Cawthon, S., & Leppo, R. (2013). Assessment accommodations on tests of academic achievement for students who are deaf or hard of hearing: A qualitative meta-analysis of the research literature . American Annals of the Deaf , 158 (3), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2013.0023
Cawthon, S., & Leppo, R. (2013). Assessment accommodations on tests of academic achievement for students who are deaf or hard of hearing: A qualitative meta-analysis of the research literature. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(3), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2013.0023
This meta-analysis examined the effects of accommodations used by students with deafness or hearing impairments, including American Sign Language (ASL) administered in-person and via video recording, extended time, English captioning, and oral delivery (for students with some hearing). Some studies factored out individual effects of accommodations, and others examined impacts of multiple accommodations offered under in typical test settings.
Information on the participants in this metaanalysis of 16 studies included that they were elementary, middle school, high school, and postsecondary students with deafness and hearing impairments, (n=2,165) and without disabilities (n=85); most studies did not use comparison groups of students without disabilities. Additional characteristics of student participants were not reported. Other participants in the group of studies were educators (n=414) and speech interpreters (n=20). These numbers of participants were rendered imprecise by one study providing only the number of classrooms (n=12), but without specification of students with or without disabilities. Effect sizes were not calculated for this qualitative meta-analysis.
Information on the dependent variables in this metaanalysis of 16 studies included that they were large-scale and classroom assessments administered to students throughout grades K–12 and postsecondary; the academic content measured included mathematics, reading, science, and history, as well as an intelligence test.
Many of the studies analyzed the effects of assessments administered in American Sign Language (ASL) in comparison with English print, often resulting in little effect of ASL on scores for students with deafness or hearing impairment. A significant complication limiting clear findings was translation of tests from English into ASL. However, one study acknowledged a positive correlation between two factors, ASL use in classrooms and English reading proficiency, and resulting assessment scores. Additionally, ASL administration with ASL responding by students was shown in studies to yield lower scores than English-printed tests. The researchers noted that ASL was demonstrated not to be central to facilitating assessment access for postsecondary students. Assessments using digital platforms expand format options for accommodations (e.g., beyond in-person ASL interpretation); these other formats were determined to be equally valid and not changing academic constructs. Test-related factors, such as item format (constructed-response, e.g. essay; and selected-response, e.g., multiple choice), and item difficulty, and student-related factors, such as degree of ASL proficiency and level of hearing loss, were described through detailed review of the studies examined. Limitations of the study were reported, and future research directions were suggested.