A Model for Assessment Accommodations for Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Talia Thompson, Ed.S., Lee Ann Baer, B.A., Jamie Woods, B.A., Laurel Snider, B.S., Londi Howard, B.A. Jeanine Coleman, Ph.D., Karen Riley, Ph.D.

Morgridge College of Education, University of Denver

Evidence Based Practices Within the Assessment Cycle

References

Benefits of Psychoeducational Assessment: •  Reveals a pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses •  Informs educational placement decisions and intervention

plans •  Data may show effectiveness of current pharmaceutical

trials or educational interventions Challenges of Assessment: •  Stressful experience •  Difficult to obtain valid test results Guiding Question: •  What are some strategies and accommodations to

enhance the benefits of assessment and mitigate challenges when assessing individuals with IDD?

Research Team: •  Part of a multi-site NIH grant funded team validating a new

assessment with individuals with Intellectual Disability •  School psychologists, special educators, and trainees Methods: •  Extensive field research and a review of literature

Introduction What is a Test Accommodation?

Types of Accommodations:

1. Alter Presentation and/or Format •  Example: Use simplified directions to

emphasize key phrases

2. Alter Response Procedures •  Example: Allow pointing rather than

naming to indicate response

3. Alter Administration •  Example: No time limits or test over

multiple days

•  Minor adaptation to standardized assessment

•  Reduces barriers, making the assessment accessible to an individual with IDD

•  Does not alter the construct being assessed or measured

•  Results in scores that are comparable to those on the original test

Acknowledgements Our team would like to thank the following individuals and institutions for providing education, training and support for this work: Dr. Karen Riley and Dr. Jeanine Coleman at the University of Denver Morgridge College of Education and the Child, Family, and School Psychology department at the University of Denver Dr. David Hessl, Dr. Stephanie Sansone, and their team at UC Davis Mind Institute Dr. Elizabeth Berry-Kravis and her team at Rush University The National Institutes of Heath Northwestern University We would also like to thank the families who have participated in our research and have taught us so much.

•  Rate validity of the •  assessment by asking:

•  How were the examinee’s entry, transitions, and engagement with testing?

•  What skill did I aim to measure? •  What access skills may have

interfered? (attention span, self-regulation, dexterity, etc..)

•  What strategies did I use to address access skills?

•  How effective were those strategies?

•  Did I measure the targeted skill in this administration?

•  Interpret results and report relative strengths along with needs and areas for growth

•  Utilize person-first language •  Report accommodations used during

testing •  Describe testing behaviors in relation

to daily behaviors (typical for this individual?)

•  Consider translating the raw data with z-score normalization to avoid floor effects and skew

•  Start with down time or a sensory calming activity

•  Visual schedule and First/Then board •  Use familiar language and behavioral

strategies •  Provide breaks •  Use reinforcement and behavior

systems, checklists to show progress •  Use relevant accommodations

*Always ask yourself: “Am I still measuring the target skill

•  with this accommodation?”

•  Interview caregivers and/or teachers •  Pre-assessment questionnaire to

gather info about the examinee: •  Strengths and interests •  Anxiety •  Current behaviors and behavior

system •  Current classroom/home supports •  Vision, hearing or motor difficulties •  Communication style/ familiar

language •  Sensory needs

•  Conduct observation in one or more settings

•  Create social story and visual schedule of assessment session (include pictures of activities, examiners, and setting)

•  Use test validated for special populations

Planning Implementation

Evaluation Reporting

AmericanEduca-onalResearchAssocia-on,AmericanPsychologicalAssocia-on,&Na-onalCouncilonMeasurementinEduca-on,&JointCommi=eeonStandardsforEduca-onalandPsychologicalTes-ng.(2014).Standardsforeduca-onalandpsychologicaltes-ng.Washington,DC:AERA.AmericanPsychologicalAssocia-on.(2012).Guidelinesforassessmentofandinterven-onwithpersonswithdisabili-es.TheAmericanPsychologist,67(1),43.Armstrong,K.,Hangauer,J.,Nadeau,J.(2012).Useofintelligencetestsintheiden-fica-onofchildrenwithintellectualanddevelopmentaldisabili-es.InD.P.Flanagan&P.L.Harrison(Eds.),ContemporaryIntellectualAssessment:Theories,Tests,andIssues,ThirdEdi=on(pp.726-736).NewYork,NY:TheGuilfordPress.Bielinski,J.,Sheinker,A.,&Ysseldyke,J.(2003).VariedOpinionsonHowToReportAccommodatedTestScores:FindingsBasedonCTB/McGraw-Hill'sFrameworkforClassifyingAccommoda-ons.SynthesisReport.CodeofFairTes=ngPrac=cesinEduca=on.(2004).Washington,DC:JointCommi=eeonTes-ngPrac-ces.Crepeau-Hobson,F.(2014).Bestprac-cesinsuppor-ngtheeduca-onofstudentswithsevereandlowincidencedisabili-es.InP.L.Harrison&A.Thomas(Eds.),BestPrac=cesinSchoolPsychology:Systems-LevelServices(pp.111-123).Bethesda,MD:NASPPublica-ons.Forcade,M.C.(1979).Proceduralguidelinesforlowincidenceassessment.SchoolPsychologyDigest,8(3),248-56.HesslD,NguyenDV,GreenC,SenturkD,SchneiderA,LightbodyA,ReissAL,HallS.(2009).Asolu-ontolimita-onsofcogni-vetes-nginchildrenwithintellectualdisabili-es:thecaseoffragileXsyndrome.JournalofNeurodevelopmentalDisorders,1,33-45.Hickman,L.,Stackhouse,T.M.,&Scharfenaker,S.K.(2008).SensorydietsuggestedAc=vi=es.Kylliäinen,A.,Jones,E.J.H.,Gomot,M.,Warreyn,P.,&Falck-Y=er,T.(2014).Prac-calguidelinesforstudyingyoungchildrenwithau-smspectrumdisorderinpsychophysiologicalexperiments.ReviewJournalofAu=smandDevelopmentalDisorders,1,373-386.doi:10.1007/s40489-014-0034-5Perry,A.,Condillac,R.A.,&Freeman,N.L.(2002).Bestprac-cesandprac-calstrategiesforassessmentanddiagnosisofau-sm.JournalonDevelopmentalDisabili=es,9(2),61-75.Retrievedfromh=p://www.oadd.org/index.php?page=256.Roid,G.H.(2003).Stanford-BinetIntelligenceScales,FijhEdi-on,Interpre-vemanual:Expandedguidetotheinterpreta-onofSB5testresults.Itasca,IL:RiversidePublishing.Salend,S.J.(2008).Determiningappropriatetes-ngaccommoda-ons:complyingwithNCLBandIDEA.TeachingExcep=onalChildren,40(4),14-22.

Key Concepts in Accommodations1, 3

Target Skill: What is the test

designed to measure or reflect?

Access Skill: What underlying

abilities are needed to show this skill?

Barrier: What aspect of the disability prevents the examinee from

participating as intended?

Accommodations: What can help the

examinee overcome or work around the barrier and lack of

access skill?

Target Skill: Working Memory: The

ability to remember and use information while in the middle of

an activity

Access Skills: • Attention • Motor ability • Verbal ability

Barriers: • Distractibility • Loose connective

tissue/dexterity • Language delay

Accommodations: -Provide verbal or visual cue to attend

-Use adaptive writing utensil

-Use non-verbal subtest as substitute

Definitions of Key Concepts:

Examples of Key Concepts: