NCEO Report 453

Executive Summary

This systematic review examined research on testing accommodations for K–12 students with disabilities published in 2024. Following rigorous inclusion criteria, 13 studies were identified and analyzed. The research landscape showed a notable shift in publication patterns. The majority of studies were dissertations (n=8) rather than peer-reviewed journal articles (n=5). This contrasts with the 2023 review when publication types were more evenly balanced. Methodological approaches were evenly split between quantitative and qualitative studies, with no mixed-methods studies identified.

Most 2024 studies focused on implementation practices, use patterns, and stakeholder perceptions of accommodations. This continues a recent trend with fewer studies examining score comparability or experimental manipulation of accommodations. Most studies relied on primary data collection, predominantly using tests, interviews, and surveys. Mathematics remained the most commonly assessed content area, reflecting the continued emphasis on core academic subjects in accommodations research. The research primarily focused on middle school populations, with fewer studies at elementary or high school level.

Sample sizes tended to be small. Eight of the 13 studies had fewer than 50 participants. This pattern is similar to previous years. Among specific accommodations studied, extended time was the most frequently examined accommodation. It was addressed in over half (n=9) of the studies. This was followed by specialized settings and human read aloud (n=3 each). Text-to-speech technology and dictionary/glossary accommodations were each addressed in two studies.

The included studies primarily focused on examining accommodations perceptions and preferences (n=10) and implementation practices (n=8) of accommodations. Fewer studies compared accommodation effects (n=6) or summarized existing research (n=8). These purposes align with the 2023 analysis. In earlier years (e.g., studies from 2019–2021), studies most commonly compared how accommodations affected test scores. This trend has not continued in the most recent years (2022–2024).

Overview

The 2024 review of assessment accommodations research connects federal policy with state practice. Under IDEA and ESSA, the main goal of accommodations is to remove barriers that are not related to the skills being tested. This helps ensure that test results truly show what students with disabilities know and can do.

However, as assessment systems have become more technologically integrated, the professional standards governing them—developed by the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association (APA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME)—must be interpreted through a modern lens. While the foundational principles of validity and comparability are well-established, the 2024 research landscape indicates that the field is shifting its focus. Researchers are moving beyond the question of whether an accommodation is "valid". They are instead investigating the complex variables that influence how these tools are selected, implemented, and perceived by students and educators.

Review Process

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

Published or defended in 2024 (for doctoral dissertations).
Addressed accommodations on 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 are 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.
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 2023 literature review (Quanbeck et al., 2025), though the search and screening processes were refined. A checklist with the criteria was created and implemented by a team of NCEO researchers 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

The majority (n=8) of the 2024 studies identified for inclusion in this review were dissertations while the remaining studies (n=5) were journal articles (see Figure 1). This differed from the analysis of the 2023 accommodations research literature when the majority of included studies were journal articles (Quanbeck et al., 2025).

Figure 1. Publication Types of K–12 Accommodations Studies Published in 2024

Pie chart titled "Publication Types of K–12 Accommodations Studies Published in 2024". The chart shows that eight studies were dissertations and five were journal articles.

Purpose

As shown in Table 1, the majority of the 2024 accommodations research studies reported on accommodations perceptions and preferences (n=10). Studies also reported on accommodations implementation practices and use patterns (n=8) and summarized research (n=8). Six studies compared effects of accommodations on test scores. This includes three studies that compared test scores between accommodated and non-accommodated versions among students with disabilities (n=3) and compared test scores between students with and without disabilities (n=3). These purposes were similar to those in the analysis of 2023 studies (see Quanbeck et al., 2025 for more details). In those studies summarizing research, reporting on accommodations implementation practices and use patterns, and reporting on accommodations perceptions and preferences were most common. In earlier years (i.e., studies from 2019, 2020, and 2021), studies most commonly compared the effects of accommodations on scores, but this trend has not continued in the most recent years (2022 through 2024).

Table 1. Research Purposes of K–12 Accommodations Studies Published in 2024

Purpose	Number of Studies
Compare effects – only students with disabilities	3
Compare effects – only students without disabilities	0
Compare effects – both students with and without disabilities	3
Evaluate item comparability	1
Evaluate test design and development	0
Evaluate test structure	0
Summarize research	8
Report on accommodations implementation practices & use patterns	8
Report on accommodations perceptions & preferences	10

Notes: N=13. Twelve studies had more than one purpose.

For more specifics on study purposes summarized in Table 1, see Appendix C, Tables C1 and C2.

Research Type

As indicated by Figure 2, seven of the 13 accommodations research studies from 2024 used quantitative methods. The other six studies used qualitative methods and no studies used mixed methods. This split was similar to the 2023 analysis of accommodations research literature, which also featured a near-even mix of quantitative (n=5) and qualitative (n=6) approaches, alongside a small number of mixed methods studies (Quanbeck et al., 2025).

Figure 2. Research Methods Used in K–12 Accommodations Studies Published in 2024

For more specifics on study methods summarized in Figure 2, see Appendix B.

Data Collection Source

Primary data were collected for nine of the 2024 accommodations research studies (see Figure 3), and four of the studies used secondary data sources. This is similar to recent analyses (i.e., 2021, 2022, 2023), when nearly all studies used primary data.

Figure 3. Data Collection Sources Used in K–12 Accommodations Studies Published in 2024

For more specifics on data sources summarized in Figure 3, see Appendix B.

Data Collection Instruments and Methods

As shown in Figure 4, the most commonly used data collection method in 2024 accommodations research studies was the use of tests (n=7), followed closely by interview protocols (n=5) and surveys (n=5). One study included focus groups as a data collection method, and one conducted observations. Four studies used another form of data collection, utilizing the test process data collected during testing. The majority of studies (n=8) used multiple data collection methods, while six studies only used one method each.

Figure 4. Data Collection Instruments and Methods Used in K–12 Accommodations Studies Published in 2024

Figure 4. Data Collection Instruments and Methods Used in K–12 Accommodations Studies Published in 2023. Bar graph shows tests used by seven studies, interview protocols by five, test process data by four, focus groups by one and observations by one.

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

For more specifics on data collection instruments and methods summarized in Figure 4, see Appendix B.

Content Areas Assessed

As indicated in Figure 5, the content area that was most frequently assessed in the 2024 accommodations research literature was mathematics (n=6). Social studies and reading were assessed by one study each, and one study used an intelligence test. One study did not specify the content area. Four studies did not include student participants; thus, four studies’ content areas were identified as “none.” These findings are similar to those of previous analyses, in which mathematics and ELA/Reading were most frequently assessed (e.g., Quanbeck et al., 2025; Ressa et al., 2024; Rogers et al., 2023), although previous analyses did not identify as many studies without student participants.

Figure 5. Content Areas Assessed in K–12 Accommodations Studies Published in 2024

Notes: N=13. One study assessed more than one content area.

For more specifics on content areas summarized in Figure 5, see Appendix C, Table C3.

Sample Size

As shown in Figure 6, the majority (n=8) of the 2024 studies had small 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; 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 Quanbeck et al., 2025; Ressa et al., 2024; Rogers et al., 2023; Rogers, Ressa et al., 2022a; Rogers, Thurlow et al., 2022b).

Figure 6. Sample Sizes of K–12 Studies Published in 2024

For more specifics on study sample sizes summarized in Figure 6, see Appendix C, Table C4.

School Level

Figure 7 shows that eight of the 2024 accommodations research studies included students at the middle school level, four at the elementary school level, and three at the high school level. Two studies included students at multiple school levels, while 11 studies focused on a specific school level. This is similar to the analysis of 2023 accommodations research literature in which the majority of studies were conducted at the middle school level (Quanbeck et al., 2025) but differs from the analysis of the 2022 accommodations research literature in which more studies were conducted at the elementary level (Ressa et al., 2024).

Figure 7. School Levels of K–12 Accommodations Studies Published in 2024

Notes: N=13. Two studies included multiple school levels.

For more specifics on school levels summarized in Figure 7, see Appendix C, Table C5.

Disability Category

All 13 studies included students with disabilities in their samples. Four studies addressed students from multiple disability categories. The most frequently addressed disability category was learning disabilities, with nine studies including students with learning disabilities in their samples. Autism, other health impairments, emotional/behavioral disabilities, physical disabilities, and speech/language impairments were represented in three studies each. Additional disability categories that were included in two studies each were visual impairment, hearing impairment, intellectual disabilities, and traumatic brain injury (TBI). One study included students with “Other” disability categories, while one study did not specify the disability categories represented. One study (Witmer et al., 2024) also included students without disabilities in their sample.

Figure 8. Disability Categories Addressed in K–12 Accommodations Studies Published in 2024

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

For more specifics on disability categories summarized in Figure 8, see Appendix C, Tables C6 through C9.

Accommodations

As shown in Figure 9, the most commonly addressed testing accommodation in the 2024 accommodations research literature was extended time, with over half (n=9) of the 13 identified studies addressing extended time. Specialized setting and human read aloud were addressed in three studies each, while text-to-speech device/software, dictionary/glossary, and assistive technology were included in two studies each. Additional accommodations addressed in one study each were seat location/proximity, physical supports, lighting, electronic administration, calculator, and breaks during testing. Three studies included “other” accommodations, such as chunking tests into smaller parts, using single-switch responses systems, and having no penalty for spelling errors.

Figure 9. Accommodations Addressed in K–12 Accommodations Studies Published in 2024

Horizontal bar graph showing accommodations addressed in 2024 studies. Extended time is the most frequent (9 studies), followed by specialized setting (3) and human read aloud (3). Other accommodations range from 1 to 2 studies each. Full data is described in the preceding text and individual studies are listed in Appendix C.

Notes: N=13. Ten studies addressed more than one accommodation.

For more specifics on accommodations studied summarized in Figure 9, see Appendix C, Table C10.

Discussion

The 2024 literature on K–12 assessment accommodations identifies a field in transition. The volume of research remained consistent in 2024 compared to 2023 with 13 identified studies. However, the nature of these studies suggests a shift away from traditional psychometric validation of accommodations. Instead, research is focusing more on the practicalities of implementing them in modern testing environments.

These shifts in research focus are reflected in both the types of publications being produced and the methods researchers are using. For example, the prevalence of dissertations (n=8) over peer-reviewed journal articles suggests that new thinking in the field may be emerging from the next generation of researchers. Methodologically, the even split between quantitative and qualitative studies demonstrates that the field no longer relies solely on test scores to judge accommodation effectiveness. There is a growing recognition that understanding the process of accommodation use provides essential context alongside measuring outcomes.

In addition to these shifts, a trend noted in 2024 is the continued decline of "score-effect" studies. From 2019 to 2021, researchers mainly focused on comparing test scores and testing different accommodation conditions (e.g., Rogers et al., 2022a; Rogers et al., 2022b; Rogers et al., 2023). The 2024 review confirms a three-year trend toward prioritizing perceptions and implementation practices. This indicates that the recent literature is focusing less on proving the validity of accommodations and more on the complexities of their selection and use.

While the focus of research has evolved, the specific populations and accommodations studied remain relatively narrow. The 2024 studies still primarily focus on extended time (9 out of 13 studies) and on students with learning disabilities. This focus provides important information about the common practices. However, it also shows that the scope of research has not yet broadened to include many other disability categories. This is consistent with 2023 literature review findings. There is a clear need for research that looks beyond these frequent topics and addresses the needs of less examined student groups.

Ultimately, these trends lead to a broader implication for the field. There is a gap between the availability of accommodations and their effective use. Accommodations are increasingly available in online testing platforms. However, research highlights student familiarity and teacher training as primary factors influencing how they are implemented during assessments. These findings suggest that the availability of an accommodation, by itself, does not ensure accessibility. Research into which accommodations work best and what preparation students need to use these tools effectively is essential to ensure accommodations achieve their intended goal of removing barriers to valid assessment. Moving forward, the field should focus on studying the conditions under which accommodations are most effective. This includes examining what professional development teachers need, how to prepare students to use accommodations, and how schools make decisions about which accommodations to provide.

References

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

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
*Basha, D. (2024). Understanding the learning resources and attitudes related to the academic performance and success of high school students with disabilities: A phenomenological study [Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University]. Liberty University Doctoral Dissertations and Projects. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/5297/
*Guillion, L. A. J. (2024). Adult English learners with disabilities’ perceptions of self-efficacy and algebra 1 capabilities (Publication No. 30991593) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2922238764
*Hubbell, J. V. M. (2024). Examining reading comprehension accommodations for students with reading difficulties: The simple view of reading (Publication No. 31332316) [Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3075013464
*Johns, K. M. (2024). The influence of accommodations on academic achievement for middle school students with dyslexia in a private school setting (Publication No. 31145434) [Doctoral dissertation, Arkansas State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3072280769
*Karlsson, P., Shepherd, M., & Honan, I. (2022). Accommodations to cognitive assessment for a child with dyskinetic cerebral palsy: Case study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 19(2), 360–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2089244
*Mitzel, E. L., Jr. (2024). How are Maryland athletes managed for their successful return to the classroom following sports-related concussions: A quantitative review from Maryland school administrators’ perspective? (Publication No. 31292492) [Doctoral dissertation, Notre Dame of Maryland University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3073058166
*Oakes, P. (2024). Alternate testing environments for assessing students with disabilities (Publication No. 31148330) [Doctoral dissertation, Wilmington University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3074868254
Quanbeck, M., Ressa, V. A., Goldstone, L., Peterson, D., Hinkle, A. R., & Liu, K. K. (2025). A summary of the research on the effects of K–12 test accommodations: 2023 (NCEO Report 451). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://publications.ici.umn.edu/nceo/nceo-reports/451/summary-of-research-2023
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
*Tackett, S. (2024). Experiences of classroom teachers about the accommodations for students with autism spectrum disorder (Publication No. 31301922) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3064007977
*Thomas, M. K. (2024). Middle school teachers’ perceptions of standardized testing and preparation with students’ different abilities and classroom instructional strategies: A case study [Doctoral dissertation, Arkansas State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://arch.astate.edu/all-etd/13
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. U.S. Department of Education. https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/assessmentpeerreview.pdf
*Wei, X. (2024). Text-to-speech technology and math performance: A comparative study of students with disabilities, English language learners, and their general education peers. Educational Researcher, 53(5), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x241232995
*Wei, X., & Zhang, S. (2023). Extended time accommodation and the academic, behavioral, and psychological outcomes of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 57(4), 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194231195624
*Witmer, S. E., Barker, E., Marinho, N., & Barrett, C. A. (2024). The extended time test accommodation conundrum: Accessing test process data to help improve decision-making. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 40(4), 340–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2024.2405812
*Witmer, S. E., & Marinho, N. (2024). Extended time test accommodations: Does use correspond to score comparability for students with disabilities deemed in need? Psychology in the Schools, 61(11), 4175–4188. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23275

Appendix A: Research Literature Identification

Similar to the process used in NCEO’s previous accommodations research syntheses, several sources were accessed to complete the review of the K–12 accommodations research published in 2024. Specifically, five research databases were consulted: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Education Source. 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 ), 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 2024. A second search was completed in February–March 2025 to ensure that all articles published in 2024 were found and included in this review. A sequence of search terms was used within each of these research databases and publication archives. Terms used for this review were:

test* OR testing OR assess* OR assessment
accommodation* OR modification OR adaptation*
student* OR teacher* OR school*
academic accommodations OR testing accommodations

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

Appendix B: Annotated Bibliography of 2024 Accommodations Research Studies

Basha, D. (2024). Understanding the learning resources and attitudes related to the academic performance and success of high school students with disabilities: A phenomenological study [Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University]. Liberty University Doctoral Dissertations and Projects. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/5297/

Accommodations: Accommodations were not specified; the focus was on the learning experiences and attitudes toward academic performance of high school students with disabilities.

Participants: Twelve students with disabilities at a high school in the northeastern United States participated in interviews, a focus group, and a questionnaire.

Dependent variables: Individual semi-structured interviews and an online focus group were conducted via an online video platform using researcher-developed protocols. Self-administered questionnaires were completed by participants.

Findings: Extended testing time was the main assessment accommodation discussed, with students reporting that inconsistent access to this accommodation decreased their ability to demonstrate their knowledge. However, assessment accommodations were not a major focus of the study, which concentrated more broadly on general classroom accommodations and learning experiences.

Guillion, L. A. J. (2024). Adult English learners with disabilities’ perceptions of self-efficacy and algebra 1 capabilities (Publication No. 30991593) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2922238764

Accommodations: Students’ accommodations included extended time, dictionary use, read aloud on tests, and clarified directions.

Participants: Student participants were 10 dually classified English learners with disabilities who must satisfy Algebra 1 benchmarks to meet graduation requirements. The students at an alternative high school in a metropolitan northeastern school district on the east coast of the U.S. participated in interviews.

Dependent variables: In-person interviews were conducted using a researcher-developed protocol with participants.

Findings: Participants spoke broadly about academic test accommodations and were unaware of specific accommodations in their Individualized Education Program (IEP) plans. They understood that their perceptions of using accommodations connected to their academic performance. As English learners, participants reported using the English dictionary more recently than in previous years and that using dictionaries of their native language did not increase their ability to learn American academic content.

Hubbell, J. V. M. (2024). Examining reading comprehension accommodations for students with reading difficulties: The simple view of reading (Publication No. 31332316) [Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3075013464

Accommodations: Reading accommodation conditions (no accommodation, read aloud accommodation, or read aloud accommodations with vocabulary support and comprehension monitoring) were examined.

Participants: Seven students in grades 3 and 4 with poor decoding skills participated. Students underwent a screening process that identified students of average intelligence and reading comprehension skills; demographics are provided in the study.

Dependent variables: Students participated in a reading assessment designed by the researcher that included expository reading passages and a measure of content word recall. Students completed the assessment under three conditions across multiple sessions. Conditions were: (1) with no accommodations, (2) with a read aloud accommodation, or (3) with a read aloud accommodation, vocabulary support, and comprehension monitoring.

Findings: None of the students demonstrated a statistically significant increase in reading comprehension while using the read aloud accommodation. Two students experienced a statistically significant increase in reading comprehension scores when utilizing both the read aloud accommodation and vocabulary support.

Johns, K. M. (2024). The influence of accommodations on academic achievement for middle school students with dyslexia in a private school setting (Publication No. 31145434) [Doctoral dissertation, Arkansas State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3072280769

Accommodations: Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of accommodations during both formative and summative assessments were examined. Assessment accommodations identified by teachers included reading test questions aloud, extended time on assessments, alternate seating or setting, no penalization for spelling mistakes, use of devices, scaffolding, and oral response. Additional supports that teachers identified as accommodations—but which the researcher identified as modifications rather than accommodations—included peer collaboration, rewording of test questions, and shortening of assessment length.

Participants: Eight middle school teachers from a small, private Christian school in northeast Mississippi participated. All participants had experience teaching students with dyslexia, with teaching experience ranging from 4–27 years and varying levels of education.

Dependent variables: Teachers completed open-ended questionnaires and participated in individual semi-structured interviews conducted via an online video platform. Questions focused on teacher demographics, knowledge of dyslexia, teaching practices, and perceptions of accommodations.

Findings: Teachers’ varying levels of understanding about dyslexia and accommodations affected proper implementation in testing. Many participants demonstrated misconceptions about the difference between accommodations and modifications. Implementation was inconsistent, with some teachers determining when to provide accommodations rather than following accommodation plans. The study revealed a need for more intensive teacher training on dyslexia and proper implementation of accommodations in the private school setting.

Karlsson, P., Shepherd, M., & Honan, I. (2022). Accommodations to cognitive assessment for a child with dyskinetic cerebral palsy: Case study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 19(2), 360–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2089244

Accommodations: This study evaluated the cognitive and physical load experienced by a student using a single-switch response system on a Windows-based platform.

Participants: This was a single-subject study of one student in grade 5 with significant gross motor function disabilities. The student, age 9, primarily communicated using a switch-controlled high-tech communication device.

Dependent variables: Researchers administered five cognitive assessments that were adapted for administration using a single-switch response system on a Windows-based platform. Researchers also administered a measure of user experience and cognitive load.

Findings: The student was able to use the single switch response system to access three of the five cognitive assessments testing reasoning, visual perception, sustained attention, and receptive language. In these instances, the single switch response system allowed the student to confirm or change responses. Two of the assessments required further accommodation or modification beyond the single switch, including visual partner assisted scanning. The student scored above average on most cognitive measures and indicated that physical and mental demands of the accommodation were low. Researchers found that significant extra time was needed and recommend scheduling assessments for students with communication disabilities over multiple sessions.

Mitzel, E. L., Jr. (2024). How are Maryland athletes managed for their successful return to the classroom following sports-related concussions: A quantitative review from Maryland school administrators’ perspective? (Publication No. 31292492) [Doctoral dissertation, Notre Dame of Maryland University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3073058166

Accommodations: Specific accommodations were not examined; instead, the focus was on the presence of return to learn (RTL) protocols and guidelines to support students’ return to the classroom following sports-related concussions.

Participants: School administrators (116 principals and assistant principals) from Maryland middle and high schools participated in a survey.

Dependent variables: A researcher-developed survey examined school administrators' resources, knowledge, and practices regarding management of student athletes returning to the classroom after concussion. The 30-item survey collected data on concussion management training, presence of RTL plans, academic accommodations provided, and barriers to implementation.

Findings: Only 50% of administrators reported having concussion management training available, with mandatory training and participation significantly associated with having a Return to Learn (RTL) plan in place. While 57.8% of schools reported having an RTL plan, only 22% had a comprehensive plan, with high schools more likely than middle schools to have plans. The most frequent accommodations provided were extended time for homework, minimized homework, rest breaks, and extended testing time, while common school day adjustments included early dismissal and reduced screen time. Communication was identified as the largest barrier to implementation, and notably, over one-third of administrators were unaware of what accommodations were being provided to students in their schools.

Oakes, P. (2024). Alternate testing environments for assessing students with disabilities (Publication No. 31148330) [Doctoral dissertation, Wilmington University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3074868254

Accommodations: Specialized setting or controlled environment (including more comfortable seating, better lighting, and having a familiar proctor to reduce test anxiety) was examined in comparison with a standard testing environment.

Participants: Ten students in grades 6 and 7 who were identified as having a specific learning disability in mathematics participated in the math assessments.

Dependent variables: Students completed the iReady math assessment and the Westside Test Anxiety Scale measure under both the controlled environment and the standard testing environment.

Findings: Eight of ten students showed reduced test anxiety levels under the controlled environment compared to the standard testing environment. However, only half of the participants scored higher on the iReady mathematics assessment when taken in the controlled environment.

Tackett, S. (2024). Experiences of classroom teachers about the accommodations for students with autism spectrum disorder (Publication No. 31301922) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3064007977

Accommodations: Specific accommodations were not examined; the focus was on exploring the experiences of general education teachers related to providing accommodations to students with autism. Various test accommodations were discussed in relation to the experiences of general education teachers.

Participants: Nine kindergarten through grade six general education teachers from elementary schools in the US participated in interviews.

Dependent variables: A researcher-developed interview protocol was used in 60-minute video interviews that included audio recording.

Findings: Students used various test accommodations, including finger tracking, chunking tests into smaller parts, repeating directions, preferential seating, extended time, breaks, wiggle cushions, and headphones. Teachers reported a need for more training and the amount of time required to provide accommodations. Moreover, researchers found that providing accommodations involves considering the whole student.

Thomas, M. K. (2024). Middle school teachers' perceptions of standardized testing and preparation with students' different abilities and classroom instructional strategies: A case study [Doctoral dissertation, Arkansas State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Accommodations: Testing accommodations specifically mentioned in the STAAR assessment included extended time, read aloud services, bilingual dictionaries, visual aids, and access to calculators. Additional testing accommodations discussed were multiplication charts, separate testing locations, preferential seating, online testing with spelling accommodations, small group settings, shortened assignments, and test questions with fewer items for students with disabilities. For English language learners, accommodations included translation dictionaries and providing vocabulary support.

Participants: Twenty middle school teachers from two Texas middle schools participated. Ten participants from each school were identified, with teaching experience ranging from 3 to 36 years. Teachers taught various STAAR-tested subjects including math, reading, science, social studies, and writing. Both schools had student populations that were over 93% economically disadvantaged and significant percentages of Limited English Proficiency students.

Dependent variables: Semi-structured interviews conducted over Zoom with middle school teachers explored their perceptions about standardized testing for students with different abilities and instructional strategies used to prepare these students for STAAR tests.

Findings: Teachers reported that testing accommodations were insufficient for students with disabilities, as the STAAR test remained too difficult even with accommodations because it did not align with students’ learning abilities. Participants noted that while IEPs guided classroom accommodations, standardized tests offered limited accommodations that inadequately addressed students’ needs. Some teachers expressed that online testing accommodations were problematic for students who were not computer-savvy, and participants recommended differentiated assessments with appropriate accommodations matched to students' actual learning levels rather than grade-level standards.

Wei, X. (2024). Text-to-speech technology and math performance: A comparative study of students with disabilities, English language learners, and their general education peers. Educational Researcher, 53(5), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X241232995

Accommodations: Text-to-speech (TTS) technology was examined as a universal design for assessment (UDA) tool in large-scale math assessments. Extended time accommodation (ETA) was also examined in combination with TTS. Students had access to TTS as a universal tool, with some students also receiving extended time based on their Individualized Education Program (IEP) plans.

Participants: Nearly 3,000 students with disabilities (SWDs; n = 2,750), of whom 1,650 students were granted extended time and 1,100 were not, participated in the math assessment. Additionally, there were 1,400 English learners (ELLs; both with and without disabilities), as well as 23,920 general education students without extended time. All participants were grade 8 students who completed the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math assessment.

Dependent variables: Researchers utilized 2017 NAEP response data (students' answers to each math item), process data (interactions including TTS usage and timestamps), and survey data (items measuring perseverance and math interest/enjoyment) from the 2017 grade 8 NAEP math assessment. Accuracy and item response time were the primary outcome measures analyzed, while TTS usage patterns were analyzed in relation to item characteristics (word count, item difficulty, item type, item location) and student characteristics (demographics, math proficiency, survey responses).

Findings: TTS usage was associated with improved math item performance among English learners (with and without disabilities) or SWDs who were granted extended time accommodation. TTS usage was positively associated with longer, more difficult math items, and higher usage was observed with multiple-choice or short-response formats compared to constructed-response items. Students using TTS generally took more time to complete items, suggesting that time constraints in timed digital assessments may limit the potential benefits of TTS for SWDs and ELLs in math problem-solving.

Wei, X., & Zhang, S. (2024). Extended time accommodation and the academic, behavioral, and psychological outcomes of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 57(4), 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194231195624

Accommodations: Extended time on large-scale assessments was examined, with students with learning disabilities receiving triple the standard testing time (90 minutes instead of 30 minutes) on a mathematics assessment.

Participants: Eighth-grade students with learning disabilities (n = 1,530) who took the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) digital mathematics test participated in this study. Among these students, 600 were not granted extended time, while 930 were granted extended time, with 680 (73%) not using the extended time and 250 (27%) using the extended time.

Dependent variables: Math performance was measured by total scores on 15 math test items. Researchers analyzed response times using existing NAEP process data. Test-taking behaviors were also measured, including number of actions performed, number of item revisits, and use of digital tools such as drawing and text-to-speech functions. Student attitudes were assessed through post-test surveys.

Findings: Extended time showed differential effects, with students who used extended time scoring significantly higher on the math test than students who did not use extended time, while students who received but did not use extended time scored significantly lower. Both extended time groups reported lower perceived time pressure and higher math interest and enjoyment. Students who used extended time demonstrated more test-taking actions, more item revisits, higher digital tool usage, and better performance on time-consuming items.

Witmer, S. E., Barker, E., Marinho, N., & Barrett, C. A. (2024). The extended time test accommodation conundrum: Accessing test process data to help improve decision-making. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 40(4), 340–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2024.2405812

Accommodations: Researchers studied the use of extended time on the NWEA MAP Growth: Math and NWEA Growth: Reading administered between Fall of 2018 and Fall of 2021.

Participants: Data from 4,797 students in grades 3–8 were analyzed, with 372 (7.8%) students with disabilities identified as eligible for extended time. The sample was predominantly white (88.3%) with a nearly even gender split (48.9% female, 51.1% male).

Dependent variables: Test process data on test duration (time use), as well as student performance on NWEA MAP Growth tests in math and reading, were used to examine student use of extended time and the effects on performance.

Findings: Relatively few students with disabilities deemed eligible for extended time actually used more than the typical amount of time. Students eligible for extended time who used more than typical time performed significantly better in reading than those who did not use it. In math, 64% of students eligible for extended time obtained their highest scores when using more than typical time.

Witmer, S. E., & Marinho, N. (2024). Extended time test accommodations: Does use correspond to score comparability for students with disabilities deemed in need? Psychology in the Schools, 61(11), 4175–4188. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15206807

Accommodations: Extended time on a math test was studied as an assessment accommodation. This accommodation allowed students with disabilities to have up to 90 minutes to complete a test block that typically had a 30-minute time limit.

Participants: Students in grade 8 who took the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics test participated in this study. Three groups were compared: students with disabilities who were eligible for extended time but did not use it (n=1010), students with disabilities who were eligible and used extended time (n=500), and a reference group of randomly selected students without disabilities who completed the test within standard time limits (n=1010). Most students with disabilities had specific learning disabilities or other health impairments.

Dependent variables: Student scores and psychometric characteristics on a 15-item block of the NAEP mathematics test were analyzed using a Poly-SIBTEST procedure to determine differential item functioning (DIF). Process data from the digitally-administered test provided information on item response times and allowed researchers to identify which students used extended time versus those who did not. Score comparability was measured by examining whether significant DIF existed between the various groups.

Findings: Score comparability was evident regardless of whether students with disabilities deemed eligible for extended time used the accommodation. No items displaying significant DIF were found when comparing students with disabilities who did not use extended time to students without disabilities. When comparing students with disabilities who used extended time to students without disabilities, only one item showed DIF slightly favoring the extended time users.

Appendix C: Characteristics of Individual Studies

This appendix presents detailed characteristics of the 13 studies included in this review, organized into tables by research purpose, content area, sample size, school level, disability categories, and accommodations. Each table uses a consistent format: an "X" indicates that a characteristic applies to a study or represents "yes," while "N/A" (Not Applicable) indicates that the characteristic is not relevant to that study or represents "no." Many studies address multiple characteristics and therefore appear with an "X" in more than one column or across multiple tables. Total counts at the bottom of each table show how many studies addressed each characteristic.

Research Purposes

Tables C1 and C2 list the research purpose(s) for each of the 13 included studies. Table C1 lists the studies that compared effects of accommodations and evaluate item comparability. Table C2 lists studies that evaluated test design, summarized research, and reported on accommodations implementation and use.

Effects of accommodations for students with disabilities (n=3): Guillion (2024), Oakes (2024), and Wei & Zhang (2024)
Effects of accommodations for students with and without disabilities (n=3): Wei (2024), Witmer et al. (2024), and Witmer & Marinho (2024)
Evaluation of item comparability (n=1): Witmer & Marinho (2024)

Table C1. Research Purposes: Part 1

Authors	Compare Effects of Accommodations for Students with Disabilities	Compare Effects of Accommodations for Students with and without Disabilities	Evaluate Test Structure	Evaluate Item Comparability
Basha (2024)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Guillion (2024)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Hubbell (2024)	X	N/A	N/A	N/A
Johns (2024)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Karlsson (2024)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Mitzel (2024)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Oakes (2024)	X	N/A	N/A	N/A
Tackett (2024)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Thomas (2024)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Wei (2024)	N/A	X	N/A	N/A
Wei & Zhang (2024)	X	N/A	N/A	N/A
Witmer et al. (2024)	N/A	X	N/A	N/A
Witmer & Marinho (2024)	N/A	X	N/A	X
Total	3	3	0	1

Notes: N/A = Not Applicable; X = Yes.

Table C2 lists studies that addressed one or more of the following topics:

Summarize research (n=9): Basha (2024), Guillion (2024), Hubbell (2024), Johns (2024), Mitzel (2024), Oakes (2024), Tackett (2024), Thomas (2024)
Accommodations implementation and use patterns (n=8): Basha (2024), Johns (2024), Mitzel (2024), Tackett (2024), Thomas (2024), Wei (2024), Witmer et al., (2024), Witmer & Marinho (2024)
Accommodations perceptions and preferences (n=10): Basha (2024), Guillion (2024), Johns (2024), Karlsson (2024), Mitzel (2024), Oakes (2024), Tackett (2024), Thomas (2024), Wei (2024), Wei & Zhang (2024)

Table C2. Research Purposes: Part 2

Authors	Evaluate Test Design and Development	Summarize Research	Report on Accommodations Implementation Practices and Use Patterns	Report on Accommodations Perceptions and Preferences
Basha (2024)	N/A	X	X	X
Guillion (2024)	N/A	X	N/A	X
Hubbell (2024)	N/A	X	N/A	N/A
Johns (2024)	N/A	X	X	X
Karlsson (2024)	N/A	N/A	N/A	X
Mitzel (2024)	N/A	X	X	X
Oakes (2024)	N/A	X	N/A	X
Tackett (2024)	N/A	X	X	X
Thomas (2024)	N/A	X	X	X
Wei (2024)	N/A	N/A	X	X
Wei & Zhang (2024)	N/A	N/A	N/A	X
Witmer et al. (2024)	N/A	N/A	X	N/A
Witmer & Marinho (2024)	N/A	N/A	X	N/A
Total	0	8	8	10