View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Integrating Actual Time Usage into the Assessment of Examination Time Extensions Provided to Disabled College Engineering Students

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Integrating Actual Time Usage into the Assessment of Examination Time Extensions Provided to Disabled College Engineering Students
Language: English
Authors: Golan, Maya, Singer, Gonen, Rabin, Neta, Kleper, Dvir
Source: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2020 45(7):988-1000.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Undergraduate Students, Students with Disabilities, Engineering Education, Testing Accommodations, Time, Equal Education, Grades (Scholastic), Foreign Countries, Special Needs Students, Tests, Intellectual Disciplines, Program Effectiveness
Geographic Terms: Israel
DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1717434
ISSN: 0260-2938
Abstract: In this study, we suggest combining the monitoring of actual examination time used with grades in order to assess examination time extensions in terms of access provision and expected outcome. Using naturally-occurring data collected from a large sample (N = 2315) of undergraduate engineering students, we argue that extended examination time may be regarded as providing equal access when a disabled student actually utilizes "more" examination time than a normally achieving student, regardless of the grade obtained. We further argue that extended examination time may be regarded as resulting in the expected outcome when a disabled student either (a) utilizes "less" or "equal" examination time and achieve grades that are lower than a normally achieving student, or (b) utilizes "more" examination time and achieve grades that are "equal" to a normally achieving student. In our data, equal access was provided in all courses (i.e. disabled students utilized more time than normal achievers), but the expected outcome (i.e. equal grades) was not observed in software and English examinations. The results of this study emphasize the importance of monitoring actual time usage in addition to performance measures when assessing examination time extensions.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1272080
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHik3jZem15F1FzbEVsamcEAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCwMG7G8_ww5NM2vwAIBEICBm_f1wRhEhQlE2mKwvcjE0MFlPy3J2w4Vs-a-fk0Kk1HhRiazwjqjCcVUTiBBAxMJAv3e0e_Yzwu8re5c0GgbdsLo3FPfCUob7-PdCpZMnYsD-qVL30uiEOXs-DZgeYXw5IHjLl4h7bXsF5bt3isAgnl5IYNWbw3qRKFMmdcrJlm_mxIvFoQB1Dat12qTQkc5flOJ2YJvUQaSFCGo
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0146411627;eva01nov.20;2020Oct15.03:30;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0146411627-1">Integrating actual time usage into the assessment of examination time extensions provided to disabled college engineering students </title> <p>In this study, we suggest combining the monitoring of actual examination time used with grades in order to assess examination time extensions in terms of access provision and expected outcome. Using naturally-occurring data collected from a large sample (N = 2315) of undergraduate engineering students, we argue that extended examination time may be regarded as providing equal access when a disabled student actually utilizes more examination time than a normally achieving student, regardless of the grade obtained. We further argue that extended examination time may be regarded as resulting in the expected outcome when a disabled student either (a) utilizes less or equal examination time and achieve grades that are lower than a normally achieving student, or (b) utilizes more examination time and achieve grades that are equal to a normally achieving student. In our data, equal access was provided in all courses (i.e. disabled students utilized more time than normal achievers), but the expected outcome (i.e. equal grades) was not observed in software and English examinations. The results of this study emphasize the importance of monitoring actual time usage in addition to performance measures when assessing examination time extensions.</p> <p>Keywords: Learning disabilities; time extension; actual examination time usage; accommodations</p> <hd id="AN0146411627-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The prevalence of students who request adjustments to examination arrangements to allow for their disabilities is growing (Gregg and Nelson [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref1">8</reflink>]). In most academic institutions, disabled students are entitled to various accommodations, which are defined as 'changes made in the content, format and/or administration procedure of a test in order to accommodate test takers who are unable to take the test under standard test conditions' (AERA, APA, and NCME [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]). Such accommodations are intended to permit fair and valid measurement of a student's knowledge by compensating for any disability that would otherwise have prevented them from fully demonstrating that knowledge. From a legal perspective, the purpose of a test accommodation is to provide equal educational opportunities, a concept referred to herein as 'access provision'.</p> <p>In most academic institutions, a student is required to present a diagnosis from a certified evaluation institution before being granted any adjustment to the assessment procedure. The nature of the diagnosis is used to determine the type of accommodation required. This could be: provision of an oral or recorded version of the examination, private classroom (Lewandowski, Wood, and Lambert [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref3">15</reflink>]), dispensation for spelling errors, a special response format (Potter, Lewandowski, and Spenceley [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref4">27</reflink>]) or an adjusted time allocation or physical setting for the examination. For a review of accommodation types, see Lindstrom and Gregg ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref5">16</reflink>]). Most academic institutions will grant a request on the basis of a diagnosis alone, despite the argument that accommodations should be granted on the basis of specific evidence of impaired performance and not simply on a diagnosis (Lovett, Gordon, and Lewandowski [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref6">17</reflink>]). The most common accommodation is extended examination time, which can be either a percentage of the regular examination time or an unlimited extension (Weis, Dean, and Osborne [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref7">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given their frequent use, it is understandable that attempts have been made to assess time adjustments as a means of compensating for disabilities. A number of studies have attempted to demonstrate that extended examination time provides a more valid measure of student knowledge than unadjusted assessment, although it could also be the case that time extensions give preferential treatment to disabled students over others (Gregg [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref8">6</reflink>]). Another research focus has been to explore whether extended examination time is a suitable accommodation for different disability types (e.g. Sireci, Scarpati, and Shuhong [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref9">30</reflink>]). Weis, Dean, and Osborne ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref10">34</reflink>]) provided evidence against this by showing that the effect of time extensions on performance varied across different learning disabilities. While these research issues have been examined in some detail, the measurement of the extent to which additional examination time is actually used by disabled students, as well as the question of whether time utilization varies among students taking different courses, have received limited attention. Perhaps there is a tacit assumption that all students utilize the entire time allowed. As proposed in this paper, the actual usage of time may provide an additional means of assessing the value of time extensions.</p> <p>In this paper, we suggest and demonstrate how the value of time extensions can be assessed by combining two metrics: actual amount of examination time used and performance measures (i.e. grades). We apply this approach to a large sample of naturally-occurring data of undergraduate engineering students.</p> <hd id="AN0146411627-3">Theoretical approaches to exploring extended examination time</hd> <p>The main challenge in measuring and evaluating examination time extensions arises from the variance among examination candidates: e.g. severity and type of disability and other interpersonal or demographic variables. These factors may moderate or confound the effect of the time extension (Gregg and Nelson [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>]). Despite accommodations being intended to provide equal access to educational opportunities without ensuring a particular outcome, most researchers have used student performance data (i.e. grade or examination score) to help construct indicators of the influence of time extensions (Cohen, Gregg, and Deng [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>There are two ways of conceptualizing the intended impact of an accommodation on examination performance. The first approach argues that the accommodation should have a positive influence on performance, without giving disabled students an advantage over normally achieving students (Ofiesh and Hughes [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]). An intrinsic assumption of this approach is that normally achieving students would not achieve significant improvements in their scores if allocated more time (Ofiesh [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref14">22</reflink>]). This is referred to as the 'interaction hypothesis' (or the 'maximum potential thesis'), and it argues that accommodations should improve the performance of disabled students while having zero effect on others (Zuriff [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref15">35</reflink>]). The second approach, referred to as the 'differential boost hypothesis', supposes that accommodations would improve the performance of all examinees but would have a more significant impact on the performance of disabled students (Fuchs and Fuchs [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref16">5</reflink>]). This approach raises the question of fairness since, if normally achieving students also improve their performance when given more time, then it may be that the extra time is more than is necessary to compensate for any disability.</p> <p>A significant challenge to the testing of the interaction hypothesis is that, in most situations, disabled students are not assessed under the standard time conditions and normally achieving students are not assessed under the extended time condition. Hence, the data required to check whether the interaction takes place do not naturally exist (Koretz and Hamilton [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref17">11</reflink>]), cannot be collected in naturalistic conditions and is confined to laboratory or simulated experimental studies. Indeed, most research on this type of accommodation is based on Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) data (Sireci, Scarpati, and Shuhong [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref18">30</reflink>]), which obviously do not include data on the performance measures of normally achieving students given extended time.</p> <hd id="AN0146411627-4">Empirical evidence on extended examination time</hd> <p>Empirical evidence assessing accommodations, and in particular extensions to examination time, is rather limited in scope (Mull, Sitlington, and Alper [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref19">21</reflink>]). Only a few empirical studies have investigated the statistical validity of accommodations at the postsecondary level (the population studied in the current paper). Most studies have been designed to support or disprove the claim that extended examinations produce a positive benefit for disabled students (Fuchs and Fuchs [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref20">5</reflink>]), and they have generally focused on elementary-school populations and sample sizes of fewer than 100 children (Sireci, Scarpati, and Shuhong [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref21">30</reflink>]). One exception is a salient study by Lewandowski, Cohen, and Lovett ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]) that focused on postsecondary students and demonstrated that normally achieving students benefited to a greater extent than students with disabilities when given 50% and 100% time extensions in a reading comprehension examination.</p> <p>The two approaches mentioned (the 'interaction' and the 'differential boost' hypotheses) have been variously employed in a range of research studies but a firm conclusion with regard to extended examination time has not been achieved. That is to say, there is insufficient evidence to assess whether extended examination time is a fair and effective way of assessing the performance of disabled students. Most studies demonstrated that the performance of normally achieving students still exceeded that of disabled students in a variety of contexts and conditions (e.g. different types of examination, extended time only for disabled students or extended time for everyone). This may imply that time extensions do not adequately compensate for disabilities, although it is also possible that, in some fields, the disabilities relate to the skill set being assessed. In those cases, one would not expect the disability group to 'catch up with' the others.</p> <p>Gregg and Nelson ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>]) conducted a meta-analysis in which they examined two studies that compared the performance of disabled students and normally achieving students under conditions of extended examination time and no extra time. They found that the performance of normally achieving students was always better than that of disabled students. They also showed that although both groups benefitted from the extra time, the disabled students showed a larger effect of extended time than others. In other words, these findings tend to support the differential boost hypothesis, which holds that providing extra time is beneficial to all examinees, but especially to those with disability. These findings address Gregg's criticism ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]) that studies on time extension do not use control groups (i.e. they do not provide an extended time condition for normally achieving students and a standard time condition for disabled students). Another study that used a control group was that of Lewandowski, Cohen, and Lovett ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref25">13</reflink>]). This study is of particular relevance to the current research because it focused on postsecondary students. The authors demonstrated that normally achieving students benefited to a greater extent than disabled students when given 50% and 100% time extensions in a reading comprehension examination. A recent study by Miller, Lewandowski, and Antshel ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref26">20</reflink>]) showed the opposite effect: college students with ADHD benefitted more than students without ADHD from time extensions. This again lends support to the differential boost hypothesis.</p> <p>In commenting on the inconclusive empirical evidence, Sireci, Scarpati, and Shuhong ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref27">30</reflink>]) argued that the assessment of accommodations is problematic due to variations in the type of adjustments made, the implementation methods and the type of disability. However, although the empirical evidence may not be sufficient to justify the use of time extensions, Sireci, Scarpati, and Shuhong ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref28">30</reflink>]) do accept that, in general, the 'differential boost hypothesis' is supported by the data, i.e. extended examination time improves the performance of all students but has a greater effect on disabled students.</p> <p>Other scholars have explored specific types of examination in order to assess whether the topic studied mediates the effect of extended time on performance. For example, Lindstrom and Gregg ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>]) examined whether extended time causes a change in the factorial structure of critical reading, mathematics and writing SAT examination scores. They concluded that the scores obtained by disabled students who received time extensions could be interpreted in the same way as the scores of other students who worked under normal time constraints. Furthermore, this result held for all three subject areas. Cohen, Gregg, and Deng ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>]) discovered that mathematics competency is the source of the gap in scores between high-school students with and without disability—a gap that would not be closed through the use of examination accommodations. Lewandowski, Lovett, and Rogers ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref31">14</reflink>]) examined the influence of extended time reading comprehension examinations, showing that although normally achieving students benefited more from extended time than disabled students, the time extension enabled an access to an equal number of questions to the two groups.</p> <p>This paper addresses some of the gaps in the literature by proposing that a combination of performance measure (i.e. grades) and actual time usage allows the assessment of time extensions in terms of both access provision (i.e. whether the time extension is actually used) and expected outcome (i.e. that an equal academic level disabled student will achieve lower grades than a normal achiever if the time extension is not used, and equal grades if it is used).</p> <hd id="AN0146411627-5">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146411627-6">Participants</hd> <p>The data consisted of examinations taken by 2315 undergraduate students (339 females and 1976 males) at an Israeli academic college of engineering during the spring semester of 2013 (see Table 1). The table presents demographic information for disabled students and normally achieving students, as well as their grades at college and in the Israeli SAT. Among disabled students, the average grade at college (across all courses) was significantly higher for female students than males. Among normally achieving students, the average grade of the Israeli SAT (which can range from 200 to 800) was significantly lower for female students than males.</p> <p>Table 1. Age, gender and performance (both college and high-school) of the participants.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td>Age</td><td>Gender</td><td>Grade</td><td>Israeli SAT</td></tr><tr><td /><td>N</td><td>M (SD)</td><td>F</td><td>M</td><td>F</td><td>M</td><td>F</td><td>M</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Disables students</td><td char=".">296</td><td>29 (3)</td><td char=".">54</td><td char=".">242</td><td char=".">77.2* (6.6)</td><td char=".">74.6 (8.8)</td><td char=".">588.3 (41.9)</td><td char=".">587.8 (50.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Normally achieving students</td><td char=".">2019</td><td char=".">31.3 (4.0)</td><td char=".">285</td><td char=".">1734</td><td char=".">77.6 (8.8)</td><td>77 (9.0)</td><td char=".">587.8* (54.1)</td><td char=".">593.4 (57.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">2315</td><td char=".">31.1 (4.0)</td><td char=".">339</td><td char=".">1976</td><td char=".">77.5 (8.5)</td><td char=".">76.7 (9.0)</td><td>588 (52.4)</td><td char=".">592.7 (57.1)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 The <emph>p</emph> value is less than 0.05 (<0.05)</p> <p>The students were enrolled in one of the following departments: industrial, medical, electrical, software or mechanical engineering. In total, 296 students (13% of the sample) were given an accommodation of extended examination time after providing a diagnosis of their disability from a certified evaluation institution; however, we were not able to verify the validity of their diagnoses. The prevalence and types of disabilities in the database are detailed in Table 2. The two most common diagnoses were ADHD (37% of the sample) and dyslexia (26%). An accommodation of 25% time extension was provided for all types of disabilities. Other accommodations, such as having the test read out loud, oral examination and writing with a pencil were provided in a small number of cases, but their prevalence was negligible and they were not included in the data set.</p> <p>Table 2. Types and learning disability and their prevalence.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Disability</td><td>Prevalence</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>ADHD</td><td char=".">109 (37%)</td></tr><tr><td>Dyslexia</td><td char=".">77 (26%)</td></tr><tr><td>Others<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">42 (14%)</td></tr><tr><td>Medical problem</td><td char=".">32 (11%)</td></tr><tr><td>Dysgraphia</td><td char=".">16 (5.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>Executive functioning</td><td char=".">6 (2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Dysphasia</td><td char=".">5 (1.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Psychiatric disorder</td><td char=".">3 (1%)</td></tr><tr><td>New immigrant<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td><td char=".">3 (1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Auditory disorder</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Dyspraxia</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>Arabic language<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref></td><td char=".">1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 Others included visual disorder, test anxiety and temporal conditions.</item> <item>3 New immigrants and Arabic speakers are included in Table 2 because these students are not native Hebrew speakers and may need more time to read and write examinations in Hebrew.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0146411627-7">Data collection, measures and analysis</hd> <p>The 2315 participants took (all together) 8,086 examinations from 158 different courses. Each of the 2315 students sat a different number of examinations, ranging from a single test to twelve tests, with 80% taking between two to eight tests. Each of the 158 courses generated two examinations, with a time frame of three weeks between these examinations. Students were entitled to take both tests in each course, and approximately 15% of our data consisted of the same student taking a second test in the same course. Each examination began either at 09:00, 13:00 or 17:00 M. The disabled students took a total of 1,492 examinations (18.45% of the sample). Their time allotment was 25% longer than that given to normally achieving students, i.e. 225 min instead of the standard 180 min in most (95% of) examinations. For the remaining 5% of examinations, the extended and standard examination times were either 187.5 and 150 min, or 150 and 120 min, respectively. The time extension followed the standard examination, and students with a time extension continued the examination in the same room without any break.</p> <p>The examination invigilators recorded the following data for each of the examination-student combinations: the examination subject, the start time, the scheduled duration of the examination for that student, the actual time at which each student handed in their paper, and the student identity code. A further variable, the percentage of the allocated time that was actually used, was computed from the raw data. In addition, the achieved grades were subsequently integrated into the dataset and the records were anonymized before analysis.</p> <p>Statistical tests were performed in order to examine whether the grades and the percentage time used differed between disabled and normally achieving students. These comparisons were carried out for the dataset as a whole and then for subsets of the data defined by the following seven course types: English (basic writing and reading skills), qualitative (humanities and social sciences), software (programming languages, computer sciences), mathematics (calculus, algebra), physics (mechanics, electricity and modern physics), engineering (a variety of courses from all engineering disciplines that were not included in the other categories), and economics (macro and micro economics, finance).</p> <hd id="AN0146411627-8">Results</hd> <p>We compared the grades, the absolute time used, and the percentage of the allocated time used, between disabled and normally achieving students. The percentage of time used by disabled students was the amount of time they actually used expressed as a percentage of the time that they were entitled to (including the extension). The comparisons were made (a) across the complete dataset and (b) separately for each course type. For the complete dataset, there was a small but significant difference between the two groups in terms of grades: normally achieving students achieved marginally higher grades (mean = 69.87, SD = 20.34) than disabled students (mean = 68.32, SD = 20.89). As expected, the disabled students used some of the extra time allocated to them, so that they spent, on average, 36 min longer than other students in completing their papers.</p> <p>With regard to the percentage of the time allocation that was used, there was no significant difference between the two groups: normally achieving students used 91% of their time (for 180-minute examinations, a mean of 164 min) and disabled students used 89% of their time (for 225-minute examinations, a mean of 200 min) (Table 3). Thus, on average, the time used by disabled students was 111% of the standard time, which is below the 125% they were entitled to use.</p> <p>Table 3. Time used, percentage of allotted time used, and grades for students with disabled students and normally achieving students.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Normally achieving students</td><td>Disabled students</td><td>t</td><td>p</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>N</td><td>6594</td><td>1492</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Mean time used in minutes (SD)</td><td>164 (22)</td><td>200 (3)</td><td>−39.43</td><td><0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Mean percentage of allotted time used (SD)</td><td>91.11% (1.79)</td><td>88.88% (0.17)</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>Mean grade (SD)</td><td>69.87 (20.34)</td><td>68.32 (20.89)</td><td>2.64</td><td>0.008</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note:</emph> The relatively small standard deviations that appear in Table 3 are caused by a ceiling effect—in most examinations students utilized the maximum time allowed.</p> <p>In English courses and software courses, disabled students received significantly lower mean grades than other students: a difference of 9.9% and 3.9% respectively. In the other five course types—qualitative, mathematics, physics, engineering and economics—the grades for the two groups were not significantly different. With regard to the percentage use of the time allocation, the results indicate a significant difference only for English courses, in which disabled students utilized almost 10% more of their total allowance than others. In all other course categories, there was no significant difference between the percentages of time utilized by the two groups (see Table 4). Table 4 also reports the mean percentage of time used by disabled students expressed in relation to the <emph>standard</emph> examination time. This ranges from 98% in English and qualitative courses to 118% in physics.</p> <p>Table 4. Measures of time usage and grades for disabled students and normally achieving students by course type.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Normally achieving students</td><td>Disabled students</td><td>Percentage of allotted time used: comparison</td><td>Grade: comparison</td></tr><tr><td>Course</td><td>N</td><td>Time used (min)</td><td>Mean percentage of allotted time used (SD)</td><td>Mean grade (SD)</td><td>N</td><td>Time used (min)</td><td>Mean percentage of time used compared to standard time</td><td>Mean percentage of allotted time used (SD)</td><td>Mean grade (SD)</td><td>t</td><td>p</td><td>ES (Cohen's d)</td><td>t</td><td>p</td><td>ES (Cohen's d)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>English</td><td char=".">138</td><td char=".">128</td><td char=".">82.8% (0.24)</td><td char=".">72.68 (15.15)</td><td char=".">36</td><td char=".">177</td><td char=".">98.33%</td><td char=".">92.68% (0.21)</td><td char=".">62.78 (18.57)</td><td char=".">−2.27</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">0.42</td><td char=".">3.33</td><td char=".">0.001</td><td char=".">−0.62</td></tr><tr><td>Qualitative</td><td char=".">356</td><td char=".">135</td><td char=".">78.33% (0.25)</td><td char=".">70.68 (17.35)</td><td char=".">83</td><td char=".">177</td><td char=".">98.33%</td><td char=".">82.55% (0.25)</td><td char=".">72.17 (16.92)</td><td char=".">−1.37</td><td char=".">0.17</td><td /><td char=".">−0.71</td><td char=".">0.47</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Software</td><td char=".">823</td><td char=".">166</td><td char=".">84.05% (0.19)</td><td char=".">74.17 (21.58)</td><td char=".">164</td><td char=".">201</td><td char=".">111.67%</td><td char=".">81.75% (0.22)</td><td char=".">70.27 (23.2)</td><td char=".">1.4</td><td char=".">0.16</td><td /><td char=".">2.09</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">−0.17</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td char=".">1257</td><td char=".">160</td><td char=".">88.98% (0.15)</td><td char=".">67.90 (22.08)</td><td char=".">260</td><td char=".">203</td><td char=".">112.78%</td><td char=".">90.47% (0.15)</td><td char=".">68.23 (22.01)</td><td char=".">−1.44</td><td char=".">0.15</td><td /><td char=".">−0.22</td><td char=".">0.80</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td char=".">595</td><td char=".">171</td><td char=".">95.28% (0.1)</td><td char=".">62.52 (18.9)</td><td char=".">134</td><td char=".">213</td><td char=".">118.33%</td><td char=".">93.85% (0.14)</td><td char=".">60.23 (19.3)</td><td char=".">1.36</td><td char=".">0.17</td><td /><td char=".">1.26</td><td char=".">0.20</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td char=".">3304</td><td char=".">168</td><td char=".">95.28% (2.53)</td><td char=".">70.46 (19.7)</td><td char=".">797</td><td char=".">201</td><td char=".">111.67%</td><td char=".">90.94% (0.16)</td><td char=".">68.99 (20.49)</td><td char=".">0.48</td><td char=".">0.60</td><td /><td char=".">1.88</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">−0.074</td></tr><tr><td>Economics</td><td char=".">121</td><td char=".">166</td><td char=".">92.26% (0.13)</td><td char=".">75.68 (18.66)</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">205</td><td char=".">113.89%</td><td char=".">91.21% (0.09)</td><td char=".">76.00 (18.22)</td><td char=".">0.34</td><td char=".">0.70</td><td /><td char=".">−0.07</td><td char=".">0.90</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Overall, the analysis in Table 4 indicates that the examination time extension did not remove the performance gap between disabled and normally achieving students in English and software courses, but resulted in similar grades for both groups in other types of course. Disabled students utilized a higher percentage of the available time in English, but not in any other subject. The relatively small standard deviations that appear in Table 4 are caused by a ceiling effect—in most examinations students utilized the maximum time allowed.</p> <p>We suggest assessing the value of examination time extensions by combining two measures: the actual time (not the percentage of time) used by disabled students relative to that used by normally achieving students, and the grades of disabled students relative to those of normally achieving students. We treat each of these measures as a trichotomous variable that can take: a higher value, a lower value or a value that is not statistically significantly different between a disabled and a normally achieving student. We suggest exploring the nine possible combinations of these variables (see Table 5) in terms of their implications for both access provision and expected outcome. Access provision refers to whether the time extension was actually used by disabled students and is achieved when disabled students utilize significantly more time, regardless of the grade obtained. The expected outcome refers to whether the grades obtained by disabled students were expected given the amount of time that was actually used and presupposing that the disabled students and the normally achieving students have similar academic abilities. This would be answered in the affirmative in either of the following cases: (i) Disabled students utilize less or equal time and obtain lower grades than normally achieving students, or (ii) Disabled students utilize more time and obtain equal grades to normally achieving students. The combinations that represent access provision and expected outcome are marked with a '+' sign in Table 5.</p> <p>Table 5. A model for integrating actual time usage (relative to that used by normally achieving students) and grades in order to assess examination time extensions.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Access provision</td><td>Expected outcome</td></tr><tr><td>Grades Time</td><td>Lower</td><td>Equal</td><td>Higher</td><td>Lower</td><td>Equal</td><td>Higher</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Less</td><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">+</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Equal</td><td /><td /><td /><td char=".">+</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>More</td><td char=".">+</td><td char=".">+</td><td char=".">+</td><td /><td char=".">+</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Applying the suggested model to our findings leads to the following conclusions: In English courses, disabled students used more time than normally achieving students and their grades were lower; therefore, access was provided but the outcome was not as expected (assuming similar academic ability). Similar results were obtained with regard to software courses. In qualitative, mathematics, physics and economics courses, disabled students again used more time than did normally achieving students, meaning that access was provided, but since their grades were not statistically different, the outcome was as expected.</p> <hd id="AN0146411627-9">Discussion</hd> <p>The results of this study indicate the importance of considering the following three variables when evaluating extended examination time for disabled students: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref32">1</reflink>) the actual time usage (i.e. the amount of time actually used by disabled relative to normally achieving students); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>) the difference in the percentage of time usage for the two groups (where the 'percentage of time usage' is the actual time used as a proportion of the standard examination time for normally achieving students and as a proportion of the extended examination time for disabled students); and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>) course type. In English courses, disabled students utilized more time than normally achieving students. In the other course types that were examined in this study, the percentage of time utilized was similar for the two groups. However, the greater percentage of time usage in English courses did not result in higher grades. On the contrary, the performance of disabled students in these courses was substantially lower than that of normally achieving students. In software courses, the percentage of time usage was similar for the two groups, but their performance was different; the average grade of disabled students was lower than that of normally achieving students.</p> <p>Our results are comparable to the few studies that have measured actual time usage. In our study, disabled students utilized approximately 20 percent more time than normally achieving students (200 min compared to 164 min, see Table 3). Cahalan-Laitusis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref35">3</reflink>]) reported that SAT examinees with learning disabilities and ADHD used only 4 to 14 percent more time than normally achieving students. Sokal and Vermette ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref36">32</reflink>]) showed that postsecondary disabled students did not utilize their time extension at all in more than one-third of the tests they took, and utilized only part of it in the other two-thirds. Similarly, Spenceley and Wheeler ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref37">31</reflink>]) reported that fewer than half of disabled college students utilized any time extensions in tests. Another interesting finding with regard to actual time usage is that the actual time taken to finish a reading comprehension task was not related to accuracy (Lovett, Lewandowski, and Potts [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref38">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our results in relation to 'expected outcome' are not fully consistent with previous studies. According to Gregg and Nelson ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref39">8</reflink>]), normally achieving students still outperformed disabled students when the latter were given extended examination time, but the authors did not report an effect of examination type. Gregg ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]) argued that the poorer performance of disabled students often reported in the literature may, in part, reflect academic skills that are below average. Our findings indicate that normally achieving students outperformed disabled students only in English and software courses. Thus, they do not replicate previous results, at least not for the majority of courses.</p> <p>Previous studies shed some light on our finding that examination time extension did not result in the expected outcome for students taking software and English courses. First, Ofiesh's ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref41">23</reflink>]) literature review noted strong empirical evidence for an effect of extended examination time on algebra assessments but less clear results for foreign language examinations. Second, one of the significant challenges associated with providing accommodations for foreign language disabled students is that the disabilities may interact directly with the language skills themselves (Ofiesh [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref42">23</reflink>]). This means that the impact of disability may be significantly greater for students taking foreign language courses than for other disciplines. Third, software and English examinations require more writing than examinations in the other subjects represented in our data. Scholars have emphasized that disabled students encounter a host of challenges when required to write. These challenges may include inappropriate pressure placed on the writing device, mirror writing (Mercer and Mercer [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref43">19</reflink>]), a slow rate of writing (Hughes and Suritsky [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref44">10</reflink>]) or poor writing organization (Gregg et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref45">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Moreover, studies have indicated that dyslexia, characterized by a slower reading pace and the omission and misidentification of words, is the most prevalent disability among students (Shaywitz et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref46">29</reflink>]), therefore it is likely to have been a secondary disability for many students who are not in the 'dyslexia' category in our data. Postsecondary students with dyslexia achieve lower grades than normally achieving students and their grades improve when they are provided with extended examination time (Lesaux, Pearson, and Siegel [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref47">12</reflink>]). This implies that for students whose disabilities include dyslexia, the additional time allocated should depend on the amount of reading that the examination entails.</p> <p>Another important aspect that should be considered when comparing our findings with the literature is the distinction between power and speed tests. A power test mainly focuses on assessing accuracy, while the test-taker is assumed to have sufficient time to attempt to answer all items. In a speed test, on the other hand, the test-taker is largely evaluated based on his or her performance speed; the items are relatively easy, so the difference between different test-takers depends on the number of questions they were able to answer (Anastasi [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref48">2</reflink>]). In real settings, most tests are some combination of speed and power (Ofiesh, Mather, and Russell [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref49">25</reflink>]). In our study, which was based on 180-minute examinations, the examinations may be regarded as primarily tests of power rather than speed. The tests in software and English, however, required more reading and writing than examinations in other subjects, and thus may have been more akin to speed tests than power tests. This could help to explain why in these two courses, extended time did not result in similar grades to those achieved by normally achieving students.</p> <p>Our findings also differ from those of previous studies in relation to the ideal length of the time extension. Ofiesh and Hughes ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref50">24</reflink>]) concluded that 150% or double time is generally effective. Weis, Dean, and Osborne ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref51">34</reflink>]) also noted that most clinicians recommend 50% additional time, but without specifying why. Furthermore, Sokal and Wilson ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref52">33</reflink>]) reported that 150% is the most common duration of time extensions, although they also highlighted the lack of procedures for monitoring or modifying this duration. We could not find an empirical or theoretical justification for the recommendation to provide a 50% examination time extension. Therefore, we argue that the 50% extension is a rule of thumb that has not been sufficiently validated and should be questioned and further explored. Indeed, Lewandowski, Cohen, and Lovett ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref53">13</reflink>]) found that disabled students who received 50% and 100% time extensions outperformed normally achieving students on reading comprehension examinations. They reached the following radical conclusion, that: 'If speed is truly of no importance, time limits should be liberalized for all examinees, and if speed has any relevance, time limits should be empirically determined. Extended time should only be given in special situations, therefore avoiding some of the rampant and arbitrary use we see today' (p. 335).</p> <hd id="AN0146411627-10">Conclusions and limitations</hd> <p>Our study has examined some original features of the relationship between extended examination times and the performance of disabled students. First, it advocates the monitoring of actual time usage as an assessment tool for time extensions. Our argument is that providing disabled students with extra time in order to grant them equal access to the examination is a necessary but not sufficient condition to demonstrate their abilities; there should also be a clear indication that the additional time was actually used. Future work should combine actual usage of examination time with grade measures in order to assess extended examination time. In addition, measuring actual usage of examination time, as in this study, provides an opportunity to evaluate the interaction hypothesis using naturally occurring data. This is because examinations in which students do not utilize the entire time allocation can be regarded as examinations in which both disabled and normally achieving students have an unlimited time allotment.</p> <p>Second, as evidenced by Sireci, Scarpati and Shuhong's ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref54">30</reflink>]) review, most studies on examination time extensions are based on small samples (less than 100 participants) consisting mostly of schoolchildren. Our work relies on a much larger sample and employs a very substantial dataset for the evaluation of time extensions in an undergraduate population of student engineers. Further, since there is less information on the progress of disabled students studying science than those studying other domains, the current research provides a useful extension to the literature, particularly as disabled students do not perform as well in the sciences as their peers without disabilities (Scruggs and Mastropieri [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref55">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, our results show a clear difference among courses. We demonstrated that extended examination time for disabled students did not result in the expected outcome in English and software courses, although it did in other courses. That disabled students used more time in English examinations than other students, and yet received lower grades, may indicate that a different accommodation is required for English examinations. This underlines the importance of exploring extended examination time in specific contexts. In keeping with the suggestion of Weis, Dean, and Osborne ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref56">34</reflink>]), it is important both to explore the accommodation decision-making process and to tailor accommodations to the characteristics of individual students in particular academic contexts. Indeed, Gregg ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref57">7</reflink>]) argued that accommodations should be personally adapted to the specific needs of the student and the relevant course. Ofiesh ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref58">22</reflink>]) recommended that rather than taking a universal approach towards accommodations, academic institutions should analyze the performance of disabled students in order to determine the necessity of granting accommodations and the effectiveness of extended examination time in the context of academic studies in various fields.</p> <p>Fourth, our results question the rule of thumb of providing an examination time extension of 50% and demonstrate that an extension of 25% might be more suitable in many academic disciplines. Future research should further explore the impact of the length of time extensions, in order to develop optimal extensions for particular combinations of student characteristics and subject domains.</p> <p>There are several limitations of our study. First, due to the nature of our database—a very large sample, but with limited information on each student and examination—we were unable to evaluate statistically the construct validity and reliability of the examinations used for measuring performance. For the same reason, we could not perform calculations of effect size, nor could we investigate mediating/intervening variables. Our data do not enable the investigation of how disabled students would perform without extended time, nor of how normally achieving students would perform with extended time. Therefore, the design of this study does not allow the validity of the accommodation to be tested, but rather it enables a comparison between what one group can achieve with standard time and another group with extra time. Future research may use more detailed databases—ones that include additional methodologies—to further explore our proposition that the actual time used is salient in evaluating the effectiveness of extended time for disabled students.</p> <p>Second, the validity of the disability diagnoses was not assessed. We cannot rule out the possibility that some students who were classified as having a disability were not in fact entitled to an examination time extension and vice versa: that some students who were classified as normally achieving have learning disabilities. This may explain why, for example, in mathematics and economics courses, disabled students received slightly higher grades than normally achieving students. This raises two additional interesting directions for future work: first, the validity of current procedures for diagnosing disabilities, and second, the necessity of time constraints for academic examinations. According to some authors (e.g. Lewandowski, Cohen, and Lovett [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref59">13</reflink>]) speed should not be a salient factor when evaluating students by means of an examination. Thus, if examinations were universally administered without time limitations, there would be no need to evaluate them.</p> <p>Third, the data in this study were collected in a naturally-occurring context, where time extensions were provided to students based solely on a disability diagnosis. We could not apply any validity tests to the accommodation process such as verifying that the extended time did not change the skill measured or that nondisabled examinees did not benefit from the time extension, as suggested by Phillips ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref60">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Fourth, our data consisted of a single accommodation—a time extension granted for a variety of disabilities (see Table 2). Consequently, we could not explore the potential confounding effect of other types of accommodation (such as text-to-speech or speech-to-text) on the grades obtained and the actual time used by disabled students. Nor could we explore the relationships between these two metrics and the type of disability. Future work should explore combining more than one type of accommodation with actual time utilization and performance for students with different types of disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0146411627-11">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0146411627-12"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> AERA, APA, and NCME. 2014. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC : American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref33" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anastasi, A. 1988. Psychological Testing. 6th ed. New York : Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref34" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Cahalan-Laitusis, C., T. C. King, F. Cline, and B. Bridgman. 2006. " Observational Timing Study of the SAT Reasoning Test for Test Takers with Learning Disabilities and/or AD/HD." Board Research Report No. 2006-4. New York, NY : The College Board.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref12" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, A. S., N. Gregg, and M. Deng. 2005. " The Role of Extended Time and Item Content on High-Stakes Mathematics Test." Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 20 (4): 225 – 233. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00138.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref16" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Fuchs, L. S., and D. Fuchs. 2001. " Helping Teachers Formulate Sound Test Accommodation Decisions for Students with Learning Disabilities." Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 16 (3): 174 – 181. doi: 10.1111/0938-8982.00018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref8" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Gregg, N. 2009. " Accommodations: Evidence-Based Accommodation Research Specific to the Adolescent and Adult Population with Learning Disabilities." In Learning to Achieve: A Review of the Research Literature on Serving Adults with Learning Disabilities, edited by J. Taymens, 119 – 180. Washington, DC : National Institute for Literacy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Gregg, N. 2012. " Increasing Access to Learning for the Adult Basic Education Learner with Learning Disabilities: Evidence-Based Accommodation Research." Journal of Learning Disabilities 45 (1): 47 – 63. doi: 10.1177/0022219411426855.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref1" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Gregg, N., and J. M. Nelson. 2012. " Meta-Analysis on the Effectiveness of Extra Time as a Test Accommodation for Transitioning Adolescents with Learning Disabilities: More Questions than Answers." Journal of Learning Disabilities 45 (2): 128 – 138. doi: 10.1177/0022219409355484.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref45" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Gregg, N., C. Coleman, R. Stennett, and M. Davis. 2002. " Discourse Complexity of College Writers with and without Learning Disabilities." Journal of Learning Disabilities 35 (1): 23 – 38. doi: 10.1177/002221940203500103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes, C. A., and S. K. Suritsky. 1994. " Note-Taking Skills of University Students with and without Learning Disabilities." Journal of Learning Disabilities 27 (1): 20 – 24. doi: 10.1177/002221949402700105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koretz, D., and L. Hamilton. 2001. " The Performance of Students with Disabilities on New York's Revised Regents Comprehensive Examination in English." CSE Technical Report 540. Los Angeles, CA : Center for the Study of Evaluation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lesaux, N. K., M. R. Pearson, and L. S. Siegel. 2006. " The Effects of Timed and Untimed Testing Conditions on the Reading Comprehension Performance of Adults with Reading Disabilities." Reading and Writing 19 (1): 21 – 48. doi: 10.1007/s11145-005-4714-5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewandowski, L., J. Cohen, and B. J. Lovett. 2013. " Effects of Extended Time Allotments on Reading Comprehension Performance of College Students with and without Learning Disabilities." Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 31 (3): 326 – 336. doi: 10.1177/0734282912462693.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewandowski, L., B. J. Lovett, and C. L. Rogers. 2008. " Extended Time as a Testing Accommodation for Students with Reading Disabilities: Does a Rising Tide Lift All Ships? " Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 26 (4): 315 – 324. doi: 10.1177/0734282908315757.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewandowski, L., W. Wood, and T. Lambert. 2015. " Private Room, as a Test Accommodation." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 40 (2): 279 – 285. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2014.911243.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindstrom, J. H., and N. Gregg. 2007. " The Role of Extended Time on the SAT for Students with Learning Disabilities and/or Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder." Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 22 (2): 85 – 95. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00233.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lovett, B. J., M. Gordon, and L. J. Lewandowski. 2009. " Measuring Impairment in a Legal Context: Practical Considerations in the Evaluation of Psychiatric and Learning Disabilities." In Assessing Impairment, edited by S. Goldstein & J. Naglieri, 93 – 103. New York, NY : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lovett, B. J., L. J. Lewandowski, and H. E. Potts. 2017. " Test-Taking Speed: Predictors and Implications." Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 35 (4): 351 – 360.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mercer, C. D., and A. R. Mercer. 2001. Teaching Students with Learning Problems. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Merrill Prentice-Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, L., L. Lewandowski, and K. Antshel. 2015. " Effects of Extended Time for College Students with and without ADHD." Journal of Attention Disorders 19 (8): 678 – 686.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mull, C., P. L. Sitlington, and S. Alper. 2001. " Postsecondary Education for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Synthesis of the Literature." Exceptional Children 68 (1): 97 – 118. doi: 10.1177/001440290106800106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ofiesh, N. S. 2007. " Math, Science and Foreign Language: Evidence-Based Accommodation Decision Making at the Postsecondary Level." Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 22 (4): 237 – 245.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ofiesh, N. S., and C. A. Hughes. 2002. " How Much Time? A Review of the Literature on Extended Test Time for Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities." Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 16 (1): 2 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ofiesh, N., N. Mather, and A. Russell. 2005. " Using Speeded Cognitive, Reading, and Academic Measures to Determine the Need for Extended Test Time among University Students with Learning Disabilities." Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 23 (1): 35 – 52. doi: 10.1177/073428290502300103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips, S. E. 1994. " High-Stakes Testing Accommodations: Validity versus Disabled Rights." Applied Measurement in Education 7 (2): 93 – 120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Potter, K., L. Lewandowski, and L. Spenceley. 2016. " The Influence of a Response Format Test Accommodation for College Students with and without Disabilities." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 41 (7): 996 – 1007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scruggs, T. E., and M. A. Mastropieri. 2004. " Recent Research in Secondary Content Areas for Students with Learning and Behavioral Disabilities." In Research in Secondary Schools: Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Vol. 17, edited by T.E. Scruggs & M.A. Mastropieri. Oxford, UK : Elsevier Science.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaywitz, S. E., B. A. Shaywitz, K. R. Pugh, R. K. Fulbright, R. T. Constable, W. E. Mencl, D. P. Shankweiler, et al. 1998. " Functional Disruption in the Organization of the Brain for Reading in Dyslexia." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (5): 2636 – 2641. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.5.2636.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sireci, S. G., S. E. Scarpati, and L. Shuhong. 2005. " Test Accommodations for Students with Disabilities: An Analysis of the Interaction Hypothesis." Review of Educational Research 75 (4): 457 – 490. doi: 10.3102/00346543075004457.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spenceley, L. M., and S. Wheeler. 2016. " The Extended Time Use of College Students with Disabilities." Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 29 : 141 – 150.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sokal, L., and L. A. Vermette. 2017. " Double Time? Examining Extended Testing Time Accommodations (ETTA) in Postsecondary Settings." Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 30 (2): 185 – 200.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sokal, L., and A. Wilson. 2017. " In the Nick of Time: A Pan-Canadian Examination of Extended Testing Time Accommodation in Post-Secondary Schools." Canadian Journal of Disability Studies 6 (1): 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weis, R., E. L. Dean, and K. J. Osborne. 2016. " Accommodation Decision Making for Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities: Individually Tailored or One Size Fits All? " Journal of Learning Disabilities 49 (5): 484 – 498. doi: 10.1177/0022219414559648.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zuriff, G. E. 2000. " Extra Examination Time for Students with Learning Disabilities: An Examination of the Maximum Potential Thesis." Applied Measurement in Education 13 (1): 99 – 117. doi: 10.1207/s15324818ame1301_5.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Maya Golan; Gonen Singer; Neta Rabin and Dvir Kleper</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref60"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1272080
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Integrating Actual Time Usage into the Assessment of Examination Time Extensions Provided to Disabled College Engineering Students
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Golan%2C+Maya%22">Golan, Maya</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Singer%2C+Gonen%22">Singer, Gonen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rabin%2C+Neta%22">Rabin, Neta</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kleper%2C+Dvir%22">Kleper, Dvir</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Assessment+%26+Evaluation+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2020 45(7):988-1000.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Engineering+Education%22">Engineering Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Testing+Accommodations%22">Testing Accommodations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Time%22">Time</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grades+%28Scholastic%29%22">Grades (Scholastic)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Needs+Students%22">Special Needs Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tests%22">Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intellectual+Disciplines%22">Intellectual Disciplines</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Israel%22">Israel</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1717434
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0260-2938
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In this study, we suggest combining the monitoring of actual examination time used with grades in order to assess examination time extensions in terms of access provision and expected outcome. Using naturally-occurring data collected from a large sample (N = 2315) of undergraduate engineering students, we argue that extended examination time may be regarded as providing equal access when a disabled student actually utilizes "more" examination time than a normally achieving student, regardless of the grade obtained. We further argue that extended examination time may be regarded as resulting in the expected outcome when a disabled student either (a) utilizes "less" or "equal" examination time and achieve grades that are lower than a normally achieving student, or (b) utilizes "more" examination time and achieve grades that are "equal" to a normally achieving student. In our data, equal access was provided in all courses (i.e. disabled students utilized more time than normal achievers), but the expected outcome (i.e. equal grades) was not observed in software and English examinations. The results of this study emphasize the importance of monitoring actual time usage in addition to performance measures when assessing examination time extensions.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1272080
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1272080
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1717434
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 988
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Engineering Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Testing Accommodations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Time
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grades (Scholastic)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Needs Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intellectual Disciplines
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Israel
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Integrating Actual Time Usage into the Assessment of Examination Time Extensions Provided to Disabled College Engineering Students
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Golan, Maya
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Singer, Gonen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rabin, Neta
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kleper, Dvir
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0260-2938
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 45
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1