Leppo, R. H. T., Cawthon, S. W., & Bond, M. P. (2014). Including deaf and hard-of-hearing students with co-occurring disabilities in the accommodations discussion . Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education , 19 (2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ent029

First published online (5/2/13)

The researchers summarized findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (NLTS2), and placed these findings in conversation with the current research base focusing on accommodation use by students with hearing impairments along with other co-occurring disabilities. For the NLTS2, seven accommodations included (in decreasing frequency): additional time, different test forms, readers for tests, signed administration, one-on-one support, tutor use (not during testing), and technology use. Studies on instructional and assessment accommodations, and modifications were also reviewed.

The data set from the NLST2 was analyzed in relation to the body of literature about students with deafness and hearing impairments. The total number of other studies reviewed was 19, which included 11 studies focusing on assessment accommodations or modifications. The NLTS2 data set (rounded to the nearest 10s-place) totaled 630 students with deafness or hearing impairments, including 310 with additional disabilities. Age and ethnicity were also reported.

The dependent variables for the NLTS2 data set included the disability statuses of deaf and hard-of-hearing with any additional disability (n=310), deaf and hard-of-hearing with learning disabilities (LD; n=90), and deaf and hard-of-hearing with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; n=110). Other students with hearing impairments and other disabilities, such as visual disabilities (n=60) or autism (n=10), were determined to be too few to demonstrate accommodations use pattern differences. As part of the NLTS2, the parents and teachers of students provided these data about disability status and accommodations they used.

The researchers sought to examine accommodations use patterns for students with deafness or hearing impairments who also have other disabilities in order to identify what, if any, differences there may be for these students, in comparison to students with deafness or hearing impairments who do not have additional disabilities. First, none of the accommodations categories were statistically significant to predict that the students with deafness or hearing impairments also had any additional disabilities. In other words, accommodations use patterns of students with deafness did not differ from patterns of students with deafness along with other disabilities. Further analyses yielded that the predictor variables ought to have reliably detected a meaningful effect if it had existed. However, when specifying which additional disability, different accommodations use patterns were detected. In fact, students with deafness or hearing impairments and ADHD demonstrated significant differences in their use of three accommodations categories: they were associated with less use of technology, greater use of extended-time for tests or assignments, and greater use of oral delivery during assessments. Also, students with deafness or hearing impairments and LD tended to have significantly greater use of oral delivery during testing. Limitations of the study were reported.