Assessment & Accountability Comprehensive Center at WestEd

About

NCLB

Resources

Events

Contact

Guidelines for Ensuring the Technical Quality of Assessments Affecting English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities:
Development and Implementation of Regulations

Test Accommodations

Many of the Peer Review comments to states emphasized a need for more evidence or additional work in the areas of test accommodations (discussed further here) and standard setting (discussed in the next section).

The list of allowable accommodations for SWDs and for ELLs differs across states (National Research Council 2002, 2004; Rivera & Collum, 2004). Providing students with appropriate test accommodations is critical because appropriate access to assessments is necessary to improve the validity of the results, and valid assessments are critical if results are used for accountability purposes.

Test accommodations tend to fall into one of four categories: presentation, response, timing/scheduling, and setting. Presentation accommodations include alterations to the way in which the test is presented to students, such as an oral presentation or a Brailled version of the test. Response accommodations involve changes to the way students are expected to provide their responses; such accommodations could include oral rather than written responses, or the use of an assistive device to demonstrate a response. Accommodations related to timing/scheduling may include extended time or frequent breaks during testing. And accommodations to setting include changes to the test location or conditions, such as administering the test individually or in a small group setting rather than in a regular classroom (Thurlow, House, Boys, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1999). Accommodations are intended to provide students with the maximally appropriate conditions to access the tested content and demonstrate their knowledge and skills.

Accommodations are intended to provide students with the maximally appropriate conditions to access the tested content and demonstrate their knowledge and skills.

For SWDs served under IDEA, appropriate assessment accommodations should be consistent with IEP practices. Generally, the IEP must consider the student’s present level of educational performance; that is, "...how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum..." (IDEA, 2004, Sec. 614[d][1][A][i][I]). More specifically related to assessment, the IEP must include descriptions of "...any individual appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional performance of the child on state and district-wide assessments..." (IDEA, 2004, Sec. 614[d][1][A][i][VI][aa]). Thus, IDEA requires that the individual student’s needs—rather than the student’s disability category—should determine the appropriate accommodations for both instruction and assessment.

The individual student’s needs—rather than the student’s disability category—should determine the appropriate accommodations for both instruction and assessment.

For ELLs the selection of accommodations should involve the consideration of the student’s English language proficiency level as well as the extent to which the student has been instructed in the content of the test and the language of that instruction. In addition to the consideration of such student variables, the amount of appropriate direct linguistic support should be considered. All linguistic accommodations are intended to reduce the construct-irrelevant language demands on students in a test. That is, they are designed to reduce instances where the language of the test not associated with what is being assessed becomes a barrier to students’ understanding of what is asked and how to respond. Direct linguistic support includes accommodations that address the construct-irrelevant language of the test (in either English or the student’s native language). Examples of direct linguistic accommodation include oral presentation, linguistic simplification, in which the text is modified to reduce complex vocabulary and sentence structure, and bilingual glossaries or bilingual dictionaries, which allow students to translate unfamiliar terms. Indirect linguistic support accommodations also are used to reduce construct-irrelevant language barriers, but these supports usually address the testing conditions or environment (i.e., setting, schedule) (Center for Equity and Excellence in Education, 2005; Rivera & Collum, 2004).

For English language learners, the selection of accommodations should involve the consideration of the amount of appropriate direct linguistic support needed vis-à-vis the student’s English language proficiency level, the extent to which the student has been instructed in the content of the test, and the language of that instruction.

Currently, allowable accommodation practices vary greatly across states, and research on the effectiveness of accommodations for SWDs and ELLs is inconclusive. Nonetheless, much has been learned about test accommodations. Table 10 and Table 11 below list a selection of resources that state officials can use to inform their thinking about the appropriateness and effectiveness of various accommodations for SWDs and ELLs, respectively. These tables are not exhaustive because the body of rigorous research systematically examining the use of accommodations with SWDs and ELLs continues to grow⁵. In particular, more research is needed regarding other accommodations typically used with ELLs, such as accommodations related to presentation and response, which tend to lend themselves to accommodation of language. Common practice for selecting accommodations for ELLs suggests that decisions on accommodations often are based on research that focused on SWDs, rather than ELLs (Rivera & Collum, 2004).

Table 10. Resources on Accommodations for Students with Disabilities

Orally read directions and/or oral presentation

Calhoon, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 2000

Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton, Hamlett, Binkley, & Crouch, 2000

Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton, & Karns, 2000

Johnstone, 2003

Johnstone, Thompson, Moen, Bolt, & Kato, 2005

Kosciolek & Ysseldyke, 2000

Russell & Plati, 2000

Thompson, Johnstone, & Thurlow, 2002

Tindal, Heath, Hollenbeck, Almond, & Harniss, 1998

Walz, Albus, Thompson, & Thurlow, 2000

Weston, 2002

Note: Additional resources will be provided as they become available and are reviewed using the AACC vetting criteria.

Table 11. Resources on Accommodations for English Language Learners

Orally read directions/dir_oral presentation

English dictionaries, customized dictionaries, and glossaries

Linguistic sinplification and modification

Abedi, 2001

Abedi, Courtney, & Leon, 2003

Abedi, Courtney, Mirocha, Leon, & Goldberg, 2005

Abedi, Hofstetter, Baker, & Lord, 2001

Abedi, Hofstetter, & Lord, 2004

Abedi & Lord, 2001

Abedi, Lord, Hofstetter, & Baker, 2000

Abedi, Lord, Kim, & Miyoshi, 2000

Albus, Bielinski, Thurlow, & Liu, 2001

Castellon-Wellington, 2000

Kopriva, 2000, Ch. 6

Mazzeo, Carlson, Voelkl, & Lutkus, 2000

Rivera & Stansfield, 2004

Note: Additional resources will be provided as they become available and are reviewed using the AACC vetting criteria.
*Resources do not specify whether glossaries discussed are monolingual or bilingual.

Key considerations regarding test accommodations

Research has shown that there are issues related to the validity of inferences drawn from the scores of students who have taken accommodated tests. Therefore, as state officials consider the appropriateness of their assessment accommodations, they ought to consider the following questions:

Is the accommodation appropriate for the student/group of students?
Does the accommodation give an unfair advantage to SWDs, ELLs, or to subgroups of either?
Does the accommodation change the assessed construct?
Does the accommodation (e.g., computer administration, assistive devices) change item/test comparability?

See resources listed in Tables 10 and 11 for relevant research.

Additional resources relevant to accommodations are as follows:

A Decision Framework for IEP Teams Related to Methods for Individual Student Participation in State Accountability Assessments, 2005
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/toolkit/iep-teams.doc

National Council on Disability: Improving Educational Outcomes for Students with Disabilities, 2004
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/educationoutcomes.htm

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/index.html?src=mr

Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) with link to National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html?src=oc

OELA National Clearinghouse (NCELA)
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu

National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST)
http://www.cresst.org

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
http://www.ccsso.org

National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO)
http://education.umn.edu/nceo/

NCEO Online Accommodations Bibliography
http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/AccomStudies.htm

Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)
http://www.cec.sped.org

Center for Equity and Excellence in Education
http://ceee.gwu.edu

National Alternate Assessment Center
http://www.naacpartners.org

Note: Additional resources will be provided as they become available and are reviewed using the AACC vetting criteria.

⁵ Lists of accommodations and relevant research/references will be updated as additional information becomes available and is reviewed using the AACC vetting criteria.

Guidelines for Ensuring the Technical Quality of Assessments Affecting English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities:Development and Implementation of Regulations