ERIC EJ875992: How Much Time?: A Review of the Literature on Extended Test Time for Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities

15 Pages·2002·0.09 MB·English

by  ERIC

How Much Time?:
A Review of the Literature on Extended Test Time for
Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities
Nicole S. Ofiesh
University of Arizona
Charles A. Hughes
The Pennsylvania State University
Abstract
One ongoing dilemma with the accommodation of extended test time is how much time to provide. Due
to a dearth of research to help disability service providers with this decision, a review of the literature
on extended test time for postsecondary students with learning disabilities (LD) was conducted to (a)
inform service providers about the results of several studies on extended test time, (b) determine if a
certain amount of extended test time was typically used by participants with LD, and (c) identify research
variables from the studies that could account for differences in the amounts of time use. A search
resulted in seven studies that included reports of time use. The average time use in most studies ranged
from time and one-half to double time. Differences in results based on type of postsecondary setting,
test conditions and test instruments are discussed, and recommendations are offered to guide the decision-
making process on how much additional time to provide.
The right to test accommodations in 1984; Frauenheim & Heckerl, 1983; Geary &
postsecondary educational settings stems from Brown, 1990; Hayes, Hynd, & Wisenbaker, 1986;
regulations accompanying statutory law (e.g., Hughes & Smith, 1990; Wolff, Michel, Ovrut, &
Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], 1990; Drake, 1990). This slowed rate of performance
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973). prevents some students with LD from completing
Of the various ways to accommodate students with as much of a test as their peers, leading to lower
learning disabilities (LD), extended test time is the scores. When provided with additional time, how-
most frequently requested and granted in colleges ever, many students with LD are able to finish more
and universities (Bursuck, Rose, Cohen, & Yahaya, of a test and thereby make significant gains in their
1989; Nelson & Lignugaris-Kraft, 1989; Yost, test score (Alster, 1997; Hill, 1984; Jarvis, 1996;
Shaw, Cullen, & Bigaj, 1994). Ofiesh, 2000; Runyan, 1991a, 1991b; Weaver,
The accommodation of extended test time is 2000).
built on a growing body of literature that supports Conversely, extended time often does not
the contention that individuals with LD charac- benefit students without LD in the same way. On
teristically take longer to complete timed tasks, the majority of tests used in studies to assess the
including taking tests (e.g., reading passages, math effectiveness of extended test time, students with-
calculations), than individuals without these dis- out LD as a group either (a) did not use the extra
abilities (Bell & Perfetti, 1994; Benedetto-Nash time, or (b) did not make significant score gains
& Tannock, 1999; Chabot, Zehr, Prinzo, & Petros, with the use of more time (Alster, 1997; Hill, 1984;
2 Vol. 16, No. 1, Fall 2002 (pp. 2 - 16) Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability
Ofiesh, 2000; Runyan, 1991a). However, because tain amount of extended test time was typically
some students without LD may demonstrate score used by participants with LD in studies on ex-
increases with extended test time, it is important tended test time. Furthermore, research variables
to clarify that the purpose of a test accommoda- were identified that could account for differences
tion is to ameliorate the difference between indi- in the amounts of time use among the studies (e.g.,
viduals with and without disabilities. A test ac- type of postsecondary institution or type of test)
commodation like extended test time should not (Runyan, 1991b). The article begins with an in-
accommodate nondisability-related factors that can troduction to how extended test time decisions
impact test taking for all students (fatigue, test are made in postsecondary settings, followed by a
anxiety, motivation, test-taking skills). Thus an review and analysis of the studies, discussion and
important question becomes, “How much extra recommendations.
time is reasonable and fair?” Too little time will
not accommodate the disability. Too much time Determining Appropriateness of Extended Test
may accommodate the disability, as well as Time
nondisability-related factors such as motivation or It is usually the role of the disability service
anxiety, and therefore provide an unfair advan- provider and/or the ADA coordinator to deter-
tage to students without LD. Furthermore, for the mine the reasonableness of a student’s request for
student with LD, too much time may result in test an accommodation based on a disability, in rela-
scores that are an invalid representation of aca- tion to precepts from the ADA. These precepts
demic ability or achievement (Braun, Ragosta, & are (a) the current impact of the disability on a
Kaplan, 1986; Ziomek & Andrews, 1996; Zurcher major life activity, and (b) the functional limita-
& Bryant, 2001). tions of the disability. This information about an
In practice, the process of deciding how far individual’s disability is, in part, documented in
to extend the time limit of a test is not clearly de- the student’s written diagnostic evaluation. Re-
fined, and in most instances there is no precise cent survey research has indicated that most DSP
answer. Rather, postsecondary disability service use a student’s diagnostic evaluation to help make
providers (DSP) estimate an amount of time based decisions about service delivery, including accom-
on a variety of factors such as the disability ser- modations (Ofiesh & McAfee, 2000).
vices program policies, the individual student’s In the same research by Ofiesh and McAfee
strengths and weaknesses, the test, the program (2000), DSP ranked the most useful section of
of study, and other unique information (e.g., pre- the written evaluation to be the diagnostician’s
vious history of accommodation, medication). summary of the student’s cognitive strengths and
However, new studies exist to assist DSP on how weaknesses. This section often details the func-
to weigh these factors and where to begin with tional limitations of a student with LD and there-
this decision, with respect to the ADA. fore helps to determine the reasonableness of an
The goals of this article are twofold. The first accommodation request. Even so, while DSP rated
is to provide individuals who are responsible for this section most useful, they reported that in the
determining appropriate accommodations with a end, they most often used (i.e., relied upon) the
review and analysis of the literature on extended diagnostician’s professional recommendations for
test time with respect to time use. Such informa- their service delivery decisions. Additionally, some
tion also provides researchers with a foundation respondents noted that the sole use of diagnostic
for further investigation into the accommodation evaluations to make service delivery decisions was
of extended test time. The second goal is to pro- ineffective because frequently other “potentially
vide DSP with a benchmark (i.e., a starting point) useful information” such as history of accommo-
from which to gauge their decisions about ex- dation use, current impact of disability on the dif-
tended test time. To accomplish these two goals, ferent academic areas, and other exceptional con-
the literature was analyzed to determine if a cer- ditions was missing. The need for more informa-
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 3
tion to make sound accommodations decisions is maintain the validity of the test based on its pur-
not unique to DSP and the type of information poses, and the specific inferences made from test
needed is like that used in the accommodation de- scores (Wainer & Braun, 1988). Once extended
cision-making process by national testing agen- test time is determined to be appropriate for a
cies (Educational Testing Services, 1998; National certain individual, DSP are left with the determi-
Board of Medical Examiners, 2001). In practice, nation of how much time is appropriate.
some DSP reported that they gather the neces-
sary information through interviews and informal Gauging How Much Time
assessments of their students to supplement the Anecdotal data suggest that practice varies
diagnostic evaluation. However, in determining ex- throughout offices for disability services regard-
tended test time accommodations, DSP must also ing how to gauge the amount of extended test time
consider the characteristics of the specific test to a student may need. Both conservative and liberal
be accommodated. While some diagnosticians re- timing can be found in current practice. For ex-
late functional limitations to certain types of tests, ample, some DSP rely on one standard amount of
others do not make this connection. In some in- time for most, others use ranges from 25%-400%
stances it is simply not practical for a diagnosti- extended time and, though rarely, others provide
cian to detail the functional limitations of an unlimited time. One approach to gauging the
individual’s disability in terms of all the types of amount of time, as recommended by profession-
course tests a student may encounter and need als in the field and in the literature (Alster, 1997;
accommodated (e.g., essay, only math, all mul- Fink, Lissner & Rose, 1999; Jarvis, 1996; Ofiesh,
tiple choice tests/all subjects). Thus, DSP com- 1999; Ofiesh, Brinkerhoff, & Banerjee, 2001;
monly make their own inferences about functional Runyan, 1991b; Weaver, 1993), is to synthesize a
limitations as they relate to specific course tests. variety of information about the student, test and
Two important considerations include the program of study, and evaluate a preponderance
type of test (e.g., essay) and the informational of evidence for each request individually. How-
content on which the student is being tested (e.g., ever, empirical research on the factors that most
reading comprehension, calculus). If time is not relate to the need for, and influence the amount
an essential component of the test (e.g., a test of of, more time is still at its early stages (Ofiesh,
factual knowledge) and a student’s disability sig- 2000; Ofiesh, Kroeger, & Funckes, 2002), and lim-
nificantly impacts the ability to demonstrate what ited data are available to assist DSP in knowing
he or she knows and can do under timed circum- how to weigh certain factors in the synthesis of
stances, the student may qualify for extended test information.
time. This is the most typical scenario in Some individuals have begun to systemati-
postsecondary settings. However, there are other cally collect data at their own institutions in order
instances where time may be an essential compo- to have a better understanding of how certain vari-
nent of a course test (e.g., a timed sprint in a physi- ables influence how much time is reasonable and
cal education class) or the instructor may desire fair. For example, service providers at the Uni-
to make speed a component of a test (e.g., a 5- versity of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) found
minute pop quiz, a firm one-hour medical ethics one way to consider factors related to test char-
test). In these cases, the course instructor and the acteristics and program demands at their institu-
person responsible for authorizing accommoda- tion. At this university, 13 subject areas were evalu-
tions must determine if extended time will invali- ated by the amount of extended time used by stu-
date a test, or remove an essential component from dents with LD. Considerable differences were
the course or a program of study. On occasion, noted among academic areas and the practitioners
the discussion requires mediation at a higher ad- suggested that DSP could gauge the amount of
ministrative or legal level. Most important, the time a student needed, in part, by evaluating simi-
DSP must make test accommodation decisions that lar data at their own institutions (“Use Research,”
4 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability
2000). In the meantime, there clearly appears to Educational Resources Information Center
be a desire on the part of DSP to be well informed (ERIC) and Dissertation Abstracts International
and to make defensible decisions in a professional, (DAI), to identify studies investigating extended
ethical, legal, and empirically based manner. It is test time for postsecondary students with LD. The
our intent through this article to disseminate re- search terms included, “extended test time,” “test
search-based recommendations to promote this accommodations,” “accommodations,” and “test-
worthwhile practice. ing” <and> “students with disabilities.” It was
predetermined that all dissertations and empirical
Method studies published in refereed journals between
1980-2001 on the subject of extended test time
A computer search was conducted using the for postsecondary students with disabilities would
search engine Silver Platter, with the databases be (a) included for consideration in the review,
Table 1
Studies on the Effectiveness of Extended Test Time for Adults with LD
Alster, E. H. (1997). The effects of extended time on the algebra test scores for college students with and
without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 222-227.
Halla, J. W. (1988). A psychological study of psychometric differences in Graduate Record Examina-
tions General Test scores between learning disabled and non-learning disabled adults (Doctoral dis-
sertation, Texas Tech University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 194.
Hill, G. A. (1984). Learning disabled college students: The assessment of academic aptitude. (Doctoral
dissertation, Texas Tech University, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 147.
Jarvis, K. A. (1996). Leveling the playing field: A comparison of scores of college students with and
without learning disabilities on classroom tests (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University,
1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 111.
Ofiesh, N. S. (1997). Using processing speed tests to predict the benefit of extended test time for
university students with learning disabilities. (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 76.
Ofiesh, N. S. (2000). Using processing speed tests to predict the benefit of extended test time for
university students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,
14, 39-56.
Runyan, M. K. (1991a). The effect of extra time on reading comprehension scores for university stu-
dents with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 104-108.
Runyan, M. K. (1991b). Reading comprehension performance of learning disabled and non learning
disabled college and university students under timed and untimed conditions (Doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Berkeley, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 118.
Weaver, S. M. (1993). The validity of the use of extended and untimed testing for postsecondary stu-
dents with learning disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 1993).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 183.
Weaver, S. M. (2000). The efficacy of extended time on tests for postsecondary students with learning
disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10, 47-55.
Note. Runyan’s 1991a study was the pilot research for her dissertation (1991b); therefore Runyan
1991a and 1991b are not the same study.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 5
and (b) analyzed to determine if the results pre- approximately double time to complete the test.
sented data on the participants’ use of extended In two of the seven studies, a range was reported
test time. Only those studies that reported the without a mean (Jarvis, 1996; Runyan, 1991a). In
amount of time used under extended test time con- these cases, the mean was calculated based on the
ditions for students with LD were included for midpoint of the range and should be interpreted
purposes of this investigation. with caution. The Results section presents the
No studies were located that specifically ad- stated purpose(s) and findings of each study. Im-
dressed the issue of “how much time” portant variables that influenced the outcomes of
postsecondary students with LD used. Ten stud- the studies are presented as each study is discussed,
ies were identified in which the effectiveness of followed by a separate section on time use.
extended test time for postsecondary students with
LD was investigated (see Table 1). Seven reported Results
amount of time used and were included in the lit-
erature review for analysis. When amounts of time Summary of Studies Reporting Additional Time
were not reported, the data needed for this inves- Use Under Extended Test Time Conditions
tigation could not be acquired, and these studies Seven studies identified the actual amount
consequently were not included in the review of time participants used under extended test time
(Ofiesh, 2000; Runyan, 1991b; Weaver, 2000). conditions. A summary of the test instruments, test
conditions and the standard, mean, and additional
Analysis of Selected Studies amounts of time study participants used is pre-
Each study was analyzed to identify (a) the sented in Table 2. All studies employed quasi-ex-
dependent variable (i.e., test instruments), the in- perimental designs and included students with and
dependent variables or conditions that provided without LD, attending postsecondary institutions.
the participants with more time (e.g., standard, The studies included a variety of tests to
extended, unlimited), (c) the standard test admin- measure the impact of varying time conditions on
istration time, (d) the participants’ range of total test performance. Tests included (a) Nelson-Denny
test time with extended time conditions, and (e) Reading Test (NDRT) (Brown, Bennett, & Hanna,
the average amount of extended time participants 1981; Brown, Fishco, & Hanna, 1993), either as
used, in relation to the standard administration a total score or one or both subtests (i.e., Vocabu-
time. Once the amount of participants’ total test lary and Comprehension); (b) ASSET Elementary
time use was determined through either a reported Algebra Test (American College Testing Program,
mean (e.g., average of 25 minutes for the group 1989); (c) American College Test (ACT) Social
to complete the test) or a range of performance Studies, English, and Math tests (American Col-
(e.g., 21-32 minutes for the group to complete lege Testing Program, 1981); (d) Graduate Record
the test), the average amount of extended time Examination (GRE) (Educational Testing Service,
was calculated for each dependent variable. 1986); and (e) actual classroom tests (Jarvis,
To determine the average amount of extended 1996); all under a variety of time conditions.
time needed to complete a test, the mean amount Table 2 denotes the independent variable or
of extended time for the group was divided by the condition with the exact titles the researchers used
standard test administration time. For example, in to label the variables or conditions in their studies
one study (Alster, 1997), the standard test admin- (e.g., “unlimited time”). However, since the mean-
istration time was 12 minutes. Under the extended ings of the labels were used inconsistently among
test time condition, students with LD took 25 the researchers, the operational definition of each
minutes to complete the test. Dividing the mean condition is also noted. For example, Alster
time use (e.g., 25 minutes) by the standard ad- (1997), Runyan (1991a), Jarvis (1996), and
ministration time (e.g., 12 minutes), the result 2.1 Weaver (1993) used the terms “extended time”
indicated that students with LD in that study took and “extra time” to describe a condition where
6 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability
Table 2
Time Usage of Participants with LD Under Additional Time Test Conditions
Author Participants Dependent Variable Independent Variable Range and mean of time use TTimimee u ussee u unnddeerr additional time condition
(standard time (test time condition) with more time additional time
administration in (in hours/minutes) cdoinvdiditeiodn b dyi vstiadnedda brdy time
hours/minutes) for students with LD standard time

Alster, E. N=88 ACT ASSET Algebra Test Timed (standard)
(1997) LD n=44 (12 m) Extended time 1 (11-56m), x=25m 2.1

Hill, G. N=96 ACT Social Studies, Timed (standard) and
(1984) LD n=48 English, Math Untimed 2 ACT x=4h, 4m 1.5
(2h, 40m) NDRT x=1h, 14m 2.1
NDRT (1981) Total Score
(35 m)

Halla, J. N=126 GRE (3h, 30m) Timed (standard)
(1988) LD n=66 NDRT (1986) Total Score Untimed 3 GRE x=3h, 17m 0.9
(35m) NDRT x=50 1.4

Jarvis, K. N=157 Classroom Tests Timed (standard)
(1996) LD n=40 (50 m) Test 1 and 2

Extended time 1 Test 3 x=1h, 15m 1.4
Test 3 and 4 Test 4 x=1h, 11m 1.4

Ofiesh, N. N=60 NDRT (1993) Total Score Timed (standard)
(1997) LD n=30 (35 m) Extended time 4 NDRT Total x=45m 1.3

Runyan, M. N=31 NDRT (1981) Comp. Timed (standard)
(1991a) LD n=16 (20 m) Extra time 1 NDRT Comp. (24-49m) x=36 1.8

Weaver, S. N=88 NDRT (1981) Timed (standard)
(1993) University Voc. (15) Extended time 1 Extended time Extended time
students with Comp. (20 m) Uni Voc x=22 m Uni Voc 1.5
LD n=31 Col Voc x=32 m Col Voc 2.1

College students Uni Comp x=27 m Uni Comp 1.4
with LD n=8 Col Comp x=38 m Col Comp 1.9

Untimed 5 Untimed Untimed
Uni Voc x=31 m Uni Voc 2.0
Col Voc x=35 m Col Voc 2.3

Uni Comp x=35 m Uni Comp 1.8
Col Comp x=34 m Col Comp 1.7

1 Participants were first given the standard amount of time, then when time was up they were told to take as much time
as needed to finish the test.
2 Participants were explicitly told to take as much time as needed and to take the test over more than one session if
necessary.
3 Participants were given several tests at once and told to finish as much as they could during the additional test time,
then to finish over as many additional sessions as needed.
4 60% more time than standard; the students were told how much time they would have for each test: 24 m for
Vocabulary and 32 m for Comprehension.
5 Participants wrote in a room by themselves and were told they could have all the time they needed to finish the test.
Note. When time usage was reported in ranges, means were calculated by the midpoint of the range (Jarvis, 1996;
Runyan, 1991a).
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 7
participants were allowed to take as much time as Halla (1988) used the NDRT and the GRE
needed to finish the test once the standard admin- to study the effects of extended test time on score
istration time was up. Ofiesh (1997), on the other performance for students with and without LD.
hand, used the term “extended time” to describe a Her basic results diverged significantly from Hill’s
condition where participants were given 60% more and those of subsequent researchers by the find-
time than standard on an alternate form, and the ing that students with and without LD showed no
students were told at the beginning of the test how difference in timed scores. Both students with and
much time they would have. without LD made substantial score gains under
One of the first controlled studies to assess an unlimited time condition, even though students
the effects of untimed testing conditions on the with LD, on the average, did not use the extra
validity of academic and ability tests for students time. Furthermore, the students without LD used
with and without LD was conducted by Hill approximately 21 minutes more on the GRE than
(1984), who evaluated the impact of timed and students with LD, and both groups used the same
untimed testing on test scores, and the relation- amount of time on the NDRT.
ship of those scores to grade point average (GPA). Two factors may have confounded the out-
For the participants with LD, all three ACT tests come of this study. First, there was a significant
and the two NDRT subtest mean scores were difference between intelligence scores (IQ) of the
higher in the untimed testing condition than in the participants with and without LD. The average
timed testing condition. However, for the partici- IQ for participants with LD was 120.86 and the
pants without LD, the Vocabulary subtest of the average IQ for students without LD was 111.91.
NDRT was the only subtest for which the mean Halla noted that when a secondary analysis con-
score was significantly higher in the untimed test- trolled for IQ, the results changed. In the groups
ing condition than in the timed testing condition. of students with and without LD whose IQs were
Furthermore, Hill found no differences between 117 and below, participants with LD scored sig-
the correlations of timed or untimed ACT test nificantly lower than students without LD under
performance and GPA, concluding that the timed conditions. Moreover, students with LD
untimed ACT score was a valid predictor of col- made enough gains under unlimited time to per-
lege GPA for students with LD only. Students form at par with their nondisabled peers. A sec-
without LD correlated with GPA only under stan- ond confounding variable could be that the par-
dard time conditions. ticipants were told that the purpose of the study
In terms of time usage and test completion, was to assess variable time conditions on perfor-
Hill found that the percentage of completed test mance, thus possibly influencing their performance
items for students with LD under untimed condi- on the exact variable being measured. Since the
tions was nearly 100%, but substantially lower Hill and Halla studies conflicted so dramatically,
with set time limits. Since participants were al- Runyan’s study helped to clarify previous find-
lowed to take as much time as desired, it is not ings.
clear why all students with LD did not complete Participants in Runyan’s study (1991a) were
100% of the test under untimed conditions. It is students with and without LD from the Univer-
possible that some did not want to guess, a prac- sity of California at Berkeley. Results clearly dem-
tice that is commonly recommended on some stan- onstrated that students with LD made greater
dardized tests. However, for the participants with- score gain than students without LD under ex-
out LD the percentage of items completed did not tended test time conditions on the Comprehen-
change with more time. When given unlimited sion section of the NDRT. Furthermore, the scores
time, the average amount of time use for students of students with LD under the extended time con-
without LD on the ACT and NDRT was less than dition were commensurate with both the standard
for students with LD, amounting to 3 hours and 5 and the extended-time scores of students without
minutes on the ACT tests and 1 hour on the NDRT. LD. Runyan controlled for ability using SAT
8 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability
scores, and the findings paralleled Hill’s on the age, only 1 - 5 minutes more than students with
NDRT in terms of the need for more time among LD. Jarvis attributed her performance findings for
students with LD only. In terms of time use, the the groups of students with and without LD to
students with LD all used more time to finish the low statistical power, a consequence of small
test, but only two of the students without LD sample sizes in the control and treatment groups.
needed more time. These two students finished Another important consideration is that students
the test with 3 - 4 minutes more. with and without LD self-selected to participate
Weaver (1993, 2000) confirmed the findings in the extended time condition. Although the sam-
of Hill and Runyan for students with and without pling procedure made an attempt to randomize,
LD and added a condition where the student was the treatment was self-selected. For both students
tested privately with the test untimed. While both with and without LD, it is likely that the students
students with and without LD made some score who elected to participate in the extended time
gains under extended and untimed conditions, only conditions were ones who assumed they would
students with LD made significantly greater gains benefit, or the results would have changed if a
than students without LD. Unlike previous re- greater number of students would have selected
searchers, Weaver hypothesized and confirmed the option.
that there would be significant differences in test Alster (1997) examined the effects of ex-
performance (i.e., amount of gain and time use) tended time on the algebra test scores of commu-
between students from different types of nity college students with and without LD. Find-
postsecondary institutions under varying time con- ings supported previous research in that students
ditions. To test this hypothesis, she included col- with LD made significant score gains with ex-
lege students with and without LD (i.e., students tended test time, whereas their peers without LD
from an open admissions school) and university did not (Hill, 1984; Runyan, 1991a; Weaver,
students with and without LD (i.e., students from 2000), even though the students without LD spent
a competitive school). Like in the Runyan (1991a) an average of 20 minutes on the 12-minute test
study, students without LD needed little more than when given extended time. This was only 5 min-
1 - 4 minutes to complete the NDRT, but students utes less than the average amount of time students
with LD needed and benefited from more time (see with LD spent on the test when given more time.
Table 2). Because the Hill, Runyan, and Weaver Building on the growing body of literature
studies had similar findings, subsequent investi- favoring significant performance differences be-
gations were designed to evaluate new aspects of tween students with and without LD under ex-
the extended test time question. These included tended test time, Ofiesh (1997) investigated the
actual classroom tests, math tests, and the use of validity of the relationship between diagnostic tests
speeded diagnostic tests to predict the benefit of of processing speed and extended test time for
extended test time. students with and without LD. Using the NDRT
Jarvis (1996) studied the effects of extended total test score, a significant relationship was found
test time on four combined short-answer and mul- between processing speed and the benefit of ex-
tiple-choice actual classroom tests at Florida State tended test time for students with LD only. Ofiesh’s
University. Her results diverged from all previous study differed from previous studies on extended
findings and the implications are not clear. Spe- test time in that she controlled the amount of ex-
cifically, the performance of students with LD tra time participants were given—slightly more
under extended test time was similar to that of than time and one-half. Furthermore, she notified
students without LD under standard time. How- students of the amount of time in both the stan-
ever, the difference between standard and extended dard and the extended-time administrations and
test time was not significant for students with LD, used alternate forms for the conditions instead of
but was significant for students without LD. Ad- telling participants to complete the test when the
ditionally, students without LD used, on the aver- standard time was up. Under these conditions,
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 9
previous findings on test performance under ex- Discussion
tended-time conditions between participants with
and without LD were supported, although the Contributions of the Studies to the Determina-
amount of time needed to finish the test was con- tion of How Much Time
siderably less. Time and one-half to double time as a gen-
Two reasons could have accounted for this eral rule. The results of the analysis of time use
difference. First, students may allocate time and suggest that the range of time and a half to double
approach a test differently when told how much time as a basis for decision making is a good place
time will be allowed. Second, Ofiesh used a newer to start and provides enough time for most stu-
version of the NDRT than previous researchers dents with LD to finish a test (Alster, 1997; Hill,
had used. In 1993 the Vocabulary section of the 1984; Jarvis, 1996; Ofiesh, 1997; Runyan, 1991a;
NDRT was shortened from 100 to 80 items, but Weaver, 1993).
the administration time remained the same. The It is important to keep in mind that accom-
newer slightly modified version reduced the modation decisions must be made on an individual
completion rate for test takers in the normative basis. The averages of time use from the studies
sample from 6.7 items per minute to 5.3 items per are fairly consistent, especially on the 1981 ver-
minute. Furthermore, in the Comprehension sec- sion of the NDRT; yet amounts of time are aver-
tion, the number of selections was changed from ages based on aggregated data and mean perfor-
eight to seven shorter selections, but with five in- mance times, not individual performance. Some
stead of four questions for each section (Brown, individuals used no extra time, less than time and
Fishco, & Hanna, 1993). one-half; and some used more than double time,
though less frequently.
Average Amounts of Extended Time Double time may be liberal for some students.
In most studies where students were in- For example, the study by Ofiesh (1997) suggested
structed to take as much time as they needed to that students with LD might take more time than
finish, they usually used an average of more than needed when given that additional time, simply
time and a half but not much more than double because they were given more time. Moreover,
time (e.g., 2.1). The exception was the perfor- the averages that are close to double time may
mance of university students with LD in the have been a result of the tightly timed nature of
Weaver study on the Comprehension section of the standardized tests used in those studies. While
the NDRT (M = 1.4) and in the Ofiesh study on most classroom tests are designed to be finished
both sections of the NDRT (M =1.3). Since the by all students, standardized tests often are not
ranges of time use were reported in four of the designed to be finished by all test takers. For ex-
studies (Alster, 1997; Jarvis, 1996; Ofiesh, 1997; ample, Alster noted that the reported completion
Runyan, 1991a), it was possible to determine the rate of the ASSET is 69% (Alster, 1997). There-
highest and lowest possible amount of time us- fore, close to 30% of the students would not be
age. The largest range was found on the ASSET, expected to finish the ASSET in the allotted stan-
where at least one individual with LD used qua- dard time. While it can be concluded that students
druple time to complete the ASSET and at least with LD needed additional time to finish a test,
one individual completed the test 1 minute under the use of double time may have been influenced
standard time (Alster, 1997). by the test’s built-in completion rate. In other
words, if a test cannot be completed by all test
takers, then it may take an unusually greater
amount of time to finish than a test designed to be
finished by most (e.g., a classroom test). How-
ever, in support of the need for double time on the
ASSET, the summary of data collected at UCLA
10 Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability
(“Use Research,” 2000), ranked math as the fourth 1990). Therefore, service providers working with
highest area among the academic subjects need- students with LD are encouraged to begin to col-
ing the largest amount of additional time for stu- lect a database from their own student body (i.e.,
dents with LD. local norms) for all students who receive extended
This analysis can help frame disability ser- time via a simple coding sheet. Important data to
vice policies at college campuses. At the very least, collect include (a) amount of test time provided,
it is important to be clear about what additional (b) amount of test time used, (c) amount of time
time options a program or office for students with used by subject area, (d) typical length and for-
LD provides (e.g., 25%, 50%, 100%, unlimited). mat of exams by instructor (e.g., essay, case study),
Unlimited time in postsecondary settings is not (e) selected diagnostic tests and student percen-
common practice, but some psychoeducational tile or standard scores, and (e) diagnostician’s rec-
diagnosticians routinely recommend this accom- ommendations for time (Ofiesh, Hughes, & Scott,
modation. Clarity about time options would help 2002). Such information would allow DSP to be-
resolve problems with uncommon recommenda- gin to make decisions regarding the amount of
tions from diagnosticians and student requests time to provide in a systematic way, grounded in
before they are presented. their own data and expert judgment. Ultimately,
Differences among postsecondary institu- practitioners will be able to evaluate and reflect
tions. Weaver (1993) suggested that differences on their approach in the decision of how much
in the amount of additional time used by students time to provide.
with LD vary significantly with the type of Use of indicators in psychoeducational
postsecondary institution. Runyan (1991b) also evaluations. To begin to validate the use of
stated this hypothesis. Both researchers speculated psychoeducational documentation in determining
that this could be due to the characteristics asso- when to give extended test time and how much
ciated with an institution’s admissions require- time to give, one study investigated the correla-
ments and subsequent student body. While Weaver tion between processing speed test scores and the
compared two types of institutions, one with open benefit of extended test time (Ofiesh, 1997). Re-
admission and one with competitive admission, sults showed that the lower a person’s processing
Runyan compared students from a competitive speed score the greater the likelihood of benefit
four-year institution with students from a com- from extended test time for a student with LD.
munity college. In both studies the students in dif- Replications of this study and new research in-
fering institutions demonstrated significant differ- vestigating a more concrete relationship between
ences in the amount of time it took to complete these and other scores that impact speed (e.g.,
the test. Since the average intelligence of a stu- memory retrieval) and amount of time are in pro-
dent body can change as a function of admissions cess; however, these findings suggest DSP can use
requirements (Longstreth, Walsh, Alcorn, the Cross Out and Visual Matching test of the WJ-
Szeszulski, & Manis, 1986), these findings also R and the Reading Fluency test of the WJ-III as
relate to Halla’s conclusion that the IQ of students one indicator to gauge the need for and amount
with LD can impact performance under differently of extended test time (Ofiesh, 2000; Ofiesh,
timed conditions. One way to address the hetero- Kroeger, Funckes, 2002).
geneity in test performance among student popu- When considered, cognitive and academic
lations is to analyze the test-taking performance tests reported in diagnostic evaluations should be
and accommodation decision process for students interpreted in terms of standard scores and per-
at institutions separately (Ofiesh, 2000). Known centile ranks as these scores are measures of rela-
as local norms, service providers at postsecondary tive standing and can illustrate how an individual
institutions have used this type of data effectively compares to peers in terms of speed of process-
to evaluate the specific characteristics of students ing information. For example, when an individual
with LD within a specific student body (Mellard, receives a percentile score of 10 on a processing
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 11