Laitusis, C. C. (2010). Examining the impact of audio presentation on tests of reading comprehension . Applied Measurement in Education , 23 (2), 153–167.

Journal Article

Laitusis, C. C. (2010). Examining the impact of audio presentation on tests of reading comprehension. Applied Measurement in Education, 23(2), 153–167.


Educator survey; Elementary; Extended time; K-12; Learning disabilities; Middle school; No disability; Oral delivery; Reading; Recorded delivery (audio or video); Student survey; U.S. context




The accommodations received by participants included answers recorded in test booklet—instead of on answer sheet—and 150% extended time, as well as audio presentation via CD and headset.


A total of 1,181 grade 4 students—527 students with learning disabilities (LD) and 654 students without disabilities—and 847 grade 8 students—376 with LD and 471 without disabilities—from 84 public and private schools in New Jersey (U.S.) participated. Demographic data reported on the ethnic diversity as well as the male/female ratio of participants.

Dependent Variable

The measure of reading comprehension was the Gates-McGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT) Fourth Edition subtest on comprehension. Additionally, other screening tests for fluency included the Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ-III DRB) Reading Fluency subtest, the Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency (TOSWRF), and 4th graders also received two other subtests of WJ-III DRB on letter-word identification and word attack. Finally, data were collected through a student survey and a teacher survey.


In addition to finding lower test scores for students with reading disabilities than for students without disabilities, a differential boost was identified for students with LD who received the audio presentation accommodation at both the fourth and eighth grade levels—although the boost was determined to be larger in the lower grade than in the higher grade. Additional analyses accounted for reading fluency and ceiling effects, excluded their potential impact on the data. Constraints and limitations to the findings were detailed.