This study addressed the feasibility and validity of dictation using speech recognition software and dictation to a scribe as accommodations for tests involving extended writing. On the issue of feasibility, high school students with and without learning disabilities (LD) learned to use speech recognition software with acceptable accuracy. Total word errors with speech recognition were under 10%, and there were few unreadable words. On the issue of writing quality, for students with LD, essays dictated using speech recognition were better than handwritten essays, and essays dictated to a scribe were even better. No differences in quality were found for students without LD. The results provide support for the validity of dictation as a test accommodation.
BereiterC.ScardamaliaM. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
BoltS.KrentzJ.ThurlowM. (2002). Are we there yet? Accountability for the performance of students with disabilities (Tech. Rep. No. 33). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 7, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical33.htm.
4.
CavalierA. R.FerrettiR. P. (1996). Talking instead of typing: Alternate access to computers via speech recognition technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 11, 79–85.
5.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
De La PazS.GrahamS. (1997). Effects of dictation and advanced planning instruction on the composing of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 203–222.
7.
Dragon Systems, Inc. (1998). Dragon Naturally Speaking, v. 4, [computer program]. Peabody, MA: SeanSoft.
8.
EricksonR. N.ThurlowM. L. (1996). State special education outcomes 1995. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
9.
GrahamS. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students' compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791.
10.
GrahamS.BerningerV. W.AbbottR. D.AbbottS. P.WhitakerD. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 170–182.
11.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.LoynachanC. (1993). The basic spelling vocabulary list. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 363–368.
12.
GrahamS.HarrisK.MacArthurC. A.SchwartzS. S. (1991). Writing and writing instruction with students with learning disabilities: A review of a program of research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89–114.
13.
HammillD.LarsenS. (1988). Test of Written Language 2. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
14.
HidiS.HildyardA. (1983). The comparison of oral and written productions of two discourse types. Discourse Processes, 6, 91–105.
15.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 1997, § 612(a)(17))(A)).
16.
KingM. L.RentelV. M. (1981). Research update: Conveying meaning in written texts. Language Arts, 58, 721–728.
17.
KoretzD. (1997). Assessing of students with disabilities in Kentucky (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 431). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
18.
KoretzD.HamiltonL. (2000). Assessing students with disabilities in Kentucky: The effects of accommodations, format, and subject (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 498). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
19.
LarsenS. C.HammillD. D. (1976). Test of Written Spelling (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
20.
MacArthurC. A. (1999). Overcoming barriers to writing: Computer support for basic writing skills. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 169–192.
21.
MacArthurC. A. (2000). New tools for writing: Assistive technology for students with writing difficulties. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 85–100.
22.
MacArthurC.GrahamS. (1987). Learning disabled students composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Journal of Special Education, 21, 22–42.
23.
McDonnellL. M.McLaughlinM. J.MorrisonP. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
24.
MirendaP.BeukelmanD. R. (1987). A comparison of speech synthesis intelligibility with listeners from three age groups. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 120–128.
25.
National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2003). Accountability for assessment results in the No Child Left Behind Act: What it means for children with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 7, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/NCLBdisabilities.html.
26.
PhillipsS. E. (1996). Legal defensibility of standards: Issues and policy perspectives. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15 (2), 5–19.
27.
ReeceJ. E.CummingsG. (1996). Evaluating speech-based composition methods: Planning, dictation, and the listening word processor. In LevyC. M.RansdellS. (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 361–380). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC.GoelmanH. (1982). The role of production factors in writing ability. In NystrandM. (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse (pp. 173–210). New York: Academic Press.
ThompsonS.BlountA.ThurlowM. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Tech. Rep. No. 34). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 7, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical34.htm.
31.
ThurlowM. L. (2000). Standards-based reform and students with disabilities: Reflections on a decade of change. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33 (3), 1–16.
32.
ThurlowM. L.LazarusS.ThompsonS.RobeyJ. (2002). 2001 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations (Synthesis Report 46). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 7, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis46.html.
33.
TindalG.FuchsL. (2000). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center, University of Kentucky. Retrieved January 7, 2004, from http://www.ihdi.uky.edu/MSRRC/pdf/tindal&fuchs.pdf.
34.
TindalG.HeathB.HollenbeckK.AlmondP.HarnissM. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64, 439–450.
35.
WilkinsonG. S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test 3. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range.
36.
WoodcockR.JohnsonM. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
37.
YsseldykeJ. E.ThurlowM. L.KozleskiE.ReschlyD. (1998). Accountability for the results of educating students with disabilities: Assessment conference report on the new assessment provisions of the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
