Students who are deaf or hard of hearing are a low-incidence population with diverse linguistic characteristics and levels of academic achievement. This article presents findings on teacher recommendations of assessment practices for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. A total of 372 educational professionals responded to a set of three study vignettes that asked for recommendations for accommodations or alternate assessments appropriate for the scenarios. Participants also provided open-ended responses that justified their recommendations. Four randomly assigned conditions controlled for test subject (math or reading), student skill level (two or five grades below grade level in math and/or reading), and communication mode used in instruction (American Sign Language or a combination of sign and speech). Participant recommendations for accommodations or alternate assessments varied by test subject (math or reading) and student skill level but not by communication mode. Justifications for recommendations painted a complex picture of reasons behind proposed assessment practices. This article discusses the implications of these findings for accommodations policy as well as possible evidence toward a theory of decision making in assessment practices for students who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Abedi, J. ( 2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 231-257.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (AERA, APA, & NCME). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association .
3.
Backlund, L., Skaver, Y., Montgomery, H., Bring, J., & Strender, L. ( 2003). Doctors’ decision processes in a drug-prescription task: The validity of rating scales and think-aloud reports. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(1), 108-117.
4.
Bekker, H., Thornton, J.G., Airey, C.M., Connelly, J.B., Hewison, J.S., Robinson, M.B., et al. (1999). Informed decision making: An annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technology Assessment , 3, 1-156.
5.
Bolt, S.E., & Thurlow, M.L. ( 2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy: Synthesis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 141-152.
6.
Bolt, S.E., & Thurlow, M.L. ( 2006). Item-level effects of the read-aloud accommodation for students with reading disabilities (Synthesis Report No. 65). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
7.
Byron, M. ( 2005). Simon’s revenge: Or, incommensurability and satisficing . Analysis, 65(4), 311-315.
8.
Cawthon, S.W. ( 2006). Pebbles in the mainstream: How do we find them? American Annals of the Deaf, 151(2), 105-113.
9.
Cawthon, S.W. ( 2007). Hidden benefits and unintended consequences of No Child Left Behind polices for students who are Deaf or hard of hearing. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 460-492.
10.
Cawthon, S. W., & Online Research Lab. ( 2006). Findings from the National Survey on Accommodations and Alternate Assessments for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(3), 337-359.
11.
Cawthon, S. W., & Online Research Lab ( 2008). Accommodations use for statewide standardized assessments: Prevalence and recommendations for students who are Deaf or hard of hearing . Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(1), 55-96.
12.
Cawthon, S., Wurtz, K., & Online Research Lab. (in press). Factors that predict accommodations use for students who are Deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies .
13.
Chiclana, F., Herrera, F., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (1998). Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations . Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 97, 33-48.
14.
Clapper, A.T., Morse, A.B., Lazarus, S.S., Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. ( 2005). 2003 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report No.56). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
15.
Crawford, L., Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. ( 2004). Writing performance assessments: How important is extended time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 132-142.
16.
DeStefano, L., Shriner, J., & Lloyd, C. ( 2001). Teacher decision making in participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments. Exceptional Children, 68(1), 7-22.
17.
Edgemon, E., Jablonski, B., & Lloyd, J. ( 2006). Large scale assessments: A teacher’s guide to making decisions about accommodations. TEACHING Exceptional Children , 38(3), 6-11.
18.
Elbaum, B. ( 2007). Effects of an oral testing accommodation on the mathematics performance of secondary students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 40(4), 218-229.
19.
Elliott, S.N., & Braden, J.P. ( 2000). Educational assessment and accountability for all students: Facilitating the meaningful participation of students with disabilities in district and statewide assessment programs. Madison, WI : Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction .
Elliott, S.N., McKevitt, B., & Kettler, R. ( 2002). Testing accommodations research and decision-making: The case of "good" scores being highly valued but difficult to achieve for all students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35, 153-166.
22.
Evans, C. ( 2005). Clinical decision making theories and patient assessment in A and E. Emergency Nurse, 13(5), 16-19.
23.
Fairbanks, L.D., & Stinnett, T.A. (1997). Effects of professional group membership, intervention type, and diagnostic label on treatment acceptability . Psychology in the Schools, 34(4), 329-335.
24.
Fletcher, J., Francis, D.J., Boudousquie, A., Copeland, K., Young, V., Kalinowski, S., et al. (2006). Effects of accommodations on high-stakes testing for students with reading disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children, 72(2), 136-150.
25.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. ( 2001). Helping teachers formulate sound test accommodation decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(3), 174-181.
26.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Capizzi, A. ( 2005). Identifying appropriate test accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children , 37(6), 1-8.
27.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C.L., & Kearns, K.M. ( 2000). Supplementing teacher judgment of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65-85.
28.
Gallaudet Research Institute. (2005, January). Regional and national summary report of data from the 2003-2004 Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Youth. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.
29.
Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M.A., Tindal, G., Heath, B., & Almond, P.J. ( 1999). Reading as an access to mathematics problem solving on multiple-choice tests for sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 93(2), 113-125.
30.
Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. ( 2003). An experimental analysis of accommodation decisions on large-scale mathematics tests. Exceptional Children, 69, 211-225.
31.
Hollenbeck, K., Tindal, G., & Almond, P. ( 1998). Teachers’ knowledge of accommodations as a validity issue in high-stakes testing. The Journal of Special Education , 32, 175-183.
32.
Holt, J., Traxler, C., & Allen, T. ( 1992). Interpreting the scores: A user’s guide to the 8th edition Stanford Achievement Test for educators of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.
33.
Hofstetter, J. ( 2003). Contextual and mathematics accommodation test effect for English-language learners. Applied Measurement in Education , 16(2), 159-188.
34.
Hughes, R. & Huby, M. ( 2004). The construction and interpretation of vignettes in social research. Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 11(1), 36-51.
35.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-476.
36.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
37.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647.
38.
Ketterlin-Geller, L.R., Alonzo, J., Braun-Monegan, J., & Tindal, G. ( 2007). Recommendations for accommodations: Implications of (in)consistency . Remedial and Special Education, 28, 194-206.
39.
Ketterlin-Geller, L.R., Yovanoff, P., & Tindal, G. ( 2007). Developing a new paradigm for conducting research on accommodations in mathematics testing. Exceptional Children , 73(3), 331-347.
40.
Kohl, F., McLaughlin, M., & Nagle, K. ( 2006). Alternate achievement standards and assessments: A descriptive investigation of 16 states. Exceptional Children, 73(1), 107-123.
41.
Kopriva, R.J., Emick, J.E., Hipolito-Delgado, C.P., & Cameron, C.A. ( 2007). Do proper accommodation assignments make a difference? Examining the impact of improved decision-making on scores for English language learners. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(3), 11-20.
42.
Lazarus, S.S., Thurlow, M.L., Christensen, L.L., & Cormier, D. ( 2007). States’ alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) in 2007 (Synthesis Report No.67). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
43.
Lazarus, S.S., Thurlow, M.L., Lail, K.E., Eisenbraun, K.D., & Kato, K. ( 2006). 2005 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report No.64). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
44.
Loeterman, M., Paul, P.V., & Donahue, S. ( 2002, February). Reading and deaf children. Reading Online, 5(6). Retrieved November 8, 2009, from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=loeterman/index.html
45.
Maihoff, N.A., Bosso, E., Zhang, L., Fischgrund, J., Schulz, J., Carlson, J., et al. (2000). The effects of administering an ASL signed standardized test via DVD player/television and by paper and pencil: A pilot study. Dover, DE: Delaware Department of Education.
46.
Mandinach, E.B., Bridgeman, B., Calahan-Laitusis, C. & Trapani, C. ( 2005). The impact of extended time on SAT Test performance (College Board Research Report No. 2005-8). New York: The College Board.
47.
Marschark, M., Lang, H., & Albertini, J. ( 2002). Educating deaf students: From research to practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
48.
McKevitt, B., & Elliott, S.N. ( 2003). Effects and perceived consequences of using read aloud and teacher-recommended testing accommodations on a reading achievement test . The School Psychology Review, 32(4), 583-600.
49.
Mitchell, R.E. ( 2004). National profile of deaf and hard of hearing students in special education from weighted survey results. American Annals of the Deaf, 149, 336-349.
50.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002), 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.
51.
Osachuk, T.A. ( 1997). Preferences for sharing information and treatment decision-making in novice and senior medical students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 6655B.
52.
Padden, C., & Humphries, T. ( 2005). Inside deaf culture. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
53.
Pettit, P. ( 1984). Satisficing consequentialism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 58, 165-176.
54.
Phillips, S.E. ( 1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93-120.
55.
Ramsey, C. ( 1997). Deaf children in public schools: Placement, context and consequences. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
56.
Rehabilitation Act, Pub. L. No. 93-112 (1973).
57.
Roach, A., Elliott, S., & Webb, N. ( 2005). Alignment of an alternate assessment with state academic standard: Evidence for the content validity of the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment . Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 218-231.
58.
Schimmel, C., Edwards, S., & Prickett, H. ( 1999). Reading? . . . Pah! (I got it!): Innovative reading techniques for successful deaf readers. American Annals of the Deaf, 144(4), 298-308.
59.
Schirmer, B., & McGough, S. ( 2005). Teaching reading to children who are Deaf: Do the conclusions of the National Reading Panel apply? Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 83-117.
60.
Schulte, A.G., Elliot, S.N., & Kratochwill, T.R. (2001). Effects of testing accommodations on standardized mathematics test scores: An experimental analysis of the performances of students with and without disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 527-547.
61.
Shriner, J., & DeStefano, L. ( 2003). Participation and accommodation in state assessment: The role of Individualized Education Programs. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 147-161.
62.
Sireci, S., Scarpati, S., & Li, S. ( 2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 457-490.
63.
Spears, R., Tollefson, N., & Simpson, R. ( 2001). Usefulness of different types of assessment data in diagnosing and planning for a student with high-functioning autism. Behavioral Disorders, 26(3), 227-242.
64.
Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. ( 2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Technical Report No.34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
65.
Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., Thurlow, M.L., & Altman, J.R. ( 2005). 2005 state special education outcomes: Steps forward in a decade of change. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
66.
Thurlow, M., & Bolt, S. ( 2001). Empirical support for accommodations most often allowed in state policy (Synthesis Report No.41). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
67.
Tindal, G. ( 2007, April). Technical adequacy of recommendations for accommodations. Paper presentation at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Chicago.
68.
Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. ( 2000). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. Report for the Mid-South Regional Resource Center, Lexington, KY.
69.
Toffalo, D.A., Pedersen, J.A. ( 2005). The effect of a psychiatric diagnosis on school psychologists’ special education eligibility decisions regarding emotional disturbance. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13(1), 53-60.
70.
U.S. Department of Education (2004). Twenty-sixth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
71.
U.S. Department of Education (2007, April 9). Final Rule 34 CFR Parts 200 and 300: Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Federal Register, 72(67), 17748-17781.
72.
Yoshinaga-Itano, C. ( 2000). Successful outcomes for deaf and hard of hearing children . Seminars in Hearing, 21, 309-325.
