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