Accommodating adult basic education (ABE) learners with learning disabilities (LD) is common practice across many instructional, testing, and work settings. However, the results from this literature search indicate that very few empirically based studies are available to support or reject the effectiveness of a great deal of accommodation implementation. In addition, in light of the profound changes to literacy taking place in today’s digital, networked, and multimodal world, technology is redefining traditional concepts of accessibility and accommodation.
AlsterE. H. (1997). The effects of extended time on algebra test scores for college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 222–227. doi:10.1177/00222194970300021010.1177/002221949703000210
2.
American Council on Education. (2007). 2006 GED testing program statistical report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
3.
American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
4.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42, U.S.C. 12101 et seq. (1991).
5.
*Anderson-InmanL. (2004). Reading on the Web: making the most of digital Text. Wisconsin State Reading Association Journal, 4, 8–14.
6.
*Anderson-InmanL.HorneyM. A. (2007). Supported eText: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research & Practice, 14, 153–160.
7.
*Anderson-InmanL.HorneyM. A.ChenD.LewinL. (1994, April). Hypertext literacy: Observations from the Electro Text project. Language Arts, 71, 37–45.
8.
**BanerjeeM.GreggN. (2008). Redefining accessibility of high stakes tests for postsecondary college students with learning disabilities in an era of technology. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15, 137–146.
9.
**Bangert-DrownsR. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 69–93. doi:10.3102/0034654306300106910.3102/00346543063001069
10.
**BerningerV. W.AbbottR. D.ThomsonJ.WagnerR.SwansonH. L.WijsmanE. M.RaskindW. (2006). Modeling phonological core deficits within a working memory architecture in children and adults with developmental dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 165–198. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr1002_310.1207/s1532799xssr1002_3
11.
**BonkC. J.ReynoldsT. H. (1992). Early adolescent composing within a generative-evaluative computerized prompting framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 39–62. doi:10.1016/0747–5632(92)90018–A10.1016/0747–5632(92)90018–A
12.
BrinckerhoffL.BanerjeeM. (2007). Misconceptions regarding accommodations on high-stakes tests: Recommendations for preparing disability documentation for test takers with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 246–255.
13.
BurgstahlerS. (2003). DO-IT: Helping students with disabilities transition to college and careers. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. Retrieved from http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1168
14.
BurrellS.WarboysL. (2000, July). Special education and the juvenile justice system. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/2000_6_5/contents.html
15.
BridgemanB.HarveyA.BraswellJ. (1995). Effects of calculator use on scores on a test of mathematic reasoning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1745–3984.1995.tb00470.x10.1111/j.1745–3984.1995.tb00470.x
16.
**BruckM. (1993). Component spelling skills of college students with childhood diagnoses of dyslexia. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 171–184. doi:10.2307/151132510.2307/1511325
CalhoonM. B.FuchsL. S.HamlettC. L. (2000). Effects of computer-based test accommodations on mathematics performance assessments for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 271–282. doi:10.2307/151134910.2307/1511349
19.
ChristleC. A.JolivetteK.NelsonC. M. (2000). Youth aggression and violence: Risk, resilience, and prevention. Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. Retrieved from http://ericec.org/digests/e602.html
20.
CohenA. S.GreggN.DengM. (2005). The role of extended time and item content on a high stakes mathematics test. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1540–5826.2005.00138.x10.1111/j.1540–5826.2005.00138.x
21.
CohenA. S.KimS. H. (1992). Detecting calculator effect on item performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 5, 303–330. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame0504_210.1207/s15324818ame0504_2
22.
ColemanC.GreggN.McLainL.BlairL. (2009). Spelling and writing fluency: A comparison of performance errors and verbosity across young adults with and without dyslexia. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 94–105. doi:10.1177/153450840831880810.1177/1534508408318808
CorleyM. A.TaymansJ. (2002). Adults with learning disabilities: A review of the literature. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, 3. Retrieved from http://www.ncsall.net/?id=771&pid=57
25.
ElbaumB. (2007). Effects of an oral testing accommodation on the mathematics performance of secondary school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 40, 218–229. doi:10.1177/0022466907040004030110.1177/00224669070400040301
26.
ElbaumB.ArguellesM. E.CampbellY.SalehM. B. (2004). Effects of a student-reads-aloud accommodation on the performance of students with and without learning disabilities on a test of reading comprehension. Exceptionality, 12, 71–87. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex1202_210.1207/s15327035ex1202_2
27.
FowlerR. S.SteinJ. F. (2005). Yellow filters can improve magnocellular function: Motion sensitivity, convergence, accommodation, and reading. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1039, 283–293. doi:10.1196/annals.1325.02710.1196/annals.1325.027
28.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1999). Fair and unfair testing accommodations. School Administrator, 56, 24–29.
29.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.EatonS. B.HamlettC. L.BinkleyE.CrouchR. (2000). Using objective data sources to enhance teacher judgments about test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 67, 67–81.
30.
***FuchsL. S.FuchsD.EatonS.HamlettC. L.KarnsK. (2000). Supplementing teachers’ judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65–85.
31.
George-EzzelleC. E.SkaggsG. (2004). Examining the validity of GED tests scores with scheduling and setting accommodations (GED Testing Service Research Study 2004-1). Washington, DC: GED Testing Service.
32.
**GoldbergA.RussellM.CookA. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2, 1–51.
33.
GreggN. (2007). Underserved and underprepared: Postsecondary learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 219–228. doi:10.1111/j.1540–5826.2007.00250.x10.1111/j.1540–5826.2007.00250.x
34.
GreggN. (2009a). Assessment and accommodation of adolescents and adults with LD and AD/HD. New York, NY: Guilford.
35.
GreggN. (2009). Accommodations: Evidence-based accommodation research specific to the adolescent and adult population with learning disabilities. In TaymensJ. (Ed.). Learning to Achieve: A Review of the Research Literature on Serving Adults with Learning Disabilities. (pp.119-180). National Institute for Literacy: Washington, DC.
36.
GreggN.BanerjeeM (2009). Reading comprehension solutions for college students with dyslexia in an era of technology. In ReidG. (Ed.), Dyslexia: A handbook for research and practice (pp. 32–50). New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
**GreggN.ColemanC.DavisM.ChalkJ. C. (2007). Timed essay writing: Implications for high-stakes tests. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 306–318. doi:10.1177/0022219407040004020110.1177/00222194070400040201
38.
**GreggN.ColemanC.LindstromJ. (2008). Written expression disorders and the adult population with learning disorders. In WolfL. E.ScribnerH.WassersteinJ. (Eds.), Adult learning disorders: Contemporary issues (pp. 301–331). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
39.
GreggN.ColemanC.LindstromJ.LeeC. (2007). Who are most, average, or high-functioning adults?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 264–274. doi:10.1111/j.1540–5826.2007.00255.x10.1111/j.1540–5826.2007.00255.x
40.
**GreggN.ColemanC.StennettB.DavisM. (2002). Discourse complexity of college writers with and without disabilities: A multidimensional analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 23–38. doi:10.1177/00222194020350010310.1177/002221940203500103
41.
GreggN.LindstromJ. (2008). Accommodation of instructional and testing situations. In MorrisR. J.MatherN. (Eds.), Evidence-based interventions for students with learning and behavioral challenges (pp. 302–320). New York, NY: Routledge.
42.
GreggN.MorganD.LindstromJ.ColemanC. (2008). Accommodations: Research to practice. In WolfL. E.SchreiberH. E.WassersteinJ. (Eds.), Adult learning disorders: Contemporary issues (pp. 389–414). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
43.
GreggN.NelsonJ. (2010). A meta-analysis of the test accommodation research specific to adolescents and adults with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 483-499.
44.
GreggN.ScottS.McPeekD.FerriB.A. (1999). Definitions and eligibility criteria applied to the adolescent and adult populations with learning disabilities across agencies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22 (3), 213-223.
45.
**Handley-MoreD.DeitzJ.BillingsleyF. F.CogginsT. E. (2003). Facilitating written work using computer word processing and word prediction. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 139–151.
46.
**HetzroniO. E.ShrieberB. (2004). Word processing as an assistive technology tool for enhancing academic outcomes of students with writing disabilities in the general classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 143–154. doi:10.1177/0022219404037002050110.1177/00222194040370020501
47.
**HigginsE. L.RaskindM. H. (1995). Compensatory effectiveness of speech recognition on the written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 159–174. doi:10.2307/151120210.2307/1511202
48.
HollenbeckK.TindalG.AlmondP. (1998). Teachers’ knowledge of accommodations as a validity issue in high-stakes testing. Journal of Special Education, 32, 175–183. doi:10.1177/00224669980320030410.1177/002246699803200304
49.
HollenbeckK.TindalG.HarnissM.AlmondP. (1999). Reliability and decision consistency: An analysis of writing mode at two times on a state-wide test. Educational Assessment, 6(1), 23-40.
50.
*HorneyM. A.Anderson-InmanL. (1994). The Electro Text Project: Hypertext reading patterns of middle school students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3, 71–91.
51.
*HorneyM. A.Anderson-InmanL. (1999). Supported text in electronic reading environments. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 127–168. doi:10.1080/10573569927824210.1080/105735699278242
52.
HsuY.George-EzzelleC. E. (2008). The literacy of U.S. adults with disabilities across GED credential recipients, highs school graduates, and non-high school graduates (GED Testing Service Research Study 2008-3). Washington, DC: GED Testing Service.
53.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
54.
***IvesB. (2007). Graphic organizers applied to secondary algebra instruction for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 110–118. doi:10.1111/j.1540–5826.2007.00235.x10.1111/j.1540–5826.2007.00235.x
55.
***JohnsonE. S. (2000). The effects of accommodations in performance assessments. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 261–267. doi:10.1177/07419325000210050210.1177/074193250002100502
56.
Kochhar-BryantC. A. (2007). The summary of performance as transition “passport” to employment and independent living. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 160–170. doi:10.1177/1534508407032003040110.1177/15345084070320030401
57.
KrissI.EvansB. J. W. (2005). The relationship between dyslexia and Meares-Irlen syndrome. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 350–364. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9817.2005.00274.x10.1111/j.1467–9817.2005.00274.x
58.
LindstromJ.GreggN. (2007). The role of extended time on the SAT reasoning test for students with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 85–95. doi:10.1111/j.1540–5826.2007.00233.x10.1111/j.1540–5826.2007.00233.x
59.
LoydB. H. (1991). Mathematics test performance: The effects of item type and calculator use. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 11–22. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame0401_210.1207/s15324818ame0401_2
60.
**MacArthurC. A. (2006). The effects of new technologies on writing and writing processes. In MacArthurC. A.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 248–262). New York, NY: Guilford.
61.
**MacArthurC. A.CavalierA. (2004). Dictation and speech recognition technology as accommodations in large-scale assessments for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 43–58.
62.
*MacArthurC. A.FerrettiR. P.OkoloC. M.CavalierA. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. Elementary School Journal, 101, 273–301. doi:10.1086/49966910.1086/499669
63.
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. doi:10.1177/00224669870210030410.1177/002246698702100304
64.
*MacArthurC.HaynesJ. B. (1995). Student Assistant for Learning from Text (SALT): A hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 50–59. doi:10.1177/00222194950280030410.1177/002221949502800304
65.
MandinachE. B.BridgemanB.Cahalan-LaitusisC.TrapaniC. (2005). The impact of extended time on SAT test performance (College Board Research Report 2005-8). New York, NY: College Board.
66.
MellardD.PattersonM. B.PrewettS. (2007). Reading practices among adult education participants. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 188–213. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.2.110.1598/RRQ.42.2.1
67.
MungerG. F.LoydB. H. (1991). Effect of speededness on test performance of handicapped and nonhandicapped examinees. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 53–57.
68.
National Center for Education Statistics. Literacy in Everyday Life: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. NCES 2007-490. ED Pubs. P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398 Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/
69.
National Commission on Adult Literacy. (2008). Reach higher America: Overcoming crisis in the U.S. workforce. Washington, DC: Council for the Advancement of Adult Literacy.
70.
National Council on Disability. (2003, May). Addressing the needs of youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system: The current status of evidence-based research. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1929
71.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
72.
PitoniakM.RoyerJ. (2001). Testing accommodations for examinees with disabilities: A review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues. Review of Educational Research, 71, 53–104. doi:10.3102/0034654307100105310.3102/00346543071001053
73.
**ReeceJ. E.CummingG. (1996). Evaluating speech-based composition methods: Planning, dictation, and the listening word processor. In LevyC. M.RansdellS. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 361–380). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
74.
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-569, 106 506 Stat. 4344 (1992).
75.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355 (1973).
76.
**ReynoldsT. H.BonkC. J. (1996). Facilitating college writers’ revisions within a generative-evaluative computerized prompting framework. Computers and Composition, 13, 93–108. doi:10.1016/S8755-4615(96)90038-910.1016/S8755-4615(96)90038-9
77.
**RowleyK.CarsonP.MillerT. (1998). A cognitive technology to teach composition skills: four studies with the R-WISE writing tutor. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18, 259–296.
78.
**RowleyK.MeyerN. (2003). The effect of a computer tutor for writers on student writing achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29, 169–187. doi:10.2190/3WVD-BKEY-PK0D-TTR710.2190/3WVD-BKEY-PK0D-TTR7
79.
ShampS.A. (2004). “Wireless.” In DominickJ. (Ed.) Dynamics of Mass Communication: Media in the Digital Age. 8th Edition (pp. 305-320. New York: McGraw Hill.
80.
*ShaywitzS. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York, NY: Knopf.
81.
ShepardL.TaylorG.BetebennerD. (1998). Inclusion of limited-English-proficient students in Rhode Island’s Grade 4 mathematics performance assessment. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
82.
SingletonC.HendersonL. (2007). Computerized screening for visual stress in reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 30, 316–331. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9817.2007.00341.x10.1111/j.1467–9817.2007.00341.x
83.
SireciS. G. (2004). Unlabeling the disabled: A psychometric perspective on flagging scores from accommodated test administrations (Research Report No. 502). Amherst: University of Massachusetts, School of Education, Center for Educational Assessment.
84.
SireciS. G.LiS.ScarpatiS. (2003). The effects of test accommodations on test performance: A review of the literature (Research Report No. 485). Amherst: University of Massachusetts, School of Education, Center for Educational Assessment.
85.
SireciS. G.PitoniakM. (2006, March). Assessment accommodations: What have we learned from research?Paper presented at the 2006 Educational Testing Service Symposium on Accommodating Students with Disabilities on State Assessments, Savannah, GA.
86.
SireciS. G.ScarpatiS. E.LiS. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457–490. doi:10.3102/0034654307500445710.3102/00346543075004457
87.
SmithL.WilkinsA. (2007). How many colours are necessary to increase the reading speed of children with visual stress? A comparison of two systems. Journal of Research in Reading, 30, 332–343. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9817.2007.00343.x10.1111/j.1467–9817.2007.00343.x
88.
SnowC.StruckerJ. (2000). Lessons from preventing reading difficulties in young children for adult learning and literacy. In ComingJ.GarnerB.SmithC. (Eds.), Annual review of adult learning and literacy: A project of the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (Vol. 1, pp. 25–73). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
89.
StenhjemP. (2005, February). Youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system: Prevention and intervention strategies. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. Retrieved from http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1929
90.
StoddenR.JonesM.ChangK. (2002). Services, supports and accommodations for individuals with disabilities: An analysis across secondary education, postsecondary education, and employment (White paper). Manoa: University of Hawaii at Manoa, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. Retrieved from http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/
91.
**SturmJ. M.Rankin-EricksonJ. L. (2002). Effects of hand-drawn and computer generated concept mapping on the expository writing of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 124–139. doi:10.1111/1540–5826.0003910.1111/1540–5826.00039
92.
***SwansonH. L.JermanO. (2006). Math disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 249–274. doi:10.3102/0034654307600224910.3102/00346543076002249
93.
ThompsonS.BlountA.ThurlowM. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Tech. Rep. 34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from www.nceo.org/
WagnerM.NewmanL.CametoR.GarzaN.LevineP. (2005). After high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS-2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org
97.
YoungG.BrowningJ. (2005). Learning disabilities/dyslexia and employment—A mythical view. In ReidG.FawcettA. (Eds.), Dyslexia in context: Research, policy and practice (pp. 25–59). London, UK: Whurr.
98.
ZellermayerM.SalomonG.GlobersonT.GivonH. (1991). Enhancing writing related metacognitions through a computerized writing partner. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 373–391. doi:10.2307/116294510.2307/1162945
99.
ZuriffG. E. (2000). Extra examination time for students with learning disabilities: An examination of the maximum potential thesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 99–117.
