Freeland, A. L., Emerson, R. W., Curtis, A. B., & Fogarty, K. (2010). Exploring the relationship between access technology and standardized test scores for youths with visual impairments: Secondary analysis of the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 . Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness , 104 (3), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1010400305

Journal Article

Freeland, A. L., Emerson, R. W., Curtis, A. B., & Fogarty, K. (2010). Exploring the relationship between access technology and standardized test scores for youths with visual impairments: Secondary analysis of the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104(3), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1010400305

Tags

High school; Math; Middle school; Multiple accommodations; Multiple content; Reading; Science; Social studies; Student survey; U.S. context; Visual impairment (including blindness)

URL

https://www.afb.org/publications/jvib

Summary

Accommodation

Accommodations under examination were not specified, but were those various access technologies provided in the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 for students with visual impairments.

Participants

Participants were 280 students with visual impairments who participated in the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (U.S.). Demographic data on race/ethnicity were also reported.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable was students' performance in many academic areas, as measured by the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Academic Achievement (Woodcock et al., 2001), all subtests—Passage Comprehension, Synonyms/Antonyms, Mathematics Calculation, Applied Problems, Science, and Social Studies.

Findings

Results of analyses include descriptive data on performance by group (sex, age, ethnicity, etc.) and by content of subtest, as well as whether participants had low vision or total blindness. Additionally, students who had received no access technology training scored higher on all subtests, but not to a statistically significant degree—mean differences ranged from 1.1 to 5.4 points. Degree of visual impairment interacted with access technology use on some subtests. For instance, participants with total blindness using access technology in only one wave scored significantly lower in science, social studies, and synonyms/antonyms than participants with low vision not using access technology at all. Limitations of the findings include the possibility that participant self-report regarding access technology use was inaccurate due in part to what those participants may have considered access technology; that is, some high-tech accessibility adaptations may not have been considered access technologies.