Kern, L., Hetrick, A. A., Custer, B. A., & Commisso, C. E. (2019). An evaluation of IEP accommodations for secondary students with emotional and behavioral problems . Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders , 27 (3), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426618763108

First published online 3/22/18

The researchers investigated patterns of 1,840 accommodations provided during classroom (n=1,155) or state assessments (n=685) that were categorized as several types, including: presentation, response, timing/scheduling, setting, check, cues/prompts, and structured behavioral interventions. [Note. The accommodations were categorized as (a) presentation, (b) response, (c) timing/scheduling, (d) setting, and initially, (e) other. The accommodations placed in the "other" category were further examined, and the researchers identified three additional categories: (e) check—in which the test administrators interacted with students before tests to ensure that they understand the nature of the task expectations, (f) cue/prompt—in which test administrators provided verbal or visual reminders during tests to redirect students' attention to the tasks at hand, and (g) structured behavioral strategies—in which test administrators drew from students' behavioral plans to positively reinforce students' appropriate task engagement, often with a comment of praising their efforts.] The researchers explained that these accommodations were considered neither instructional interventions nor modifications to testing that would affect the academic construct; further, they pertained to academic testing, and not related to social, organizational, or study skills.

Students (n=222) in grades 8, 9, 10, and 11 who were identified with emotional-behavioral disabilities participated. Participants attended 54 schools in five states (U.S.): Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. Participants were reported to have disabilities in the "primary" disability categories: specific learning disabilities (LD; n=112, 50%), emotional behavioral disabilities (EBD; n=56, 25%), other health impairment (OHI; n=46, 21%), and other (e.g., speech impairment, traumatic brain injury; n=7, 3%). The extent of participants' difficulties associated with mental health impairments were confirmed and scaled using one or more common measures: Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition–Parent Version (BASC-2; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004), the self-reported Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC; March, 1998), or the self-reported Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale, Second Edition (RADS-2; Reynolds, 2002). Behavioral problems were also indicated by absences, discipline records, and/or low academic grades in core subjects. Participant scores on the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition (WJ-III; Woodcock et al., 2001), Broad Reading scale and Broad Mathematics scale were also collected. Additional demographic data, including gender and race/ethnicity were also reported. Sampling and representativeness details were provided.

Data on accommodations use patterns were drawn from a larger project evaluating a set of interventions for secondary students with emotional-behavioral disabilities at the Center for Adolescent Research in Schools, CARS, (Kern et al., 2015), and included student characteristics as well as academic performance data, also used for study participation eligibility screening. The sources of accommodations data were initially the individualized education program (IEP) plans of participants, and noted to be assigned for classroom assessments and large-scale—districtwide and statewide—academic assessments. The degree of alignment of use of accommodations during classroom versus large-scale assessments were reported according to the seven types of accommodations.

In classrooms, seven types of accommodations were provided to various proportions of the 222 student participants: presentation (55%), response (44%), timing/scheduling (82%), setting (80%), check (22%), cues/prompts (27%), and structured behavioral interventions (15%). Classroom accommodations included those provided during instruction, assignments, and tests. On large-scale [state or district-level] assessments, the seven accommodation types were provided to various proportions of the 222 student participants: presentation (55%), response (27%), timing/scheduling (58%), setting (82%), check (3%), cues/prompts (12%), and structured behavioral interventions (0%). Two accommodations types—presentation and setting— were provided to similar proportions of the participants in classrooms and on state assessments. In contrast, the other five types of accommodations were provided to fewer students during state testing; these differences were primarily because some classroom accommodations were not made available for state assessments, including behavioral supports, lecture notes, and study guides. Accommodations types varied significantly in frequency from the expected likelihood based on states of residence, based on disabilities, and based on grade levels. In classrooms, for instance, presentation accommodations were provided to significantly higher proportions of students in Missouri, and structured behavioral accommodations were more commonly provided than expected in Pennsylvania, and much less frequently than expected in Ohio and Kansas than other states. On state assessments, Ohio students were provided timing/scheduling accommodations more frequently than expected; check accommodations were generally provided infrequently in most states, but more frequently than expected in Pennsylvania. Students with LD were provided response accommodations in classrooms more frequently than expected; students with LD received presentation accommodations for state tests more frequently than expected. Students with EBD, on state tests, received presentation accommodations less frequently than expected. For state tests, cueing or prompting was provided more frequently than expected to students with EBD, and less frequently than expected to students with LD. On state tests, grade 8 and grade 9 students received check accommodations more frequently than expected and students in grade 10 received presentation accommodations more frequently than expected. Students received a range of numbers of classroom and state testing accommodations based on their states of residence, but not based on disabilities or grade levels. Student participants' academic and behavioral functioning was not linked to accommodations types in classrooms, except for in one condition: participants who received classroom-based response accommodations in classroom setting had significantly lower performance on the WJ-III math test than participants who did not. In contrast, more academic and behavioral functioning differences were found in the state testing context for three accommodations types: (a) Participants receiving presentation accommodations for state tests had lower WJ-III math scores—with a medium effect size—and lower reading scores—with a large effect size—than students not receiving them. (b) Participants receiving response accommodations for state tests had lower WJ-III math scores—with a medium effect size—than participants not receiving them. (c) Participants receiving check accommodations for state tests exhibited "significantly greater risk of anxiety, as measured by the MASC" (p. 188) at the high end of the average range—with a large effect size—than participants not receiving them.