Bolt, S. E. (2004). Examining empirical evidence for several commonly held beliefs and disputes about testing accommodations (Publication No. 3134567) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/305157951

University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN); ProQuest document ID: 305157951

Empirical support for commonly held beliefs about testing accommodations was examined. Extant state data were used, and 'accommodation groups' were formed in order to examine the effects of various accommodations conditions. The following accommodations were included in this study: read aloud, dictated response, large print, braille, and calculator (with secondary accommodations such as extended-time and small-group administration).

Students who completed these assessments were in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 10th grades in three (U.S.) states in all. Each sample included students with and without disabilities who took the assessment both with and without accommodations. A total of 632,330 student scores were used in these analyses, and 83,271 of those were students with disabilities (13.2% of sample).

Student performance data from three states (U.S.) were obtained. These data were from statewide assessments in reading, math, and communication arts. Data from standardization of a published achievement test in math, reading, and language arts was also used.

From the three beliefs examined, one was supported across several data sets: accommodations affect test validity to various degrees. Some but not all of the data indicated support for the other two beliefs examined, which include: "(a) the appropriateness of accommodations changes as a function of the student's disabling condition..., and (b) the appropriateness of several individual accommodations depends on the content area and skills tested" (from Abstract). In other words, the data refuted the basis for the belief that use of accommodations was more appropriate for students with sensory and physical disabilities than for students with cognitive disabilities. Further, there was mixed support for the notion that read-aloud accommodations benefit students with disabilities on reading tests more than math tests, and some data indicate that the opposite may be accurate. The limitations of the study and ideas for future research directions were reported.