w fa

ctor

s su

ch

as S

T m

ay c

ause

edu

cato

rs to

un

dere

stim

ate

the

acad

emic

pe

rform

ance

of m

any”

(p. 1

02).

“. . .

mod

ifyin

g th

e S

T [s

tere

otyp

e th

reat

] man

ipul

atio

n ar

e to

use

an

iden

tity-

prim

ing

man

ipul

a-tio

n or

a te

st-b

ias

man

ipul

atio

n in

stea

d of

the

task

-ref

ram

ing

man

ipul

atio

n us

ed in

the

pres

ent

stud

y. F

or in

stan

ce, V

ick

et a

l. (2

008)

use

d th

e S

T m

anip

ulat

ion

of te

lling

fem

ale

parti

cipa

nts

in

thei

r stu

dy th

at th

e ch

alle

ngin

g m

ath

test

they

wer

e ab

out t

o ta

ke h

ad s

how

n ge

nder

diff

er-

ence

s in

per

form

ance

in p

revi

ous

stud

ies”

(p. 1

02).

Mey

er &

B

ouck

(201

4)

Inve

stig

ate

effe

cts

of te

xt-to

-sp

eech

of v

ario

us ty

pes

“. . .

us

ing

prog

ram

s w

ith fe

atur

es

desi

gned

to s

uppo

rt re

ader

s w

ith

poor

com

preh

ensi

on a

nd g

ood

fluen

cy, r

eade

rs w

ith g

ood

com

-pr

ehen

sion

and

poo

r flue

ncy,

and

re

ader

s w

ho n

eed

to im

prov

e bo

th fl

uenc

y an

d co

mpr

ehen

-si

on” (

p. 3

1).

“. . .

impl

emen

ting

a si

mila

r st

udy

in a

gen

eral

edu

catio

n se

tting

with

aut

hent

ic c

ur-

ricul

ar m

ater

ials

rele

vant

to

spec

ific

clas

sroo

m m

ater

ials

an

d pr

actic

es a

nd a

ddre

ss

whe

ther

com

preh

ensi

on

can

be im

prov

ed w

ith s

up-

porte

d eT

ext o

fferin

g on

line

dict

iona

ries,

out

linin

g or

hi

ghlig

htin

g of

mai

n id

eas

and

deta

ils, a

nd/o

r per

for-

man

ce fe

edba

ck fe

atur

es”

(p. 3

1).

Mill

er e

t al.

(201

3)

“Thi

s st

udy

shou

ld b

e re

plic

ated

w

ith a

gen

eral

, mor

e re

pres

enta

-tiv

e A

DH

D s

ampl

e th

at m

eets

an

impa

irmen

t crit

erio

n. .

. .

incl

ude

an A

DH

D s

ampl

e th

at

mee

ts D

SM

-IV c

riter

a, in

clud

ing

evid

ence

of i

mpa

irmen

t. Th

e sa

mpl

e id

eally

wou

ld c

ontro

l for

co

mor

bid

diso

rder

s an

d ex

amin

e fo

r diff

eren

ces

acro

ss A

DH

D

subt

ypes

” (p.

7).

Incr

ease

sam

-pl

e si

ze, i

nclu

ding

bro

aden

ing

the

dive

rsity

of s

tude

nt p

artic

i-pa

nts

“from

diff

eren

t edu

catio

nal

back

grou

nds

with

var

ying

leve

ls

of a

cade

mic

dem

ands

” (p.

7).

“. . .

to m

ore

care

fully

con

trol f

or

the

use/

nonu

se o

f med

icat

ion.

It

wou

ld b

e pa

rticu

larly

inte

rest

ing

to c

ondu

ct a

stu

dy th

at c

ompa

res

perfo

rman

ce o

n a

timed

hig

h-st

akes

test

for i

ndiv

idua

ls re

ceiv

-in

g m

edic

atio

n tre

atm

ent v

ersu

s th

ose

rece

ivin

g on

ly e

xten

ded

time”

(p. 7

). “.

. . to

exa

min

e so

me

of th

e ot

her c

omm

on te

st

acco

mm

odat

ions

(i.e

., se

para

te

room

, ext

ra b

reak

s, u

se o

f a

com

pute

r) fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith a

nd

with

out A

DH

D” (

p. 7

).

142 NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Nee

s &

Ber

ry

(201

3)no

neno

neno

neno

neno

ne

New

man

&

Mad

aus

(201

4)

“. . .

on

stud

ent d

isab

ility

-re-

late

d se

lf-pe

rcep

tions

wou

ld

be in

valu

able

in c

larif

ying

th

ese

issu

es a

nd e

nhan

cing

st

uden

t dec

isio

n m

akin

g re

late

d to

dis

clos

ure

and

acco

mm

odat

ion

requ

est.

. . .

rela

ted

to th

e fa

ctor

s th

at d

rive

who

rece

ives

su

ppor

ts, w

ho d

iscl

oses

a

disa

bilit

y, a

nd th

e im

pact

of

rece

ipt o

f the

se s

uppo

rts

on s

choo

l com

plet

ion

and

pers

iste

nce”

(p. 9

). “.

. . to

un

ders

tand

the

link

betw

een

acco

mm

odat

ions

, sup

ports

, an

d he

lp w

ith s

choo

lwor

k an

d po

stse

cond

ary

educ

a-tio

n ou

tcom

es fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s” (p

. 9).

Ove

rton

(201

3)

Eng

age

stud

ent p

artic

ipan

ts fr

om

mor

e th

an o

ne s

choo

l dis

trict

; in

crea

se th

e nu

mbe

r of p

artic

i-pa

nts;

dra

w s

tude

nt p

artic

ipan

ts

from

sev

eral

cou

ntie

s; in

clud

e st

uden

ts w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

as a

co

mpa

rison

gro

up.

. . .

adm

inis

ter t

he a

sses

smen

t ea

rlier

in th

e sc

hool

yea

r whe

n st

uden

ts a

re s

till f

ocus

ed o

n th

e ac

adem

ics

need

ed to

com

plet

e th

e sc

hool

yea

r (p.

84)

. Stu

dent

pa

rtici

pant

s ne

ed to

be

give

n op

-po

rtuni

ties

to p

ract

ice

usin

g ac

-co

mm

odat

ions

prio

r to

test

day

. “T

here

sho

uld

also

be

cont

rols

de

sign

ed to

ens

ure

the

stud

ents

fo

llow

the

inst

ruct

ions

to re

ad

alou

d w

hen

inst

ruct

ed to

do

so”

(p. 8

6). “

. . .

focu

s on

isol

atin

g th

e re

adin

g co

nditi

on v

aria

ble.

. .

. us

ing

eith

er o

nly

narr

ativ

e ty

pe o

r exp

osito

ry ty

pe te

xt” (

p.

92).

Exa

min

e ef

fect

s of

stu

dent

-re

ads-

alou

d ac

com

mod

atio

n on

re

adin

g co

mpr

ehen

sion

for d

iffer

-en

t nar

rativ

e ge

nres

; the

cur

rent

st

udy

used

non

fictio

n te

xt, y

et

fictio

n is

com

mon

on

stat

e as

-se

ssm

ents

.

The

rese

arch

er in

dica

ted

that

te

st a

dmin

istra

tors

nee

d to

ha

ve fo

rmal

ized

trai

ning

on

the

stud

ent-r

eads

-alo

ud a

ccom

mo-

datio

n. A

n al

tern

ativ

e ap

proa

ch

wou

ld b

e m

akin

g us

e of

gra

duat

e st

uden

ts w

ith fo

rmal

ass

essm

ent

train

ing,

in o

rder

to “h

elp

ensu

re

fidel

ity o

f tre

atm

ent d

urin

g th

e st

udy”

(p. 8

7).

“. . .

add

ress

oth

er q

ues-

tions

. . .

. if t

he s

tude

nt-

read

s-al

oud

acco

mm

oda-

tion

is b

enefi

cial

to s

tude

nt

perfo

rman

ce o

n on

ly o

ne

text

type

, can

stu

dent

s be

ta

ught

to s

elf-m

onito

r the

ir re

adin

g to

reco

gniz

e w

hen

ther

e is

a n

eed

to a

djus

t th

eir r

eadi

ng c

ondi

tion

in

orde

r to

dem

onst

rate

hig

her

com

preh

ensi

on?

In o

ther

w

ords

, can

the

stud

ents

re

cogn

ize

the

indi

vidu

al

need

to re

ad s

ilent

ly w

hen

conf

ront

ed w

ith s

ome

mat

eria

l or r

ead

alou

d w

hen

conf

ront

ed w

ith o

ther

mat

e-ria

l in

orde

r to

impr

ove

thei

r ov

eral

l und

erst

andi

ng o

f the

m

ater

ial?

” (p.

92)

.

143NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Rus

sell

(201

4)

“Per

form

a s

imila

rly d

esig

ned

stud

y, b

ut fo

cuse

d on

gra

de

leve

l diff

eren

tiatio

n in

stea

d of

spe

cial

edu

catio

n pr

ogra

m

grou

ping

” (p.

162

). C

ondu

ct a

“lo

ngitu

dina

l stu

dy to

find

the

effe

cts

of u

sing

the

calc

ulat

or a

s an

acc

omm

odat

ion

over

tim

e”

(p. 1

63).

“Cou

ld a

lso

atte

mpt

a

mix

ed m

etho

dolo

gy o

r onl

y qu

alita

tive

met

hodo

logy

. Due

to

the

fact

that

the

rese

arch

er w

as

empl

oyed

in o

ne o

f the

sch

ools

an

d w

orke

d w

ith s

ome

of th

e st

uden

ts, a

ny m

etho

ds th

at c

ould

ha

ve tr

igge

red

subj

ectiv

ity w

ere

excl

uded

. An

outs

ide

rese

arch

er

coul

d at

tem

pt in

terv

iew

s w

ith

teac

hers

and

sur

vey

for s

tude

nts

to c

ompl

ete

the

pict

ure

on

calc

ulat

or e

ffect

iven

ess

as a

c-co

mm

odat

ion”

(p. 1

63).

Con

duct

a

qual

itativ

e st

udy

of s

urve

ying

“p

eopl

e in

volv

ed in

the

deci

sion

m

akin

g an

d im

plem

enta

tion

proc

ess

of th

is a

ccom

mod

atio

n at

var

ious

leve

ls: a

dmin

istra

tors

, te

ache

rs, a

nd s

tude

nts

usin

g th

e ac

com

mod

atio

n, th

eir p

aren

ts

and

even

pee

rs to

und

erst

and

its

over

all e

ffect

, not

onl

y on

stu

dent

pe

rform

ance

, but

on

the

stud

ent

self-

este

em a

nd/o

r pee

r acc

ep-

tanc

e” (1

63).

Incr

ease

sam

ple

size

, sel

ectin

g st

uden

ts fr

om m

ore

dist

ricts

or

stat

es. “

If gr

oupi

ng b

ased

on

type

of s

peci

al e

duca

tion

ser-

vice

s w

ould

als

o be

inve

stig

ated

, la

rger

siz

ed s

ubgr

oups

wou

ld

perm

it m

eani

ngfu

l com

paris

ons

amon

g su

bgro

ups

as w

ell”

(p. 1

62).

Exa

min

e ef

fect

s of

ca

lcul

ator

acc

omm

odat

ion

on

perfo

rman

ce o

f stu

dent

s w

ith

othe

r dis

abili

ties,

“suc

h as

Oth

er

Hea

lth Im

pairm

ent o

r Mild

Men

tal

Impa

irmen

t . .

. The

find

ings

of

that

stu

dy m

ay g

uide

IEP

team

s in

cho

osin

g th

e rig

ht a

ccom

mo-

datio

n fo

r the

stu

dent

s fe

atur

ing

a pa

rticu

lar t

ype

of d

isab

ility

” (p.

16

3).

“Dev

elop

a te

st-r

etes

t des

ign

cond

ucte

d w

ith a

n ex

perim

enta

l fra

mew

ork

that

cou

ld c

ompa

re

perfo

rman

ces

on a

sta

te s

tan-

dard

ized

ass

essm

ent a

fter t

he

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

acco

m-

mod

atio

n w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t a

calc

ulat

or. T

his

wou

ld p

ossi

bly

requ

ire th

e S

tate

Dep

artm

ent

of E

duca

tion

to p

erfo

rm th

e as

sess

men

t tw

ice

or to

sup

ply

a si

mila

r/ret

ired

asse

ssm

ent w

ith

two

form

s fo

r a re

sear

cher

to

adm

inis

ter”

(p. 1

62).

Sch

reue

r &

Sac

hs (2

014)

“con

duct

sim

ilar c

ompa

rativ

e st

udie

s in

oth

er c

ount

ries

oper

at-

ing

unde

r diff

eren

t acc

omm

oda-

tion

prov

isio

n m

odel

s” (p

. 35)

.

144 NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Sm

ith (2

014)

Inve

stig

ate

abou

t the

hig

h sc

hool

to

col

lege

tran

sitio

n ex

perie

nce

by in

quiri

ng a

bout

it w

ith s

tu-

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s, th

eir f

am-

ily m

embe

rs, a

nd th

eir s

econ

dary

ed

ucat

ors,

and

see

king

thei

r per

-sp

ectiv

es. “

. . .

iden

tify

stud

ents

w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ho h

ave

chos

en

not t

o ut

ilize

acc

omm

odat

ions

at

all,

in o

rder

to b

ette

r und

erst

and

thei

r per

spec

tives

and

exp

eri-

ence

s” (p

. 109

).

“. . .

exp

lore

stu

dent

s’

expe

rienc

es p

rior t

o ut

ilizi

ng

acco

mm

odat

ions

, as

wel

l as

thei

r dec

isio

n to

use

acc

om-

mod

atio

ns” (

p. 1

08).

Sm

ith &

Ric

-co

min

i (20

13)

Par

ticip

ants

cou

ld b

e pr

ovid

ed

mor

e pr

actic

e tim

e us

ing

the

nois

e-re

duct

ion

head

phon

es.

Incr

ease

sam

ple

size

, inc

ludi

ng

stud

ent p

artic

ipan

ts fr

om m

any

scho

ols,

with

bro

ader

dem

o-gr

aphi

c di

vers

ity

Inve

stig

ate

effe

cts

of n

oise

-re

duct

ion

devi

ces

on o

ther

ac

adem

ic c

onte

nt a

reas

(oth

er

than

read

ing)

and

on

othe

r as-

sess

men

ts (o

ther

than

read

ing

com

preh

ensi

on)

Ste

in (2

013)

“. . .

to s

urve

y . .

. re

gard

ing

the

acco

mm

odat

ions

and

sup

ports

th

ey re

ceiv

e fro

m D

SS

[di

sabi

lity

supp

ort s

ervi

ces]

” (p.

159

), as

th

e cu

rren

t stu

dy in

terv

iew

ed s

tu-

dent

s. “I

t wou

ld a

lso

be in

tere

st-

ing

to e

xplo

re th

e pe

rcep

tions

of

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

enro

lled

in c

lass

es w

here

the

inst

ruct

or

adhe

res

to th

e pr

inci

ples

of U

DI

[uni

vers

al d

esig

n fo

r ins

truct

ion]

(M

cGui

re, S

cott,

& S

haw

, 200

3)”

(p. 1

59).

Incr

ease

sam

ple

size

of p

osts

ec-

onda

ry s

tude

nts

with

psy

cho-

logi

cal d

isab

ilitie

s, a

s th

e cu

rren

t st

udy

had

16 p

artic

ipan

ts, w

ith

the

idea

that

“sur

veyi

ng a

larg

er

sam

ple

may

pro

vide

add

ition

al

insi

ght i

nto

the

supp

orts

and

se

rvic

es b

enefi

cial

to c

olle

ge

stud

ents

with

psy

chol

ogic

al d

is-

abili

ties”

(p. 1

59).

“. . .

exp

lore

th

e ex

perie

nces

of i

ndiv

idua

ls

with

psy

chol

ogic

al d

isab

ilitie

s at

tend

ing

post

seco

ndar

y in

stitu

-tio

ns w

ho d

o no

t see

k fo

rmal

ac

com

mod

atio

ns o

r oth

er a

s-si

stan

ce fr

om D

SS

[dis

abili

ty

supp

ort s

ervi

ces]

. Spe

cific

ally,

w

hat t

ypes

of s

uppo

rts a

re th

ey

usin

g? H

ow a

re th

ey c

opin

g w

ith

and

man

agin

g th

e ch

alle

nges

pr

esen

ted

by th

eir d

isab

ility

? D

o th

ey s

eek

acco

mm

odat

ions

in

form

ally,

and

if s

o, h

ow d

o th

eir

prof

esso

rs re

spon

d? T

his

coul

d be

don

e th

roug

h a

varie

ty o

f re

sear

ch m

etho

ds, i

nclu

ding

a

mix

ed m

etho

ds s

tudy

invo

lvin

g a

surv

ey a

nd in

divi

dual

inte

rvie

ws”

(p

. 159

).

145NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Sto

ne e

t al.

(201

3)

The

rese

arch

er s

ugge

sted

that

th

e lo

w c

orre

latio

n be

twee

n co

nditi

on-a

dapt

ive

rout

ing

test

an

d st

uden

ts’ s

tate

test

sco

res

requ

ires

furth

er in

vest

igat

ion

abou

t pos

sibl

e re

ason

: “B

ecau

se

one

of th

e go

als

of th

e st

udy

was

to

inve

stig

ate

an a

sses

smen

t th

at re

alis

tical

ly re

flect

ed th

e ch

arac

teris

tics

of a

typi

cal s

tate

as

sess

men

t, th

ese

hypo

thes

es

shou

ld b

e pu

rsue

d” (p

. 29)

. “Th

e ad

aptiv

e na

ture

can

pro

vide

be

nefit

s fo

r stu

dent

s w

ho a

re

perfo

rmin

g in

the

tails

of t

he p

ro-

ficie

ncy

dist

ribut

ion,

but

furth

er

inve

stig

atio

n is

requ

ired

befo

re

som

e of

the

issu

es a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith u

sing

ada

ptiv

e m

odel

s w

ith s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

are

reso

lved

. In

the

case

of t

he

mod

el u

sed

for t

his

stud

y, a

key

is

sue

is h

ow to

pro

vide

a ro

utin

g te

st th

at is

on

grad

e le

vel b

ut th

at

is m

atch

ed w

ell e

noug

h to

the

abili

ty le

vel o

f the

targ

et g

roup

to

prov

ide

scor

es th

at a

re re

liabl

e en

ough

for r

outin

g pu

rpos

es”

(p. 2

9).

Sza

rko

et a

l. (2

013)

Incr

ease

d sa

mpl

e si

ze o

f stu

-de

nts

with

aut

ism

; “m

ore

focu

sed

sam

ples

of c

hild

ren

with

aut

ism

” (p

. 47)

.

Exa

min

e w

heth

er th

ere

are

asse

ssm

ent p

erfo

rman

ce d

if-fe

renc

es fo

r oth

er s

tand

ardi

zed

test

ing;

“. .

. it i

s po

ssib

le th

at

mor

e ex

perie

nced

exa

min

ers

who

wer

e fa

mili

ar w

ith a

utis

m

coul

d ha

ve b

ette

r ove

rcom

e th

e ef

fect

s of

unf

amili

arity

” (p.

48)

.

Inve

stig

ate

the

fact

ors

rela

ted

to

the

effe

cts

of fa

mili

ar e

xam

iner

s on

stu

dent

per

form

ance

.

146 NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Torr

es (2

014)

The

rese

arch

er s

ugge

sted

usi

ng

surv

eys

to “e

xplo

re th

e pe

r-ce

ptio

ns o

f stu

dent

s w

ith A

SD

[a

utis

m s

pect

rum

dis

orde

rs] o

f th

eir p

osts

econ

dary

edu

catio

nal

supp

ort”

(p. 2

62);

the

curr

ent

stud

y us

ed in

terv

iew

s. A

noth

er

appr

oach

wou

ld b

e to

ext

end

the

inve

stig

atio

n in

to a

long

itu-

dina

l stu

dy, w

ith a

naly

sis

of h

ow

stud

ents

’ per

cept

ions

of a

ccom

-m

odat

ions

and

sup

ports

mig

ht

chan

ge a

cros

s th

e co

urse

s of

th

eir p

osts

econ

dary

edu

catio

n.

Incr

ease

sam

ple

size

and

bro

ad-

en th

e in

quiry

to in

clud

e st

uden

ts

with

aut

ism

spe

ctru

m d

isor

ders

in

pos

tsec

onda

ry a

cros

s th

e U

S. E

xpan

d th

e cu

rren

t stu

dy’s

ap

proa

ch “.

. . t

o st

udy

the

expe

rienc

e of

stu

dent

s w

ith A

SD

tra

nsiti

onin

g to

pos

tsec

onda

ry

educ

atio

n in

com

paris

on g

roup

s al

ongs

ide

stud

ents

with

oth

er

disa

bilit

ies

and

stud

ents

with

out

disa

bilit

ies

to s

ee h

ow s

imila

r or

diffe

rent

thei

r exp

erie

nces

are

” (p

. 262

).

Wad

ley

&

Lilje

quis

t (2

013)

Gen

eral

nee

d to

ana

lyze

effe

cts

of v

ario

us a

ccom

mod

atio

ns o

n as

sess

men

t per

form

ance

. “. .

. in

vest

igat

e fa

ctor

s th

at e

nhan

ce

perfo

rman

ce fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith

spec

ific

disa

bilit

ies.

For

exa

mpl

e,

it m

ay b

e th

at p

rovi

ding

diff

eren

t or

mul

tiple

test

ing

acco

mm

oda-

tions

resu

lts in

impr

oved

per

for-

man

ce. F

urth

er, t

his

rese

arch

m

ay h

elp

us b

ette

r und

erst

and

how

test

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

fu

nctio

n to

incr

ease

test

sco

res

in a

ll ac

adem

ic s

ettin

gs. B

y un

ders

tand

ing

how

acc

omm

o-da

tions

affe

ct s

tude

nts,

we

can

bette

r adj

ust t

hem

in th

e fu

ture

to

mee

t the

nee

ds o

f stu

dent

s in

ap

prop

riate

way

s” (p

. 269

).

147NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Wiz

ikow

ski

(201

3)

The

rese

arch

er a

rgue

d fo

r “a

need

for e

xpan

ded

natio

nal

data

to b

e co

llect

ed fo

r stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s. C

urre

nt d

ata

are

colle

cted

onl

y fro

m p

aren

ts

who

se c

hild

ren

rece

ived

spe

cial

ed

ucat

ion

serv

ices

in h

igh

scho

ol

thro

ugh

long

itudi

nal t

rans

ition

st

udie

s an

d co

llege

s us

ing

the

Pos

tsec

onda

ry E

duca

tion

Qui

ck

Info

rmat

ion

Sys

tem

(PE

QIS

). Th

ese

data

exc

lude

stu

dent

s w

ho a

re id

entifi

ed w

ith a

dis

-ab

ility

afte

r hig

h sc

hool

and

hav

e ch

osen

not

to id

entif

y to

thei

r co

llege

. As

a gr

owin

g de

mo-

grap

hic

of s

tude

nts,

rese

arch

ers

need

com

preh

ensi

ve, s

tude

nt-

cent

ered

dat

a se

ts th

at s

how

na

tiona

l tre

nds

over

tim

e fo

r a

varie

ty o

f dim

ensi

ons

such

as

rete

ntio

n, d

iscl

osur

e pa

ttern

s,

empl

oym

ent o

utco

mes

, gra

duat

e sc

hool

atte

ndan

ce, a

nd ti

me

to

grad

uatio

n ra

tes”

(p. 9

0).

“The

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

acc

omm

o-da

tions

als

o ne

eds

to b

e st

udie

d on

a la

rge

scal

e. A

ccom

mod

a-tio

ns c

urre

ntly

offe

red

at c

olle

ges

wer

e cr

eate

d de

cade

s ag

o fo

r a

very

diff

eren

t set

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

(e.g

. tra

nscr

ip-

tion)

. Tod

ay, t

he d

emog

raph

ic o

f st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s lo

oks

very

diff

eren

t and

a re

view

of

avai

labl

e se

rvic

es is

crit

ical

to

mak

ing

sure

stu

dent

s ar

e su

ppor

ted.

Stu

dent

s ex

pect

a

mor

e sp

ecia

lized

inte

ract

ion

with

ac

adem

ic s

uppo

rts a

nd d

o no

t se

e m

ost a

ccom

mod

atio

ns a

s ef

fect

ive”

(pp.

89-

90).

Exa

min

e th

e po

tent

ial r

elat

ion-

ship

bet

wee

n po

stse

cond

ary

stud

ents

’ sel

f-con

fiden

ce /

self-

advo

cacy

and

rete

ntio

n ra

tes

/ su

cces

s ra

tes,

incl

udin

g th

e ou

t-co

me

impl

icat

ions

for s

tude

nts

who

hav

e lit

tle s

elf-a

dvoc

acy

know

ledg

e.

“Tra

nsiti

on p

lans

nee

d to

be

stud

ied

in a

mor

e co

mpr

e-he

nsiv

e m

anne

r. H

ow th

ese

serv

ices

are

pla

nned

, coo

r-di

nate

d be

twee

n se

cond

ary

and

post

seco

ndar

y se

tting

s,

and

how

info

rmat

ion

is d

is-

sem

inat

ed d

eser

ves

stud

y to

ens

ure

that

all

stud

ents

un

ders

tand

the

shift

in

serv

ices

from

one

set

ting

to

the

next

(p. 8

9). I

nves

tigat

e se

lf-di

sclo

sure

to p

rofe

s-si

onal

s by

pos

tsec

onda

ry

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties,

in

clud

ing

“dis

clos

ure

and

non-

disc

losu

re p

atte

rns

and

mot

ivat

ions

” (p.

89)

and

ho

w th

e pa

ttern

s “c

ould

co

nnec

t with

man

y ot

her

area

s of

futu

re re

sear

ch

as w

ell,

such

as

cam

pus

clim

ate,

acc

omm

odat

ions

, an

d se

rvic

es” (

p. 8

9).

148 NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Wor

land

(2

014)

“Whi

le in

this

stu

dy I

did

not u

se

an a

naly

tic ru

bric

that

incl

uded

a

cate

gory

on

the

use

of e

vide

nce

from

text

read

, thi

s is

a c

ateg

ory

on b

oth

the

PAR

CC

and

SB

AC

ru

bric

s. A

ccor

ding

ly, a

ddin

g th

is

varia

ble

shou

ld b

e an

are

a fo

r fu

ture

rese

arch

as

wel

l” (p

. 139

).

Incr

ease

sam

ple

size

and

bro

ad-

en p

artic

ipan

t div

ersi

ty, s

uch

as

stud

ents

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

and

Eng

lish

lear

ners

. Inv

estig

ate

the

effe

cts

of o

ral d

eliv

ery

on

the

perfo

rman

ce o

f “de

velo

ping

re

ader

s an

d st

uden

ts w

ith d

iffer

-en

t lea

rner

cha

ract

eris

tics”

(p.

137)

. “. .

. in

vest

igat

e th

e pr

oce-

dure

for p

rovi

ding

the

read

alo

ud

acco

mm

odat

ion

to s

ee if

ther

e is

a

diffe

rent

ial e

ffect

for s

tude

nts

depe

ndin

g on

the

popu

latio

n” (p

. 13

8).

Inve

stig

ate

the

sam

e st

udy

purp

oses

and

goa

ls a

s th

e cu

r-re

nt s

tudy

, but

with

a d

iffer

ent

com

mun

ity s

ettin

g, in

ord

er “t

o se

e if

the

findi

ngs

abov

e m

ight

be

uni

que

to u

rban

and

/or

imm

ersi

on c

lass

room

pop

ula-

tions

” (p.

137

). “.

. . c

onsi

der

test

ing

the

effe

cts

of e

ach

of

thes

e su

ppor

ts in

divi

dual

ly a

nd

conj

oint

ly w

ithin

and

acr

oss

genr

es to

iden

tify

the

best

pos

-si

ble

com

bina

tions

of s

uppo

rts

for d

evel

opin

g w

riter

s” (p

. 139

). “T

he n

ew w

ritin

g as

sess

men

t fo

rmat

s al

so w

arra

nt fu

rther

ex

plor

atio

n. If

the

next

gen

era-

tion

writ

ing

asse

ssm

ents

will

all

follo

w th

e re

ad a

nd re

spon

d ty

pe

of s

truct

ure,

add

ition

al re

sear

ch

into

the

effe

ct o

f diff

eren

t typ

es

of te

xts

and

task

env

ironm

ents

ar

e ne

eded

to e

nsur

e th

at th

ese

type

s of

writ

ing

asse

ssm

ents

can

re

liabl

y as

sess

the

cons

truct

of

writ

ing

as o

ppos

ed to

read

ing.

In

par

ticul

ar, f

urth

er a

naly

sis

of

writ

ing

sam

ples

to d

eter

min

e th

e re

latio

nshi

p be

twee

n st

uden

ts’

use

of e

vide

nce

from

text

s an

d th

eir r

esul

ting

writ

ing

qual

ity is

w

arra

nted

” (p.

139

). “In

add

ition

to

exp

lorin

g th

e ef

fect

s of

diff

er-

ent t

ypes

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns

and

supp

orts

for s

trugg

ling

lear

n-er

s, s

peci

fic a

ttent

ion

shou

ld b

e di

rect

ed to

exp

lorin

g ho

w d

ually

ex

cept

iona

l stu

dent

s w

ho a

re

EL

and

have

LD

writ

e. V

ery

little

is

kno

wn

on h

ow th

is g

row

ing

popu

latio

n of

stu

dent

s w

rite

and

give

n th

eir p

oor p

erfo

rman

ce

rela

tive

to a

ll ot

her p

eers

in th

is

stud

y, th

is p

opul

atio

n de

serv

es

addi

tiona

l sup

port

and

atte

n-tio

n. M

ovin

g fo

rwar

d, q

ualit

ativ

e an

alys

is o

f the

writ

ing

of th

e pa

r-tic

ipan

ts in

this

stu

dy c

ould

yie

ld

inte

rest

ing

insi

ghts

into

sim

ilari-

ties

and

diffe

renc

es, a

s w

ell a

s ar

eas

of s

treng

ths

and

need

s in

th

e w

ritin

g of

this

sub

-gro

up o

f st

uden

ts” (

p. 1

39).

149NCEO

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Wor

land

(2

014)

“Whi

le in

this

stu

dy I

did

not u

se

an a

naly

tic ru

bric

that

incl

uded

a

cate

gory

on

the

use

of e

vide

nce

from

text

read

, thi

s is

a c

ateg

ory

on b

oth

the

PAR

CC

and

SB

AC

ru

bric

s. A

ccor

ding

ly, a

ddin

g th

is

varia

ble

shou

ld b

e an

are

a fo

r fu

ture

rese

arch

as

wel

l” (p

. 139

).

Incr

ease

sam

ple

size

and

bro

ad-

en p

artic

ipan

t div

ersi

ty, s

uch

as

stud

ents

with

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties

and

Eng

lish

lear

ners

. Inv

estig

ate

the

effe

cts

of o

ral d

eliv

ery

on

the

perfo

rman

ce o

f “de

velo

ping

re

ader

s an

d st

uden

ts w

ith d

iffer

-en

t lea

rner

cha

ract

eris

tics”

(p.

137)

. “. .

. in

vest

igat

e th

e pr

oce-

dure

for p

rovi

ding

the

read

alo

ud

acco

mm

odat

ion

to s

ee if

ther

e is

a

diffe

rent

ial e

ffect

for s

tude

nts

depe

ndin

g on

the

popu

latio

n” (p

. 13

8).

Inve

stig

ate

the

sam

e st

udy

purp

oses

and

goa

ls a

s th

e cu

r-re

nt s

tudy

, but

with

a d

iffer

ent

com

mun

ity s

ettin

g, in

ord

er “t

o se

e if

the

findi

ngs

abov

e m

ight

be

uni

que

to u

rban

and

/or

imm

ersi

on c

lass

room

pop

ula-

tions

” (p.

137

). “.

. . c

onsi

der

test

ing

the

effe

cts

of e

ach

of

thes

e su

ppor

ts in

divi

dual

ly a

nd

conj

oint

ly w

ithin

and

acr

oss

genr

es to

iden

tify

the

best

pos

-si

ble

com

bina

tions

of s

uppo

rts

for d

evel

opin

g w

riter

s” (p

. 139

). “T

he n

ew w

ritin

g as

sess

men

t fo

rmat

s al

so w

arra

nt fu

rther

ex

plor

atio

n. If

the

next

gen

era-

tion

writ

ing

asse

ssm

ents

will

all

follo

w th

e re

ad a

nd re

spon

d ty

pe

of s

truct

ure,

add

ition

al re

sear

ch

into

the

effe

ct o

f diff

eren

t typ

es

of te

xts

and

task

env

ironm

ents

ar

e ne

eded

to e

nsur

e th

at th

ese

type

s of

writ

ing

asse

ssm

ents

can

re

liabl

y as

sess

the

cons

truct

of

writ

ing

as o

ppos

ed to

read

ing.

In

par

ticul

ar, f

urth

er a

naly

sis

of

writ

ing

sam

ples

to d

eter

min

e th

e re

latio

nshi

p be

twee

n st

uden

ts’

use

of e

vide

nce

from

text

s an

d th

eir r

esul

ting

writ

ing

qual

ity is

w

arra

nted

” (p.

139

). “In

add

ition

to

exp

lorin

g th

e ef

fect

s of

diff

er-

ent t

ypes

of a

ccom

mod

atio

ns

and

supp

orts

for s

trugg

ling

lear

n-er

s, s

peci

fic a

ttent

ion

shou

ld b

e di

rect

ed to

exp

lorin

g ho

w d

ually

ex

cept

iona

l stu

dent

s w

ho a

re

EL

and

have

LD

writ

e. V

ery

little

is

kno

wn

on h

ow th

is g

row

ing

popu

latio

n of

stu

dent

s w

rite

and

give

n th

eir p

oor p

erfo

rman

ce

rela

tive

to a

ll ot

her p

eers

in th

is

stud

y, th

is p

opul

atio

n de

serv

es

addi

tiona

l sup

port

and

atte

n-tio

n. M

ovin

g fo

rwar

d, q

ualit

ativ

e an

alys

is o

f the

writ

ing

of th

e pa

r-tic

ipan

ts in

this

stu

dy c

ould

yie

ld

inte

rest

ing

insi

ghts

into

sim

ilari-

ties

and

diffe

renc

es, a

s w

ell a

s ar

eas

of s

treng

ths

and

need

s in

th

e w

ritin

g of

this

sub

-gro

up o

f st

uden

ts” (

p. 1

39).

Aut

hors

M

etho

dolo

gySa

mpl

e C

hara

cter

istic

sTe

st /

Test

Con

text

R

esul

tsO

ther

Yaku

bova

&

Bou

ck (2

014)

Incr

ease

stu

dent

par

ticip

ant

sam

ple

size

, inc

ludi

ng s

tude

nts

with

mild

inte

llect

ual d

isab

ilitie

s in

sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls

Com

pare

effe

cts

of b

asic

(fou

r-fu

nctio

n) c

alcu

lato

r to

othe

r typ

es

of c

alcu

lato

rs w

ith a

dditi

onal

ca

pabi

litie

s

“. . .

exa

min

e th

e im

pact

of

grap

hing

and

sci

entifi

c ca

lcul

a-to

rs o

n st

uden

ts’ p

erfo

rman

ce in

so

lvin

g m

ore

adva

nced

pro

blem

s us

ing

spec

ific

feat

ures

of t

hese

ca

lcul

ator

s” (p

. 125

); in

oth

er

wor

ds, t

he re

sear

cher

sug

gest

ed

exte

ndin

g th

e in

quiry

bey

ond

com

puta

tion

and

wor

d pr

oble

ms.

Youn

g (2

013)

“Thr

ough

the

use

of th

e P

ost-

seco

ndar

y A

cade

mic

Adv

ise-

men

t Pra

ctic

es Q

uest

ionn

aire

(A

ppen

dix

B),

inst

itutio

ns o

f hi

gher

edu

catio

n co

uld

eval

uate

ad

viso

rs’ k

now

ledg

e of

app

ropr

i-at

e re

spon

ses,

as

dete

rmin

ed b

y di

sabi

lity

law

and

acc

omm

oda-

tion

requ

irem

ents

, to

pote

ntia

l ad

vise

men

t sce

nario

s in

volv

ing

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties”

(pp.

14

8-14

9). “

. . .

eval

uate

exi

stin

g ac

adem

ic a

dvis

or tr

aini

ng p

ro-

gram

s or

wor

ksho

ps to

iden

tify

effe

ctiv

e st

rate

gies

for i

ncor

-po

ratin

g de

taile

d in

form

atio

n pe

rtain

ing

to th

e un

ique

nee

ds

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties,

dis

-ab

ility

law

, and

acc

omm

odat

ion

requ

irem

ents

” (p.

149

).

Con

duct

inte

rvie

ws

with

aca

dem

-ic

adv

isor

s fro

m o

ther

regi

ons

of th

e U

S (n

ot th

e so

uthe

aste

rn

regi

on).

Con

duct

inte

rvie

ws

with

ad

viso

rs w

ho m

ight

not

hav

e a

deve

lopm

enta

l vie

w o

f adv

isin

g,

that

is, w

ho w

ould

not

nec

es-

saril

y be

acc

essi

ble

usin

g th

e re

sear

cher

’s s

trate

gies

of i

nviti

ng

mem

bers

of n

atio

nal o

r sta

te

acad

emic

adv

isin

g as

soci

atio

ns

and

cont

actin

g di

sabi

lity

serv

ices

an

d st

uden

t sup

port

serv

ices

of

fices

at h

ighe

r edu

catio

n in

stitu

tions

. Con

duct

inte

rvie

ws

with

adv

isor

s w

ho d

o no

t pro

vide

ad

visi

ng o

n a

full-

time

basi

s,

such

as

facu

lty m

embe

rs w

ho

also

inst

ruct

.

“Dat

a co

llect

ion

for t

he 2

012

Nat

iona

l Lon

gitu

dina

l Tra

nsi-

tion

Stu

dy s

pons

ored

by

the

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Edu

catio

n w

ill c

ontin

ue th

roug

h S

prin

g 20

14. F

utur

e re

sear

ch c

ould

co

mpa

re th

e re

sults

of t

his

stud

y w

ith th

e fin

ding

s fro

m th

e 20

02

Nat

iona

l Lon

gitu

dina

l Tra

nsiti

on

Stu

dy-2

to id

entif

y tre

nds

rela

ted

to s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

in

high

er e

duca

tion

and

dete

rmin

e if

a hi

gher

per

cent

age

of th

ese

stud

ents

hav

e be

en re

ceiv

ing

the

acco

mm

odat

ions

nec

essa

ry

for i

ncre

asin

g th

eir l

ikel

ihoo

d of

su

cces

s” (

p. 1

49).

Zebe

hazy

&

Wilt

on (2

014)

Incl

ude

stud

ents

with

blin

dnes

s an

d vi

sual

impa

irmen

ts—

in

addi

tion

to te

ache

rs o

f the

se

stud

ents

—in

ord

er “t

o pr

ovid

e ad

ditio

nal i

nsig

ht in

to h

ow

prof

essi

onal

s ca

n be

st s

uppo

rt st

uden

ts to

effe

ctiv

ely

acce

ss,

com

preh

end,

and

man

ipul

ate

info

rmat

ion

incl

uded

in g

raph

ics”

(p

p. 1

4-15

).

Zhan

g et

al.

(201

4)

Incl

ude

man

y as

sess

men

t re

sults

for d

efini

ng d

ifficu

lties

in

geom

etry

, “su

ch a

s st

anda

rdiz

ed

geom

etry

test

s (e

.g.,

Key

Mat

h),

stat

e st

anda

rds-

base

d as

sess

-m

ents

in g

eom

etry

, and

teac

hers

’ cl

assr

oom

obs

erva

tions

” (p.

12)

Eng

age

parti

cipa

nts

acro

ss

man

y gr

ade

leve

ls; “

cons

ider

in

volv

ing

grad

e as

a c

ovar

iate

” (p

. 12)

. Inc

lude

div

erse

dem

o-gr

aphi

c da

ta in

ana

lysi

s.

TOTA

L17

3226

1510

150 NCEO

NCEO is an affiliated center of the Institute on Community Integration

A Summary of the Research on the Effects of Test ... · In collaboration with: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) National Association of State . Directors of Special

Documents