Testing accommodations for examinees with disabilities: A review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues

Review of Educational Research

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 53-104

  Pitoniak, Mary J ^a   Royer, James M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035541471     PISSN: 00346543     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/00346543071001053     Document Type: Review

References (89)

1. Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of ihe discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461-502.
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing (2nd ed). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
4. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
5. Anderson, P. L., Kazmierski, S., & Cronin, M. E. (1995). Learning disabilities, employment discrimination, and the ADA. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 196-204.
6. Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, 970 F. Supp. 1094 (S.D. N. Y. 1997).
7. Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, No. 97-9162 (1998 WL 611730 [2nd Cir. N.Y.]).
8. Bennett, R. E. (1999). Computer-based testing for examinees with disabilities: On the road to generalized accommodations. In S. J. Messick (Ed.), Assessment in higher education: Issues of access, quality, student development, and public policy (pp. 181-191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Bennett, R. E., & Ragosta, M. (1988). Handicapped people. In W. Willingham, M. Ragosta, R. A. Bennett, H. Braun, D. A. Rock, & D. E. Powers (Eds.), Testing handicapped people (pp. 17-36). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
10. Bennett, R. E., Ragosta, M., & Stricker, L. J. (1988). Test results. In W. Willingham, M. Ragosta, R. A. Bennett, H. Braun, D. A. Rock, & D. E. Powers (Eds.), Testing handicapped people (pp. 37-46). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
11. Bennett, R. E., Rock, D. A., & Kaplan, B. A. (1987). SAT differential item performance for nine handicapped groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 41-55.
12. Bennett, R. E., Rock, D. A., Kaplan, B. A., & Jirele, T. (1988). Psychometric characteristics. In W. Willingham, M. Ragosta, R. A. Bennett, H. Braun, D. A. Rock, & D. E. Powers (Eds.), Testing handicapped people (pp. 83-97). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
13. Bennett, R. E., Rock, D. A., & Novatkoski, I. (1989). Differential item functioning on the SAT-M Braille Edition. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 67-79.
14. Braun, H., Ragosta, M., & Kaplan, B. A. (1988). Predictive validity. In W. Willingham, M. Ragosta, R. A. Bennett, H. Braun, D. A. Rock, & D. E. Powers (Eds.), Testing handicapped people (pp. 109-132). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
15. Camara, W. F. (1998). Effects of extended time on score growth for students with learning disabilities. New York: College Board.
16. Chudowsky, N., & Behuniak, P. (1998). Using focus groups to examine the consequential aspects of validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(4), 28-38.
17. Cisero, C. A., Royer, J. M., Marchant, H. G., & Jackson, S. J. (1997). Can the Computer-based Academic Assessment System (CAAS) be used to diagnose reading disability in college students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 599-620.
18. Educational Testing Service. (1999). Graduate Record Examinations 1999-2000 information and registration bulletin. Princeton, NJ: Author.
19. Educational Testing Service. (2001, February 7). ETS agrees with disability groups to stop "flagging" on graduate admissions tests. Available: http://www.ets.org/aboutets/news/ 01020701.html
20. Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & Gilbertson, A. (1998). The Assessment Accommodation Checklist. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
21. Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., McKevitt, B., Schulte, A. G., Marquart, A., & Mroch, A. (1999, June). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations on the scores of students with and without disabilities: Mid-project results. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Snowbird, UT.
22. Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & Schulte, A. G. (1998). The Assessment Accommodation Checklist: Who, what, where, when, why, and how? Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(2), 11-14.
23. Elliott, S. N., & McKevitt, B. C. (2000, April). Testing accommodations decisions: Legal and technical issues challenging educators. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
24. Fischer, R. J. (1994). The Americans with Disabilities Act: Implications for measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13, 17-26, 37.
25. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204-219.
26. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Fair and unfair testing accommodations. School Administrator, 56(10), 24-27, 29.
27. Gardner, J. W. (1961). Excellence: Can we be equal and excellent too? New York: Harper & Row.
28. Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Psychometric issues in testing students with disabilities. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 121-140.
29. Geisinger, K. F. (1998). Psychometric issues in test interpretation. In J. Sandoval, C. L. Frisby, K. F. Geisinger, J. D. Scheuneman, & J. R. Grenier (Eds.), Test interpretation and diversity: Achieving equity in assessment (pp. 17-30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Corporation.
30. Geisinger, K. F. (1999). Testing those who do not fit the mold. Unpublished manuscript.
31. Graduate Management Admission Council. (1999). GMAT information bulletin. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
32. Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Bocian, K. M. (1996). Learning disabilities, low achievement, and mild mental retardation: More alike than different? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 570-581.
33. Guckenburger v. Boston University, 974 F. Supp. 106 (D. Mass. 1997).
34. Guckenburger v. Boston University, 8 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. Mass. 1998).
35. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36. Harvard Law Review Association. (1998). Toward reasonable equality: Accommodating learning disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Harvard Law Review, 111, 1560-1577.
37. Hollenbeck, K., Tindal, G., & Almond, P. (1998). Teachers' knowledge of accommodations as a validity issue in high-stakes testing. Journal of Special Education, 32, 175-183.
38. Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act cf 1991, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
39. Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act cf 1997, 20 U.S.C. 1412(a) (17)(A).
40. Jacobsen v. Tillmann, No. 97-CV-1541 JMR/FLN (1998 WL 556310 [D.Minn.]).
41. Joint Committee on Testing Practices. (1988). Code affair testing practices in education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
42. Koretz, D. (1997). The assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky (CSE Technical Report No. 431). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
43. Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. (1999). Assessing students with disabilities in Kentucky: The effects of accommodations, format, and subject (CSE Technical Report No. 498). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
44. Linn, R. L. (1997). Evaluating the validity of assessments: The consequences of use. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 14-16.
45. Livingston, S. A. (1993). Small-sample equating with log-linear smoothing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 23-39.
46. MacArthur, C. A. (1996). Using technology to enhance the writing processes of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 344-354.
47. Mandinach, E., Brinckerhoff, L., Johnson-Gregory, S., & Camara, W. F. (1998). JSRDC proposal: Performance outcomes of test takers with learning disabilities and/or attention deficit disorders on the SAT and their subsequent use of accommodations during the freshman year of college. New York: College Board.
48. McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
49. McKevitt, B. C. (2000, June). The use and effects of testing accommodations on math and science performance assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Snowbird, UT.
50. Mehrens, W. A. (1997). The consequences of consequential validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 16-18.
51. Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35, 1012-1027.
52. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: Macmillan.
53. Mislevy, R. J., Sheehan, K. M., & Wingersky, M. (1993). How to equate tests with little or no data. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 55-78.
54. Moss, P. A. (1998). The role of consequences in validity theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 6-12.
55. Nester, M. A. (1984). Employment testing for handicapped persons. Public Personnel Management Journal, 13, 417-434.
56. Olson, J. F., & Goldstein, A. A. (1997). The inclusion of students with disabilities and limited English proficient students in large-scale assessments: A summary of recent progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
57. Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 93-120.
58. Popham, W. J. (1997). Consequential validity: Right concern, wrong concept. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 9-13.
59. Price v. National Board of Medical Examiners, 966 F. Supp. 419 (S.D. W.Va. 1997).
60. Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1998). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 27-40.
61. Rock, D. A., Bennett, R. E., & Jirele, T. (1988). Factor structure of the Graduate Record Examinations General Test in handicapped and nonhandicapped groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 383-392.
62. Rock, D. A., Bennett, R. E., & Kaplan, B. A. (1987). Internal construct validity of a college admissions test across handicapped and nonhandicapped groups. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 193-205.
63. Rock, D. A., Bennett, R. E., Kaplan, B. A., & Jirele, T. (1988). Construct validity. In W. Willingham, M. Ragosta, R. A. Bennett, H. Braun, D. A. Rock, & D. E. Powers (Eds.), Testing handicapped people (pp. 99-107). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
64. Rosenfeld, M., Tannenbaum, R. J., & Wesley, S. (1995). Policy issues with psychometric implications. In J. C. Impara (Ed.), Licensure testing: Purposes, procedures, and practices (pp. 59-87). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
65. Royer, J. M. (1997). A cognitive perspective on the assessment, diagnosis and remediation of reading skills. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning (pp. 199-234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
66. Royer, J. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (1994). A cognitive-theoretical approach to reading diagnostics. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 81-113.
67. Royer, J. M., & Tronsky, L. N. (1998). Addition practice with math disabled students improves subtraction and multiplication performance. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 12, pp. 185-218). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
68. Royer, J. M., Tronsky, L. N., Chan, Y., Jackson, S. J., & Marchant, H. (1999). Math-fact retrieval as the cognitive mechanism underlying gender differences in math test performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 181-266.
69. Sax, G. (1997). Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
70. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
71. Shalit, R. (1997, August 25). Defining disability down. New Republic, pp. 16-22.
72. Shepard, L. A. (1997). The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 5-8, 13, 24.
73. Shepard, L. A., Taylor, G. A., & Betebenner, D. (1998). Inclusion of limited-English proficient students in Rhode Island's Grade 4 mathematics performance assessment (CSE Technical Report No. 486). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
74. Tenopyr, M. L., Angoff, W. H., Butcher, J. N., Geisinger, K. F., & Reilly, R. R. (1993). Psychometric and assessment issues raised by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Score, 15(4), 1-2, 7-15.
75. Thurlow, M. L., House, A., Boys, C., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (2000). State participation and accommodations policies for students with disabilities: 1999 update (Synthesis Report 33). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
76. Thurlow, M. L., Seyfarth, A. L., Scott, D. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1997). State assessment policies on participation and accommodations for students with disabilities: 1997 update (Synthesis Report 29). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
77. 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, 439-450.
78. Tindal, G., Hollenbeck, K., Heath, W., & Almond, P. (1997). The effect of using computers as an accommodation in a statewide writing test. Eugene: University of Oregon.
79. Velluntino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Sipay, E. R. (1997). Toward distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as primary sources of difficulty in learning to read: The importance of early intervention in diagnosing specific reading disability. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia (pp. 347-379). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
80. Velluntino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.
81. Wightman, L. F. (1993). Test takers with disabilities: A summary of data from special administrations of the LSAT (Research Report 93-03). Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Council.
82. Willingham, W. W. (1988a). Introduction. In W. Willingham, M. Ragosta, R. A. Bennett, H. Braun, D. A. Rock, & D. E. Powers (Eds.), Testing handicapped people (pp. 1-15). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
83. Willingham, W. W. (1988b). Admissions decisions. In W. Willingham, M. Ragosta, R. A. Bennett, H. Braun, D. A. Rock, & D. E. Powers (Eds.), Testing handicapped people (pp. 71-81). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
84. Willingham, W. W. (1988c). Discussions and conclusions. In W. Willingham, M. Ragosta, R. A. Bennett, H. Braun, D. A. Rock, & D. E. Powers (Eds.), Testing handicapped people (pp. 143-185). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
85. Willingham, W. W., Ragosta, M., Bennett, R. A., Braun, H., Rock, D. A., & Powers, D. E. (Eds.). (1988). Testing handicapped people. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
86. Yen, W. M. (1998). Investigating the consequential aspects of validity: Who is responsible and what should they do? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 5.
87. Ysseldyke, J. E., & Olsen, K. (1997). Putting alternate assessments into practice: What to measure and possible sources of data (Synthesis Report 28). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
88. Ysseldyke, J. E., Olsen, K., & Thurlow, M. L. (1997). Issues and considerations in alternate assessments (Synthesis Report 27). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
89. Zuriff, G. E. (2000). Extra examination time for students with learning disabilities: An examination of the maximum potential thesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 99-117.