1 of 75

Assessment Accommodations: �Current Research and Trends

Mari Quanbeck

National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO)

February 11, 2026

Good morning/afternoon, everyone! Thanks so much for having me today. I'm Mari Quanbeck from the National Center on Educational Outcomes, and I'm really excited to be here with the SLATE Community of Practice to talk about assessment accommodations.

I know you all are working in the trenches every day with assistive technology and educational outcomes, so this feels like exactly the right group to have these conversations with. What I'm hoping to do today is share some of the latest research we've been doing at NCEO, talk about what we're seeing in terms of trends, and then really open it up for discussion because I'm genuinely curious about what you're experiencing in your states.

We've got an hour together, so I'll plan to go through the material for about 45 minutes and then we'll have a solid 15 minutes for questions and discussion at the end. Please feel free to interrupt if something doesn't make sense or if you want to jump in with a comment.

2 of 75

Agenda

Basics of accommodations
Teacher and student perceptions of accommodations
Unintended consequences
Recent work on assessment accommodations
NCEO resources on assessment accommodations
Alternate assessment accommodations
“Hot topics” and overall trends

3 of 75

The Basics of Accommodations and Modifications

4 of 75

Relationships Among Accommodations and Modifications for Instruction and Assessment

5 of 75

Accommodations

Changes in procedures or materials that:

ensure a student has equitable access to instructional and assessment content, and

(b) support valid assessment results for those students who require them

Accommodations do not reduce or change learning expectations.

6 of 75

Modifications

Changes in procedures or materials that lower state-required learning expectations.

Because modifications change expectations, they should be used with caution during instruction.

Modifications should never be used during standardized assessments because they change what is being measured, resulting in an invalid assessment score.

Now modifications, on the other hand, are changes that lower required learning expectations. And because they change expectations, we need to be really cautious about using them during instruction, and we should never use them during standardized assessments because they fundamentally change what's being measured.

�Examples would be things like allowing a student to have fewer learning objectives than peers, requiring fewer assignments, giving easier homework, or providing below-grade-level curriculum. These are instructional decisions that might be appropriate in some contexts, but they're not accommodations.

The reason I'm spending time on this is because we still see confusion about this in the field, and it matters when we're talking about assessment because validity is at stake.

Examples of instructional modifications include:

• allowing a student to have fewer learning objectives than other peers

• requiring fewer assignments

• giving students easier homework than peers

• providing below-grade-level curriculum or assignments

7 of 75

Teacher Perceptions and Perspectives on Accommodations

8 of 75

Research Methods

NCEO synthesized and summarized research on teacher perceptions of accommodations conducted between 1999 and 2021 (NCEO, 2020, 2021, 2022).
See Accommodations Toolkit

9 of 75

Data Reporting

Accommodation	Number of Studies	Findings
Assistive Technology (AT)	7	Both special education and general education teachers struggled to make assistive technology available to students because of their own discomfort, lack of experience, and inability to communicate effectively with students about how to use of the technology.
Braille	1	The philosophy of reading teachers of the visually impaired may affect whether students received a braille accommodation on assessments. Students whose teachers put a high value of sounding out words were more likely to select accommodations other than braille (e.g., screen readers, large print).
Calculator	1	Special education teachers were more likely to provide the calculator accommodation than general education teachers.

This table shows you some examples of what we found. For assistive technology, we had seven studies, and there was a pretty consistent theme: both special ed and general ed teachers were struggling to make AT available to students because of their own discomfort, lack of experience, and difficulty communicating with students about how to use the technology.

We found one study on braille that showed something interesting—the philosophy of teachers of the visually impaired actually affected whether students received braille accommodations. Students whose teachers really valued phonics and sounding out words were more likely to get screen readers or large print instead of braille.

And for calculators, we found that special education teachers were more likely to provide that accommodation than general education teachers.

10 of 75

Number of Identified Studies Addressing Teacher Perceptions on Accommodations

This chart shows you the landscape of what's been studied. Assistive technology had the most studies at seven. But look at this—twelve accommodations were addressed by only one study each. And five accommodations included both general and special educators' perceptions.

When we look at the figure, we see that there are a lot of accommodations that have no studies about teachers’ perspective. These are accommodations that are being used, but we don't have research on what teachers think about them or how they're implementing them.

Assistive technology had the most studies (n=7)

12 accommodations were addressed by 1 study each

5 accommodations included general and special educators perceptions

No studies for teacher perceptions of highlighting, large print, magnification, noise reduction, paper format, speech-to-text

11 of 75

Research Shares Positive Impacts and Challenges

Research documents the positive perceptions and experiences teachers have when making accessibility decisions.
Research also documents the challenges teachers have in practices of selecting and implementing accommodations.

12 of 75

Positive Findings

Teachers had positive perceptions of accommodations overall.
Teachers were able to identify areas where they need professional development related to accommodations.
Teachers are members of IEP teams, which make accommodation decisions.

13 of 75

Identified Challenges

Many teachers recognized the challenge of making appropriate accommodation decisions.
Accommodations decisions were difficult for:

Assistive technology (AT)
Oral delivery (e.g., human read aloud, text to speech)
Student reads aloud to self
Scribe
Translation of test directions
Tactile graphics

14 of 75

Identified Challenges

Teachers’ philosophies and perceptions may influence what accommodations students have access to.
Teachers would benefit from additional training in selecting and implementing accommodations for students with high incidence disabilities (e.g., specific learning disability, other health impairment, emotional disturbance).

15 of 75

What Teachers Have to Say

“Getting all the devices, or even most, to operate correctly, consistently, and efficiently is another dilemma, and then keeping them running, current … is usually a huge bugaboo.”
"One of the major hurdles is AT use … [is] limited funding, and ever-evolving new technologies."

16 of 75

What Teachers Have to Say About AT

“In my opinion, more time and instruction needs to be spent in the training programs for teachers of students [with] visual impairments on some of the high-tech devices”
“We are asked to teach AT, but are NEVER given any textbooks or systematic methodology to do so. We have to look up tutorials online and try to adapt them to our students’ needs.”

17 of 75

Suggested Strategies

and Considerations

18 of 75

1. Involve all teachers in accessibility and accommodations decision making.

Include general and special educators’ perspectives
Solicit input for IEP meetings
Understand teacher biases
Use state guidelines or other frameworks for decision making

19 of 75

2. Provide professional development on assistive technology and other technology-based accommodations.

Training is needed on selecting and using AT and specialized accommodations.
Teachers need to be able to teach students and others how to use them.
Teachers need to consider students’ preferences about accommodations.

20 of 75

3. Gather information on how accessibility features and accommodations worked.

Evaluate accessibility and accommodations decisions at the student, school and district levels.
Collect feedback from teachers and students on the decision-making process.
Collect feedback from teachers and students on the effectiveness of accommodations.
Use feedback to inform policies and practices.

21 of 75

Implications for Practice and Policies

Teacher and student perspectives are needed.
Include general and special educators in the decision-making process.
Teachers are knowledgeable about student needs and helpfulness of accommodations.
Teachers need to advocate for their professional development needs.

22 of 75

Implications for Practice and Policies

Professional development is needed for many accommodations, including:

Assistive technology, color contrast, human read aloud, scribe, signed administration, and student reads aloud to self.

Encourage teachers to engage students in decision making and reflection on accommodations.

23 of 75

What Do Students Prefer?

24 of 75

How do accommodations help students with disabilities?

Accommodations are designed to remove barriers to learning and testing
Instructional accommodations support students with disabilities in accessing grade level curriculum
Assessment accommodations support students with disabilities during testing by assisting students in demonstrating what they know and can do
Assessment accommodations are changes in materials and procedures that do not alter the validity of assessment results

Let's start with the basics of why we're doing this. Accommodations are designed to remove barriers to learning and testing. Instructional accommodations support students with disabilities in accessing grade-level curriculum. Assessment accommodations support students during testing by helping them demonstrate what they know and can do. And critically, these are changes that don't alter the validity of assessment results.

There's an important link here between instructional and assessment accommodations. Students need the opportunity to use and practice accommodations during instruction, so they're not brand new when they're testing. These decisions are made by IEP teams and documented in the IEP, and they should be based on student needs, data, and perceptions.

There is an important link between instructional and assessment accommodations. Students need the opportunity to use and practice accommodations during instruction, so they are not new when testing. Accommodation decisions for both are made by individual education teams and are documented in the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). Accommodation decisions should be made by the team based on the student’s needs, data, and perceptions.

25 of 75

Research Methods Used

Methods

NCEO synthesized and summarized research on student perceptions of accommodations conducted between 1999 and 2021 (NCEO, 2020, 2021, 2022).
See Accommodations Toolkit

26 of 75

Comparisons: Studies Identified on

Teacher and Student Perceptions

Teacher Perceptions Studies

44 studies
Most studied: Assistive technology (7)
No studies (6):

Highlighting
Large print
Magnification
Noise reduction
Paper format
Speech-to-text

Student Perceptions Studies

36 studies
Most studied: Text-to-speech and Extended Time (4)
No studies (6):

Clarify/Simplify/Repeat Directions
Color contrast
Familiar proctor/Test administrator
Math charts/Tables
Preferential seating
Tactile graphics

27 of 75

Student Perceptions

Positive Findings

Students had positive perceptions of accommodations
Students can improve self-determination skills
Students share critical information in IEP team meetings

Overall, students with disabilities, including English learners with disabilities, had positive perceptions of accommodations. Students found both physical and virtual manipulatives helpful.

Involving students in selecting and planning for accommodations can contribute to self-determination skills and a more independent future. They need to learn what accommodations are useful and how to advocate for themselves—not just in education but also for the workforce.

Student participation in IEP team meetings can provide vital information about their needs and empower students to take ownership of their learning.

Overall, students with disabilities, including EL with disabilities had positive perceptions of accommodations in general. For example, students found both physical and virtual manipulatives Involving students in selecting and planning for the use of accommodations can contribute to self-determination skills and a more independent future. They need to learn what accommodations are useful and how to advocate for themselves in not just the education setting but also for the workforce. Student participation in IEP team meetings can provide vital information about their needs and empower students to take ownership of their learning.

28 of 75

Positive Perceptions

“I felt less frustrated working on the test."
“It’s easy to solve [equations] with the program.”
“It was helpful to me when I heard the character explain the problem to me.”
“I prefer to take my test with accommodations so no one gets me in trouble and there are no distractions.”
“I like it because I can focus on the test and there are not a lot of distractions.”

29 of 75

Student Perceptions

Negative Findings

Removal from the regular classroom
Noticeable use of materials or equipment
Social stigma concerns
Students reported little or no input into AT decisions

But students also had negative perceptions. They didn't like being removed from the regular classroom—this came up a lot, especially for students with ADHD or auditory disabilities who were assigned alternate locations when they really wanted to stay with their peers.

They didn't like the use of materials or equipment that were readily noticeable to other students. Many students had significant concerns about the social stigma of accommodations that were obvious to others and called attention to their disability.

And here's something we really need to pay attention to: students reported that they had little or no input on assistive technology decisions and wanted more support so they could better use the technology.

Students had negative perceptions of accommodations that removed them from the regular classroom. For instance often students with ADHD or auditory disabilities are assigned an alternate location accommodation when really the student wants to remain in the testing room with their peers. Likewise the required the use of materials or equipment that were readily noticeable to other students students did not like. Many students had significant concerns about the social stigma of accommodations that were obvious to other students and called attention to their disability. Students reported that they had little or no input on assistive technology decisions and wanted more support so they could better use the assistive technology. They also said that high magnification causes eye strain.

30 of 75

Negative Perceptions

“Are we different? Are others smarter than us?”
“The characters speaking to me was a distraction.”
“Test accommodations make me feel bad. Everyone should be treated the same.”

31 of 75

What the Research Says About Assistive Technology?

Assistive Technology

Students reported that they often had little or no input into AT decisions.
Students wanted support that enabled them to better use AT.

Manipulatives

Students found both physical and virtual manipulatives helpful. They largely preferred virtual manipulatives, even though they tended to perform better with physical manipulatives.

32 of 75

Implications for Practice

Student accommodations are individualized
Student perceptions should be considered in the decision-making process
Students learn self-advocacy skills
Students should have the opportunity to try a variety of accommodations and provide feedback
Measure the effectiveness

The implications are clear: student accommodations are individualized, student perceptions should be considered in decision-making, students need to learn self-advocacy skills, students should have the opportunity to try a variety of accommodations and provide feedback, and we need to measure effectiveness.

Students’ perceptions are based on the individual student and how they experience the accommodation in the context of their school setting. Students ought to be informed of the degree to which accommodations supported their performance improvements, or even if they did not.

Asking students to share their perceptions and advocate for the accommodations they feel best meet their needs will help build their self-determination and advocacy skills—skills they will need to develop as they prepare for postsecondary life.

Students’ individual characteristics and experiences influence their perceptions of accommodations and should be considered during the decision-making process.

33 of 75

Suggested Strategies

Talk with students about accessibility and accommodations.
Involve students in accessibility and accommodations decision making.
Prepare students to advocate for accessibility needs and preferences.
Interview students following the administration of the assessment.

Our suggested strategies include: talk with students about accessibility and accommodations, involve students in decision making, prepare students to advocate for their needs and preferences, and interview students following assessment administration.

It's important to learn how students perceive their classroom performance and accessibility needs. What do they consider their strengths and weaknesses? Did they perceive an increase in performance from using accommodations? Are they comfortable using them? Are they getting enough practice and support?

Talk with students about accessibility and accommodations.

It is important to learn more about how a student perceives their classroom performance and accessibility needs. Information about student perceptions can be gathered by a teacher during discussions with the student. What does a student consider to be their strengths and weaknesses? Did the student perceive an increase in performance resulting from the use of accessibility features or accommodations? The discussion can explore the student’s level of comfort using accommodations. Are they receiving enough practice and support when using accommodations during instruction? Do they feel comfortable using accessibility features and accommodations when taking assessments?

Students need to be prepared to make decisions by teaching them vocabulary to talk about how they learn, engage students using their preferred communication method, and asking questions about their learning during instruction will help students. Students need to have the opportunity to try and practise accessibility and accommodation features so they can share their perceptions and preferences with their IEP team.

It is important to figure out what is the best vocabulary for each student to understand the concept of sharing what works/ does not work for their learning. This vocabulary will need to be used during instruction so the student becomes familiar with the terms and can eventually use the terms.

Help students understand the concept of sharing their learning preferences

Encourage students to practice new vocabulary after instruction and assessment

Use communication tools or manipulatives to help students express themselves

The question might be posed to the test vendors on their role to collect and share this type of information to the SEAs.

34 of 75

Avoiding Unintended Consequences

z.umn.edu/Consequence

35 of 75

From Accommodations to Accessibility

IDEA 2004 required reporting on accommodations

2010s states moved to technology-based assessments

States moved to tiered systems of accessibility

Accommodation policies became accessibility policies

Fewer accommodations

36 of 75

Levels of Accessibility in the Paradigm Shift

37 of 75

What do the data tell us?

There is a lot of variability in the percentage of students with disabilities assigned accommodations

More than ten years ago, grade 8 rates ranged from 0.5% to 93.8% for reading/language arts and from 7.6% to 93.9% for math

2021-2022 data for reading and math continue to show huge variability in rates, although the two content areas are more similar to each other

38 of 75

Gr 8 Reading/Language Arts Percentage Assigned Accommodations in 2021-22

39 of 75

Gr 8 Math Percentage Assigned Accommodations in 2021-22

40 of 75

10 Years Longitudinal Data for Grade 6 Math �(2009-10 – 2018-19)

41 of 75

Negative Consequences

State data drop may make state appear like students with disabilities are receiving less features, resulting in flag from OSEP
Excluding all accessibility features from IEP forms may result in

Not receiving features during instruction
Post secondary assessments and education

42 of 75

What Can States Do?

Require IEP teams to document and report

Keep track of the number of students with disabilities assigned designated and universal features for testing

Report designated and universal features

Provide training to LEA and school personnel on paradigm shift and documentation

43 of 75

What Can States Do? – Cont.

Provide training materials to districts to use with educators to ensure students with disabilities are familiar with and have experience in the classroom and on practice tests using accessibility features that will be provided during testing.

Provide information to districts to share with parents about the paradigm shift and how their child’s need for accessibility features will be met and documented.

44 of 75

What Can IEP Teams Do?

Document all needed accessibility features on the student’s IEP for each assessment so that everything a child needs is transparent.

Ensure that students with disabilities are familiar with all available accessibility features they may use during testing.

Check that each student with disabilities uses documented accessibility features and accommodations during instruction and assessment

45 of 75

CEDS

46 of 75

CEDS

Major discussions about the need for common language occurred in 2016 at the post-session forum to NCSA, “Forum on Common Language for States and Assessment Vendors.”
Discussions highlighted that:

Fragmented terminology development—emerging separately from classrooms and tech developers—creates widespread confusion.
Vendors sometimes unilaterally change terms while states work with multiple vendors under different rules, compounding the problem and even denying students access to needed supports when moving between states or platforms.

47 of 75

CEDS

Recommendation: Elicit stakeholder collaboration to develop common language through structured processes that bring together states, vendors, and accessibility experts.

48 of 75

CEDS

Consortia

Vendor

Community Participation

State Education Agencies

49 of 75

CEDS

Common Education Data Standards

What is CEDS?

50 of 75

CEDS

CEDS is an education data management initiative whose purpose is to streamline the understanding of data within and across P-20W institutions and sectors. The CEDS initiative includes a common vocabulary, data models that reflect that vocabulary, tools to help education stakeholders understand and use education data, an assembly of metadata from other education data initiatives, and a community of education stakeholders who discuss the uses of CEDS and the development of the standard.

51 of 75

CEDS

48 Accessibility Features Defined
26 Extension Elements Defined
8 Elements Applicable to All Accessibility Features Defined
99 Option Set Descriptions

52 of 75

NCEO Report #447

z.umn.edu/NCEO-Report447

53 of 75

NCEO Report #447

54 of 75

NCEO Report #447

55 of 75

NCEO Resources

56 of 75

NCEO Resources: Accommodations Toolkit

Research and policy summaries of 29 accommodations/accessibility features
Research summarizes major findings on use, implementation, and perceptions of each accommodation
Policy summarizes categories (e.g., universal feature vs accommodations) of accommodations by content area across states

57 of 75

NCEO Resources: Accommodations Toolkit

58 of 75

NCEO Resources: Yearly Literature Reviews

Literature reviews conducted yearly looking specifically at assessment accommodations for students with disabilities
Summarize major characteristics of studies

59 of 75

NCEO Resources: Yearly Literature Reviews

60 of 75

NCEO Resources: Forum Reports

61 of 75

Additional Resources: NCADEMI-OCALI AT&AEM Center

Braille Accessibility in State Assessments: Roles, Responsibilities, and Strategies

Updated guidelines for high-quality braille and tactile graphics on state assessments, aligned with BANA standards and IDEA requirements
Targets SEA/LEA staff, assessment vendors, and media producers to improve planning and partnerships
Ensures appropriate accommodations that accurately measure academic achievement for braille-reading students
Input on states’ TA needs? Email ncademi@usu.edu

And from our friends at the NCADEMI-OCALI AT&AEM Center, there's updated guidance on braille accessibility in state assessments, including roles, responsibilities, and strategies aligned with BANA standards and IDEA requirements.

This document presents a set of recommended guidelines to enhance the timely delivery and effective use of high-quality braille – embossed and electronic – and tactile graphics for state assessments. It builds upon earlier guidance provided in Improving the Provision and Use of Braille for State-Mandated Assessment by the National Center on Accessible Educational Materials (National AEM Center, 2023). The guidelines are consistent with the position of the Braille Authority of North America (BANA) on the requirement of accessible tests for braille readers (BANA, 2025). This document also addresses the need for individualized, appropriate accommodations required to accurately measure a student’s academic achievement and functional performance on state and districtwide assessments in alignment with section 612(a)(16) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

The intended audience for this resource is State Educational Agency (SEA) and Local Educational Agency (LEA) personnel responsible for ensuring the provision of accommodations on state assessments. Assessment vendors and Accessible Media Producers (AMPs), who are key partners in ensuring braille readers can access the state assessment, will also benefit from the information. Ideally, the guidelines will facilitate proactive planning and effective partnerships among these groups.

62 of 75

Alternate Assessment Accommodations

63 of 75

NCEO Report #446

z.umn.edu/NCEO-Report446

64 of 75

Study 1: State Policies

We examined:

the extent to which states include their AA-AAAS accommodations policies on their websites;
where states document their AA-AAAS accommodations policies; and
the most frequently provided accommodations and test design features across states.

We sent state-level summaries to state education agency staff for verification of findings.

We did two studies for this report. The first examined state policies. We looked at the extent to which states include their alternate assessment accommodations policies on their websites, where they document these policies, and what accommodations are most frequently provided.

We sent state-level summaries to SEA staff for verification, and we got great response—39 states responded, with 38 providing clarifications or additional documents.

The first component of our research was a comprehensive analysis of state policies regarding alternate assessment accommodations. We sought to answer three key research questions: First, to what extent do states include alternate assessment accommodations policies on their websites? Second, where specifically do states document these policies—in standalone documents for alternate assessments, in combined manuals with general assessment information, or elsewhere? And third, what are the most frequently identified accommodations across states, and how are they categorized?

We conducted a systematic search of all 51 state education agency websites, including DC, from April to May 2024. For each state, we examined all publicly available documents related to alternate assessment accommodations, including accessibility manuals, test administration manuals, and other guidance documents. We documented the types of documents found, the terminology used for accessibility features, and the specific accommodations listed. To ensure accuracy, we implemented a verification process where we sent summary forms to each state's assessment and special education directors, allowing them to confirm our findings or provide additional information. Thirty-nine states responded to our verification request, with 38 providing clarifications or additional documents. We also conducted a secondary review of documents to identify accessibility features built into test design or procedures rather than listed as separate accommodations.

65 of 75

Study 2: Literature Review

We identified and summarized research studies addressing AA-AAAS accommodations from 2000 through 2023.
We analyzed the characteristics of the existing research literature and synthesized the major findings.

The second study was a literature review identifying and summarizing research studies on alternate assessment accommodations from 2000 through 2023.

The second component of our research was a systematic literature review to identify and analyze research studies on alternate assessment accommodations published between 2000 and 2023. Our research questions focused on determining how many studies have addressed this topic, what methodological approaches and research designs they employed, which student populations and accommodations they examined, and what major findings they reported. This comprehensive literature review helps establish the current evidence base for alternate assessment accommodations practices and identifies critical gaps requiring future research.

Our literature review followed a rigorous four-step process designed to identify all relevant research. First, we conducted initial searches across multiple academic databases including ERIC, Academic Search Premier, PsycInfo, and Education Source. We used carefully constructed search terms related to alternate assessments and accommodations, which yielded 150 potentially relevant articles after removing duplicates. Second, we conducted title and abstract screening using pre-established inclusion criteria. Third, we performed full-text screening of 27 promising articles. Finally, we coded the six articles meeting all inclusion criteria, documenting their purposes, methodologies, participants, accommodations examined, and key findings. Throughout this process, at least two researchers independently reviewed each article, with a third researcher resolving any disagreements to ensure consistency and reliability.

66 of 75

Study 1 Results

49 of 51 states had publicly available AA-AAAS accommodations policies.
36 states had at least two policy documents addressing these accommodations.
There was significant variation in terminology used for accessibility features across states.
Policy information was often difficult to locate within state websites and documents.

What we found was that 49 of 51 states had publicly available alternate assessment accommodations policies. Thirty-six states had at least two policy documents addressing these accommodations.

But there was significant variation in terminology used for accessibility features across states—at least 13 different sets of terms. And policy information was often difficult to locate within state websites and documents.

Our policy analysis revealed several important findings. Forty-nine of 51 states had publicly available alternate assessment accommodations policies, though two states noted their documents were either under revision or available only through non-public educator portals. Thirty-six states had at least two policy documents addressing these accommodations, with some having up to six documents. We identified substantial variation in terminology used for accessibility features, with states using at least 13 different sets of terms. The most common terminology systems were "Categories 1, 2, and 3" (13 states) and "Universal features, Designated features, and Accommodations" (13 states). This variation creates challenges for cross-state comparisons and potential confusion for educators working in multiple states. Additionally, policy information was often difficult to locate within state websites and documents, sometimes requiring navigation through multiple pages or documents to find complete information.

67 of 75

Study 1 Results

This chart shows the most frequently identified accommodations. Signed administration was most common at 48 states, followed by magnification and assistive technology at 46 states each. Human readers were allowed in 44 states, scribes and manipulatives in 43 states, and calculators in 42 states.

This graph illustrates the most frequently identified accommodations across states. Signed administration was the most common, provided in 48 states, followed by magnification and assistive technology at 46 states each. Human readers were allowed in 44 states, while scribes and manipulatives were permitted in 43 states. Calculators were allowed in 42 states. Beyond these most common accommodations, we found considerable variation in less frequently identified accommodations. Additional common accommodations included braille (39 states), color contrast (38 states), and colored lenses or overlays (38 states). We also noted that states in assessment consortia like DLM and MSAA generally had similar accommodations lists, though some states added accommodations beyond those provided by their consortium. States also varied considerably in how detailed their accommodation descriptions were, with some providing extensive implementation guidance and others offering minimal details.

68 of 75

Study 1 Results

48 states specified accessibility supports built directly into test design or procedures.
Alternate response methods (35 states) represented the most common built-in feature, followed by assistive technology (AT; 33 states) and breaks during testing (30 states).
Documentation of these features was sometimes inconsistent within states.

Forty-eight states specified accessibility supports built directly into test design or procedures. Alternate response methods were most common at 35 states, followed by AT at 33 states and breaks during testing at 30 states.

But documentation of these features was sometimes inconsistent within states, which creates confusion.

An interesting finding from our analysis was that 48 states specified accessibility supports built directly into test design or procedures rather than listing them as separate accommodations. These built-in features were often described in narrative sections of manuals rather than in accommodation lists. The most common built-in features included alternate response methods (35 states), assistive technology (33 states), and breaks during testing (30 states). Other common built-in features included test administrator entering of student responses, paper administration options, manipulatives, and specialized settings. This integration of universal design principles into test development represents a positive advancement, but it also creates complexity in documentation. We found that information about these built-in features was sometimes inconsistent within states, appearing differently across documents or being described using different terminology, potentially creating confusion for test administrators and IEP teams.

69 of 75

Study 2 Results

Only six research studies published between 2000 and 2023 were identified.
Most studies relied on secondary data analysis rather than original data collection.
Three studies specifically focused on students with visual impairments.
Over 30 different accommodations were examined.
There remains a substantial gap between policy implementation and research investigation.

Here's what really struck us: we only identified six research studies on alternate assessment accommodations published between 2000 and 2023. Six studies in over 20 years!

Most studies relied on secondary data analysis rather than original data collection. Three studies specifically focused on students with visual impairments. Over 30 different accommodations were examined across these six studies.

There's a substantial gap between policy implementation and research investigation.

Our literature review revealed a striking research gap. Despite alternate assessments being required for over two decades, we identified only six research studies on alternate assessment accommodations published between 2000 and 2023. No studies were published during the first eleven years after alternate assessments were required, and four of the six studies were published after 2016. This extremely limited research base stands in stark contrast to the extensive literature on accommodations for general assessments, which includes hundreds of studies. The limited number of studies also suggests that some accommodations may not have not been empirically investigated for use with this population on this assessment, despite being widely used in practice. This disconnect between policy implementation and research investigation raises serious questions about the evidence base supporting current accommodation practices for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.

The six studies we identified used diverse methodological approaches. Three employed mixed methods designs combining qualitative and quantitative data. Two studies used purely quantitative methodologies, while one utilized a qualitative approach. Five of the six studies relied on secondary data analysis from existing datasets such as DLM, the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2, or state assessment programs, rather than collecting original data. Three studies specifically focused on students with visual impairments, which is disproportionate to the prevalence of this disability among alternate assessment participants and suggests a significant gap in research for students with other types of disabilities. Collectively, these studies examined over 30 different accommodations, including those related to presentation format, response options, setting, and timing. The most commonly studied accommodations were related to visual presentation formats, reflecting the focus on students with visual impairments.

70 of 75

Implications

Greater consistency is needed in approaches to documenting policies; in terminology; and in documents within individual states.
Future research should examine effects of specific accommodations for different student subgroups, as well as the impact of universal design elements on test accessibility.
Current research on best practices should drive selection and implementation processes.

The implications are clear: we need greater consistency in approaches to documenting policies, in terminology, and in documents within individual states. Future research should examine effects of specific accommodations for different student subgroups, as well as the impact of universal design elements on test accessibility. And current research on best practices should drive selection and implementation processes.

Our findings point to several important policy implications. First, states would benefit from more consistent approaches to documenting alternate assessment accommodations policies, including standardized terminology and organizational frameworks. The current variation creates additional complexity for educators, families, and researchers. Second, greater consistency is needed across documents within individual states to avoid contradictory guidance about allowable accommodations. We found instances where accommodations were described differently across documents within the same state, which creates confusion and inconsistency in implementation. Third, accessibility information should be more readily available to educators and families, ideally through dedicated sections on state websites and clearly labeled sections in documents. Additionally, as new research and technologies emerge, timely policy guidance is needed to ensure students have access to the most effective and appropriate accommodations.

The research gaps we identified have critical implications for future investigation. There is an urgent need for expanded research on the effectiveness of alternate assessment accommodations for improving test validity without altering the construct being measured. Future studies should examine effects of specific accommodations for different student groups, as the current literature base over-represents students with visual impairments while under-representing students with other disability types. Research on the impact of universal design elements on test accessibility and validity is also needed, particularly as these elements are increasingly integrated into test development. Studies investigating selection and implementation processes in real educational settings would provide valuable guidance for practice. Given the unique challenges of conducting research with this low-incidence population, innovative methodological approaches may be necessary, including single-case designs, participatory research methods, and mixed-methods studies combining qualitative insights with quantitative data.

Our findings have significant implications for educational practice. Comprehensive professional development is essential for educators to understand accommodation options, selection processes, and implementation procedures for alternate assessments. This training should address the unique considerations for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, who often require multiple, complex accommodations. Educators need guidance on aligning instructional and assessment accommodations to ensure students are familiar with accessibility features before testing. Implementation guidance must be clear and detailed, particularly for complex accommodations involving assistive technology or specialized formats. Additionally, educators should be encouraged to document the effectiveness of accommodations used during instruction to inform assessment accommodation decisions. Finally, as states continue integrating universal design principles into assessment development, educators will need guidance on effectively utilizing these built-in accessibility features alongside traditional accommodations.

71 of 75

Conclusions

Significant opportunities for improvement remain in policy documentation practices.
The research base on AA-AAAS accommodations needs substantial development.
Better coordination across research, policy, and practice is essential for ensuring appropriate accessibility and valid results.

To wrap up this section: significant opportunities for improvement remain in policy documentation practices. The research base on alternate assessment accommodations needs substantial development. And better coordination across research, policy, and practice is essential for ensuring appropriate accessibility and valid results.

To summarize what I’ve just presented, our research identified both progress and persistent challenges in alternate assessment accommodations policies and research. While states have developed increasingly comprehensive accommodations policies, significant opportunities for improvement remain in documentation consistency, accessibility, and clarity. The research base on alternate assessment accommodations requires substantial development, with most accommodations seeming to lack empirical validation for this unique student population. Most critically, there must be better coordination across research, policy, and practice to ensure evidence-based accommodations support. This coordination would ideally involve researchers working directly with state policy developers and practitioners to identify priority research questions, develop practical studies, and translate findings into accessible guidance. Addressing these challenges will be crucial for ensuring appropriate accessibility and valid assessment results for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, ultimately supporting more equitable educational opportunities and outcomes for these students.

72 of 75

“Hot Topics” and Overall Trends

73 of 75

Hot Topics and Trends

Remote/virtual test administration
Alternate assessments and the 1% cap
Providing full access to assessments to students who are blind/VI and Deaf/HH (Title II)
Interoperability of AT/AAC with assessments
“Shifting” accommodations

First, remote and virtual test administration—this accelerated during COVID and it's not going away, so we need policies and practices that address it.

Second, alternate assessments and the 1% cap—states are still grappling with this.

Third, providing full access to assessments for students who are blind/VI and Deaf/HH under Title II. This is both a civil rights issue and a technical challenge.

Fourth, interoperability of AT and AAC with assessments—this keeps coming up in our forums. Students have AT that works great in the classroom, but then it doesn't work with the assessment platform.

And fifth, what we’re calling "shifting accommodations"—accommodations that used to be considered accommodations but are now universal features, or vice versa. This creates documentation challenges and confusion.

74 of 75

Questions and Discussion

75 of 75

Contact Information

Mari Quanbeck: quanb016@umn.edu
Andrew Hinkle: ahinkle@umn.edu

NCEO website: nceo.info