Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Bielinski, J., House, A., Moody, M., & Haigh, J. (2001). The relationship between instructional and assessment accommodations in an inclusive state accountability system . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 34 (3), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400302
Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Bielinski, J., House, A., Moody, M., & Haigh, J. (2001). The relationship between instructional and assessment accommodations in an inclusive state accountability system. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(3), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400302
This study investigated the incidence of use of accommodations in instruction and during testing. There were accommodations which fit into each of the five categories used by NCEO. Examples included periodic breaks, extended-time, multiple days, special seating, special administrators, calculator, repeating directions, read-aloud, marking answer in test booklet, student dictation of responses to transcriber (scribe), and multiple accommodations.
Extant data were drawn from 280 IEPs of students from among 4 different school districts in Maryland (U.S.). The students were in grades 1 through 8, and were mostly boys (70%). Primary disability was also specified: specific learning disability, 46%; speech/language impairments, 25%; multiple disabilities, 12%; other health impairment, 11%; "severe emotional disturbance," 3%; "mental retardation," 1%; the remainder were 1-2 students each—visual impairment, deaf, hearing impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, and "diagnostic/not categorized." Ethnicity data were also reported for the students.
This study did not measure the impact of accommodations on performance. Rather, the IEPs were the source of data, reporting the dependent variable of the incidence of identified accommodations for use during instruction and assessment. These incidences were hypothesized to be related to one another.
The incidence of instructional accommodations was specified on 88% of participants' IEPs. The incidence of assessment accommodations was specified on 85% of participants' IEPs. For students with accommodations listed on IEPs, 84% of the students' assessment accommodations matched their instructional accommodations. Accommodations provided were related to academic content areas. Further analyses yielded that frequencies of identified accommodations were related with the nature of participants' disabilities and the intensity of the services they were provided.