Views of academician examiners on the testing accommodations of the measurement, selection and placement center for disabled test takers

Abstract

The Measurement, Selection and Placement Center–MSPC (original acronym: Ölçme, Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi–ÖSYM) administers many of the high-stake examinations applied in Türkiye. In order to support equality of opportunity in education and create a fair evaluation system, MSPC actualizes various testing accommodations by adjusting the standardization protocol for disabled test takers. In this research, we examined the views of academicians who served in the halls where disabled candidates take the test in the examinations held by MSPC about the testing accommodations for the disabled. The study design was in the basic qualitative research model. The participants consisted of 12 academicians working at a state university in Türkiye, who had served at least three times in the examination halls reserved for disabled test takers by MSPC. We collected the data via an interview form which included four items and administered it to the participants according to the drop-off and pick-up later method. The research results revealed that academician examiners have various positive opinions about MSPC’s testing accommodations for disabled test takers. However, the participants also expressed that current accommodations have certain limitations that should be revised.

Keywords

• High–stake tests
• Testing accommodations for disabled examinees
• Testing accommodations of MSPC
• Academicians’ views

References

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
2. Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Sorensen Irvine, C.K., & Walker, D.A. (2019). Introduction to research in education (10th ed.). Cengage.
3. Bolt, S.E., & Thurlow, M.L. (2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy: Synthesis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 25(3), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250030
4. Brown, J.D., & Rodgers, T.S. (2022). Doing second language research. Oxford University.
5. Çobanoğlu-Aktan, D., Aksu, G., & Eser, M.T. (2018). Türkiye ve Amerika’da engelli öğrenciler için yapılan geniş ölçekli sınavların yasal sorumluluklar, uygulama yöntemleri ve geçerlik açısından incelenmesi [Investigation of legal responsibilities, practices and validity of the large-scale exams for students with disabilities in Türkiye and the US]. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 14(1), 69 83. http://dx.doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.322551
6. Doğuş, M., Aslan, C., & Çakmak, S. (2020). Görme engelli bireylerin merkezi sınav düzenlemelerine ilişkin görüşleri [The opinions of individuals with visual impairment on the exam accommodations in high-stakes tests]. Journal of Research in Education and Society, 7(1), 219–247. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/etad/issue/55359/697087
7. Douglas, G., McLinden, M., Robertson, C., Travers, J., & Smith, E. (2015). Including pupils with special educational needs and disability in national assessment: Comparison of three country case studies through an inclusive assessment framework. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 63(1), 98 121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2015.1111306
8. Elliott, S.N., Kratochwill, T.R., & McKevitt, B.C. (2001). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations on the scores of students with and without disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 39(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(00)00056-X

9. Engelhard G. Jr, Fincher M., & Domaleski C.S. (2010). Mathematics performance of students with and without disabilities under accommodated conditions using resource guides and calculators on high stakes tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 24(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2010.485975
10. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Capizzi, A.M. (2005). Identifying appropriate test accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(6), https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v37i6.6812
11. Geisinger, K.F. (1994). Psychometric issues in testing students with disabilities. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 121 140. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0702_2
12. Gregg, N., & Nelson, J.M. (2015). 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409355484
13. Huynh, H., & Barton, K.E. (2006). Performance of students with disabilities under regular and oral administrations of a high-stakes reading examination. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame1901_2
14. Jarvis, K.A. (1996). Leveling the playing field: A comparison of scores of college students with and without learning disabilities on classroom tests [Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University]. https://www.proquest.com/pagepdf/304232975?accountid=15780
15. Karabay, E. (2016). Canlı okuyucu ve bilgisayar destekli okumanın görme engelli öğrencilerin test başarıları üzerindeki etkilerinin karşılaştırılması [Comparing the effects of the live-reader with computer-aided reading on test achievement of students with visual impairment] [Doctoral dissertation, Ankara University]. National Thesis Center of Higher Education Board. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
16. Lovett, B.J. (2010). Extended time testing accommodations for students with disabilities: Answers to five fundamental questions. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 611–638. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310364063
17. Lovett, B.J., & Leja, A.M. (2013). Students’ perceptions of testing accommodations: What we know, what we need to know, and why it matters. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 29(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2013.751477
18. Manchaiah, V., Beukes, E., & Roeser, R.J. (2022). Evaluating and conducting research in audiology. Plural.
19. Meriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research a guide to design and implementation. Jossey–Bass.
20. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). Sage.
21. Official Newspaper of Republic of Türkiye. (2018, July 7). Özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği [Special education services regulation] (Number: 30471). https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2018/07/20180707-8.htm
22. Ozarkan, H.B., Kucam, E., & Demir, E. (2017). An investigation of differential item functioning according to the visually handicapped situation for the central joint exam math subtest. Curr Res Educ, 3(1), 24–34.
23. Ölçme Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi (Measurement Selection and Placement Center). (2018). Engeli/sağlık sorunu veya özel durumu olan adaylara yapılan sınav uygulamaları [Testing accommodations for candidates with disability/health problems or special conditions]. https://www.osym.gov.tr/TR,13930/engelisagliksorunu veya ozel durumu-olan-adaylara yapilan-sinav-uygulamalari.html
24. Phillips, S.E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93 120. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0702_1
25. Prater, M.A. (2018). Teaching students with high–incidence disabilities: strategies for diverse classrooms. Sage.
26. Saka, N., Kleper, D., & Kennet-Cohen, T. (2022). Assessing fairness in selection toward applicants who request accommodations in higher education admissions tests. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2122400
27. Schulte, A.A.G., Elliott, S.N., & Kratochwill, T.R. (2001). Effects of testing accommodations on standardized mathematics test scores: An experimental analysis of the performances of students with and without disabilities, School Psychology Review, 30(4), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2001.12086133
28. Sireci, S.G. (2008). Validity issues in accommodating reading tests. Jurnal Pendidik dan Pendidikan [Journal of Educators and Education 23, 81 110. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED500434.pdf
29. Sireci, S.G., Li, S., & Scarpati, S. (2003). The effects of test accommodation on test performance: A review of the literature. Center for Educational Assessment Research Report no. 485. School of Education, University of Massachusetts Amherst. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/TestAccommLitReview.pdf
30. Sireci, S.G., Scarpati, S.E., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 457–490. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075004
31. Şenel, S. (2015). Görme engelli öğrencilerin üniversite giriş sınavı deneyimleri [Experiences of visually impaired students in university entrance exam]. Hacettepe University Graduate School of Educational Sciences the Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 1–9. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/450547
32. Şenel, S. (2017). Bilgisayar ortamında bireye uyarlanmış testlerin görme engelli öğrencilere uygunluğunun incelenmesi [Investigation of the compatibility of computerized adaptive testing on students with visually impaired] [Doctoral dissertation, Ankara University]. National Thesis Center of Higher Education Board. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
33. Şenel, S. (2021). Assessing measurement invariance of Turkish “Central examination for secondary education ınstitutions” for visually impaired students. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 33(4), 621 648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09345-5
34. Şişman, Y. (2014). Engelliler açısından eşitlik, ayrımcılık ve eğitim hakkı [Equality, discrimination and right to education with regards to disabled people]. Journal of Social Policy Studies, 32, 57–85. https://doi.org/10.21560/spcd.37719
35. Tavşancıl, E., Uluman, M., & Furat, E. (2012, 19–21 September). Görme engelli öğrencilerin üniversite giriş sınavında karşılaştığı sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri [Problems encountered by visually impaired students in the university entrance exam and suggestions for solutions] [Conference presentation abstract]. III. National Congress of Assessment and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu, Türkiye. https://www.epodder.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/EPOD-2012.pdf
36. Thurlow, M.L., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Silverstein, B. (1993). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: A review of the literature. (Synthesis Report 4). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED358656.pdf
37. Weis, R., Dean, E.L., & Osborne, K.J. (2014). Accommodation decision making for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: individually tailored or one size fits all? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(5), 484 498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414559648
38. Wightman, L.F. (1993). Test takers with disabilities: A summary of data from special administrations of the LSAT (LSAC-Research Report 93–03). Law School Admission Council.
39. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences] (10th ed.). Seçkin.
40. Yılmaz, G. (2019). Seçme sınavlarının engel durumlarına göre madde yanlılığının incelenmesi [An investigation of item bias for selection exams according to disability situations] [Master thesis, Hacettepe University]. National Thesis Center of Higher Education Board. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/