This investigation examined the effect of an extended time testing accommodation on the performance of students with disabilities, students educationally at risk in math, and students without disabilities. Ninety-seven eighth-grade students completed two equivalent forms of a standardized mathematics test, each under different testing conditions (standard time 20 mins.; extended time 40 mins.). It was predicted that both disability status and mathematical skill level would interact with the effectiveness of the extended time accommodation, such that students with disabilities and students with low math skills would benefit significantly from the extended time accommodation, but students without disabilities would not. Outcomes indicated that there were no significant differences by disability status; however, there was evidence to support differences between the three student groups in the amount of change in their performance in the two time conditions. Follow-up surveys indicated that the vast majority of students reacted more positively to the accommodated or extra time condition than to the nonaccommodated condition. These results are discussed within a validity framework and future research is outlined on extended time as an accommodation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlsterE. H. (1997). The effects of extended time on algebra test scores for college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 222–227.
2.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
3.
CentraJ. A. (1986). Handicapped student performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 324–327.
4.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1), 155–159.
DiPernaJ. D.ElliottS. N. (2000). The Academic Competence Evaluation Scales. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
7.
ElliottJ.ThurlowM.YsseldykeJ. (1996). Assessment guidelines that maximize the participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments: Characteristics and considerations (Synthesis Rep. No. 25). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
8.
ElliottJ.YsseldykeJ.ThurlowM.EricksonR. (1998). What about assessment and accountability? Practical implications for educators. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 31 (1), 20–27.
9.
ElliottS. N.BradenJ. P.WhiteJ. L. (2001). Assessing one and all: Educational accountability for students with disabilities. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
10.
ElliottS. N.KratochwillT. R. (1996). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations on the scores of students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education Grant No. 84.023F). University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
11.
ElliottS. N.KratochwillT. R.SchulteA. G. (1999). The Assessment Accommodations Checklist. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
12.
FaulF.ErdfelderE. (1992). GPOWER: A prior post-hoc and compromise power analysis for MS-DOS [Computer program]. Bonn, FRG: Bonn University, Department of Psychology.
13.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.EatonS. B.HamlettC.KarnsK. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65–85.
14.
GeisingerK. F. (1994). Psychometric issues in testing students with disabilities. Applied Measurement in Education, 7 (2), 121–140.
15.
HallaJ. W. (1988). A psychological study of psychometric differences in Graduate Record Examinations General Test scores between learning disabled and non-learning disabled adults (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, 1988). Dissertation Abstract International, 49, 341.
16.
HarkerJ. K.FeldtL. S. (1993). A comparison of achievement test performance of nondisabled students under silent reading and reading plus listening modes of administration. Applied Measurement in Education, 6 (4), 307–320.
17.
HillG. A. (1984). Learning disabled college students: The assessment of academic aptitude (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 642.
18.
HuesmanR. L.FrisbieD. A. (2000, April). The validity of ITBS reading comprehension test scores for learning disabled and non-learning disabled students under extended-time conditions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
19.
KoretzD. (1997). The assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 431). Los Angeles, CA: CRESST/RAND Institute on Education and Training.
20.
McDonnellL. M.McLaughlinM. W.MorisonP. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21.
MontaniT. O. (1995). Calculation skills of third-grade children with mathematics and reading difficulties (learning disabilities) (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey-New Brunswick, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 891.
22.
MungerG. F.LloydB. H. (1991). Effect of speed-edness on test performance of handicapped and nonhandicapped examinees. Journal of Educational Research, 85 (1), 53–57.
23.
PerlmanC. L.BorgerJ.CollinsC. B.ElenbogenJ. C.WoodJ. (1996, April). The effect of extended time limits on learning disabled students' scores on standardized reading tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.
24.
PhillipsS. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7 (2), 93–120.
25.
RunyanM. K. (1991). The effect of extra time on reading comprehension scores for university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24 (2), 104–108.
26.
SchulteA. A. G.ElliottS. N.KratochwillT. R. (2000). Educators' perceptions and documentation of testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Special Services in the Schools, 16, 35–56.
27.
SiskundT. G. (1993). Modifications in statewide criterion-referenced testing programs to accommodate pupils with disabilities. Diagnostique, 18 (3), 233–249.
28.
ThompsonB. (1999). Improving research clarity and usefulness with effect size indices as supplements to statistical significance tests. Exceptional Children, 65, 329–337.
29.
ThurlowM.SeyfarthA. L.ScottD. L.YsseldykeJ. E. (1997). State assessment policies on participation and accommodations for students with disabilities: 1997 update (Synthesis Rep. No. 29). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
30.
TindalG.FuchsL. (1999). A summary of research on testing accommodations: What we know so far. Lexington: University of Kentucky, Mid-South Regional Resource Center.
