Join Together: A Nationwide On-Line
Community of Practice and Professional
Development School Dedicated to
Instructional Effectiveness and Academic
Excellence within Deaf/Hard of Hearing
Education
Objective 2.4 – Assessment
Submitted by:
Topical Team Leaders – John Luckner, Ed.D. and Sandy Bowen,
Ph.D.
1
Topic – Test Adaptations
Rationale
Legislated mandates ensure the participation of students with disabilities in current
education reform efforts. The provision of assessment accommodations within current
legislation is used to ensure that students with disabilities participate in assessments on a
‘level playing field’ with their non-disabled peers (McDonnell et al., 1997; Pitoniak &
Royer, 2001; Schulte et al., 2000; Thurlow & Bolt, 2001; Thurlow et al., 2000). With the
use of accommodations, students who are D/HH who otherwise would not be able to
participate in statewide assessments, or who would participate but not on a ‘level playing
field’, can now participate demonstrating their knowledge and/or skills on standardized
tests without being penalized for aspects related to their disabilities that might interfere
with their ability to demonstrate their knowledge or skills.
Federal Legislation and State Policies
Federal legislation within the United States has played a critical role in the
education of children with disabilities. Four major pieces of legislation within the United
States have been passed that effect persons with disabilities and their access to nondiscriminatory testing on the basis of their disability. Stemming from each of these
federal laws, are individual state’s policies with respect to testing accommodations for
students with disabilities.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504 (P. L. 93-112).
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the first major piece of legislation related to
persons with disabilities (Phillips, 1994). Section 504 requires that accommodations be
made in any program or activity receiving federal funding or assistance so that persons
with disabilities are given equal access and participation. This includes that adaptations
are required for those individuals with physical or mental disabilities, or for those having
a record of such disabilities, or for those regarded as having such disabilities
(Rehabilitation Act, Section 504, 1973).
The Americans with Disabilities Act (PL 101-336).
The Americans with Disabilities Act extended the protections afforded persons
with disabilities within the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to the private sector.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA: PL 101-476) and IDEA
Amendments of 1997 (IDEA 97: PL 105-17).
The 1997 reauthorization of the IDEA requires that students with disabilities be
included in statewide and district-wide assessments, with appropriate accommodations
where necessary (PL 105-17). Participation in state and district-wide assessments is
viewed as a related component.
No Child Left Behind, Title I Provisions (PL 107-110).
The Title I provisions within the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation of
2001 provide that students with disabilities participate in state assessments and
accountability reporting (PL 107-110). As such, NCLB requires, like IDEA 97, students
with disabilities be afforded the accommodations necessary for their participation in such
assessments.
2
State Policies.
State policies shape the use of accommodations in large-scale assessment, though
they do not delineate the actual usage of accommodations by students with disabilities
(Koretz & Barton, 2003; Sireci et al., 2000; Thurlow, House, Boys, Scott, and Ysseldyke,
2000). As such, states have varying policies with respect to accommodations, impacting
both district and statewide assessments.
General Accommodations Guidelines: Hearing Students
For hearing students who do not have disabilities, no general guidelines exist with respect
to testing accommodations, as none are needed. For hearing students with disabilities
(other than hearing impairment), a variety of testing accommodations and policies have
been established.
Test Accommodations: Definitions and Types
Accommodations have been defined within the literature as changes in the
assessment materials or procedures that address the aspects of a student’s disability that
may interfere with their ability to demonstrate knowledge and/or skills on standardized
tests (Thompson, Blount, & Thurlow, 2002; Thurlow & Bolt, 2001; Tindal & Fuchs,
1999). Accommodations are a means of attempting to make the assessment (testing)
process more equitable for persons with disabilities by eliminating barriers to meaningful
testing based upon disability (Thurlow & Bolt, 2001; Tindal & Fuchs, 1999). The goal is
to ‘level the playing field’ among students with and without disabilities, while at the
same time ensuring that administering the test under non-standard conditions does not
alter the validity of the test (McDonnell et al., 1997; Pitoniak & Royer, 2001; Schulte et
al., 2000; Thurlow & Bolt, 2001; Thurlow et al., 2000)
Within the literature and practice, four major categories, or types, of
accommodations have been utilized by students with disabilities. These include
accommodations related to: 1) timing and/or scheduling, 2) presentation of testing
materials, 3) response to testing materials, and 4) setting: environment or administration
of assessments (Thompson et al., 2002; Thurlow et al., 1998).
Timing/Scheduling.
Timing and scheduling accommodations are those that address the total amount of
time a student is allotted to complete the assessment, the time of day during which the
assessment occurs, or the length of the testing session. These accommodations could
include: extended time, multiple day testing, frequent breaks within testing sessions, or
the provision of breaks between testing sessions.
Presentation.
Presentation accommodations are those that are made that affect the appearance
of testing materials, or administration of the assessment. Some examples include: oral
presentation, large print edition of the test, Braille, sign language administration, oral
administration (“read aloud”), computer administration, and simplified language.
3
Response.
Response accommodations are those that are made that enable the student with
disabilities to respond or indicate his or her answers to the test materials via methods
different from standard means. Examples include: dictated (use of a scribe), signed, or
tape recorded responses, use of Braille, use of a word processor, use of a calculator, and
marking answers directly in the test booklet.
Setting.
Setting accommodations are those that are made to the setting in which the
assessment is administered to the student. Examples of these could include:
individualized testing in a place free from distractions (separate setting), small group
administration, preferential seating within the testing room, and use of a study carrel.
In addition to the four categories, or types, of accommodations described above,
use of multiple accommodations during testing often occurs. These are sometimes
referred to as ‘accommodations packages’ (Thompson et al., 2002; Thurlow et al., 1998).
Formal Assessment Accommodations Best Practices: Hearing Students
No formal assessment accommodations best practices exist for hearing students without
disabilities. For hearing students with disabilities (other than hearing impairment), a
variety of testing accommodations and policies have been established.
Thompson, Blount, and Thurlow (2002) analyzed 46 empirical research studies
published between 1999 and 2001 that examined the use of testing accommodations by
students with disabilities during large-scale testing. Thompson et al. (2002) found the
primary purpose of accommodations research conducted between 1999 and 2001 to be to
determine the effect of accommodations on large-scale test scores (performance) of
students with disabilities. The second most common purpose was to investigate the
effects of accommodations on test validity.
The results of the 46 studies analyzed and reviewed were presented according to
each type of accommodation utilized within the research. Major categories included read
aloud, computer administration, extended time and multiple days, and meta-analyses.
Thompson et al. (2002) found that the accommodations of computer administration, oral
presentation, and extended time demonstrated a positive effect on student performance
(test scores) on at least four studies within their review. Additionally, Thompson et al.
(2002) found that other studies within their review examining these same
accommodations found no significant impact on students with disabilities test scores. As
such, they concluded that additional studies were necessary in order to investigate the
effects of specific accommodations on student performance under more stringently
delineated conditions (Thompson et al., 2002).
Thurlow and Bolt (2001) compiled data from the National Center on Educational
Outcomes (NCEO) searchable database on research in accommodations. Their report
addressed the accommodations most frequently allowed within state policies regarding
large-scale testing, summarizing information available at the time with respect to the
most frequently allowed testing accommodations. Thurlow and Bolt (2001) noted that the
accommodations they discussed within their report were not necessarily the most
frequent utilized, rather the most frequently permitted within state policies.
4
Informal Assessment Accommodations Best Practices: Hearing Students
No informal assessment accommodations best practices exist for hearing students without
disabilities. For hearing students with disabilities other than hearing impairment, students
may use accommodations per federal legislation and state policies during district and
statewide testing, as well when accessing their educational program for daily assignments
and testing as provided within the student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or 504
Plan.
Some basic accommodations have been reviewed. These are presented here.
Read Aloud
Results related to the presentation read aloud accommodation include that this
accommodation was generally found to have positive effects on performance (test scores)
of students with disabilities. However, two studies reported that the read aloud
accommodation affected the construct the test was intended to measure (Thompson et al.,
2002).
Some within the fields of education and measurement believe that use of the read
aloud accommodation on tests designed to measure reading changes the construct of what
is being measured from reading proficiency to listening comprehension (Meloy, Deville,
& Frisbie, 2000; Phillips, 1994). Others such as Elliott, Ysseldyke, Thurlow, & Erickson
(1998) and Harker & Feldt (1993), maintain that the read aloud accommodation levels the
playing field for students who have reading disabilities due to their disability.
Much of the debate and controversy surrounding the read aloud accommodation is
related to the aspect of test constructs being changed and test score validity due to the use
of the accommodation (Koretz & Barton, 2003; McKevitt & Elliott, 2003; Meloy et al.,
1998; Phillips, 1994).
Most studies addressing the read aloud accommodation have been examined
student performance on mathematics achievement tests. While some studies have been
conducted that address the read aloud accommodation on tests of reading achievement,
these are considered more controversial due to the potential that the construct being
measured will be altered (Koretz & Barton, 2003; McKevitt & Elliott, 2003; Meloy et al.,
1998; Phillips, 1994). Some of these studies found that students with disabilities
performed better (obtained higher scores) when the read aloud accommodation was
utilized, permitting tests to be read to them (Koretz, 1997; Meloy et al., 2000; Tindal et
al., 1998). Harker and Feldt (1993) found that students without disabilities who were
considered poor readers performed better under accommodated conditions, but those
students considered strong readers were adversely affected by use of the accommodation.
Bielinski, Thurlow, Ysseldyke, Freidebach, and Freidebach (2001) conducted a
study to investigate the effect that the read aloud accommodation had on the validity of
math test scores and reading comprehension test scores of students with identified
disabilities and established Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) in the area of reading
and with nondisabled students. Bielinski et al. (2001) sought answers to two questions
related to item difficulty for students with disabilities and those without, in
accommodated and non-accommodated conditions.
Results indicated that for students with reading disabilities taking a 3rd grade test
of reading comprehension, and a 4th grade mathematics achievement test, the use of the
read aloud accommodation was either unnecessary, or the accommodation only benefited
5
a subgroup of the student population (Bielinski et al., 2001). Additionally, the authors
state that it would appear that the reading comprehension test utilized measures the
reading construct differently for students with an identified reading disability and those
without, regardless of having received or not received the read aloud accommodation
(Bielinski et al., 2001).
The authors raised the question of how to determine those students who would
benefit from a particular accommodation (Bielinski et al., 2001). Additionally, Bielinski
et al. (2001) conclude that 1) more research is needed to determine best practice for
measuring reading proficiency for students with identified reading difficulties or
disabilities, and 2) “strong conclusions about the validity of the read-aloud
accommodation itself will require the accumulation of evidence from many studies,
including more analysis of extant data” (Bielinski et al., 2001: 17).
Meloy, Deville, & Frisbie (2000) studied the effects of a read aloud
accommodation on the test performance of 198 middle school students with identified
learning disabilities in reading and 68 middle school students without identified
disabilities. Students were randomly assigned to either the ‘read aloud’ or ‘standard’ test
administration conditions for taking the Math Problem-Solving and data Interpretation,
Reading Comprehension, and Science, Usage and Expression tests within the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills (ITBS) (Meloy et al., 2000).
Results indicated that use of a read aloud testing accommodation by students with
learning disabilities in the area of reading significantly positively impacted their
performance, with these students obtaining higher scores than their peers with reading
learning disabilities who took the tests under standard (non-accommodated) conditions
(Meloy et al., 2000). Additionally, results indicated that the students without disabilities
also scored significantly higher that their nondisabled peers tested using standard
administration conditions (Meloy et al., 2000). As such, Meloy et al. (2000) concluded
that general use of the read aloud accommodation for students with learning disabilities
taking standardized achievement tests would not be recommended.
McKevitt and Elliott (2003) conducted a study examining and analyzing the
accommodations teachers believed valid and appropriate for students, as well as the
effect teacher recommended accommodations and reading accommodations packages had
on the performance of students with and without disabilities. Results indicated that use of
the reading accommodations packages were not consistently or necessarily effective for
students with disabilities or their nondisabled peers.
Computer Administration
Research conducted to determine the effects of computerized administration of
assessments as an accommodation for students with disabilities yielded varied results.
The majority of the nine studies revealed computer administered assessment had a
positive effect on student performance (Thompson et al., 2002). Other results included no
significant effects on scores were obtained under the accommodated condition, while
other studies found the use of computerized administration affected the construct of the
assessments (Thompson et al., 2002).
Calhoon, Fuchs, and Hamlett (2000) compared the effects of several testing
accommodations utilized by secondary aged students with learning disabilities on
performance when taking mathematics assessments. The accommodations were all
6
presentation accommodations, and included “read aloud”, and computerized
administration, both with and without supplemental video (Calhoon et al., 2000). Student
performance with accommodations was compared to performance utilizing standard
paper and pencil administration of the assessment (Calhoon et al., 2000).
Results indicated that each accommodation had a positive effect on student
performance. Students with learning disabilities with varying reading abilities all
benefited significantly from the accommodations (Calhoon et al., 2000).
Extended Time and Multiple Day
Extended time is one of the most widely studied and frequently utilized testing
accommodations for students with disabilities. Walz, Albus, Thompson, and Thurlow
(2000) examined the effects of using a multiple-day test accommodation on the
performance of middle school students with learning disabilities. Results indicated that
use of a multiple-day testing accommodation did not (significantly) enhance the
performance scores of the students (Walz et al., 2000). Additionally, results indicated that
general education students’ test scores were significantly negatively affected when taking
the test across multiple days (Walz et al., 2000).
Zurcher and Bryant (2001) conducted an examination of the effects of extended
time accommodations on the performance of 15 college students with identified learning
disabilities and 15 college students without disabilities on the Miller Analogies Test
(MAT). Two of the student specific accommodations were accommodations packages,
including accommodations (oral and oral with scribe) in addition to extended time
(Zurcher & Bryant, 2001).
Results of the Zurcher and Bryant (2001) investigation indicated no significant
improvement for students with or without disabilities under the accommodated testing
condition. It should be noted that several limitations to their study were present, including
small sample size; students were not randomly selected, nor were students matched.
Runyon (1991) examined the effect of extended time on student performance
(scores) for college students with learning disabilities, and those without. Results
indicated that the extended time accommodation positively effected students with
learning disabilities mean percentile reading scores. The use of extended time by students
without learning disabilities had no significant effect.
General Accommodations Guidelines: Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing
Students who are D/HH are permitted the use of accommodations during
instruction and testing as per federal legislation. Within the current literature base, there
is no documentation regarding what is considered to be best practice for students who are
deaf or hard of hearing with respect to accommodations usage. That is, though a variety
of accommodations have been, and are, utilized by students who are deaf or hard of
hearing, not all have been shown to be effective, or to have made statistically significant
differences with respect to assessment outcomes.
Students who are D/HH often require presentation accommodations, such as use
of a sign language interpreter, during assessment. Students who are D/HH who have
additional disabilities may use multiple accommodations, or ‘accommodations packages’
during assessment. The prevalence of specific disability categories varies greatly and is
inconsistent from state to state (Table 1). The incidence of hearing impairment is low;
7
and, as such, one would expect to see this reflected within the accommodations literature
either with small amounts of reference to students identified as D/HH, or through little
disaggregated data specific to disability category and accommodations types utilized.
Formal Assessment Accommodations Best Practices: Students who are Deaf or Hard of
Hearing
No formal assessment accommodations best practices exist for students who are
deaf or hard of hearing. However, several large testing boards have provided
accommodation guidelines.
The ACT Testing Services, the College Board, and the Educational Testing Service
(ETS) offer accommodations to students with disabilities taking examinations Students
who are D/HH are eligible to utilize a sign language interpreter or an oral interpreter to
translate testing directions.
The College Board states that use of a sign language interpreter or an oral
interpreter may be used for examinees who are D/HH “to translate testing directions from
spoken English into American Sign Language or an English-based sign system”
(http://www.collegeboard.com/disable/students/html/accom.html). The College Board
states that if the only accommodation needed by the examinee is use of an interpreter, the
examinee may test at a national administration, and that the test would be considered a
“standard administration”. All examinees requiring use of an interpreter are responsible
for providing their own interpreter. The College Board does not require a student
eligibility form for use of an interpreter to translate spoken testing directions during
testing administration. Students who are D/HH are required to inform the College Board
Service for Students with Disabilities division in writing that they will be utilizing an
interpreter.
The ACT Testing Services, like the College Board, permits the use of interpreters
during testing administration for students who are D/HH. The ACT cites the following as
examples of standard- time national testing accommodations students with hearing
impairments may request: “seating near the front of the room to lip-read spoken
instructions; a sign-language interpreter (not a relative) to sign spoken instructions (not
the test items); a printed copy of spoken instructions with visual notification from testing
staff of test start, time remaining, and stop times”
(http://www.act.org/aap/disab/opt1.html). Students who are D/HH using above described
accommodations would have their tests considered as “standard-time” administrations,
and their test scores would be reported as “National”.
The ETS website states, “reasonable testing accommodations are provided to
allow candidates with documented disabilities (recognized under the Americans with
Disabilities Act) an opportunity to demonstrate their skills and knowledge”
(www.ets.org/disability/info.html). The ETS states that use of a sign language interpreter
for spoken directions only may be used for examinees who are D/HH. Additionally, the
ETS notes that examinees may test under standard conditions should they (ETS)
determine the accommodation requires only minor modifications to the testing
environment. As an example, the ETS cites the use of a sign language interpreter for
directions.
8
Informal Assessment Accommodations Best Practices: Students who are Deaf or Hard of
Hearing
No informal assessment accommodations best practices exist for students who are deaf or
hard of hearing. However, several guidelines have been presented. In addition to their
use during district and statewide testing, accommodations may be provided during testing
done within students’ school classes as provided within the student’s Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) or 504 Plan. The IDEA requires that access to testing
accommodations be available to students throughout daily instruction in order for them to
access the general curriculum (IDEA 97, PL 105-17). As such, it is important that
teachers of students who are D/HH, know about the specific accommodations each of
their students requires, and is legally entitled to utilize, not only during standardized and
informal testing situations, but during the course of daily instruction. Additionally,
teachers must know how to provide access to, and implement use of, these
accommodations for their students who are D/HH.
Summary of Accommodations Research
The literature that exists within the fields of accountability and the provision of
testing accommodations shows a variety of accommodations types, and findings with
respect to a broad spectrum of students identified as having disabilities. Some research
presented within this context includes that which addressed accommodations within the
categories of 1) timing and/or scheduling, 2) presentation of testing materials, 3) response
to testing materials, and 4) setting: environment or administration of assessments.
Gleaning accommodations data for students identified as D/HH from the body of
accommodations research is difficult to do. This is because the preponderance of the
existing body of research does not disaggregate data by type of accommodation.
Additionally, data for students with low incidence disabilities, such as sensory loss
including hearing impairment, most often is not disaggregated.
Accommodations research is complex. As shown within this review and others, it
often demonstrates inconsistent results across different studies of similar assessment
accommodations. Though no indisputable effects were found for particular
accommodations across the literature, it is important to remember that the provision of
testing accommodations during testing provides students with disabilities access to the
material, and promotes equity and validity within educational assessment. As such, it is
an area that requires further attention and research to increase our body of knowledge and
promote more accessible, equitable, and valid educational assessment of students.
References
ACT Assessment Services for Students with Disabilities: Testing Accommodations for
Students
with Disabilities 2004-2005. Retrieved 6-29-04 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.act.org/aap/disab/chart.html
The Americans with Disabilities Act (PL 101-336).
9
Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., Freidebach, J., & Freidebach, M. (2001). Readaloud accommodations: Effects on multiple-choice reading and math items.
Technical Report 31. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center
on Educational Outcomes (NCEO). Retrieved 10-24-2003 from the World Wide
Web: http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Technical31.htm
Calhoon, M. B., Fuchs, L. S., & Hamlett, C. L. (2000). Effects of computer-based test
accommodations on mathematics performance assessments for secondary students
with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 23, 4, 271-282.
College Board: Services for Students with Disabilities: Accommodations. Retrieved 629-04 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.collegeboard.com/disable/students/html/accom.html
The Educational Testing Service: Disabilities and Testing. Retrieved 6-29-04 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.ets.org/disability/index.html
The Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142)
Elliott, Ysseldyke, Thurlow, & Erickson (1998). What about assessment and
accountability? Practical implications for educators. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 31, 1, 20-27.
Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound test accommodation
decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practices, 16, 3, 174-181.
Gordon, R. P., Stump, K., & Glaser, B. A. (1996). Assessment of individuals with
hearing impairments: Equity in testing procedures and accommodations.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 111-119.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA: PL 101-476)
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. (IDEA
97: PL 105-17)
Haigh, J. (1999). Accommodations, modifications, and alternates for instruction and
assessment (Maryland/Kentucky Report 5). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved 10-16-2003
from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/MdKy5.
Harker, J. K. & Feldt, L. S. (1993). A comparison of achievement test performance of
non-disabled students under silent reading and reading plus listening modes of
administration. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 307-320.
McDonnell, L. M. McLaughlin, M. J., & Morrison, P. (Eds.) (1997). Educating one and
all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, D. C.:
National Academy Press.
10
McKevitt, B. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2003). Effects and perceived consequences of using
read-aloud and teacher-recommended testing accommodations on a reading
achievement test. School Psychology Review, 32, 4, 583-600.
Meloy, Deville, & Frisbie (April, 2000). The effects of a reading accommodation on
standardized test scores of learning disabled and non learning disabled students.
A paper presented for the National Council on Measurement in Education Annual
Meeting. New Orleans, LA
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (PL 107-110), 2001
Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled
rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 93-120.
Pitoniak, M. & Royer, J. (2000). Testing accommodations for examinees with
disabilities: A review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues. Review of
Educational Research, 71, 1, 53-104.
Ray, S. R. (1989). Adapting the WISC-R for deaf children. Diagnostique, 7, 147-157.
Ray, S. R. (1989). Context and the psychoeducational assessment of hearing impaired
children. Topics in language Disorders, 9, 4, 33-43.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504 (P.L. 93-112).
Runyon, M. K. (1991). The effect of extra time on reading comprehension scores for
university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 24, 2, 104-108.
Schulte, A. G., Elliot, S. N., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2001). Effects of testing
accommodations on students’ standardized mathematics test scores: An
experimental analysis. School Psychology Review, 30, 527-547.
Sireci, S. G., Li, S., & Scarpati, S. (200). Center for Educational Assessment Research
Report no. 485 (PDF file) School of Education, University of Massachusetts
Amherst. This paper was commissioned by the Board on Testing and Assessment
of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved
6-1-2004 from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/nceo/new.htm
Sullivan, P. M. (1982). Administration modifications on the SIXC-R performance scale
with different categories of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 127, 6,
780-788.
Thompson, Blount, & Thurlow (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test
accommodation 1999 through 2001. Technical Report 34. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO).
11
Retrieved 9-28-2003 from the World Wide Web:
http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical34.htm
Thompson, S. J., Erickson, R., Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., Callender, S. (1999).
Status of the states in the development of alternate assessments (Synthesis Report
No. 31). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes. Retrieved 9-28-2003, from the World Wide Web:
http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis31.html
Thurlow, M., & Bolt, S. (2001). Empirical support for accommodations most often
allowed in state policy (Synthesis Report 41).Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date],
from the World Wide Web:
http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis41.html
Thurlow M. E., Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1998). Testing students with disabilities:
Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Thurlow, M., House, A., Boys, C., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (2000). State participation
and accommodation policies for students with disabilities: 1999 update
(Synthesis Report No. 33). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National
Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved 11-15-2003, from the World Wide
Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis33.html
Thurlow, M., & Wiener, D. (2000). Non-approved accommodations: Recommendations
for use and reporting (Policy Directions No. 11). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved 10-4-2003, from
the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy11.htm
Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., Bielinski, J., House, A., Trimble, S., Insko, B., Owens, C.
(2000). Instructional and assessment accommodations in Kentucky (MarylandKentucky Report 7). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center
on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [06-14-04], from the World Wide Web:
http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/MDKY_7.
Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Silverstein, B. (1995). Testing accommodations for
students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 5, 260-270.
Tindal, G & Fuchs, L. (1999). Summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis
for defining accommodations. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Mid-south
Regional Resource Center, Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute.
Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998).
Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental
study. Exceptional Children, 64, 4, 439-450.
12
U.S. Department of Education, (2001). To assure the free appropriate public education of
all children with disabilities: 23rd Annual report to Congress on the
implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Table AA10.
Retrieved 10-4-2003 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2001/appendix-a-pt1.doc
Walz, Albus, Thompson, & Thurlow (2000). Effect of a multiple day test accommodation
on the performance of special education students. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO). Retrieved 9-282003 from the World Wide Web:
http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/MnReport34.html
Ysseldyke, J, & Thurlow, M.(1994). Guidelines for inclusion of students with disabilities
in large-scale assessments (Policy Directions No. 1). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved 628-04, from the World Wide Web:
http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy1.html
Zurcher and Bryant (2001). The validity and comparability of entrance examination
scores after accommodations are made for students with LD. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 34, 5, 462-471.
13
Table 1
Percentage of Students Ages 6-17 years Served Under IDEA, Part B, States
and U.S. (50 States and the District of Columbia), 1999-2000
Lowest
State
All Disabilities
9.11 (CO)
Specific Learning Disabilities
Highest
State
15.58 (RI)
3.04 (KY)
U.S. Total
11.26
9.05 (RI)
5.68
Speech or Language Impairments 1.01 (IA)
3.86 (WV)
2.27
Mental Retardation
0.32 (NJ)
2.97 (WV)
1.13
Emotional Disturbance
0.10 (AR)
1.92 (VT)
0.93
Hearing Impairments
0.04 (DC)
0.20 (UT)
0.14
Orthopedic Impairments
0.04 (NJ; UT) 0.68 (DE)
0.14
Visual Impairments
0.02 (IA; NJ) 0.55 (DC)
0.05
Note: From U.S. Department of Education, To assure the free appropriate
public education of all children with disabilities: 23 rd Annual report to
Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act. 2001, Table AA10. Available online at
http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2001/
appendix-a-pt1.doc
14
Table 2
Percentage of Kentucky Students With Disabilities Receiving Assessment
Accommodations, by Grade, 1995
Grade 4
Grade 8
Grade 11
None
19
33
39
Oral presentation
72
56
45
Paraphrasing
49
48
47
Dictation
50
14
5
Cueing
10
12
10
Technological aid
3
5
5
Interpreter
2
3
4
Other
8
5
6
Note: Individual students may receive multiple accommodations. From
Koretz, D. (1997). Assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky
(CSE Tech. Rep. No. 431), University of California, Los Angeles, Center
for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, p. 13 (Table 6).
15