Varied Opinions on How To Report Accommodated Test Scores: Findings Based on CTB/McGraw-Hill's Framework for Classifying Accommodations. Synthesis Report.

This paper reports on a survey of the perceptions of 86 state-level educational assessment personnel or other professionals involved in educational assessment regarding different ways in which test scores are influenced by accommodations for participants with disabilities and how scores obtained under accommodated conditions should be treated in reporting. It notes three general options: (1) report all scores in the aggregate (i.e., do not differentiate between accommodated and non-accommodated test scores; (2) report accommodated scores separately; and (3) report accommodated scores both in the aggregate as well as separately. A survey instrument asked participants to classify accommodations into one of three categories distinguished by the degree to which accommodations influence performance. Accommodations were also classified as either presentation accommodations, response accommodations, setting accommodations, or timing accommodations. The study found a relatively high degree of disagreement among participants on the degree to which various accommodations alter test constructs and thus should be treated differently. Accommodations seen as least likely to influence performance were small group administration, use of a large print answer sheet, special lighting, or flexible scheduling. Accommodations seen as most likely to influence performance included provision of extra time, test administration at home, use of a calculator for computations, or use of a spell checker. The paper suggests that accommodations be viewed as a means of establishing optimal testing conditions rather than as a means of "leveling the playing field." Appendices include the survey protocol and detail on level of agreement for each accommodation. (Contains 12 references, 3 tables, and 4 figures.) (DB)