Predicting the Extended Time Use of College Students With Disabilities

Abstract

This study investigated the extent to which standardized reading performance, individual perceptions of reading and test taking skills, and test anxiety predict the amount of extended time needed to equalize test access for college students with disabilities. Thirty-seven college students with a specific learning disorder (LD) and/or an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosis who received university test accommodations were recruited to participate in this study, along with 37 controls. All participants individually completed standardized reading tests and rating scales, and a timed reading comprehension task in a group setting. Results indicated that participants receiving test accommodations utilized approximately 14% more time than control participants to complete the timed reading task. Regression analyses indicated that the differences in time required to complete the reading comprehension task were related to participants’ reading fluency and decoding, as well as perceptions of the strength of their reading and test taking skills.

Keywords

test accommodations extended time test anxiety reading ability

Since the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the number of students with disabilities enrolled in college has increased significantly (Newman, Wagner, Cameto, Knokey, & Shaver, 2010). Along with this increased enrollment has come more requests for postsecondary institutions to provide reasonable accommodations for these students in accordance with the ADA. The ADA mandates that students with disabilities must be given equal educational opportunities that include equal access to course content and exams. Schools and test agencies, as covered entities, must provide such access to students with disabilities, and so, both curricular modifications and test accommodations are commonly employed. These test accommodations are meant to circumvent construct irrelevant variance (e.g., a vision problem that is irrelevant to a test of reading), reduce the impact of the functional limitations of a disability (e.g., visual impairment), and thereby enable students with disabilities to demonstrate their knowledge and skills (Lovett & Lewandowski, 2015).

Time Utilized by Students With Disabilities

Extended time to complete tests is unquestionably the most requested and provided test accommodation, as some estimates suggest that up to 75% of all test accommodation requests are for extended time (see Lovett & Lewandowski, 2015; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2011). Extended time is requested routinely by students who claim to have learning disorders (LD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety disorders, visual impairment, autism spectrum disorder, traumatic brain injury, and motor limitations. Although the vast majority of students who request accommodations receive somewhere between 50% and 100% extra time to complete tests, data are mixed regarding how much time students with disabilities actually utilize or require to equalize access. Sokal and Wilson (2017) recently investigated the use of the extended time accommodation by students at postsecondary institutions in Canada. They examined data from more than 43,000 students with disabilities at 48 institutions and found that over 70% of the cases were provided 50% extended time; however, this accommodation reportedly was based on convention rather than any empirical evidence. Sokal and Vermette (2017) also examined extended time usage across 8,000 exams at two universities. They found that over 35% of students used “none” of their extra testing time, and that the average usage was 17% extra time, considerably less than the 50% to 100% allotted. Similar estimates were found by Spenceley and Wheeler (2016), who assessed the amount of extended time used by students with disabilities, examined for 1,093 exams taken at one university. They found that 45.38% of the tests were completed using at least some extended time, meaning more than half of the tests were completed without the use of any extended time. In addition, only 14.71% of the exams were completed using the entire period of extended time allotted, further suggesting the common provision of 50% or 100% extra time may be excessive for some students with disabilities.

Benefit of Extended Time

Although students with disabilities may not utilize the full range of an extended time test accommodation, it could be argued that the more important consideration is whether extended time will remove the functional impairment of a students’ disability and ensure more valid and reliable measurement of the underlying skill or construct. To this end, the benefits of extended time have been well documented for decades, though the gains are not specific to students with disabilities. Early studies focused on groups of students with disabilities who seemed to perform more comparably with their peers when given extended time (e.g., Halla, 1988; Hill, 1984; Runyan, 1991). In part, these findings were caused by a ceiling effect on the performances of students without disabilities, causing researchers to erroneously conclude that there was a “differential boost” afforded to students with disabilities. More recent studies that have avoided ceiling effects and truncated test scores show a benefit of extended time to most students (see reviews by Lovett, 2010; Sireci, Scarpati, & Li, 2005). In fact, Lewandowski and colleagues have shown that extended time actually benefits students without disabilities more than students with disabilities (e.g., Lewandowski, Cohen, & Lovett, 2013; Miller, Lewandowski, & Antshel, 2015). Interestingly, these two studies showed that 50% extended time over-compensated college students with LD and ADHD. That is, students with disabilities were able to access many more test items than peers when they received extended time and peers were given only the standard time allotment (no extended time). The wealth of evidence clearly demonstrates that extended time can benefit virtually any test taker on a “speeded” test; 50% extended time more than accommodates most test-takers, while double time can tip the scale dramatically in favor of individuals with disabilities, especially those with ADHD diagnoses (Miller et al., 2015).

Determining the Amount of Extended Time Needed

When requesting testing accommodations from a college or university, students are required to submit documentation of their disability, often in the form of a psychological report that includes psychological test data in support of a particular diagnosis (Association on Higher Education and Disability, 2012). Typically, diagnosticians provide objective evidence of cognitive and academic strengths and weaknesses. However, despite attention to the cognitive and academic characteristics of college students with disabilities (see Sparks & Lovett, 2013; Weis, Sykes, & Unadkat, 2012), researchers have yet to thoroughly explore test scores that predict the amount of (extended) time students with disabilities need to balance access without obtaining an unfair advantage.

Academic Measures

In one of the only studies that examined the types of psychological data that can predict the need for extended time, Ofiesh, Mather, and Russell (2005) found that measures of reading and academic fluency were stronger predictors than measures of processing speed for determining the need for extended time accommodations for students with learning disabilities. In a related study, Ofiesh (2000) investigated whether measures of processing speed could be used to predict the probability that an individual would benefit from extended time. The results were mixed, such that lower processing speed scores on the Visual Matching and Cross Out tests from the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability–Revised (Woodcock & Mather, 1989) moderately predicted the benefit from extended time on the Nelson–Denny Reading Test (NDRT), but the Digit Symbol subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised (Wechsler, 1981) did not. Collectively, these findings suggest that specific psychological test scores on tasks of reading, academic fluency, and/or processing speed may be useful for determining an approximate amount of time students with disabilities need to ensure equal test access, but that this finding does not generalize across all measures of the same skill.

Psychological Factors

In addition to cognitive and academic variables, there has been some attention to psychological variables (e.g., motivation, anxiety, preparedness, and interest) that help explain how students perceive their need for extended time, as well as how these perceptions may impact test performance. Generally speaking, students with and without disabilities who take tests with extended time report higher motivation, interest, relaxation, and less frustration (Elliott & Marquart, 2004). In fact, a number of authors have indicated that test accommodations are often given to reduce students’ frustration, fears, and stress (Crawford & Ketterlin-Geller, 2013; Salend, 2011). Despite the use of test accommodations to reduce exam stress, there is only a modest relationship between test anxiety and test performance, approximately –.20 (see reviews by Hembree, 1988; Zeidner, 2014). Thus, it is unclear if test anxiety impairs test performance enough to warrant test accommodations such as extended time and, if so, how much time is needed.

Feldman, Kim, and Elliott (2011) explored the relationship of accommodations to certain psychological variables. They found that accommodations seem to have a positive effect on students’ test performance by boosting test-related self-efficacy and motivation. They also noted that pretest anxiety and positive expectations for performance were not significant correlates of test performance for students with disabilities. Lang, Elliott, Bolt, and Kratochwill (2008) also found that self-reported comfort, motivation, frustration, and perceived ease were not correlated to students’ actual performance on a reading or math test for students with or without disabilities. It appears that psychological variables such as test anxiety, motivation, and self-efficacy may be influenced by test accommodations, but there is little evidence that these variables, or changes in them, have a significant impact on test performance. So, for example, we do not know if one’s level of test anxiety or confidence in test taking is related to one’s need for more time to access a test.

The Purpose of the Current Study

The purpose of this study was to examine whether measures of reading performance, perceived reading and test taking difficulties, and self-reported test anxiety would predict the amount of extended time needed to equalize test access (i.e., number of test items completed) for college students with disabilities (approved for accommodations) relative to typical peers. We hypothesized that the Disability group would show significantly weaker performance than the Typical group on a reading composite score, and they would use more time than the Typical group to complete a timed measure of reading comprehension. Also, we expected that the Disability group would report significantly weaker reading and test-taking skills than their typical peers. Finally, we hypothesized that norm-referenced reading scores would be a stronger predictor than both self-reported reading complaints and test anxiety score of the amount of extended time required to equalize access on a timed measure of reading comprehension.

Method

Participants

Following Institutional Review Board approval, college students with and without disabilities were recruited from a public university in the northeast. Participants were recruited from the campus undergraduate research pool, through campus postings, and in collaboration with the Office of Disability Support. A total of 94 participants was recruited; however, nine failed to include the date of birth on the demographic form, six reported inconsistent disability and extended time use (e.g., indicating no disability but the receipt of extended time accommodations), and five participants reported a history of learning disability during screening but did not self-report a current disability. These 20 participants were excluded from data analyses. Therefore, the final sample included 74 participants, including 37 individuals with a diagnosis of ADHD or LD (Specific Learning Disorder), each of whom had received extended time test accommodations. The Disability group was comprised of the following self-reported disability types: LD (n = 10), ADHD (n = 7), ADHD and LD (n = 7), and ADHD or LD in conjunction with another condition (n = 13). A group of 37 students without disabilities who did not receive extended time to take tests (Typical group) served as a comparison group. The two groups were found to be comparable across demographic factors, including sex, χ²(1, N = 74) = 2.64, p = .10; year in school, χ²(4, N = 74) = 2.82, p = .59; ethnicity, χ²(5, N = 74) = 2.46, p = .78; age, t(72) = −0.27, p = .79; and self-reported grade point average (GPA), t(65) = 1.14, p = .26. The mean age of the sample was 20.94 years (SD = 3.14), with the majority of the sample identifying as female (75.70%, n = 56), and the largest proportion enrolled as college sophomores (35.50%, n = 27). A comprehensive summary of demographic characteristics of the sample can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample.

	Typical (n = 37)		Disability (n = 37)		Total sample (N = 74)
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Age	20.84	3.96	21.04	2.08	20.94	3.14
GPA	2.99^a	0.52	2.81^b	0.74	2.90	0.64^c
	n	% of group	n	% of group	n	% of sample
Sex
Female	31	83.8	23	67.6	56	75.7
Male	6	16.2	12	32.4	18	24.3
Year in school
Freshman	7	18.9	7	18.9	14	18.9
Sophomore	16	43.2	11	29.7	27	36.5
Junior	7	18.9	11	29.7	18	24.3
Senior	7	18.9	7	18.9	14	18.9
Graduate	0	0	1	2.7	1	1.4
Race
White/Caucasian	25	67.6	30	81.1	55	74.3
Black/African American	4	10.8	3	8.1	7	9.5
Latino(a)/Hispanic	3	8.1	2	5.4	5	6.8
Multiple	2	5.4	1	2.7	3	4.1
Prefer not to report	1	2.7			1	1.4
Other	2	5.4	1	2.7	3	4.1

Note. GPA = grade point average.

33 participants from the group self-reported GPA.

34 participants from the group self-reported GPA.

67 participants from the sample self-reported GPA.

Measures

Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement (WJ IV ACH)

The WJ IV ACH (Schrank, Mather, & McGrew, 2014) is a norm-referenced measure of academic skill that can be utilized with individuals ages 2 to 90 years. All participants completed the three tests that produce the Broad Reading cluster of the WJ IV ACH: Letter-Word Identification, Passage Comprehension, and Sentence Reading Fluency. Standard scores calculated using age-based norms were used in all analyses.

The WJ ACH, in various versions and in conjunction with the WJ Tests of Cognitive Abilities, is commonly used as part of the documentation provided to schools when high school and college students make accommodations requests (Gregg et al., 2005; Sparks & Lovett, 2013). The Broad Reading cluster has been shown to have strong reliability, with a median estimate of 0.97, with an estimate of 0.96 for individuals aged 18 to 19, and 20 to 29, respectively (McGrew, LaForte, & Schrank, 2014). Furthermore, the Broad Reading cluster standard score has shown a strong correlation to the reading composite scores from other commonly used measures of reading, including the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition (KTEA-II; r = .92) and Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition (KTEA-III; r = .89) (McGrew et al., 2014).

Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI)

The TAI (Spielberger, 1980) is a self-report questionnaire developed for use with high school and college age students to assess test anxiety. The measure includes 20 items related to the cognitive and emotional experience of test-related anxiety, rated on a 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always) scale, and the total score was calculated by summing item scores.

The TAI total score has been shown to have strong internal consistency (ranging from 0.92 to 0.96) and short-term (2-4 weeks) test–retest reliability of .80 (Galassi, 1980). Furthermore, the TAI total score was reported to show strong correlation to scores from other measures of test anxiety (Galassi, 1980). The TAI total score was used to assess test-specific anxiety as both a group difference and a predictor of the amount of time needed to complete a reading task.

Self-Evaluation of Performance on Timed Academic Reading (SEPTAR)

The SEPTAR (Kleinmann & Lewandowski, 2005) was employed to assess participants’ self-perceptions of their reading speed in timed test situations and their perceived need for extra time on tests. The scale consists of nine items such as “I am a slow reader” and “I could do better on my exams if I had additional time.” Statements were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and the total score was calculated from the sum of these item scores.

The SEPTAR has been found to be unidimensional with strong internal consistency (α = .89). Scores on the scale have been found to be significantly related to TestTracker reading speed (r = .41) and reading comprehension (r = .39). Other studies have found the SEPTAR to be a significant predictor of timed reading comprehension (e.g., Lewandowski, Hendricks, & Gordon, 2015).

NDRT

The Comprehension subtest (Form H) of the NDRT (Brown, Fishco, & Hanna, 1993) was administered as a norm-referenced measure of timed reading comprehension and allowed an examination of the amount of time required to equalize access to the subtest. The subtest contains seven reading passages, each of which is paired with related multiple choice questions that include factual and inferential items. The number and proportion of items attempted and correctly completed were calculated for each participant.

The NDRT Manual reports the Comprehension subtest scores obtained from students attending a 4-year college to show adequate reliability, both alternate forms (r = .81) and internal consistency (r = .85-.88).

Demographic questionnaire

All participants completed a brief demographic questionnaire to collect information about participants’ age, sex, year in school, and disability status. The data were used to help confirm the participants’ disability status and receipt of test accommodations (current and by history) and confirm the comparability of demographic data across groups prior to data analysis.

Procedures

All participants were asked to complete two separate testing sessions, individual and group, which were counterbalanced across participants. In the individual session, participants completed the three WJ IV subtests: SEPTAR, TAI, and demographic form in this order. In the group session, the participants completed the Comprehension subtest from the NDRT. Administration of the Comprehension subtest of the NDRT was modified such that all participants were introduced to the task with standardized instructions and provided 20 min to complete the task using a #2 pencil. At 20 min, participants were asked to use a red pencil to complete the remaining items, while the investigator recorded the total time of completion. In the case that the participant finished the subtest in less than 20 min, the total time used to complete the test was recorded by the investigator.

Results

Group Differences Across Reading and Self-Report Measures

Independent-samples t tests were utilized to examine our hypothesis that the Disability group would show significantly weaker performance than the Typical group on a reading composite score and would report significantly weaker reading and test-taking skills than their typical peers. Table 2 summarizes the comparison of the group means across dependent variables. Generally, the groups showed comparable and mostly age-appropriate performance across the reading clusters of the WJ IV, with no significant between-group differences in performance. Despite these findings, there were three areas in which significant differences between groups were identified. First, the Disability group took significantly more time to complete a measure of reading comprehension than the Typical group. Second, the Disability group attempted significantly fewer items on the NDRT Comprehension subtest at standard time (20 min) than typical peers. And third, the Disability group showed significantly fewer items correct at standard time than typical peers. Although participants from the Typical group were able to access more questions in 20 min, the groups did not differ significantly on the accuracy of their performance in terms of percentage of items correct at 20 min.

Table 2.

Results of Independent Samples t Test for Outcome Variables by Disability Status.

	Typical (n = 37)		Disability (n = 37)		t	d
	M	SD	M	SD	t	d
WJ Letter-Word Identification	104.89	9.32	102.57	9.65	1.05	0.24
WJ Passage Comprehension	87.30	6.45	90.65	9.64	−1.76	−0.42
WJ Sentence Reading Fluency	103.38	11.93	99.51	10.53	1.48	0.34
WJ Broad Reading Cluster	99.49	9.67	98.00	8.02	0.72	0.36
NDRT Attempted, 20 Mins	32.24	5.85	28.65	7.88	2.22*	0.52
NDRT Total Correct, 20 Mins	27.49	5.84	23.59	7.18	2.56*	0.60
NDRT Percent Correct, 20 Mins	85.14	8.47	82.97	13.59	0.41	0.20
NDRT Total Correct, Full Time	32.38	2.91	31.19	4.86	1.28	0.31
NDRT Percent Correct, Full Time	84.93	7.58	82.16	12.76	1.14	0.27
NDRT Completion Time Minutes	22.75	4.81	25.95	7.36	−2.22*	−0.51
Test Anxiety Total	43.38	11.89	48.97	14.46	−1.82	−0.42
SEPTAR Total	24.43	6.06	30.49	7.27	−3.89*	−0.91

Note. WJ Letter-Word Identification, WJ Passage Comprehension, WJ Sentence Reading Fluency, and WJ Broad Reading all represent standard scores for the respective subtest or cluster. NDRT Attempted, 20 min = total number of items on the NDRT attempted at 20 min; Test Anxiety Total = Total Test Anxiety score; WJ = Woodcock–Johnson Tests; NDRT = Nelson–Denny Reading Test; SEPTAR = Self-Evaluation of Performance on Timed Academic Reading.

p < .05.

In terms of self-reported test anxiety and self-perceived reading ability, the Disability group reported significantly more self-perceived reading and test-taking complaints than the Typical group. The groups did not differ on the degree of test anxiety reported, although the trend showed higher levels of test anxiety for the Disability group.

Time Needed to Equalize Test Access

We hypothesized that the Disability group would use more time than the Typical group to complete a timed measure of reading comprehension. Consistent with expectations, the Disability group took significantly longer (an average of 3.2 min) to complete the NDRT Comprehension subtest than typical peers. That is, participants from the Disability group used 5.95 more minutes or 29.7% more time than the standard 20-min allotment, whereas the Control group required 2.75 more minutes or 13.75% extra time. If one directly compares time used by the Typical and Disability groups (25.95 / 22.75 = 1.14), we see that the Disability group used an average of 14% more time. While 13 (35.1%) participants from the Typical group were able to complete the NDRT Reading Comprehension task in 20 min, only eight (21.6%) of the Disability group were able to complete the NDRT in that amount of time. This difference was found to be significant, χ²(1, N = 74) = 13.84, p < .001.

Predictions of Extended Time Use

One of the primary goals of this study was to identify what variables, if any, predict the amount of time participants used to complete the NDRT. As previous research suggests that virtually all students can benefit from extended time (Lewandowski, Cohen, & Lovett, 2013; Lewandowski et al., 2015; Sireci et al., 2005), we were interested in which factors could predict total time needed regardless of group assignment (i.e., Typical or Disability groups). As such, a multiple linear regression was conducted on the entire sample to predict the time used to complete the NDRT using scores from three WJ IV ACH tests (i.e., Letter-Word Identification, Passage Comprehension, and Sentence Reading Fluency), as well as TAI and SEPTAR total scores. The model significantly predicted amount of time used on the timed reading task, F(5, 68) = 6.28, p < .001, with an R² of .32. Self-perceptions of reading ability (SEPTAR total score; β = .38, p = .004), the Sentence Reading Fluency standard score (β = –.32, p = .006), and the Letter-Word Identification standard score (β = .23, p = .04) were significant predictors of the amount of time used to the complete the NDRT comprehension subtest. Test anxiety did not contribute significantly to the model. Results for all variables in the regression, as well as the correlations for all these predictor and outcome measures, are reported in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3.

Bivariate Correlations for Outcome Variable and Predictor Variables (N = 74).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. WJ Letter-Word Identification	—	.29*	.30**	.67**	−.02	−.03	.13
2. WJ Passage Comprehension		—	.16	.53**	−.33**	−.09	.01
3. WJ Sentence Reading Fluency			—	.85**	−.10	−.33**	−.37**
4. WJ Broad Reading Cluster				—	−.18	−.27*	.21
5. Test Anxiety Total					—	.53**	.18
6. SEPTAR Total						—	.46**
7. NDRT Completion Time Seconds							—

Note. WJ Letter-Word Identification, WJ Passage Comprehension, WJ Sentence Reading Fluency, and WJ Broad Reading cluster all represent standard scores for the respective subtest or cluster. Test Anxiety Total = Total Test Anxiety score; WJ = Woodcock–Johnson Tests; SEPTAR = Self-Evaluation of Performance on Timed Academic Reading; NDRT = Nelson–Denny Reading Test.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 4.

Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Total Completion Time on the NDRT (N = 74).

Variable	B	SE B	β
WJ Letter-Word Identification	9.25	4.42	.23*
WJ Passage Comprehension	0.45	5.20	.01
WJ Sentence Reading Fluency	−10.89	3.80	−.32**
Test Anxiety Total	−1.43	3.64	−.05
SEPTAR Total	20.10	6.66	.38**

Note. R²= .32. WJ Letter-Word Identification, WJ Passage Comprehension Fluency, WJ Sentence Reading Fluency, and WJ Broad Reading cluster all represent standard scores for the respective test. NDRT = Nelson–Denny Reading Test; WJ = Woodcock–Johnson Tests; SEPTAR = Self-Evaluation of Performance on Timed Academic Reading.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

The current study was designed to examine performance and self-report measures that were likely to differ between students with and without disabilities, as well as predict the use of extended time necessary to equalize access on a timed reading comprehension task. Our results indicated that students with disabilities who received university test accommodations took longer than typical peers to complete a reading comprehension task, utilizing nearly 14% more time on average to access the same number of items. It should be noted that in the standardization sample of the NDRT, 38% to 56% of college students did not complete the Comprehension test in 20 min (Brown et al., 1993), whereas in our sample, 72% of college students did not complete the test in standard time. These data suggest that the NDRT Comprehension test is a speeded task, and most examinees need extra time to completely access the test, with our Disability group needing 14% more time.

The additional time used by the Disability group is similar to previous findings by Cahalan-Laitusis, King, Cline, and Bridgeman (2006) who reported that individuals with disabilities needed 4% to 14% additional time for similar access to the SAT as typical peers. Also, the studies by Sokal and Vermette (2017) and Spenceley and Wheeler (2016) suggest that even when provided 50% or 100% extended time, students with disabilities rarely utilize the full allotment of extended time. Consistent with the concerns of other researchers (Lovett, 2010; Miller et al., 2015), these findings suggest that many students with disabilities may be granted more time than necessary to equalize access to test items.

Although there was a modest group difference in amount of time used to complete the comprehension task, this difference was not due to group differences in reading skills. In fact, the groups did not differ on any of the four WJ IV indicators, and our Disability group showed average range performance across the WJ IV measures. This finding is similar to what Sparks and Lovett (2009) found when summarizing the norm-referenced academic skills of college students with learning disabilities on various achievement measures. Furthermore, Lewandowski, Gathje, Lovett, and Gordon (2013) found students with and without ADHD show similar academic skills. Consistent with these results, our participants with ADHD and LD did not display significant weaknesses in reading, perhaps because their learning problems were in other areas. Despite the lack of differences on reading measures, the WJ IV Sentence Reading Fluency and Letter-Word Identification tests did significantly predict the amount of time needed to complete the NDRT Comprehension test. The Sentence Reading Fluency test is a time-sensitive test as is the NDRT Comprehension test, and it is more likely that one speeded reading test would predict performance on another speeded reading test. Our findings suggest that measure of reading fluency and decoding skills might be of some assistance in predicting time needed to complete such a test. In other words, examinees with low reading fluency or decoding skills, regardless of disability type, might need extended time to access the comprehension test. Those with average range or stronger skills in these domains may not need extended time despite having a diagnosed disorder. Of course, an examinee could warrant extended time due to other impairments (e.g., vision, motor, distractibility, etc.).

The current study is limited by the unique sample of participants within the Disability group. Rather than a sample of a particular clinical group, our sample was comprised of participants with various disability types, and a number of the students claimed multiple disabilities. While this heterogeneity makes it difficult to discuss findings relative to a particular disorder, it does reflect the reality of test accommodation recipients on a college campus. Despite the variability in students’ reported diagnoses, all participants within the group were receiving extended time test accommodations from the Disability Office at the time of participation, and given the goals of the study, it is this use of extended time we are trying to understand and predict.

While we did not find group differences on reading performance measures, we did find participants with disabilities reported significantly more concerns about their reading and test-taking abilities than peers. Similar findings have been reported in other studies (Lewandowski, Berger, Lovett, & Gordon, 2016; Lovett, Lewandowski, & Potts, 2017), suggesting that college students tend to perceive more reading or learning problems than they demonstrate on standardized tests. Despite this apparent disconnect, we found that perception of reading and test taking did significantly predict amount of time used on the comprehension test. Regardless of skill level, students seem to require more time if they think that they need it despite standardized performance comparable with that of nondisabled peers. Whether these perceptions emerge from actual academic weaknesses or factors such as stereotype threat (see May & Stone, 2014) is unclear at this time.

Several additional limitations of this study should be acknowledged. The current study did not create a high stakes test situation, similar to something students may find in the classroom or on high-stakes tests such as the SAT or GRE. Rather, participants had relatively little at stake in their completion of the reading comprehension task used in our study. This may have influenced their use of time to complete the task. Second, our Disability group’s standardized performance on the WJ did not differ significantly from peers’ performance. This is surprising, given that an LD diagnosis requires unexpected underachievement in an academic area. While this finding may be due to our heterogeneous sample, average-level achievement test scores for the Disability group suggest our results may not generalize to all college students who receive extended time accommodations. Finally, the sample size recruited in the current study is too small to offer robust conclusions, and the current results should be considered as preliminary evidence of the predictors of the time needed to complete academic tasks. Further research in this area might involve more ecologically valid high stakes tests that induce more concerns about completion time with a larger sample of participants. Perhaps a longer, more challenging, and relevant exam would affect students’ need for extended time and make certain predictors (e.g., test anxiety) more salient.

In sum, the current findings are consistent with the findings of other groups (Cahalan-Laitusis et al., 2006; Spenceley & Wheeler, 2016) that shows students approved for extended time tend not to need/use the time granted, and that the typically allotment of 50% or 100% more time is likely an over-provision of time to equalize access between students with and without the accommodation. Our findings also demonstrated that some specific tests of reading ability, particularly fluency and decoding, may be helpful in predicting how much extra time a student might need. The implications of this study suggest that the need for extended time should be individually determined, the amount of extended time needed is generally less than 50%, and speeded measures of reading fluency, decoding, and self-perceptions of test taking skills could be helpful in determining need for extended time.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This project was partially funded through an internal grant through the State University of New York at Oswego.

ORCID iD

Laura M. Spenceley

References

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328 (1990).

Association on Higher Education and Disability. (2012). Supporting accommodation requests: Guidance on documentation practices. Retrieved from https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/white-papers-guiding-documents

Brown

J. I.

Fishco

V. V.

Hanna

(1993). Nelson Denny Reading Test: Manual for scoring and interpretation, Forms G and H. Chicago, IL: Riverside.

Cahalan-Laitusis

King

T. C.

Cline

Bridgeman

(2006). Observational timing study of the SAT reasoning test for test takers with learning disabilities and/or AD/HD (College Board Research Report No. 2006-4). New York, NY: College Board.

Crawford

Ketterlin-Geller

L. R.

(2013). Middle school teachers’ assignment of test accommodations. The Teacher Educator, 48, 29-45.

Elliott

S. N.

Marquart

A. M.

(2004). Extended time as a testing accommodation: Its effects and perceived consequences. Exceptional Children, 70, 349-367.

Feldman

Kim

Elliott

S. N.

(2011). The effective of accommodations on adolescents’ self-efficacy and test performance. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 77-88. doi:10.1177/0022466909353791

Galassi

J. P.

(1980). Test review of the Test Anxiety Inventory. In Mitchell Jr.

J. V.

(Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Gregg

Hoy

Flaherty

D. A.

Norris

Coleman

Davis

Jordan

(2005). Decoding and spelling accommodations for postsecondary students with dyslexia—It’s more than processing speed. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(2), 1-17.

10.

Halla

J. W.

(1988). A psychological study of psychometric differences in Graduate Record Examinations General Test scores between learning disabled and non-learning disabled adults (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

11.

Hembree

(1988). Causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47-77.

12.

Hill

G. A.

(1984). Learning disabled college students: The assessment of academic aptitude (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

13.

Kleinmann

A. E.

Lewandowski

L. J.

(2005, March). Perceptions of reading speed: A psychometric analysis. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

14.

Lang

S. C.

Elliott

S. N.

Bolt

D. M.

Kratochwill

T. R.

(2008). The effects of testing accommodations on students’ performances and reactions to testing. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 107-124. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.107

15.

Lewandowski

L. J.

Berger

Lovett

B. J.

Gordon

(2016). Test-taking skills of high school students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 566-576.

16.

Lewandowski

L. J.

Cohen

Lovett

B. J.

(2013). Effects of extended time allotments on reading comprehension performance of college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 326-336. doi:10.1177/0734282912462693

17.

Lewandowski

L. J.

Gathje

R. A.

Lovett

B. J.

Gordon

(2013). Test-taking skills in college students with and without ADHD. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 41-52.

18.

Lewandowski

L. J.

Hendricks

Gordon

(2015). Test-taking performance of high school students with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 19, 27-34. doi:10.1177/1087054712449183

19.

Lovett

B. J.

(2010). Extended time testing accommodations for students with disabilities: Answers to five fundamental questions. Review of Educational Research, 80, 611-638.

20.

Lovett

B. J.

Lewandowski

L. J.

(2015). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: Research-based practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

21.

Lovett

B. J.

Lewandowski

L. J.

Potts

H. E.

(2017). Test-taking speed: Predictors and implications. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35, 351-360. doi:10.1177/0734282916639462

22.

May

A. L.

Stone

C. A.

(2014). An initial investigation into the role of stereotype threat in the test performance of college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27, 89-106.

23.

McGrew

K. S.

LaForte

E. M.

Schrank

F. A.

(2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

24.

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, 678-686. doi:10.1177/1087054713483308

25.

Newman

Wagner

Cameto

Knokey

A.-M.

Shaver

(2010). Comparisons across time of the outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school. A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2010-3008). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

26.

Ofiesh

N. S.

(2000). Using processing speed tests to predict the benefit of extended time for university students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 14, 39-56.

27.

Ofiesh

N. S.

Mather

Russell

(2005). Using speeded cognitive, reading, and academic measures to determine the need for extended time among university students with learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 35-52.

28.

Runyan

M. K.

(1991). The effect of extra time on reading comprehension scores for university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 104-108.

29.

Salend

S. J.

(2011). Addressing test anxiety. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(2), 58-68.

30.

Schrank

F. A.

Mather

McGrew

K. S.

(2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

31.

Sireci

S. G.

Scarpati

S. E.

(2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457-490.

32.

Sokal

Vermette

L. A.

(2017). Double time? Examining extended testing time accommodations (ETTA) in postsecondary settings. AHEAD Association Online, 30, 185-200.

33.

Sokal

Wilson

(2017). In the nick of time: A pan-Canadian examination of extended testing time accommodation in post-secondary schools. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 6(1), 28-62.

34.

Sparks

R. L.

Lovett

B. J.

(2009). College students with learning disability diagnoses: Who are they and how do they perform? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 494-510.

35.

Sparks

R. L.

Lovett

B. J.

(2013). Applying objective diagnostic criteria to students in a college support program for learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 231-241. doi:10.1177/0731948712472185

36.

Spenceley

L. M.

Wheeler

(2016). The use of extended time by college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29, 141-150.

37.

Spielberger

C. D.

(1980). Test Anxiety Inventory: Preliminary professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

38.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). Higher education and disability: Improved federal enforcement needed to better protect students’ rights to testing accommodations (Report to Congressional Requesters). Washington, DC: Author.

39.

Wechsler

(1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

40.

Weis

Sykes

Unadkat

(2012). Qualitative differences in learning disabilities across postsecondary institutions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 491-502. doi:10.1177/0022219411400747

41.

Woodcock

R. W.

Mather

(1989). WJ-R Tests of Cognitive Ability—Standard and supplemental batteries: Examiner’s manual. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.

42.

Zeidner

(2014). Test anxiety. In Emmelkamp

Ehring

(Eds.), Wiley handbook of anxiety disorders (pp. 581-595). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.