ERIC EJ844632: Accommodations and Universal Design: Supporting Access to Assessments in Higher Education

2006·0.27 MB·English

by  ERIC

Accommodations and Universal Design: Supporting
Access to Assessments in Higher Education
Leanne R. Ketterlin-Geller
University of Oregon
Christopher Johnstone
University of Minnesota
Abstract
Because of recent legislative mandates, students with disabilities have unprecedented opportunities to attend institutions
of higher education. Access to instruction and assessment is provided through the use of reasonable accommodations.
However, such accommodations are legally and procedurally complex. This article addresses the legal and procedural
evidence required to receive testing accommodations. In addition, we discuss procedures for supporting student
needs by applying the principles of universal design to assessments. By changing assessment practices to include
support structures for all students, access to higher education can be promoted.
Postsecondary education in the United States has a reasonable accommodations to alleviate the barriers
long and varied history in terms of access for diverse caused by their disability. Although questions still arise
populations. Beginning with the early colleges and uni- about rights and responsibilities of both the institution
versities, admission to institutions of higher education and the individual, students with disabilities have greater
has been restricted to students with specific characteris- access to institutions of higher education.
tics. Although early colleges and universities allowed stu- In this article, we describe the legislative mandates
dents from varied social classes, only men were permit- requiring access to higher education for students with dis-
ted to study (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). However, rais- abilities. Focusing on assessments, we interpret legal
ing costs of attending prestigious universities such as documents to define accommodations procedures and
Harvard and Yale precluded students from low socio-eco- determine the availability of services for students with
nomic status from attending, thereby restricting access disabilities. We also describe the roles and responsibili-
to society’s elite. As such, early institutions of higher ties of students and university officials in assigning and
education primarily served privileged students. administering accommodations. In addition, we describe
As political and social pressures mounted to diver- principles of universal design for assessment as a mecha-
sify all postsecondary educational institutions, opportu- nism to increase access to educational assessments for
nities for women, ethnic minorities, and persons from all students, including students with disabilities. By con-
middle and low economic backgrounds became available sidering the range of student needs during the design and
across the country. These opportunities did not come with- development of assessment tools, the need for accom-
out a price, however. Many students from modations may be minimized. As such, universal design
underrepresented groups faced discrimination and harass- for assessment provides a possible avenue for increasing
ment during their tenure at postsecondary educational access to postsecondary educational opportunities to all
institutions (Schaefer, 1996). Today, many college cam- students.
puses still reflect a white, male-dominated student body,
especially in science and math as well as advanced de- Higher Education Accommodation Practices
grees. Until recently, students with disabilities were simi-
larly excluded from higher education. Because of cur- Legal Background for Accommodations
rent legislation, however, these students are entitled to The notion of access to higher education for a di-
equal access to postsecondary education and may receive verse population gained momentum for people with dis-
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2 163
abilities in the 1970s. Legislation such as Section 504 of (A)(1)(VI)(aa)). No such oversight committee exists for
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with students with disabilities in higher education settings.
Disabilities Act of 1990 have provided greater access to Once students leave high school, they must become their
qualified persons with disabilities in higher education. own advocates for accommodation practices.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits
discrimination against individuals with disabilities by any Accommodations in Higher Education
institution receiving or benefiting from federal funds. In Institutions of higher education offer support to stu-
a continued effort to prevent discrimination, the Ameri- dents with disabilities through Disability Services offices.
cans with Disabilities Act of 1990 extends the antidis- Such offices act as on-campus advocates and facilitators
crimination laws to programs or services provided by both of accommodations for students with disabilities. Students
local and state governments as well as private employers with disabilities, who have firsthand knowledge of the
and public services, accommodations, and transportation. challenges of disability in higher education, often staff
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) these offices and provide support to other students with
seeks to reduce “unfair and unnecessary discrimination disabilities. However, even with the support of Disabil-
and prejudice” against people with disabilities. Under ity Services offices, accommodations procedures might
ADA, a disability is defined as “(a) a physical or mental vary from institution to institution.
impairment that substantially limits one or more of the Accommodations are defined as changes in instruc-
major life activities of such individual, (b) a record of tion or assessment practices that reduce the impact of an
such an impairment, or (c) being regarded as having such individual’s disability on his or her interaction with the
an impairment” (ADA, 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101(2)). In material. Accommodations can include changes to the
higher education, ADA requires institutions to provide setting in which instruction is presented or assessment
access to educational services and opportunities through tasks are given, the amount of time allocated to a student
reasonable accommodations for students with disabili- to learn a concept or complete a task, the format of the
ties who are otherwise qualified to participate, thereby information that is presented, the method through which
allowing individuals with the “opportunity to compete the student responds to questions, or the materials or
on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for equipment that support the student in his or her ability to
which [United States’] free society is justifiably famous” interact with the material. To be considered effective, ac-
(ADA, 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(9)). The most oft cited commodations should reduce construct-irrelevant vari-
support service provided by colleges and universities to ance caused by the individual’s disability without chang-
students with disabilities are testing accommodations, ing the construct targeted by instruction or assessment.
followed by note taking, counseling, and advocacy For example, in the court case Rush v. National Board of
(Tagayana, Stodden, Chang, Zeleznik, & Whelley, 2005). Medical Examiners, the District Court of Texas decided
Under federal regulations, services do not extend to di- that without an accommodation of extra time on the U.S.
agnostic testing, specialized tutoring or counseling, or Medical Licensing Exam, the test was measuring the
occupational, physical, or speech and language therapies plaintiff’s disability, not his medical expertise. This de-
(Simon, 2001). cision illustrates the beneficial nature of accommodations
Although the antidiscrimination laws that govern in- in supporting students’ access to educational opportuni-
stitutions of higher education apply to K-12 settings, ad- ties that may otherwise be limited due to their disability.
ditional regulations protect the rights of younger students. Who Should Receive an Accommodation? Accommo-
Notably, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act dation procedures in higher education institutions are typi-
(IDEA, 2004) mandates procedures for making instruc- cally university-specific but are guided by the ADA and
tional decisions for students in K-12 institutions who Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Under these
qualify for special education services through individu- regulations, students with disabilities are entitled to rea-
alized educational programs (IEP). An IEP team consist- sonable accommodations if they are otherwise qualified
ing of members of the educational community who are to participate in the educational program. If an individual
familiar with the student and his or her needs meets to does not possess the qualities that would allow him or
determine the most appropriate services for the individual. her to be successful in the program or future activities
Among other guidelines, IDEA requires that IEPs include without considering the disability, the institution is not
“a statement of any appropriate accommodations that are required to provide accommodations. This aspect of the
necessary to measure the academic achievement and func- law was upheld in the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in the
tional performance of the child on State and district-wide Powell v. National Board of Medical Examiners case, in
assessments” (IDEA, 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1414 which the plaintiff failed part of the Medical Licensing
164 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2
Exam three times and was subsequently dismissed from Cognitive disabilities are often difficult to evaluate.
medical school. In the past, the plaintiff had educational Learning disabilities or other cognitive impairments such
difficulty and an average to low-average IQ. Because the as attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit
plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was otherwise disorder with hyperactivity (ADHD) are often the most
qualified to attend medical school, the court upheld the challenging disabilities to document. For instance, learn-
National Board of Medical Examiners’ decision to disal- ing disabilities have historically been diagnosed by ex-
low accommodations. amining the discrepancy between a student’s aptitude as
Accommodations should be designed to reduce the measured by IQ tests and achievement as determined by
impact of the individual’s disability on his or her learn- various standardized measures. However, this classifica-
ing or measurement of achievement. Reasonable accom- tion method may not be sensitive to individual differences
modations are those changes to classroom and assess- and may lead to misdiagnosis (Wilhelm, 2003). In addi-
ment practices that do not place an undue administrative tion, students with ADHD may be difficult to distinguish
burden or cost on the institution. Such changes include from other students who display disinterest or an inabil-
specially designed equipment, structural alterations, or ity to focus on academic tasks (Hampton & Gosden,
modifying classroom procedures (Rehabilitation Act, 2004). If students are incorrectly identified as having
1973). Changes that alter the expectations of the program cognitive disabilities and are subsequently provided with
or standards for achievement are not advocated for under accommodations, the fairness of the system is jeopardized
federal regulations (Wilhelm, 2003). because of the inappropriate advantage that accommo-
In order to receive an accommodation, the student dations might provide.
must be identified as having a disability that interferes What Accommodations Are Effective? To be consid-
with at least one major life activity. Life activities in- ered effective, accommodations should reduce construct-
clude a variety of behaviors from daily tasks such as eat- irrelevant variance caused by the student’s disability.
ing, sleeping, and interacting with others to functional Accommodations research examines the interaction hy-
tasks such as reading and writing. Documentation of a pothesis to determine if accommodations provide students
disability is necessary but not sufficient to warrant pro- with disabilities with a differential boost in performance
viding accommodations, however. The individual must when compared to students without disabilities (Sireci,
demonstrate that the disability affects normal function- Scarpati, & Li, 2005). If all students benefit from the ac-
ing of daily activities to the point that he or she performs commodation, the accommodation is not targeting the skill
significantly below the average person. As such, even if deficits caused by the disability but instead is providing
a person has a documented disability that impairs daily an unfair advantage to students who receive it. If stu-
activities, if the impairment does not impose limitations dents with disabilities receive a greater benefit than stu-
beyond the functioning of the average person, accommo- dents without disabilities, the accommodation may still
dations are not required. In addition, if medications, be appropriate but additional investigations into the test
assistive devices, or self-accommodations mediate the development and administration may we warranted to
influence of the disability on performance, accommoda- determine if the test is too restrictive for all students.
tions are not warranted under ADA (Ranseen & Parks, When examining the use of accommodations, the
2005; Wilhelm, 2003). predictive evidence for validity of the resulting test scores
Given these legal intricacies of implementing fed- should be evaluated. In other words, care should be taken
eral legislation, it is not surprising that multiple court to determine if a score on an accommodated test predicts
cases have been filed regarding accommodations in higher a future outcome (e.g., success in college, performance
education settings. For example, in Marlon v. Western in a profession) with the same level of certainty as a non-
New England College, the District Court of Massachu- accommodated test. Of particular importance is licens-
setts decided that the plaintiff’s disabling condition of ing exams (Ranseen & Parks, 2005). If accommodations
pain, anxiety, and depression did not substantially limit change the underlying construct of the test, the interpre-
the major life activity of learning. Since her symptoms tations of student proficiency in the targeted content will
primarily affected her ability to take long exams, this was be different for students who use accommodations and
not deemed significant enough to warrant special provi- students who do not (Sharp & Earle, 2000). In high-stakes
sions. In addition, the plaintiff was able to attend another environments, a student may receive a license based on
university and continue working, thus providing confirm- performance on an accommodated test who does not have
ing evidence that the disabling condition did not substan- the same skills or knowledge as a student who takes the
tially affect a major life activity. test without accommodations. These same principles ap-
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2 165
ply to classroom-based assessments or department or federal regulations, uncertainty about ethical implications
school exams that are used to determine readiness to ad- of accommodations, and ambivalent attitudes toward sup-
vance in academic standing. However, little research in porting students with disabilities (Bento, 1996; Ranseen
these areas is available to support accommodation deci- & Parks, 2005). Faculty members may have limited un-
sions. derstanding of federal regulations mandating access to
How Are Accommodations Assigned and Adminis- reasonable accommodations for students with disabili-
tered? Under ADA regulations, students in higher educa- ties (Vogel, Leyser, Wyland, & Brulle, 1999). In addi-
tion are required to disclose their disability to appropri- tion, faculty may be unaware of the limitations caused by
ate officials, provide documentation of the extent of the a disability and how accommodations can help students
disability, and facilitate the provision of reasonable ac- overcome these barriers (Bierwert, n.d.). Ethical impli-
commodations. In addition, it is up to the student to con- cations of providing accommodations may also surface.
tact the appropriate authorities if a conflict or discrimi- Faculty may be caught in a dilemma between ensuring
nation issue arises. These responsibilities differ signifi- sameness for all students and providing equal opportuni-
cantly from those of students in K-12 settings where the ties to others (Bento, 1996). Additionally, some faculty
onus is on the school systems to provide diagnostic test- members might be ambivalent toward students with dis-
ing and documentation services, and ultimately appro- abilities. In a survey of approximately 40% of faculty
priate accommodations. Although transition plans from members at a doctoral-granting institution, Vogel and
high school to higher education are required components colleagues (1999) found that although faculty were will-
on IEPs as defined by IDEA, many students enter institu- ing to provide accommodations to students with disabili-
tions of higher education unaware of their role in deter- ties, the most accepted accommodations were changes
mining instructional and assessment supports. that required little effort on the part of the instructor to
Such provisions have obvious implications for stu- implement or monitor. As this evidence suggests, actual
dents with disabilities in higher education settings. Some accommodation practices are influenced by many fac-
examples noted by Bierwert (n.d.) include students with tors.
disabilities feeling nervous or anxious to talk with their
professors about needing accommodations for fear of Universal Design
being known for their disability or being treated differ-
ently. Other students delay asking for accommodations Evidence such as court cases, inconsistent decision
until they have established a relationship with a profes- making within and across universities, and social stigma
sor, which is often too late for mid-term assignments and for students who request accommodations suggests that
exams. Still others avoid asking for accommodations be- accommodations are an unresolved issue in higher edu-
cause of the social stigma among peers or an internal cation. In terms of assessment, accommodations can level
struggle and desire to feel independent. These reasons the playing field for students with disabilities, but only
aside, current legislation requires that students with dis- when students request and are provided such reasonable
abilities be self-advocates in the classroom. accommodations. Because provision of accommodations
Universities and other institutions of higher educa- is at best uneven, Disability Services offices and faculty
tion can support students with disabilities by providing may wish to consider preventative measures to minimize
trainings on issues around their rights and responsibili- the need for accommodations. One such approach is uni-
ties, self-advocacy, and conflict resolution. In a study versal design of assessment.
conducted by Palmer and Roessler (2000), students with Universal design of assessment, much like universal
disabilities who received training in communication and design of instructional practices and universal design for
negotiation skills had a significantly higher score on out- learning, is based on principles of access first developed
come measures of knowledge of accommodation rights in architecture. The Center for Universal Design at North
and responsibilities, self-efficacy in requesting accom- Carolina State University defined universal design in ar-
modations, conflict resolution, and social competence chitecture as “the design of products and environments
than students who did not receive training. It follows that to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible,
students who understand their legal rights and are better without the need for adaptation or specialized design”
prepared to engage in a discussion around accommoda- (Center for Universal Design, 1997, ¶1).
tions are more apt to seek the supports they need to be For instructional purposes, the metaphor of access to
successful. instruction for all students is logical. Universal design of
Other barriers to administering and assigning accom- assessment, however, is more nuanced. The very nature
modations relate to faculty’s lack of knowledge about of assessment is to distinguish between students who have
166 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2
and have not acquired specific skills or knowledge within ibility. These elements have been transferred to classroom
a construct. Therefore, assessments are at times neces- assessments and assignments in K-12 education (Acrey,
sarily difficult for students. For assessment purposes, the Johnstone, & Milligan, 2005) and can be easily adopted
idea of universal design is not for all students to “pass,” for assessments in higher education settings.
but for all students to be able to demonstrate their skills For example, one of the most important tasks in de-
and knowledge without barriers. veloping any assessment is to carefully define the con-
A recent summit of researchers studying universal struct to be tested. A construct may represent a large “do-
design of assessment brought together representatives main” of skills or be testing a specific criterion. In either
interested in making assessments more accessible to a case, it is important to clearly articulate the construct to
variety of students, including students with disabilities. be tested in order to minimize construct-irrelevant be-
The summit participants, including researchers from five haviors (Haladyna & Downing, 2004). More succinctly,
states, defined universal design of assessment as a pro- accessible assessment practice suggests that designers dis-
cess for ensuring that tests are developed and adminis- criminate between the actual domains they want to test
tered to provide the widest range of students with the and any non-construct domains that may act as barriers
opportunity to demonstrate their construct-relevant skills, to students (Ketterlin-Geller, Yovanoff, & Tindal, in
knowledge, and abilities, without compromising the va- press).
lidity of inferences drawn from test results (Allman et Another step toward creating tests following the prin-
al., 2006). Participants at the summit (including the au- ciples of Universal Design is to reduce test bias. Test
thors of this paper) agreed that universal design of as- bias causes systematic errors in performance based on
sessment provides students maximal opportunity to dem- student characteristics. Alvermann and Phelps (2002)
onstrate knowledge without changing the focus of the identified four types of bias that students may encounter:
assessment. (a) conceptual bias (when the content is not reflective of
Faculty and Disability Services offices can apply the students’ prior or in-class learning), (b) linguistic bias
principles and theories for universal design of assessments (when the language unrelated to constructs is unfamiliar
to postsecondary settings in order to make assessments to students), (c) functional bias (when there appears to
as accessible as possible without diminishing curricular be no functional purpose to a task on an assessment or
requirements. For example, Dolan, Hall, Banerjee, Chun, assignment), and (d) consequential bias (when the con-
and Strangman (2005) have found that students are more sequences of an assessment do not match the inferences
successful when flexible options (such as read-aloud ap- that can be validly drawn from an assessment). Instruc-
proaches) are available to all students in an on-demand tors designing in-class assessments can increase the va-
fashion. To this end, advanced computer technology now lidity and accessibility of the interpretations of their mea-
allows users to retrieve information in multiple ways and sures by considering and removing bias that might be
provides multiple opportunities for expression (Hall, present.
Strangman, & Meyer, n.d.). For example, technology en- Thompson et al., (2002) also describe how assess-
ables text-to-speech capabilities, voice activated transcrip- ments can be designed to allow accommodations in the
tion of responses, and automated translations across lan- event they become necessary. Because universal design
guages including Braille. Additionally, digital formats will never completely remove the need for accommoda-
allow students to easily enable assistive devices. Com- tions, part of the universal design process is to ensure
bined, these “built in” accommodations promote univer- that students who use accommodations are receiving com-
sal access and minimize the stigma of separate accom- parable tests to those who take tests under standard con-
modations (Hasselbring, Lewis & Brausch, 2005). ditions. As such, changes to the setting, timing, presen-
A complementary approach to improving the acces- tation, response mode, or equipment should not change
sibility of assessments is to examine the properties of the the intended constructs. To ensure integrity of the test,
assessment itself – whether it is a paper-and-pencil or a instructors may wish to seek guidance on designing and
technology-based test. Thompson, Johnstone, and delivering accommodations that make the test no more
Thurlow (2002) developed Elements of Universally De- or less difficult that the original format. Accommoda-
signed Assessments to guide the design of K-12 large- tions are meant to level the playing field for students with
scale assessments, including: (a) inclusive assessment disabilities, not by changing the difficulty of the test, but
population, (b) precisely defined constructs, (c) acces- instead by changing the accessibility.
sible, non-biased items, (d) items that are amenable to Another part of the universal design process is to in-
accommodations, (e) simple, clear, and intuitive instruc- clude simple, clear, and intuitive instructions and admin-
tions, (f) comprehensible language, and (g) maximum leg- istrative procedures. Thus, an accessible assessment main-
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2 167
tains high standards in terms of content, but is easy to In addition to the size of print, the amount of space
navigate. In this case, examples from the field of acces- between letters and lines also may increase accessibility.
sible architectural design are relevant to assessment. In For example, lines and letters with more space between
architecture, a structure may be architecturally complex, them are easier to read than jumbled letters and lines with
but is made more accessible through arrows that point little “leading” (space between lines) (Gaster & Clarke,
users to various areas of the structure, doors that can be 1995). Text that is justified to the left but has ragged right
opened by a variety of users, and elevators to help users edges maintains standard space between letters and mini-
reach all areas of the structure. Likewise, assessments mizes hyphenation, thus increasing legibility (Arditi,
that provide clear instructions to students and have intui- 1999). Finally, the American Printing House for the Blind
tive procedures are most likely to help instructors know (www.aph.org) recommends sans-serif fonts (fonts with-
exactly what students do and do not know. out tails) such as Arial or Verdana, and has a free
An assessment may also become more accessible if downloadable font called APHont that is specifically de-
the language used in items and tasks is comprehensible. signed for persons with low vision but can be used for all
Rakow and Gee (1987) describe “comprehensible lan- readers (see http://sun1.aph.org/products/aphont.html).
guage” within the context of learning activities and as- In sum, providing tests in digitized formats and us-
sessments. Comprehensible language does not always ing elements of universal designed assessments to guide
mean simplified language, as sometimes the intended test development may help postsecondary students and
construct of an assessment is to dissect authentic (and faculty overcome the legal and procedural difficulties in
possibly difficult) text. However, when constructs are assigning and administering accommodations. Universal
unrelated to specific language demands, Rakow and Gee’s design, however, is not a one-time activity for which there
suggestions (adapted for this article) may be useful, in- is an endpoint. Rather, the process of making assessments
cluding: more accessible is an iterative and ongoing process. En-
· Knowing if students are likely to have experience suring assessments are available in digitized formats and
and prior knowledge related to the item are designed for accessibility in terms of precisely de-
· Determining if the vocabulary is appropriate for fined constructs, accessibility, reduced bias, amenability
students’ level of education to accommodations, clear instructions, comprehensible
· Examining items to determine if sentences are language, and legible print are important first steps that
unnecessarily complex higher education personnel can take in order to design
· Determining if definitions and examples are clear assessments for accessibility.
and understandable Ongoing refinements of assessment tasks can be in-
· The demands for reasoning skills are appropriate for tegrated into teaching practices. For example, Disability
the course Services offices can facilitate informal peer reviews of
· Relationships in text are made through precise, assessments for accessibility. In these reviews, peers use
logical connectives accessibility checklists to examine each other’s assess-
· Content within items is clearly organized ments for accessibility (an example of a checklist is found
· Graphs, illustrations, and other graphic aids facili- in the Appendix). However, checklists are only a small
tate comprehension piece of a larger accessibility puzzle. In addition to pre-
· Questions are clearly framed screening assessments for accessibility, faculty can ex-
Building on these principles, Thompson et al. (2002) amine data patterns in their course’s assessment results.
highlight the importance of designing maximally legible Item- and essay-level data may help instructors under-
tests. Researchers in the field of vision and reading have stand if certain populations are under performing on cer-
determined that certain formatting specifications increase tain tasks. Such information is important for both instruc-
comprehension for most readers. Specifically, black type tional decision making and for understanding how the
on white matte (glare-free) paper is easiest for most read- design of assessments may affect particular populations.
ers to see (Menlove & Hammond, 1998), although digi- Related to understanding how design affects particu-
tized assessments provide readers a choice of print col- lar populations are research studies using cognitive labo-
ors. In terms of font size, people with excellent vision ratory approaches. Cognitive labs, or “think aloud” ac-
can read 10- to 12-point size print with little difficulty tivities can be used with students with different disabil-
(Gaster & Clark, 1995), but 14-point font is helpful to ity status and from different cultural and linguistic back-
people with print reading difficulties. Students with low grounds. In these activities, students “think-aloud” or
vision will most likely need 18-point print. verbalize while they are completing a task (Ericsson &
168 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2
Simon, 1995). In the case of higher education, it may be
useful for faculty or Disability Services offices to have
students participate in think-aloud activities around dif-
ferent assessment types and items. The information de-
rived from such activities may provide useful strategies
for designing more accessible assessments.
In conclusion, myriad approaches at both the indi-
vidual and the systemic level can aid personnel in col-
leges and universities in the process of making assess-
ments more accessible. The term universal design of as-
sessments refers to the intentional design of assessments
to be as accessible as possible without reducing construct-
relevant requirements. In theory, assessments created
using universal design approaches are more accessible to
students with disabilities and students without disabili-
ties alike. As such, universal design appears to be a valu-
able way to reduce the need for controversial accommo-
dations in postsecondary education.
Conclusion
It is an important final note to recognize the inter-
connection between universal design and accommoda-
tions. Universal design of assessments is an approach that
seeks to improve the overall design of assessments for
all students. Although much of the research conducted in
universal design for assessment to date has been con-
cerned with making assessments more accessible to stu-
dents with disabilities, there is often a spillover effect for
other students, that is, other at-risk students, such as En-
glish language learners, struggling readers, and students
from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds also benefit
(Johnstone, 2003). However, accommodations are highly
individualized. Students who use accommodations require
specific considerations that may require separate testing
provisions from the other students in a class. While uni-
versal design approaches may help these students to ac-
cess the content in a test, accommodations may still be
necessary to minimize the effects of a specific learning
or sensory disability.
Postsecondary institutions can support faculty under-
standing of administering and assigning accommodations
by providing learning opportunities such as workshops
on disability rights, maintaining websites or other infor-
mation sharing networks for faculty discussion forums,
and providing strategies and suggestions for universal
design and accommodating students’ needs. Combined,
these approachs may improve assessment in
postsecondary education in general by increasing faculty
awareness of accommodation practices as well as offer-
ing solutions to support student success within and across
the curriculum.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2 169
References
Acrey, C., Johnstone, C.J., & Milligan, C. (2005). Gaster, L., & Clark, C. (1995). A guide to providing
Unlocking the potential for academic achievement of alternate formats. West Columbia, SC: Center for
at-risk learners using elements of universal design. Rehabilitation Technology Services. (ERIC Docu-
Teaching Exceptional Children, 38 (2), 24-32. ment No. ED 405689).
Allman, C., Dolan, R., Emick, J., Hall, T., Henderson, Haladyna, T., & Downing, S. (2004). Construct irrel-
B., Johnstone, C., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Lewis, P., evant variance in high stakes testing. Educational
Thurlow, M., & Tindal, G. (2006, June). Definition Measurement: Issues and Practice 23(1), 17-27.
of universal design. In C.J. Johnstone (Chair), Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (n.d.). Differenti-
Universal design of assessment summit, Minneapo- ated instruction and implications for UDL imple-
lis, MN. mentation. Retrieved June 6, 2006, from: http://
Alverman, D., & Phelps, S. (2002). Content reading www.cast.org/publications/ncac/
and literacy: Succeeding in today’s diverse class- ncac_diffinstructudl.html
rooms. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hampton, G., & Gosden, R. (2004). Fair play for
Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et students with disabilities. Journal of Higher Educa-
esq. (1990). tion Policy and Management, 26(2), 225-238.
Arditi, A. (1999). Making print legible. New York: Hasselbring, T.S., Lewis, P., & Brausch, M. (2005).
Lighthouse. Assessing students with disabilities: Moving instruc-
Bento, R.F. (1996). Faculty decision-making about tion forward through universal design. InSight, 5.
‘reasonable accommodations’ for disabled college Retrieved June 6, 2006 from: http://www.iaete.org/
students: Informational, ethical and attitudinal insight/INSIGHT_2005_Hasselbring.pdf
issues. College Student Journal, 30(4). Retrieved on Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (1997).
May 8, 2006, from Academic Search Premier. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education &
Bierwert, C. (n.d.). Making accommodations for Rehabilitation Services. Available at http://
students with disabilities: A guide for faculty and www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/policy/IDEA/
graduate student instructors. Ann Arbor: University the_law.html
of Michigan. Center for Research on Learning and Johnstone, C.J. (2003). Improving validity of large
Teaching. scale tests: universal design and student perfor-
Brubacher, J.S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Professional mance (Technical Report 37). Minneapolis: Univer-
education. In L.F. Goodchild & H.S. Weschler sity of Minnesota, National Center on Educational
(Eds.), The history of higher education (2nd ed., pp. Outcomes.
379-393). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Ketterlin-Geller, L.R., Yovanoff, P., & Tindal, G. (in
Schuster. press). Developing a new paradigm for accommoda-
Center for Universal Design. (1997). What is universal tions research. Exceptional Children.
design? Center for Universal Design, North Carolina Marlon v. Western New England College. 2003 WL
State University. Retrieved January, 2002, from: 22914304. D. Mass.
www.design.ncsu.edu. Menlove, M., & Hammond, M. (1998). Meeting the
Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & demands of ADA, IDEA, and other disability
Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principles of legislation in the design, development, and delivery
universal design to test delivery: The effect of of instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher
computer-based read-aloud on test performance of Education, 6(1), 75-85.
high school students with learning disabilities. Palmer, C., & Roessler, R.T. (2000). Requesting
Journal of Technology, Learning & Assessment, classroom accommodations: Self-advocacy and
3(7). conflict resolution training for college students with
Ericsson, & Simon, (1995). Protocol analysis. Verbal disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66(3), 38-41.
reports as data, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Powell v. National Board of Medical Examiners. 364 F.
Press. 3d 79. US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. April 7,
2004.
170 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2
Rakow, S.J., & Gee, T.C. (1987). Test science, not
reading. Science Teacher, 54(2), 28-31.
Ranseen, J.D., & Parks, G.S. (2005). Test accommoda-
tions for postsecondary students: The quandary
resulting from the ADA’s disability definition.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 83-108.
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794-794a. (1973).
Rush v. National Board of Medical Examiners. 268
F.Supp.2d 673. N.D. Tex., June 20, 2003.
Schaefer, R.T. (1996). Education and prejudice:
Unraveling the relationship. Sociological Quarterly,
37(1), 1-16.
Sharp, K., & Earle, S. (2000). Assessment, disability
and the problem of compensation. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 191-199.
Simon, J.A. (2001). Legal issues in serving
postsecondary students with disabilities. Topics in
Language Disorders, 21(2), 1-16.
Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S., & Li, S. (2005). Test accom-
modations for students with disabilities: An analysis
of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational
Research, 75, 457-490.
Tagayuna, A., Stodden, R.A., Chang, C., Zeleznik,
M.E., & Whelley, T.A. (2005). A two-year compari-
son of support provisions for persons with disabili-
ties in postsecondary education. Journal of Voca-
tional Rehabilitation, 22, 13-21.
Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L.
(2002). Universal design applied to large-scale
assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota, National Center on Educa-
tional Outcomes.
Vogel, S.A., Leyser, Y., Wyland, S., & Brulle, A.
(1999). Students with learning disabilities in higher
education: Faculty attitude and practices. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(3), 173-186.
Wilhelm, S. (2003). Accommodating mental disabilities
in higher education: A practical guide to ADA
requirements. Journal of Law & Education, 32(2),
217-237.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability Volume 19, Number 2 171