on Effects of Test Accommodations - NCEO · NCEO Report 412 A Summary of the Research on Effects of...
Transcript of on Effects of Test Accommodations - NCEO · NCEO Report 412 A Summary of the Research on Effects of...
NCEO Report 412
A Summary of the Research
on Effects of Test Accommodations:
2015-2016
NCEO Report 412
A Summary of the Research on Effects of Test Accommodations: 2015-2016
Christopher M. Rogers, Martha L. Thurlow, Sheryl S. Lazarus, and Kristin K. Liu
November 2019
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., Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., & Liu, K. K. (2019). A summary of the research on effects of test accommodations: 2015-2016 (NCEO Report 412). 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 612/626-1530http://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
Sheryl S. Lazarus, DirectorDeb A. AlbusGail GhereLinda GoldstoneMaureen HawesErik LarsonKristi K. LiuCharity Funfe Tatah Mentan
Michael L. MooreDarrell PetersonChristopher Rogers Kathy StrunkMartha L. ThurlowTerri VandercookYi-Chen Wu
The Center is supported through Cooperative Agreements (#H326G160001) 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
In collaboration with:
Executive Summary
The use of accessibility features including accommodations in instruction and assessments con-tinues 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 continued investigation include how accommodations affect test scores, how educators and students perceive accommodations, and how accommodations are selected and implemented. Emerging issues across more recent years include how large-scale testing delivered online via various technologically-advanced platforms and formats have influence on accessibility features including accommoda-tions, and vice-versa.
The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the state of the research on testing accom-modations as well as to inform future research pursuits. Previous reports by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) have covered research published since 1999. We summarize the research to review current research trends and enhance understanding of the implications of accommodations use in the development of future policy directions, to highlight implementation of current and new accommodations, and seek to draw valid and reliable interpretations when ac-commodations are used in testing situations. In 2015 and 2016, 58 published research studies on the topic of testing accommodations were found. Among the main points of the 2015-16 research were:
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 (about 75%) addressed multiple purposes.
Research design: About 70% of the studies reported primary data collection on the part of the researchers, rather than drawing on existing (extant) data sets. About two-fifths of the studies involved descriptive qualitative designs, and quasi-experimental comprised another one-fifth of the studies. 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. About one-fifth of the studies used academic content items drawn from specific sources outside of the researchers’ work, and about 16 percent of studies used state criterion-referenced tests. Over half of the studies used non-academic protocols or surveys devel-oped by the study authors. Other studies used norm-referenced measures. About one-third used multiple types of data. Reading and mathematics were the most common content areas included in the 2015-2016 research. Other content areas included science, writing, other language arts, and social studies. Only five 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 edu-cators as participants. Studies varied in the number of participants; some studies included fewer than 10 participants, whereas other studies involved tens of thousands of participants.
Disability categories: Learning disabilities was the most common disability category of participants in the research, accounting for over half of the studies. Attention problems and emotional behavioral disability were the next most commonly stud-ied. Low-incidence disabilities were included in more than one-third of the studies.
Accommodations: Presentation and Timing/Scheduling accommodations were the most frequently studied categories of accommodations. Oral delivery and extended time were the most-studied individual accommodations. Combinations of these two, and others, into aggregated sets of accommodations were also studied by several researchers. A relatively large number of 2015-2016 studies reported on unique ac-commodations.
Findings: Empirical studies investigating performance effects of accommodations were not unconditionally conclusive about positive impacts on assessment scores for students with disabilities. Extended time mostly had no apparent influence on performance, and even had a negative impact for postsecondary students with attention-related disabilities. Oral delivery accommodations had mixed findings, supporting students with disabilities in one study, providing no differential benefit for students with disabilities compared to students without disabilities in at least one testing condition in another study, and had negative impacts in one study. The studies with findings on impacts of unique accommodations demonstrated a mix of impacts: three had positive effects, two had no effect, and three had negative effects for students with disabilities.
Of the 11 studies addressing the impact of accommodations in reading, only two specifically reported positive impacts for students with disabilities. In contrast, of the findings in five studies of the impact of accommodations in math, the accommodation conditions benefited the performance of at least some students with disabilities in four studies, and had a negative impact for students with disabilities in one study. Many of the 2015-2016 studies were not focused on simple performance impacts, but provided comparisons between different versions of accommodations, particularly oral delivery.
A larger proportion of studies provided findings about perceptions of accommodations than in previous NCEO reports, comprising nearly half of the 2015-2016 studies. Many studies pro-
vided insights about students’ preferences among accommodations, and about specific features of accommodations. Seven studies’ findings explicitly indicated students’ positive perceptions of the usefulness and support that they gained from accommodations. Findings about educator perceptions were also nuanced and highlighted their recognition of their own limitations in understanding and providing accommodations, particularly at the postsecondary level.
A larger proportion of studies than in previous NCEO reports investigated accommodations in the postsecondary education context, with over half of the studies in 2015-2016; this body of research yielded findings across various study purposes, including 15 studies on perceptions, eight studies on use patterns, five studies on performance effects; and four studies that were literature reviews.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... iii
Overview ..............................................................................................................................................1
Review Process .............................................................................................................................1
Results ..................................................................................................................................................3
Publication Type ...........................................................................................................................3
Purposes of the Research ..............................................................................................................4
Research Type and Data Collection Source ..................................................................................5
Data Collection Methods and Instruments ...................................................................................6
Content Areas Assessed ................................................................................................................8
Research Participants ....................................................................................................................9
School Level Data .......................................................................................................................11
Disability Categories ..................................................................................................................12
Types of Accommodations .........................................................................................................13
Research Findings .......................................................................................................................13
Discussion ..........................................................................................................................................34
References ..........................................................................................................................................36
Report References .......................................................................................................................36
2015 and 2016 Accommodation References ..............................................................................39
Appendix A: Research Purposes ........................................................................................................45
Appendix B: Research Characteristics ...............................................................................................57
Appendix C: Instrument Characteristics ............................................................................................61
Appendix D: Participant and Sample Characteristics ........................................................................69
Appendix E: Accommodations Studied .............................................................................................73
Appendix F: Findings ........................................................................................................................79
1NCEO
Overview
All students, including students with disabilities and English learners (ELs) with disabilities, are required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 and by the 2015 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to participate in assessments used for accountability. Some students can benefit from universal features or designated features to meaningfully access assessments, while others need accommodations in order to demonstrate their academic knowledge and skills. States and assessment consortia seek clarity from research on accommodations when making policy decisions about accommodations.
To synthesize accommodations research efforts completed across the years, the National Center 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 (John-stone, Altman, Thurlow, & Thompson, 2006), 2005-2006 (Zenisky & Sireci, 2007), 2007-2008 (Cormier, Altman, Shyyan, & Thurlow, 2010), 2009-2010 (Rogers, Christian, & Thurlow, 2012), 2011-2012 (Rogers, Lazarus, & Thurlow, 2014), and 2013-2014 (Rogers, Lazarus, & Thurlow, 2016). This report covers the time period 2015-2016.
The purpose of this report is to present a synthesis of the research on test accommodations published in 2015 and 2016. 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 research body offers a broad view and a deep examination of issues pertaining to assessment accommoda-tions. Reporting the findings of current research studies was the primary goal of this analysis.
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; Rogers et al., 2016; Thompson et al., 2002; Zenisky & Sireci, 2007), a number of sources were accessed to complete the re-view of the accommodations research published in 2015 and 2016. 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 Web search engine Google Scholar to search for additional research. In addition, a hand-search of 49 journals was completed, in efforts to ensure that no qualifying study was missed. A list of hand-searched journals is available on the National Center on Educational Outcomes website (www.nceo.info/OnlinePubs/AccommBibliography/AccomStudMethods.htm).
2 NCEO
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), 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, 2016. A second search was completed in May, 2017, to ensure that all articles published in 2015 and 2016 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 review.
The research documents from these searches were then considered for inclusion in this re-view using several criteria. First, this analysis included only research published or defended (in doctoral dissertations) in 2015 and 2016. Second, the scope of the research was limited to investigations of accommodations for regular assessment; hence, articles specific to alternate assessments, accommodations 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 had gone through the level of peer review typi-cally 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
3NCEO
of test scores across accommodated and non-accommodated conditions, or across more than one accommodated condition, 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 2015 and 2016, 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; (e) characteristics of the independent and dependent variables under study; and (f) comparability of findings between studies in similar domains.
Results
Publication Type
Fifty-eight studies were published between January 2015 and December 2016. As shown in Figure 1, of the 58 studies, 43 were journal articles, 15 were dissertations, and none were pub-lished professional reports released by research organizations or entities (e.g., ETS).
The total number of studies published on accommodations in 2015-2016 (n=58) increased slightly from accommodations research published in 2013-2014 (n=53). The number of journal articles increased (n=43 in 2015-2016; n=37 in 2013-2014), and the number of dissertations published on accommodations was about the same (n=15 in 2015-2016; n=14 in 2013-2014). The number of professional reports released by research organizations or entities decreased (n=0 in 2015-2016; n=2 in 2013-2014). The report on accommodations research in 2013-2014 (Rogers et al., 2016) included 37 journal articles from 27 journals; the 43 articles described in the current report were published in 29 journals.
Figure 1. Percentage of Accommodations Studies by Publication Type
6
Figure 1. Percentage of Accommodations Studies by Publication Type
Journal articles74%
Dissertations26%
Reports0%
4 NCEO
Purposes of the Research
A number of purposes were identified in the accommodations research published in 2015 and 2016. Table 1 shows the primary focus of each of these 58 studies. Fifteen studies each listed a single purpose (see Appendix A). The majority of studies reviewed sought to accomplish 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.
Table 1. Primary Purpose of Reviewed Research
Purpose Number of Studies
Percent of Studies
Compare scores
24 41% only students with disabilities (9 studies; 15.5% of studies) only students without disabilities (3 studies; 5.2% of studies) both students with and without disabilities (12 studies; 20.7% of studies)Study/compare perceptions and preferences about use 18 31%Report on implementation practices and accommodations use 9 16%Summarize research on test accommodations 6 10%Test development 1 2%Discuss issues 0 0%Compare test items 0 0%Identify predictors of need for accommodations 0 0%Evaluate test structure 0 0%Investigate test validity 0 0%
The most common primary purpose for research published during 2015-2016 was to compare scores of (a) students with disabilities only, (b) students without disabilities, or (c) students with and without disabilities; score comparison was the central focus of 41 percent of the 58 studies (see Appendix A for each study’s purpose details). The next most common primary purpose was to investigate accommodations perceptions and preferences (31%). The third most common purposes was to report on accommodations use (16%).
Reviews of research on accommodations included explorations of the research: (a) on various accommodations for students within specific disability categories (Barnett & Gay, 2015; Condra et al., 2015; Zeedyk, Tipton, & Blacher, 2016); (b) about various accommodations for students at a specific education level (DeLee, 2015); and (c) about a specific accommodation for stu-dents within a specific disability category (Cahan, Nirel, & Alkoby, 2016). In this analysis, test development was the central focus of a single study (Hansen, Liu, Rogat, & Hakkinen, 2016).
5NCEO
Table 2 shows the multiple purposes of many studies. Several studies had two purposes—for example, some studies (Lin, Childs, & Lin, 2016; Seo & De Jong, 2015) both compared scores of students with and without disabilities and examined item comparability. Other studies (Bouck, Bouck, & Hunley, 2015; Higgins et al., 2016; Rosenblum & Herzberg, 2015) included score comparisons of students with disabilities, while also reporting on accommodations perceptions and preferences.
Table 2. All Purposes of Reviewed Research
PurposeNumber of Studies
Percent of Studies
Study/compare perceptions and preferences about use 26 45%Summarize research on test accommodations 24 41%Compare scores
24 41% only students with disabilities (8 studies; 15.5% of studies) only students without disabilities (3 studies; 5.2% of studies) both students with and without disabilities (12 studies; 20.7% of studies)Discuss issues 17 29%Report on implementation practices and accommodations use 14 24%Compare test items 4 7%Identify predictors of the need for accommodations 2 3%Test development 2 3%Evaluate test structure 1 2%Investigate test validity 2 3%
Note. Because 43 studies each had more than one purpose, the study purpose numbers total more than the 58 studies and the percents total more than 100%.
Research Type and Data Collection Source
Descriptive qualitative research was the most frequent design (about 40%) for the studies in 2015-2016, which is different from previous biennial reports when quasi-experimental research was more common; it is unclear whether this is a trend. As displayed in Table 3, the researchers themselves gathered the data (i.e., primary source data) in almost three times as many descrip-tive qualitative studies (n=17) compared to studies with secondary data sources using extant or archival data (n=6). The number of descriptive qualitative research studies decreased from 2015 to 2016. Likewise, studies using quasi-experimental research design also decreased from 2015 to 2016, consistent with an overall decrease in studies from 2015 (n=34) to 2016 (n=24). Descriptive quantitative studies did not change from 2015 to 2016, with six studies in each year. In 2015 and 2016 researchers conducted some studies (n=8) using correlational designs, yet few longitudinal or meta-analytic designs. No studies used experimental designs, so that design was not included in Table 3.
6 NCEO
Table 3. Research Type and Data Collection Source by Year
Research Design Data Collection Source Total Sources
Primary Secondary
2015 2016 2015 2016
Descriptive qualitative 10 7 5 1 23Descriptive quantitative 4 4 2 2 12Quasi-experimental 4 4 3 1 12Correlation/prediction 2 0 4 2 8Experimental 0 0 0 0 0Longitudinal 0 1 0 1 2Meta-Analysis 0 0 0 1 1Year Totals 20 16 14 8 58Source Totals Across Years 36 22 58
We also observed a similarity in data collection sources between the current review period and previous review period. In 2015-2016, primary data were used in 36 studies (62%) and second-ary data were used in 22 studies (38%). This difference between data sources is smaller than the previous report (Rogers et al., 2016) in which over twice as many studies used primary data in comparison to secondary data sources. (Appendix B presents research designs and data col-lection sources for individual studies).
Data Collection Methods and Instruments
The research included in this analysis used the methods shown in Figure 2 to collect study data. Forty-one percent of the studies (n=24) used performance data acquired through academic con-tent testing. In some of the cases, tests were administered as part of the study; in other cases, extant data sources were used. Interviews (n=22, 38%) and surveys (n=22, 38%) were other common data sources, while observations and focus groups were less commonly used meth-ods of collecting data. Another less frequently used method was “articles.” This term refers to seven studies that chiefly reviewed research literature. Five studies collected various other data, including course grades and/or cumulative grade point averages (GPAs; Crosby, 2015; Dong & Lucas, 2016; Kim & Lee, 2016; Lewandowski, Wood, & Lambert, 2015), as well as disability documentation to validate interview data (Crosby, 2015). About one-third of the studies reported using more than one method or tool to gather data. The two most common combined collection methods were testing and surveys (n=7), and surveys and interview protocols (n=6). See Ap-pendix B for additional details about each study’s data collection methods.
7NCEO
Figure 2. Data Collection Methods Used in 2015-2016 Research
10
Figure 2. Data Collection Methods Used in 2015-2016 Research
Note. Of the 58 studies reviewed for this report, 18 reported using two data collection methods, and 1 reported using three data collection methods. Thus, the total number of studies represented in this figure total more than 58. Other data included course grades, postsecondary GPAs, and disability documentation and academic records.
24
22
22
7
4
1
4
Test
Survey
Interview Protocol
Articles
Observation
Focus Group
Other
Met
hod
Number of Studies
Note. Of the 58 studies reviewed for this report, 18 reported using two data collection methods, and 1 reported using three data collection methods. Thus, the total number of studies represented in this figure total more than 58. Other data included course grades, postsecondary GPAs, and disability documentation and other academic records.
Nearly all of the 2015-2016 studies used some type of data collection instrument; only seven studies did not employ any instruments because they were literature reviews. Table 4 shows the types of data collection instruments used. Surveys presented items of an attitudinal or self-report nature. Tests and exams 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 six categories: non-academic protocols or surveys developed by study authors; surveys or academic tests developed by education professionals or drawn by researchers from other sources; state criterion-referenced academic assessments; norm-referenced academic achievement measures; norm-referenced cognitive ability measures; and other.
Non-academic protocols developed by the author or authors of the studies—the most commonly-used instrument (in 57% of studies)—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 Attitudes Toward Requesting Accommodations scale (ATRA; Barnard-Brak, Davis, Tate, & Sulak, 2009), and secondary analyses of datasets such as the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2; Valdes, Godard, Williamson, McCracken, & Jones, 2013).
8 NCEO
Table 4. Data Collection Instrument Types
Instrument Type Number of Studiesc
Percent of Studiesc
Non-academic protocols or surveys developed by study author/s 33 57%Surveys or academic tests developed by professionals or researchers using sources outside of current study 13 22%
State criterion-referenced assessments 9 16%Norm-referenced academic achievement measures 9 16%Norm-referenced cognitive ability measures 5 9%Othera 7 14%Noneb 7 14%
a Other: screening including psychological and diagnostic information (Lovett & Leja, 2015; Spiel et al., 2016; Weis, Dean, & Osborne, 2016); disability documentation (Crosby, 2015; Kafle, 2015); task scoring rubrics (Han-sen et al., 2016; Nelson & Reynolds, 2015); and course grades and/or cumulative GPAs (Kim & Lee, 2016).b None: 7 studies were literature reviews of studies employing various data collection approaches and/or instru-ments (Barnett & Gay, 2015; Cahan et al., 2016; Condra et al., 2015; DeLee, 2015; Kettler, 2015; Lane & Leven-thal, 2015; Zeedyk et al., 2016).c Twenty studies (34%) used more than one type of instrument; therefore, numbers total more than the 58 studies represented, and percents total more than 100.
State criterion-referenced assessments included those of Colorado, Maine, Michigan, released test items from assessment consortia and several states (Higgins et al., 2016), and two large-scale assessments from Ontario, Canada, as well as assessments from states that remained unidentified in the research. Seven norm-referenced academic achievement measures were used in one or more studies, such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the Nelson-Denny Reading Test (NDRT), the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Second Edition (WIAT-II), and the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III). Seven norm-referenced cognitive ability measures were used in one or more studies, such as the Clinical Evaluation of Language Functions, Fourth Edition (CELF-4); the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-IV); the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV); and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities III (WJIII). About one-third of all studies (n=20) used instrumentation of more than one kind. We present a complete listing of the instru-ments used in each of the studies in Table C-1 in Appendix C, including the related studies or other bibliographic source information for these instruments, when available.
Content Areas Assessed
Many studies published during 2015-2016 focused on accommodations used in specific aca-demic content areas. As shown in Table 5, reading was the most commonly studied content area. Table 5 also provides a comparison to content area frequency found in NCEO’s previous analyses of accommodations research (Rogers et al., 2014, 2016). Across the years, reading and
9NCEO
mathematics have been the most common content areas for this research; however, the number of studies addressing reading assessments decreased in 2015-2016, and the number examin-ing math assessment data decreased dramatically, from previous years. The number of studies examining accommodation effects in more than one content area also decreased. There was little change across years in the number of studies addressing science, “other language arts,” and social studies. There was an overall decrease in the number of studies that used assessment data in 2015-2016 compared to 2011-2012 and 2013-2014. (See Appendix C, Table C-2, for additional details about the content areas.)
Table 5. Academic Content Area Assessed Across Three Reports
Content Area Assessed 2011-2012a 2013-2014b 2015-2016c
Mathematics 22 (45%) 14 (26%) 4 (7%)Reading 19 (39%) 16 (30%) 10 (17%)Writing 5 (10%) 2 (4%) 4 (7%)Other Language Artsd 2 (4%) 3 (6%) 3 (5%)Science 4 (8%) 5 (9%) 4 (7%)Social Studies 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%)Not Specific 2 (4%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Multiple Contente 16 (33%) 9 (17%) 3 (5%)
a Studies in 2011-2012 included examinations of more than one content area ranging in number of areas as-sessed from 2 to 4.b Studies in 2013-2014 included examinations of more than one content area ranging in number of areas as-sessed from 2 to 3.c Studies in 2015-2016 included examinations of more than one content area comprising exactly 2 areas as-sessed.d Detailed descriptions of what constituted “Other Language Arts” for each of the three studies from 2015-2016 can be found in Appendix C, Table C-2.e Because some studies investigated effects in more than one content area, the percents total more than 100.
Research Participants
The studies in this analysis of 2015-2016 accommodations research included participants in several roles (see Figure 3 and Appendix D). In 2015-2016, a majority of the studies included only students—42 of the 58 studies (74%). The next largest participant group studied (14% of the studies) was “educators only.” This refers to studies that described or analyzed the educator perspective on accommodations. Both educators and students were included in one study. The other participant category, which was included in the report on accommodations research in 2013-2014 (Rogers et al., 2016), was “educators, parents, and students.” None of the studies from 2015-2016 were in this group. Seven studies did not draw data from research participants.
10 NCEO
Figure 3. Types of Research Participants (n=51)
14
Figure 3. Types of Research Participants (n=51)
1
8
42
Educators & Students
Educators only
Students only
Part
icip
ant T
ype
Number of Studies
Table 6 details the composition and size of the student participant groups in the research stud-ies published during 2015 and 2016. This information is displayed in more detail by study in Appendix D. The size of the participant groups varied from 2 (Timmerman & Mulvihill, 2015) to 52,484 (Seo & De Jong, 2015). The studies in 2015-2016 were mostly about student partici-pant samples that only had disabilities (26 studies) or did not have disabilities (5 studies). Only one study (Miller, Lewandowski, & Antshel, 2015) compared groups of students with an equal number of students with and without disabilities (n=38); only one other study (Couzens et al., 2015) had very similar proportions of both groups in the 15 participants. In addition, the number of studies in which there were more students without disabilities (n=15) was lower than the number of studies in which there were more students with disabilities (n=27). The number of studies in which there were more participants without disabilities decreased (n=15) since the last report (Rogers et al., 2016).
11NCEO
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 6 0 710-24 0 1 0 6 0 725-49 0 2 0 1 0 350-99 2 1 1 0 0 4100-249 2 1 0 2 0 5249-999 1 0 0 4 0 51000-4999 0 0 0 4 0 45000 or more 4 1 0 2 1 8Unavailable 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 10 6 1 25 1 43
School Level Data
Similar to the previous report on accommodations research (Rogers et al., 2016), research during 2015-2016 involved kindergarten through postsecondary participants (see Table 7). See Appen-dix D for more detail. Postsecondary refers to both university students and other participants in postsecondary settings. For example, Spenceley and Wheeler (2016) investigated the use of extended time during course exams at the postsecondary level. The largest number of studies published in 2015 and 2016 focused on postsecondary students (n=22; 38%), and the second most frequently-studied school level was middle school (n=14; 24%). The proportion of studies at the elementary school (n=10; 17%) and high school (n=8; 14%) levels were almost equal. Ten studies (17%) included students in more than one grade-level cluster—most commonly stu-dents from across middle school and high school (Cawthon, Leppo, Ge, & Bond, 2015; Davis, Orr, Kong, & Lin, 2015; Joakim, 2015; Rosenblum & Herzberg, 2015; Seo & De Jong, 2015).
Table 7. School Level of Research Participants
Education Level of Participants in Studies Number of Studiesa Percent of Studiesa
Elementary school (K-5) 10 17%Middle school (6-8) 14 24%High school (9-12) 8 14%Postsecondary 22 38%No age 8 14%Not applicable 7 12%
a Ten studies (17%) had participants in more than one education level; therefore, the numbers total more than the 58 studies represented, and percents total more than 100.
12 NCEO
Disability Categories
The accommodations research in 2015-2016 addressed a broad range of disability categories (see Appendix D for details). As shown in Table 8, four studies did not specify any disability categories for the student participants, and 14 studies did not include students in the sample. Of the remaining 40 studies, the most commonly studied student disability category was learning disabilities (n=30); five of these studies had only participants with learning disabilities, and four more compared students with learning disabilities to students without disabilities.
About one-third of the studies included students with attentional difficulties (n=20). The rel-evant studies also included students with emotional behavioral disabilities (n=15), students with “multiple disabilities” (n=13), students with physical disabilities (n=12), students with autism-related disabilities (n=11), and students with blindness or visual disabilities (n=9). About one-tenth included students with deafness or hearing impairments (n=6), students with speech/language impairments (n=6), or students with intellectual disabilities (n=5). No studies specifi-cally mentioned students with traumatic brain injuries. A little over one-fourth of these studies included students without disabilities as comparison groups (n=15). 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.
Table 8. Disabilities Reported for Research Participants
Disabilities of Research Participants Number of Studiesa Percent of Studiesa
Learning disabilities 30 52%Attention problem 20 34%Emotional behavioral disability 15 26%Multiple disabilities 13 22%Physical disability 12 21%Autism 11 19%Blindness/Visual impairment 9 16%Deafness/Hearing impairment 6 10%Speech/Language 6 10%Intellectual disabilities 5 9%Traumatic brain injury 0 0%No disability 15 26%Not specified 4 7%Not applicable 14 24%
a Several studies had participants who fell into various disability categories; therefore, the numbers in this figure total more than the 58 studies represented, and percents total more than 100.
13NCEO
Types of Accommodations
The number of times specific categories of accommodations were included in 2015-2016 pub-lished research is summarized in Table 9. Presentation and timing/scheduling accommodations were the most frequently studied categories, each with 22 studies. Within the presentation ac-commodations category, the most common accommodation was oral delivery/read aloud—in-cluding human reader and various technology approaches (e.g., text-to-speech). Extended time was examined in all 22 of the studies that included the scheduling accommodations category. Several studies (n = 25) analyzed accommodations from more than one category. Of those, three studies (Cawthon et al., 2015; Kettler, 2015; Lin & Lin, 2016) included accommodations from each of the five accommodations categories. A complete listing of accommodations examined in each study is provided in Appendix E (Tables E-1 through E-5).
Table 9. Accommodations in Reviewed Research
Accommodations Category
Number of Studiesa
Presentation 22Equipment/Materials 13Response 14Timing/Scheduling 22Setting 21
a Several studies investigated accommodations that fit into more than one category; therefore, the numbers in this figure total more than the 58 studies represented
Research Findings
The findings of the studies on accommodations published in 2015 and 2016 are summarized according to the nature of the studies. These findings were consistent with their various stated purposes and focuses. The findings included sets of research about specific accommodations: oral delivery, extended-time, separate setting, and aggregated sets of accommodations commonly called “bundles.” We also report the findings on impact of unique accommodations—those examined in only one study—including familiar administrator, pacing support, signed admin-istration, tactile graphics, calculator, marking answers in test booklet, word processing, taking breaks during testing, individual administration, and small group administration. We report on accounts of perceptions about accommodations, including those of student test-takers as well as educators. We summarize the findings of the accommodations, and describe a range of imple-mentation 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 15 in past reports, to 30 studies in this report, are given separate attention. This report also presents findings by academic content areas: math, reading, science, social studies, and writing. In Appendix F, we provide substantial detail about individual studies.
14 NCEO
Impact of Accommodations
Research examining the effects of accommodations on assessment performance for students with disabilities comprised 23 studies published in 2015 and 2016 (see Figure 4; see also Appendix F for details about each study of this type). We report the effects of these four discrete accom-modations—extended time, oral delivery, computer administration, and separate/specialized setting—along with a list of aggregated accommodations and uncommon accommodations.
Figure 4. Effects of Specific Accommodations (n=23)
Note. Four studies examined the separate impacts of several accommodations; one study examined the effects of accommodations in general, but did not specify comparisons of individual accommodations with one another; one study reported findings on the impact of modifications as well as an accommodation (extended time).
The most investigated accommodation in 2015-2016 was extended time—provided either as 1.5 or 2 times the standard time provided for testing, unlimited time, or unspecified extended time amount—which was investigated in six studies. Students in grades K through 12 (Cahan et al., 2016; Joakim, 2015; Ohleyer, 2016; Südkamp, Pohl, & Weinert, 2015) and postsecondary stu-dents (Lovett & Leja, 2015; Miller et al., 2015) were engaged in investigations about the impact of this accommodation on academic performance. Four studies (Cahan et al., 2016; Südkamp et
19
Figure 4. Effects of Specific Accommodations (n=23)
Note. Four studies examined the separate impacts of several accommodations; one study examined the effects of accommodations in general, but did not specify comparisons of individual accommodations with one another; one study reported findings on the impact of modifications as well as an accommodation (extended time).
6
4
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Extended time
Oral delivery
Computer administration
Specialized setting
Aggregated set
Breaks
Calculator
Familiar administrator
Individual
Mark answer in test booklet
Pacing support
Signed administration
Small group
Tactile graphics
Word processorNumber of Studies
Spec
ific
Acc
omm
odat
ions
15NCEO
al., 2015; Lovett & Leja, 2015; Miller et al., 2015) compared the performance of students with specific disabilities and their peers without disabilities. In contrast, Joakim (2015) examined a large extant data set of students with various disabilities, and discerned the separate impacts of a number of different accommodations, including extended time. Ohleyer (2016) analyzed data longitudinally for students with learning disabilities only. In sum, five studies provided findings about the impact of extended time on students’ performance in either reading (Lovett & Leja, 2015; Miller et al., 2015; Südkamp et al., 2015), or in writing (Joakim, 2015; Ohleyer, 2016); in addition, there was a separate meta-analysis (Cahan et al., 2016) of the impact of extended time on assessment performance in various academic content areas.
For the studies with students at the K-12 level, extended time did not affect writing score re-sults for students with various disabilities in grades 5 and 8 (Joakim, 2015) or for students with learning disabilities in grades 4, 5, and 6 (Ohleyer, 2016). Grade 5 students with disabilities completed more items when presented with fewer test items in the same time period (Südkamp et al., 2015). However, differential item functioning analysis yielded that the impact of extended time was complicated by potential validity concerns; that is, several items functioned signifi-cantly differently for students with disabilities on all test versions, while there were no items of concern for low-performing students without disabilities. Examining impact of extended time on 17 tests in 11 studies, Cahan and colleagues (2016) concluded that there was a low correlation between gain scores and students’ learning disability status for most of the studies. Further, they argued that some students without disabilities benefited from extended time, and indicated that non-timed tests would be a better approach so that students needing additional time, whether having disabilities or not, could have access to it.
For postsecondary students with disabilities, there were more complex and mixed findings. Lovett and Leja (2015) found that extended time also did not affect reading results across all postsecondary students with attentional or executive functioning difficulties, and that postsec-ondary students with more ADHD symptoms or more executive functioning difficulties showed significantly less benefit from extended time. Miller and colleagues (2015) indicated that students with attentional difficulties performed similarly—in terms of attempting similar numbers of items and scoring correctly on similar numbers of items—as one another within each testing time condition. Further, both students with and without disabilities performed worse with standard time, better with 150% time, and best with 200% time (Miller et al., 2015).
Four studies (Kim, 2016; McMahon, Wright, Cihak, Moore, & Lamb, 2016; Ohleyer, 2016; Ricci, 2015) provided findings about the oral delivery accommodation. For clarity in this report, as in previous reports (Rogers et al., 2014; Rogers et al., 2016), we used the term “oral delivery” to encompass in-person read-aloud as well as voice recordings and text-reading software or text-to-speech devices. Two studies (Kim, 2016; Ohleyer, 2016) reported on the impact of in-person oral delivery (“read-aloud”) and directions only read aloud, and three studies reported on the
16 NCEO
impact of voice recording (Kim, 2016; McMahon et al., 2016) or text-to-speech tools (Ricci, 2015). Indeed, a focus of two of these studies was comparing the impact of human voice, live versus recorded (Kim, 2016), or directions only or entire test read aloud versus assistive technol-ogy (AT) communication device (Ohleyer, 2016). To be clear, Ohleyer (2016) compared writing assessment performance between common accommodations—extended time, directions (only) read aloud, oral script, and no accommodation—and assistive technology communication device, in terms of the manner by which the test-takers communicated their responses for the writing assessment, including but not limited to a speech-to-text device due to a coding complication. Two studies (Kim, 2016; McMahon et al., 2016) had comparison groups of students without disabilities, while one study (Ohleyer, 2016) engaged only students with learning disabilities across grade levels, and Ricci (2015) completed a post hoc data analysis for students with vari-ous disabilities using oral delivery versus other accommodations in general. All four studies included students in grades between kindergarten and grade 6. Two studies (Kim, 2016; Ricci, 2015) examined the impact of oral delivery on reading test performance, noting that directions and items were delivered orally, but that reading passage text segments were not.
Kim (2016) found that kindergarten and grade 2 students scored better in comprehension with in-person versus recorded oral delivery, and grade 4 students scored the same in comprehen-sion in both oral delivery conditions; also, students in all grade levels had retell quality scores that were essentially the same with in-person versus recorded oral delivery. McMahon and colleagues (2016) found that all grade 6 students scored significantly better in the oral delivery conditions than without accommodations, yet they did not score differently between the in-person and video podcast-delivered science assessment. Mean score comparisons of students with disabilities versus students with reading difficulties (but without disabilities) indicated that students without disabilities scored significantly higher in the unaccommodated and in-person oral delivery conditions than their peers with disabilities, yet not significantly higher when completing the podcast-delivered science test. Ohleyer (2016) found that students with learning disabilities in grades 4, 5, and 6 performed better on writing assessments when using read-aloud directions only and when using assistive technology versus using no accommodations, and scored not significantly differently when receiving oral delivery of the complete assessment. Further, students who used assistive technology across more than one year scored significantly better than those who had not. Ricci (2015) found that grade 4 students with disabilities who received text-to-speech delivered by computer scored lower in reading comprehension than students with disabilities receiving other accommodations but not text-to-speech; effect sizes in the three states ranged from medium to very large.
Two studies (Eberhart, 2015; Seo & De Jong, 2015) investigated impacts of computer-admin-istered testing, analyzing population data from all students (both with and without disabilities) together to detect possible different effects based on assessment format. Seo and De Jong (2015) compared traditional paper-based grade 6 and 9 social studies testing to the tests presented via
17NCEO
computer, finding no significant differences in scores by these testing formats. Eberhart (2015) compared performance on grade 7 math and language arts assessments, when administered on computers and on tablets; also, she compared items with technological enhancements to tradi-tional multiple-choice items. The findings were complex: on average, students scored statistically higher on computer than on tablet; further, students answered multiple-choice questions more successfully on computer than tablet, but there were no significant performance differences by device for the technologically-enhanced items.
Two studies examined the impact of the separate setting accommodation (Lewandowski et al., 2016; Lin et al., 2016). The findings were generally consistent with one another. Lewandowski and colleagues (2016) reported that students without disabilities scored significantly better in reading with the standard group setting rather than the separate individual setting. Lin and colleagues (2016), in their post-hoc analysis study comparing scores of students with learning disabilities and students without disabilities—with some of each student group taking the test in a standard classroom setting and some completing it in a separate setting—found that students with dis-abilities using the setting accommodation had the lowest group mean scores, non-accommodated students with disabilities had the next-lowest mean scores, and the non-accommodated students without disabilities scored highest, higher than accommodated students without disabilities. Further, applying multilevel measurement modeling, Lin and colleagues found no individual item effects for the two groups of students with disabilities, and non-accommodated students with LD evidenced lower item difficulty than accommodated students with LD.
Four studies (Giusto, 2015; Lin & Lin, 2016; Rudzki, 2015; Spiel et al., 2016) reported the impact of aggregated sets, or bundles, of accommodations. Mentioned previously as reporting impact findings for pacing-only support, Giusto (2015) also compared the impact of both oral delivery and pacing guidance by the test administrator, finding that this combination of supports benefited students with reading disabilities more than the pacing-only and unaccommodated testing conditions. In contrast, students without disabilities did not score significantly differently across these conditions. Lin and Lin (2016) analyzed literacy test data using an odds ratio ap-proach, and found that the groups of students with disabilities who naturalistically received—in accordance to their IEPs—combinations of certain accommodations performed better than students with disabilities receiving either other accommodations or no accommodations. The bundles included computer administration along with extended time, or specialized setting, or both extended time and specialized setting. Students with learning disabilities benefited most from these three sets of accommodations. Rudzki (2015) found that elementary and middle school students with reading disabilities naturalistically using combinations of extended time, small group administration, and separate setting did not differentially benefit from these accom-modation sets; in fact, she noted that none of the students’ scores were at the proficient level. Spiel and colleagues (2016) indicated that in-person oral delivery and small group together benefited the mean science score of students with attention-related disabilities, in comparison
18 NCEO
to the unaccommodated test condition; also, individual student data analyses indicated that only one student with attentional difficulties scored higher without accommodations. In comparison, individual students without attention-related disabilities had mixed results: about half of them benefited from the accommodated condition, and the other half scored lower with the accommo-dation set than without it. Further analyses to detect differential accommodation benefit yielded that students—both with and without ADHD—who tended to score low in science benefited from this aggregated set in comparison to students with average or above scores; students with ADHD did not differentially benefit from oral delivery in small groups.
We identified separate reportable findings on the impact of 10 unique accommodations—that is, accommodations that were the focus of just one study during the two years included in this report. These unique accommodations yielded a variety of effects results. In one study (Joakim, 2015) reporting separate effects for several unique accommodations, no specific accommoda-tion—such as breaks—benefited either grade 5 or grade 8 students with disabilities, and some student groups scored higher in writing without specific accommodations—such as familiar administrator, individual, and small group—than when using them.
Two other unique accommodations benefited students with disabilities, both in terms of their completing more test items and in answering more test items correctly. Bouck and colleagues (2015) found that middle school students with various disabilities performed better on math computation and word problems when using a graphing calculator accommodation; grade 7 students had a small effect, and grade 8 students had a small to moderate effect. Potter, Lewan-dowski, and Spenceley (2016) reported that postsecondary students with learning disabilities or attention-related disabilities, or both, performed better on reading testing when marking their answers in test booklets than when answering on separate bubble-sheets. Another study (Hig-gins et al., 2016), comparing math performance with and without American Sign Language (ASL) accommodations, yielded that students who were deaf scored on average consistently and significantly higher when using the accommodations, at elementary, middle, and high school levels. Closer analyses of student performance in the items comparing differing ASL condi-tions (such as finger-spelled only vs. finger-spelled and signed) indicated non-significant score differences; that is, the ways that ASL was presented were less impactful. In the pacing-only support, Giusto (2015) reported on the comparative impact of the test administrator providing guidance throughout the assessment sections, but without also reading the test aloud. When only receiving pacing support, students with reading-related disability scored very similarly to not receiving accommodations, and students without disabilities scored no differently across all the accommodated and non-accommodated conditions.
In summary, of the 10 unique accommodations, three indicated benefits for at least some stu-dents with disabilities, two indicated no benefits for students with disabilities, and three indi-cated negative impacts for students with disabilities. The remaining studies (Davis et al., 2015;
19NCEO
Rosenblum & Herzberg, 2015) on unique accommodations compared versions of accommodated conditions only, not including an unaccommodated condition. Davis and colleagues (2015) indicated that students without disabilities (only) performed no differently when composing writing test answers by typing on an external keyboard with a laptop computer versus a touch-screen keyboard on an electronic tablet. Examining the impact of four different tactile graphics conditions of information for math and science test items for students with visual impairments, Rosenblum and Herzberg (2015) found complex impacts, noting that there were some better tactile formats for students to answer correctly. For instance, the largest number of middle and high school participants answered correctly when using the microcapsule map, and the fewest answered correctly when seeking information from a collage picture using hot glue and braille labels; also, an embossed bar graph was confusing such that at least some students could not answer questions, unrelated to the items’ difficulty level.
Perceptions about Accommodations
Figure 5 displays the data for the 26 studies on perceptions about accommodations. More than two-thirds of them (n=19) provided findings about student perceptions only, while less than one-quarter (n=6) provided findings about educator perceptions only, and two studies (Couzens et al., 2015; Crosby, 2015) reported on accommodations perceptions from both students and educators.
Figure 5. Accommodations Perceptions (n=27)
25
Figure 5. Accommodations Perceptions (n=27)
2
6
19
Students and Educators
Educators only
Students only
Number of Studies
Stud
y Pa
rtic
ipan
ts
20 NCEO
In seven of the 19 studies on student perceptions (only), researchers found that students had favorable impressions about specific accommodations—such as speech recognition tools (Nelson & Reynolds, 2015; Weis et al., 2016), and tactile graphics (Hansen et al., 2016)—or accom-modations overall (Kafle, 2015; Ruhkamp, 2015; Timmerman & Mulvihill, 2015; Williams, 2015). Students preferred online testing (70%) over paper-based testing (10%), with 20% of students having no preference (Seo & De Jong, 2015). Six studies yielded students’ preferences related to the features of accommodations (Davis et al., 2015; Eberhart, 2015; Hansen et al., 2016; Higgins et al., 2016; Rosenblum & Herzberg, 2015; Williams, 2015). One of these studies (Rosenblum & Herzberg, 2015) found that nearly all participants indicated that they were not asked by educators for their input on the design of tactile graphics.
In five of the 19 studies, the connections between students’ perceptions and their use of ac-commodations were reported. Students in Cole and Cawthon’s (2015) study were less likely to disclose about their disabilities and seek accommodations when they had more negative views about seeking accommodations and more negative associations with their disabilities. These findings were corroborated by other researchers who found that students were less likely to seek accommodations when they had feelings of guilt and shame around seeking accommodations (Ruhkamp, 2015) and doubts about the quality and usefulness of disability services offices (Ly-man et al., 2016). On the other hand, Monagle (2015) found that students were more willing to use accommodations when they had more positive attitudes toward them.
Researchers also reported on students’ reasons for seeking accommodations (Ofiesh, Moniz, & Bisagno, 2015; Ruhkamp, 2015). Two studies uncovered postsecondary students’ views of how staff members might perceive accommodations and students with disabilities. In the study by Yssel, Pak, and Beilke (2016), students reported they perceived that faculty members—even those who students perceived were unfamiliar with certain disabilities—were positive and willing to provide accommodations. In contrast, students in Zambrano’s (2016) study shared that they perceived that faculty members had limited understanding of students with disabilities, which contributed to insufficient institutional communication about accessibility and accommodations information. Last, Lovett and Leja (2015) found that students with more difficulties related to ADHD or executive functioning perceived that they needed extended time to a significant degree.
Findings from the six studies on educator perceptions (only) pertained to training and pre-paredness related to accommodations and their attitudes toward accommodations. First, five of the six studies provided educators’ comments about preparedness (Ajuwon, Meeks, Griffin-Shirley, & Okungu, 2016; DePountis, Pogrund, Griffin-Shirley, & Lan, 2015; Detrick-Grove, 2016; Gallego & Busch, 2015; Sokal, 2016). Educators in these studies reported that they felt that staff needed more access to assistive technology training (Ajuwon et al., 2016; Gallego & Busch, 2015) and that their employers prepared them to provide accommodations for students with disabilities more than their academic training programs (Detrick-Grove, 2016). Research-
21NCEO
ers of two studies highlighted educators’ own assistive technology proficiency (Ajuwon et al., 2016; DePountis et al., 2015).
In three of the six studies, researchers examined educators’ attitudes toward accommodations. Two studies indicated that educators had positive attitudes toward accommodations, and that teachers tended to report that low-tech accommodations—such as reading directions and read-ing test questions out loud—were more beneficial for students than more high-tech options (Detrick-Grove, 2016; DePountis et al., 2015). Professors and disability services personnel in Sokal’s (2016) study had different feelings about accommodations for students with anxiety disorders, demonstrating the tension between accommodating the needs of students and sup-porting the development of students’ coping skills. In the last study (Lawing, 2015), teachers identified important classroom-level factors that influence the identification of instructional accommodations, which may apply to assessment accommodations as well. Teachers’ most common answers included students’ present levels of functioning, evidence of successful accom-modations, and the subject matter being taught or tested. Lawing (2015) also stated “Teachers with the most positive attitude toward inclusion used a systematic approach to accommodation selection” (p. 175).
Researchers investigated the perceptions of both students and educators in two studies. In the first study (Couzens et al., 2015), student participants reported various degrees of value about the writing supports available, with some indicating that these were very valuable and others indicating that they were not. Most students also shared that they have not used disability service supports “because they perceived [the services] to be for students with greater needs” (Couzens et al., 2015, p. 35). University personnel participants in this study commented that many students who could benefit from supportive services had not sought them and that staff would have to encourage students to do so. Staff members also noted that resources were not always available for students to explore potentially helpful assistive technologies with which they were not already familiar. In the second study, Crosby (2015) interviewed postsecondary faculty and students about their institution’s social context and culture regarding inclusion practices and perceptions of disability. The researcher remarked that faculty members demonstrated in their responses some misconceptions about disability, particularly around the likelihood of student success and knowledge about laws and policies about accommodating students. Additionally, about 15% of faculty members reported that they were uncomfortable teaching students with disabilities. The postsecondary students with disabilities in this study indicated that the challenges they faced were influenced by the relevance of their disabilities to their identities, in that self-perceptions of normality or abnormality were associated with their degrees of willingness to disclose their needs for academic assistance. Furthermore, when viewing disability as a negative attribute, students tended to mentally calculate the balance of the social costs of their having disabilities with the benefits of accessing academic supports. The researcher offered some suggestions for supporting students with disabilities in postsecondary education.
22 NCEO
Implementation and Use of Accommodations
The researchers from 14 studies reported findings related to accommodations use, as well as implementation issues. In twelve studies (Barnhill, 2016; Cawthon et al., 2015; Davis et al., 2015; DePountis et al., 2015; Kim & Lee, 2016; Monagle, 2015; Newman & Madaus, 2015a; Newman & Madaus, 2015b; Ohleyer, 2016; Ricci, 2015; Spenceley & Wheeler, 2016; Weis et al., 2016), researchers described patterns of accommodations use. Of those, four studies (Davis et al., 2015; DePountis et al., 2015; Ohleyer, 2016; Ricci, 2015) reported on accommodations use at the primary and secondary levels; the remaining nine studies pertained to accommodations use at the postsecondary level. Two studies (Lawing, 2015; Peterson, 2016) did not yield use patterns, yet the researchers provided details about implementation processes and difficulties, and offered insights about decision-making matters; Lawing (2015) investigated these matters in K-12 education, and Peterson (2016) studied implementation in the postsecondary setting. Lawing concluded that teachers with favorable attitudes toward inclusion were more systematic in their approach, and that accommodations selection did not appear to be influenced by stu-dents’ future postsecondary activities. Peterson found that postsecondary personnel indicated students often did not have opportunity to explore available supports and consequently, did not seek them out.
Accommodations use patterns were reported for specific accommodations during large-scale assessments in grades 3 through 12. Middle and high school students used keyboards and handwriting on paper for writing tests interchangeably and with similar frequency, and typi-cally did not use tablets with touchscreens at school, more commonly using laptop computers with standard keyboards (Davis et al., 2015). Educators of high school students who were blind reported on many electronic assistive technology devices and software used during math assess-ments, including various calculators with speech-to-text capabilities, braillewriters, refreshable braille displays, and physical manipulative tools (DePountis et al., 2015). Extant data sets of grade 4 students provided information about incidence of text-to-speech oral delivery of read-ing assessments (Ricci, 2015).
Researchers related information about accommodations use patterns at the postsecondary level (Barnhill, 2016; Kim & Lee, 2016; Monagle, 2015; Newman & Madaus, 2015a; Newman & Madaus, 2015b; Spenceley & Wheeler, 2016; Weis et al., 2016). Extended time accommodations use patterns were described in five studies (Barnhill, 2016; Cawthon et al., 2015; Kim & Lee, 2016; Spenceley & Wheeler, 2016; Weis et al., 2016); three of these studies also presented data on use of separate setting (Barnhill, 2016; Kim & Lee, 2016; Weis et al, 2016). Extended time and separate exam site were the most common accommodations reported throughout these stud-ies. For example, Kim and Lee (2016) indicated that 75% of students with disabilities requested extended time, and Weis and colleagues (2016) reported that 27 percent of students with learning disabilities completed their exams in a separate room. Spenceley and Wheeler (2016) reported
23NCEO
that many students with various disabilities requested extended exam time, yet that about 55 percent did not end up using the additional time. They distinguished the disability categories of the students who typically used extended time: students with ADHD, autism, physical, and multiple disabilities. Weis et al. also indicated accommodations use patterns for several other accommodations, including taking breaks during exams (less than 10% of participants), and using technological aids (70% of participants)—including calculator, word processor, spell checker, speech-to-text, text-to-speech, reader, dictionary or thesaurus, outlining, and breaks. Three studies previously cited also provided findings detailing use patterns according to stu-dents’ disability categories: autism/Asperger Syndrome (Barnhill, 2016); hearing impairments (Cawthon et al., 2015); and visual, medical, learning, ADHD, autism, and multiple disabilities (Weis et al., 2016), and all of these disability types (Spenceley & Wheeler, 2016).
Two studies’ findings detailed patterns of unspecified accommodations (Monagle, 2015; New-man & Madaus, 2015a). Monagle (2015) found that various factors were associated with varying numbers of accommodations used: students most likely to use accommodations included those in their second or third year of college, those with multiple disabilities, those with majors in the liberal arts or humanities areas, and those with positive attitudes toward accommodations. Newman and Madaus (2015a; 2015b) reported incidence of accommodations use among vari-ous types of postsecondary programs, as well as differences by disability categories. These researchers calculated odds ratios and found that students in two-year and career and technical programs whose transition plans specified accommodations needed in postsecondary educa-tion were more likely to receive them. Students with apparent and observable disabilities more commonly received accommodations than students with less-visible disabilities, particularly at two-year and four-year institutions. (See Appendix F for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)
Validity
The topic of validity was addressed in the findings of four studies (Kettler, 2015; Lane & Leventhal, 2015; Potter et al., 2016; Südkamp et al., 2015). Two studies (Potter et al., 2016; Südkamp et al., 2015) included in their stated research purposes the analyses of construct validity for the assessments at the center of their investigations. Potter and colleagues (2016) reported findings about whether the response format—that is, answering items in a test booklet versus on a separate bubble sheet—affected the construct validity of the reading test. These researchers indicated that there was no differential benefit for students with disabilities using this response accommodation, and that students without disabilities also preferred answering in the test booklet. Further, they reported that the scores in the different response formats were significantly different from one another for the students with and without disabilities. Specifi-cally, students with disabilities answering in test booklets scored higher as a group than students without disabilities answering in the bubble sheet format, concluding that it is not certain that
24 NCEO
this response format change did not affect the test construct. They argued in favor of course exams being provided for all students to circle their answers in test booklets. Südkamp and col-leagues (2015) reported on comparisons of student scores on two other versions of a reading literacy test, as well as the standard version. They used a differential item functioning analysis and found that low-performing students without disabilities did not evidence any unusual scoring patterns; however, for scores of students with disabilities, they found variances in several items, suggesting construct-irrelevant variance. They concluded that the changes to the test introduced problems in test fairness for all students.
Two literature reviews (Kettler, 2015; Lane & Leventhal, 2015) offered findings that provide insight into the validity of academic assessments as influenced or not influenced by accommo-dations. Examining 30 studies’ findings for oral delivery, 24 studies for extended time, and 15 for aggregated sets of accommodations, Kettler (2015) highlighted findings about accommoda-tions’ validity concerns. He noted that four of the 30 studies indicated that oral delivery did not invalidate tested content, including that only a few items on one reading comprehension test were affected by oral delivery. He also mentioned that one of the 15 studies on accommodations bundles analyzed factor structures and indicated that the IEP-developed set of accommodations did not invalidate the ELA test construct, yet cautioned that accommodations within sets might have unexpected interactions with one another. Lane and Leventhal (2015) examined 11 stud-ies for the possibility of accommodations’ differential boost for students with disabilities, and reported evidence from four studies. They discussed construct-irrelevant variance and described the application of differential item functioning and other analysis procedures to ascertain whether accommodations have different effects than intended based on student characteristics. These researchers also discussed studies using designs such as factor analyses to examine internal test structure. (See Appendix F for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)
Accommodations in Postsecondary Education
Thirty studies reported findings about accommodations at the postsecondary education level. Researchers reported findings on students with disabilities’ perceptions, preferences, and experi-ences using accommodations at the postsecondary level (from 13 studies); educators’ percep-tions about accommodations (from 3 studies); accommodation use patterns (from 8 studies); effects of accommodations on test performance (from 4 studies); three studies each reported findings in two of these areas. Four studies were literature reviews describing accommodations issues in postsecondary education, including one study (Cahan et al., 2016) that also reviewed research at the K-12 level. Of the 26 studies that were not literature reviews, 21 reported find-ings involving only student participants, four studies involved only educator participants, and one study (Crosby, 2015) had participants who were students and educators.
25NCEO
Fifteen studies provided findings on perceptions in postsecondary education; 12 reported only on students’ perceptions, while two reported only on educators’ perceptions. One study (Crosby, 2015) reported on the perceptions of both students and educators. The findings of the 12 studies (Cole & Cawthon, 2015; Couzens et al., 2015; Kafle, 2015; Lovett & Leja, 2015; Lyman et al., 2016; Monagle, 2015; Nelson & Reynolds, 2015; Ofiesh et al., 2015; Ruhkamp, 2015; Timmer-man & Mulvihill, 2015; Yssel et al., 2016; Zambrano, 2016) provided insights about students’ experiences with and outlooks about accommodations. In several studies, researchers’ qualitative data through interviews (Cole & Cawthon, 2015; Couzens et al., 2015; Kafle, 2015; Lyman et al., 2016; Nelson & Reynolds, 2015; Ofiesh et al., 2015; Timmerman & Mulvihill, 2015; Ys-sel et al., 2016; Zambrano, 2016) or quantitative data through surveys (Lovett & Leja, 2015; Monagle, 2015; Ruhkamp, 2015) provided insights about students’ accessing accommodations. The researchers described various factors, including students’ perspectives about themselves as learners, and these factors’ influence on students’ decisions to seek or not seek accommodations for use during course exams. Students lacked familiarity with the process of seeking accom-modations at postsecondary institutions, including disability services and resources (Cole & Cawthon, 2016; Kafle, 2015; Lyman et al., 2016). Students reported their self-consciousness about receiving accommodations due to concerns about reactions of their peers without dis-abilities (Cole & Cawthon, 2015; Kafle, 2015; Lyman et al., 2016; Timmerman & Mulvihill, 2015), yet also recognized that their peers without disabilities might lack understanding about their challenges (Zambrano, 2016). Students were also concerned about whether their profes-sors will be understanding about students’ challenges (Cole & Cawthon, 2015; Kafle, 2015; Lyman et al., 2016; Zambrano, 2016), yet students also indicated that professors were positive and willing to provide accommodations (Yssel et al., 2016). Another factor highlighted by some researchers was students’ self-determination and self-advocacy development (Cole & Cawthon, 2015; Yssel et al., 2016). Students also faced their own desires for self-sufficiency, hoping not to need accommodations at the postsecondary level (Lyman et al., 2016), and also did not seek support due to a sense that they did not need them as much as other students with more challeng-ing disabilities (Couzens et al., 2015). Some studies described students’ perceptions of specific accommodations, such as speech recognition tools for writing (Nelson & Reynolds, 2015). Ruhkamp (2015) relayed students’ experiences about benefiting from exam accommodations, including gaining a better understanding of exam items and improved performance, as well as increased confidence and comfort, and a decreased sense of pressure. Monagle (2015) described the link between students’ perceptions of and attitudes about accommodations and their actu-ally using accommodations, and reported on demographic and other factors’ associations with accommodations use. Educators’ perceptions were reported in two studies (Gallego & Busch, 2015; Sokal, 2016). Gallego and Busch (2015) described the perceptions of accommodations from disability services office personnel who primarily valued the supports that they could provide yet also sensed that foreign language program directors and their teaching assistants lacked substantial information about accommodations available to students with disabilities.
26 NCEO
After interviewing professors and disability services office personnel, Sokal (2016) described an essential tension between accommodating students’ needs and supporting the development of students’ coping skills, reflected in professors’ concerns about fairness and the philosophy about educational access from disability services offices.
Seven studies (Barnhill, 2016; Kim & Lee, 2016; Monagle, 2015; Newman & Madaus, 2015a; Newman & Madaus, 2015b; Spenceley & Wheeler, 2016; Weis et al., 2016) reported on accom-modation use patterns by postsecondary students. One study (Peterson, 2016) yielded details about implementation processes and difficulties in several postsecondary institutions, reported by disability services professionals. The researcher related resource challenges and uneven fa-miliarity at the postsecondary level about accommodations in general, noting no specific accom-modations. All of these studies indicated only use or implementation findings. Accommodations use patterns were reported according to specific accommodations (Kim & Lee, 2016; Spenceley & Wheeler, 2016; Weis et al., 2016), and they all provided disability category data as well. All three studies reported on extended time use, two studies reported on separate setting use (Kim & Lee, 2016; Weis et al., 2016), and one study reported on oral delivery use (Kim & Lee, 2016). The other four studies (Barnhill, 2016; Monagle, 2015; Newman & Madaus, 2015a; Newman & Madaus, 2015b) presented findings in a different manner. Barnhill (2016) indicated that 29 of the 30 postsecondary institutions where participants were enrolled provided extended time and separate setting accommodations for students with autism spectrum-related disabilities, and some combined one or both of these with oral delivery. As mentioned in the “Implementation and Use” findings, two studies did not provide specific accommodation details (Monagle, 2015; Newman & Madaus, 2015a).
In five studies (Dong & Lucas, 2016; Lewandowski et al., 2015; Lovett & Leja, 2015; Miller et al., 2015; Potter et al., 2016), researchers examined the impact of accommodations on student performance. Two studies (Lovett & Leja, 2015; Miller et al., 2015) provided findings about the impact of extended time. One study (Potter et al., 2016) yielded impact data from partici-pants with learning disabilities, with attention-related disabilities, or with both conditions, who marked their answers in test booklets versus answering on separate bubble-sheets. One study (Lewandowski et al., 2015) compared the performance of students without disabilities testing in a group administration setting with their performance in an individual small testing room. One study (Dong & Lucas, 2016) found impacts on student performance using various unspecified academic accommodations. Four of the five studies (Lewandowski et al., 2015; Lovett & Leja, 2015; Miller et al., 2015; Potter et al., 2016) provided findings about the impact of accommo-dations on postsecondary students’ performance on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test (NDRT; Brown, Fishco, & Hanna, 1993) subtests on vocabulary and comprehension assessment, while one study (Dong & Lucas, 2016) presented longitudinal data on the impact of accessing or not accessing academic accommodations in general and their persistence in postsecondary educa-tion, as indicated by meeting a threshold grade point average (GPA).
27NCEO
Four studies (Cahan et al., 2016; Condra et al., 2015; DeLee, 2015; Zeedyk et al., 2016) re-viewed research literature that discussed accommodations in postsecondary education. Condra and colleagues (2015) investigated the needs and considerations of postsecondary students with mental health-related disabilities, highlighting a dynamic in the nature of these types of dis-abilities: the episodic intensity of the expression of impairments. These researchers indicated that some students with disabilities might need flexibility for implementing accommodations retroactively, based on the timing of the onset of mental health episodes of intensive stress. DeLee (2015) described a prominent conceptualization about accommodations focused to-ward student-centeredness and service provision for students with disabilities. The researcher recounted the challenges of accommodations selection and decision-making processes, due in part to the multiple and sometimes conflicting sources of information about students’ needs. She characterized changes in consideration for students, with an increase in valuing “assistive reading and listening technologies” (p. 45) and exam accommodations, and decreases in reported needs for such resources as recorded lectures. Zeedyk and colleagues (2015) framed considerations for postsecondary students with disabilities in terms of the transition from secondary to higher education. While addressing both social and academic needs, the current summary report pri-oritized these researchers’ reported findings focused on academic accommodations’ use: private testing room and ear plugs for minimizing intense sensory stimuli, as well as extended time for processing delays. Cahan and colleagues (2016) employed meta-analysis in summarizing the impact of extended time for students with learning disabilities; most of their findings applied to students in K-12 education, but they identified at least one study about postsecondary students [cf., Ranseen & Harris, 2005]. (See Appendix F 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 each of the studies for which a content area was identified. 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: 12 studies in reading, 9 studies in mathematics, 4 studies in science, 4 studies in writing, 2 studies in other language arts, and 1 study in social studies (see Figure 6). For each content area, we examined the impact of accommodations on assessment performance, perceptions about accommodations, construct validity of accommo-dated assessments, and implementation and use of accommodations. (See Appendix F for more detailed explanation of findings of each study.)
28 NCEO
Figure 6. Findings by Content Areas (n=27)Figure 6. Findings by Content Areas (n=27)
1
1
3
1
1
3
4
4
9
Math and Other Language Arts
Math and Science
Math and Reading
Other Language Arts only
Social Studies
Science only
Writing only
Mathematics only
Reading only
Number of Studies
Con
tent
Are
as
Reading. The findings of the 12 studies in reading included those from nine studies in reading only (Giusto, 2015; Kim, 2016; Lewandowski et al., 2015; Lovett & Leja, 2015; Miller et al., 2015; Potter et al., 2016; Ricci, 2015; Rudzki, 2015; Südkamp et al., 2015) and those from three studies in reading and math (Cahan et al., 2016; Lin et al., 2016; Williams, 2015). The eleven impact studies analyzed effects on reading performance by relatively few specific accommoda-tions: four studies (Cahan et al., 2016; Lovett & Leja, 2015; Miller et al., 2015; Südkamp et al., 2015) examined extended time, two studies (Kim, 2016; Ricci, 2015) examined oral delivery, two studies (Lewandowski et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2016) focused on separate setting, and differ-ent aggregated sets of accommodations were investigated by two studies (Giusto, 2015; Rudzki, 2015). One study (Potter et al., 2016) inquired about the impact of marking in individual test booklets, in comparison with answering on a separate bubble-type sheet.
Eight of the 11 studies on accommodations effects included a comparison group of students without disabilities. The remaining effects studies included two with only participants with disabilities (Ricci, 2015; Rudzki, 2015), and one with only participants without disabilities (Lewandowski et al., 2015).
Four studies engaged in other areas of investigation about accommodations. In addition to examining effects, Ricci (2015) also reported findings about oral delivery accommodation use patterns by grade 4 students with various unspecified disabilities. Lovett and Leja (2015) also reported findings about the perceptions of postsecondary students with disabilities. Potter and colleagues (2016) also reported on the construct validity issues around a response-related ac-commodation. Williams (2015) reported only about the perceptions of grade 8 students with disabilities (without examining the effects of accommodations).
29NCEO
Accommodations benefited the reading performance of at least some students with disabilities in two studies (Giusto, 2015; Potter et al., 2016) out of the 11 studies investigating impact on reading. Giusto (2015) found that an aggregated set of accommodations, oral delivery and pac-ing guidance by the test administrator, benefited students with reading disabilities more than the pacing-only and unaccommodated testing conditions; further, students without disabilities did not score significantly differently across these conditions. Potter and colleagues (2016) reported that postsecondary students with learning disabilities and/or attention-related disabili-ties performed better on reading tests when marking their answers in test booklets than when answering on separate bubble-sheets. They also indicated that this accommodation might affect the reading vocabulary construct.
In contrast, most of the impact studies yielded no particular benefits for students with disabili-ties, especially in consideration of the accommodations’ impact on performance of students without disabilities. In one meta-analysis (Cahan et al., 2016) the impact of extended time on performance in 17 tests in 11 studies was investigated. The authors concluded that the correla-tion was not particularly strong for students with learning disabilities using this accommodation and their improvements in reading scores.
Kim (2016) found that some participants performed better in reading comprehension when using in-person, rather than recorded, oral delivery, while other participants performed simi-larly with these two versions of the oral delivery accommodation. All participants performed similarly in retell quality between these accommodation conditions. This study did not have an unaccommodated reading test condition. Lin and colleagues (2016) indicated that students with disabilities had lower reading scores during testing in a separate setting than in the typical classroom setting.
Lewandowski and colleagues (2015) reported that all participants—postsecondary students without disabilities—scored significantly better in reading with the standard group setting rather than the separate individual setting. Lovett and Leja (2015) found that reading performance was not improved with extended time for postsecondary students with attentional or executive functioning difficulties; in fact, students with more intensive impairments showed significantly less benefit. However, students with more intensive impairments perceived, more strongly than students with milder attention difficulties, that they needed extended time during the reading test. Miller and colleagues (2015) found that both postsecondary students with attentional difficulties and students without disabilities performed worst with standard time, better with 150% time, and best with 200% time. In other words, students with disabilities did not benefit differently than students without disabilities with extended time. Ricci (2015) indicated that students with disabilities using oral delivery of instructions and test items via text-to-speech performed worse in reading comprehension than students with disabilities using other accommodations. The re-searcher’s detailed provision of data for students with disabilities using various accommodations
30 NCEO
highlighted the relatively lower incidence of use of text-to-speech. Analyzing an extant data set, Rudzki (2015) reported that students with reading disabilities performed similarly, and below proficiency, in reading when using an aggregated set of extended time, small group administra-tion, and separate setting accommodations, than students with disabilities not using this set of accommodations. Südkamp and colleagues (2015) reported on reading literacy performance on a large-scale test in Germany, comparing data for three different testing conditions: standard condition, reduced test with fewer items, and simplified (i.e., modified) test with fewer items that were also only low in difficulty. They found that grade 5 students with disabilities completed more items with extended time, yet not necessarily improving scores. Using differential item functioning analysis, they found no items of concern for low-performing students without dis-abilities. However, they concluded that scoring for students with disabilities was not comparable or valid across all three test versions due to variance in item functioning.
Williams (2015) reported that about 40 percent of the grade 8 participants with various dis-abilities indicated positive feelings, such as confidence and comfort. About 40 percent indicated negative feelings, such as differentiation from peers and inadequacy, about taking reading (or math) tests with accommodations.
Mathematics. The nine studies with findings about mathematics included four studies in math only (Bouck et al., 2015; DePountis et al., 2015; Higgins et al., 2016; Weis et al., 2016), three studies in math and reading (Cahan et al., 2016; Lin et al., 2016; Williams, 2015), one study in math and science (Rosenblum & Herzberg, 2015), and one study in math and other language arts (Eberhart, 2015). Five studies provided findings on the impact of accommodations on math assessment performance (Bouck et al., 2015; Higgins et al., 2016; Lin et al., 2016; Rosenblum & Herzberg, 2015; Eberhart, 2015). Many of these five were experimental or quasi-experimental, investigating more than one accommodation condition. Most had performance data from both groups of students with and without disabilities. Nearly all of the impact studies—except for Lin et al. (2016)—also indicated student perceptions about the accommodations. In addition, three other studies (DePountis et al., 2015; Weis et al., 2016; Williams, 2015) reported perceptions about accommodations, and two studies (DePountis et al., 2015; Weis et al., 2016) provided findings about accommodation use or practices.
Bouck and colleagues (2015) indicated that students with disabilities completed more test items, and answered more correctly, with a graphing calculator than without one. Further, student par-ticipants generally liked calculators, and indicated that they helped, although grade 8 students indicated that they did not need calculators for future testing. Cahan and colleagues (2016) used meta-analysis to examine the impact of extended time on 17 tests in 11 studies, concluding that the correlation was not particularly strong for students with learning disabilities using this accommodation and improvements in math scores. DePountis and colleagues (2015) reported that the self-reported proficiency of educators of high school students with blindness to manage
31NCEO
assistive technology was strongest in algebra and relatively strong in geometry. Many AT tools were identified as broadly used and at least 13 AT devices were beneficial for their students, such as audible calculators and electronic refreshable braille notetakers.
Eberhart (2015) found that the overall student population performed multiple-choice items better on computer than tablet. She indicated that it was possible that the embedded tools were more difficult to work with on the smaller tablet screen, particularly when answering technology-enhanced items. Also, of the 10 student participants asked for their perceptions, five preferred the laptop, one preferred the tablet, and four liked both devices equally well; also, seven preferred the multiple-choice items, one preferred the technology-enhanced items, and two liked both items equally. Higgins and colleagues (2016) found that students who were deaf performed bet-ter with ASL than without signed administration, and tended to prefer the ASL features more similar to ASL communication patterns and more familiar to native ASL signers.
Lin and colleagues (2016) indicated that students with disabilities performed lower with separate setting than in the typical classroom setting. Rosenblum and Herzberg (2015) detailed the effects and preferences regarding tactile graphics information that students with visual impairments needed for answering math (and science) test items. They noted that certain tactile formats were in items that students with visual impairments tended to answer more correctly. Further, students mostly tended to seek specific details for answering items, rather than exploring data images first. However, students had divergent opinions about some aspects, such as line textures.
Weis and colleagues (2016) reported on accommodations use by postsecondary students with mostly learning-related disabilities, including that about 50 percent of participants used calcula-tors yet less than half of these students actually met criteria for using calculators in the postsec-ondary setting. Williams (2015) reported that about 40 percent of the grade 8 participants with various disabilities indicated positive feelings, such as confidence and comfort, and about 40 percent indicated negative feelings, such as differentiation from peers and inadequacy, regarding taking math or reading tests with accommodations. All participants indicated that their accom-modations affected their assessment performance scores. In sum, the accommodation conditions benefited the math performance of at least some students with disabilities in four studies, and had a negative impact for students with disabilities in one study. Students with disabilities had favorable impressions of math accommodations in two studies, and shared their preferences about math accommodations in two studies.
Science. The findings of the five studies in science included those from four studies in science only (Hansen et al., 2016; McMahon et al., 2016; Seo & Hao, 2016; Spiel et al., 2016), and those from one study in science and mathematics (Rosenblum & Herzberg, 2015). These findings included those pertaining to the usability of certain accommodations, the performance effects
32 NCEO
of certain accommodations for students with and without disabilities, and scale comparability between non-accommodated and accommodated forms of an assessment.
Findings from the two studies that examined usability found that students with disabilities were able to use all accommodations but had the most success with the tactile graphic paper-based static simulations (Hansen et al., 2016). When comparing tactile graphics, students had the most success navigating a microcapsule map (Rosenblum & Herzberg, 2015). The two studies that presented findings related to performance effects found that both students with and without disabilities had higher performance when they had a podcast-delivered science test (McMahon et al., 2016). Although students with ADHD had higher performance when they were provided with in-person oral delivery and small group accommodations, students without disabilities performed the same on average with or without accommodations (Spiel et al., 2016). Scale comparability findings reported by Seo and Hao (2016) showed that when using person-fit analysis (PFA) the accommodated and non-accommodated versions of a large-scale state high school science assessment were comparable.
Writing. Four studies (Davis et al., 2015; Joakim, 2015; Nelson & Reynolds, 2015; Ohleyer, 2016) provided findings related to writing. Findings pertained to the impacts of, and students’ preferences for, different technologies while writing and the uses and perceptions of students with disabilities on assistive technologies and accommodations. Enlisting general education participants, without specifying ability or disability status, Davis and colleagues (2015) ex-amined the impact of touchscreens and found that students did not vary in writing assessment performance based on whether they used a laptop or tablet with a touchscreen keyboard. In addition, they found that while few students had difficulty using touchscreens, high school students were more likely than grade 5 students to prefer physical keyboards over touchscreens for writing compositions.
Ohleyer (2016) observed accommodations use patterns, finding that of the 7225 students with learning disabilities in grades 4 through 6, 59% used oral script, 12% used extended time, 8% used directions (only) read aloud, 2% used assistive technology, and less than 2% used scribe. She also examined longitudinal performance data, finding that assistive technology and admin-istrator-read directions most significantly improved scaled scores. Further, students who used assistive technology over two consecutive years were more likely to have higher growth scores on state assessments than students who did not use assistive technology or used assistive tech-nology for only one year. Joakim (2015) found that most study participants used presentation, timing, and setting accommodations during writing assessments. Grade 5 students not using accommodations scored higher than those who used accommodations, while grade 8 students using or not using accommodations did not score significantly differently.
33NCEO
Nelson and Reynolds (2015) found that postsecondary students thought that speech recognition tools made composition quicker and easier than manually typing, even though some faced initial challenges training the software to accurately recognize their words. Participants who were new speech recognition software users remarked that using this support made composing quicker and easier than typing (manually), and reduced the likelihood of their becoming tired early in the task. Two more experienced speech recognition users indicated that they performed editing by using the keyboard rather than by voicing edits to their computers, yet that they otherwise had become adept at organizing their thoughts without pre-planning or using written outlines or notes.
Other Language Arts. Two studies (Eberhart, 2015; Lin & Lin, 2016) examined large scale data sets of testing performance on academic constructs of language arts. We did not include discussion of these studies’ findings as reading due to their differing content. Eberhart (2015) examined data from the Smarter Balanced Assessment, which she described as covering English language arts content, with both reading comprehension of literary and informational texts, and producing effective and well-grounded writing. Lin and Lin (2016) sampled from the 2012-2013 Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) data set for analysis. The OSSLT, compris-ing multiple-choice and constructed-response items, was administered as a requirement of high school graduation. Eberhart analyzed performance data from the general student population, with no known details about composition of students with disabilities in the population as a whole, while Lin and Lin performed various analyses on samples of only students with disabilities from of the larger extant literacy test data set.
Eberhart (2015) found that the overall grade 7 student population performed multiple-choice items significantly better on computer than tablet on language arts (and math). Further, students on average scored higher on multiple-choice questions when using the computer than tablet; however, there were no significant average score differences for the technologically-enhanced items based on computer versus tablet. A small set of student participants were asked for their perceptions and preferences. Fifty percent preferred the laptop, 10 percent preferred the tablet, and 40 percent liked both devices equally well. Seventy percent preferred the multiple-choice items, 10 percent preferred the technology-enhanced items, and 20 percent liked both items equally.
Lin and Lin (2016) found that the groups of students with disabilities who were provided cer-tain aggregated sets of accommodations, based on their IEPs, performed better than students with disabilities receiving either no accommodations or other accommodations. The bundles demonstrating the most benefit, compared to other sets, included computer administration along with extended time, or specialized setting, or both extended time and specialized setting. They highlighted that students with learning disabilities demonstrated the most significant benefit from these aggregated sets of accommodations. The researchers also analyzed different data adjust-
34 NCEO
ment methods for addressing the problem of data sparsity. They described how the treatment arm correction method was found not to be useful, while the log-linear analysis and adjusted odds ratio method was found to be useful.
Social Studies. One study (Seo & De Jong, 2015) provided findings about social studies assess-ment accommodations. Seo and De Jong (2015) analyzed a large extant data set of social studies assessment performance of students with and without disabilities; they did not compare subgroup performance patterns with one another. They found that there were no significant differences in group mean performance for either grade 6 or grade 9 students, between paper-based testing versus tests presented via computer. Differential item functioning analyses yielded that the test items in both presentation modes functioned similar to one another. The researchers asserted that the propensity score matching process they employed showed more precise datasets for comparison, with more equivalent comparison groups; they advocated that this research design was more useful for their purposes. The researchers surveyed a very small number of students about their preferences, and found that students preferred online testing (70%) over paper-based testing (10%), with 20 percent of students having no preference. None of the students indicated having any difficulties with the online/computer presentation format.
Discussion
This report provided a snapshot of accommodations research literature in 2015-2016. It ad-dressed 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, and comparability of findings between studies in similar domains—including by specific accom-modations and their performance effects, by academic content area, and a separate review of postsecondary accommodations.
As we have found previously, mathematics and reading were the content areas most frequently addressed in the studies included in this analysis, although there was a relative increase in the number of science assessment studies. Students were the participant group in nearly two-thirds of the studies. Students with learning disabilities (LD) were participants in over half of the studies reported; indeed, they were more likely to be included in the research samples than other groups. Two other disability categories receiving attention by many studies were “Other Health Impairment” (about one-third of the studies), and students with emotional/behavioral disabilities (about one quarter of the studies).
Accommodations research continues to be an area where a substantial amount of research is occurring. The number of studies we have located has increased across the span of NCEO’s reports in this area; for instance, in 2011-2012, there were 49 identified studies, in 2013-2014,
35NCEO
there were 53 studies, and now in 2015-2016, there were 58 studies. This line of research con-tinues to receive attention. Researchers have been exploring a wide range of topics related to accommodations. For instance, we continue to observe the expansion of questions and issues surrounding the shift from paper and pencil tests to technology-based assessments.
Similar to previous reports (Cormier et al., 2010; Johnstone et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2002; Rogers et al., 2012; Rogers et al., 2014; Rogers et al., 2016; Zenisky et al., 2007), the find-ings for specific accommodations were often mixed. This range of findings was demonstrated particularly well in the oral delivery and extended time performance impact findings. Studies found that oral delivery accommodations supported the performance of students with disabilities (Ohleyer, 2016), extended time mostly had no apparent influence (Cahan et al., 2016; Joakim, 2015; Ohleyer, 2016), oral delivery provided no differential benefit—specifically, when pro-vided by an in-person reader—for students with disabilities in comparison to students without disabilities (McMahon et al., 2016), and oral delivery had negative impacts (Ricci, 2015).
The findings for specific accommodations were complicated by various factors. In addition to the variety of ways that oral delivery can be offered to students—in-person by test proctor, via human voice audio- or video-recording, and delivered by computer through text-to-speech software—the 2015-2016 set of research findings also elucidated other factors that might limit positive impacts of accommodations. Student age or grade level showed variation in findings: participants in earlier grade levels performed better in reading comprehension with in-person oral delivery than recorded voice, while the older participants benefited similarly from both of these types of oral delivery (Kim, 2016). Also, different item types showed varying impacts (Eberhart, 2015), and the content area was a complicating factor, as found by Kim (2016). These factors served to demonstrate the ways that accommodations’ effects are highly influenced by circumstance, suggesting the importance of individualized assignment of accommodations as intended through the IEP process.
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) has given 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. Relatively recent and continuing issues related to embedded accommodations on computer-based tests, the compatibility of assistive technology with computer platforms, the validity of inferences, and adaptive testing will continue to increase as states and consortia refine their assessment systems. There will continue to be a need for accommodations research that addresses these complexities and other emerging issues.
36 NCEO
References
Report References
(References in the report to documents that were part of the 2015-2016 accommodations re-search analysis are not included in this list. They are in the separate list titled: 2015 and 2016 Accommodation References.)
Altman, J. R., Cormier, D. C., Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Holbrook, M., Byers, M., Pence, N. (2010). Accommodations: Results of a survey of Alabama special education teachers (Syn-thesis Report 81). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/Synthesis81/Synthesis81.pdf
Barnard-Brak, L., Davis, T., Tate, A., & Sulak, T. (2009). Attitudes as a predictor of college students requesting accommodations. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 31(3), 189-198. doi:10.3233/JVR-2009-0488
Brown, W. M. (2007). Virginia teachers’ perceptions and knowledge of test accommodations for students with disabilities (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3254404)
Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. (1993). Nelson-Denny Reading Test, Form H. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Reid, L. G., & Vanderheiden, G. (Eds.). (2008). Web content acces-sibility guidelines 2.0. Cambridge, MA: World Wide Web Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (2011). Oral and Written Language Scales–2nd edition. Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services.
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
CTB/McGraw Hill. (2009). Colorado Student Assessment Program: Technical report 2009. Monterey, CA: Author.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: 4th edition (PPVT-4). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.
Fabiano, G. A., Pelham, W. E., Jr., Waschbusch, D. A., Gnagy, E. M., Lahey, B. B., Chronis, A. M., Burrows-MacLean, L. (2006). A practical measure of impairment: Psychometric proper-
37NCEO
ties of the impairment rating scale in samples of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and two school-based samples. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 369-385. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3503_3
German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS; n.d.). Bamberg, Germany: Leib-niz Institute for Educational Trajectories (LIfBi), University of Bamberg. Accessible at https://www.neps-data.de/en-us/home.aspx
Gillam, R. B., & Pearson, N. (2004). Test of Narrative Language. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
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
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975) Derivation of new read-ability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel (Research Brank Report 8-75). Millington, TN: Chief of Naval Technical Training, Naval Air Station Memphis.
Kleinmann, A. E. (2005). Not so fast: Using speed to differentiate high and average readers (Unpublished dissertation). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., Dreyer, L. G., & Hughes, K. (2000). Gates- MacGinitie Reading Tests: 4th edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; n.d.). Accessible at https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
Pearson. (2013). South Dakota State Test of Educational Progress (Dakota STEP) (Tech. Rep. Spring 2013 administration). Pierre, SD: Author. Retrieved from http://doe.sd.gov/oats/docu-ments/STEP13All.pdf
Pelham, W. E., Jr., Gnagy, E. M., Greenslade, K. E., & Milich, R. (1992). Teacher ratings of DSM-III-R symptoms for the disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 210–218. doi:10.1097/00004583-199203000-00006
Ranseen, J. D., & Parks, G. S. (2005). Test accommodations for postsecondary students: The quandary resulting from the ADA’s disability definition. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 83-108. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.83
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
38 NCEO
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
Rogers, C. M., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2016). A summary of the research on the ef-fects of test accommodations: 2013-2014 (NCEO Report 402). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/OnlinePubs/Report402/default.htm
Roth, R. M., Isquith, P. K., & Gioia, G. A. (2005). Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function—Adult version. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Semel, E., Wiig, W. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals – 4th edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Sheldon, K., & Deci, E. (1993). The self-determination scale. Unpublished manscript, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Technical Report 34) (Vol. 2001). Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical34.htm
Valdes, K., Godard, P., Williamson, C., Van Campen, J., McCracken, M., & Jones, R. (2013). National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2) Waves 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 data documentation and dictionary. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/data_dictionary/data_ documentation_dictionary.html
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale: 3rd edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2001). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test: 2nd edition (WIAT-II). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–3rd Edition (WIAT-III). London, England: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence–2nd Edition manual. Bloom-ington, MN: Pearson.
Wehmeyer, M. (2000). The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale: Procedural guidelines (Rev. ed.). Silver Spring, MD: Arc of the United States.
39NCEO
Weller, E. B., Weller, R. A., Fristad, M. A., Rooney, M. T., & Schecter, J. (2000). Children’s Interview for Psychiatric Syndromes (ChIPS). Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 76-84. doi:10.1097/00004583-200001000-00019
Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Revised. New York, NY: Pearson.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001a). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achieve-ment. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001b). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cogni-tive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
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
2015 and 2016 Accommodation References
2015 (N=34)
Barnett, J. E. H., & Gay, C. (2015). Accommodating students with epilepsy or seizure disorders: Effective strategies for teachers. Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 34(1), 1-13. doi:10.14434/pders.v34i1.13258
Bouck, E. C., Bouck, M. K., & Hunley, M. (2015). The calculator effect: Understanding the impact of calculators as accommodations for secondary students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 30(2), 77-88. doi:10.1177/0162643415617371
Cawthon, S. W., Leppo, R., Ge, J. J., & Bond, M. (2015). Accommodations use patterns in high school and postsecondary settings for students who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(1) 9-23. doi:10.1353/aad.2015.0012
Cole, E. V., & Cawthon, S. W. (2015). Self-disclosure decisions of university students with learn-ing disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(2), 163-179. Retrieved from https://www.ahead.org/publications/jped
Condra, M., Dineen, M., Gauthier, S., Gills, H., Jack-Davies, A., & Condra, E. (2015). Academic accommodations for postsecondary students with mental health disabilities in Ontario, Canada: A review of the literature and reflections on emerging issues. Journal of Postsecondary Educa-tion and Disability, 28(3), 277-291. Retrieved from https://www.ahead.org/publications/jped
40 NCEO
Couzens, D., Poed, S., Kataoka, M., Brandon, A., Hartley, J., & Keen, D. (2015). Support for students with hidden disabilities in universities: A case study. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 62(1), 24-41. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2014.984592
Crosby, S. (2015). Barriers to access: The experience of students delaying the request for ac-commodations at an open-access college. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 77/09(E).
Davis, L. L., Orr, A., Kong, X., & Lin, C.-H. (2015). Assessing student writing on tablets. Edu-cational Assessment, 20(3), 180-198. doi:10.1080/10627197.2015.1061426
DeLee, B. (2015). Academic support services for college students with disabilities. Journal of Applied Learning Technology, 5(3), 39-49. Retrieved from https://www.journalguide.com/journals/journal-of-applied-learning-technology
DePountis, V. M., Pogrund, R. L., Griffin-Shirley, N., & Lan, W. Y. (2015). Technologies that facilitate the study of advanced mathematics by students who are blind: Teachers’ perspectives. International Journal of Special Education, 30(2), 131-144. Retrieved from http://www.inter-nationaljournalofspecialed.com/
Eberhart, T. (2015). A comparison of multiple-choice and technology-enhanced item types ad-ministered on computer versus iPad. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 77/06(E).
Gallego, M., & Busch, C. (2015). Towards the inclusion of students with disabilities: Accessi-bility in language courses. Innovative Higher Education, 40(5), 387-398. doi:10.1007/s10755-015-9321-z
Giusto, M. (2015). Effectiveness of a partial read-aloud test accommodation to assess reading comprehension in students with a reading disability. Dissertation Abstracts International: Sec-tion A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 77/02(E).
Joakim, S. E. (2015). Help me fail: A study on testing accommodations for students with dis-abilities in writing assessments. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 77/03(E).
Kafle, E. A. (2015). Nursing students with learning disabilities: Perceptions and attitudes regard-ing the role of disability support program services and access to accommodations. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 76/08(E).
Kettler, R. J. (2015). Adaptations and access to assessment of Common Core content. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 295-330. doi:10.3102/0091732X14556075
41NCEO
Lane, S., & Leventhal, B. (2015). Psychometric challenges in assessing English language learners and students with disabilities. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 165-214. doi:10.3102/0091732X14556073
Lawing, R. W. (2015). Examining the relationship between teacher attitude and expectations and selection of accommodations. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 76/09(E).
Lewandowski, L., Wood, W., & Lambert, T. (2015). Private room as a test accommodation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(2), 279-285. doi:10.1080/02602938.2014.911243
Lovett, B. J., & Leja, A. M. (2015). ADHD symptoms and benefit from extended time testing ac-commodations. Journal of Attention Disorders, 19(2), 167-172. doi:10.1177/1087054713510560
Miller, L. A., Lewandowski, L. J., & Antshel, K. M. (2015). Effects of extended time for college students with and without ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 19(8), 678-686. doi:10.1177/1087054713483308
Monagle, K. (2015). Beyond access: An examination of factors that influence use of accom-modations by college students with disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 77/08(E).
Nelson, L. M., & Reynolds, T. W. (2015). Speech recognition, disability, and college composi-tion. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(2), 181-197. Retrieved from https://www.ahead.org/publications/jped
Newman, L. A., & Madaus, J. W. (2015a). An analysis of factors related to receipt of accom-modations and services by postsecondary students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 36(4), 208-219. doi:10.1177/0741932515572912
Newman, L. A., & Madaus, J. W. (2015b). Reported accommodations and supports provided to secondary and postsecondary students with disabilities: National perspective. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38(3), 173-181. doi:10.1177/2165143413518235
Ofiesh, N., Moniz, E., & Bisagno, J. (2015). Voices of university students with ADHD about test-taking: Behaviors, needs, and strategies. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(1), 109-114. Retrieved from https://www.ahead.org/publications/jped
Ricci, N. N. (2015). The effect of the read-aloud testing accommodation on the 2011 fourth-grade National Assessment of Educational Progress in Reading, for students with disabilities in the New York State metropolitan, tri-state area. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 77/01(E).
42 NCEO
Rosenblum, L. P., & Herzberg, T. S. (2015). Braille and tactile graphics: Youths with visual im-pairments share their experiences. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 109(3), 173-184.
Rudzki, D. R. (2015). The extent of programs, services, and attendance for students with read-ing disabilities and performance on high-stakes reading assessments. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 77/09(E).
Ruhkamp, R. (2015). Lived experiences of undergraduate and graduate students utilizing accom-modations. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 76/11(E).
Seo, D. G., & De Jong, G. (2015). Comparability of online- and paper-based tests in a statewide assessment program: Using propensity score matching. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(1), 88-113. doi:10.1177/0735633114568856
Südkamp, A., Pohl, S., & Weinert, S. (2015). Competence assessment of students with special educational needs—Identification of appropriate testing accommodations. Frontline Learning Research, 3(2), 1-26. doi:10.14786/flr.v3i2.130
Timmerman, L. C., & Mulvihill, T. M. (2015). Accommodations in the college setting: The perspectives of students living with disabilities. The Qualitative Report, 20(10), 1609-1625.
Williams, A. D. (2015). Middle school students’ experience of receiving test accommodations. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 76/12(E).
2016 (N=24)
Ajuwon, P. M., Meeks, M. K., Griffin-Shirley, N., & Okungu, P. A. (2016). Reflections of teach-ers of visually impaired students on their assistive technology competencies. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 110(2), 128-134.
Barnhill, G. P. (2016). Supporting students with Asperger Syndrome on college campuses: Current practices. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 31(1), 3-15. doi:10.1177/1088357614523121
Cahan, S., Nirel, R., & Alkoby, M. (2016). The extra-examination time granting poli-cy: A reconceptualization. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(5), 461-472. doi:10.1177/0734282915616537
Detrick-Grove, T. L. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions and knowledge of accommodations for stu-dents with disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 78/05(E).
43NCEO
Dong, S., & Lucas, M. S. (2016). An analysis of disability, academic performance, and seeking support in one university setting. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individu-als, 39(1), 47-56. doi:10.1177/2165143413475658
Hansen, E. G., Liu, L., Rogat, A., & Hakkinen, M. T. (2016). Designing innovative science as-sessments that are accessible for students who are blind. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 6(1). doi:10.5241/6-91
Higgins, J. A., Famularo, L., Cawthon, S. W., Kurz, C. A., Reis, J. E., & Moers, L. M. (2016). Development of American Sign Language guidelines for K-12 academic assessments. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 21(4), 383-393. doi:10.1093/deafed/enw051
Kim, W. H., & Lee, J. (2016). The effect of accommodation on academic performance of college students with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 60(1), 40-50. doi:10.1177/0034355215605259
Kim, Y. S. G. (2016). Do live versus audio-recorded narrative stimuli influence young children’s narrative comprehension and retell quality? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 47(1), 77-86. doi:10.1044/2015_LSHSS-15-0027
Lin, P.-Y., Childs, R. A., & Lin, Y.-C. (2016). Untangling complex effects of disabilities and accommodations within a multilevel IRT framework. Quality & Quantity, 50(6), 2767-2788. doi:10.1007/s11135-015-0288-8
Lin, P.-Y., & Lin, Y.-C. (2016). Examining accommodation effects for equity by overcoming a methodological challenge of sparse data. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 51-52, 10-22. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2015.12.012
Lyman, M., Beecher, M. E., Griner, D., Brooks, M., Call, J., & Jackson, A. (2016). What keeps students with disabilities from using accommodations in postsecondary education? A qualita-tive review. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(2), 123-140. Retrieved from https://www.ahead.org/publications/jped
McMahon, D., Wright, R., Cihak, D. F., Moore, T. C., & Lamb, R. (2016). Podcasts on mobile devices as a read-aloud testing accommodation in middle school science assessment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 263-273. doi:10.1007/s10956-015-9591-3
Ohleyer, A. A. (2016). Elementary tech: Assistive technology, specific learning disability, and state standardized testing. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 77/08(E).
44 NCEO
Peterson, M. C. (2016). Assistive technology management by disabilities services managers in higher education: A phenomenological study. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 77/12(E).
Potter, K., Lewandowski, L., & Spenceley, L. (2016). The influence of a response format test accommodation for college students with and without disabilities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(7), 996-1007. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1052368
Seo, D. G., & Hao, S. (2016). Scale comparability between nonaccommodated and accommo-dated forms of a statewide high school assessment: Using I
z person-fit. Journal of Psychoedu-
cational Assessment, 34(3), 230-243. doi:10.1177/0734282915596126
Sokal, L. (2016). Five windows and a locked door: University accommodation responses to students with Anxiety Disorders. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1). doi:10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2016.1.10
Spenceley, L. M., & Wheeler, S. (2016). The use of extended time by college students with dis-abilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(2), 141-150. Retrieved from https://www.ahead.org/publications/jped
Spiel, C. F., Mixon, C. S., Holdaway, A. S., Evans, S. W., Harrison, J. R., Zoromski, A. K., & Yost, J. S. (2016). Is reading tests aloud an accommodation for youth with or at risk for ADHD? Remedial and Special Education, 37(2), 101-112. doi:10.1177/0741932515619929
Weis, R., Dean, E. L., & Osborne, K. J. (2016). Accommodation decision making for postsec-ondary students with learning disabilities: Individually tailored or one size fits all? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(5), 484-498. doi:10.1177/0022219414559648
Yssel, N., Pak, N., & Beilke, J. (2016). A door must be opened: Perceptions of students with disabilities in higher education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Educa-tion, 63(3), 384-394. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2015.1123232
Zambrano, A. (2016). The experience of student with disabilities in higher education. Disserta-tion Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 77/11(E).
Zeedyk, S. M., Tipton, L. A., & Blacher, J. (2016). Educational supports for high functioning youth with ASD: The postsecondary pathway to college. Focus on Autism and Other Develop-mental Disabilities, 31(1), 37-48. doi:10.1177/1088357614525435
45NCEO
Appendix A
Research Purposes
46 NCEO
Aut
hor(
s)St
ated
Res
earc
h Pu
rpos
es
Purp
ose
Cat
egor
y Id
entifi
er
A. Perceptions
B. Reviews
C. Effects [both]
C. Effects [non]
C. Effects [SwD]
D. Issues
E. Implement/Use
F. Items
G. Accomm. Need
H. Develop
I. Test
J. Validity
Aju
won
, Mee
ks, G
rif-
fin-S
hirle
y, &
Oku
ngu
(201
6)
Rep
ort a
bout
the
self-
perc
eive
d kn
owle
dge
of e
duca
tors
abo
ut
assi
stiv
e te
chno
logy
sup
ports
for s
tude
nts
with
blin
dnes
s an
d vi
sual
impa
irmen
ts; a
lso,
exa
min
e re
late
d is
sues
.P
X
Bar
nett
& G
ay (2
015)
Sum
mar
ize
rese
arch
lite
ratu
re a
bout
pro
vidi
ng a
ccom
mod
a-tio
ns to
stu
dent
s w
ith e
pile
psy
or s
eizu
re d
isor
ders
; als
o,
exam
ine
rela
ted
issu
es.
P
X
Bar
nhill
(201
6)R
epor
t on
educ
ator
s’ p
ract
ices
impl
emen
ting
acco
mm
odat
ions
fo
r pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
aut
ism
-rel
ated
dis
abili
ties.
P
Bou
ck, B
ouck
, & H
un-
ley
(201
5)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of g
raph
ing
calc
ulat
or a
ccom
mod
atio
ns
on te
st p
erfo
rman
ce o
f mid
dle
scho
ol s
tude
nts
with
var
ious
di
sabi
litie
s; a
lso,
inqu
ire a
bout
stu
dent
s’ p
erce
ptio
ns o
f thi
s ac
-co
mm
odat
ion’
s po
ssib
le b
enefi
ts.
X
P
Cah
an, N
irel,
& A
lkob
y (2
016)
Inve
stig
ate
a se
lect
ion
of e
mpi
rical
stu
dies
for t
he e
ffect
s of
ex-
tend
ed ti
me
acco
mm
odat
ions
on
test
per
form
ance
of s
tude
nts
with
lear
ning
dis
abili
ties,
incl
udin
g co
mpa
rison
bet
wee
n st
u-de
nts
with
and
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s; a
lso,
sum
mar
ize
rese
arch
lit
erat
ure
and
this
stu
dy’s
find
ings
in c
onte
xt; fi
nally
, exa
min
e re
late
d is
sues
.
X
P
X
Caw
thon
, Lep
po, G
e,
& B
ond
(201
5)
Rep
ort o
n te
st-ta
kers
’ use
of v
ario
us a
ccom
mod
atio
ns o
f st
uden
ts w
ith d
eafn
ess
or h
earin
g im
pairm
ents
thro
ugh
anal
yz-
ing
larg
e se
lf-re
port
exta
nt d
ata
set f
rom
the
seco
nd N
atio
nal
Long
itudi
nal T
rans
ition
Stu
dy (N
LTS
-2).
P
Col
e &
Caw
thon
(2
015)
Inve
stig
ate
the
conn
ectio
ns b
etw
een
self-
disc
losu
re a
nd a
t-tit
udes
abo
ut a
ccom
mod
atio
ns fo
r pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
le
arni
ng d
isab
ilitie
s; a
lso,
exa
min
e re
late
d is
sues
.P
X
47NCEO
Aut
hor(
s)St
ated
Res
earc
h Pu
rpos
es
Purp
ose
Cat
egor
y Id
entifi
er
A. Perceptions
B. Reviews
C. Effects [both]
C. Effects [non]
C. Effects [SwD]
D. Issues
E. Implement/Use
F. Items
G. Accomm. Need
H. Develop
I. Test
J. Validity
Con
dra,
Din
een,
G
auth
ier,
Gill
s, J
ack-
Dav
ies,
& C
ondr
a (2
015)
Sum
mar
ize
rese
arch
lite
ratu
re a
bout
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
ac
com
mod
atio
ns in
the
post
seco
ndar
y ed
ucat
ion
setti
ng fo
r st
uden
ts w
ith m
enta
l hea
lth d
isab
ilitie
s; a
lso,
exa
min
e re
late
d is
sues
.
P
X
Cou
zens
, Poe
d, K
ata-
oka,
Bra
ndon
, Har
tley,
&
Kee
n (2
015)
Inqu
ire a
bout
pos
tsec
onda
ry e
duca
tors
’ per
spec
tives
rega
rdin
g va
rious
acc
omm
odat
ions
, and
abo
ut th
e pe
rcep
tions
of s
tu-
dent
s w
ith n
on-v
isib
le d
isab
ilitie
s ab
out v
ario
us a
ccom
mod
a-tio
ns; a
lso,
exa
min
e re
late
d is
sues
.
P
X
Cro
sby
(201
5)
Inqu
ire a
bout
the
perc
eptio
ns o
f pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
di
sabi
litie
s an
d fa
culty
mem
bers
abo
ut v
ario
us a
ccom
mod
a-tio
ns; a
lso,
sum
mar
ize
rese
arch
lite
ratu
re a
nd th
is s
tudy
’s fi
nd-
ings
in c
onte
xt; fi
nally
, exa
min
e re
late
d is
sues
.
PX
X
Dav
is, O
rr, K
ong,
&
Lin
(201
5)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of u
sing
tabl
et d
evic
es fo
r ass
essm
ent
deliv
ery
on th
e w
ritin
g te
st p
erfo
rman
ce o
f stu
dent
s w
ithou
t dis
-ab
ilitie
s; a
lso,
repo
rt on
acc
omm
odat
ions
use
pat
tern
s; fi
nally
, in
quire
abo
ut s
tude
nts’
per
cept
ions
of t
able
t del
iver
y of
test
ing.
X
P
X
DeL
ee (2
015)
Sum
mar
ize
rese
arch
lite
ratu
re a
bout
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
ac
com
mod
atio
ns in
the
post
seco
ndar
y ed
ucat
ion
setti
ng fo
r st
uden
ts w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s; a
lso,
exa
min
e re
late
d is
sues
.
P
X
DeP
ount
is, P
ogru
nd,
Grif
fin-S
hirle
y, &
Lan
(2
015)
Inqu
ire a
bout
the
pers
pect
ives
and
use
of v
ario
us a
ssis
tive
tech
nolo
gy s
uppo
rts b
y m
ath
educ
ator
s of
stu
dent
s w
ith b
lind-
ness
.P
X
Det
rick-
Gro
ve (2
016)
Rep
ort a
bout
the
self-
perc
eive
d kn
owle
dge
of e
duca
tors
abo
ut
vario
us a
ccom
mod
atio
ns; a
lso,
sum
mar
ize
rese
arch
lite
ratu
re
abou
t and
this
stu
dy’s
find
ings
in c
onte
xt.
PX
48 NCEO
Aut
hor(
s)St
ated
Res
earc
h Pu
rpos
es
Purp
ose
Cat
egor
y Id
entifi
er
A. Perceptions
B. Reviews
C. Effects [both]
C. Effects [non]
C. Effects [SwD]
D. Issues
E. Implement/Use
F. Items
G. Accomm. Need
H. Develop
I. Test
J. Validity
Don
g &
Luc
as (2
016)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of v
ario
us a
ccom
mod
atio
ns o
n co
urse
pe
rform
ance
of p
osts
econ
dary
stu
dent
s w
ith v
ario
us d
isab
ili-
ties,
incl
udin
g co
mpa
rison
bet
wee
n st
uden
ts w
ho re
porte
d di
s-ab
ilitie
s an
d re
ceiv
ed a
ccom
mod
atio
ns a
nd s
tude
nts
who
did
no
t sel
f-dis
clos
e ab
out d
isab
ilitie
s an
d di
d no
t rec
eive
acc
om-
mod
atio
ns; a
lso,
exa
min
e re
late
d is
sues
.
P
X
Ebe
rhar
t (20
15)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of d
iffer
ent p
latfo
rms
(com
pute
r ver
sus
elec
troni
c no
tepa
d) o
n te
st p
erfo
rman
ce o
f stu
dent
s w
ith n
o re
porte
d di
sabi
litie
s; a
lso,
repo
rt on
par
ticip
ants
’ exa
min
atio
n ex
perie
nces
; fina
lly, s
umm
ariz
e re
sear
ch li
tera
ture
and
this
st
udy’
s fin
ding
s in
con
text
.
XX
P
Gal
lego
& B
usch
(2
015)
Inqu
ire a
bout
the
pers
pect
ives
of p
osts
econ
dary
edu
cato
rs
rega
rdin
g ac
com
mod
atio
ns in
lang
uage
cou
rses
; als
o, e
xam
ine
rela
ted
issu
es.
P
X
Giu
sto
(201
5)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of in
-per
son
read
alo
ud a
ccom
mod
a-tio
n on
test
per
form
ance
of s
tude
nts
with
read
ing
disa
bilit
ies,
in
clud
ing
com
parin
g to
per
form
ance
of s
tude
nts
with
out d
is-
abili
ties;
als
o, s
umm
ariz
e re
sear
ch li
tera
ture
and
this
stu
dy’s
fin
ding
s in
con
text
.
X
P
Han
sen,
Liu
, Rog
at, &
H
akki
nen
(201
6)
Dev
elop
an
acce
ssib
le s
cien
ce a
sses
smen
t tas
k fo
r stu
dent
s w
ith b
lindn
ess;
als
o, re
port
on s
tude
nts’
test
ing
expe
rienc
e in
-cl
udin
g us
abili
ty is
sues
; rep
ort o
n pe
rcep
tions
of s
tude
nts
with
bl
indn
ess
abou
t acc
omm
odat
ions
dur
ing
scie
nce
asse
ssm
ent
incl
udin
g us
abili
ty is
sues
; fina
lly, e
xam
ine
rela
ted
issu
es.
X
X
P
49NCEO
Aut
hor(
s)St
ated
Res
earc
h Pu
rpos
es
Purp
ose
Cat
egor
y Id
entifi
er
A. Perceptions
B. Reviews
C. Effects [both]
C. Effects [non]
C. Effects [SwD]
D. Issues
E. Implement/Use
F. Items
G. Accomm. Need
H. Develop
I. Test
J. Validity
Hig
gins
, Fam
ular
o,
Caw
thon
, Kur
z, R
eis,
&
Moe
rs (2
016)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of s
ign
lang
uage
inte
rpre
ting
acco
m-
mod
atio
ns o
n te
st p
erfo
rman
ce o
f stu
dent
s w
ith d
eafn
ess
and
hear
ing
impa
irmen
ts; a
lso,
inqu
ire a
bout
stu
dent
s’ p
erce
ptio
ns
of s
ign
lang
uage
acc
omm
odat
ions
.
X
P
Joak
im (2
015)
Exa
min
ing
a la
rge
exta
nt d
ata
set,
inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of
seve
ral s
peci
fic a
ccom
mod
atio
ns o
n w
ritin
g te
st p
erfo
rman
ce
of s
tude
nts
with
sev
eral
spe
cific
cat
egor
ies
of d
isab
ilitie
s;
also
, sum
mar
ize
rese
arch
lite
ratu
re a
nd th
is s
tudy
’s fi
ndin
gs in
co
ntex
t.
X
P
Kafl
e (2
015)
Inqu
ire a
bout
the
perc
eptio
ns o
f pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
le
arni
ng d
isab
ilitie
s ab
out a
ccom
mod
atio
ns in
clud
ing
thos
e pr
ovid
ed d
urin
g co
urse
exa
ms;
als
o, s
umm
ariz
e re
sear
ch
liter
atur
e an
d th
is s
tudy
’s fi
ndin
gs in
con
text
.
PX
Ket
tler (
2015
)S
umm
ariz
e re
sear
ch li
tera
ture
abo
ut C
omm
on C
ore
cont
ent
asse
ssm
ent a
cces
sibi
lity
and
acco
mm
odat
ions
; als
o, e
xam
ine
rela
ted
issu
es.
P
X
Kim
& L
ee (2
016)
Rep
ort o
n po
stse
cond
ary
stud
ents
’ use
of v
ario
us a
ccom
mod
a-tio
ns, a
nd th
eir r
elat
ions
hips
with
cou
rse
grad
es a
nd p
ersi
s-te
nce
in h
ighe
r edu
catio
n.
P
Kim
(201
6)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of re
cord
ed a
nd in
-per
son
oral
adm
in-
istra
tion
acco
mm
odat
ions
on
test
per
form
ance
of s
tude
nts
with
and
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s, b
ut m
ake
no d
irect
com
paris
on o
f pe
rform
ance
of s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties
and
stud
ents
with
out
disa
bilit
ies.
P
Lane
& L
even
thal
(2
015)
Sum
mar
ize
rese
arch
lite
ratu
re a
bout
the
impa
ct o
f acc
om-
mod
atio
ns a
nd m
odifi
catio
ns o
n as
sess
men
t per
form
ance
for
stud
ents
with
dis
abili
ties;
als
o, e
xam
ine
rela
ted
issu
es.
P
X
50 NCEO
Aut
hor(
s)St
ated
Res
earc
h Pu
rpos
es
Purp
ose
Cat
egor
y Id
entifi
er
A. Perceptions
B. Reviews
C. Effects [both]
C. Effects [non]
C. Effects [SwD]
D. Issues
E. Implement/Use
F. Items
G. Accomm. Need
H. Develop
I. Test
J. Validity
Law
ing
(201
5)
Inqu
ire a
bout
edu
cato
rs’ p
ersp
ectiv
es o
n an
d us
e of
var
ious
ac
com
mod
atio
ns, a
nd th
e re
latio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
attit
udes
and
ac
com
mod
atio
ns u
se; a
lso,
sum
mar
ize
rese
arch
lite
ratu
re a
nd
this
stu
dy’s
find
ings
in c
onte
xt.
PX
X
Lew
ando
wsk
i, W
ood,
&
Lam
bert
(201
5)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of th
e se
para
te q
uiet
room
acc
omm
oda-
tion
on re
adin
g co
mpr
ehen
sion
test
per
form
ance
of p
osts
ec-
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s.
P
Lin,
Chi
lds,
& L
in
(201
6)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of s
ettin
g ac
com
mod
atio
ns o
n th
e te
st
perfo
rman
ce o
f stu
dent
s w
ith le
arni
ng d
isab
ilitie
s, in
clud
ing
com
paris
on b
etw
een
stud
ents
with
and
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s;
also
, ana
lyze
item
-leve
l fun
ctio
ning
to d
isce
rn th
e vi
abili
ty o
f th
ese
proc
edur
es fo
r exa
min
ing
acco
mm
odat
ions
’ effe
cts
for
parti
cipa
nt g
roup
s.
PX
Lin
& L
in (2
016)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of a
bun
dled
set
of a
ccom
mod
atio
ns o
n th
e lit
erac
y te
st p
erfo
rman
ce o
f stu
dent
s w
ith v
ario
us d
isab
ili-
ties,
incl
udin
g le
arni
ng d
isab
ilitie
s an
d m
enta
l hea
lth d
isab
ili-
ties;
als
o, e
xam
ine
rela
ted
issu
es.
P
X
X
Love
tt &
Lej
a (2
015)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of e
xten
ded
time
acco
mm
odat
ions
on
test
per
form
ance
of p
osts
econ
dary
stu
dent
s w
ith a
ttent
ion-
rela
ted
disa
bilit
ies,
incl
udin
g co
mpa
rison
bet
wee
n st
uden
ts
with
and
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s; a
lso,
inqu
ire a
bout
the
perc
eptio
ns
of p
osts
econ
dary
stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s re
gard
ing
exte
nded
tim
e ac
com
mod
atio
ns; a
lso,
ana
lyze
sco
re p
atte
rns
and
atte
n-tio
nal d
ifficu
lties
to d
isce
rn th
e ne
ed fo
r acc
omm
odat
ions
.
X
P
X
Lym
an, B
eech
er,
Grin
er, B
rook
s, C
all,
&
Jack
son
(201
6)
Inqu
ire a
bout
the
perc
eptio
ns o
f pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
va
rious
dis
abili
ties
rega
rdin
g va
rious
acc
omm
odat
ions
.P
51NCEO
Aut
hor(
s)St
ated
Res
earc
h Pu
rpos
es
Purp
ose
Cat
egor
y Id
entifi
er
A. Perceptions
B. Reviews
C. Effects [both]
C. Effects [non]
C. Effects [SwD]
D. Issues
E. Implement/Use
F. Items
G. Accomm. Need
H. Develop
I. Test
J. Validity
McM
ahon
, Wrig
ht,
Cih
ak, M
oore
, & L
amb
(201
6)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of th
e or
al a
dmin
istra
tion
acco
mm
oda-
tion
via
audi
o po
dcas
t und
er a
dmin
istra
tor o
r stu
dent
con
trol o
n re
adin
g te
st p
erfo
rman
ce o
f stu
dent
s w
ith re
adin
g di
fficu
lties
, in
clud
ing
com
paris
on b
etw
een
stud
ents
with
and
with
out r
ead-
ing
disa
bilit
ies.
P
Mill
er, L
ewan
dow
ski,
& A
ntsh
el (2
015)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of th
e ex
tend
ed ti
me
acco
mm
odat
ions
on
test
per
form
ance
of s
tude
nts
with
atte
ntio
n-re
late
d di
sabi
li-tie
s, in
clud
ing
com
paris
on b
etw
een
stud
ents
with
and
with
out
disa
bilit
ies.
P
Mon
agle
(201
5)
Exp
lore
the
asso
ciat
ion
of v
ario
us fa
ctor
s on
the
acco
mm
oda-
tions
use
pat
tern
s of
pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties;
al
so, i
nqui
re a
bout
thes
e st
uden
ts’ p
erce
ptio
ns o
f acc
omm
oda-
tions
; fina
lly, s
umm
ariz
e re
sear
ch li
tera
ture
and
this
stu
dy’s
fin
ding
s in
con
text
.
XX
P
Nel
son
& R
eyno
lds
(201
5)
Inqu
ire a
bout
the
perc
eptio
ns o
f pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
le
arni
ng d
isab
ilitie
s re
gard
ing
dict
ated
resp
onse
acc
omm
oda-
tions
for c
olle
ge c
ompo
sitio
n/w
ritin
g sk
ills
test
ing;
als
o, s
um-
mar
ize
rese
arch
lite
ratu
re a
nd th
is s
tudy
’s fi
ndin
gs in
con
text
; fin
ally,
exa
min
e re
late
d is
sues
.
PX
X
New
man
& M
adau
s (2
015a
)
Exa
min
ing
a la
rge
exta
nt d
ata
set,
repo
rt on
pat
tern
s of
acc
om-
mod
atio
ns u
se, f
ocus
ing
on e
xam
-rel
ated
acc
omm
odat
ions
, by
post
seco
ndar
y st
uden
ts w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s.
P
New
man
& M
adau
s (2
015b
)
Exa
min
ing
a na
tiona
lly-r
epre
sent
ativ
e sa
mpl
e fro
m a
larg
e ex
tant
dat
a se
t, re
port
on p
atte
rns
of a
ccom
mod
atio
ns u
se,
focu
sing
on
exam
-rel
ated
acc
omm
odat
ions
, by
post
seco
ndar
y st
uden
ts w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s w
ho s
elf-d
iscl
osed
and
did
not
sel
f-di
sclo
se th
eir d
isab
ilitie
s.
P
52 NCEO
Aut
hor(
s)St
ated
Res
earc
h Pu
rpos
es
Purp
ose
Cat
egor
y Id
entifi
er
A. Perceptions
B. Reviews
C. Effects [both]
C. Effects [non]
C. Effects [SwD]
D. Issues
E. Implement/Use
F. Items
G. Accomm. Need
H. Develop
I. Test
J. Validity
Ofie
sh, M
oniz
, & B
isa-
gno
(201
5)
Inqu
ire a
bout
the
perc
eptio
ns o
f pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
at
tent
ion-
rela
ted
disa
bilit
ies
rega
rdin
g co
urse
exa
m a
ccom
mo-
datio
ns.
P
Ohl
eyer
(201
6)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of a
ssis
tive
tech
nolo
gy a
ccom
mod
a-tio
ns o
n te
st p
erfo
rman
ce o
f stu
dent
s w
ith le
arni
ng d
isab
ilitie
s,
incl
udin
g co
mpa
rison
with
effe
cts
of o
ther
type
s of
acc
omm
o-da
tions
; als
o, e
xam
ine
the
use
patte
rns
of a
ssis
tive
tech
nolo
gy
long
itudi
nally
; fina
lly, s
umm
ariz
e re
sear
ch li
tera
ture
and
this
st
udy’
s fin
ding
s in
con
text
.
X
P
X
Pet
erso
n (2
016)
Rep
ort o
n po
stse
cond
ary
educ
ator
s’ p
ract
ices
impl
emen
ting
assi
stiv
e te
chno
logy
acc
omm
odat
ions
, par
ticul
arly
for c
ours
e ex
ams;
als
o, s
umm
ariz
e re
sear
ch li
tera
ture
and
this
stu
dy’s
fin
ding
s in
con
text
.
X
P
Pot
ter,
Lew
ando
wsk
i, &
Spe
ncel
ey (2
016)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of re
spon
ding
in th
e te
st b
ookl
et (c
om-
pare
d to
usi
ng a
bub
ble
shee
t for
mul
tiple
-cho
ice
resp
onse
s)
on re
adin
g te
st p
erfo
rman
ce o
f pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
le
arni
ng a
nd/o
r atte
ntio
n-re
late
d di
sabi
litie
s, in
clud
ing
com
-pa
rison
bet
wee
n st
uden
ts w
ith a
nd w
ithou
t dis
abili
ties;
als
o,
disc
ern
whe
ther
the
resp
onse
form
at a
ffect
ed th
e co
nstru
ct
valid
ity o
f the
test
.
P
X
Ric
ci (2
015)
Exa
min
ing
a la
rge
exta
nt d
ata
set,
inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of
oral
adm
inis
tratio
n ac
com
mod
atio
ns o
n re
adin
g te
st p
erfo
r-m
ance
of s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties,
in c
ompa
rison
to w
hen
thes
e st
uden
ts d
id n
ot u
se th
ese
acco
mm
odat
ions
; als
o, re
port
on p
atte
rns
of u
se o
f ora
l adm
inis
tratio
n ac
com
mod
atio
ns;
final
ly, s
umm
ariz
e re
sear
ch li
tera
ture
and
this
stu
dy’s
find
ings
in
con
text
.
X
P
X
53NCEO
Aut
hor(
s)St
ated
Res
earc
h Pu
rpos
es
Purp
ose
Cat
egor
y Id
entifi
er
A. Perceptions
B. Reviews
C. Effects [both]
C. Effects [non]
C. Effects [SwD]
D. Issues
E. Implement/Use
F. Items
G. Accomm. Need
H. Develop
I. Test
J. Validity
Ros
enbl
um &
Her
z-be
rg (2
015)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of ta
ctile
gra
phic
s ac
com
mod
atio
ns o
n th
e m
ath
and
scie
nce
test
per
form
ance
of s
tude
nts
with
vis
ual
impa
irmen
ts; a
lso,
inqu
ire a
bout
the
perc
eptio
ns o
f stu
dent
s w
ith v
isua
l dis
abili
ties
rega
rdin
g di
ffere
nt v
ersi
ons
of ta
ctile
gr
aphi
cs a
ccom
mod
atio
ns.
X
P
Rud
zki (
2015
)
Inve
stig
ate
the
rela
tions
hips
, for
stu
dent
s w
ith re
adin
g di
sabi
li-tie
s, o
f var
ious
fact
ors
incl
udin
g at
tend
ance
, typ
e an
d ex
tent
of
spe
cial
edu
catio
n se
rvic
es, a
nd u
se o
f one
or m
ore
acco
m-
mod
atio
ns, t
o re
adin
g te
st s
core
s; a
lso,
sum
mar
ize
rese
arch
lit
erat
ure
and
this
stu
dy’s
find
ings
in c
onte
xt.
X
P
Ruh
kam
p (2
015)
Inqu
ire a
bout
the
perc
eptio
ns o
f pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
di
sabi
litie
s re
gard
ing
vario
us a
ccom
mod
atio
ns; a
lso,
sum
ma-
rize
rese
arch
lite
ratu
re a
nd th
is s
tudy
’s fi
ndin
gs in
con
text
.P
X
Seo
& D
e Jo
ng (2
015)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of te
stin
g fo
rmat
(onl
ine
vers
us p
aper
-ba
sed)
on
test
per
form
ance
of s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties,
in
clud
ing
perfo
rman
ce c
ompa
rison
s be
twee
n st
uden
ts w
ith
and
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s; a
lso,
ana
lyze
item
-leve
l and
test
-leve
l fu
nctio
ning
bet
wee
n th
e te
stin
g fo
rmat
s to
con
firm
the
valid
ity
of th
e te
st c
onst
ruct
.
P
X
Seo
& H
ao (2
016)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of a
ccom
mod
atio
ns o
n te
st p
erfo
rman
ce
of s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties;
als
o, a
naly
ze it
em-le
vel a
nd te
st-
leve
l fun
ctio
ning
bet
wee
n th
e te
stin
g fo
rmat
s to
con
firm
the
fairn
ess
of th
e te
st a
ccom
mod
atio
ns; fi
nally
, dev
elop
an
ac-
com
mod
ated
form
of a
sci
ence
ass
essm
ent.
P
X
X
Sok
al (2
016)
Inqu
ire a
bout
the
pers
pect
ives
of p
osts
econ
dary
edu
cato
rs
abou
t var
ious
acc
omm
odat
ions
pro
vide
d to
stu
dent
s w
ith m
en-
tal h
ealth
dis
abili
ties.
P
54 NCEO
Aut
hor(
s)St
ated
Res
earc
h Pu
rpos
es
Purp
ose
Cat
egor
y Id
entifi
er
A. Perceptions
B. Reviews
C. Effects [both]
C. Effects [non]
C. Effects [SwD]
D. Issues
E. Implement/Use
F. Items
G. Accomm. Need
H. Develop
I. Test
J. Validity
Spe
ncel
ey &
Whe
eler
(2
016)
Rep
ort o
n pa
ttern
s of
use
of e
xten
ded
time
acco
mm
odat
ions
by
pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
var
ious
dis
abili
ties.
P
Spi
el, M
ixon
, Hol
d-aw
ay, E
vans
, Har
ri-so
n, Z
orom
ski,
& Y
ost
(201
6)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of th
e in
-per
son
oral
adm
inis
tratio
n ac
-co
mm
odat
ion
on te
st p
erfo
rman
ce o
f stu
dent
s w
ith a
ttent
ion-
rela
ted
disa
bilit
ies,
incl
udin
g co
mpa
rison
bet
wee
n st
uden
ts
with
and
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s.
P
Süd
kam
p, P
ohl,
&
Wei
nert
(201
5)
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of v
ario
us a
ccom
mod
atio
ns o
n te
st
perfo
rman
ce o
f stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s, in
clud
ing
com
paris
on
to th
e pe
rform
ance
of a
vera
ge s
tude
nts
and
of s
tude
nts
with
lo
wer
read
ing
skill
s bu
t with
out d
isab
ilitie
s; a
lso,
ana
lyze
item
fu
nctio
ning
bet
wee
n te
stin
g co
nditi
ons
for t
est c
onst
ruct
val
id-
ity.
P
X
X
Tim
mer
man
& M
ulvi
-hi
ll (2
015)
Inqu
ire a
bout
the
perc
eptio
ns o
f pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
di
sabi
litie
s re
gard
ing
vario
us e
xam
-rel
ated
acc
omm
odat
ions
.P
Wei
s, D
ean,
& O
s-bo
rne
(201
6)
Exa
min
ing
exta
nt d
ata,
repo
rt on
pat
tern
s of
use
of v
ario
us
acco
mm
odat
ions
and
mod
ifica
tions
by
post
seco
ndar
y st
u-de
nts
with
lear
ning
dis
abili
ties;
als
o, a
naly
ze s
core
pat
tern
s to
di
scer
n th
e ne
ed fo
r acc
omm
odat
ions
, and
ass
ocia
tions
with
ed
ucat
ors’
reco
mm
enda
tions
for a
ccom
mod
atio
ns.
P
X
Will
iam
s (2
015)
Inqu
ire a
bout
the
perc
eptio
ns o
f stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s,
incl
udin
g le
arni
ng a
nd in
telle
ctua
l dis
abili
ties,
rega
rdin
g va
rious
ac
com
mod
atio
ns; a
lso,
sum
mar
ize
rese
arch
lite
ratu
re a
nd th
is
stud
y’s
findi
ngs
in c
onte
xt; fi
nally
, exa
min
e re
late
d is
sues
.
PX
X
Yss
el, P
ak, &
Bei
lke
(201
6)
Inqu
ire a
bout
the
perc
eptio
ns o
f pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
di
sabi
litie
s re
gard
ing
vario
us a
ccom
mod
atio
ns; a
lso,
sum
ma-
rize
rese
arch
lite
ratu
re a
nd th
is s
tudy
’s fi
ndin
gs in
con
text
.P
X
55NCEO
Aut
hor(
s)St
ated
Res
earc
h Pu
rpos
es
Purp
ose
Cat
egor
y Id
entifi
er
A. Perceptions
B. Reviews
C. Effects [both]
C. Effects [non]
C. Effects [SwD]
D. Issues
E. Implement/Use
F. Items
G. Accomm. Need
H. Develop
I. Test
J. Validity
Zam
bran
o (2
016)
Inqu
ire a
bout
the
perc
eptio
ns o
f pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
di
sabi
litie
s re
gard
ing
acco
mm
odat
ions
; als
o, s
umm
ariz
e re
-se
arch
lite
ratu
re a
nd th
is s
tudy
’s fi
ndin
gs in
con
text
.P
X
Zeed
yk, T
ipto
n, &
B
lach
er (2
016)
Sum
mar
ize
rese
arch
lite
ratu
re a
bout
var
ious
acc
omm
odat
ions
fo
r pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
aut
ism
-rel
ated
dis
abili
ties;
al
so, e
xam
ine
rela
ted
issu
es.
P
X
Not
e. A
-Per
cept
ions
= S
tudy
/com
pare
per
cept
ions
and
pre
fere
nces
abo
ut u
se. B
-Rev
iew
s =
Sum
mar
ize
re-
sear
ch o
n te
st a
ccom
mod
atio
ns. C
-Effe
cts
[bot
h] C
ompa
re e
ffect
s of
acc
omm
odat
ions
on
asse
ssm
ent s
core
s [b
oth
stud
ents
with
and
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s].C
-Effe
cts
[non
] = C
ompa
re e
ffect
s of
acc
omm
odat
ions
on
asse
ss-
men
t sco
res
[onl
y st
uden
ts w
ithou
t dis
abili
ties]
. C-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]
. 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-
Item
s =
Com
pare
test
item
s. G
-Acc
omm
. Nee
d =
Iden
tify
pred
icto
rs o
f the
nee
d fo
r tes
t acc
omm
odat
ions
. H-D
evel
op =
Dev
elop
test
. I-T
est =
Tes
t stru
ctur
e. J
-Val
idity
=
Inve
stig
ate
test
val
idity
. P
= P
rimar
y P
urpo
se. X
= O
ther
Pur
pose
.
56 NCEO
57NCEO
Appendix B
Research Characteristics
Authors Publication Type
Research Type Research Design
Data Col-lection Source
Collection Instrument
Ajuwon et al. (2016) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Survey
Barnett & Gay (2015) Journal Expository/ Opinion Descriptive Qualitative Secondary Articles
Barnhill (2016) Journal Quantitative Descriptive Quantitative Primary Interview Protocol, Survey
Bouck et al. (2015) Journal Mixed Descriptive Quantitative Primary Survey, Test
Cahan et al. (2016) Journal Quantitative Meta-analysis Secondary Articles
Cawthon et al. (2015) Journal Quantitative Correlation/Prediction Secondary Interview Protocol, Survey
Cole & Cawthon (2015) Journal Mixed Descriptive Quantitative Primary Interview Protocol,
Survey
Condra et al. (2015) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Secondary Articles
Couzens et al. (2015) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol
Crosby (2015) Dissertation Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol, Survey
Davis et al. (2015) Journal Mixed Quasi-Experimental Primary Survey, Test
DeLee (2015) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Secondary Articles
DePountis et al. (2015) Journal Quantitative Descriptive Quantitative Primary Survey
Detrick-Grove (2016) Dissertation Quantitative Descriptive Quantitative Primary Survey
Dong & Lucas (2016) Journal Quantitative Longitudinal Primary Grades
Eberhart (2015) Dissertation Mixed Quasi-Experimental Secondary Survey, Test
Gallego & Busch (2015) Journal Quantitative Descriptive Quantitative Primary Survey
Giusto (2015) Dissertation Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Test
58 NCEO
Authors Publication Type
Research Type Research Design
Data Col-lection Source
Collection In-strument
Hansen et al. (2016) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol, Observations
Higgins et al. (2016) Journal Mixed Descriptive Quantitative Primary Interview Protocol, Test
Joakim (2015) Dissertation Quantitative Descriptive Quantitative Secondary Test
Kafle (2015) Dissertation Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol, Observations
Kettler (2015) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Secondary Articles
Kim & Lee (2016) Journal Quantitative Correlation/Prediction Secondary Grades
Kim (2016) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Test
Lane & Leventhal (2015) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Secondary Articles
Lawing (2015) Dissertation Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol, Survey
Lewandowski et al. (2015) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Grades, Test
Lin & Lin (2016) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Secondary Test
Lin et al. (2016) Journal Quantitative Correlation/Prediction Secondary Test
Lovett & Leja (2015) Journal Quantitative Correlation/Prediction Primary Survey, Test
Lyman et al. (2016) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol
McMahon et al. (2016) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Test
Miller et al. (2015) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Survey, Test
Monagle (2015) Dissertation Quantitative Correlation/Prediction Primary Survey
Nelson & Reynolds (2015) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol,
Observations, Test
Newman & Madaus (2015a) Journal Quantitative Correlation/Prediction Secondary Interview Protocol,
Survey
Newman & Madaus (2015b) Journal Quantitative Descriptive Quantitative Secondary Interview Protocol
59NCEO
Authors Publication Type
Research Type Research Design
Data Col-lection Source
Collection In-strument
Ofiesh et al. (2015) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol
Ohleyer (2016) Dissertation Quantitative Longitudinal Secondary Test
Peterson (2016) Dissertation Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol
Potter et al. (2016) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Survey, Test
Ricci (2015) Dissertation Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Secondary Survey, Test
Rosenblum & Herzberg (2015) Journal Mixed Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol,
Test
Rudzki (2015) Dissertation Quantitative Correlation/Prediction Secondary Test
Ruhkamp (2015) Dissertation Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Survey
Seo & De Jong (2015) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Secondary Test
Seo & Hao (2016) Journal Quantitative Descriptive Quantitative Secondary Test
Sokal (2016) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol
Spenceley & Wheeler (2016) Journal Quantitative Descriptive Quantitative Primary Observations
Spiel et al. (2016) Journal Quantitative Quasi-Experimental Primary Test
Südkamp et al. (2015) Journal Quantitative Correlation/Prediction Secondary Test
Timmerman & Mulvihill (2015) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol
Weis et al. (2016) Journal Quantitative Descriptive Quantitative Secondary Test
Williams (2015) Dissertation Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol
Yssel, Pak, & Beilke (2016) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol
Zambrano (2016) Dissertation Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Primary Interview Protocol
Zeedyk et al. (2016) Journal Qualitative Descriptive Qualitative Secondary Articles
60 NCEO
61NCEO
Appendix CInstrument Characteristics
Table C-1. Instrument Types and Specific Instruments Used, and Their Sources (n=51)
Authors Instrument Types and Description/s Total
Ajuwon et al. (2016)
Researcher Test: Two surveys from other researchers, one with respondents from Texas, and another from across the US; data were responses for open-ended items, which were further open-coded into categories.
1
Barnhill (2016)
Author Survey: Twenty-item survey with demographic items as well as items on other aspects of the university setting, about supports for students with Asperger Syndrome (AS) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and about outcomes including graduation data and support services’ features such as program effectiveness.
1
Bouck et al. (2015)
Author Survey: Social validity survey questions using a Likert-type rating scale. Researcher Test: Twenty math assessments with eight items each (both com-putation and word problems); for two grade levels (grades 7 and 8), focused on the Common Core State Standards, drawing in part from the state assess-ment’s released items and other sample items; measured the number of correct responses and the number of items attempted. Norm-ref Ach: Calculation subtest and Writing Fluency subtest of the Wood-cock Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001a); Written Expression subtest of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Second Edition (WIAT-II; Wechsler, 2001).
3
Cawthon et al. (2015)
Researcher Test: Used extant data set from a separate larger data set about students (NLTS2), including demographic information, incidence of accommo-dations use, and persistence in postsecondary education; data had been col-lected from parents and school personnel, through phone interviews or paper surveys.
1
Cole & Cawthon (2015)
Author Survey: Student self-report survey asking for demographic information such as GPA, major, type of learning disabilities, along with students’ accom-modations use and disclosure about disabilities; semi-structured interview of postsecondary students about the factors they identified influencing self-disclo-sure. Researcher Test: The Self-Determination Scale (SDS; Sheldon & Deci, 1993), the Revised Self-Disclosure Scale (RSDS; Wheelees, 1978), and the Attitudes Toward Requesting Accommodations scale (ATRA; Barnard-Brak, Davis, Tate, & Sulak, 2009).
2
Couzens et al. (2015)
Author Survey: Semi-structured interviews of both postsecondary students and staff members; students were asked about learning strengths and chal-lenges, accessing formal disability services, and support experiences including their perceptions of least useful supports; staff members were asked about the needs of students with learning difficulties, and aspects of supporting these students.
1
Crosby (2015)
Author Survey: Survey of faculty members about perceptions of disability, as well as their knowledge of accommodations, and practices providing accom-modations; also, semi-structured interview protocol, asking postsecondary students about their experiences with their disabilities and requesting accom-modations.Other: Other document analysis (for data triangulation), including academic records (i.e., grades) and disability documentation.
2
62 NCEO
Authors Instrument Types and Description/s Total
DePountis et al. (2015)
Author Survey: Survey that included items about demographic and teaching experience information as well as teachers’ perspectives including their self-perceptions about proficiencies with several assistive technology devices.
1
Detrick-Grove (2016)
Author Survey: This study was a replication of a study completed by Brown (2007), and the researcher documented the adjustments made to the original survey for the current study. The focus of the survey was to gather educators’ perspectives about accommodations, including their knowledge about them.
1
Dong & Lucas (2016)
Author Survey: Survey of 200 items designed by researchers covering basic demographics, including students’ self-reported disabilities, as well as their aca-demic grades and progress toward postsecondary degrees, and documenting patterns of seeking accommodations.
1
Eberhart (2015)
Author Survey: Student self-report questionnaire, requesting their experience and perspectives on testing format. Structured “think-aloud” cognitive laboratory interview form for documenting interviewer observations, along with interview transcripts.Researcher Test: KITE computerized assessment system, used by the state to measure performance in English language arts and mathematics, based on the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium’s item/task specifications.
2
Gallego & Busch (2015)
Author Survey: Educator surveys requesting respondents’ perspectives about accommodations and their observations about how accommodations are pro-vided, including rating scale responses.
1
Giusto (2015)
Norm-ref Ach: Primary achievement test: Gates-MacGinitie Reading Compre-hension Tests, 4th Edition, Reading Comprehension Subtest, Form S–Grade 3 (MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Maria & Dreyer, 2000); also, for screening/identifi-cation: Woodcock Reading-Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R) Word Reading Subtest (Woodcock, 1987); WRMT-R Word Attack Subtest (Woodcock, 1987). Norm-ref Ability: For screening/identification: Clinical Evaluation of Language Functions, Fourth Edition (CELF-4) Understanding Concepts and Spoken Directions Subtest (Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003); CELF-4 Understanding Spo-ken Paragraphs Subtest (Semel et al., 2003); Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-IV; Dunn & Dunn, 2007).
2
Hansen et al. (2016)
Author Survey: Structured interview protocol: pre-session included demo-graphic information and details about prior experience with assistive technolo-gy, and post-session included gathering information about testing experiences; researcher observation form. Other: Science assessment task based on Next Generation Science Stan-dards; checked the four test conditions with the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (Caldwell, Cooper, Reid, & Vanderheiden, 2008).
2
Higgins et al. (2016)
Author Survey: Survey from teachers rating students’ reading levels; struc-tured “think-aloud” cognitive laboratory interview protocol for documenting interviewer observations.State Test: Mathematics test items were compiled from states’ and consortia’s released test items, including various item types requiring different response formats from students.
2
Joakim (2015) State Test: New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) 2012 writ-ing test scores.
1
63NCEO
Authors Instrument Types and Description/s Total
Kafle (2015)
Author Survey: Structured interview protocols, involving both the disability support program coordinator and postsecondary students as participants, asking about learning disabilities, disclosing disabilities to instructors, instruc-tors’ perceptions as experienced, and requesting and provision of support and accommodations. Other: Other artifacts examined—provided by students—included students’ academic records (i.e., grades), diagnostic and medical assessments, and dis-ability support program records of services used by students.
2
Kim (2016)
Author Survey: Semi-structured interviews of both postsecondary students and staff members; students were asked about learning strengths and chal-lenges, accessing formal disability services, and support experiences including their perceptions of least useful supports; staff members were asked about the needs of students with learning difficulties, and aspects of supporting these students.
1
Kim & Lee (2016)
Other: Postsecondary cumulative grade point averages (GPAs) were reported, as an indicator of both relative academic success and persistence; research-ers noted that other factors were also acknowledged as having likely influenced participants’ GPAs.
1
Lawing (2015)
Author Survey: Attitudes Towards Teaching All Students (ATTAS-mm), a nine-item teacher rating survey (researcher designed) about inclusion; interview protocol to expand upon survey responses. Researcher Test: Two selected items from the Alabama Accommodations Sur-vey, a 13-item survey of accommodations decision-making, from the Alabama Department of Education and the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO; Altman et al., 2010).
2
Lewandowski et al. (2015)
Author Survey: Demographic survey, and grade point average (GPA).Norm-ref Ach: Nelson-Denny Reading Test (Brown et al., 1993) Forms G and H, subtest on reading comprehension.
2
Lin et al. (2016)
State Test: Province of Ontario (Canada) Junior (grade 6) Assessment of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics, 2005-2006.
1
Lin & Lin (2016)
State Test: Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT), grade 10, 2012-2013.
1
Lovett & Leja (2015)
Norm-ref Ach: Nelson-Denny Reading Test (NDRT; Brown et al., 1993) Form H comprehension subtest. Screening and correlation: reading fluency subtest, Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition (WJ-III; Woodcock et al., 2001).Norm-ref Ability: Screening and correlation—processing speed subtests from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Third Edition (WAIS-III; Wechsler, 1997).Other: Screening and correlation—Self-Evaluation of Performance on Timed Academic Reading (SEPTAR; Kleinmann, 2005); ADHD current symptoms scale from Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF-A; Roth, Isquith, & Gioia, 2005).
3
Lyman et al. (2016)
Author Survey: Semi-structured interview protocol, asking postsecondary stu-dents about their disabilities, learning experiences, and accommodations from disability support services.
1
64 NCEO
Authors Instrument Types and Description/s Total
McMahon et al. (2016)
Researcher Test: Three versions of a 30-item end-of-year science perfor-mance assessment developed by the researchers; they checked the reading level of the content using the Flesch-Kincaid readability formula (Kincaid, Fish-burne, Rogers, & Chissom, 1975).
1
Miller et al. (2015)
Norm-ref Ach: Nelson-Denny Reading Test (Brown et al., 1993) Forms G and H, subtest on reading comprehension. 1
Monagle (2015)
Author Survey: Survey included items on demographics and accommodations use information, and also students’ attitudes toward requesting accommoda-tions, based on Attitudes Toward Requesting Accommodations scale (ATRA; Barnard-Brak, Davis, Tate, & Sulak, 2009).
1
Nelson & Reynolds (2015)
Author Survey: Interview protocol inquiring about postsecondary students’ writing experiences, processes, and attitudes, as well as speech recognition experiences; researchers’ observation notes of composition sessions.Researcher Test: Examination of written products from speech recognition-supported composition sessions using quality indicators including both a holistic evaluation of the compositions as well as accounting issues like spelling, vo-cabulary use, and errors.
2
Newman & Madaus (2015a)
Researcher Test: Extant data from larger data set about students—National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2; Valdes et al., 2013); included demo-graphics such as disability categories, and also high school GPA. Also included a subset of survey item data from the Arc’s Self-Determination Scale subscales on self-realization, psychological empowerment, and personal autonomy (Wehmeyer, 2000). The NLTS2 data set was originally collected from students’ parents and school personnel, through phone interviews or paper surveys.
1
Newman & Madaus (2015b)
Researcher Test: Extant data from larger data set about students--National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2; Valdes, Godard, Williamson, McCrack-en, & Jones, 2013); included demographic information, postsecondary enroll-ment, and incidence of accommodations and supports use. The NLTS2 data set was originally collected from students’ parents and school personnel, through phone interviews or paper surveys.
1
Ofiesh et al. (2015)
Author Survey: Structured focus group protocol for multiple participant groups, asking postsecondary students with attention-related disabilities about their experiences taking course exams, including accommodations use.
1
Ohleyer (2016)
State Test: Extant data set from Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP; CTB/McGraw-Hill, 2009) grades 4, 5, & 6 in writing.
1
Peterson (2016)
Author Survey: Semi-structured interview protocol inquiring about postsecond-ary disabilities services managers’ experiences providing assistive technology supports to students with disabilities, including successes and challenges.
1
Potter et al. (2016)
Author Survey: Demographic questionnaire and self-reported grade point average, their perceived reading ability, and their preference between the two testing conditions (with or without accommodation).Norm-ref Ach: Nelson-Denny Reading Test (Brown et al., 1993) Forms G and H, subtest on vocabulary; both number of items completed and number of items correct were documented.Norm-ref Ability: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2003) and Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities III (WJIII COG; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001b).
3
65NCEO
Authors Instrument Types and Description/s Total
Ricci (2015)
Norm-ref Ach: Extant data set for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading assessment (2011) from three states (Connecticut, New Jersey, & New York), comprehension of informational and literary texts; included data from the NAEP Students with Disabilities/English language learn-ers Questionnaire, completed by educators about each assessed student.
1
Rosenblum & Herzberg (2015)
Author Survey: Structured interview protocol about recent experiences with tactile graphics, as well as about previous use of tactile graphics and braille; parents reported students’ demographic data.Researcher Test: Set of objective questions after having examined four differ-ent tactile graphic representations typically used for math and science content; performance on items was documented.
2
Rudzki (2015)
Author Survey: District demographic data records.State Test: Extant data set of one district’s students with reading disabilities in grades 3 through 8 (unspecified) state reading assessment performance scores for fall 2012.
2
Ruhkamp (2015)
Author Survey: Student self-report survey, requesting demographic data and perceptions about accommodations; interview protocol. 1
Seo & De Jong (2015)
State Test: A subset of state assessment data from 222 volunteer schools, including the 2012 Michigan Educational Assessment Program scores in social studies.
1
Seo & Hao (2016)
State Test: Selected extant data—responses from 2010 Michigan Merit Exami-nation grade 11 science (biological sciences, earth/space sciences, physics, and chemistry); also comprised a subset of science test items from the Ameri-can College Test (ACT).
1
Sokal (2016)Author Survey: Interview protocol, asking postsecondary accessibility services professionals and faculty about providing accommodations and other support-ive assistance for students with the mental health concern of anxiety.
1
Spenceley & Wheeler (2016)
Author Survey: Records of postsecondary students with disabilities, including demographic data and documentation of time used for course exams at Disabil-ity Support Services (DSS) office.
1
Speil et al. (2016)
Researcher Test: 20-item science tests, with multiple-choice and short-answer items, for grades 4, 5, 6, & 7 students.Norm-ref Ach: Wechsler Individualized Achievement Test-Third Edition (WIAT-III; Wechsler, 2009).Norm-ref Ability: Screening—Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence-Sec-ond Edition (WASI-II; Wechsler, 2011).Other: Screening/diagnostics—Children’s Interview for Psychiatric Syndromes-Parent Version (P-ChIPS; Weller, Weller, Fristad, Rooney, & Schecter, 2000), Disruptive Behavior Disorder Rating Scale-Parent Version (DBD; Pelham, Gnagy, Greenslade, & Milich, 1992), and Impairment Rating Scale-Parent Ver-sion (IRS; Fabiano et al., 2006).
4
66 NCEO
Authors Instrument Types and Description/s Total
Südkamp et al. (2015)
Researcher Test: Three extant data samples of grade 5 students from a larger longitudinal data set about students (German National Educational Panel Study/NEPS), including demographics and performance in reading literacy.
1
Timmerman & Mulvihill (2015)
Author Survey: Semi-structured interview protocol, asking postsecondary stu-dents with disabilities about their accommodations experiences. 1
Weis et al. (2016)
Author Survey: Records of postsecondary students with learning disabilities, including accommodations use.Other: Redacted (de-identified) data provided to the researchers included unspecified achievement and cognitive testing resulting in diagnostics (applying the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM III-R and DSM IV) and yielding academic accommodations and/or modifications recommended for the students by clinicians, along with disabilities histories and accommoda-tions provided during past schooling.
2
Williams (2015)
Author Survey: Semi-structured interview protocol, asking middle school students about their assessment accommodations experiences; also, education records for triangulation purposes.
1
Yssel et al. (2016)
Author Survey: Semi-structured interview protocol inquiring about the experi-ences of postsecondary students and their disabilities, their learning experi-ences, and how they perceived the accommodations they were provided.
1
Zambrano (2016)
Author Survey: Semi-structured interview protocol, asking postsecondary stu-dents about their disabilities, their learning experiences; also, asking students and one disability resource services professional about accommodations.
1
Note. An additional seven studies (Barnett & Gay, 2015; Cahan et al., 2016; Condra et al., 2015; DeLee, 2015; Kettler, 2015; Lane & Leventhal, 2015; Zeedyk et al., 2016) were literature reviews, and did not use data collec-tion instruments.
KEY:
Instrument Types Type Abbreviations Number of Studies
Non-Academic Protocols or Surveys Developed by Study Author/s Author Survey 33
Surveys or Academic Tests Developed by Professionals or Researchers through Work Outside of Current Study Researcher Test 13
State Criterion-referenced Assessment State Test 9Norm-referenced Academic Achievement Measures Norm-ref Ach 9Norm-referenced Cognitive Ability Measures Norm-ref Ability 5Other Other 7
67NCEO
Table C-2. Content Areas Assessed
Authors
Mat
h
Rea
ding
Writ
ing
Oth
er L
A
Scie
nce
Soci
al S
tudi
es
N
Bouck et al. (2015) • 1
Davis et al. (2015) • 1
Eberhart (2015) • •a 2
Giusto (2015) • 1
Hansen et al. (2016) • 1
Higgins et al. (2016) • 1
Joakim (2015) • 1
Kim (2016) • 1
Lewandowski et al. (2015) • 1
Lin, Childs, & Lin (2016) • • 2
Lin & Lin (2016) •b 1
Lovett & Leja (2015) • 1
McMahon et al. (2016) • 1
Miller et al. (2015) • 1
Nelson & Reynolds (2015) • 1
Ohleyer (2016) • 1
Potter et al. (2016) • 1
Ricci (2015) • 1
Rosenblum & Herzberg (2015) • • 2
Rudzki (2015) • 1
Seo & De Jong (2015) • 1
68 NCEO
Authors
Mat
h
Rea
ding
Writ
ing
Oth
er L
A
Scie
nce
Soci
al S
tud-
ies
N
Seo & Hao (2016) • 1
Spiel et al. (2016) • 1
Südkamp et al. (2015) • 1
TOTAL 4 10 4 2 4 1 27
Note. This table encompasses the subset of studies (n=24) 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 = identified by Smarter Balanced Assessment as English language arts, with both reading comprehension of literary and informational texts, and writing—producing effective and well-grounded writing.b In this study, other LA = the Canadian province’s literacy test, a requirement of high school graduation.
69NCEO
Appendix D
Participant and Sample Characteristics
Author/s Unit of Analysis
Sample Size
Percent of Sample with Disabilities
Grade / Education Level
Disability Types Included in Sample
Ajuwon et al. (2016) Educators 247 0% No age N/ABarnett & Gay (2015) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ABarnhill (2016) Educators 30 0% No age N/ABouck et al. (2015) Students 7 100% Grades 7 & 8 AP, A, EBD, LDCahan et al. (2016) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Cawthon et al. (2015) Students 210 100% Middle or high school; ages 13-18 HI, Mult.
Cole & Cawthon (2015) Students 31 100% Postsecondary LD
Condra et al. (2015) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Couzens et al. (2015) Students, Educators 15 47%
Postsecondary students; no age (Disability Services personnel)
LD
Crosby (2015) Students, Educators 190 4% Postsecondary AP, EBD, LD, PD
Davis et al. (2015) Students 826 0% Grade 5, Grades 10 & 11 None
DeLee (2015) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ADePountis et al. (2015) Educators 122 0% No age N/A
Detrick-Grove (2016) Educators 267 0% No age N/A
Dong & Lucas (2016) Students 8905 8% Postsecondary AP, EBD, LD, ID, PD, None
Eberhart (2015) Students 38010 0% Grade 7 NoneGallego & Busch (2015) Educators 122 0% No age N/A
Giusto (2015) Students 82 34% Grade 3 LD, NoneHansen et al. (2016) Students 3 100% Grades 8-9 VI
Higgins et al. (2016) Students 279 100% Grades 3-5, Grades 6-8, Grades 9-12 HI
Joakim (2015) Students 156 100% Grades 5 & 8 A, EBD, HI, LD, ID, PD, S/L, Mult.
Kafle (2015) Students 8 100% Postsecondary LDKettler (2015) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
70 NCEO
Author/s Unit of Analysis
Sample Size
Percent of Sample with Disabilities
Grade / Education Level
Disability Types Included in Sample
Kim & Lee (2016) Students 1055 100% PostsecondaryAP, A, EBD, HI, LD, PD, S/L, VI, Mult.
Kim (2016) Students 193 5% Kindergarten, Grade 2, & Grade 4 LD, S/L, None
Lane & Leventhal (2015) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Lawing (2015) Educators 65 0% No age N/A
Lewandowski et al. (2015) Students 62 0% Postsecondary None
Lin & Lin (2016) Students 14499 100% Grade 10 EBD, LD, Mult.
Lin et al. (2016) Students 8831 31% Grade 6 LD, None
Lovett & Leja (2015) Students 141 0% Postsecondary AP, None
Lyman et al. (2016) Students 16 100% Postsecondary AP, A, EBD, LD, PD, VI
McMahon et al. (2016) Students 47 34% Grade 6 LD, NoneMiller et al. (2015) Students 76 50% Postsecondary AP, None
Monagle (2015) Students 285 100% Postsecondary AP, A, EBD, LD, PD, Mult.
Nelson & Reynolds (2015) Students 5 100% Postsecondary AP, EBD, LD, PD
Newman & Madaus (2015a) Students 2470 100% Postsecondary
AP, A, EBD, HI, LD, ID, PD, S/L, VI, Mult.
Newman & Madaus (2015b) Students 3190 100% Postsecondary
AP, A, EBD, HI, LD, ID, PD, S/L, VI, Mult.
Ofiesh et al. (2015) Students 17 100% Postsecondary AP, LD
Ohleyer (2016) Students 315 100% Grades 4, 5, & 6 LD
Peterson (2016) Educators 10 0% No age N/A
Potter et al. (2016) Students 101 25% Postsecondary AP, LD, Mult., None
Ricci (2015) Students 23015 100% Grade 4 Missing
71NCEO
Author/s Unit of Analysis
Sample Size
Percent of Sample with Disabilities
Grade / Education Level
Disability Types Included in Sample
Rosenblum & Herz-berg (2015) Students 12 100%
Grades 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, & 12 (at least one or more in each grade)
VI
Rudzki (2015) Students 14 100%
Grades 3-8 (but grade level of each participant was not specified)
LD
Ruhkamp (2015) Students 6 100% Postsecondary Not Specified
Seo & De Jong (2015) Students 52484 5.8% Grades 6 & 9 Not Specified, None
Seo & Hao (2016) Students 19788 missing High school MissingSokal (2016) Educators 5 0% No age N/ASpenceley & Wheeler (2016) Students 1093 100% Postsecondary AP, A, EBD, LD,
PD, VI, Mult.
Spiel et al. (2016) Students 36 44% Grades 4, 5, 6, & 7 (ages 9 to 14)
AP, EBD, LD, Mult., None
Südkamp et al. (2015) Students 6341 7% Grade 5 LD, NoneTimmerman & Mulvi-hill (2015) Students 2 100% Postsecondary AP, A, LD, VI
Weis et al. (2016) Students 359 100% Postsecondary AP, A, EBD, LD, S/L, Mult.
Williams (2015) Students 10 100% Grade 8 AP, A, LD, ID, Mult.
Yssel et al. (2016) Students 12 100% Postsecondary AP, LD, PD, VI, Mult.
Zambrano (2016) Students 8 0% Postsecondary AP, EBD, LD, PD
Zeedyk et al. (2016) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AP: Attention ProblemA: AutismEBD: Emotional/Behavioral DisabilityHI: Hearing Impairment/DeafnessID: Intellectual DisabilityLD: Learning DisabilityPD: Physical DisabilityS/L: Speech/Language DisabilityTBI: Traumatic Brain Injury V/I: Visual Impairment/BlindnessMult: Multiple DisabilitiesNone: Students without Disabilities
72 NCEO
73NCEO
Appendix E
Accommodations Studied
74 NCEO
Tab
le E
-1. P
rese
nta
tio
n A
cco
mm
od
atio
ns
Item
ized
by
Stu
dy
Aut
hor/s
Braille
Dictionary
Computer ad-ministration
Format
Large print
Read aloud / Oral delivery
Read direc-tions
Signed ad-ministration
Simplified language
Visual cues
TOTAL
Caw
thon
et a
l. (2
015)
••
••
•
5D
avis
et a
l. (2
015)
•
1E
berh
art (
2015
)•
•
2G
iust
o (2
015)
•
1H
anse
n et
al.
(201
6)•
•
•
3
Hig
gins
et a
l. (2
016)
•
1
Joak
im (2
015)
•
1
Ket
tler (
2015
)•
•
•
3K
im &
Lee
(201
6)
•
1
Kim
(201
6)
•
1
Lin
& L
in (2
016)
•
•
2
McM
ahon
et a
l. (2
016)
•
1O
hley
er (2
016)
•
1
Ric
ci (2
015)
•
•
2
Ros
enbl
um &
Her
zber
g (2
015)
••
2
Seo
& D
e Jo
ng (2
015)
•
1S
eo &
Hao
(201
6)
•
1
Spi
el e
t al.
(201
6)
•
1
Süd
kam
p et
al.
(201
5)
•
1Ti
mm
erm
an &
Mul
vihi
ll (2
015)
•
1W
eis
et a
l. (2
016)
••
•
••
•
6
Will
iam
s (2
015)
•
1TO
TAL
21
85
214
31
21
39
75NCEO
Tab
le E
-1. P
rese
nta
tio
n A
cco
mm
od
atio
ns
Item
ized
by
Stu
dy
Aut
hor/s
Braille
Dictionary
Computer ad-ministration
Format
Large print
Read aloud / Oral delivery
Read direc-tions
Signed ad-ministration
Simplified language
Visual cues
TOTAL
Caw
thon
et a
l. (2
015)
••
••
•
5D
avis
et a
l. (2
015)
•
1E
berh
art (
2015
)•
•
2G
iust
o (2
015)
•
1H
anse
n et
al.
(201
6)•
•
•
3
Hig
gins
et a
l. (2
016)
•
1
Joak
im (2
015)
•
1
Ket
tler (
2015
)•
•
•
3K
im &
Lee
(201
6)
•
1
Kim
(201
6)
•
1
Lin
& L
in (2
016)
•
•
2
McM
ahon
et a
l. (2
016)
•
1O
hley
er (2
016)
•
1
Ric
ci (2
015)
•
•
2
Ros
enbl
um &
Her
zber
g (2
015)
••
2
Seo
& D
e Jo
ng (2
015)
•
1S
eo &
Hao
(201
6)
•
1
Spi
el e
t al.
(201
6)
•
1
Süd
kam
p et
al.
(201
5)
•
1Ti
mm
erm
an &
Mul
vihi
ll (2
015)
•
1W
eis
et a
l. (2
016)
••
•
••
•
6
Will
iam
s (2
015)
•
1TO
TAL
21
85
214
31
21
39
Table E-2. Equipment Accommodations Itemized by Study
Author/s
Pre-
reco
rded
hu-
man
voi
ce p
laye
r/de
vice
Com
pute
r adm
inis
-tr
atio
n
Tech
nolo
gica
l aid
TOTA
L
Cawthon et al. (2015) • 1Davis et al. (2015) • 1Eberhart (2015) • • 2Hansen et al. (2016) • • 2Kettler (2015) • • 2Kim & Lee (2016) • 1Lin & Lin (2016) • • 2McMahon et al. (2016) • 1Ohleyer (2016) • 1Ricci (2015) • 1Seo & De Jong (2015) • 1Seo & Hao (2016) • 1Weis et al. (2016) • • 2TOTAL 1 8 9 18
76 NCEO
Tab
le E
-3. R
esp
on
se A
cco
mm
od
atio
ns
Item
ized
by
Stu
dy
Aut
hor/s
Calculator
Computer ad-ministration
Dictated re-sponse
Mark answer in Test Book-let
Speech Recognition System
Spell Checker
Word Proces-sor
TOTAL
Bou
ck e
t al.
(201
5)•
1C
awth
on e
t al.
(201
5)•
1D
avis
et a
l. (2
015)
••
2E
berh
art (
2015
)•
•2
Han
sen
et a
l. (2
016)
•1
Joak
im (2
015)
•1
Ket
tler (
2015
)•
••
•4
Lin
& L
in (2
016)
••
•3
Nel
son
& R
eyno
lds
(201
5)•
1P
otte
r et a
l. (2
016)
•1
Ric
ci (2
015)
•1
Seo
& D
e Jo
ng (2
015)
•1
Wei
s et
al.
(201
6)•
••
••
5W
illia
ms
(201
5)•
1TO
TAL
48
43
21
325
77NCEO
Table E-4. Scheduling Accommodations Itemized by Study
Author/s
Exte
nded
tim
e
Mul
tiple
da
y
Test
br
eaks
TOTA
L
Barnett & Gay (2015) • • • 3Barnhill (2016) • 1Cahan et al. (2016) • 1Cawthon et al. (2015) • 1Joakim (2015) • 1Kettler (2015) • • • 3Kim & Lee (2016) • 1Lin & Lin (2016) • • 2Lovett & Leja (2015) • 1Miller et al. (2015) • 1Ofiesh et al. (2015) • 1Ohleyer (2016) • 1Rudzki (2015) • 1Ruhkamp (2015) • 1Spenceley & Wheeler (2016) • 1Südkamp et al. (2015) • 1Timmerman & Mulvihill (2015) • 1Weis et al. (2016) • • 2Williams (2015) • • 2Yssel et al. (2016) • 1Zambrano (2016) • 1Zeedyk et al. (2016) • 1TOTAL 22 3 4 29
78 NCEO
Table E-5. Setting Accommodations Itemized by Study
Author/s
Indi
vidu
al
Smal
l gr
oup
Spec
ializ
ed
setti
ng
TOTA
L
Barnett & Gay (2015) 1 1Barnhill (2016) 1 1Cawthon et al. (2015) 1 1Joakim (2015) 1 1 2Kettler (2015) 1 1 1 3Kim & Lee (2016) 1 1Lin et al. (2016) 1 1Lin & Lin (2016) 1 1Rudzki (2015) 1 1 2Ruhkamp (2015) 1 1Williams (2015) 1 1 2Yssel et al. (2016) 1 1Zambrano (2016) 1 1Zeedyk et al. (2016) 1 1TOTAL 3 4 12 19
79NCEO
Ap
pen
dix
F
Fin
ding
s
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Aju
won
et a
l. (2
016)
The
Texa
s st
udy
teac
her c
omm
ents
wer
e ca
tego
rized
into
eig
ht a
reas
, inc
ludi
ng m
ost c
omm
only
aro
und
thei
r nee
d fo
r acc
ess
to a
ssis
tive
tech
nolo
gy tr
aini
ng, f
ollo
wed
by
assi
stiv
e te
chno
logy
pro
ficie
ncy
and
col-
labo
ratio
n am
ong
prof
essi
onal
s. T
he n
atio
nal s
tudy
teac
her c
omm
ents
wer
e ca
tego
rized
into
nin
e ar
eas,
in
clud
ing
mos
t com
mon
ly a
roun
d th
eir a
ssis
tive
tech
nolo
gy p
rofic
ienc
y, fo
llow
ed b
y th
eir n
eed
for a
cces
s to
ass
istiv
e te
chno
logy
trai
ning
, and
col
labo
ratio
n am
ong
prof
essi
onal
s; th
e ad
ditio
nal t
opic
in th
e na
tiona
l st
udy
was
equ
ipm
ent c
once
rns
with
rela
tivel
y fe
w c
omm
ents
. Det
ails
of b
oth
stud
ies’
par
ticip
ants
’ ind
ivid
ual
com
men
ts w
ere
pres
ente
d.
X
Bar
nett
& G
ay
(201
5)
The
rese
arch
ers
sum
mar
ized
the
rese
arch
lite
ratu
re a
bout
the
impa
cts
of th
is m
edic
al c
ondi
tion
on a
cade
m-
ic c
halle
nges
, and
offe
red
reco
mm
enda
tions
abo
ut in
stru
ctio
nal a
nd a
sses
smen
t acc
essi
bilit
y m
atte
rs; t
his
sum
mar
y em
phas
izes
resu
lts c
once
rnin
g as
sess
men
t acc
omm
odat
ions
. The
y re
porte
d as
sess
men
t pra
c-tic
es w
hich
are
resp
onsi
ve to
the
poss
ible
inci
denc
e of
sei
zure
eve
nts
whi
le s
tude
nts
are
at s
choo
l—in
clud
-in
g fle
xibl
e sc
hedu
ling
and
timin
g, s
uch
as te
stin
g ov
er m
ultip
le d
ays,
and
at b
est t
ime
of d
ay fo
r ind
ivid
ual
stud
ents
. The
y al
so n
oted
that
the
med
ical
con
ditio
n, a
nd m
edic
atio
ns p
rovi
ded
to tr
eat t
he c
ondi
tion,
can
ha
ve a
n im
pact
on
stud
ents
’ mem
ory
and
atte
ntio
n, in
dica
ting
use
of te
st in
stru
ctio
ns th
at a
re s
impl
e, p
aced
to
indi
vidu
al s
tude
nts,
and
pro
vide
d in
mul
tiple
form
ats
and
repe
ated
as
need
ed. T
he re
sear
cher
s in
dica
ted
that
ass
essi
ng “r
ecog
nitio
n ra
ther
than
reca
ll . .
. m
ay p
rovi
de a
mor
e ac
cura
te re
pres
enta
tion
of o
vera
ll un
ders
tand
ing”
(p. 7
).
Bar
nhill
(201
6)
Sur
vey
resu
lts p
rovi
ded
info
rmat
ion
abou
t cur
rent
sup
port
prac
tices
for s
tude
nts
with
Asp
erge
r Syn
drom
e (A
S) a
nd a
utis
m s
pect
rum
dis
orde
r (A
SD
). H
alf o
f the
pos
tsec
onda
ry in
stitu
tions
had
mor
e th
an 3
0 st
uden
ts
with
AS
and
AS
D, a
nd a
ll ha
d m
ore
than
5; o
nly
9 in
stitu
tions
had
mor
e th
an 3
0 st
uden
ts re
ceiv
ing
supp
ort
serv
ices
in th
eir p
rogr
ams,
indi
catin
g th
at n
ot a
ll st
uden
ts w
ith A
S a
nd A
SD
sou
ght s
uppo
rt fro
m D
isab
ility
S
ervi
ces
offic
es. L
ess
than
hal
f of t
he in
stitu
tions
had
pro
vide
d sp
ecifi
c su
ppor
t ser
vice
s fo
r mor
e th
an fi
ve
year
s fo
r stu
dent
s w
ith A
S a
nd A
SD
. The
mos
t com
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
wer
e th
e ex
amin
atio
n ac
com
mod
atio
ns o
f ext
ende
d tim
e an
d al
tern
ate
site
. S
ome
also
pro
vide
d or
al d
eliv
ery
of e
xam
inat
ions
. Oth
er fi
ndin
gs in
clud
ed th
at m
ost i
nstit
utio
ns d
id n
ot h
ave
outc
omes
dat
a su
ch a
s gr
adua
tion
rate
s fo
r stu
dent
s w
ith A
S a
nd A
SD
. Sub
stan
tial d
etai
l was
repo
rted
on
supp
ort p
rogr
am fe
atur
es th
at in
crea
sed
effe
ctiv
enes
s.
XX
80 NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Bou
ck e
t al.
(201
5)
Des
crip
tive
data
indi
cate
d th
at p
artic
ipan
ts s
core
d hi
gher
on
test
item
s w
hen
usin
g th
e ca
lcul
ator
than
whe
n no
t usi
ng it
. Mos
t stu
dent
s at
tem
pted
all,
or n
early
all,
item
s in
all
4 te
st p
hase
s, b
ut fo
r tho
se w
ho d
id n
ot d
o so
, bot
h of
them
atte
mpt
ed m
ore
with
the
calc
ulat
or th
an w
ithou
t. N
o di
ffere
nt p
atte
rn o
f ben
efit f
rom
usi
ng
calc
ulat
ors
was
dem
onst
rate
d fo
r sol
ving
com
puta
tion
or w
ord
prob
lem
item
type
s co
rrec
tly. P
erce
ntag
e of
non
-ove
rlapp
ing
data
bet
wee
n th
e te
st p
hase
s se
rved
as
a no
npar
amet
ric fo
rm o
f effe
ct s
ize.
Eac
h pa
r-tic
ipan
t’s re
lativ
e de
gree
of s
ucce
ss (o
r lac
k of
suc
cess
) was
repo
rted
sepa
rate
ly. T
he g
rade
7 s
tude
nts
all
evid
ence
d a
smal
l effe
ct o
f usi
ng th
e ca
lcul
ator
, whi
le h
alf o
f the
gra
de 8
stu
dent
s sh
owed
a s
mal
l effe
ct a
nd
the
othe
r hal
f sho
wed
a m
oder
ate
effe
ct o
f usi
ng th
e ca
lcul
ator
. Nea
rly a
ll pa
rtici
pant
s’ s
core
s w
ere
anal
yzed
to
be
varia
ble
acro
ss te
st p
hase
s, a
nd th
e ca
lcul
ator
was
dee
med
a q
uest
iona
ble
or u
nrel
iabl
e in
terv
entio
n in
man
y ca
ses.
Par
ticip
ants
repo
rted
that
they
like
d ca
lcul
ator
s, a
nd th
at th
ey h
elpe
d, w
ith b
oth
type
s of
pr
oble
ms;
how
ever
, the
re w
as 1
exc
eptio
n to
this
per
cept
ion.
Gra
de 7
stu
dent
s sa
id th
at th
ey d
o no
t nee
d to
us
e ca
lcul
ator
s in
the
futu
re, b
ut th
e gr
ade
8 st
uden
ts s
aid
they
do
need
cal
cula
tors
.
XX
M
Cah
an e
t al.
(201
6)
The
rese
arch
ers
pres
ente
d a
rank
-ord
ered
list
of t
he 1
7 te
sts
from
the
11 s
tudi
es s
how
ing
the
rela
tive
diffe
renc
es (f
or s
tude
nts
with
and
with
out l
earn
ing
disa
bilit
ies/
LD) i
n m
ean
perfo
rman
ce g
ains
bet
wee
n ex
tend
ed-ti
me
and
no a
ccom
mod
atio
n co
nditi
ons.
The
y co
nclu
ded
that
ther
e w
as a
low
cor
rela
tion
betw
een
gain
sco
res
and
disa
bilit
y st
atus
for m
ost o
f the
stu
dies
. Bas
ed o
n th
e co
llect
ive
resu
lts o
f the
11
stud
ies
on
effe
cts
of e
xten
ded
time
for s
tude
nts
with
lear
ning
dis
abili
ties
and
stud
ents
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s, th
e re
sear
ch-
ers
argu
ed th
at g
rant
ing
addi
tiona
l ass
essm
ent t
ime
for o
nly
stud
ents
with
LD
“err
oneo
usly
den
ies
time
exte
nsio
n fro
m th
e va
st m
ajor
ity o
f the
exa
min
ees
who
cou
ld b
enefi
t fro
m it
” (p.
468
), na
mel
y, m
any
stud
ents
w
ithou
t dis
abili
ties.
Thi
s co
nclu
sion
, the
rese
arch
ers
argu
ed, s
uppo
rts a
uni
vers
al d
esig
n ap
proa
ch —
that
is
, rem
ovin
g tim
e lim
itatio
n fro
m te
sts
for a
ll st
uden
ts. A
long
with
oth
er s
tudy
lim
itatio
ns, t
he re
sear
cher
s ob
serv
ed th
at m
ost o
f the
stu
dies
use
d re
sear
ch m
easu
res
that
“may
hav
e be
en m
ore
high
ly s
peed
ed th
an
actu
al h
igh-
stak
es te
sts
are,
lead
ing
to th
e ve
ry h
igh
degr
ee o
f ben
efit b
y bo
th L
D a
nd n
ondi
sabl
ed p
artic
i-pa
nts”
(p. 4
70).
XX
M,R
Caw
thon
et a
l. (2
015)
The
rese
arch
ers
repo
rted
acco
mm
odat
ions
use
info
rmat
ion
perta
inin
g to
sta
ndar
dize
d te
stin
g, in
stru
ctio
n,
and
also
men
tal h
ealth
sup
ports
; thi
s su
mm
ary
emph
asiz
es te
st a
ccom
mod
atio
ns. P
osts
econ
dary
lang
uage
/co
mm
unic
atio
ns a
ccom
mod
atio
ns u
se d
urin
g ex
ams
was
abo
ut 1
0%, a
dec
reas
e fro
m 7
0% in
hig
h sc
hool
; no
n-la
ngua
ge/c
omm
unic
atio
ns a
ccom
mod
atio
ns u
se w
as 5
0%, c
ompa
red
with
60%
in h
igh
scho
ol. B
oth
decr
ease
s w
ere
stat
istic
ally
sig
nific
ant.
Reg
ress
ion
anal
yses
of d
emog
raph
ic fa
ctor
s an
d po
stse
cond
ary
acco
mm
odat
ions
use
dur
ing
test
ing
indi
cate
d th
at s
tude
nts
with
bot
h he
arin
g im
pairm
ents
and
ano
ther
dis
-ab
ility
, and
stu
dent
s of
hig
her-
inco
me
fam
ilies
, had
hig
her l
ikel
ihoo
ds o
f rec
eivi
ng n
on-la
ngua
ge/c
omm
unic
a-tio
n ac
com
mod
atio
ns (e
.g.,
exte
nded
tim
e an
d ab
brev
iate
d te
st).
Acc
omm
odat
ions
use
was
not
sig
nific
antly
re
late
d to
per
sist
ence
in o
r com
plet
ion
of p
osts
econ
dary
edu
catio
n.
X
81NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Col
e &
C
awth
on
(201
5)
Stu
dent
s m
ade
vario
us d
egre
es o
f dis
clos
ure
abou
t the
ir di
sabi
litie
s an
d de
sire
or n
eed
for a
ccom
mod
a-tio
ns: n
o di
sclo
sure
or n
eed,
dis
clos
ure
by c
onta
ctin
g th
e un
iver
sity
’s d
isab
ility
ser
vice
s (D
S) o
ffice
then
onl
y pr
ovid
ing
lette
rs to
pro
fess
ors,
and
dis
clos
ure
thro
ugh
the
DS
offi
ce’s
lette
r and
als
o ha
ving
det
aile
d pe
r-so
nal c
onve
rsat
ions
with
pro
fess
ors.
Stu
dent
s w
ho d
iscl
osed
thei
r dis
abili
ties
and
acco
mm
odat
ions
requ
ests
w
ith p
rofe
ssor
s ha
d si
gnifi
cant
ly d
iffer
ent s
urve
y re
sults
from
thos
e w
ho d
id n
ot d
o so
. Stu
dent
s w
ho d
id n
ot
self-
disc
lose
at a
ll to
pro
fess
ors
had
nega
tive
attit
udes
abo
ut s
eeki
ng a
ccom
mod
atio
ns a
nd lo
wer
leve
ls
of s
elf-d
eter
min
atio
n. F
urth
er, 9
fact
ors
influ
ence
d di
sclo
sure
dec
isio
ns. T
hese
fact
ors
wer
e se
para
ted
into
th
emes
: kno
wle
dge
(abo
ut a
ccom
mod
atio
ns),
expe
rienc
e w
ith p
eopl
e, s
elf-a
war
enes
s, a
nd s
uppo
rts. T
he
“exp
erie
nce
with
peo
ple”
them
e en
com
pass
ed s
tude
nts’
sen
se o
f pro
fess
ors’
dem
eano
r and
thei
r exp
eri-
ence
s w
ith D
S, t
he p
rofe
ssor
, cla
ssm
ates
, and
aca
dem
ics
in g
ener
al. S
elf-a
war
enes
s fa
ctor
s w
ere
abou
t ne
edin
g ac
com
mod
atio
ns to
add
ress
thei
r dis
abili
ties
or n
ot. T
he “s
uppo
rts” t
hem
e w
as w
heth
er s
tude
nts
had
deve
lope
d co
ping
stra
tegi
es w
ithou
t usi
ng a
ccom
mod
atio
ns. N
on-d
iscl
osin
g st
uden
ts c
omm
ente
d ve
ry
nega
tivel
y ab
out a
ccom
mod
atio
ns k
now
ledg
e, th
inki
ng th
at th
ey d
id n
ot n
eed
them
and
had
oth
er c
opin
g st
rate
gies
inst
ead,
had
hig
her n
egat
ive
view
s of
dis
abili
ties,
and
des
ired
to a
void
neg
ativ
e co
mm
ents
from
pe
ers.
Bot
h th
e st
uden
ts w
ho d
iscl
osed
thro
ugh
the
DS
lette
r onl
y an
d th
roug
h bo
th th
e le
tter a
nd c
onve
rsa-
tion
with
pro
fess
ors
had
few
er n
egat
ive
com
men
ts a
bout
kno
wle
dge
of p
osts
econ
dary
acc
omm
odat
ions
, an
d co
mm
ente
d m
ore
posi
tivel
y ab
out t
heir
own
disa
bilit
ies
and
thei
r nee
ding
and
ben
efitin
g fro
m a
ccom
-m
odat
ions
. Bot
h di
sclo
sure
gro
ups
felt
mor
e po
sitiv
ely
abou
t the
pro
fess
ors’
dem
eano
rs, b
ut m
ade
mor
e ne
gativ
e th
an p
ositi
ve c
omm
ents
abo
ut a
cade
mic
s, a
nd n
egat
ive
com
men
ts a
bout
exp
erie
nces
with
pee
rs.
Bot
h di
sclo
sure
gro
ups
mad
e si
mila
r am
ount
s of
pos
itive
com
men
ts a
bout
cop
ing
mec
hani
sms
as th
e no
-di
sclo
sure
gro
up.
XX
Con
dra
et a
l. (2
015)
The
rese
arch
ers
emph
asiz
ed th
e ne
ed fo
r “re
troac
tive
acco
mm
odat
ions
” (p.
283
)—su
ch a
s m
akeu
p ex
-am
s—du
e to
the
epis
odic
nat
ure
of m
enta
l hea
lth d
isab
ilitie
s (M
HD
). Th
e in
crea
sing
tren
d of
stu
dent
s w
ith
MH
D in
pos
tsec
onda
ry e
duca
tion
was
doc
umen
ted.
Rec
ogni
zing
the
chal
leng
es to
cur
rent
pol
icie
s (a
t Ont
ar-
io h
ighe
r edu
catio
n in
stitu
tions
) for
gra
ntin
g ac
com
mod
atio
ns, t
he re
sear
cher
s no
ted
that
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
retro
activ
e ac
com
mod
atio
ns p
olic
y m
ight
requ
ire a
n in
divi
dual
cas
e-by
-cas
e ap
proa
ch. T
he re
sear
cher
s hi
ghlig
hted
stu
dies
indi
catin
g va
rious
facu
lty a
ttitu
des
abou
t acc
omm
odat
ing
stud
ents
with
MH
D, a
nd e
ven
abou
t whe
ther
thes
e st
uden
ts h
ave
a le
gitim
ate
plac
e in
hig
her e
duca
tion,
sep
arat
e fro
m th
e le
galit
y of
ac
cess
to e
duca
tion
in C
anad
a an
d th
e U
S. T
he re
sear
cher
s re
porte
d on
rese
arch
evi
denc
e in
dica
ting
the
need
for a
ppro
pria
te in
form
atio
n an
d tra
inin
g fo
r pos
tsec
onda
ry e
duca
tors
.
X
Cou
zens
et a
l. (2
015)
Stu
dent
par
ticip
ants
repo
rted
vario
us d
egre
es o
f val
ue a
bout
the
writ
ing
supp
orts
ava
ilabl
e, w
ith s
ome
indi
-ca
ting
that
thes
e w
ere
very
val
uabl
e an
d ot
hers
indi
catin
g th
at th
ey w
ere
not.
Afte
r atte
ndin
g an
orie
ntat
ion
to a
vaila
ble
supp
orts
, stu
dent
s in
dica
ted
that
ava
ilabl
e se
rvic
es w
ere
not n
eces
saril
y he
lpfu
l; no
ne o
f the
st
uden
ts in
terv
iew
ed u
sed
assi
stiv
e te
chno
logi
es. R
egar
ding
Dis
abili
ties
Ser
vice
sup
ports
, mos
t stu
dent
par
-tic
ipan
ts in
dica
ted
that
they
had
not
use
d th
em “b
ecau
se th
ey p
erce
ived
[the
DS
pro
gram
] to
be fo
r stu
dent
s w
ith g
reat
er n
eeds
” (p.
35)
. Uni
vers
ity p
erso
nnel
par
ticip
ants
com
men
ted
that
man
y st
uden
ts w
ho c
ould
be
nefit
from
sup
porti
ve s
ervi
ces
had
not s
ough
t the
m a
nd th
at s
taff
wou
ld h
ave
to e
ncou
rage
stu
dent
s to
do
so. S
taff
mem
bers
als
o no
ted
that
reso
urce
s w
ere
not a
lway
s av
aila
ble
for s
tude
nts
to e
xplo
re p
oten
tially
he
lpfu
l ass
istiv
e te
chno
logi
es w
ith w
hich
they
wer
e no
t alre
ady
fam
iliar
.
XX
82 NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Cro
sby
(201
5)
The
facu
lty s
urve
y fin
ding
s de
taile
d th
e so
cial
con
text
and
inst
itutio
nal c
ultu
re re
gard
ing
incl
usio
n pr
ac-
tices
and
per
cept
ions
of d
isab
ility
. Nea
rly a
ll su
rvey
resp
onde
nts
had
taug
ht s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties.
The
re
sear
cher
rem
arke
d th
at re
spon
dent
s ha
d so
me
mis
conc
eptio
ns a
bout
dis
abili
ty; n
early
40%
indi
cate
d th
at
stud
ents
with
AD
HD
or l
earn
ing
disa
bilit
ies
mig
ht b
e un
able
to b
e su
cces
sful
. Abo
ut 1
5% w
ere
unco
mfo
rt-ab
le te
achi
ng s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties,
and
30%
wer
e no
t kno
wle
dgea
ble
abou
t law
s an
d po
licie
s ab
out
acco
mm
odat
ing
thes
e st
uden
ts. T
he re
sear
cher
con
clud
ed th
at th
e in
stitu
tion
was
prim
arily
incl
usiv
e of
and
re
spon
sive
to s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties.
The
pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties
inte
rvie
wed
indi
cate
d th
at th
eir d
elay
s re
ques
ting
acco
mm
odat
ions
hav
e le
d to
stre
ss, a
nger
, anx
iety
, em
barr
assm
ent,
regr
et,
and
relie
f whe
n ev
entu
ally
doc
umen
ting
thei
r dis
abili
ties.
The
ir ch
alle
nges
wer
e ba
sed
on th
e re
leva
nce
of
thei
r dis
abili
ties
to th
eir i
dent
ities
: sel
f-per
cept
ions
of n
orm
ality
or a
bnor
mal
ity in
fluen
ced
thei
r deg
rees
of
will
ingn
ess
to d
iscl
ose
thei
r nee
ds fo
r aca
dem
ic a
ssis
tanc
e. S
tude
nts
view
ing
disa
bilit
y as
a n
egat
ive
at-
tribu
te te
nded
to c
onsi
der b
alan
cing
the
soci
al c
osts
of t
heir
havi
ng d
isab
ilitie
s w
ith th
e be
nefit
s of
acc
essi
ng
acad
emic
sup
ports
. The
rese
arch
er re
flect
ed o
n th
e re
leva
nce
of th
e st
uden
t int
ervi
ewee
s’ in
sigh
ts, s
ugge
st-
ing
that
incl
usiv
e in
stitu
tions
can
ser
ve a
s ch
ange
age
nts,
enc
oura
ging
stu
dent
s to
sel
f-dis
clos
e ab
out t
heir
disa
bilit
ies.
XX
Dav
is e
t al.
(201
5)
An
early
con
clus
ion
base
d on
obs
erva
tion
was
that
stu
dent
s ty
pica
lly d
id n
ot u
se s
tylu
ses
in g
ener
al, o
r sp
ecifi
cally
for r
evis
ing
essa
ys, a
nd d
id n
ot re
vise
ess
ays
even
thou
gh th
ey w
ere
prov
ided
the
oppo
rtuni
ty
and
inst
ruct
ions
to a
llow
them
to d
o so
. Tas
k pe
rform
ance
was
not
sig
nific
antly
diff
eren
t acr
oss
test
ing
form
ats
by s
choo
ling
leve
l. Th
e m
ean
eval
uatio
n sc
ores
wer
e no
t sig
nific
antly
diff
eren
t with
in e
ach
scho
olin
g le
vel a
cros
s te
stin
g fo
rmat
s. B
oth
grad
e 5
stud
ents
and
hig
h sc
hool
stu
dent
s di
d no
t var
y in
per
form
ance
ba
sed
on te
stin
g fo
rmat
—us
ing
a la
ptop
or a
tabl
et w
ith a
n ex
tern
al k
eybo
ard
or a
tabl
et w
ith a
touc
h-sc
reen
ke
yboa
rd. W
hen
writ
ing
essa
ys a
t sch
ool,
stud
ents
mos
t com
mon
ly c
ompo
sed
on p
aper
or o
n co
mpu
ters
(w
ithou
t tou
chsc
reen
s) in
terc
hang
eabl
y; s
tude
nts
rare
ly u
sed
only
one
form
at, a
nd e
ven
few
er u
sed
touc
h-sc
reen
s. O
n ea
se o
f use
, few
stu
dent
s in
dica
ted
diffi
culty
with
tabl
ets
with
touc
hscr
een
keyb
oard
s, y
et m
ore
high
sch
ool s
tude
nts
than
gra
de 5
stu
dent
s in
dica
ted
that
usi
ng to
uchs
cree
ns w
as “s
omew
hat d
ifficu
lt.” H
igh
scho
ol s
tude
nts
tend
ed to
pre
fer p
hysi
cal k
eybo
ards
ove
r tou
chsc
reen
s fo
r writ
ing
com
posi
tions
.
XX
XW
83NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
DeL
ee (2
015)
The
rese
arch
er s
umm
ariz
ed s
ever
al s
tudi
es, w
ith a
t lea
st te
n be
arin
g on
the
rese
arch
er’s
reco
mm
enda
-tio
ns to
pos
tsec
onda
ry in
stitu
tions
abo
ut a
cade
mic
acc
omm
odat
ions
for s
tude
nts
with
cog
nitiv
e, p
hysi
cal,
or s
enso
ry d
isab
ilitie
s. V
ario
us a
ppro
ache
s, in
clud
ing
inst
itutio
n-sp
ecifi
c gu
idel
ines
, hav
e be
en fo
llow
ed
for d
ocum
entin
g di
sabi
litie
s an
d el
igib
ility
for a
ccom
mod
atio
ns. R
athe
r tha
n a
sing
ular
sta
ndar
d do
cum
ent,
vario
us d
ocum
ents
, inc
ludi
ng h
igh
scho
ol IE
Ps,
hav
e be
en u
sed
to s
ubst
antia
te d
isab
ilitie
s an
d ac
com
mo-
datio
n ne
eds.
Som
e po
stse
cond
ary
stud
ents
with
dis
abili
ties
hesi
tate
to s
elf-d
iscl
ose
thei
r dis
abili
ties
and
poss
ible
nee
d fo
r acc
omm
odat
ions
; man
y of
thes
e he
sita
nt s
tude
nts
wer
e de
scrib
ed in
som
e re
sear
ch a
s be
ing
high
-ach
ieve
rs a
t the
sec
onda
ry le
vel,
yet a
sub
stan
tial p
ropo
rtion
of t
hem
wer
e sh
own
not t
o pe
rsis
t to
com
plet
ing
thei
r pos
tsec
onda
ry p
rogr
ams.
Add
ition
al re
sear
ch w
as d
escr
ibed
indi
catin
g th
at s
tude
nts’
co
llege
suc
cess
was
ass
ocia
ted
with
thei
r pro
activ
ely
seek
ing
supp
ortiv
e se
rvic
es, i
nclu
ding
thos
e av
ail-
able
at o
r thr
ough
aca
dem
ic li
brar
ies,
incl
udin
g on
line
tech
nolo
gies
. The
rese
arch
er re
view
ed re
sear
ch
emph
asiz
ing
the
impo
rtanc
e of
eva
luat
ing
acco
mm
odat
ions
’ ben
efits
, not
ing
that
pos
tsec
onda
ry in
stitu
tions
ha
ve s
hifte
d to
war
d st
uden
t-cen
tere
d pe
rspe
ctiv
es v
alui
ng “a
ssis
tive
read
ing
and
liste
ning
tech
nolo
gies
” (p.
45
) and
exa
m a
ccom
mod
atio
ns, d
ecre
asin
g re
porte
d ne
eds
for s
uch
reso
urce
s as
reco
rded
lect
ures
. The
re
sear
cher
not
ed fi
ndin
gs p
erta
inin
g to
the
chan
ging
app
roac
hes
to c
omm
unic
atin
g w
ith s
tude
nts
need
ing
acco
mm
odat
ions
. Rev
iew
ing
facu
lty p
ersp
ectiv
es re
sear
ch, t
he a
utho
r poi
nted
out
that
kno
wle
dge
of is
sues
an
d av
aila
ble
reso
urce
s co
ntin
ue to
lag
for p
osts
econ
dary
edu
cato
rs, a
nd p
oint
ed to
war
d re
sear
ch d
etai
ling
inst
itutio
nal s
truct
ures
cou
nter
ing
thes
e lim
itatio
ns.
X
DeP
ount
is e
t al
. (20
15)
Hig
h sc
hool
teac
hers
est
imat
ed th
at th
eir p
rofic
ienc
y in
sup
porti
ng s
tude
nts
who
are
blin
d in
lear
ning
ad-
vanc
ed m
athe
mat
ics
clas
ses
was
hig
hest
in a
lgeb
ra, a
nd w
as a
lso
rela
tivel
y hi
gh in
geo
met
ry. T
he te
ache
rs
indi
cate
d ha
ving
use
d up
to 3
5 di
ffere
nt e
lect
roni
c as
sist
ive
tech
nolo
gy (E
AT) d
evic
es, i
nclu
ding
a n
umbe
r of
EAT
dev
ices
use
d du
ring
acad
emic
ass
essm
ents
, with
at l
east
9 s
urve
y re
spon
dent
s in
dica
ting
they
had
us
ed e
ach
of th
em. T
hirte
en d
evic
es w
ere
iden
tified
spe
cific
ally
as
bene
ficia
l to
thei
r stu
dent
s: a
cces
sibl
e gr
aphi
ng c
alcu
lato
rs, a
udio
reco
rdin
g, b
raill
e tra
nsla
tors
, ele
ctro
nic
refre
shab
le b
raill
e no
teta
kers
(ER
BN
), E
xcel
sof
twar
e, g
raph
ing
softw
are,
talk
ing
elec
troni
c fla
shca
rd s
oftw
are,
opt
ical
cha
ract
er re
cogn
ition
(OC
R)
softw
are,
per
sona
l com
pute
rs (P
Cs)
, sca
nner
s/re
ader
s, s
cien
tific
note
book
s, ta
lkin
g ca
lcul
ator
s, a
nd ta
lkin
g sc
ient
ific
calc
ulat
ors.
Sev
en o
f the
se d
evic
es w
ere
typi
cally
use
d by
stu
dent
s fo
r pro
duci
ng w
ork
prod
ucts
: ac
cess
ible
gra
phin
g ca
lcul
ator
s, b
raill
e tra
nsla
tors
, ER
BN
, Exc
el, P
Cs,
talk
ing
calc
ulat
ors,
and
talk
ing
scie
ntifi
c ca
lcul
ator
s. O
f the
se 1
3 be
nefic
ial d
evic
es, 7
wer
e ty
pica
lly u
sed
in g
eom
etry
, and
4 w
ere
typi
cally
us
ed in
alg
ebra
. Add
ition
al d
evic
es w
ere
men
tione
d in
the
open
-res
pons
e qu
estio
n, in
clud
ing
thos
e co
nsid
-er
ed h
igh-
tech
and
low
-tech
: mat
hem
atic
al n
otat
ion
and
grap
hing
sof
twar
e, n
otet
aker
s su
ch a
s re
fresh
able
di
spla
ys a
nd P
erki
ns b
raill
ewrit
ers,
em
boss
ers
and
ther
mal
prin
ters
, tac
tile
boar
ds s
uch
as th
ose
from
the
Am
eric
an P
rintin
g H
ouse
, oth
er m
anip
ulat
ives
, and
oth
er d
evic
es s
uch
as a
bacu
ses
and
digi
tal c
amer
as.
The
rese
arch
ers
note
d th
at te
ache
rs w
ere
prim
arily
pos
itive
abo
ut th
e lo
w-te
ch o
ptio
ns a
nd g
ener
ally
neg
a-tiv
e ab
out t
he n
ewes
t hig
h-te
ch d
evic
es.
XX
M
84 NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Det
rick-
Gro
ve
(201
6)
Ana
lysi
s of
the
K-1
2 te
ache
rs’ s
urve
y re
spon
ses
reve
aled
thei
r per
cept
ions
and
kno
wle
dge
of a
ccom
mod
a-tio
ns fo
r stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s. F
irst,
teac
hers
felt
that
thei
r em
ploy
ers
prep
ared
them
to p
rovi
de a
ccom
-m
odat
ions
for s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties,
mor
e so
than
thei
r pos
tsec
onda
ry e
duca
tion
prog
ram
s. S
econ
d, a
c-co
mm
odat
ions
wer
e re
porte
d to
be
view
ed a
s fa
ir by
teac
hers
; no
dist
inct
ions
wer
e m
ade
amon
g or
acr
oss
teac
her c
hara
cter
istic
s ab
out a
ny v
aria
tion
in th
at o
vera
ll pe
rcep
tion.
Tea
cher
s vi
ewed
all
ten
acco
mm
oda-
tions
spe
cifie
d by
the
rese
arch
er a
s he
lpfu
l; on
a s
cale
of 1
-5, t
he m
eans
wer
e al
l abo
ve 2
.5 in
dica
ting
mor
e he
lpfu
l tha
n no
t. Th
e hi
ghes
t mea
ns w
ere
read
ing
dire
ctio
ns (3
.5) a
nd re
adin
g te
st it
ems
alou
d (3
.4),
and
the
low
est m
eans
wer
e w
ord
proc
esso
r and
spe
lling
dic
tiona
ry (b
oth
2.8)
. Las
t, a
little
ove
r 90%
of t
he te
ache
rs
corr
ectly
ans
wer
ed 6
out
of 1
0 qu
estio
ns re
late
d to
acc
omm
odat
ions
.
X
Don
g &
Luc
as
(201
6)
Ana
lysi
s of
the
post
seco
ndar
y st
uden
ts’ d
ata
reve
aled
tren
ds re
gard
ing
the
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
requ
estin
g ac
com
mod
atio
ns th
roug
h th
e D
SS
(dis
abili
ty s
uppo
rt se
rvic
es) o
ffice
and
dis
abili
ty c
ateg
ory,
as
wel
l as
rela
-tio
nshi
ps a
mon
g re
ques
ting
acco
mm
odat
ions
with
DS
S, b
eing
in g
ood
acad
emic
sta
ndin
g, a
nd d
isab
ility
cat
-eg
ory.
Cum
ulat
ivel
y, s
tude
nts
with
cog
nitiv
e di
sabi
litie
s ha
d th
e la
rges
t pro
porti
on o
f stu
dent
s w
ho re
ques
ted
acco
mm
odat
ions
(32.
3%),
com
pare
d to
stu
dent
s w
ith p
sych
olog
ical
dis
abili
ties
(12.
4%),
phys
ical
dis
abili
ties
(9.2
%),
and
no d
isab
ilitie
s (0
.7%
). Th
e re
sear
cher
s no
ted
that
inci
denc
e of
see
king
acc
omm
odat
ions
in-
crea
sed
from
the
first
and
sec
ond
to th
e th
ird s
emes
ter.
Stu
dent
s w
ith c
ogni
tive
or p
sych
olog
ical
dis
abili
ties
who
requ
este
d ac
com
mod
atio
ns te
nded
to b
e in
goo
d ac
adem
ic s
tand
ing,
com
pare
d to
thos
e w
ho d
id n
ot
requ
est a
ccom
mod
atio
ns, w
hich
was
esp
ecia
lly tr
ue in
the
third
sem
este
r. S
tude
nts
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s w
ho
requ
este
d ac
com
mod
atio
ns a
lso
“wer
e si
gnifi
cant
ly m
ore
ofte
n in
goo
d ac
adem
ic s
tand
ing”
(p. 5
2) th
an
thos
e w
ho d
id n
ot. F
or s
tude
nts
with
phy
sica
l dis
abili
ties,
no
sign
ifica
nt d
iffer
ence
was
foun
d in
aca
dem
ic
perfo
rman
ce fo
r stu
dent
s w
ho re
ques
ted
acco
mm
odat
ions
and
thos
e w
ho d
id n
ot re
ques
t acc
omm
odat
ions
.
XX
Ebe
rhar
t (2
015)
Whe
n co
mpa
ring
scor
es b
y th
e de
vice
on
whi
ch th
ey w
ere
pres
ente
d, th
e re
sear
cher
foun
d m
ain
effe
cts;
th
at is
, the
re w
ere
stat
istic
ally
sig
nific
ant d
iffer
ence
s in
mea
n sc
ores
for b
oth
ELA
and
mat
h: s
tude
nts
scor
ed
high
er o
n co
mpu
ter t
han
tabl
et. F
urth
er, c
ompa
rison
s by
dev
ice
type
whe
n co
mpl
etin
g m
ultip
le-c
hoic
e qu
es-
tions
yie
lded
hig
her p
erfo
rman
ce o
n co
mpu
ter t
han
tabl
et. N
otab
ly, th
ere
wer
e no
t sig
nific
ant p
erfo
rman
ce
diffe
renc
es b
y de
vice
for t
he te
chno
logi
cally
-enh
ance
d ite
ms.
The
rese
arch
er n
oted
that
the
rela
tive
amou
nt
of s
cree
n sp
ace
for t
he c
alcu
lato
r on
the
iPad
requ
ired
mor
e m
anip
ulat
ion
of th
is to
ol w
hen
com
plet
ing
mat
h ite
ms,
whi
ch c
ould
be
an e
xpla
natio
n fo
r the
low
er p
erfo
rman
ce in
mat
h on
the
iPad
. Stu
dent
s sc
ored
, on
aver
age,
hig
her (
in s
tatis
tical
sig
nific
ance
) on
mul
tiple
-cho
ice
item
s th
an te
chno
logy
-enh
ance
d ite
ms,
with
m
oder
ate
to la
rge
diffe
renc
es. T
he p
atte
rn o
f hig
her s
core
s on
mul
tiple
-cho
ice
com
pare
d to
tech
nolo
gica
lly-
enha
nced
item
s ha
s be
en a
ttrib
uted
to th
e ad
ditio
nal t
ime
and
effo
rt ne
eded
for n
avig
atin
g an
d sc
rolli
ng
on th
e la
tter m
ore
com
plex
item
s. In
tera
ctio
n ef
fect
s w
ere
also
foun
d, fo
r dev
ice
and
item
type
s. In
oth
er
wor
ds, w
hen
sim
ulta
neou
sly
com
parin
g sc
ores
by
item
type
and
by
the
com
pute
r dev
ice
on w
hich
they
wer
e pr
esen
ted,
the
rese
arch
er fo
und
stat
istic
ally
sig
nific
ant i
nter
actio
n ef
fect
s in
mea
n sc
ores
for a
ll th
ree
mat
h te
st fo
rms,
and
one
of t
hree
ELA
test
form
s. O
vera
ll pr
efer
ence
s of
the
10 c
ogni
tive
lab
stud
ent p
artic
i-pa
nts
incl
uded
that
5 p
refe
rred
the
com
pute
r lap
top,
1 p
refe
rred
the
iPad
, and
4 li
ked
both
dev
ices
, whe
n co
mpl
etin
g th
e m
ath
and
ELA
test
item
s. S
even
stu
dent
s pr
efer
red
the
mul
tiple
-cho
ice
item
s, 1
pre
ferr
ed th
e te
chno
logy
-enh
ance
d ite
ms,
and
2 s
tude
nts
liked
bot
h ite
m ty
pes.
XX
M,O
85NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Gal
lego
&
Bus
ch (2
015)
Abo
ut 7
7% o
f DS
O (D
isab
ility
Ser
vice
s O
ffice
) sta
ff m
embe
rs in
dica
ted
that
they
had
wor
ked
with
mor
e th
an
15 s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties
atte
ndin
g la
ngua
ge c
ours
es. A
bout
74%
of l
angu
age
prog
ram
dire
ctor
s ha
d m
et
with
at l
east
1 D
SO
sta
ff m
embe
r; 70
% h
ad b
een
sent
info
rmat
ion
by th
e D
SO
, and
abo
ut 9
0% h
ad c
on-
tact
ed th
e D
SO
. Abo
ut 3
1% o
f tea
chin
g as
sist
ants
(TA
s) re
porte
d th
at th
ey h
ad m
et w
ith a
t lea
st 1
DS
O s
taff
mem
ber;
abou
t 32%
of T
As
hear
d fro
m D
SO
s, a
nd a
bout
29%
had
con
tact
ed D
SO
s. A
sm
all n
umbe
r (le
ss
than
10%
) of l
angu
age
prog
ram
dire
ctor
s, a
nd le
ss th
an 2
0% o
f TA
s, re
porte
d th
at th
ey w
ere
the
sole
dec
i-si
on m
aker
s ab
out a
ccom
mod
atio
ns. A
bout
hal
f of t
he D
SO
resp
onde
nts
indi
cate
d th
at th
e D
SO
pro
vide
d ac
com
mod
atio
ns tr
aini
ng to
lang
uage
TA
s. D
SO
sta
ff m
embe
rs p
erce
ived
that
TA
s an
d la
ngua
ge p
rogr
am
dire
ctor
s ne
ed m
ore
info
rmat
ion
abou
t acc
omm
odat
ions
pol
icie
s an
d pr
oced
ures
. The
rese
arch
ers
stat
ed,
“the
maj
ority
of o
ur D
SO
par
ticip
ants
sta
ted
that
TA
s w
ork
wel
l to
impl
emen
t acc
omm
odat
ions
and
con
sult
with
the
DS
O w
hen
mak
ing
deci
sion
s w
hile
TA
s in
dica
ted
the
oppo
site
” (p.
396
).
XX
Giu
sto
(201
5)
Stu
dent
s w
ith d
ecod
ing-
rela
ted
read
ing
disa
bilit
y sc
ored
sig
nific
antly
hig
her o
n re
adin
g co
mpr
ehen
sion
w
ith th
e pa
rtial
read
-alo
ud w
ith p
acin
g ac
com
mod
atio
n th
an e
ither
with
the
paci
ng-o
nly
supp
ort o
r with
out
acco
mm
odat
ions
. The
pac
ing-
only
and
non
-acc
omm
odat
ed c
ondi
tions
did
not
yie
ld s
igni
fican
tly d
iffer
ent
scor
es fr
om o
ne a
noth
er. T
he s
tude
nts
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s di
d no
t sco
re s
igni
fican
tly d
iffer
ently
acr
oss
the
thre
e te
stin
g co
nditi
ons.
The
var
ying
ling
uist
ic b
ackg
roun
ds a
mon
g st
uden
ts in
bot
h pa
rtici
pant
gro
ups
did
not d
emon
stra
te a
n ef
fect
on
the
mea
n sc
orin
g pa
ttern
s di
ffere
nces
. The
rese
arch
er a
lso
repo
rted
anec
dota
l ob
serv
atio
ns o
f par
ticip
ants
whi
le c
ompl
etin
g th
e re
adin
g co
mpr
ehen
sion
test
und
er d
iffer
ent c
ondi
tions
. S
tude
nts
in b
oth
parti
cipa
nt g
roup
s sh
owed
no
atte
ntio
n or
see
med
frus
trate
d w
ith w
aitin
g to
mov
e on
to
anot
her t
est s
ectio
n, in
the
paci
ng-o
nly
cond
ition
. Fin
ally,
the
rese
arch
er in
dica
ted
that
the
parti
al re
ad-a
loud
ac
com
mod
atio
n w
ith p
acin
g su
ppor
t add
ress
ed c
once
rns
indi
cate
d in
oth
er re
sear
ch a
nd p
ract
ice
abou
t in
valid
atin
g th
e re
adin
g co
mpr
ehen
sion
con
stru
ct. I
n ot
her w
ords
, not
read
ing
the
text
pas
sage
s ye
t pro
vid-
ing
read
-alo
ud fo
r the
rem
aini
ng p
arts
of t
he te
st w
as d
emon
stra
ted
to d
iffer
entia
lly b
enefi
t stu
dent
s w
ith
deco
ding
ski
lls d
ifficu
lties
.
XR
86 NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Han
sen
et a
l. (2
016)
Of t
he fo
ur c
ondi
tions
—(1
) scr
een
read
er a
nd s
ound
-onl
y st
atic
and
dyn
amic
sim
ulat
ion,
(2) F
alco
n co
ntro
l-le
r kno
b ha
ptic
sta
tic a
nd d
ynam
ic s
imul
atio
n, (3
) And
roid
touc
h-sc
reen
sta
tic o
nly
sim
ulat
ion,
and
(4) t
actil
e gr
aphi
c pa
per-
base
d st
atic
sim
ulat
ion—
all t
hree
stu
dent
s m
ost a
ccur
atel
y re
cogn
ized
the
info
rmat
ion
in th
e fo
urth
con
ditio
n. B
oth
of th
e de
vice
-bas
ed h
aptic
sim
ulat
ions
(#2
& #
3) w
ere
mos
tly u
nsuc
cess
ful c
omm
u-ni
catin
g ne
eded
bas
ic in
form
atio
n to
the
stud
ents
for u
nder
stan
ding
the
task
, exc
ept t
hat a
stu
dent
cor
-re
ctly
iden
tified
the
num
ber o
f par
ticle
s (u
nder
con
ditio
n #3
) dur
ing
the
sim
ulat
ion’
s th
ird s
tage
. The
con
trol
(#1)
con
ditio
n ha
d bo
th s
tatic
and
dyn
amic
par
ts. T
he s
cree
n re
ader
(JAW
S) w
as u
sabl
e fo
r stu
dent
s, y
et
stud
ents
did
not
ans
wer
sca
ling
ques
tions
with
“stro
ngly
agr
ee”—
poss
ibly
indi
catin
g on
ly li
mite
d en
thus
iasm
. Th
e fo
rmat
of t
able
s w
as n
ot n
avig
able
for t
wo
stud
ents
. The
dyn
amic
sim
ulat
ion—
in w
hich
sou
nd-o
nly
info
rmat
ion
was
pre
sent
ed (a
bout
par
ticle
col
lisio
ns)—
was
con
fusi
ng fo
r all
stud
ents
. Whe
n as
ked
abou
t the
3
quas
i-exp
erim
enta
l con
ditio
ns, t
wo
stud
ents
stro
ngly
reco
mm
ende
d th
e Fa
lcon
tool
; how
ever
, obs
erva
-tio
ns in
dica
ted
all s
tude
nts
had
diffi
culty
loca
ting
parti
cles
in th
ree-
dim
ensi
onal
spa
ce. S
tude
nts
all h
ad
sim
ilar d
ifficu
lties
loca
ting
the
parti
cles
whe
n us
ing
the
And
roid
hap
tics
in th
e tw
o-di
men
sion
al s
pace
due
to
thei
r rel
ativ
e si
ze, a
nd p
ossi
bly
dist
ingu
ishi
ng th
e vi
brat
ions
from
oth
er in
form
atio
n w
hen
they
did
. Bec
ause
pa
rticl
e in
form
atio
n w
as c
entra
l to
the
task
, diffi
culti
es lo
catin
g th
e pa
rticl
es in
terfe
red
with
stu
dent
task
pe
rform
ance
. Stu
dent
s in
dica
ted
that
the
tact
ile g
raph
ics
wer
e bo
th fa
mili
ar a
nd e
asy
to u
se. T
he d
ynam
ic
sim
ulat
ions
see
med
to e
ngag
e an
d m
otiv
ate
stud
ents
: 2 s
tude
nts
indi
cate
d th
at th
ey w
ere
inte
rest
ing,
and
at
leas
t 1 in
dica
ted
lear
ning
from
the
sim
ulat
ion.
The
rese
arch
ers
conc
lude
d th
at u
sabi
lity
issu
es li
mite
d th
e ut
ility
of t
he h
aptic
tool
s, a
nd o
ffere
d re
com
men
datio
ns o
n w
ays
to a
ddre
ss th
ese
chal
leng
es, s
uch
as u
se o
f m
ulti-
touc
h (i.
e., m
ore
than
one
fing
er) h
aptic
s. A
ll of
thes
e fin
ding
s ha
ve im
plic
atio
ns o
n de
sign
ing
scie
nce
test
ing
for s
tude
nts
who
are
blin
d.
XS
Hig
gins
et a
l. (2
016)
The
mat
h te
st re
sults
ana
lyse
s re
quire
a d
etai
led
desc
riptio
n. W
hile
con
trolli
ng fo
r stu
dent
abi
lity
varia
tion,
th
e co
mpa
rison
of p
erfo
rman
ce o
n m
ath
item
s w
ith a
nd w
ithou
t AS
L ac
com
mod
atio
ns y
ield
ed th
at s
tude
nts
on a
vera
ge s
core
d co
nsis
tent
ly a
nd s
igni
fican
tly h
ighe
r whe
n us
ing
the
acco
mm
odat
ions
, acr
oss
all t
hree
sc
hool
leve
ls. T
he s
core
com
paris
ons
betw
een
the
two
vers
ions
of A
SL
cond
ition
s w
ere
mor
e co
mpl
ex in
pr
oces
s, y
et y
ield
ed s
imila
rly c
onsi
sten
t but
non
-sig
nific
ant r
esul
ts in
all
com
paris
ons:
equ
atio
ns a
nd im
-ag
es s
igne
d or
not
sig
ned,
fing
er-s
pelle
d on
ly o
r fing
er-s
pelle
d an
d si
gned
, dia
mon
d ite
m s
truct
ure
or n
ot,
redu
plic
atio
n of
plu
ralit
y or
sho
win
g ac
tion
and
num
ber o
f tim
es, o
r gra
phic
pre
sent
ed o
n si
gner
s’ h
ands
or
in fr
ont o
f sig
ners
’ bod
ies.
Stu
dent
s’ re
spon
ses
to th
e co
gniti
ve la
b in
terv
iew
pro
toco
l wer
e ca
tego
rized
into
th
ree
them
es. T
he c
omm
onal
ity a
mon
g th
e th
emes
is th
at s
tude
nts
who
wer
e de
af p
refe
rred
rece
ivin
g m
ore
info
rmat
ion
rath
er th
an le
ss, a
nd p
refe
rred
rece
ivin
g co
mm
unic
atio
n m
ore
akin
to A
mer
ican
Sig
n La
ngua
ge
than
Eng
lish.
The
ele
men
tary
stu
dent
s in
dica
ted
that
the
non-
sign
ed v
ersi
on w
as c
onfu
sing
; the
old
er
stud
ents
exp
lain
ed th
at m
ath
sym
bols
and
gra
phic
s w
ould
typi
cally
be
sign
ed d
urin
g in
stru
ctio
n. S
imila
rly,
finge
r-sp
ellin
g pr
ovid
ed a
dditi
onal
info
rmat
ion
to s
tude
nts,
and
use
of t
he d
iam
ond
stru
ctur
e fo
r ite
ms
was
th
e co
mm
on c
omm
unic
atio
n pa
ttern
in A
SL
and
mor
e fa
mili
ar to
nat
ive
AS
L si
gner
s. T
he re
sear
cher
s of
fere
d re
com
men
datio
ns o
n de
velo
ping
AS
L vi
deos
for o
nlin
e m
ath
asse
ssm
ents
.
XX
M
87NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Joak
im (2
015)
The
rese
arch
er re
porte
d st
uden
t use
of e
ach
of th
e ac
com
mod
atio
n ty
pes,
incl
udin
g by
gra
de le
vel:
pres
en-
tatio
n (n
=131
), re
spon
se (n
=7),
setti
ng (n
=80)
, and
tim
ing
(n=1
07).
Ove
rall,
132
stu
dent
s us
ed a
t lea
st o
ne
acco
mm
odat
ion,
and
24
stud
ents
use
d no
acc
omm
odat
ions
. Mea
n sc
ores
of t
he g
roup
s of
stu
dent
s ta
king
th
e w
ritin
g as
sess
men
t with
and
with
out a
ccom
mod
atio
ns a
t eac
h gr
ade
leve
l wer
e co
mpa
red.
Gra
de 5
stu
-de
nts
not u
sing
acc
omm
odat
ions
sco
red
stat
istic
ally
hig
her t
han
thos
e w
ho u
sed
acco
mm
odat
ions
. Gra
de 8
st
uden
ts u
sing
and
not
usi
ng a
ccom
mod
atio
ns d
id n
ot s
core
sig
nific
antly
diff
eren
tly. W
hen
mak
ing
com
-pa
rison
s fo
r spe
cific
acc
omm
odat
ions
, the
rese
arch
er fo
und
no s
tatis
tical
ly s
igni
fican
t diff
eren
ces
for t
est
dire
ctio
ns c
ompr
ehen
sion
che
ck, b
reak
s, a
nd e
xten
ded
time—
in e
ither
gra
de. G
rade
5 s
tude
nts
not u
sing
re
ad a
loud
, fam
iliar
exa
min
er, o
r sm
all g
roup
sco
red
sign
ifica
ntly
hig
her t
han
thos
e us
ing
them
, and
gra
de
8 st
uden
ts b
eing
test
ed in
divi
dual
ly s
core
d st
atis
tical
ly h
ighe
r tha
n th
ose
not u
sing
that
sup
port.
No
stud
ent
grou
p m
eans
wer
e fo
und
to b
e si
gnifi
cant
ly h
ighe
r whe
n us
ing
spec
ific
acco
mm
odat
ions
. Whe
n m
akin
g co
mpa
rison
s w
ithin
dis
abili
ty c
ateg
ory,
the
rese
arch
er in
dica
ted
that
ther
e w
ere
no s
tatis
tical
ly s
igni
fican
t di
ffere
nces
for a
ccom
mod
atio
ns u
sers
and
non
-use
rs w
ith a
utis
m in
gra
de 5
and
for g
rade
8 s
tude
nts
with
em
otio
nal b
ehav
iora
l dis
abili
ties.
Stu
dent
s no
t usi
ng a
ccom
mod
atio
ns in
gra
de 5
who
had
lear
ning
dis
abili
-tie
s, a
nd in
gra
de 8
who
had
oth
er h
ealth
impa
irmen
ts, s
core
d si
gnifi
cant
ly h
ighe
r tha
n th
ose
usin
g ac
com
-m
odat
ions
. The
rese
arch
er n
oted
that
som
e di
sabi
lity
cate
gory
sub
grou
ps h
ad to
o fe
w d
ata
poin
ts in
one
of
the
grad
e le
vels
for c
ompa
rison
pur
pose
s: s
tude
nts
with
em
otio
nal-b
ehav
iora
l dis
abili
ties
and
othe
r hea
lth
impa
irmen
ts in
gra
de 5
, and
with
aut
ism
and
lear
ning
dis
abili
ties
in g
rade
8. S
ome
subs
ets
of s
tude
nts
usin
g or
not
usi
ng s
peci
fic a
ccom
mod
atio
ns a
lso
had
too
few
dat
a po
ints
, suc
h as
gra
de 8
stu
dent
s us
ing
the
time
of d
ay a
ccom
mod
atio
n. T
he re
sear
cher
cau
tione
d ag
ains
t inf
errin
g a
caus
al re
latio
nshi
p in
thes
e pa
ttern
s.
XW
Kafl
e (2
015)
Ana
lysi
s of
the
com
mun
ity c
olle
ge s
tude
nts’
inte
rvie
w d
ata
yiel
ded
six
them
es re
gard
ing
thei
r per
cept
ions
an
d at
titud
es: 1
) kno
wle
dge
of d
isab
ility
sup
port
serv
ices
and
elig
ibili
ty fo
r acc
omm
odat
ions
, whi
ch in
clud
ed
feel
ings
of r
elie
f, gr
atitu
de, a
nd h
appi
ness
; 2) d
iscl
osur
e an
d fe
elin
gs re
late
d to
hav
ing
a le
arni
ng d
isab
ility
, in
clud
ing
stig
ma,
em
barr
assm
ent,
not fi
tting
in, s
elf-p
erce
ptio
n, fr
ustra
tion,
and
sel
f-est
eem
; 3) e
mot
ions
re
late
d to
nur
sing
sch
ool,
such
as
anxi
ousn
ess
and
stre
ss; 4
) attr
ibut
es c
ontri
butin
g to
suc
cess
, inc
ludi
ng
hard
wor
k, m
otiv
atio
n, d
eter
min
atio
n, p
ride,
and
stu
bbor
nnes
s; 5
) per
cept
ions
of t
heir
inst
ruct
ors’
resp
onse
s,
whi
ch ra
nged
from
sup
porti
ve to
ann
oyed
; and
6) s
ucce
ss s
trate
gies
, inc
ludi
ng s
tudy
ing
with
som
eone
, ta
lkin
g it
out,
re-r
eadi
ng a
nd re
-writ
ing
mat
eria
ls, v
isua
ls a
nd d
raw
ings
, and
use
of a
ccom
mod
atio
ns. E
ach
of
the
perc
eptio
ns a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith th
e th
emes
was
ela
bora
ted
thro
ugh
exam
ples
from
spe
cific
inte
rvie
wee
s.
XX
88 NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Ket
tler (
2015
)
The
rese
arch
er s
ynth
esiz
ed th
e fin
ding
s of
sev
eral
set
s of
stu
dies
on
the
sepa
rate
impa
cts
of o
ral d
eliv
ery,
ex
tend
ed ti
me,
and
acc
omm
odat
ions
bun
dles
, inc
ludi
ng fi
ndin
gs p
erta
inin
g to
the
diffe
rent
ial b
oost
hyp
othe
-si
s. H
ighl
ight
ing
at le
ast 3
0 st
udie
s on
ora
l del
iver
y—19
of w
hich
wer
e ex
perim
enta
l—he
not
ed th
at th
e fin
d-in
gs o
f 17
of th
e 30
stu
dies
indi
cate
d th
at o
ral d
eliv
ery
supp
orte
d im
prov
ed s
core
s fo
r stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ili-
ties.
The
rese
arch
er s
peci
fied
that
11
of th
e 19
exp
erim
enta
l stu
dies
yie
lded
evi
denc
e of
diff
eren
tial b
enefi
ts
of o
ral d
eliv
ery
for s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties
in c
ompa
rison
to s
tude
nts
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s. A
n ad
ditio
nal f
our
stud
ies
(of t
he 3
0) in
dica
ted
that
ora
l del
iver
y di
d no
t inv
alid
ate
the
cons
truct
s te
sted
, and
one
of t
hese
stu
d-ie
s yi
elde
d th
at o
nly
a fe
w it
ems
on a
read
ing
com
preh
ensi
on te
st w
ere
affe
cted
by
oral
del
iver
y. N
otin
g th
at
the
body
of r
esea
rch
has
indi
cate
d th
at re
ad-a
loud
is a
ppro
pria
te fo
r ass
essm
ents
of m
ath
but n
ot re
adin
g,
the
rese
arch
er c
oncu
rred
that
use
of o
ral d
eliv
ery
durin
g as
sess
men
ts o
f rea
ding
com
preh
ensi
on s
houl
d be
ca
refu
lly c
onsi
dere
d. R
evie
win
g at
leas
t 24
stud
ies
on e
xten
ded
test
tim
e, th
e re
sear
cher
repo
rted
that
the
findi
ngs
of 1
1 st
udie
s de
mon
stra
ted
posi
tive
impa
cts
of e
xten
ded
time
for s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties.
Fur
ther
, th
e 19
stu
dies
exa
min
ing
diffe
rent
ial b
oost
yie
lded
find
ings
of e
ight
stu
dies
sup
porti
ng d
iffer
entia
l ben
efits
of
ext
ende
d tim
e fo
r stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s ov
er s
tude
nts
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s, a
nd th
ree
othe
r stu
dies
indi
-ca
ted
that
ext
ende
d tim
e di
d no
t inv
alid
ate
the
test
con
stru
cts.
The
rese
arch
er c
oncl
uded
from
the
rese
arch
th
at e
xten
ded
test
tim
e be
nefit
s st
uden
ts w
ith a
nd w
ithou
t dis
abili
ties,
and
that
this
sup
port
ough
t to
be u
sed
“onl
y fo
r stu
dent
s w
ith im
pairm
ents
in p
roce
ssin
g sp
eed
or fl
uenc
y to
use
whe
n ta
king
test
s th
at a
re n
ot in
-te
nded
to m
easu
re p
roce
ssin
g sp
eech
or fl
uenc
y at
all”
(p. 3
19).
Exa
min
ing
15 s
tudi
es o
n ac
com
mod
atio
ns
bund
les,
the
rese
arch
er re
porte
d th
at th
e fin
ding
s of
10
stud
ies
dem
onst
rate
d th
e po
sitiv
e im
pact
s of
var
ious
se
ts o
f mul
tiple
acc
omm
odat
ions
for s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties.
Fur
ther
, of t
he n
ine
stud
ies
abou
t diff
eren
tial
boos
t fro
m b
undl
es, s
ix s
tudi
es’ fi
ndin
gs s
uppo
rted
diffe
rent
ial b
enefi
ts o
f var
ious
acc
omm
odat
ions
bun
dles
fo
r stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s ov
er s
tude
nts
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s. O
ne s
tudy
(of t
he 1
5) w
hich
ana
lyze
d fa
ctor
st
ruct
ures
indi
cate
d th
at th
e IE
P-p
rovi
ded
acco
mm
odat
ions
bun
dles
did
not
inva
lidat
e th
e E
LA te
st c
onst
ruct
. Th
e re
sear
cher
con
clud
ed th
at a
ccom
mod
atio
ns b
undl
es o
r pac
kage
s be
nefit
stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s as
de
sign
ed, y
et th
at th
ere
are
com
plic
atio
ns, i
nclu
ding
that
“the
inte
ract
ions
of a
ccom
mod
atio
ns w
ithin
eac
h pa
ckag
e ar
e la
rgel
y un
know
n” (p
. 320
).
X
Kim
& L
ee
(201
6)
Of t
he 1
,055
test
ing
acco
mm
odat
ions
requ
este
d, o
ver 7
5 pe
rcen
t (n=
801)
wer
e fo
r ext
ende
d tim
e, 4
41
requ
ests
(42%
) wer
e fo
r spe
cial
ized
set
ting,
and
131
requ
ests
(12%
) wer
e fo
r pre
sent
atio
n ac
com
mod
a-tio
ns s
uch
as a
ssis
tive
tech
nolo
gy; s
ome
stud
ents
requ
este
d m
ore
than
one
acc
omm
odat
ion.
Inci
denc
e of
ac
com
mod
atio
ns re
ques
ts b
y di
sabi
lity
type
wer
e al
so re
porte
d. B
eta
wei
ghts
, ind
icat
ing
rela
tive
influ
ence
s,
of te
stin
g ac
com
mod
atio
ns in
the
pred
ictio
n of
cum
ulat
ive
GPA
s, in
dica
ted
that
ext
ende
d tim
e ha
d th
e hi
gh-
est (
and
sign
ifica
nt) i
nflue
nce
on G
PA, o
ral d
eliv
ery
and
othe
r tes
t pre
sent
atio
n ac
com
mod
atio
ns a
lso
had
a si
gnifi
cant
influ
ence
on
GPA
, and
spe
cial
ized
set
ting
wer
e “n
ot s
igni
fican
t . .
. in
pred
ictin
g cu
mul
ativ
e G
PA”
(p. 5
). In
cide
ntal
ly, c
lass
room
acc
omm
odat
ions
had
a le
sser
rela
tions
hip
with
cum
ulat
ive
GPA
s, a
nd o
nly
acco
mm
odat
ions
per
mitt
ed d
urin
g as
sign
men
t com
plet
ion
was
pre
dict
ive
of G
PA.
XX
Kim
(201
6)P
artic
ipan
ts in
kin
derg
arte
n an
d gr
ade
2 in
the
live
oral
del
iver
y co
nditi
on s
core
d si
gnifi
cant
ly b
ette
r in
com
-pr
ehen
sion
than
mat
ched
stu
dent
s in
the
audi
o-re
cord
ed c
ondi
tion;
no
diffe
renc
es w
ere
foun
d fo
r gra
de 4
st
uden
ts. S
tude
nt p
artic
ipat
ion
grou
ps d
id n
ot p
erfo
rm s
igni
fican
tly d
iffer
ently
in re
tell
qual
ity b
etw
een
audi
o re
cord
ing
and
in-p
erso
n or
al d
eliv
ery
acco
mm
odat
ion
cond
ition
s.
XR
89NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Lane
& L
even
-th
al (2
015)
The
rese
arch
ers
indi
cate
d th
at o
f the
11
stud
ies
exam
inin
g th
e po
ssib
ility
of d
iffer
entia
l boo
sts
for s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties
usin
g ac
com
mod
atio
ns, f
our s
tudi
es re
porte
d ev
iden
ce d
emon
stra
ting
diffe
rent
ial b
oost
s.
They
not
ed th
at th
ese
stud
ies
exam
ined
dat
a fro
m m
any
acco
mm
odat
ions
, gra
de le
vels
, tes
t con
tent
are
as,
and
even
sam
ple
size
s. W
hen
the
rese
arch
ers
sepa
rate
d ou
t the
evi
denc
e of
diff
eren
tial b
oost
s ba
sed
on
thes
e fa
ctor
s, th
ey o
bser
ved
patte
rns:
evi
denc
e w
as n
oted
in 5
0% o
f stu
dies
with
ele
men
tary
stu
dent
s an
d 30
% o
f stu
dies
with
mid
dle
scho
ol a
nd h
igh
scho
ol s
tude
nts,
and
in 4
0% o
f rea
ding
ass
essm
ent s
tudi
es a
nd
30%
of m
ath
test
stu
dies
. The
rese
arch
ers
deta
iled
seve
ral s
tudi
es’ r
esea
rch
desi
gns
and
indi
vidu
al fi
nd-
ings
. The
y al
so d
iscu
ssed
the
tens
ion
betw
een
the
rela
tivel
y sm
all n
umbe
rs in
stu
dent
sub
grou
ps in
som
e di
sabi
lity
cate
gorie
s—of
ten
resu
lting
in c
ombi
ning
thes
e gr
oups
into
set
s of
stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s as
a
who
le—
and
the
chal
leng
e of
the
resu
lting
het
erog
enei
ty o
f the
ent
ire g
roup
and
stu
dent
s’ v
ario
us re
spon
ses
to s
peci
fic a
ccom
mod
atio
ns. T
he re
sear
cher
s no
ted
that
“tes
t sco
res
tend
to b
e le
ss p
reci
se a
t the
low
er e
nd
of th
e sc
ore
scal
e” (p
. 204
)—an
d st
uden
ts w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s so
met
imes
per
form
in th
at ra
nge
due
to v
ario
us
fact
ors,
and
dis
cuss
ed s
tudi
es u
sing
des
igns
suc
h as
fact
or a
naly
ses
to e
xam
ine
inte
rnal
test
stru
ctur
e. In
su
m, r
elev
ant t
opic
s ad
dres
sed
incl
ude
relia
bilit
y an
d sc
ore
prec
isio
n, c
ompu
ter-
adap
tive
test
ing,
diff
eren
tial
item
func
tioni
ng, f
acto
rial i
nvar
ianc
e, e
xter
nal s
truct
ure
evid
ence
for t
est v
alid
ity, a
nd e
quat
ing
inva
rianc
e fo
r ac
cura
te s
core
inte
rpre
tatio
n.
X
90 NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Law
ing
(201
5)
Hig
h sc
hool
edu
cato
rs’ s
urve
y re
spon
ses
show
ed fr
eque
nt a
nd in
frequ
ent c
lass
room
-leve
l fac
tors
affe
cted
th
e ac
com
mod
atio
ns id
entifi
catio
n pr
oces
s. M
ore
than
hal
f of r
espo
nden
ts in
dica
ted
that
stu
dent
s’ p
res-
ent l
evel
s of
func
tioni
ng a
nd e
vide
nce
of s
ucce
ssfu
l acc
omm
odat
ions
wer
e tw
o im
porta
nt fa
ctor
s. O
ther
w
idel
y-en
dors
ed fa
ctor
s in
clud
ed e
xpec
ting
the
acco
mm
odat
ions
to s
uppo
rt cu
rric
ulum
acc
ess
(45%
of
resp
onde
nts)
, pre
viou
s ap
pear
ance
on
indi
vidu
aliz
ed e
duca
tion
prog
ram
(IE
P) p
lans
(35%
of r
espo
nden
ts),
pare
ntal
inpu
t (25
% o
f res
pond
ents
), an
d te
ache
r inp
ut (2
2% o
f res
pond
ents
). S
urve
y re
spon
dent
s ra
ted
the
rela
tive
impo
rtanc
e fo
r acc
omm
odat
ions
iden
tifica
tion
of s
even
sch
ool-l
evel
con
ditio
ns fo
r con
side
ratio
n by
IE
P co
mm
ittee
s. T
he s
ingl
e m
ost i
mpo
rtant
con
side
ratio
n, fr
om 2
9% o
f res
pond
ents
, was
the
acad
emic
sub
-je
ct, a
nd le
ast i
mpo
rtant
was
“stu
dent
nee
ds th
at im
pede
” (p.
133
) cla
ssro
om s
ucce
ss, a
ccor
ding
to 4
3% o
f re
spon
dent
s. C
omm
on le
ast i
mpo
rtant
con
side
ratio
ns w
ere
acco
mm
odat
ions
dee
med
suc
cess
ful b
ased
on
trial
s in
the
clas
sroo
m (3
5%) a
nd s
tude
nts’
cla
ssro
om p
erfo
rman
ce (2
9%).
The
rese
arch
er n
oted
con
tradi
c-tio
ns in
sur
vey
resp
onse
s be
twee
n fa
ctor
s an
d co
nsid
erat
ions
, sug
gest
ing
that
thes
e re
late
d to
diff
eren
ces
in d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing
in th
e cl
assr
oom
and
the
IEP
mee
ting.
Ana
lyse
s of
the
rela
tions
hip
of te
ache
rs’ a
ttitu
des
abou
t inc
lusi
on a
nd a
ccom
mod
atio
n se
lect
ion
fact
ors
reve
aled
that
spe
cial
edu
cato
rs h
ad m
ore
posi
tive
at-
titud
es to
war
d in
clus
ion
than
gen
eral
edu
cato
rs; t
heir
resp
onse
s w
ere
sim
ilar o
n so
me
attit
ude
surv
ey it
ems
and
diffe
rent
on
othe
rs. O
ver h
alf o
f the
teac
hers
who
indi
cate
d th
at s
tude
nts’
pre
sent
leve
ls o
f fun
ctio
ning
w
ere
an in
fluen
tial f
acto
r als
o de
mon
stra
ted
high
ly p
ositi
ve a
ttitu
des
tow
ard
incl
usio
n fo
r six
of t
he n
ine
attit
ude
scal
e ite
ms,
yet
dis
agre
ed a
bout
the
view
that
stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s w
ill n
ot re
quire
too
muc
h te
ache
r tim
e. In
terv
iew
dat
a in
dica
ted
furth
er s
uppo
rt an
d el
abor
atio
n ab
out t
he th
ree
mos
t infl
uent
ial f
acto
rs
on a
ccom
mod
atio
ns d
ecis
ions
. For
inst
ance
, tea
cher
s in
dica
ted
that
obs
erva
tion
of s
tude
nts’
act
ual u
se o
r no
n-us
e of
acc
omm
odat
ions
can
pro
vide
an
accu
rate
cur
rent
vie
w o
f stu
dent
s’ c
lass
room
func
tioni
ng a
nd
chan
ging
nee
ds. T
he re
sear
cher
obs
erve
d su
btle
var
iatio
ns in
teac
hers
’ res
pons
es to
the
attit
udin
al s
cale
ite
ms
and
thei
r rat
ing
of in
fluen
tial f
acto
rs fo
r acc
omm
odat
ions
sel
ectio
n, n
otin
g th
at p
ositi
ve in
clus
ion
at-
titud
es w
ere
held
by
teac
hers
with
sys
tem
atic
sel
ectio
n ap
proa
ches
. Tea
cher
s’ e
xpec
tatio
ns a
bout
stu
dent
s’
post
-hig
h sc
hool
act
iviti
es (a
cade
mic
uni
vers
ity, c
omm
unity
col
lege
, tra
inin
g pr
ogra
m, o
r em
ploy
men
t) di
d no
t infl
uenc
e cl
assr
oom
acc
omm
odat
ion
sele
ctio
n or
pra
ctic
es. S
tude
nts’
acc
omm
odat
ion
use
and
outc
omes
in
fluen
ced
teac
hers
’ per
cept
ions
of t
heir
acad
emic
abi
lity,
in th
at u
sing
mor
e ac
com
mod
atio
ns w
as li
nked
w
ith lo
wer
aca
dem
ic a
bilit
y an
d fe
wer
opt
ions
afte
r hig
h sc
hool
.
XX
Lew
ando
wsk
i et
al.
(201
5)
Par
ticip
ants
, all
of w
hom
repo
rted
havi
ng n
o di
sabi
litie
s, s
core
d si
gnifi
cant
ly b
ette
r on
aver
age
in th
e gr
oup
adm
inis
tratio
n ra
ther
than
the
indi
vidu
al s
ettin
g. F
urth
er, t
hese
pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts’
indi
vidu
al s
core
s co
rrel
ated
rela
tivel
y hi
ghly
(r=0
.72)
bet
wee
n co
nditi
ons,
indi
catin
g th
at te
stin
g co
nditi
ons
had
limite
d ef
fect
s on
test
per
form
ance
. The
rese
arch
ers
conc
lude
d th
at th
e in
divi
dual
set
ting
did
not b
enefi
t stu
dent
s w
ithou
t di
sabi
litie
s, s
ugge
stin
g th
at in
divi
dual
set
ting
mig
ht s
erve
as
an a
ccom
mod
atio
n fo
r stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s —
but t
hat f
urth
er in
vest
igat
ion
(invo
lvin
g st
uden
ts w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s) w
ould
be
need
ed to
sub
stan
tiate
suc
h a
clai
m.
XX
R
91NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Lin
et a
l. (2
016)
Stu
dent
s us
ing
the
setti
ng a
ccom
mod
atio
n ha
d lo
wer
test
sco
res
on a
vera
ge th
an s
tude
nts
not u
sing
that
su
ppor
t. S
tude
nts
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s ha
d si
gnifi
cant
ly h
ighe
r sco
res
in b
oth
mat
h an
d re
adin
g th
an s
tude
nts
with
lear
ning
dis
abili
ties
(LD
). S
tude
nts
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s us
ing
the
setti
ng a
ccom
mod
atio
n w
ere
the
low
est-
scor
ing
grou
p in
read
ing,
bel
ow b
oth
grou
ps o
f stu
dent
s w
ith L
D. I
n co
ntra
st, t
he a
ccom
mod
ated
stu
dent
s w
ithou
t dis
abili
ties
scor
ed h
ighe
r in
mat
h th
an b
oth
grou
ps o
f stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s, y
et lo
wer
than
st
uden
ts w
ithou
t dis
abili
ties
not u
sing
acc
omm
odat
ions
. Stu
dent
s w
ith L
D u
sing
the
setti
ng a
ccom
mod
atio
n sc
ored
low
er th
an s
tude
nts
with
LD
not
usi
ng th
at s
uppo
rt in
bot
h re
adin
g an
d m
ath.
Non
-acc
omm
odat
ed
stud
ents
with
LD
evi
denc
ed lo
wer
item
diffi
culty
than
stu
dent
s w
ith L
D u
sing
the
setti
ng a
ccom
mod
atio
n.
Indi
vidu
al it
em fu
nctio
ning
var
ied
for a
few
item
s be
twee
n th
e tw
o gr
oups
of s
tude
nts
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s in
m
ath
and
read
ing;
how
ever
, the
re w
ere
no in
divi
dual
item
effe
cts
for a
ccom
mod
ated
and
non
-acc
omm
odat
-ed
stu
dent
s w
ith L
D in
eith
er m
ath
or re
adin
g. O
vera
ll, th
e re
sear
cher
s in
dica
ted
that
the
setti
ng a
ccom
-m
odat
ion
did
not b
enefi
t stu
dent
s w
ith a
ttent
ion
or le
arni
ng d
ifficu
lties
, and
rem
arke
d th
at d
ecis
ions
abo
ut
prov
idin
g se
tting
acc
omm
odat
ions
nee
d to
be
mad
e on
an
indi
vidu
al b
asis
. The
rese
arch
ers
conc
lude
d th
at
the
mul
tilev
el m
easu
rem
ent m
odel
ing
appr
oach
was
use
ful i
n ex
amin
ing
acco
mm
odat
ions
’ effe
cts
beca
use
the
data
cou
ld b
e an
alyz
ed fo
r mul
tiple
pre
dict
ors
and
inte
ract
ions
at t
he p
erso
n-le
vel a
nd it
em-le
vel.
XM
,R
Lin
& L
in
(201
6)
The
odds
ratio
resu
lts d
emon
stra
ted
that
the
thre
e gr
oups
of s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties
rece
ivin
g th
e co
mbi
na-
tions
of:
1) c
ompu
ter a
dmin
istra
tion
with
ext
ende
d tim
e, 2
) com
pute
r adm
inis
tratio
n w
ith s
peci
aliz
ed s
ettin
g,
and
3) c
ompu
ter a
dmin
istra
tion
with
bot
h ex
tend
ed ti
me
and
spec
ializ
ed s
ettin
g, a
ll “h
ad a
hig
her c
hanc
e to
mee
t the
[lite
racy
] sta
ndar
ds” (
p. 2
0) th
an th
eir p
eers
rece
ivin
g no
acc
omm
odat
ions
, and
als
o th
an th
eir
peer
s re
ceiv
ing
othe
r acc
omm
odat
ions
. Com
paris
ons
for s
tude
nts
with
lear
ning
dis
abili
ties
had
the
mos
t pr
onou
nced
diff
eren
ces.
The
rese
arch
ers
caut
ione
d th
at th
e m
atte
r of a
ccom
mod
atio
ns p
oten
tially
affe
ctin
g co
nstru
ct v
alid
ity m
ight
be
of c
once
rn, n
otin
g th
at th
e O
SS
LT h
ad b
oth
mul
tiple
-cho
ice
and
cons
truct
ed-r
e-sp
onse
item
s; th
e po
tent
ial t
hat s
tude
nts’
resp
onse
s co
mpo
sed
usin
g as
sist
ive
tech
nolo
gy—
such
as
spee
ch-
to-te
xt s
oftw
are—
coul
d af
fect
the
test
con
stru
ct c
ould
not
be
eval
uate
d. T
he re
sear
cher
s al
so re
porte
d th
at o
ne o
f the
odd
s ra
tio d
ata
adju
stm
ent m
etho
ds w
as fo
und
not t
o be
use
ful,
whi
le a
noth
er a
ppro
ach
dem
onst
rate
d us
eful
ness
, in
addr
essi
ng th
e pr
oble
m o
f dat
a sp
arsi
ty, p
artic
ular
ly fo
r som
e le
ss c
omm
only
us
ed a
ccom
mod
atio
ns.
XO
Love
tt &
Lej
a (2
015)
Ther
e w
ere
sign
ifica
nt c
orre
latio
ns b
etw
een
mea
sure
s of
sim
ilar c
onst
ruct
s, in
clud
ing
exec
utiv
e fu
nctio
ning
an
d A
DH
D s
ympt
oms,
pro
cess
ing
spee
d an
d re
adin
g flu
ency
, and
bot
h pr
oces
sing
spe
ed a
nd fl
uenc
y w
ith
num
ber o
f com
preh
ensi
on it
ems
corr
ect a
t 15
min
utes
. Pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
mor
e A
DH
D s
ympt
oms
or m
ore
exec
utiv
e fu
nctio
ning
diffi
culti
es d
emon
stra
ted
less
ben
efit a
t a s
igni
fican
t lev
el fr
om th
e ex
tend
ed-
time
cond
ition
. How
ever
, par
ticip
ants
with
mor
e A
DH
D o
r exe
cutiv
e fu
nctio
ning
diffi
culti
es p
erce
ived
that
th
ey n
eede
d ex
tend
ed ti
me
to a
sig
nific
ant d
egre
e, a
ccor
ding
to th
eir S
EP
TAR
sco
res,
whi
le th
eir a
ctua
l co
mpr
ehen
sion
per
form
ance
and
SE
PTA
R s
core
s ha
d no
cor
rela
tion.
XX
XR
92 NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Lym
an e
t al.
(201
6)
Ana
lysi
s of
the
post
seco
ndar
y st
uden
ts’ i
nter
view
s un
cove
red
six
them
es re
gard
ing
perc
eive
d ba
rrie
rs to
ac-
cess
ing
and
usin
g ac
com
mod
atio
ns, f
rom
the
pers
pect
ives
of t
hese
stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s. T
he fi
rst t
hem
e w
as a
des
ire fo
r sel
f-suf
ficie
ncy,
whi
ch in
clud
ed s
ubth
emes
of t
he im
porta
nce
of b
eing
inde
pend
ent,
bein
g se
lf-ac
com
mod
atin
g, a
nd u
sing
acc
omm
odat
ions
as
a ba
ckup
. The
sec
ond
them
e w
as a
des
ire to
avo
id
nega
tive
soci
al re
actio
ns, w
hich
incl
uded
not
wan
ting
to b
e vi
ewed
or t
reat
ed d
iffer
ently
, not
wan
ting
to b
e a
burd
en, a
nd fe
ar o
f sus
pici
on fr
om o
ther
s fo
r rec
eivi
ng s
peci
al tr
eatm
ent.
Third
was
insu
ffici
ent k
now
ledg
e,
incl
udin
g qu
estio
ning
the
fairn
ess
of a
ccom
mod
atio
ns, l
acki
ng a
war
enes
s of
the
DS
S o
ffice
or a
ccom
mo-
datio
ns, a
nd d
oubt
ing
whe
ther
one
is “d
isab
led
enou
gh” t
o re
ceiv
e ac
com
mod
atio
ns (p
. 129
). Th
e fo
urth
th
eme,
qua
lity
and
usef
ulne
ss o
f the
DS
S o
ffice
and
acc
omm
odat
ions
, per
tain
ed to
“pro
blem
s w
orki
ng w
ith
DS
S a
nd th
e pr
oces
s of
set
ting
up a
ccom
mod
atio
ns” (
p. 1
29).
The
last
two
them
es w
ere:
neg
ativ
e ex
peri-
ence
s w
ith p
rofe
ssor
s an
d fe
ar o
f fut
ure
ram
ifica
tions
.
XX
McM
ahon
et
al. (
2016
)
The
mea
n pe
rform
ance
sco
re a
cros
s al
l par
ticip
ants
was
hig
hest
whe
n st
uden
ts to
ok th
e po
dcas
t-del
iver
ed
scie
nce
test
(57%
), an
d th
e se
cond
-hig
hest
mea
n sc
ore
was
ora
l del
iver
y by
teac
her (
54%
), in
com
paris
on
with
the
non-
acco
mm
odat
ed c
ondi
tion
(46%
). Th
e ef
fect
siz
es fo
r the
pod
cast
con
ditio
n (0
.59)
and
teac
her
read
-alo
ud c
ondi
tion
(0.5
2) w
ere
judg
ed to
be
med
ium
and
sig
nific
ant.
The
diffe
renc
e be
twee
n th
e tw
o ac
com
mod
ated
con
ditio
ns w
as n
ot s
igni
fican
t. G
roup
mea
n co
mpa
rison
s be
twee
n st
uden
ts w
ith re
adin
g di
fficu
lties
who
wer
e no
t ide
ntifi
ed w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s an
d st
uden
ts w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s yi
elde
d di
ffere
nt re
sults
. The
m
ean
scor
es o
f stu
dent
s w
ithou
t dis
abili
ties
wer
e si
gnifi
cant
ly h
ighe
r tha
n th
ose
of s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties
in th
e st
anda
rd a
dmin
istra
tion
and
the
teac
her-
read
test
del
iver
y, b
ut le
ss th
an 1
0% h
ighe
r (an
d no
t sig
nifi-
cant
) for
the
podc
ast-d
eliv
ered
test
. Par
ticip
ants
’ tea
cher
s co
mm
ente
d an
ecdo
tally
that
stu
dent
s se
emed
m
ore
focu
sed
and
had
less
wai
t-tim
e in
the
podc
ast t
estin
g co
nditi
on, d
ue to
stu
dent
s ch
oosi
ng w
hen
and
how
muc
h to
list
en to
cer
tain
test
item
s. T
he re
sear
cher
s no
ted
that
all
of th
e pa
rtici
pant
s ha
d re
adin
g di
f-fic
ultie
s, a
nd th
at th
e or
al d
eliv
ery
acco
mm
odat
ion
cond
ition
s su
ppor
ted
the
parti
cipa
nts.
XS
Mill
er e
t al.
(201
5)
Thes
e po
stse
cond
ary
parti
cipa
nts
in b
oth
grou
ps w
ere
com
para
ble
with
one
ano
ther
in te
rms
of th
eir
num
bers
of i
tem
s th
ey a
ttem
pted
and
com
plet
ed in
sta
ndar
d, 1
50%
tim
e an
d 20
0% ti
me
cond
ition
s; th
ey
also
had
sim
ilar n
umbe
rs o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
s as
one
ano
ther
in e
ach
of th
e tim
e co
nditi
ons.
Com
parin
g st
uden
ts w
ith A
DH
D w
ith e
xten
ded-
time
acco
mm
odat
ions
aga
inst
stu
dent
s w
ithou
t dis
abili
ties
with
sta
ndar
d ad
min
istra
tion
time,
stu
dent
s w
ith A
DH
D a
ttem
pted
and
com
plet
ed s
igni
fican
tly m
ore
item
s th
an s
tude
nts
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s; th
e sa
me
com
paris
on a
lso
yiel
ded
that
stu
dent
s w
ith A
DH
D (w
ith e
xten
ded-
time)
sco
red
sign
ifica
ntly
hig
her t
han
stud
ents
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s (w
ith s
tand
ard-
time)
in re
adin
g co
mpr
ehen
sion
. Com
-pa
rison
s be
twee
n ea
ch s
tude
nt’s
sco
res
acro
ss th
e th
ree
cond
ition
s fo
r eac
h gr
oup
indi
cate
d th
at s
tude
nts
with
AD
HD
had
sim
ilar i
mpr
ovem
ents
in s
core
s as
stu
dent
s w
ithou
t dis
abili
ties.
In o
ther
wor
ds, s
tude
nts
with
di
sabi
litie
s di
d no
t 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.
XX
R
93NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Mon
agle
(2
015)
Ana
lysi
s of
the
post
seco
ndar
y st
uden
ts’ r
espo
nse
data
reve
aled
how
atti
tude
s an
d de
mog
raph
ic v
aria
bles
—sp
ecifi
cally
yea
r in
scho
ol, m
ajor
cou
rse
of s
tudy
, and
sel
f-ide
ntifi
ed d
isab
ility
cat
egor
y—in
fluen
ce s
tude
nts’
us
e of
acc
omm
odat
ions
. Stu
dent
s w
ere
mor
e lik
ely
to re
ques
t acc
omm
odat
ions
in th
eir s
econ
d or
third
yea
r, ra
ther
than
thei
r firs
t yea
r in
colle
ge. S
tude
nts
with
mul
tiple
dis
abili
ties
wer
e fo
und
to u
se a
ccom
mod
atio
ns
at h
ighe
r rat
es th
an s
tude
nts
who
sel
f-ide
ntifi
ed w
ith s
ingu
lar d
isab
ility
cat
egor
ies
(e.g
., le
arni
ng d
isab
ilitie
s).
Add
ition
ally,
“stu
dent
s m
ajor
ing
in th
e H
uman
ities
and
Lib
eral
Arts
wer
e m
ore
likel
y to
requ
est a
ccom
mo-
datio
ns th
an th
ose
in m
ath,
sci
ence
and
eng
inee
ring”
(p. 8
8). L
ast,
“stu
dent
s w
ith a
mor
e po
sitiv
e at
titud
e to
war
d ac
com
mod
atio
ns w
ere
mor
e w
illin
g to
use
[acc
omm
odat
ions
]” (p
. 90)
.
XX
X
Nel
son
&
Rey
nold
s (2
015)
Pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nt p
artic
ipan
ts re
porte
d va
ryin
g am
ount
s of
exp
erie
nce
usin
g sp
eech
reco
gniti
on to
ols
prio
r to
the
curr
ent w
ritin
g ta
sk. B
egin
ning
use
rs le
arne
d to
use
the
softw
are
wel
l, ye
t had
cha
lleng
es s
uch
as c
lear
enu
ncia
tion,
eve
n af
ter t
he s
oftw
are
was
trai
ned
to u
sers
’ voi
ces,
and
bec
omin
g ac
cust
omed
to c
on-
tinui
ng to
spe
ak w
ithou
t bei
ng d
istra
cted
by
thei
r mis
take
s sh
owin
g on
scr
eens
. The
y de
term
ined
that
use
of
the
keyb
oard
and
mou
se a
t tim
es b
ecam
e ne
cess
ary
whe
n ed
iting
, rat
her t
han
usin
g vo
ice
com
man
ds
only.
The
se n
ew u
sers
rem
arke
d th
at u
sing
this
sup
port
mad
e co
mpo
sing
qui
cker
and
eas
ier t
han
typi
ng
(man
ually
), an
d re
duce
d th
e lik
elih
ood
of th
eir b
ecom
ing
tired
ear
ly in
the
task
. For
at l
east
one
new
spe
ech
reco
gniti
on u
ser,
the
stud
ent w
ith A
DH
D a
nd m
enta
l hea
lth d
isab
ilitie
s, th
e so
ftwar
e al
low
ed b
ette
r spe
lling
an
d fe
wer
err
ors
that
typi
cally
hav
e sl
owed
dow
n he
r writ
ing
proc
ess.
Tw
o pa
rtici
pant
s in
dica
ted
subs
tant
ial
expe
rienc
e w
ith s
peec
h re
cogn
ition
in m
iddl
e sc
hool
and
hig
h sc
hool
, and
one
indi
cate
d us
ing
a so
rt of
con
-ve
rsat
iona
l app
roac
h, c
onsi
derin
g th
e co
mpu
ter a
hum
an li
sten
er. B
oth
of th
ese
stud
ents
not
ed th
eir h
avin
g le
arne
d no
t to
stop
afte
r eac
h se
nten
ce to
mak
e sp
ellin
g an
d gr
amm
ar c
orre
ctio
ns, s
o as
not
to d
isru
pt th
eir
train
s of
thou
ght.
They
als
o bo
th b
ecam
e pr
actic
ed a
t org
aniz
ing
thei
r tho
ught
s w
ithou
t pre
-pla
nnin
g or
usi
ng
writ
ten
outli
nes
or n
otes
. The
y bo
th in
dica
ted
that
they
per
form
ed e
ditin
g by
usi
ng th
e ke
yboa
rd ra
ther
than
by
voi
cing
edi
ts to
thei
r com
pute
rs.
XX
W
New
man
&
Mad
aus
(201
5a)
The
rese
arch
ers
repo
rted
that
stu
dent
cha
ract
eris
tics
faci
litat
ed o
r blo
cked
see
king
and
rece
ivin
g ac
com
-m
odat
ions
in v
ario
us p
osts
econ
dary
set
tings
. Ove
rall
acco
mm
odat
ion
use
patte
rns
incl
uded
that
15%
of
stud
ents
with
dis
abili
ties
used
“acc
omm
odat
ions
and
oth
er d
isab
ility
-spe
cific
ser
vice
s” (p
. 213
) in
care
er a
nd
tech
nica
l edu
catio
n, 2
2% u
sed
them
in fo
ur-y
ear c
olle
ges,
and
25%
did
so
in tw
o-ye
ar c
olle
ges.
Acc
ordi
ng
to o
dds
ratio
s, s
tude
nts
in tw
o-ye
ar p
rogr
ams
who
had
par
ticip
ated
in tr
ansi
tion
plan
ning
in h
igh
scho
ol w
ere
mor
e lik
ely
to re
ceiv
e ac
adem
ic a
ccom
mod
atio
ns. F
urth
er, s
tude
nts
in tw
o-ye
ar a
nd c
aree
r and
tech
nica
l pr
ogra
ms
who
se tr
ansi
tion
plan
s sp
ecifi
ed a
ccom
mod
atio
ns n
eede
d in
pos
tsec
onda
ry e
duca
tion
wer
e m
ore
likel
y to
rece
ive
them
. Stu
dent
s w
ith a
ppar
ent a
nd o
bser
vabl
e di
sabi
litie
s—se
nsor
y di
sabi
litie
s, m
obili
ty/
orth
oped
ic im
pairm
ents
, and
mul
tiple
dis
abili
ties—
mor
e co
mm
only
rece
ived
acc
omm
odat
ions
than
stu
dent
s w
ith le
ss-v
isib
le d
isab
ilitie
s, s
uch
as le
arni
ng d
isab
ilitie
s, p
artic
ular
ly a
t tw
o-ye
ar a
nd fo
ur-y
ear i
nstit
utio
ns.
Stu
dent
s w
ith a
ttent
ion-
rela
ted
disa
bilit
ies
at fo
ur-y
ear i
nstit
utio
ns w
ere
mor
e lik
ely
to b
e pr
ovid
ed a
ccom
-m
odat
ions
than
oth
er s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties.
Stu
dent
s w
ith lo
wer
inco
me
fam
ily o
rigin
s w
ere
less
like
ly to
re
ceiv
e di
sabi
lity-
rela
ted
serv
ices
than
thei
r pee
rs fr
om h
ighe
r inc
ome
fam
ilies
. Som
e fa
ctor
s w
ere
asso
ci-
ated
with
not
rece
ivin
g ac
com
mod
atio
ns, i
nclu
ding
stu
dent
s in
two-
year
pro
gram
s w
ho s
core
d hi
gher
on
the
self-
real
izat
ion
subs
cale
per
tain
ing
to k
now
ing
thei
r cha
lleng
es.
XX
94 NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
New
man
&
Mad
aus
(201
5b)
Of t
he p
osts
econ
dary
stu
dent
sam
ple,
abo
ut 9
5% u
sed
acco
mm
odat
ions
in h
igh
scho
ol, a
nd a
bout
23%
of
them
use
d ac
com
mod
atio
ns a
t the
pos
tsec
onda
ry le
vel;
this
mar
ked
a st
atis
tical
ly s
igni
fican
t dec
reas
e in
ac
com
mod
atio
ns u
se ra
te. T
he a
ccom
mod
atio
ns u
se ra
te v
arie
d ac
ross
type
s of
pos
tsec
onda
ry in
stitu
tions
: ab
out 1
5% in
car
eer a
nd te
chni
cal e
duca
tion,
abo
ut 2
2% in
four
-yea
r col
lege
s, a
nd a
bout
23%
in tw
o-ye
ar
colle
ges.
Abo
ut 3
5% o
f the
stu
dent
s in
form
ed th
eir p
osts
econ
dary
inst
itutio
n of
thei
r dis
abili
ties,
50%
did
not
co
nsid
er th
emse
lves
to h
ave
a di
sabi
lity,
and
abo
ut 1
4% in
dica
ted
that
they
cho
se n
ot to
dis
clos
e th
eir d
is-
abili
ty, a
nd th
en d
id n
ot s
eek
acco
mm
odat
ions
. The
mos
t com
mon
ly u
sed
acco
mm
odat
ions
wer
e te
st-r
elat
ed
acco
mm
odat
ions
, mos
t ofte
n ex
tend
ed ti
me
and
alte
rnat
e se
tting
s; a
bout
88%
use
d te
st a
ccom
mod
atio
ns
in h
igh
scho
ol a
nd 2
1% d
id s
o in
pos
tsec
onda
ry e
duca
tion.
Spe
cific
ally,
12%
of t
he s
tude
nt s
ampl
e us
ed
test
acc
omm
odat
ions
in c
aree
r and
tech
nica
l edu
catio
n, 2
0% a
t fou
r-ye
ar c
olle
ges,
and
21%
at t
wo-
year
co
llege
s. T
hese
rate
s by
type
s of
pos
tsec
onda
ry p
rogr
am w
ere
foun
d no
t to
diffe
r in
stat
istic
al s
igni
fican
ce.
The
rese
arch
ers
com
men
ted
that
som
e po
ssib
le e
xpla
natio
ns fo
r the
dec
reas
es in
acc
omm
odat
ions
use
in
clud
e th
e st
uden
ts’ p
erce
ptio
n th
at th
ey d
o no
t exp
erie
nce
disa
bilit
y-as
soci
ated
aca
dem
ic c
halle
nges
, or
an o
ngoi
ng la
ck o
f ful
l und
erst
andi
ng o
f the
ir di
sabi
litie
s an
d ac
com
mod
atio
ns d
urin
g hi
gh s
choo
l and
into
po
stse
cond
ary
educ
atio
n, o
r a la
ck o
f inf
orm
atio
n ab
out “
the
diffe
renc
es in
lega
l rig
hts
and
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
betw
een
high
sch
ool a
nd p
osts
econ
dary
sch
ool”
(p. 7
).
XX
Ofie
sh e
t al.
(201
5)
Thes
e po
stse
cond
ary
parti
cipa
nts
repo
rted
that
thei
r AD
HD
con
ditio
n af
fect
s te
st-ta
king
rela
ted
to a
tten-
tion
and
focu
s di
fficu
lties
, dis
tract
ibili
ty, m
anag
emen
t and
per
cept
ion
of ti
me,
and
mov
emen
t. S
tude
nts
with
A
DH
D o
nly
repo
rted
usin
g ex
tend
ed ti
me
for o
ne o
r mor
e re
ason
s, in
clud
ing
addr
essi
ng a
ttent
ion
prob
lem
s by
taki
ng a
bre
ak th
en re
-focu
sing
, allo
win
g tim
e fo
r the
ir di
stra
ctib
ility
and
exe
cutiv
e fu
nctio
ning
diffi
cul-
ties,
per
mitt
ing
mov
ing
arou
nd, a
nd s
elf-m
onito
ring.
The
rese
arch
ers
note
d th
at ta
king
form
al b
reak
s du
ring
test
ing
coul
d be
mor
e ap
prop
riate
for m
any
stud
ents
with
AD
HD
. Stu
dent
s w
ith re
adin
g di
sabi
litie
s as
wel
l as
AD
HD
indi
cate
d us
ing
exte
nded
tim
e fo
r per
mitt
ing
slow
er re
adin
g ra
tes.
XX
Ohl
eyer
(2
016)
The
first
thre
e re
sear
ch q
uest
ions
exa
min
ed a
ccom
mod
atio
n ty
pe a
nd s
cale
d sc
ores
acr
oss
four
th, fi
fth,
and
sixt
h gr
ade
leve
ls. A
ccom
mod
atio
n ty
pe, s
peci
fical
ly a
ssis
tive
tech
nolo
gy a
nd re
ad-a
loud
dire
ctio
ns
(by
adm
inis
trato
r), s
igni
fican
tly a
ffect
ed s
cale
d sc
ores
but
gra
de le
vel d
id n
ot. T
he fo
urth
rese
arch
que
stio
n ex
amin
ed d
iffer
ence
s in
gro
wth
sco
res
by u
se o
f ass
istiv
e te
chno
logy
. Con
secu
tive
use
of a
ssis
tive
tech
nol-
ogy
acro
ss tw
o ye
ars
pred
icte
d hi
gher
gro
wth
sco
res
on th
e st
ate
asse
ssm
ent,
com
pare
d to
gro
wth
sco
res
of s
tude
nts
who
did
not
use
ass
istiv
e te
chno
logy
for t
wo
cons
ecut
ive
year
s. A
ssis
tive
tech
nolo
gy a
nd g
row
th
scor
es w
ere
posi
tivel
y co
rrel
ated
with
one
ano
ther
. In
the
proc
ess
of a
naly
zing
dat
a, th
e re
sear
cher
not
ed
acco
mm
odat
ions
use
pat
tern
s. G
rade
3 s
tude
nts
tend
ed n
ot to
use
ass
istiv
e te
chno
logy
for s
tate
writ
ing
as-
sess
men
ts, d
ue in
par
t to
thei
r lim
ited
expe
rienc
e w
ith u
sing
ass
istiv
e te
chno
logy
for w
ritin
g in
the
clas
sroo
m
(and
so
the
rese
arch
er e
xclu
ded
that
stu
dent
pop
ulat
ion
from
the
stud
y). O
f the
722
5 st
uden
ts w
ith le
arni
ng
disa
bilit
ies,
59%
use
d or
al s
crip
t, 12
% u
sed
exte
nded
tim
e, 8
% u
sed
dire
ctio
ns (o
nly)
read
alo
ud, 2
% u
sed
assi
stiv
e te
chno
logy
, and
less
than
2%
use
d sc
ribe.
The
rese
arch
er o
bser
ved
that
stu
dent
s w
ith le
arni
ng
disa
bilit
ies
usin
g as
sist
ive
tech
nolo
gy te
nded
to b
e m
ore
likel
y m
ale,
Whi
te, a
nd n
ot fr
om th
e lo
w-S
ES
gro
up
of s
tude
nts,
in re
latio
n to
the
sam
ple
as a
who
le.
XX
W
95NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Pet
erso
n (2
016)
Thre
e th
emes
em
erge
d in
the
anal
ysis
: 1) a
cade
mic
cha
lleng
es o
f stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s w
ere
inde
pen-
dent
of a
ge o
r typ
e of
dis
abili
ty, 2
) “La
ck o
f cam
pus-
wid
e di
sabi
lity
supp
ort”
(p. 9
1), a
nd 3
) “Th
e bu
rden
of
disa
bilit
ies
serv
ices
” (p.
92)
. Sev
eral
sub
them
es w
ere
also
iden
tified
, and
thei
r dis
tribu
tion
acro
ss p
ar-
ticip
ants
’ sta
tem
ents
was
repo
rted.
For
the
first
them
e, a
sub
them
e re
porte
d by
all
parti
cipa
nts
was
“The
tra
nsiti
on fr
om m
odifi
catio
ns to
acc
omm
odat
ions
” (p.
93)
, ref
errin
g to
the
diffe
renc
e be
twee
n K
-12
educ
atio
n an
d hi
gher
edu
catio
n in
the
natu
re o
f sup
port:
spe
cific
ally,
that
edu
catio
n ca
n so
met
imes
be
acco
mm
odat
ed
and
som
etim
es m
odifi
ed fo
r K-1
2 st
uden
ts w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s, a
nd th
at p
osts
econ
dary
edu
catio
n is
onl
y ac
-co
mm
odat
ed. A
noth
er c
omm
on s
ubth
eme
for t
he fi
rst t
hem
e w
as b
ased
on
seve
n pa
rtici
pant
s’ o
bser
vatio
ns
that
stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s do
not
alw
ays
use
acco
mm
odat
ions
that
they
hav
e re
ques
ted.
For
the
seco
nd
them
e, a
ll pa
rtici
pant
s in
dica
ted
that
pos
tsec
onda
ry in
stitu
tions
hav
e in
stan
ces
of “p
oor a
dher
ence
to U
nive
r-sa
l Des
ign”
(p. 1
14) a
nd a
lso
of n
ot b
eing
fully
acc
essi
ble
and
resp
onsi
ve to
the
need
s of
pos
tsec
onda
ry
stud
ents
with
dis
abili
ties,
eith
er in
-per
son
or o
nlin
e—in
clud
ing
the
phys
ical
faci
litie
s as
wel
l as
the
acad
emic
le
arni
ng e
nviro
nmen
ts. A
dditi
onal
sub
them
es e
ach
repo
rted
by o
ver h
alf o
f par
ticip
ants
wer
e th
at D
S o
ffice
pe
rson
nel i
nclu
ding
ser
vice
coo
rdin
ator
s ha
ve re
ceiv
ed li
ttle
tech
nolo
gy tr
aini
ng, t
hat s
tude
nt w
orke
rs a
re
part
of h
igh-
dem
and
DS
offi
ce s
ervi
ces,
ser
vice
del
iver
y is
ofte
n no
t pla
nned
for o
r bud
gete
d be
yond
the
curr
ent s
choo
l yea
r, an
d th
e re
cogn
ition
that
the
entir
e in
stitu
tion
need
s to
sha
re re
spon
sibi
lity
for a
nd b
e tra
ined
in p
rovi
ding
acc
ess
yet t
he re
spon
sibi
lity
is ro
utin
ely
shift
ed o
nly
to th
e D
S o
ffice
. For
the
third
them
e,
ther
e w
ere
five
subt
hem
es, a
nd fi
ve to
sev
en p
artic
ipan
ts e
ndor
sed
each
of t
hem
. Bur
dens
incl
uded
par
tici-
pant
s’ e
xper
ienc
es o
f hea
ring
from
inst
itutio
nal a
dmin
istra
tors
abo
ut th
e fin
anci
al a
nd o
ther
reso
urce
cos
ts o
f di
sabi
litie
s se
rvic
es. I
n th
is v
iew
, the
DS
offi
ce “i
s se
en a
s an
exp
ensi
ve c
hoic
e, n
ot a
man
date
” (p.
151
), an
d ev
en “r
easo
nabl
e ac
com
mod
atio
ns h
ave
upfro
nt c
osts
” (p.
151
). Th
ere
is a
n as
sum
ptio
n th
at c
omm
unity
col
-le
ges
are
posi
tione
d to
mor
e su
cces
sful
ly a
ddre
ss th
e ac
cess
nee
ds o
f stu
dent
s w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s. T
he o
ther
su
bthe
mes
incl
ude:
“Dis
able
d st
uden
ts o
ften
do n
ot k
now
wha
t has
bee
n pr
ovid
ed fo
r the
m,”
and
“The
re is
ra
rely
a o
ne-s
ize-
fits-
all a
ppro
ach”
(p. 1
51).
XX
Pot
ter e
t al.
(201
6)
Bot
h po
stse
cond
ary
stud
ents
with
dis
abili
ties
and
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s co
mpl
eted
sig
nific
antly
mor
e ite
ms
in th
e te
st b
ookl
et, c
ompa
red
to th
e st
anda
rd re
spon
ding
con
ditio
n—th
e bu
bble
ans
wer
she
et. S
tude
nts
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s an
swer
ed s
igni
fican
tly m
ore
item
s th
an s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties
acro
ss b
oth
resp
onse
fo
rmat
s. T
here
wer
e no
inte
ract
ion
effe
cts,
by
grou
p an
d co
nditi
on. B
oth
grou
ps a
lso
answ
ered
sig
nific
antly
m
ore
item
s co
rrec
tly in
the
test
boo
klet
acc
omm
odat
ion.
Stu
dent
s w
ithou
t dis
abili
ties
scor
ed s
tatis
tical
ly
high
er o
n av
erag
e th
an s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties.
The
re w
ere
no in
tera
ctio
n ef
fect
s, b
y gr
oup
and
cond
ition
. Fi
nally
, all
stud
ents
with
dis
abili
ties,
and
nea
rly a
ll (7
0 ou
t of 7
6) s
tude
nts
with
out d
isab
ilitie
s in
dica
ted
a pr
ef-
eren
ce to
use
the
acco
mm
odat
ion
of re
spon
ding
to it
ems
in th
e te
st b
ookl
et; t
hat i
s, th
ere
was
no
sign
ifica
nt
diffe
renc
e in
gro
upw
ise
pref
eren
ces.
The
rese
arch
ers
indi
cate
d th
at th
e ac
com
mod
atio
n is
not
val
id, a
nd
that
the
acco
mm
odat
ion
mig
ht a
ffect
the
read
ing
voca
bula
ry c
onst
ruct
.
XX
XR
Ric
ci (2
015)
In e
ach
of th
e th
ree
with
in-s
tate
com
paris
ons
betw
een
stud
ents
with
dis
abili
ties
usin
g an
d no
t usi
ng o
ral
deliv
ery
via
text
-to-s
peec
h, th
e re
sear
cher
foun
d st
atis
tical
ly lo
wer
mea
n sc
ores
in N
AE
P re
adin
g co
mpr
e-he
nsio
n fo
r tho
se u
sing
the
acco
mm
odat
ion.
Fur
ther
, effe
ct s
izes
wer
e: m
ediu
m in
New
Yor
k, v
ery
larg
e in
N
ew J
erse
y, a
nd m
ediu
m to
larg
e in
Con
nect
icut
. The
rese
arch
er c
oncl
uded
that
ora
l del
iver
y di
d no
t ben
efit
stud
ents
with
dis
abili
ties
who
rece
ived
the
acco
mm
odat
ion.
XX
R
96 NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Ros
enbl
um
& H
erzb
erg
(201
5)
Of t
he fo
ur ta
ctile
gra
phic
s ite
m fo
rmat
s, th
e la
rges
t num
ber o
f stu
dent
par
ticip
ants
(10
or m
ore)
ans
wer
ed
corr
ectly
usi
ng th
e m
icro
caps
ule
map
, and
the
leas
t num
ber o
f stu
dent
s (4
or f
ewer
) ans
wer
ed c
orre
ctly
us
ing
the
colla
ge p
ictu
re w
ith h
ot g
lue
and
brai
lle la
bels
. Par
ticip
ants
des
crib
ed h
ow th
ey e
xam
ined
the
map
fo
r inf
orm
atio
n in
term
s of
sea
rchi
ng fo
r titl
e an
d m
ap k
ey. M
ost s
tude
nts
indi
cate
d th
at th
e m
ap in
form
atio
n w
as c
lear
; stu
dent
s in
dica
ted
thei
r pre
fere
nces
and
sug
gest
ed im
prov
emen
ts. T
hree
par
ticip
ants
exp
ress
ed
conf
usio
n ab
out t
he in
form
atio
n on
the
embo
ssed
bar
gra
ph to
the
degr
ee th
at th
ey c
ould
not
ans
wer
som
e or
all
of th
e co
nten
t que
stio
ns. M
ost s
tude
nts
indi
cate
d th
at th
e co
lum
ns w
ere
diffi
cult
to d
istin
guis
h be
twee
n;
seve
ral s
ugge
sted
usi
ng d
iffer
ent t
extu
res
for e
ach
colu
mn,
and
som
e su
gges
ted
chan
ging
labe
l loc
atio
ns.
With
the
ther
mof
orm
gra
ph, a
bout
hal
f of t
he s
tude
nts
indi
cate
d th
at th
e lin
e te
xtur
es w
ere
clea
r whi
le th
e ot
her h
alf e
xpre
ssed
that
the
lines
wer
e di
fficu
lt to
dis
cern
. The
pic
ture
col
lage
was
repo
rted
to c
lear
ly c
om-
mun
icat
e th
e fe
atur
es n
eede
d fo
r ans
wer
ing
ques
tions
—ha
ving
five
labe
led
parts
—ye
t mos
t stu
dent
s di
d no
t ac
cura
tely
mea
sure
(with
rule
rs) t
he d
imen
sion
s of
the
obje
ct’s
sha
pe. F
ew s
tude
nts
sugg
este
d im
prov
e-m
ents
, but
som
e in
dica
ted
labe
l loc
atio
ns c
ould
be
chan
ged;
rese
arch
ers
indi
cate
d th
at th
e ru
ler m
ight
hav
e be
en u
nfam
iliar
, affe
ctin
g th
e st
uden
ts’ r
espo
nses
. Nea
rly a
ll pa
rtici
pant
s in
dica
ted
that
they
hav
e no
t bee
n as
ked
by e
duca
tors
for t
heir
inpu
t on
the
desi
gn o
f tac
tile
grap
hics
.
XX
M,S
Rud
zki (
2015
)
Ana
lyse
s re
veal
ed n
o st
atis
tical
ly s
igni
fican
t rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
stud
ents
’ rea
ding
pro
ficie
ncy
leve
ls a
nd
thei
r hav
ing
lear
ning
dis
abili
ties,
thei
r enr
olle
d pr
ogra
m ty
pe, a
mou
nts
or ty
pes
of s
peci
al e
duca
tion
serv
ices
th
ey re
ceiv
ed, t
heir
acco
mm
odat
ion
type
s, o
r the
ir at
tend
ance
pat
tern
s. F
urth
erm
ore,
it w
as fo
und
that
thes
e va
riabl
es h
ad n
o st
atis
tical
ly s
igni
fican
t rel
atio
nshi
p to
the
stud
ents
’ rea
ding
ass
essm
ent z
-sco
res.
The
use
of
acc
omm
odat
ions
—su
ch a
s a
com
bina
tion
of a
ltern
ate
setti
ng, e
xten
ded
time,
and
sm
all-g
roup
adm
inis
tra-
tion,
or e
ven
just
sm
all g
roup
adm
inis
tratio
n of
the
read
ing
asse
ssm
ent—
did
not d
iffer
entia
lly im
pact
read
ing
test
pro
ficie
ncy
leve
ls o
r sco
res,
in p
art b
ecau
se th
ere
was
no
varia
tion
in s
core
s, a
nd n
o pa
rtici
pant
s sc
ored
at
the
profi
cien
t lev
el. T
he re
sear
cher
con
clud
ed th
at th
e se
lect
ion
of fa
ctor
s an
alyz
ed fo
r im
pact
s on
test
pe
rform
ance
cou
ld h
ave
mis
sed
an im
porta
nt a
dditi
onal
fact
or th
at c
ould
hav
e in
fluen
ced
read
ing
perfo
r-m
ance
. Alte
rnat
ely,
the
rese
arch
er n
oted
, if i
t is
corr
ect t
o ex
pect
that
stu
dent
s w
ith le
arni
ng d
isab
ilitie
s ca
n de
mon
stra
te re
adin
g pr
ofici
ency
, per
haps
the
asse
ssm
ent w
as n
ot p
rope
rly a
cces
sibl
e fo
r the
se s
tude
nt
parti
cipa
nts.
XR
97NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Ruh
kam
p (2
015)
The
rese
arch
er d
escr
ibed
the
mod
el o
f the
mes
, with
four
them
es a
nd s
ever
al s
ubth
emes
for e
ach.
The
th
emes
incl
uded
the
“A3
Mod
el,”
with
thre
e co
mpo
nent
s: a
dvoc
acy,
acc
omm
odat
ion,
and
acc
essi
bilit
y;
posi
tive
or n
egat
ive
tone
; and
test
ing.
Fiv
e of
the
six
parti
cipa
nts,
who
wer
e po
stse
cond
ary
stud
ents
with
di
sabi
litie
s, re
porte
d on
nee
ding
and
rece
ivin
g ac
com
mod
atio
ns d
urin
g ex
ams;
the
stud
ent w
ho w
as d
eaf
indi
cate
d no
t usi
ng te
st a
ccom
mod
atio
ns. R
easo
ns fo
r see
king
exa
m-r
elat
ed a
ccom
mod
atio
ns in
clud
ed
havi
ng a
lread
y fa
iled
or o
ther
wis
e do
ne b
adly
on
colle
ge e
xam
s, a
nd m
any
had
been
anx
ious
dur
ing
exam
s.
Mos
t par
ticip
ants
indi
cate
d th
at e
xten
ded
time
and
alte
rnat
e se
tting
(with
dec
reas
ed d
istra
ctio
ns) s
uppo
rted
them
dur
ing
exam
s; o
ne p
artic
ipan
t rep
orte
d re
ceiv
ing
read
-alo
ud o
f ite
ms
by e
xam
pro
ctor
. Par
ticip
ants
re
porte
d va
rious
ben
efits
from
acc
omm
odat
ions
, inc
ludi
ng b
ette
r und
erst
andi
ng o
f exa
m it
ems
and
impr
oved
ex
am p
erfo
rman
ce, a
nd a
lso
othe
r effe
cts—
such
as
incr
ease
d co
nfide
nce
and
com
fort,
and
a d
ecre
ased
se
nse
of p
ress
ure.
Em
otio
ns a
nd p
erce
ptio
ns a
bout
the
acco
mm
odat
ions
pro
cess
wer
e el
abor
ated
, inc
lud-
ing
nerv
ousn
ess
abou
t edu
cato
rs’ r
espo
nses
to s
tude
nts’
nee
ds fo
r acc
omm
odat
ions
, and
con
cern
abo
ut
the
poss
ibili
ty th
at a
ccom
mod
atio
ns w
ould
not
be
bene
ficia
l. Tw
o st
uden
ts re
porte
d fe
elin
g gu
ilty,
and
one
ex
pres
sed
sham
e, a
bout
rece
ivin
g ac
com
mod
atio
ns w
hen
othe
rs (w
ho p
resu
mab
ly d
id n
ot n
eed
them
) wer
e no
t pro
vide
d ac
com
mod
atio
ns. T
hree
exp
ress
ed fr
ustra
tion
perta
inin
g to
the
proc
ess
of s
eeki
ng a
ccom
-m
odat
ions
, esp
ecia
lly in
itial
ly. T
hree
par
ticip
ants
indi
cate
d th
at th
ey o
ught
to h
ave
soug
ht a
ccom
mod
atio
ns
earli
er th
an th
ey h
ad. T
he re
sear
cher
als
o co
mpa
red
the
expe
rienc
es o
f tra
ditio
nally
-age
d an
d ol
der-
than
-av
erag
e st
uden
ts, s
how
ing
little
diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
stud
ent g
roup
s re
gard
ing
test
ing
acco
mm
odat
ions
, and
re
gard
ing
posi
tive
and
nega
tive
expe
rienc
es.
XX
98 NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Seo
& D
e Jo
ng (2
015)
The
prop
ensi
ty s
core
mat
chin
g pr
oces
s sh
owed
that
the
two
sam
ples
of s
tude
nts
at e
ach
of th
e gr
ade
leve
ls
wer
e ve
ry d
emog
raph
ical
ly s
imila
r and
had
ver
y si
mila
r mea
ns fo
r mat
h an
d re
adin
g sc
ale
scor
es. F
urth
er,
thes
e pe
rform
ance
sco
res
beca
me
even
mor
e si
mila
r afte
r the
mat
chin
g pr
oces
s w
as c
ompl
eted
—th
at
is, t
he g
roup
mea
n di
ffere
nces
acr
oss
all t
he te
sts
wer
e sm
alle
r whe
n th
e da
ta m
atch
ing
was
com
plet
ed
for e
ach
data
set
. Diff
eren
tial i
tem
func
tioni
ng (D
IF) a
naly
ses
on te
st it
ems
yiel
ded
that
non
e of
the
item
s pe
rform
ed d
iffer
ently
bas
ed o
n te
st v
ersi
on (p
aper
-bas
ed o
r onl
ine)
. Tes
t lev
el c
ompa
rison
s in
dica
ted
that
th
ere
wer
e no
sig
nific
ant d
iffer
ence
s in
sco
ring
patte
rns
for t
he g
rade
6 a
nd g
rade
9 s
tude
nts
taki
ng th
e pa
per-
base
d te
st v
ersi
on c
ompa
red
to th
e on
line
vers
ion.
The
onl
ine
soci
al s
tudi
es te
st-ta
kers
’ mea
n sc
ores
in
gra
de 6
wer
e sl
ight
ly h
ighe
r (w
ith n
o st
atis
tical
sig
nific
ance
) tha
n th
eir m
atch
ed p
aper
-bas
ed te
st-ta
ker
peer
s, a
nd s
imila
rly s
light
ly h
ighe
r tha
n al
l pap
er-b
ased
test
-take
rs. T
he e
ffect
siz
e di
ffere
nces
, bet
wee
n ra
w
and
scal
e sc
ores
, for
bot
h gr
ade
leve
ls w
ere
negl
igib
le. G
rade
9 o
nlin
e te
st-ta
kers
’ mea
n sc
ores
wer
e al
so
not s
tatis
tical
ly h
ighe
r tha
n th
eir m
atch
ed p
aper
-bas
ed p
eers
, and
slig
htly
low
er th
an a
ll pa
per-
base
d te
st-
take
rs. T
hese
diff
eren
ces
in g
rade
9 m
eans
bet
wee
n m
atch
ed p
aper
-bas
ed te
st-ta
kers
and
all
pape
r-ba
sed
test
-take
rs s
ugge
sted
to th
e re
sear
cher
s th
at “t
he a
ppro
pria
te m
atch
ing
met
hod
can
have
sig
nific
ant i
mpa
ct
on th
e co
mpa
rabi
lity
stud
y” (p
. 106
). Th
e re
sear
cher
s as
serte
d th
at th
e pr
open
sity
sco
re m
atch
ing
proc
ess
show
ed m
ore
prec
ise
data
sets
for c
ompa
rison
, with
mor
e eq
uiva
lent
com
paris
on g
roup
s. F
ollo
win
g th
is
over
all t
rend
of s
light
ly h
ighe
r mea
ns, t
he p
ropo
rtion
s of
onl
ine
test
-take
rs in
gra
des
6 an
d 9
who
ach
ieve
d ad
vanc
ed, p
rofic
ient
, and
par
tially
pro
ficie
nt p
erfo
rman
ce le
vels
wer
e sl
ight
ly la
rger
than
thei
r mat
ched
pa
per-
base
d te
st-ta
king
pee
rs; t
he p
ropo
rtion
of o
nlin
e te
st-ta
kers
with
‘not
pro
ficie
nt’ s
core
s w
as s
mal
ler
than
the
prop
ortio
n of
mat
ched
pap
er-b
ased
test
-take
rs in
bot
h gr
ades
. The
brie
f sur
vey
resu
lts y
ield
ed th
at
abou
t 70%
of s
tude
nts
pref
erre
d th
e on
line
test
mod
e, 1
0% p
refe
rred
the
pape
r-ba
sed
test
, and
20%
had
no
pref
eren
ce; f
urth
er, n
one
of th
e on
line
test
-take
rs in
dica
ted
disc
omfo
rt w
ith th
e co
mpu
ter.
XX
SS
Seo
& H
ao
(201
6)
The
rese
arch
ers
disc
usse
d th
e co
ncer
ns th
at o
ther
dat
a an
alys
is a
ppro
ache
s (e
.g.,
diffe
rent
ial i
tem
func
-tio
ning
/DIF
or d
iffer
entia
l tes
t fun
ctio
ning
/DTF
) for
com
parin
g th
e ac
com
mod
ated
and
non
-acc
omm
odat
ed
vers
ions
pre
sent
ed, a
nd th
e w
ays
that
Per
son-
Fit A
naly
sis
was
des
igne
d to
con
side
r the
se is
sues
. The
y re
porte
d th
at th
eir c
alcu
latio
ns o
f fit a
nd m
isfit
per
cent
s fo
r the
acc
omm
odat
ed a
nd n
onac
com
mod
ated
ve
rsio
ns y
ield
ed s
imila
r res
ults
, dem
onst
ratin
g sc
ale
com
para
bilit
y be
twee
n th
ese
vers
ions
. The
y fu
rther
ex
plai
ned
that
the
acco
mm
odat
ed v
ersi
on v
alid
ly m
easu
red
stud
ent a
bilit
y, in
a m
anne
r equ
ival
ent t
o th
e no
nacc
omm
odat
ed v
ersi
on o
f the
sci
ence
test
. The
y co
nclu
ded
that
, thr
ough
thei
r use
of t
hese
dat
a as
an
exam
ple,
Iz P
erso
n-Fi
t Ind
ex a
naly
sis
show
ed it
self
to h
ave
prom
ise
for c
ompl
etin
g th
ese
type
s of
com
para
-tiv
e an
alys
es w
hen
the
circ
umst
ance
s do
not
fit t
he a
pplic
atio
n of
t-te
sts
or D
IF a
ppro
ache
s.
99NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Sok
al (2
016)
The
rese
arch
er re
porte
d th
ree
them
es th
at e
mer
ged
from
the
inte
rvie
w d
ata
from
pos
tsec
onda
ry in
stru
ctor
s an
d A
S (a
cces
sibi
lity
serv
ices
) pro
fess
iona
ls: p
erce
ptio
ns o
f fai
rnes
s; ro
les,
ada
ptat
ion,
and
trai
ning
; and
pr
ovid
ing
acce
ss. P
rofe
ssor
s in
dica
ted
sens
itivi
ty to
hav
ing
just
ifica
tion
for p
rovi
ding
acc
omm
odat
ions
for
stud
ents
with
anx
iety
-rel
ated
dis
abili
ties.
Par
ticip
ants
des
crib
ed th
e ac
com
mod
atio
n pr
oces
s as
resp
ondi
ng
to a
con
tinuu
m o
f nee
d, w
ith v
aryi
ng a
mou
nts
of d
ocum
enta
tion
supp
ortin
g di
ffere
nt a
ccom
mod
atio
ns. T
here
w
ere
poin
ts o
f dis
agre
emen
t and
tens
ions
bet
wee
n pr
ofes
sors
and
AS
sta
ff m
embe
rs. T
he e
ssen
tial t
ensi
on
was
bet
wee
n ac
com
mod
atin
g st
uden
ts’ n
eeds
and
sup
porti
ng th
e de
velo
pmen
t of s
tude
nts’
cop
ing
skill
s.
The
rese
arch
er d
escr
ibed
the
vario
us p
ersp
ectiv
es e
xpre
ssed
by
prof
esso
rs a
bout
add
ress
ing
the
need
s of
st
uden
ts w
ith a
nxie
ty d
isor
ders
, not
ing
that
all
parti
cipa
nts
indi
cate
d th
at m
ore
open
com
mun
icat
ion
coul
d he
lp th
em to
reac
h un
ders
tand
ings
abo
ut s
uppo
rting
stu
dent
s.
XX
Spe
ncel
ey
& W
heel
er
(201
6)
On
aver
age,
pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties
com
plet
ed c
ours
e ex
ams
with
in 1
03%
of t
he s
tan-
dard
offe
red
time.
In o
ther
wor
ds, t
hey
typi
cally
nee
ded
only
a li
ttle
mor
e tim
e to
ans
wer
all
exam
que
s-tio
ns. P
artic
ipan
ts w
ho w
ere
offe
red
1.5
or 1
50%
ext
ende
d tim
e (o
r 90
min
utes
for e
very
hou
r of s
tand
ard
exam
tim
e), o
n av
erag
e, u
sed
96%
of s
tand
ard
exam
tim
e, a
nd th
e st
uden
ts w
ho w
ere
offe
red
2.0
or 2
00%
ex
tend
ed ti
me
used
an
aver
age
of 1
12%
of s
tand
ard
exam
tim
e. T
he re
sear
cher
s in
dica
ted
that
abo
ut 5
5%
of s
tude
nts
prov
ided
ext
ende
d tim
e ac
tual
ly c
ompl
eted
exa
ms
with
in th
e st
anda
rd ti
me.
Pat
tern
s of
tim
e us
e fo
r stu
dent
s w
ith v
ario
us d
isab
ility
cat
egor
ies
wer
e al
so re
porte
d. O
n av
erag
e, p
osts
econ
dary
stu
dent
s w
ith
visu
al d
isab
ilitie
s, m
edic
al d
isab
ilitie
s, a
nd le
arni
ng d
isab
ilitie
s co
mpl
eted
exa
ms
with
in th
e st
anda
rd ti
me,
w
hile
stu
dent
s w
ith o
ther
dis
abili
ties—
incl
udin
g A
DH
D, a
utis
m, p
hysi
cal,
and
mul
tiple
dis
abili
ties—
typi
cally
co
mpl
eted
exa
ms
in m
ore
than
the
stan
dard
tim
e. F
or s
tude
nts
prov
ided
1.5
ext
ende
d tim
e, a
ll st
uden
ts w
ith
visu
al im
pairm
ents
com
plet
ed e
xam
s w
ithin
that
tim
e pe
riod,
and
ove
r 90%
of s
tude
nts
with
LD
com
plet
ed
exam
s w
ithin
that
tim
e, a
nd 8
9% o
f stu
dent
s w
ith m
ultip
le d
isab
ilitie
s co
mpl
eted
exa
ms
with
in th
at ti
me;
in
cont
rast
, onl
y 63
% o
f stu
dent
s w
ith p
sych
iatri
c di
sabi
litie
s di
d so
. For
stu
dent
s pr
ovid
ed 2
.0 e
xten
ded
time,
al
l stu
dent
s w
ith v
isua
l im
pairm
ents
, 95%
of s
tude
nts
with
lear
ning
dis
abili
ties,
and
at l
east
90%
of s
tude
nts
with
AD
HD
or p
sych
iatri
c di
sabi
litie
s or
phy
sica
l dis
abili
ties
com
plet
ed e
xam
s. A
bout
34%
of c
ours
e ex
ams—
take
n by
par
ticip
ants
in v
ario
us d
isab
ility
cat
egor
ies—
wer
e no
t com
plet
ed w
ithin
eith
er e
xten
ded
time
ac-
com
mod
atio
n co
nditi
on p
rovi
ded.
XX
100 NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Spi
el e
t al.
(201
6)
Stu
dent
par
ticip
ants
with
AD
HD
, on
aver
age,
sco
red
sign
ifica
ntly
hig
her w
hen
prov
ided
in-p
erso
n or
al
deliv
ery
and
smal
l gro
up a
ccom
mod
atio
ns in
com
paris
on w
ith re
adin
g th
e sc
ienc
e te
st it
ems
sile
ntly
to
them
selv
es. S
tude
nts
with
out A
DH
D o
n av
erag
e sc
ored
ess
entia
lly th
e sa
me
with
and
with
out a
ccom
mod
a-tio
n. T
he g
roup
of p
artic
ipan
ts w
ith A
DH
D s
core
d si
gnifi
cant
ly lo
wer
than
the
parti
cipa
nts
with
out A
DH
D in
th
e si
lent
test
ing
cond
ition
, but
bot
h gr
oups
did
not
sco
re s
igni
fican
tly d
iffer
ently
whe
n re
ceiv
ing
oral
del
iver
y in
sm
all g
roup
s. In
divi
dual
com
paris
ons
of s
tude
nts
with
AD
HD
in b
oth
test
ing
cond
ition
s in
dica
ted
that
on
ly o
ne s
tude
nt w
ith A
DH
D s
core
d lo
wer
—an
d th
e ot
her 1
5 sc
ored
hig
her—
with
ora
l del
iver
y th
an w
ith n
o ac
com
mod
atio
n. In
divi
dual
com
paris
ons
of s
tude
nts
with
out A
DH
D y
ield
ed th
at 1
2 sc
ored
low
er w
ith o
ral
deliv
ery
(and
sm
all g
roup
), an
d 8
scor
ed h
ighe
r with
ora
l del
iver
y (a
nd s
mal
l gro
up),
com
pare
d w
ith th
e si
lent
re
adin
g la
rge
grou
p te
stin
g co
nditi
on. A
n ad
ditio
nal e
xplo
rato
ry a
naly
sis
was
per
form
ed to
exa
min
e w
heth
er
stud
ents
with
AD
HD
rece
ived
a d
iffer
entia
l boo
st fr
om th
e ac
com
mod
ated
test
ing
cond
ition
. The
resu
lts in
di-
cate
d th
at a
ll lo
w-s
corin
g st
uden
ts b
enefi
ted
from
the
acco
mm
odat
ions
, and
that
stu
dent
s w
ith A
DH
D b
en-
efite
d m
ore
but n
ot a
t the
leve
l of s
tatis
tical
sig
nific
ance
. The
rese
arch
ers
conc
lude
d th
at tw
o fa
ctor
s m
ight
ha
ve b
enefi
ted
stud
ents
with
AD
HD
whe
n re
ceiv
ing
the
acco
mm
odat
ed te
stin
g co
nditi
on: t
he d
ecre
ased
nu
mbe
r of t
est-t
aker
s in
the
smal
l gro
up c
ondi
tion
decr
ease
d po
tent
ial d
istra
ctio
ns, a
nd th
e en
gage
men
t of
stud
ents
with
AD
HD
in th
e te
st it
ems
with
bot
h vi
sual
and
aud
itory
sen
ses
incr
ease
d su
stai
ned
atte
ntio
n an
d de
crea
sed
test
resp
onse
err
ors.
XS
Süd
kam
p et
al
. (20
15)
The
rese
arch
ers
desc
ribed
test
resp
onse
pat
tern
s as
wel
l as
corr
ectn
ess
of a
nsw
ers
for e
ach
stud
ent
parti
cipa
nt g
roup
, dis
tingu
ishi
ng b
etw
een
item
s th
at w
ere
skip
ped
(“om
itted
”), “
not r
each
ed,”
and
inva
lid
resp
onse
s. S
tude
nts
had
the
leas
t num
ber o
f om
itted
resp
onse
s fo
r the
eas
y te
st, t
he le
ast n
umbe
r of n
ot
reac
hed
item
s fo
r the
redu
ced
test
, and
the
leas
t num
ber o
f inv
alid
resp
onse
s on
the
redu
ced
test
—at
tribu
t-ed
to th
e fa
ct th
at th
e re
duce
d te
st h
as th
e fe
wes
t ite
ms
requ
iring
mat
chin
g. F
urth
er, f
or s
tude
nts
with
spe
cial
ed
ucat
iona
l nee
ds in
lear
ning
(SE
N-L
), ite
m c
ompl
etio
n in
crea
sed
for t
he re
duce
d an
d ea
sy v
ersi
ons
in c
om-
paris
on to
the
stan
dard
test
. The
re w
ere
few
diff
eren
ces
betw
een
the
gene
ral e
duca
tion
parti
cipa
nts
and
the
stud
ents
in th
e lo
wes
t aca
dem
ic tr
ack
(LAT
) in
item
fit f
or th
e st
anda
rd te
st, b
ut a
hig
her r
ate
of it
em m
isfit
fo
r stu
dent
s w
ith S
EN
-L. T
he re
duce
d te
st d
emon
stra
ted
bette
r ite
m fi
t for
stu
dent
s w
ith S
EN
-L a
nd fo
r LAT
st
uden
ts (w
ithou
t dis
abili
ties)
than
the
othe
r tes
t ver
sion
s; in
con
trast
, the
eas
y te
st fi
t rel
ativ
ely
wel
l for
the
LAT
stud
ents
, and
not
wel
l for
the
stud
ents
with
SE
N-L
. In
term
s of
item
diffi
culty
, the
eas
y te
st w
as fo
und
to b
e to
o ea
sy fo
r stu
dent
s in
the
LAT,
and
too
diffi
cult
for s
tude
nts
with
SE
N-L
. Diff
eren
tial i
tem
func
tioni
ng
(DIF
) ana
lyse
s fo
und
that
, for
LAT
stu
dent
s, t
he te
st v
ersi
ons
wer
e co
mpa
rabl
e to
one
ano
ther
; few
item
s ha
d m
ore
than
slig
ht D
IF. I
n co
ntra
st, a
ll th
ree
test
s de
mon
stra
ted
man
y ite
ms
with
stro
ng D
IF fo
r stu
dent
s w
ith S
EN
-L. T
he re
sear
cher
s co
nclu
ded
that
, due
to it
em fu
nctio
ning
and
var
ianc
e ac
ross
the
mea
sure
s,
scor
ing
for s
tude
nts
with
SE
N-L
was
not
com
para
ble
or v
alid
acr
oss
all t
hree
test
ver
sion
s. In
add
ition
, the
ve
rsio
ns o
ther
than
the
stan
dard
test
did
not
pro
vide
a v
alid
com
paris
on b
etw
een
stud
ents
with
SE
N-L
and
st
uden
ts in
gen
eral
edu
catio
n.
XX
R*
101NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Tim
mer
man
&
Mul
vihi
ll (2
015)
One
of t
he p
artic
ipan
ts in
dica
ted
that
the
mos
t hel
pful
acc
omm
odat
ion
was
ext
ende
d tim
e du
ring
post
sec-
onda
ry e
xam
s, a
nd th
e ot
her p
artic
ipan
t ind
icat
ed th
at th
e m
ost h
elpf
ul a
ccom
mod
atio
n w
as o
ral d
eliv
ery
of
exam
s. B
oth
parti
cipa
nts
repo
rted
that
they
wer
e sp
ecia
l edu
catio
n m
ajor
s, a
nd th
at th
eir p
eers
wer
e lik
ely
mor
e un
ders
tand
ing
than
ave
rage
cla
ssm
ates
abo
ut th
eir n
eed
for a
ccom
mod
atio
ns. H
owev
er, b
oth
note
d th
at s
tude
nts
in g
ener
al c
ours
es w
ho d
id n
ot s
hare
thei
r maj
ors
som
etim
es c
omm
unic
ated
not
und
erst
andi
ng
thei
r nee
d fo
r acc
omm
odat
ions
. Bot
h pa
rtici
pant
s in
dica
ted
that
a m
ajor
obs
tacl
e to
suc
cess
was
nee
ding
m
ore
time
than
oth
ers
to c
ompl
ete
wor
k in
clud
ing
cour
se e
xam
s, a
nd a
real
izat
ion
that
they
hav
e to
wor
k ah
ead
whe
n po
ssib
le.
XX
Wei
s et
al.
(201
6)
Inci
denc
e of
reco
mm
ende
d ex
am a
ccom
mod
atio
ns a
nd m
odifi
catio
ns fo
r pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
wer
e re
porte
d. T
he m
ost f
requ
ent (
abou
t 90%
) was
ext
ende
d te
st ti
me,
from
50%
add
ition
al to
unl
imite
d ad
ditio
nal
time.
Oth
er a
ccom
mod
atio
ns in
clud
ed te
chno
logy
use
dur
ing
exam
s (7
0%)—
such
as
calc
ulat
or (4
8%),
wor
d pr
oces
sor (
30%
), sp
ellc
heck
er o
nly
(24%
), sp
eech
-to-te
xt (9
%),
and
text
-to-s
peec
h (8
%).
Abo
ut 2
7%
com
plet
ed e
xam
s in
a s
epar
ate
room
, and
oth
er a
ccom
mod
atio
ns w
ere
reco
mm
ende
d fo
r les
s th
an 1
0%
of s
tude
nts—
such
as
dict
iona
ry o
r the
saur
us, o
utlin
ing,
and
bre
aks.
Res
earc
hers
als
o re
porte
d re
com
men
-da
tions
of m
odifi
ed te
stin
g (5
3%)—
such
as
sim
plifi
ed d
irect
ions
, acc
ess
to n
otes
and
form
ulas
, etc
.—an
d m
odifi
ed g
radi
ng (1
1%) s
uch
as re
taki
ng te
sts
with
no
pena
lty. T
he re
sear
cher
s in
dica
ted
that
obj
ectiv
e ev
iden
ce in
dica
ting
need
for a
ccom
mod
atio
ns in
clud
ed h
isto
ry o
f lea
rnin
g di
sabi
litie
s, c
urre
nt d
iagn
oses
, te
st d
ata,
and
func
tiona
l im
pairm
ent,
alth
ough
thes
e ev
iden
tiary
sou
rces
had
diff
erin
g de
gree
s of
acc
urac
y in
w
arra
ntin
g ne
ed fo
r acc
omm
odat
ions
, and
that
som
e re
com
men
datio
ns w
ere
inco
mpl
ete
or u
nspe
cifie
d fo
r te
st ty
pes,
con
tent
, or c
ondi
tions
. Acc
ordi
ng to
thes
e cr
iteria
, abo
ut 9
4% o
f par
ticip
ants
reco
mm
ende
d fo
r ex-
tend
ed te
st ti
me
actu
ally
met
crit
eria
for r
ecei
ving
ext
ende
d te
st ti
me,
abo
ut 4
6% o
f stu
dent
s re
com
men
ded
for c
alcu
lato
r met
crit
eria
for c
alcu
lato
r, 70
% o
f stu
dent
s re
com
men
ded
for e
xam
read
er m
et c
riter
ia, 3
0%
reco
mm
ende
d fo
r wor
d pr
oces
sor m
et c
riter
ia, 2
6% re
com
men
ded
for s
epar
ate
room
met
crit
eria
, 24%
rec-
omm
ende
d fo
r spe
llche
cker
onl
y m
et c
riter
ia, 9
% re
com
men
ded
for s
peec
h-to
-text
met
crit
eria
, 8%
reco
m-
men
ded
for t
ext-t
o-sp
eech
met
crit
eria
, and
6%
reco
mm
ende
d fo
r out
linin
g su
ppor
ts m
et c
riter
ia. E
valu
atio
ns
of th
e ap
prop
riate
ness
of i
ndiv
idua
l mod
ifica
tions
to te
stin
g an
d gr
adin
g w
ere
also
repo
rted.
XX
M
102 NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Will
iam
s (2
015)
Mos
t par
ticip
ants
(80%
) cou
ld id
entif
y so
me
of th
e ac
com
mod
atio
ns th
ey re
ceiv
ed, w
hile
onl
y on
e pa
rtici
-pa
nt k
new
all
of th
em a
nd o
ne k
new
non
e of
them
. Nea
rly h
alf o
f the
par
ticip
ants
(40%
) eac
h in
dica
ted
eith
er p
ositi
ve fe
elin
gs—
confi
denc
e an
d co
mfo
rt—or
neg
ativ
e fe
elin
gs—
diffe
rent
iatio
n fro
m p
eers
and
in
adeq
uacy
—ab
out t
akin
g te
sts
with
acc
omm
odat
ions
. Whe
n de
scrib
ing
thei
r acc
omm
odat
ions
, mor
e th
an
half
of th
e pa
rtici
pant
s (6
0%) i
ndic
ated
pos
itive
feel
ings
abo
ut th
em, o
ne s
tude
nt h
ad n
egat
ive
feel
ings
, and
th
e re
mai
nder
mad
e co
mm
ents
unr
elat
ed to
the
ques
tion.
Whe
n re
latin
g th
eir f
eelin
gs a
bout
them
selv
es fo
r ne
edin
g ac
com
mod
atio
ns, h
alf o
f the
par
ticip
ants
indi
cate
d po
sitiv
e fe
elin
gs a
nd fe
wer
par
ticip
ants
(30%
) in-
dica
ted
nega
tive
feel
ings
. Whe
n as
ked
if ac
com
mod
atio
ns a
ffect
ed th
eir k
now
ledg
e an
d sk
ills
durin
g te
stin
g,
mos
t (70
%) r
epor
ted
that
they
did
so,
and
the
rem
aind
er in
dica
ted
that
they
did
not
. All
parti
cipa
nts
repo
rted
that
thei
r acc
omm
odat
ions
affe
cted
thei
r ass
essm
ent p
erfo
rman
ce s
core
s. H
alf o
f par
ticip
ants
pre
ferr
ed to
ta
ke te
sts
with
acc
omm
odat
ions
and
hal
f pre
ferr
ed to
take
test
s w
ithou
t acc
omm
odat
ions
. Par
ticip
ants
als
o re
porte
d on
the
decr
ease
d di
stra
ctio
ns a
nd in
crea
sed
com
fort
whe
n re
ceiv
ing
acco
mm
odat
ions
, and
that
or
al d
eliv
ery
incr
ease
s co
mfo
rt le
vel,
mak
es th
e te
st e
asie
r to
com
preh
end,
and
impr
oves
test
resu
lts. O
ne
dist
ract
ion
that
par
ticip
ants
not
ed in
the
regu
lar c
lass
room
test
ing
envi
ronm
ent w
as th
e so
unds
of s
tude
nts
who
fini
shed
bef
ore
them
. A c
ontra
stin
g co
mm
ent b
y on
e pa
rtici
pant
was
that
he
wan
ts to
retu
rn to
the
clas
s-ro
om s
o he
has
felt
rush
ed w
hen
rece
ivin
g ac
com
mod
atio
ns a
nd s
o he
has
sco
red
wor
se o
n te
sts.
A fe
w
parti
cipa
nts
elab
orat
ed a
bout
thei
r per
cept
ions
of s
ocia
l stig
ma
whe
n re
ceiv
ing
acco
mm
odat
ions
.
XM
,R
Yss
el e
t al.
(201
6)
The
rese
arch
ers
repo
rted
that
, diff
eren
t fro
m th
eir p
revi
ous
stud
y pu
blis
hed
in 1
998,
pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
perc
eive
d th
at fa
culty
mem
bers
wer
e po
sitiv
e an
d w
illin
g to
pro
vide
acc
omm
odat
ions
to s
uppo
rt th
eir a
ca-
dem
ic p
rogr
ess.
A fe
w s
tude
nts
indi
cate
d th
at, w
hile
inst
ruct
ors
seem
ed u
nfam
iliar
(and
pos
sibl
y un
com
fort-
able
) with
blin
dnes
s an
d dy
slex
ia a
s it
can
affe
ct a
cade
mic
s, th
ey n
onet
hele
ss s
ough
t to
prov
ide
acco
m-
mod
atio
ns. I
n at
leas
t one
stu
dent
’s e
xper
ienc
e, fa
culty
effo
rts h
ave
been
ove
rly a
ccom
mod
atin
g, re
sulti
ng
in p
rovi
ding
acc
omm
odat
ions
that
wer
e no
t par
ticul
arly
hel
pful
. Stu
dent
s pr
edom
inan
tly in
dica
ted
thei
r des
ire
to b
e pe
rmitt
ed a
cces
s to
hig
her e
duca
tion,
and
som
e in
dica
ted
thei
r cha
lleng
es in
dev
elop
ing
self-
dete
rmi-
natio
n an
d se
lf-ad
voca
cy s
kills
. Som
e in
terv
iew
ees
indi
cate
d th
at th
ese
skill
cha
lleng
es h
ad in
som
e ca
ses
beco
me
barr
iers
to th
eir a
cade
mic
pur
suits
.
XX
103NCEO
Res
earc
her/s
Find
ings
Effects
Perceptions
Implement/Use
Validity
Postsecond-ary
Content
Zam
bran
o (2
016)
Pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
dis
abili
ties
indi
cate
d th
eir p
erce
ptio
ns a
bout
aca
dem
ic a
ccom
mod
atio
ns
rele
vant
to th
eir c
ours
e ex
ams.
Sev
en o
f the
eig
ht s
tude
nts
repo
rted
havi
ng m
ade
use
of e
xam
acc
om-
mod
atio
ns; o
ne s
tude
nt h
ad n
ot re
gist
ered
with
the
Dis
abili
ty R
esou
rce
Ser
vice
s of
fice,
and
did
not
rece
ive
acco
mm
odat
ions
. The
rese
arch
er fo
und
few
sim
ilarit
ies
in e
xper
ienc
e ac
ross
pos
tsec
onda
ry s
tude
nts
with
va
rious
dis
abili
ties,
and
con
clud
ed th
at p
artic
ipan
ts’ d
iffer
ent d
isab
ilitie
s in
dica
ted
thre
e di
ffere
nt w
ays
of
unde
rsta
ndin
g ch
alle
nges
in p
osts
econ
dary
edu
catio
n: b
ased
on
phys
ical
dis
abili
ties,
lear
ning
dis
abili
-tie
s, a
nd m
enta
l hea
lth d
isor
ders
. The
se g
roup
ings
yie
ld d
iffer
ent p
rimar
y ba
rrie
rs: b
arrie
rs in
the
phys
ical
en
viro
nmen
t, an
d ef
fect
ing
phys
ical
fatig
ue; b
arrie
rs p
erta
inin
g to
the
natu
re o
f the
inst
ruct
iona
l mat
eria
l and
le
arni
ng c
ondi
tions
and
requ
iring
org
aniz
atio
nal a
nd c
ogni
tive
skill
s; a
nd le
arni
ng e
nviro
nmen
t bar
riers
and
tri
gger
s re
quiri
ng m
anag
emen
t of e
mot
iona
l cris
es. P
artic
ipan
ts re
flect
ed a
bout
them
selv
es a
s le
arne
rs a
nd
the
univ
ersi
ty a
s th
eir t
each
ers.
The
y vi
ewed
them
selv
es a
s ca
pabl
e, a
nd w
ith n
eith
er le
sser
nor
ele
vate
d st
atus
or i
mpo
rtanc
e in
com
paris
on to
thei
r pee
rs w
ithou
t dis
abili
ties.
The
y se
nsed
from
pee
rs a
nd fa
culty
m
embe
rs la
ck o
f acc
epta
nce
of th
em a
nd li
mite
d aw
aren
ess
or u
nder
stan
ding
of t
hem
as
lear
ners
, bey
ond
the
lega
l fra
mew
ork
of th
eir r
ight
s to
hav
e ac
cess
. And
with
out t
his
unde
rsta
ndin
g, th
e st
uden
ts o
bser
ved
little
inst
itutio
nal c
omm
unic
atio
n ab
out a
cces
sibi
lity
and
acco
mm
odat
ions
info
rmat
ion,
par
ticul
arly
out
side
of
(and
exc
ept f
rom
) the
DR
S o
ffice
.
XX
Zeed
yk e
t al.
(201
6)
The
rese
arch
ers
sum
mar
ized
the
rese
arch
lite
ratu
re a
bout
the
chal
leng
es a
nd n
eeds
of y
outh
pre
parin
g fo
r po
stse
cond
ary
educ
atio
n, in
clud
ing
12 e
mpi
rical
stu
dies
alo
ng w
ith o
ther
pee
r-re
view
ed re
sear
ch re
porti
ng
expe
rt re
com
men
datio
ns. W
ith th
eir a
naly
sis
of s
ix s
tudi
es re
porti
ng d
ata
from
the
Nat
iona
l Lon
gitu
dina
l Tr
ansi
tion
Stu
dy-2
, and
oth
er s
tudi
es, t
he re
sear
cher
s id
entifi
ed u
nder
lyin
g so
cial
and
aca
dem
ic n
eeds
, and
re
view
ed tr
ansi
tion
and
acco
mm
odat
ions
issu
es. H
ighl
ight
ing
the
lack
of q
uasi
-exp
erim
enta
l stu
dies
on
the
impa
ct o
f aca
dem
ic s
uppo
rts fo
r thi
s po
pula
tion,
the
rese
arch
ers
repo
rted,
in p
art,
abou
t exa
m a
ccom
mod
a-tio
ns u
sage
, inc
ludi
ng p
rivat
e te
stin
g ro
om a
nd e
ar p
lugs
for m
inim
izin
g in
tens
e se
nsor
y st
imul
i, as
wel
l as
exte
nded
tim
e fo
r pro
cess
ing
dela
ys.
X
M=m
athe
mat
ics,
O=o
ther
lang
uage
arts
, R=r
eadi
ng, S
=sci
ence
, SS
=soc
ial s
tudi
es, W
=writ
ing
R*=
read
ing
in G
erm
an (s
ettin
g w
as G
erm
any)
NCEO is an affiliated center of the Institute on Community Integration