THE IMPACT OF EXTENDED TIME ON SAT® TEST PERFORMANCE

ETS Research Report Series

Volumn 2005, Issue 2, 2005, Pages i-35

  Mandinach, Ellen B ^a   Bridgeman, Brent ^a   Cahalan Laitusis, Cara ^a   Trapani, Catherine ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

accommodations; extended time; learning disabilities; SAT Reasoning Test; speededness

Indexed keywords

EID: 85164505702     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23308516     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/j.2333-8504.2005.tb01997.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2. Bridgeman, B., Trapani, C., & Curley, E. (2004). Impact of fewer questions per section on SAT I scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 291–310.
3. Camara, W. J., Copeland, T., & Rothschild, B. (1998). Effects of extended time on the SAT I: Reasoning test score growth for students with disabilities (College Board Report No. 98–7). New York: The College Board.
4. Caperton, G. (2000, December 15). SAT: Give extra time to qualified students. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 16, 2001, from http://www.latimes.com/cgi-bin/latreg2?16203783.
5. College Board. (1997). Handbook for the SAT Program 1997–98: Admissions staff. New York: The College Board.
6. College Board. (2001). College Board services for students with disabilities (SSD) brochure. New York: The College Board.
7. College Board. (2002). Test characteristics of the SAT I: Reliability, difficulty levels, completion rates. Retrieved February 26, 2002, from http://www.collegeboard.com/sat/cbsenior/yr2001/pdf/five.pdf.
8. Donlon, T. F. (Ed.) (1984). The College Board technical handbook for the Scholastic Aptitude Test and Achievement Tests. New York: The College Board.
9. Elliott, S. N., & McKevitt, B. (2000, April). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations on the scores of students with disabilities: Design issues and initial results. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
10. Evans, F. R. (1980). A study of the relationship among speed and power aptitude test scores and ethnic identity (College Board Research and Development Report, RDR 80-81, No. 2). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
11. Greenberg, B. (2000, February 21). Learning-disabled flocking to colleges: Trend dispels myths, questions labeling of kids. Retrieved February 22, 2000, from http://www.desertnews.com/dn/view/0,1248,150015387.00.html.
12. Halla, J. W. (1988). A psychological study of psychometric differences in graduate record examinations general test scores between learning disabled and non-learning disabled adults (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 3341A.
13. Henderson, C. (1999). 1999 College freshmen with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
14. Heyboer, K., & McCarron, B. (1999, August 15). ‘Joining the club’: Claim a disability, get an edge in SATs. Star Ledger, 1.
15. Hill, G. A. (1984). Learning disabled college students: The assessment of academic aptitude (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 642B.
16. Huesman, R. L. Jr., & Frisbie, D. A. (2000, April). The validity of ITBS reading comprehension test scores for learning disabled and non-learning disabled students under extended-time conditions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans.
17. Leatherman, C. (2000, December 4). California study finds racial disparities in granting extra time on SAT. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved December 6, 2000, from http://chronicle.com/daily/2000/12/2000120405nhtm.
18. Lee, L. (2000, April 9). To teach, or merely accommodate. New York Times Education Life, pp. 30–31, 40.
19. Mandinach, E. B., Cahalan, C., & Camara, W. J. (2002). The impact of flagging on the admission process: Policies, practices, and implications (ETS RR 02-03, College Board Report 2002-2). New York and Princeton, NJ: The College Board and Educational Testing Service.
20. Marquart, A. M. (2000, June). The use of extended time as an accommodation on a standardized mathematics test: An investigation of effects on scores and perceived consequences for students of various skill levels. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Snowbird, UT. Retrieved December 12, 2001, from www.wcer.wisc.edu/testacc/publications/marquart%20ccsso%20paper.htm.
21. Mehrens, W. A., Millman, J., & Sackett, P. R. (1994, November). Accommodations for candidates with disabilities. The Bar Examiner, 63, 33–47.
22. Munger, G. F., & Loyd, B. H. (1991). Effect of speededness on test performance of handicapped and nonhandicapped examinees. Journal of Educational Research, 85(1), 53–57.
23. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
24. Packer, J. (1987). SAT testing time for students with disabilities. Unpublished report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
25. Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93–120.
26. Pitoniak, M. J., & Royer, J. M. (2001). Testing accommodations for examinees with disabilities: A review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 53–104.
27. Ragosta, M., & Wendler, C. (1992). Eligibility issues and comparable time limits for disabled and nondisabled SAT examinees (College Board Research Report No. 92-5). New York: The College Board.
28. Runyan, 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.
29. Swineford, F. (1974). The test analysis manual (ETS SR 74-06). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
30. Weaver, S. M. (1993). The validity of the use of extended time and untimed testing for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
31. Weiss, K. R. (2000a, January 9). New test-taking skill: Working the system. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 10, 2000, from www.Latimes.com/cgibin/slwebeli?DBLIST=lt000&D…:%20Working%20the%System.
32. Weiss, K. R. (2000b, December 1). Audit confirms disparities in SAT testing. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 2, 2000, from www.latimes.com/news/state/20001201/t000115187.html.
33. Wild, C., & Durso, R. (1979). Effect of increased test-taking time on test scores by ethnic group, age, and sex (GREB No. 76-6R). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
34. Wright, N., & Wendler, C. (1994, April). Establishing timing limits for the new SAT for students with disabilities. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
35. Zuriff, G. E. (2000). Extra examination time for students with learning disabilities: An examination of the maximum potential thesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(1), 99–117.