4 Bielinski, J., Sheinker, A., & Ysseldyke, J. (2003). Varied opinions on how to report accommodated test scores: Findings based on CTB/McGraw-Hill’s framework for classifying accommodations (Synthesis Report No. 49). University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/OnlinePubs/Synthesis49.html
NCEO's Synthesis Report 49; downloadable at: https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/OnlinePubs/Synthesis49.html
A list of 44 different accommodations categorized into presentation, response, setting, and timing accommodations were used.
Participants included 86 individuals throughout the U.S. who work either as state assessment directors, state special education directors, or individuals involved in producing and presenting research on test accommodations.
This study is a survey of the perceptions held by people familiar with policy or research on the way in which test scores are influenced by accommodations and how scores obtained under accommodated conditions are to be treated in reporting. Participants marked each accommodation as either: 1) measuring the construct in the same way, 2) changing the meaning of the test score, or 3) not having definitive evidence to place it in either category one or two.
The results show that the extent of agreement about how accommodated scores should be treated depends on the accommodation. The study also shows how deep-seated beliefs lead some respondents to consider almost no accommodation as changing the construct, whereas other respondents consider almost all accommodations as influencing the construct being measured.