How Much Time?: A Review of the Literature on Extended Test Time for Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities.

Abstract

One ongoing dilemma with the accommodation of extended test time is how much time to provide. Due to a dearth of research to help disability service providers with this decision, a review of the literature on extended test time for postsecondary students with learning disabilities (LD) was conducted to (a) inform service providers about the results of several studies on extended test time, (b) determine if a certain amount of extended test time was typically used by participants with LD, and (c) identify research variables from the studies that could account for differences in the amounts of time use. A search resulted in seven studies that included reports of time use. The average time use in most studies ranged from time and one-half to double time. Differences in results based on type of postsecondary setting, test conditions and test instruments are discussed, and recommendations are offered to guide the decisionmaking process on how much additional time to provide. The right to test accommodations in postsecondary educational settings stems from regulations accompanying statutory law (e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], 1990; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973). Of the various ways to accommodate students with learning disabilities (LD), extended test time is the most frequently requested and granted in colleges and universities (Bursuck, Rose, Cohen, & Yahaya, 1989; Nelson & Lignugaris-Kraft, 1989; Yost, Shaw, Cullen, & Bigaj, 1994). The accommodation of extended test time is built on a growing body of literature that supports the contention that individuals with LD characteristically take longer to complete timed tasks, including taking tests (e.g., reading passages, math calculations), than individuals without these disabilities (Bell & Perfetti, 1994; Benedetto-Nash & Tannock, 1999; Chabot, Zehr, Prinzo, & Petros, 1984; Frauenheim & Heckerl, 1983; Geary & Brown, 1990; Hayes, Hynd, & Wisenbaker, 1986; Hughes & Smith, 1990; Wolff, Michel, Ovrut, & Drake, 1990). This slowed rate of performance prevents some students with LD from completing as much of a test as their peers, leading to lower scores. When provided with additional time, however, many students with LD are able to finish more of a test and thereby make significant gains in their test score (Alster, 1997; Hill, 1984; Jarvis, 1996; Ofiesh, 2000; Runyan, 1991a, 1991b; Weaver, 2000). Conversely, extended time often does not benefit students without LD in the same way. On the majority of tests used in studies to assess the effectiveness of extended test time, students without LD as a group either (a) did not use the extra time, or (b) did not make significant score gains with the use of more time (Alster, 1997; Hill, 1984; Vol. 16, No. 1, Fall 2002 (pp. 2 16) Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 3 Ofiesh, 2000; Runyan, 1991a). However, because some students without LD may demonstrate score increases with extended test time, it is important to clarify that the purpose of a test accommodation is to ameliorate the difference between individuals with and without disabilities. A test accommodation like extended test time should not accommodate nondisability-related factors that can impact test taking for all students (fatigue, test anxiety, motivation, test-taking skills). Thus an important question becomes, “How much extra time is reasonable and fair?” Too little time will not accommodate the disability. Too much time may accommodate the disability, as well as nondisability-related factors such as motivation or anxiety, and therefore provide an unfair advantage to students without LD. Furthermore, for the student with LD, too much time may result in test scores that are an invalid representation of academic ability or achievement (Braun, Ragosta, & Kaplan, 1986; Ziomek & Andrews, 1996; Zurcher & Bryant, 2001). In practice, the process of deciding how far to extend the time limit of a test is not clearly defined, and in most instances there is no precise answer. Rather, postsecondary disability service providers (DSP) estimate an amount of time based on a variety of factors such as the disability services program policies, the individual student’s strengths and weaknesses, the test, the program of study, and other unique information (e.g., previous history of accommodation, medication). However, new studies exist to assist DSP on how to weigh these factors and where to begin with this decision, with respect to the ADA. The goals of this article are twofold. The first is to provide individuals who are responsible for determining appropriate accommodations with a review and analysis of the literature on extended test time with respect to time use. Such information also provides researchers with a foundation for further investigation into the accommodation of extended test time. The second goal is to provide DSP with a benchmark (i.e., a starting point) from which to gauge their decisions about extended test time. To accomplish these two goals, the literature was analyzed to determine if a certain amount of extended test time was typically used by participants with LD in studies on extended test time. Furthermore, research variables were identified that could account for differences in the amounts of time use among the studies (e.g., type of postsecondary institution or type of test) (Runyan, 1991b). The article begins with an introduction to how extended test time decisions are made in postsecondary settings, followed by a review and analysis of the studies, discussion and recommendations. Determining Appropriateness of Extended Test

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.