Site Map

Conditions

Education

Behavior

Miscellaneous

Home

DICTATE RESPONSE TO A SCRIBE

Students are sometimes offered the opportunity to orally respond to test items and have a scribe record their answers instead of providing a written response. This accommodation is offered to students with a variety of disabilities including learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, mild mental retardation, physical impairments, and communication disorders.

Explanation

In order to accurately answer test items, students need writing skills. It is possible for test results to inaccurately represent a student’s ability in a particular subject area simply because the student’s writing skills hinder his or her ability to demonstrate achievement. For instance, students who can accurately solve a math problem may have difficulty demonstrating this ability if they cannot write.

State Use

Of the 48 states with statewide assessment programs, 32 allow the dictated response to a scribe accommodation. Eleven additional states allow it in some situations, and prohibit it in others. Some states prohibit the use of this accommodation on writing tests, but allow it for other subject areas. Another state specifies that students must indicate punctuation and spell all key words when this accommodation is used. This suggests that there is some disagreement about whether dictated response is a valid accommodation (Thurlow et al, 2000).

Several surveys have addressed the scribe accommodation. There is some evidence of change over time in the responses to this accommodation. The earliest survey was conducted by Gajria, Salend, and Hemrick (1994). They surveyed 100 teachers on their awareness, use, and perceived integrity of a variety of accommodations and received responses from 64 of them. Gajria et al. found that 82.8% of these respondents were aware of the dictated response accommodation, 50% reported using it in their classrooms, and 67% thought that it maintained the integrity of the test. It was ranked 31st of 32 modifications in terms of “ease of use,” and 28th in terms of effectiveness.

Results of the Jayanthi et al. (1996) survey (401 respondents of 708 surveyed) indicated that of the 24 accommodations studied, allowing dictated responses for tests was rated as easy and somewhat helpful to provide. Overall, 21% of the teachers who responded indicated that they currently use this accommodation in their classrooms.

Lambert, Dodd, Christensen, and Fishbaugh (1996) surveyed rural secondary teachers, asking about their willingness to provide and their current use of the dictated response accommodation. Of the 171 teachers surveyed, 121 surveys were returned. “Allow the student to dictate answers to a proctor” ranked tenth among several accommodations in terms of the percentage of teachers who had provided the accommodation in the past. Also, the average rating of willingness to provide this accommodation was 4 on a 1-5 rating scale, 5 being “very willing to provide.”

Most recently, Hollenbeck, Tindal, and Almond (1998) surveyed 633 regular and special educators, of which 166 responded. They found that 85% of the teachers who returned surveys had correct knowledge about this accommodation, and 71% reported using this accommodation.

Empirical Research

A limited amount of research has been conducted on the dictated response accommodation. Three empirical studies and four descriptive studies on the use of this accommodation for K-12 students were identified. Two of the empirical studies focused only on story writing, while the other investigated the effects of dictation on a math assessment. The four descriptive studies investigated the effects of accommodations on the scores of students with disabilities in the statewide assessments in Maryland and Kentucky, and were included due to the limited amount of empirical research available.

Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton, Hamlett, and Karns (2000) studied the effects of the encoding accommodation (“teacher wrote student responses”) on math problem solving curriculum based measures (CBM) scores of students both with and without learning disabilities. Results indicated that this accommodation had a significantly greater impact on the scores of students with learning disabilities than those without learning disabilities.

MacArthur and Graham (1987) studied the differences between stories written by 5th and 6th grade students with learning disabilities under handwritten, word-processed, and dictated response modes. Each student composed a story in each of the three modes. Results indicated that the dictated stories were longer, of higher quality, and had fewer grammatical errors than handwritten or word-processed stories. This study suggests that dictating a story helps to free the student from spelling, penmanship, punctuation, and capitalization concerns, and allows students to express their ideas more quickly. Hidi and Hildyard (1983, as cited in MacArthur and Graham) conducted a similar study on students of average achievement in grades 3 and 5. Results showed an increase in the length of stories and essays, but no differences in terms of quality. MacArthur and Graham (1987) suggest that when the “mechanical and conventional demands of producing text” are removed, “learning disabled students compose more fluently and with better results.”

Tippets and Michaels (1997) studied the factor structure of the reading and language arts sections of the Maryland statewide assessment for 3rd, 6th, and 8th grade students. Students were assigned to accommodation categories according to their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Analysis of test scores indicated that students receiving the dictation accommodation in combination with other accommodations (read aloud, extended time, etc.) performed better than students not receiving any accommodations. The average scores for students receiving the dictated response accommodation were better than students who wrote their own responses. A concern that emerged was whether scribes were encouraging students to elaborate on responses, helping students organize their thoughts, or facilitating writing mechanics such as capitalization and punctuation skills. However, overall, the factor structures that emerged from accommodated and non-accommodated tests in this study were similar.

Koretz (1997) performed an in-depth study of the effects of the dictated response accommodation on the scores of students in the Kentucky statewide assessment system. Results indicated that the dictated response accommodation had a large impact on scores for students with learning disabilities, behavioral disabilities, and mild mental retardation, especially in social studies, reading, and science. In a second study of this assessment system, Koretz and Hamilton (1999) found this accommodation to have somewhat less of an impact on scores of students with disabilities.

Trimble (1998) studied the effects of the dictation accommodation in combination with other accommodations on the scores of 4th, 8th, and 11-12th grade students taking the statewide assessment in Kentucky. For 4th graders, the dictated response accommodation produced average scores above that of the total population, including students without disabilities. For 8th and 11th graders, students receiving the dictated response accommodation scored on average higher than those of students with disabilities not receiving the accommodation, but not above the average score of all students. 

Controversy

Research on the dictated response accommodation for students with disabilities in the K-12 range has been limited and rather inconclusive. Although students with disabilities appear to receive higher scores on a variety of tests when using this accommodation, it is unclear whether the test scores obtained using this accommodation as implemented are valid. For students who could physically not respond without a scribe, dictated response seems like an appropriate accommodation to allow. Also, when a test is not meant to measure certain writing skills, it also seems like a legitimate accommodation. Contrary to this, if a test is designed to measure grammar and other specific writing skills, this accommodation may be less valid. Furthermore, teachers appear to be concerned about the difficulty of implementation, and consider it to be one of the least effective accommodations.

Recommendations

• The dictated response accommodation should be provided to students for whom it is determined will benefit from this accommodation on tests not specifically designed to measure writing ability that includes specific skills such as spelling.
• If students are unable to handwrite, but can efficiently type on a computer, a computer response accommodation should be considered prior to a dictated response accommodation.
• When the dictated response accommodation is allowed, scribes should be carefully trained in how to record responses (e.g., whether students must indicate spelling, punctuation, etc.). Scribes should also be monitored to be certain that students’ verbatim responses are recorded.
• Scribes should be familiar with the test so they can easily record student answers (CEC, 2000).
• More research should examine the effects of this accommodation on the test scores of students with and without disabilities.

EXTENDED TIME

Students with disabilities are often allowed extra time to complete tests that are normally administered under timed conditions. This accommodation is frequently given in addition to other common accommodations (read aloud, Braille, large print, etc.), and is offered to students with a variety of disabilities. Extended time is often understood as “unlimited time” although in some cases it simply means that a specified amount of time is added to the normal time allotted for students to complete the test. Research has used both.

Explanation

Deficits in information processing rates are common among students with learning disabilities (Huesman, 1999). When a test is timed, students with learning disabilities may not be given enough time to show what they know and can do. Students with other disabilities, similarly, may require extra time if their disability hinders their ability to respond in a timely manner. Extending the amount of time that a student has to complete a test, therefore, can help to alleviate these problems, and consequently can make the test a more accurate measure of the student’s level of achievement.

State Use

Of the 48 states with statewide assessment programs, 32 allow the extended time accommodation. Five additional states allow it in some situations, and prohibit it in others. Two other states prohibit the use of extended time. This suggests that there is some disagreement about whether extended time is a valid accommodation (Thurlow et al., 2000).

Survey Research

Several surveys have explored the extended time accommodation. The earliest, by Gajria et al. (1994) surveyed 100 teachers on their awareness, use, and perceived integrity of the accommodation. They found that 93.8% of the 64 teachers who responded were aware of the extended time accommodation, 90.6% reported using it in their classrooms, and 79.7% thought that it maintained the integrity of the test. It was ranked 14th of 32 modifications in terms of “ease of use,” and 15th in terms of effectiveness.

The Jayanthi et al. (1996) survey responded to by 401 general education teachers (of 708 sent) indicated that allowing extended time for tests was rated as “easy” and helpful to provide. Overall, 74% of the teachers who responded indicated that they currently use the extended time accommodation in their classrooms.

The Lambert et al. (1996) survey of 171 rural secondary teachers found that for 121 respondents, extended time ranked first among several accommodations in terms of the percentage of teachers who had provided the accommodation in the past. The average rating of willingness to provide this accommodation was 4.4 on a 1-5 rating scale, 5 being “very willing to provide.”

Finally, the Hollenbeck et al. (1998) survey of 633 regular and special educators found that 59% of the 166 teachers who returned surveys had correct knowledge about this accommodation. They also found that only 13% reported using this accommodation. 

Empirical Research

Extended time is one of the most widely researched testing accommodations. Chiu and Pearson (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of 18 studies on this accommodation (including primary, secondary, and post-secondary studies) and found that the majority of studies looked at the effects of extended time on the test scores of students with learning disabilities. Extended time accommodation studies often examine whether there is a significantly greater effect of the accommodation on the scores of students with disabilities versus the scores of students without disabilities. Overall, Chiu and Pearson (1999) found a .07 effect size supporting the use of the extended time accommodation for students with disabilities over students without disabilities. Some studies have found a differential impact of the accommodation according to student disability status; others have found no differential impact.

Several studies examined the effects of extended time on test scores of students with disabilities in elementary, middle, and high school. Some of these studies examined the effects of the extended time accommodation on tests in separate content areas, including language arts and math. Others have looked at the effects of this accommodation on scores from standardized tests covering multiple subject areas.

Math. Eight studies were identified that examined the effects of extended time on math test scores. Gallina (1989) found that elementary students with Tourette’s syndrome scored in the average range on untimed math tests, but performed poorly on timed math tests. Centra (1986) found that students with learning disabilities derived significantly greater gains from extended time on the math section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) than students without learning disabilities. Furthermore, Lewis and Green (1999) found there to be relatively few items displaying differential item functioning (DIF) for students with disabilities receiving the extra time accommodation on a math test. Finding few DIF items suggests that the accommodation did not change the underlying construct of the test.

Contrary to these findings that provide support for the use of the extended time accommodation for students with disabilities, Marquart (2000) found there to be no significant increase in math test scores for eighth grade students when receiving the test under an extra time condition (40 min) as opposed to a standard condition (20 min). This non-effect was found for all three groups of students studied (students with disabilities, students without disabilities, and at-risk students). Students, however, were found to prefer the extended time condition.

Munger and Loyd (1991) also found that 5th grade students with disabilities (both learning and physical) were not differentially affected by the untimed condition on a math test when compared to students without disabilities. Similarly, Montani (1995) found that both low achieving and normally achieving 3rd grade students benefited from extended time, and there was no significant difference in effect among the two groups of students. Murray (1987) looked at the effects of the untimed condition on spatial test scores of boys ages 12-14 years. Groups included: (a) boys without learning disabilities + boys with learning disabilities and average achievement, and (b) boys with learning disabilities and low achievement. Results indicated that the first group performed better in the untimed, but not in the timed condition.

Taken altogether, the results of these studies are inconclusive. However, results of a study by Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton, Hamlett, and Karns (2000) may provide a better understanding of the effects of extended time on math tests. This study found that 4th grade students with learning disabilities did not differentially benefit from extended time on concept and application problems, but did differentially benefit from extended time on more innovative problem-solving type items. This suggests that on certain types of math problems, extended time may be more influential for students with disabilities.

Language arts. Five studies were identified that examined the effects of the extended time accommodation on language arts tests. Munger and Loyd (1991) found that 5th grade students with physical and learning disabilities were not differentially affected by the amount of “speededness” on a language use and expression test when compared to students without disabilities. Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton, Hamlett, Binkley, and Crouch (2000) found that the extended time accommodation did not benefit fourth grade students with learning disabilities more than students without disabilities on reading tests. Huesman and Frisbie (2000) found that the test scores of students with learning disabilities on the reading section of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills did significantly increase in the extended time condition; however, the scores of students without disabilities who were given extended time and told to “take time and work carefully” also significantly increased. Another important finding in their study was that the amount of extended time that students with learning disabilities required varied among individuals.

Perlman, Borger, Collins, Elenbogen, and Wood (1996) found that fourth grade students with learning disabilities and IEPs requiring the extended time accommodation finished the reading test within the recommended time limit, but that eighth graders with learning disabilities took substantially more time, and scored higher when they did use extra time. Overall, the results of the Perlman et al. (1996) study suggest that the tests may be more reliable when administered without time limits, and that merely knowing unlimited time is available may yield higher scores even if no additional time is used. Finally, Lewis and Green (1999) found that there were relatively few items that displayed DIF for students with disabilities receiving extra time on a language arts tests, which suggests that the same construct was being measured under the accommodated condition. Altogether, these studies seem to suggest that although there appears to be no definitive answer to the question of whether extended time is significantly better for students with disabilities, this accommodation may make the test results more valid for all students.

Ziomek and Andrews (1998) studied the effects of the extended time accommodation for students who had taken the American College Test (ACT) twice, and at least once under extended time conditions. Results indicated that they performed better under the extended time condition. The authors concluded that scores administered under non-standard conditions should continue to be “flagged” until score comparability can be determined; however, this recommendation recently has been negated. The Educational Testing Service (ETS) decided to stop flagging accommodated tests. 

Controversy

Research on the extended time accommodation for students with disabilities in the K-12 grade range has been inconclusive. Although students with disabilities appear to gain from the use of this accommodation on a variety of tests, it is also true that students without disabilities display similar gains. For math tests, it appears that differential gains for students with disabilities may be evident on certain types of items. On reading tests, the research has provided less direction. Limited differential effects for students with disabilities, as opposed to students without disabilities, were found for this accommodation. One study suggested both groups of students benefit from extended time. It may be that the underlying question is whether the particular test is intended to measure how fast students can complete test items. If tests are meant to measure rate of completion, then extended time is not a valid accommodation. However, if rate of test completion is not meant to be evaluated, extended time may be considered more valid.

In this synthesis, studies involving extended time in addition to other accommodations were not examined in depth. It is understandable that extended time might be a valid accommodation for students who are also having the test read aloud, reading large print, etc. The question of whether extended time alone is a valid accommodation for students with disabilities remains somewhat unanswered.

Recommendations

• The extended time accommodation should be allowed to students for whom it is determined will benefit from this accommodation on tests not specifically designed to measure rate of test-completion.
• The amount of extra time necessary may vary among students; it may be important to determine for each student individually the amount of extra time that is most desirable. Some students may experience fatigue from a longer test, and others may benefit.
• Students who require this accommodation may need to take the test in another room (CEC, 2000).
• The extended time accommodation should be allowed when other accommodations provided necessitate extended time (e.g., read aloud, tape recorder, etc.).
• When only some students are allowed access to this accommodation, it may be necessary to indicate that they received this accommodation in reporting results.
• Test-makers should determine whether test-completion rate is of essence to what they are testing. If it is determined that testing rate is not intended to be measured, perhaps all students should be given the amount of time they need to complete the test.

INTERPRETER FOR INSTRUCTIONS

Students with hearing impairments are often allowed to have an interpreter communicate test instructions in sign language. Although entire tests (directions and items) may be communicated to students through interpreters, for the purpose of this summary, we will refer to using interpreters to communicate only test directions. According to Bourquin (1996), interpreting is “the process of receiving a message in one language and transmitting an equal meaning into a second language.” The form of interpretation used will depend on the language preferences of the student (e.g., American Sign Language, finger spelling, signing + speech, etc.).

Explanation

For students to demonstrate their knowledge and perform well on tests, they must understand what the test requires them to do. Students with hearing impairments cannot understand orally communicated test instructions unless they are able to lip-read or are provided an interpreter who can translate the spoken directions into a language that they can understand. Through the use of an interpreter for test directions, tests can measure achievement rather than sensory deficits of students with hearing impairments.

State Use

Of the 48 states that have statewide assessment programs, 34 allow “interpreter for instructions” as a testing accommodation. Two additional states allow this accommodation on certain tests, but not on others. One other state prohibits the use of this accommodation (Thurlow et al., 2000).

Survey Research

Petronio (1988) interviewed 10 students with deaf-blindness to find out what they needed and wanted most from interpreters. Results indicated that students wanted information conveyed in the language that they most easily understood. A number of students also needed special modifications to the normal manner of interpreting due to tunnel vision or problems viewing interpreters at a distance. Students also emphasized the need for interpreters to convey visual information about relevant things going on in the classroom. Finally, Petronio’s results indicated that students who had used interpreters for three or more years were the most satisfied with them; those who were new to using interpreters were more easily frustrated.

Empirical Research

Very limited empirical research exists on the use of an interpreter specifically for communicating achievement test instructions to students with hearing impairments. Because of this, other studies that examined adapting tests for students with hearing impairments were examined. Ray (1982) conducted a study of adapting the Weschler Intelligence Scales for Children-Revised (WISC-R) for students with hearing impairments. The adaptation involved using additional sample items prior to conducting each subtest, as well as using alternate instructions in which the directions were signed to the student. The directions were also modified in order to avoid using words that were not easily translated into sign language. Results indicated that when these adaptations were made, deaf children scored on average the same as other students on the performance scale of the WISC-R.

Sullivan (1982) similarly studied the effects of accommodations on the WISC-R for students who were deaf. Each student in the study had half of the subtests communicated via Total Communication (simultaneous verbal and sign language), and half of the subtest directions communicated verbally with gestures. This study found that WISC-R Performance Scale scores were higher when directions were communicated via Total Communication than when communicated only verbally and gesturally. An additional study (Sullivan, 1982) showed Total Communication of directions resulted in significantly higher scale scores than pantomiming directions. However, results also suggested that the population of students with hearing impairments is not homogeneous; adaptations therefore must be individualized.

Benderson (1988, as cited in Gorden, Stump, and Glaser, 1996) found that the scores of students with hearing impairments who were given special administrations of the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) did not over- or under-predict their college achievement. For other students given special administrations, there was a great deal of fluctuation in terms of how well the test scores predicted future achievement.

Controversy

Providing an interpreter for instructions to students with hearing impairments appears to be a very reasonable testing accommodation. Students need to be able to comprehend task demands in order for them to demonstrate what they know and can do on a test. Perhaps the only controversy identified has to do with the quality of the interpretation. If interpreters do not communicate directions accurately to students with hearing impairments, the accommodation does not meet its intended purpose.

Recommendations

• An interpreter for instructions should be provided to students with hearing impairments who will benefit from such communication.
• Interpreters should be trained professionals (Bourquin, 1996), and should sign the instructions exactly as given (Ray, 1982).
• Interpreters should be aware of the unique needs of the students they are serving; different students may prefer differ language systems.
• Interpreters should check to be sure that the correct message is received by the student.
• Some words in the standardized directions may not be easily translated into sign language. Test developers should avoid using such words and phrases, and a standard procedure should be developed for how interpreters should communicate directions if such words and phrases are necessary.
• Students should have experience using an interpreter prior to the testing situation.
• More empirical research is necessary to demonstrate effective ways of adapting standardized tests for students with hearing impairments.

LARGE PRINT EDITION OF A TEST

Large-print editions of tests are frequently used to accommodate students with visual impairments. Burns (1998) states that large-print applications are also used by students who are distracted by cluttered test formats and by very young children. Research studies have defined large-print in several similar ways: “14-point Helvetica font” (Mick, 1989), “double the size of regular print” (Burk, 1999), and “16-point type” (Grise, Beattie, & Algozzine, 1982).

Explanation

Few academic tests are developed with the intent to measure either visual abilities or a student’s degree of distractedness. However, the way students are currently tested requires that they have adequate visual abilities and that they attend well to regular print tests. Consequently, the score of a non-accommodated student with a visual impairment on a reading comprehension test may reflect his or her visual difficulties rather than his or her comprehension skills. A large-print edition of a test can ensure that the student’s academic abilities rather than his or her visual abilities are measured.

State Use

Of the 48 states that have statewide assessment programs, 38 allow large print as a testing accommodation (Thurlow et al., 2000). Two additional states allow it in some situations but not others. One of these states allows large-print only if it is not offered in addition to the extended time accommodation. None of the states that allow large print indicate that it can be used only by students with visual disabilities.

Survey Research

The Jayanthi et al. (1996) survey of 708 general education teachers indicated that the 401 responding teachers found the large-print testing accommodation both helpful and easy to provide. Overall, 9.8% of the teachers who responded indicated that they currently use the large-print accommodation in their classrooms.

Empirical Research

Students with visual impairments. Several studies on large-print accommodations have focused on secondary and post-secondary students with visual impairments. A few of these studies have suggested that when using the large-print accommodation, students with visual impairments score more like students without disabilities taking a standard administration of the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) (Bennett, Rock, & Jirele, 1987). Bennett, Rock, and Kaplan (1987) found no significant differences in SAT item functioning for students with visual impairments taking a large-print edition of the SAT. These results support the idea that the large print accommodation does not affect the validity of academic tests.

Not all of this research, however, has been supportive of the large-print accommodation. Rock, Bennett, and Jirele (1988) identified problems in fit with the three-common-factor model of the GRE for students with visual impairments taking a large-type, extended time administration when compared to students without disabilities and students with visual impairments taking the standard administration. They found that the overall scores of students with visual impairments taking the large-type edition of the GRE exhibited lower intercorrelations with the verbal factor of the test than the scores of groups receiving a standard administration. Because students self-selected the large-print exam, it is unclear whether these test differences were due to the severity of visual impairments, or whether the large-type accommodation actually influenced test validity. The authors suggest that the reading task may be more difficult for large-print readers because large print items may be cut off at the end of a page and continue on the next page. This may interfere with the student’s construction of item meaning.

Only one study was identified that used the large-print accommodation with young students with visual impairments. Coleman (1990) studied 24 students (7 large print readers, 7 Braille readers, and 10 regular print readers) and found that large print readers had more difficulty with length measurement tasks than did the other readers. However, he concluded that it was vision problems rather than the large-print that accounted for these results.

Although not pertaining directly to the specific effects of the large print accommodation, Wright and Wendler (1994) documented that students who received the large-print accommodation on a Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) field trial required up to twice the normal time to complete the test. The extra time necessary was suggested to be due to visual processing deficits.

Students with learning disabilities. The use of the large-print accommodation by students with learning disabilities has also been studied. The majority of these studies suggest that the large-print accommodation does not have a significant effect on test scores (Beattie, Grise, & Algozzine, 1983; Burk, 1999; Florida Department of Education, 1982; Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton, Hamlett, Binkley, & Crouch, 2000; Grise, Beattie, & Algozzine, 1982; Mick, 1989). In one study, large-print did have an effect on scores. Perez (1980) selected three modified presentation modes (regular print, large print, and audio support) for items from Florida’s Statewide Student Assessment and conducted these modified tests with 48 secondary-level students with learning disabilities. Findings indicated that large-print presentation resulted in the highest levels of performance overall. Performance with large print was significantly higher than performance with regular print, as well as higher than performance with audio support.

In all but one study, therefore, the large-print accommodation seemed to have no effect on scores of students with learning disabilities. It is important to note that contrary to the studies of students with visual impairments, none of these studies involved a decision-making process whereby individual students’ large-print needs were addressed. Perhaps if more attention had been given to identifying which students would benefit from the accommodation, the accommodation would have had more of an effect for students with learning disabilities.

Controversy

Overall, it appears that state policymakers and educators agree that large-print is a useful accommodation. Furthermore, most studies suggest that this accommodation does not unfairly affect students’ scores. Perhaps the most important point is that large-print test booklets can be less user-friendly than regular print tests. They are often much heavier than normal tests, and require more page-turning. Students using large-print test booklets have indicated that they do not like how heavy they are (Florida Department of Education, 1982). Additionally, more research may be needed on how this accommodation affects the test-validity of very young children, a group of students that Burns (1998) states often use large print.

Recommendations

• The large-print accommodation should be offered to any student who it is determined will benefit from the accommodation.
• When determining the large print needs of a student, the best approach is to experiment with different point and font sizes to decide which text best meets the student’s needs (Burns, 1998).
• Students receiving the large-print accommodation should have adequate practice taking tests in this format to be familiar with the extra page turning that may be required.
• Tests that are translated into large print need to be checked to make sure no inappropriate line breaks or measurement tasks are included. Make sure that items are grouped as much like the original as possible (CEC, 2000).
• Students who use the large-print accommodation may also require additional time due to visual processing difficulties.

Site Map

Conditions

Education

Behavior

Miscellaneous

Home

Tourette Syndrome "Plus" © Copyright 1998 - 2005 Leslie E. Packer, PhD. except as noted.
All rights reserved 
This page last updated January 7, 2005. Reprint Policy. Privacy Policy. Contact.