Handicapped Students and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) Was Designed to Assess The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUU ' `Asp 204 348 810 085 AUTHOR. Ragosta, Marjorie - TITLE. .Handicapped Students fend ,the SA!. , . INSTITUTION EdaCational Testing. Service, PrincetOn, N.J. SPUN 1G13-NCI - Colleie Enteincelzamination,Board,New York,N.Y. irEpoitt NO CB-RDR-80-8T-1: ETStAldp-i2 ,. PUB MATE Jul 40 NOTE 146p. 4 DRS PRICE OF01 Plus "Postage. PC Not Available from EDBS. aDESCRIPTOMS Answer Sheets; College.Bound Students: *College Entrance Ezaminationsz'Deafness: *Disabilities: High Schools: Learning Disabflities: Physical Disabilities: Standardized Teits; Surveys: -Testing: ' *Testing Problems: Test Interpretation': Test Items: . visual' Impairments IDENTIFIERS *Scholastic Aptitude Test , 'ABSTRACT . '1- . - .. ', A pilot study of handicapped students and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) was designed to assess the. concerns of handicapped stu(lents abwit the SAT, ti, identify problems specific to certain asabilities or common across disabilities, to alert the ,. College Board and` Ed Testing Service (ETS) about'lhe findingi, and to make recommendations for futUrerwork. The "handicapped* studied werenot a homogeneous group': type of. of disability', severity and duration of the handicap, age at onset, progiession of the dfsabklity, and theindividual's adaptation,all varied.One handicaprhoweverp.was cdimonacross disabilities: the attitude of the public toward the handicapped. Almost haleof the tudents had been tested in standardadministration of-the,SAN, 441.1i. because they w*re uaalcate of the availability of special - Teinid4ratiOnsfSeveral problems with the SAT itself were i ntified, such as the answer sheet for those with visual impairment oR the vocabulary level for deaf students. The recommendations made Op designed to close the communication gap. between ETS, handicapped 'sthdentt,,counselors, and test administrators: develop a database for valtdity and reliabilityresearch .forhandicapped students: and solve 'som of the time and.space problems through loodularization of "4stakdardized tests. (Author/B4) i . , I ***** *************44*************************************,**vA*****,*** se itiprod'uctions supplied EDRS are` the best. that can bel,siade i 4 . , . * ; from the original doCument. ,. i '/, * ***************ri****************************************/ *****$**** . - . '.- . OIWASTMOff OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION - CENTER CENCI Li Thus document his boon Nookroced 4 %covet Iron *grown or greermatoo orlgootog a. 1 ; lArnor Charges have been made to entotove re0400totanquelay . Foote of vow o4 opmcna sustain this docu royal tIo not roomar4 "Oise*, "col NIE 1-.;VACI- Posr000 or pobcy " ---- .team:*pitAR mismAR CHAN CfbeVIKOPM $ "PERMISb/104T REPRODUCE THIS 1018043:1; o MATENIAL IN MICROFICHEONLY ; HAS SEEN ORANTEI5 BY , , , R.14430:1? A ' , =* TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES / INFORMATION CENTER(EMI" - Rr I . I ft `. -HandkiappedStdenitla'i ndtil4A1 , , '- .- MarjOile Ragaiti. '0 :tr* ' 2,. , N - ,. .. 4, 4 , "4. 4t , .f .414111:111..0 . 4. t 'Handicapped Students and the SAT Final Report Marjorie Ragosta 5 I . This re ort is based upon research supported by the College Entrance Examination Board. .Researcher are e raged to express freely'their irofessi judgment in :the 'conduct of Such projects; there . 6 poitS6 of viet; or opinions stated do not necessarily representoffj.cial.College Board position or policy. - l 4 EduCational Testing Service 4% Princeton," New Jersey, ,JulY, 1980 . 1 A # I 0 lb.0 I .: 0 ; .! . A A : ' : 4 0 ... I o 4. ,. 1 jk 1 I I a " ) /. 10 '3 .gig v -i I . ;1 A . , . ' :, , .. pg g. Copyright 1980: EdscstiohalTeetang Sa0.14, 41 rights"reserrd. 1 .; .. 't , . `qv, , . o. t , '''. o... : . r 0 , fr. ' . ' 4f ' . on o 1- . , , . ... , . .. 4, Contents Chapter I Introduction . , II Activities of the Pioject The Literature Review . 4 The telephone Suri/ey Instrument Development 9 - Phase 2 16 III Disabilities and Handicaps . %. D isabilities Handicaps IV Handicapped Students and the SAT: The Conditions of Testing 31 - i t'' i Lack of'Knowledge of Alternative +. 31 Interpersonal, Problems in Test. Administration . 34 Time andSpace Considerations 38 f V . Handicapped Students and the SAT: The Test r Itself 43 The Answer Sheet ' 43 The SAT: Subtexts and Items 47 Test Interpretation : 50 VI Considerations & Recomiendations 52 . SAT Administration: Condition of Testing. .'. 52 22e:SAT-Administration: The Itself '' 57 Further Considerations/Recommendations 62 AppendiCes / , e Appendix A - Bibliography. 67 Appendix B -.Forms 75 Appendix C Disabled Students in'Standird & Non- Standard Adminiettations . 85 Appendix D - Information on the Deaf. : 91 0' 5. $ I f - s 14 I - Listof Tables r.' ' Page Table - An Overview of Information.About Educational s Institutions tonsideted Tor Participation, - XpPhase 2 of the' Stud" Ar Table 2 - Lick of Iliorledgeof.Alternatives 33 . '2, .. Table 3 - Interpersonal PrObleMs in Test . Administratioil . 35 , r ... ,. Table 4'-, Time". Considerations , 39' , .. Table 5 - Space andOuter Considerations . 41'. i .. Table 6 - The Answer Sheet Table 7- The SAT: Subtests and Items 48" . Tible '8 Test Interpretation .51 q* .. , List of .yigur'el $ , 4 ' Figure, Schedule, of Activities 5 ' Figure 2 Wall `Poster from HEW, Canada 30 kgure 3 - Maglione Answer '$heet 46 11 ' 1 .1 4 14. 1. 1 . ... l , . .. # . .4 . ,. 1 . f 1.0 . .,z.. I i k. t 1 4. 1 . I r ; ), ,, : .4 1' . 1 # 1 .... .I . ... 1 e ... -' b ' . 4 . % . , 0 / r;. .4 ". s ..: = 6 I 1 V e .. ... 4 .4,-. ..q. .'+ t,4 i. 1 .- i 7. i,° . ... f 4 V I ., 1 6 .. ...3411. 6 . %I *6 44 .. P V it 0 1 1 A a . .. 4 1. .1 .A 40 01 1 . , , 1 . A Iss Chapter I --.. 44 . I'... : , fltroduction., do. :/ .36 . "4 {41 d . ' . : 5.. it / fi % , The project' describid.in.this rei:Ort was designed as a pilot study 4 . , '..°* of handicapped students and the SAT. Its putposewas'ambitious:/ to J 'a , assess the concerns of!brabdicappedstudentsabout. standardizedtesting c- in general and the !ATs in pertidillar,to identifyproblems Specific-' . t . .. %. .. to certain disabilities, or common acrusrdAlbilities,.to alert the - . - . , . *. 4 / ,, College Board and ETS about the findings, and to mske.suggestiOns , or recommendations for fUture work. 4 . The project yesactivated,inyarch, 1579and was funded in two.. :.. .. phases. Phase I consisted of *'literature search, a. telephone survey' :: .1..: . of educatiOnal institutions, and, the dev41.opmentsanifield-Itesting.: of instruments for th'e major Site colleCtion activities. Phase'2 involved interviewing studenes'and admOistrators in 6 miso institutions where large populations of handicapped students were in'attgndancg. These rmtivitie of thg project are describedn Chapter fl.' . One of the first things to beAome appirentwaithat '&the handitippidte . ". 4* 46 A411A, t. did not hold,together as 'a group! Bven among students with the sas*' . - AA C'..- 1 :' , , . - ...,'. - . .' disability,(e.g.,blindness);facts suchas411e. severity aedftrationt .' ... a . .- of thehandicap,the age at onset, the progression' of Ile.disIbillty, ;And: .., .. 7. 0 the individual's adaptation combined Co create a. wide' Tangecii,1141Icaliping . ..,66". 1 "" ..A. .. ( 4 i ' 411'. :4 s ':. conditions. Ofiepervasive.handicap,however,waswee' commpilwithstudents:,: " ,,;,:.'. ?, . 0," . 0 0('. ,, 44 si.,,, a o. acrossmany disabilities: theattitude' ofthepublictoward the ihudicapp.1. - ,. .z., .4::-A Anbverviewof the disabilities andhandicap'sellebunCered 410$he situiy........ .- . ... 41. , .. * given in Chapter III. : . 0. 0 . , , 4 ...NI . , d g ' OP 1 . A major of the 'stu dy, was an the,conditions kuldef whiCh '. 7 fodue . '.:4 . s'' .. I 4 . , handigigd,students took the SATs. SurpriSihgly, almoit *1 hf.'Ot.-ft . r -d 44,t. -- . ., . d./.. .4 - 1 . ..:. ,. -",i',t i'l, f. -. e, , . .. e 1 7, . .. , . , . b . ".,.:. .., :. -.. :4.....:::..*,:t. 2 4 g liandicapped'itudents had been tested in s tandard admihistrationd of the SAT, .rater than in a special administration. For some, students this was . - $ adeliblerate choice but%for most itWAS lack of awareness of alternattves., % They simply did not know about, the possibility of a special admiaistratibliN- Additionally handicapped studentsrettbitad some interpersonal problems . :. between themselves and otheri.in the testing situation. ibis was not' - - * . generilly.true, but itas reported more ofken-than one Would like to . - - -, pep-. Finally, many.handicappeCstlidents reported on time aild space, . - restrictiontowhich they felt were an.4a4iibnal handicap. A review of the handicapped-students' opinions on the conditions of testingis giv en in, ...; . Chapter IV. .; s4 . Disabled students werewere also asked abort- e'SAT ftsei. Several 1 afreas of concern became apparent. Fpt students' with visual impairment and for students ioith motot impairment of.the-4pPer extremeties, the s answer sheet: poaeagreak difficulty. Within the 'test itself, there were 4 4:1 speCific concerns related to specific handicaps 4TheCailleand cassette version, for iSsfance, contained questions involving graphs or tabular presentations iddata which Werereported not to translate well into ' Braille or onto tape. The vocabulary liVel'of the SATs appeared to canfoukd many.deaf students. For most students taking thelATs in. a nos-standard,ddministration, the, discussion of score interpretation was a . soft point. A whew of,handicapped-stivients' opinions on the SAT are . Oven in,Chapter V.' S, 4 , j S'17: The. Lure of 41e data>colfected in this study and