NCEO Report 451

Executive Summary

This systematic review examined research on testing accommodations for K-12 students with disabilities published in 2023. Following rigorous inclusion criteria, 13 studies were identified and analyzed. The research landscape showed notable diversity in methodological approaches, with studies fairly evenly split between qualitative (n=6), quantitative (n=5), and mixed methods (n=2). Publication venues were similarly balanced between peer-reviewed journals (n=7) and dissertations (n=6). The majority of studies focused on implementation practices, use patterns, and stakeholder perceptions of accommodations, with fewer studies examining score comparability or experimental manipulation of accommodations.

Most studies relied on primary data collection (n=11), predominantly using interviews and tests as data collection instruments. Mathematics and English language arts (ELA)/Reading were the most commonly assessed content areas, reflecting the federal requirement for annual state testing in these subjects. The research primarily focused on middle and high school populations, with fewer studies examining elementary level accommodations. Sample sizes tended to be small, with eight of the 13 studies having fewer than 50 participants. Among specific accommodations studied, magnification devices/software emerged as the most frequently examined, followed by text-to-speech, extended time, color contrast, and braille accommodations.

The studies primarily focused on examining implementation practices (n=9) and perceptions (n=9) of accommodations, with fewer studies comparing accommodation effects (n=5) or summarizing existing research (n=4). Key findings indicated that technology-based accommodations like magnification devices and text-to-speech were frequently studied but not consistently utilized by students, even when available. The research revealed that while teachers generally felt supported in making accommodation decisions, they often lacked specific training for implementing accommodations, particularly for students with visual impairments or mental health needs. Additionally, the studies found that accommodations were most effective when tailored to individual student needs and when students received proper training in their use, though the evidence for specific accommodations' impact on test scores was mixed.

Overview

Assessment accommodations play a crucial role in ensuring valid measurement of academic achievement for students with disabilities, as mandated by federal legislation, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). These accommodations, defined as changes in assessment materials or procedures that do not alter the construct being measured, are essential for providing students with disabilities appropriate access to assessments while maintaining test score validity and reliability.

Federal peer review requirements, developed by the U.S. Department of Education (2018) to ensure that each state’s assessment system meets certain criteria, specifically address accommodations through several critical elements:

Critical Element 5.1 requires states to ensure that appropriate accommodations are available to students with disabilities and that these accommodations are used consistently across test administrations.
Critical Element 5.2 mandates clear guidance to Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams for selecting appropriate accommodations.
Critical Element 5.3 requires states to document that accommodated test scores can be meaningfully interpreted alongside non-accommodated scores.

The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014) also provide key guidance through several standards:

Standard 3.9 requires that any accommodations maintain the construct being measured while removing construct-irrelevant barriers.
Standard 6.2 requires evidence that test scores from accommodated administrations support intended interpretations.
Standard 6.3 emphasizes the need to document the appropriateness and feasibility of testing accommodations.
Standard 6.4 mandates that modifications to test content or administration procedures be clearly described and supported by evidence.

Research on assessment accommodations is fundamental to ensuring equitable educational measurement and accountability systems that accurately capture what students with disabilities know and can do. High-quality evidence about accommodation effectiveness and implementation is essential for making valid decisions about instruction and assessment. The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has reported on accommodations research since 1999. This report presents a synthesis of the research literature on test accommodations for U.S. elementary and secondary students (K–12) published in 2023.

Review Process

The criteria for inclusion in this review of the testing accommodations literature were:

Published or defended in 2023 (for doctoral dissertations).
Addressed accommodations on state general assessments. Studies specific to accommodations for alternate assessments, as well as studies that addressed only instructional accommodations, were not included in this review.
Underwent the level of peer review typically required for publication in professional journals or through a doctoral committee review. Presentations and most reports were excluded, though reports that have undergone a rigorous review process were included.
Involved at least one of the following: experimental manipulation of an accommodation, investigation of the comparability of test scores across accommodated and non-accommodated conditions or across more than one accommodated condition, or examination of survey results or interview data sets about students’ or teachers’ perceptions or preferences regarding accommodations.
Included findings about assessment accommodations.
Focused on research on students in schools in the United States (U.S.).
Pertained to grades K–12.
Was not an advance online publication.

Additionally, research on accommodations for English learners was included in this analysis only if the target population was English learners with disabilities. It excluded research focused on accommodations for English learners who do not have disabilities. For additional information on the identification process, see Appendix A.

This report uses largely the same criteria as was used in the most recent previous report (Ressa et al., 2024), though the search and screening process was refined. A checklist with the criteria was created and implemented by a team of NCEO staff to assist with the review. To help ensure that the research studies included in this report met the criteria, two NCEO researchers reviewed each study and used a form to indicate whether all the criteria were met. Differences were reconciled by a third NCEO researcher. Once the set of studies that met inclusion criteria was finalized, researchers conducted detailed reviews of each study. The study characteristics were coded independently by two researchers who then met and reconciled any differences. As needed, a third researcher reviewed the studies and discussed differences with the larger team to reach consensus. For additional information about the search process, see Appendix A.

Results

Thirteen studies met the criteria for inclusion in this report. The characteristics of the studies are presented next, organized by key features (e.g., publication type, sample size). For additional details on each study, see Appendices B and C. Appendix B contains an annotated bibliography with the complete reference for each of the studies included in this review, as well as summaries of the studies. Appendix C provides detailed information regarding the characteristics of each study.

Publication Type

Roughly half (n=7) of the 2023 studies identified for inclusion in this review were journal articles, while the remaining studies (n=6) were dissertations. This differed from the analysis of the 2022 accommodations research literature when the included studies were all dissertations (Ressa et al., 2024).

Figure 1. Publication Types of K–12 Studies Published in 2023

Circle graph showing 7 journal articles and 6 dissertations; journal articles make up the larger portion.

Purpose

As shown in Table 1, the majority of the 2023 accommodations research studies reported on either accommodations implementation practices and use patterns (n=9) or accommodations perceptions and preferences (n=9). Studies also focused on comparing test scores between students with disabilities (n=4) and summarizing research (n=4). These purposes were similar to those in the analysis of 2022 studies (Ressa et al., 2024), in which summarizing research, reporting on accommodations implementation practices and use patterns, and reporting on accommodations perceptions and preferences were most common. In earlier years such as 2019-2021, studies most commonly compared the effects of accommodations on scores, but this trend has not continued since 2022.

Table 1. Research Purposes of K–12 Studies Published in 2023

Purpose	Number of Studies
Compare effects	5
Compare effects – only students with disabilities	4
Compare effects – only students without disabilities	0
Compare effects – students with and without disabilities	1
Evaluate item comparability	1
Evaluate test design and development	1
Evaluate test structure	1
Summarize research	4
Report on accommodations implementation practices & use patterns	9
Report on accommodations perceptions & preferences	9

Notes. N=13. 10 studies had more than one purpose.

Research Type

As indicated by Figure 2, six of the 13 accommodations research studies from 2023 used qualitative methods, five used quantitative methods, and two used mixed methods. This differed from the 2022 analysis of the accommodations research literature when only qualitative studies were identified (Ressa et al., 2024).

Figure 2. Research Methods Used in K–12 Studies Published in 2023

Bar chart showing research methods in K–12 studies published in 2023. There were 6 qualitative, 5 quantitative, and 2 mixed methods studies.

Data Collection Source

Primary data were collected for 11 of the 2023 accommodations research studies (see Figure 3). Three of the studies used secondary data sources, with one of these three studies also using primary data. This is similar to the 2021 and 2022 analyses (see Ressa et al., 2024 and Rogers et al., 2023), when nearly all studies used primary data.

Figure 3. Data Collection Sources Used in K–12 Studies Published in 2023

Bar chart showing 11 studies used primary data sources and 3 used secondary data sources.

Notes. N=13. One study used both primary and secondary data and is represented in both bars.

Data Collection Instruments and Methods

As shown in Figure 4, the most commonly used data collection methods in 2023 accommodations research studies included interview protocols and tests, with these two methods used in seven studies each. Observations and surveys were used in three studies each, while grades were the data source in one study. Two studies used other forms of data collection, such as gathering supporting documents for analysis. One study did not specify the data collection instruments and methods. The majority of studies (n=8) used multiple data collection methods, while five studies only used one method each.

Figure 4. Data Collection Instruments and Methods Used in K–12 Studies Published in 2023

Bar chart showing data collection methods in studies: 7 used interviews, 7 used tests, 3 used observations, 3 used surveys, 2 used other methods, 1 used grades, and 1 did not specify.

Notes. N=13. Eight studies used more than one data collection method, and five studies used one data collection method.

Content Areas Assessed

As indicated in Figure 5, the content area that was most frequently assessed in the 2023 accommodations research literature was Math (n=7). Next most common were those representing English language instruction, that is, Reading (n=3) and English language arts (ELA; n=2). World languages, social studies, and science were each assessed in two studies, and the General Educational Development (GED) test was used in one study. Three studies assessed multiple content areas. One study that assessed multiple content areas also assessed the “Other” content areas of computer science and physical education. One study did not specify a content area. These findings are similar to those of previous analyses, in which mathematics and ELA/Reading were most frequently assessed (e.g., Ressa et al., 2024; Rogers et al., 2023; Rogers et al., 2022; Rogers, Thurlow et al., 2022).

Figure 5. Content Areas Assessed in K–12 Studies Published in 2023

Bar chart showing content areas studied: 7 math, 3 reading, 2 English Language Arts, 2 language, 2 social studies, 2 science, 1 GED, 1 other, and 1 not specified.

Notes. N=13. ELA=English Language Arts; GED = General Educational Development test. Three studies assessed more than one content area.

Sample Size

As shown in Figure 6, the majority (n=8) of the 2023 studies had sample sizes of less than 50 participants. Four studies utilized large sample sizes of greater than 500 participants. One study had a medium sample size of 50–499 participants. These findings are similar to those of the analyses from 2019–2023 where the majority of studies included either a small sample size of less than 50 participants or a large sample size of greater than 500 participants, with very few studies utilizing a sample size of 50–499 participants (see Ressa et al., 2024; Rogers et al., 2023; Rogers, Ressa et al., 2022; Rogers, Thurlow et al., 2022).

Figure 6. Sample Sizes of K–12 Studies Published in 2023

Bar chart showing most studies (8) had small samples of fewer than 50 people; few (4) had large samples of 500 or more and one had medium samples of 50-499.

School Level

Figure 7 shows that nine of the 2023 accommodations research studies were conducted at the middle school level, eight at the high school level, and four at the elementary school level. Four studies conducted research at multiple school levels, while nine studies focused on a specific school level. This differs from the analysis of the 2022 accommodations research literature when a higher proportion of the studies were conducted at the elementary level (see Ressa et al., 2024 for details).

Figure 7. School Levels of K–12 Studies Published in 2023

Bar chart showing most studies were at middle school (9 studies) and high school (8 studies); fewer were at elementary (4 studies).

Notes. N=13. Four studies focused on multiple school levels.

Disability Category

Twelve of the 13 studies included students with disabilities in their samples. Three studies addressed students with multiple disability categories. The most frequently addressed disability category was learning disabilities (n=5 studies). Emotional/behavioral disabilities, speech/language disabilities, and visual impairments (including blindness) were represented in three studies each. Students with Other Health Impairment were included in two studies and students with autism were included in one study. Four studies did not specify the disability category of students in the samples. Some studies addressed students in more than one disability category (n=3), while others addressed a single disability category (n=9).

Figure 8. Disability Categories Addressed in K–12 Studies Published in 2023

Figure shows 12 of 13 studies included students with disabilities. Learning disabilities were most common (5 studies), followed by emotional/behavioral, speech/language, and visual impairments (3 each). Four studies did not specify disability type.

Notes. N=13. Three studies addressed more than one disability category.

Accommodations

As shown in Figure 9, the most commonly addressed testing accommodations in the 2023 accommodations research literature were magnification device or software, text to speech, extended time, color contrast, and braille, with these accommodations addressed in three studies each. The next most commonly addressed accommodations were visual cues, technological aid, tactile graphics, scratch paper and enlarged print (on paper) with two studies each. Studies of twenty-four different accommodations had only one study each. These accommodations included: streamline, spelling checker, speech recognition system, specialized setting, scribe, screen reader, screen display, refreshable braille display, permissive mode, paper format, oral delivery, note taker, line reading device or software, lighting, highlighter, help tools, extra blank or specialized paper, electronic administration, dictionary/glossary, color overlay, breaks during testing, audio recording device/software for responses, audio presentation, and audio description of visual images. Four studies did not identify specific accommodations. In the 2022 analysis of accommodations research (Ressa et al., 2024), the most commonly studied accommodation was oral delivery, which was not studied in 2023.

Figure 9. Accommodations Addressed in K–12 Studies Published in 2023

Bar chart showing frequency of testing accommodations studied in 2023. Five accommodations appeared in 3 studies each; five others in 2 studies. Twenty-four appeared in only 1 study each (listed in first paragraph under 'Accommodations'); 4 studies did not specify accommodations.

Notes. N=13.

Discussion

For 2023, 13 studies researching U.S. K–12 assessment accommodations were identified. The 2023 literature on testing accommodations reveals several notable shifts and gaps in the field. Compared to previous years, there has been a move away from score comparison studies toward research examining implementation practices and stakeholder perspectives, primarily teachers and students. This shift suggests growing attention to the practical challenges and real-world implementation of accommodations rather than just their technical adequacy.

The predominance of small-sample studies, while allowing for in-depth qualitative analysis, highlights a need for more large-scale research to establish generalizable findings. The focus on middle and high school populations leaves a significant gap in our understanding of elementary-level accommodations, which is particularly important given the critical nature of early intervention and support.

The emergence of magnification devices and other technology-based accommodations as frequent subjects of study reflects the growing integration of digital tools in assessment. However, the relatively narrow range of accommodations studied suggests a need for research on other common accommodations and emerging technological solutions. The methodological diversity observed in 2023 represents a positive development, offering multiple perspectives on accommodation effectiveness and implementation.

As assessment systems continue to evolve, particularly with the advancement of technology-based solutions, the need for rigorous research on accommodations becomes increasingly critical. The field would benefit from a more balanced research agenda that maintains attention on implementation while rebuilding focus on score comparability and validity evidence, and future research should include individuals with a wider range of disability categories. This comprehensive approach will better support policymakers and educator in making informed decisions about accommodation policies and practices that truly serve the needs of students with disabilities.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in this review.

*Aldrich, J. C. (2023). Dismantling inequitable education practices: A phenomenological study of assessing students experiencing specific learning disabilities (Publication No. 30694129) [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2917769521
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
*Brinkman, S. M. (2023). The impact of Section 504 plans on academic achievement (Publication No. 30638513) [Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University Texas]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2878168077
*Clark, B. (2023). The perceptions and experiences of students with learning disabilities who graduated high school via the GED using assistive technologies (Publication No. 30690305) [Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2877258970
*Dembitzer, L., & Kettler, R. J. (2023). Universally designed accommodations on a reading comprehension test: What do they accomplish? Assessment for Effective Intervention, 49(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084231170317
*Guzman-Orth, D., Steinberg, J., & Albee, T. (2023). English learners who are blind or visually impaired: A participatory design approach to enhancing fairness and validity for language testing accommodations. Language Testing, 40(4), 933–959. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231159143
*Kim, A. A., Yumsek, M., Kemp, J. A., Chapman, M., & Cook, H. G. (2023). Universal tools activation in English language proficiency assessments: A comparison of Grades 1–12 English learners with and without disabilities. Language Testing, 40(4), 877–903. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322221149009
*Liu, C., Zhang, D., Pandolpho, M., & Yi, J. (2023). Effects of Principled Digitalized Interactive Components on Geometry Computer-Based Assessment in High Schoolers With Learning Difficulties in Mathematics: A Preliminary Investigation. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 49(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084231203235
*McCarthy, T., Holbrook, C., Kamei-Hannan, C., & D’Andrea, F. M. (2022). Speed and Accuracy Measures of School-Age Readers With Visual Impairments Using a Refreshable Braille Display. Journal of Special Education Technology, 38(4), 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434221131775
*McKenzie, J. E. (2023). Anxiety and depression in middle school: A qualitative inquiry of general education teachers’ experiences implementing Section 504 and IEP policies (Publication No. 30529722) [Doctoral dissertation, Saint Mary’s College]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2829615255
*Muthukumaran, A. (2023). Experiences of middle school students with visual impairments accessing technologies in inclusive classrooms (Publication No. 30573660) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2854805314
Ressa, V. A., Lazarus, S. S., Rogers, C. M., Fleming, K., & Quanbeck, M. (2024). A summary of the research on the effects of K–12 test accommodations: 2022 (NCEO Report 444). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport444.pdf
Rogers, C. M., Ressa, V. A., Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., & Swadek, G. (2023). A summary of the research on the effects of K–12 test accommodations: 2021 (NCEO Report 438). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport438.pdf
Rogers, C. M., Ressa, V. A., Thurlow, M. L., & Lazarus, S. S. (2022). A summary of the research on the effects of K–12 test accommodations: 2020 (NCEO Report 436). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport436.pdf
Rogers, C. M., Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Ressa, V. A., & Swadek, G. S. (2022). A summary of the research on the effects of K–12 test accommodations: 2019 (NCEO Report 433). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport433.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Peer review guidance—A state’s guide to the U.S. Department of Education’s assessment peer review process. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2023/11/assessmentpeerreview.pdf
*Wilson, S. C. (2023). Testing accommodations decision-making policies and procedures at New York area independent schools: A qualitative study (Publication No. 30529414) [Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2828615684
*Witmer, S. E., & Bouck, E. C. (2023). Predictors of Accessibility Tool Use on a Low-Stakes Computer-Based Math Test. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 49(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084231152477
*Witmer, S. E., Lovett, B. J., & Buzick, H. M. (2022). Extended Time Accommodations on the 2017 NAEP Grade 8 Mathematics Test: Eligibility, Use, and Benefit. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 41(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829221130457

Appendix A

Research Literature Identification

Several sources were accessed to complete this review of the K–12 accommodations research. Specifically, five research databases were consulted: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, Dissertations and Theses Global, and Educational Abstracts. To help affirm the thoroughness of the searches, the search engine Google Scholar was used to locate additional research, if any. In addition, selected journals were hand-searched in an effort to ensure that no qualifying study was missed. A list of hand-searched journals is available on the NCEO website (https://nceo.info/Resources/bibliographies/accommodations/methods-for-identifying).

Online archives of several organizations were searched for relevant publications. These archives included the ACT Research Publications (https://www.act.org/content/act/en/research/reports/act-publications.html?keyword=&state=&audience=&pubDate=&pageNo=&page=1&sort=featured ), the College Board Research Library (http://research.collegeboard.org ), the ETS RESEARCHER (https://www.ets.org/research/researcher.html ) database, and the Wisconsin Center for Educational Research (WCER; https://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications ).

The initial search was completed in December 2023. A second search was completed in May 2024 to ensure that all articles published in 2023 were found and included in this review. A sequence of search terms was used within each of these research databases and publication archives. Terms searched for this review were:

standardized (also large-scale, state, standards-based) test (also testing) changes
standardized (also large-scale, state, standards-based) test (also testing) modification(s)
standardized (also large-scale, state, standards-based) test (also testing)
accommodation(s)
test changes
test modifications
test accommodations

Many of these search terms were used as delimiters when searches yielded large pools of irrelevant documents.

Appendix B

Annotated Bibliography of 2023 Accommodations Research Studies

Aldrich, J. C. (2023). Dismantling inequitable education practices: A phenomenological study of assessing students experiencing specific learning disabilities (Publication No. 30694129) [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2917769521

Accommodation(s): Accommodations were not specified; the focus was on middle school math teachers’ perspectives on administering assessments based on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) for students with specific learning disabilities (SLD).

Participant(s): Ten middle school math teachers in the United States who taught students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for SLD participated.

Dependent Variable(s): Semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually with each participant.

Findings: Teachers felt that there was a misalignment between assessments’ content and format and students’ educational needs and abilities. They also believed that the coordination of students’ IEPs, their learning needs and abilities, and accommodations led to student successes but also had its limitations. Teachers thought that multimodal classroom instruction led to an inclusive and equitable learning environment.

Brinkman, S. M. (2023). The impact of Section 504 plans on academic achievement (Publication No. 30638513) [Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University Texas]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2878168077

Accommodation(s): Accommodations were not specified; the focus was on the impact of Section 504 plans initiated in high school on student academic achievement.

Participant(s): Data from 150 students with Section 504 plans enrolled in seven high schools within one district in Texas were used.

Dependent Variable(s): Ex post facto analyses were conducted to examine the effectiveness of Section 504 plans on student academic achievement as measured by the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STARR), and graduating grade point average (GPA).

Findings: No differences were found between mean SAT scores of students with Section 504 plans initiated before high school and mean SAT scores of students with 504 plans initiated during high school. No differences were found between mean STAAR Reading 8 scores, English I scores, Math 8 scores, or Algebra 1 scores of students with 504 plans initiated before high school and those of students with 504 plans initiated during high school. Students with 504 plans initiated before high school had higher growth in reading than did students with 504 plans initiated during high school. No differences were found in growth in math between students with 504 plans initiated before high school and students with 504 plans initiated during high school. No differences were found in graduating GPA between students with 504 plans initiated before high school and students with 504 plans initiated during high school.

Clark, B. (2023). The perceptions and experiences of students with learning disabilities who graduated high school via the GED using assistive technologies (Publication No. 30690305) [Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2877258970

Accommodation(s): Assistive technology (AT) tools—including text-to-speech and speech-to-text software, enlarged print, and human-voice recorded tests—were examined.

Participant(s): Eight adult students between the ages of 19 and 59 participated, from throughout the United States who self-identified with a learning disability of dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia.

Dependent Variable(s): Interviews were conducted with participants who completed an online screening survey indicating that they had used AT for completing the GED program, including successfully passing the summative GED testing.

Findings: The researcher reported several themes pertaining to participants having learned to use assistive technology tools while preparing for and passing the GED, as well as in adult life; this summary emphasizes the theme of AT as “pivotal for their academic achievement.” Participants reported a range of benefits from using various supports—accommodations and assistive technology tools—when they originally attended but did not complete high school. Some noted that they did not use instructional or test accommodations, and some had not been identified as having learning disabilities; others indicated that they had been provided oral delivery by teachers for instruction and assessment, and one student learned to read braille by touch which apparently was helpful. A common experience among participants was the availability of AT tools that were newly available to them during their GED preparation. Text-to-speech software was the primary AT tool identified for both independently studying for, and passing, the GED test. Participants expressed positive experiences using AT including text-to-speech, attributing its availability to supporting their motivation, independence, and self-efficacy to pass the GED test on their first attempt.

Dembitzer, L., & Kettler, R. J. (2023). Universally designed accommodations on a reading comprehension test: What do they accomplish? Assessment for Effective Intervention, 49(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084231170317

Accommodation(s): The practice of providing “universal test accommodations” was investigated. The researchers analyzed the impact of providing two accommodations as universal features for all students: (a) oral delivery of reading passages and test items via text-to-speech and (b) 50% more time.

Participant(s): A total of 131 students with and without disabilities in grade 12, from three high schools in New Jersey (U.S.) participated. The student participants were identified as having functional impairments in reading fluency (n=44), being at risk of having functional impairments in reading (n=2) or not having any functional impairments in reading (n=83). Researchers did not use disability categories when identifying participants. Demographic information was reported.

Dependent Variable(s): The testing platform was evaluated for accessibility using the TAMI-ARM (Beddow et al., 2009). Participants were screened for reading difficulties using a researcher-developed measure adapted from 12th grade–level passages from Bader Reading and Language Inventory, Fifth Edition (Bader, 2005). Participants completed a reading comprehension test administered in two forms, under two conditions (accommodated and non-accommodated). Each form included two passages—one expository and one story text—and 26 multiple-choice questions that were adapted from the NAEP public item bank. Participants also completed a researcher-created survey to collect student perceptions of the usefulness of the features and their overall experiences.

Findings: Researchers found that the provided accommodations mitigated student access issues related to reading fluency and allowed students to access items on the target skill of reading comprehension. Researchers reported that when the text-to-speech and extended time accommodations were offered universally, students with functional reading impairments accessed and used the accommodations significantly more frequently than students without functional reading impairments. In general, students had positive perceptions of the availability of the accommodations, though many chose not to use them.

Guzman-Orth, D., Steinberg, J., & Albee, T. (2023). English learners who are blind or visually impaired: A participatory design approach to enhancing fairness and validity for language testing accommodations. Language Testing, 40(4), 933-959. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231159143

Accommodation(s): Accommodations were not specified; instead, this study focused on the experiences of students who were blind or visually impaired on a new English language proficiency (ELP) assessment.

Participant(s): Seventeen students from grades 1–12 with the primary disability category of “visual impairment,” as well as five test administrators—including teachers, assessment coordinators, and curriculum specialists—participated.

Dependent Variable(s): Retrospective interview techniques were implemented by test administrators to students during a cognitive lab. Test administrators and observers conducted cognitive interviews and observations. Test administrators conducted semi-structured interviews.

Findings: Students with visual impairments including blindness were generally able to access the test content independently, but individualized support was often needed to help students effectively use their allowed accommodations and assistive technologies. Researchers emphasized the importance of considering both accessibility and usability together when designing assessments for students with visual impairments and highlighted the value of gathering rich qualitative feedback from these students and their teachers throughout the test development and administration process.

Kim, A. A., Yumsek, M., Kemp, J. A., Chapman, M., & Cook, H. G. (2023). Universal tools activation in English language proficiency assessments: A comparison of Grades 1–12 English learners with and without disabilities. Language Testing, 40(4), 877–903. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322221149009

Accommodation(s): Universal tools that students activated during an online English language proficiency (ELP) assessment were color overlay, color contrast, help, line guide, highlighter, magnifier, and sticky notes.

Participant(s): Data came from English learners (ELs), including ELs with varying disabilities, in grades 1-12 from multiple school districts in three U.S. states. Phase 1 of the study pertained to 1.25 million students' test data. Phase 2 involved interviews with 55 students.

Dependent Variable(s): Frequency analyses of data on the universal tools that students activated in all domains of an English language proficiency (ELP) assessment, the Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State (ACCESS), were conducted in Phase 1. Interviews with individual students were conducted in Phase 2.

Findings: The activation of universal tools was slightly higher for ELs with disabilities compared to ELs without disabilities, particularly in the listening and reading domains than in the speaking and writing domains. ELs with visual impairments activated color contrast and magnifier tools more. Deaf-blind students activated the line guide more in the speaking and writing domains and magnifier in the listening domain. Students with other varied disabilities had low activation of the tools.

Liu, C., Zhang, D., Pandolpho, M., & Yi, J. (2023). Effects of principled digitalized interactive components on geometry computer-based assessment in high schoolers with learning difficulties in mathematics: A preliminary investigation. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 49(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084231203235

Accommodation(s): Four researcher-developed digitized interactive accommodations of annotations to take notes, signaling for visuals when clicking, pop-up glossary, and rotation of shapes on geometry assessment items were included.

Participant(s): Sixteen high school students with learning difficulties in mathematics, including those with identified learning disabilities and other health impairment, from an urban northeastern school district participated in a state mathematics assessment.

Dependent Variable(s): Researchers video recorded students describing their problem-solving approaches applied to five randomized geometry items with different accommodations.

Findings: The most frequently used accommodations in descending order were pop-up glossary, signaling, rotation, and annotation, increased engagement in solving geometry test items, and improved the accuracy of most items. The characteristics of the math problems may influence students' preferences for specific accommodations.

McCarthy, T., Holbrook, C., Kamei-Hannan, C., & D’Andrea, F. M. (2023). Speed and accuracy measures of school-age readers with visual impairments using a refreshable braille display. Journal of Special Education Technology, 38(4), 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434221131775

Accommodation(s): Refreshable braille devices—displaying 14, 18, 32, or 40 cells—were investigated. Either or both codes, Unified English braille (UEB) and English braille American edition (EBAE) were presented, based on participant familiarity.

Participant(s): A total of 49 students with visual impairments who used braille (Unified English braille/UEB only: 88%; English braille American edition/EBAE only: 10%; both UEB and EBAE: 2%) for reading participated. Students and their teachers were recruited through an online system and through professional networks in the U.S. The sample of students attended grades 1–9, in various educational settings such as inclusive general education, resource room, and specialized school. Demographic data such as sex (male/female) and ethnicity, and descriptive information such as level of visual acuity were reported; approximately 18% of participating students were English learners.

Dependent Variable(s): Reading speed (in words per minute) and accuracy (based on number of miscues) were measured for a set of five passages. Participants read four passages silently and one passage aloud to themselves. After each passage, participants' reading comprehension was also assessed with five multiple-choice items. A mix of narrative and expository text—that is, literature and informational passages—were used. The reading passages were presented electronically on a tablet using a reading app, rated at four readability levels with the ATOS Readability scale (Milone, 2014).

Findings: At all grade levels, silent reading speeds were slightly slower on average than oral reading speeds when using refreshable braille. Generally, students at all grade levels made few braille reading miscues on average (0 to 1 per passage); students made more oral reading errors on average (1 to 5 per passage) that were not specifically related to braille code, such as substituting one word for another (average of 4 per passage across grades). About 73% of students reread a passage at some point; choosing to reread passages was not associated with a particular reading speed at any grade level. Of the 16 student characteristics that were hypothesized to be associated with speed and accuracy, students at most grade levels (except for grades 6–9) had faster reading speeds when the refreshable braille displayed 40 cells; it is notable that paper-based braille typically has 40 cells per line.

McKenzie, J. E. (2023). Anxiety and depression in middle school: A qualitative inquiry of general education teachers’ experiences implementing Section 504 and IEP policies (Publication No. 30529722) [Doctoral dissertation, Saint Mary’s College]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2829615255

Accommodation(s): General curricular supports for students with anxiety and depression were investigated, including specific accommodations such as extended time and extra breaks.

Participant(s): Fifteen general education teachers of grades 6–8 in Northern California who had experience supporting students with anxiety and depression participated.

Dependent Variable(s): Semi-structured interviews consisting of 29 questions were conducted virtually with each participant individually. Emphasis was placed in this summary on the questions pertaining to participants' perceptions of their preparation and use of accommodations supporting their students with anxiety and depression.

Findings: General education teachers reported feeling unprepared and lacked adequate training to support students with anxiety and depression. There were inconsistencies in how educational policies like Section 504 Plans and IEPs were implemented across schools, with teachers often relying on their own interpretations and experiences rather than formal training. Additionally, teachers expressed concerns that current accommodations—such as extra time and taking breaks—may not be sufficiently addressing students' underlying mental health needs or supporting students' overall academic success.

Muthukumaran, A. (2023). Experiences of middle school students with visual impairments accessing technologies in inclusive classrooms (Publication No. 30573660) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2854805314

Accommodation(s): Specific accommodations were not the focus of this study; instead, this study focused on the experiences of students with visual impairments when accessing technology, and assessment accommodations such as an online version of an assessment, braille, extended time, multiple days, visual breaks, and human reader were discussed.

Participant(s): Three middle school students with visual impairments in Colorado participated in school observations. The three students, along with their general education teachers and their teachers of students with visual impairments (TVIs), participated in interviews for a total of nine interviews.

Dependent Variable(s): Observations of the three students in their general education classrooms were conducted. Interviews with the three students, their general education teachers, and their TVIs were conducted.

Findings: Students were provided with various accommodations to access classroom assessments, but students did not always use the accommodations that were offered. Additional findings unrelated to assessment accommodations were reported, such as the four key themes that emerged. These themes were: (1) technology is imperative in classrooms but not always accessible, (2) students preferred mainstream devices over specialized assistive technology, (3) general education teachers lacked training on accessibility but were open to learning, and (4) teachers of students with visual impairments played a crucial role in problem-solving access issues.

Wilson, S. C. (2023). Testing accommodations decision-making policies and procedures at New York area independent schools: A qualitative study (Publication No. 30529414) [Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2828615684

Accommodation(s): Accommodations were not specified; instead, this study focused on the decision-making process for testing accommodations.

Participant(s): Twenty-five members of the accommodations committees/teams at New York area independent schools completed questionnaires, and 18 members participated in interviews.

Dependent Variable(s): An online questionnaire about the testing accommodations decision-making process was completed by participants. Semi-structured virtual interviews were conducted with a subset of participants via an online video platform. Documents about decision making were analyzed.

Findings: Educators generally feel well-qualified and supported in their roles, in contrast to public school counterparts in previous studies. However, the processes and committees vary considerably between schools, with low rates of parent and student involvement compared to public school IEP meetings. The educators perceive the process as stressful, especially interactions with parents, and have mixed views on relationships with outside psychologists who conduct evaluations.

Witmer, S. E., & Bouck, E. C. (2023). Predictors of accessibility tool use on a low-stakes computer-based math test. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 49(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084231152477

Accommodation(s): Accessibility tools embedded in an online testing platform were examined, including text to speech, eliminate choice, and use of scratchwork.

Participant(s): NAEP data, including process data, from 2,520 grade 8 students with high incidence disabilities (learning disability, emotional disturbance, other health impaired, and speech/language impaired) on the 2017 math assessment were used.

Dependent Variable(s): NAEP grade 8 math scores from 2017 were used to determine test performance. A questionnaire that followed the assessment was used to collect data on computer use, math motivation, and test motivation. NAEP process data provided information on the use of four embedded accessibility features.

Findings: Use of accessibility tools like text-to-speech, eliminate choice, and scratchwork was relatively infrequent among students with disabilities. Test motivation was weakly associated with greater use of text-to-speech. Use of eliminate choice and scratchwork tools was weakly associated with better test performance. The authors concluded that while accessibility tools may have some benefits, other evidence-based math interventions are likely to be more impactful for improving math performance of students with disabilities.

Witmer, S. E., Lovett, B. J., & Buzick, H. M. (2023). Extended time accommodations on the 2017 NAEP Grade 8 Mathematics Test: Eligibility, use, and benefit. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 41(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829221130457

Accommodation(s): Extended time and text-to-speech were examined.

Participant(s): Data from 1,670 grade 8 students who were eligible for the extended time accommodation on the 2017 NAEP grade 8 mathematics test were used, as well as the process data.

Dependent Variable(s): Scores from the 2017 NAEP grade 8 mathematics test were used to measure performance. Process data provided information on test block duration, the use of extended time and text-to-speech, and the perceived importance of doing well on the test.

Findings: While 60% of students with IEPs were eligible for extended time, only 28.7% of those eligible actually used any extra time. Students who used extended time scored significantly higher than those who did not use it, with about a 0.4 standard deviation difference in scores. Use of extended time was associated with perceiving the test as more important and using text-to-speech features but was not moderated by disability type.

Appendix C

Characteristics of Individual Studies

Research Purposes

Tables C1-C3 list the research purpose for each of the 13 included studies. Table C1 lists the studies that compare effects of accommodations. An X in a cell indicates a yes.

Effects of Accommodations for Students with Disabilities (n=4): Brinkman (2023), Liu et al. (2023), McCarthy et al. (2023), & Witmer et al. (2023)
Effects of accommodations for students with and without disabilities (n=1): Dembitzer & Kettler (2023)

Table C1. Research Purposes of K–12 Studies: Comparing

Authors	Compare Effects of Accommodations for Students with Disabilities	Compare Effects of Accommodations for Students with and without Disabilities
Aldrich (2023)	N/A	N/A
Brinkman (2023)	X	N/A
Clark (2023)	N/A	N/A
Dembitzer & Kettler (2023)	N/A	X
Guzman-Orth et al. (2023)	N/A	N/A
Kim et al. (2023)	N/A	N/A
Liu et al. (2023)	X	N/A
McCarthy et al. (2023)	X	N/A
McKenzie (2023)	N/A	N/A
Muthukumaran (2023)	N/A	N/A
Wilson (2023)	N/A	N/A
Witmer & Bouck (2023)	N/A	N/A
Witmer et al. (2023)	X	N/A
Total	4	1

Note. N/A = Not Applicable; X = yes.

Table C2 lists studies that had a research purpose associated with evaluation of test structure, item comparability or test design and development. Some studies fell into more than one category. An X in a cell indicates a yes.

Evaluation of Test Structure (n=1): Guzman-Orth et al. (2023)
Evaluation of Item Comparability (n=1): Dembitzer & Kettler (2023) evaluated both test structure and test design and development while Dembitzer & Kettler evaluated the comparability of items
Evaluation of Test Design and Development (n=1): Guzman-Orth et al. (2023)

Table C2. Research Purposes of K–12 Studies: Evaluating

Authors	Evaluate Test Structure	Evaluate Item Comparability	Evaluate Test Design and Development
Aldrich (2023)	N/A	N/A	N/A
Brinkman (2023)	N/A	N/A	N/A
Clark (2023)	N/A	N/A	N/A
Dembitzer & Kettler (2023)	N/A	X	N/A
Guzman-Orth et al. (2023)	X	N/A	X
Kim et al. (2023)	N/A	N/A	N/A
Liu et al. (2023)	N/A	N/A	N/A
McCarthy et al. (2023)	N/A	N/A	N/A
McKenzie (2023)	N/A	N/A	N/A
Muthukumaran (2023)	N/A	N/A	N/A
Wilson (2023)	N/A	N/A	N/A
Witmer & Bouck (2023)	N/A	N/A	N/A
Witmer et al. (2023)	N/A	N/A	N/A
Total	1	1	1

Notes. N/A = Not Applicable; X = yes.

Table C3 lists studies that addressed one or more of the following topics:

Research summaries (n=4): Aldrich (2023), Brinkman (2023), McKenzie (2023), Wilson (2023)
Accommodations implementation and use patterns (n=9): Aldrich (2023), Guzman-Orth et al. (2023), Kim et al. (2023), Liu et al. (2023), McKenzie (2023), Muthukumaran (2023), Wilson (2023), Witmer & Bouck (2023), Witmer et al. (2023)
Accommodations perceptions and preferences (n=9): Aldrich (2023), Clark (2023), Dembitzer & Kettler (2023), Guzman-Orth et al. (2023), Kim et al. (2023), Liu et al. (2023), McKenzie (2023), Muthukumaran (2023), Wilson (2023)

An X in a cell indicates a yes. Several studies appear in more than one category.

Table C3. Research Purposes of K–12 Studies: Summarizing and Reporting

Authors	Summarize Research	Report on accommodations implementation practices and use patterns	Report on accommodations perceptions and preferences
Aldrich (2023)	X	X	X
Brinkman (2023)	X	N/A	N/A
Clark (2023)	N/A	N/A	X
Dembitzer & Kettler (2023)	N/A	N/A	X
Guzman-Orth et al. (2023)	N/A	X	X
Kim et al. (2023)	N/A	X	X
Liu et al. (2023)	N/A	X	X
McCarthy et al. (2023)	N/A	N/A	N/A
McKenzie (2023)	X	X	X
Muthukumaran (2023)	N/A	X	X
Wilson (2023)	X	X	X
Witmer & Bouck (2023)	N/A	X	N/A
Witmer et al. (2023)	N/A	X	N/A
Total	4	9	9

Notes. N/A= Not Applicable; X = yes.