Cahan, S., Nirel, R., & Alkoby, M. (2016). The extra-examination time granting policy: A reconceptualization . Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment , 34 (5), 461–472.

Journal Article

Cahan, S., Nirel, R., & Alkoby, M. (2016). The extra-examination time granting policy: A reconceptualization. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(5), 461–472.


College entrance test; Elementary; Extended time; High school; Learning disabilities; Math; Meta-analysis; Middle school; Multiple ages; No disability; Postsecondary; Reading; U.S. context




The researchers summarized findings in the empirical literature about extended time, focusing on studies published from 1988 through 2000, and discussed implications for extended-time policies.


This is a literature review of 11 studies, published between 1988 and 2000. Participants ranged from elementary through postsecondary levels and beyond. The studies all included students with learning disabilities (LD) and students without disabilities as participants.

Dependent Variable

This is a review of empirical literature about the effects of extended time used during assessments, including large-scale standardized assessments of reading and mathematics in K–12 and postsecondary education, classroom based measurement of math skills, and a non-verbal cognition college entrance examination.


The researchers presented a rank-ordered list of the 17 tests from the 11 studies showing the relative differences (for students with and without learning disabilities) in mean performance gains between extended-time and no accommodation conditions. They concluded that there was a low correlation between gain scores and disability status for most of the studies. Based on the collective results of the eleven studies on effects of extended time for students with learning disabilities and students without disabilities, the researchers argued that granting additional assessment time for only students with learning disabilities "erroneously denies time extension from the vast majority of the examinees who could benefit from it" (p. 468), namely, many students without disabilities. This conclusion, the researchers argued, supports a universal design approach—that is, removing time limitation from tests for all students. Along with other study limitations, the researchers observed that most of the studies used research measures that "may have been more highly speeded than actual high-stakes tests are, leading to the very high degree of benefit by both LD and nondisabled participants" (p. 470). Future research directions were also suggested.