Accommodations on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales

Copyright © 2003 by The Riverside Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted tophotocopy the pages of this booklet. These copies may not be sold and further distribution is expressly prohibited.Except as authorized above, prior written permission must be obtained from The Riverside Publishing Company toreproduce or transmit this work or portions thereof, in any other form or by any other electronic or mechanicalmeans, including any information storage or retrieval system, unless such copying is expressly permitted byfederal copyright law. Address inquiries to Permissions Department, The Riverside Publishing Company,425 Spring Lake Drive, Itasca, IL 60143-2079.Printed in the United States of America.Reference Citation■To cite this document, use:Braden, J. P., and Elliott, S. N. (2003). <strong>Accommodations</strong> on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition.(Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition Assessment Service Bulletin No. 2). Itasca, IL:Riverside Publishing.TerraNova CTBS is a trademark of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.For technical information, please call 1.800.323.9540, or visit our website at www.stanford-binet.com, or e-mail usat rpcwebmaster@hmco.com2 3 4 5 6 – BDN – 06 05 04 03

<strong>Accommodations</strong> on the Stanford-Binet IntelligenceScales, Fifth EditionPurposes of AccommodationThere are three reasons why examiners using the SB5 must consideraccommodating clients who have, or who are suspected of having, disabilities:(a) laws, litigation, and regulations requiring accommodations; (b) ethical codes ofconduct; and (c) enhanced validity of assessment. A discussion of each of thesereasons follows.LawsFederal civil rights laws provide individuals with disabilities the legal rights toaccommodations. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964), Title IX of the EducationAmendments (1972), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)mandate access for individuals with disabilities in a variety of assessmentprocesses and settings. Furthermore, federal legislation requires entities receivingfederal funds to provide access and accommodations to individuals withdisabilities (e.g., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), and theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (1997) provides protections toindividuals with disabilities in the assessment process. Together, these lawsprovide a clear mandate to require accommodations for individuals withdisabilities in assessment processes, whether those processes occur in public orprivate settings (Office of Civil Rights, 2000). Furthermore, the right toaccommodations extends to all individuals with disabilities (i.e., children andadults). Therefore, examiners must consider testing accommodations whenassessing individuals who have or who are suspected of having a disability.EthicsMost professional organizations promulgate ethical standards to guideappropriate conduct in professional practice. Psychological ethics standards (e.g.,American Psychological Association, 2002; National Association of SchoolPsychologists, 2000) provide some general principles to guide practice (e.g.,responding to clients’ unique needs including sensitivity to disabilities). Theethical standards clearly state that examiners must consider accommodations forindividuals with disabilities and must use accommodations appropriately whenassessing an examinee with a disability. Unfortunately, these standards are notspecific in addressing issues related to testing accommodations.Fortunately, these same ethical standards usually direct professionals toconsult the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (Standards)(American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association,1

ScanPilot ®Na primeira iniciação do SilverFast você é cumprimentado pelo ScanPilot. Ao apertar obotão Iniciar, o ScanPilot assume as etapas preestabelecidos na barra de botões. Nesteexemplo elas são: Predigitalização, Seleção do quadro (você pode definir a área a serdigitalizada) e Concluir. Após estas etapas o modelo está digitalizado na escala 1:1.Você pode interromper este processo a qualquer momento através do botão Parar einterferir manualmente, utilizando você mesmo as ferramentas de SilverFast.Apertando o botão Prefs, a lista deferramentas que devem ser usadasou disponibilizadas pelo ScanPilot, aparece epode ser modificada com cliques nas caixas deverificação. O ScanPilot mostra a melhor (profissional)seqüência para as ferramentas. Uma descriçãodetalhada das ferramentas se encontramais adiante neste manual e no manual contidono CD.Inicia o ScanPilotPára o ScanPilotAjuda em SilverFastSempre que o ponteiro do mouse é posicionado sobre uma área ativa (janela, botão, menude SilverFast), um breve texto de ajuda aparece na linha inferior da janela de pré-digitalização.Ao clicar nos botões com ponto de interrogação de SilverFast, chega-se aos arquivos deajuda (Acrobat PDF). Com um clique no botão "Q", breves filmes "QuickTime" são iniciados.Informações detalhadas sobre todas as funções de SilverFast constam no manual (daversão plena) que está junto a este CD como arquivo Acrobat Reader PDF.Outras informações úteis ou atualíssimas referentes a SilverFast, você acha na nossahomepage em:http://www.silverfast.com/overview/pt.htmlAqui você acha, também, todos os filmes de treinamento no formato QuickTime atéagora criados.65

than they would reflect the examinee’s cognitive abilities. Therefore, those scoreswould have significant construct-irrelevant variance that would invalidate theirmeaning (i.e., they would not represent cognitive processes because they areinfluenced by visual acuity). Therefore, examiners must make testingaccommodations when administering the SB5 to reduce or eliminateconstruct-irrelevant variance as an influence on test scores.Legal Issues in AssessmentWriting from a legal perspective, Phillips (1993, 1994) argued that examineeswith disabilities must have appropriate access to assessments. To ensure access,examiners must provide examinees with appropriate accommodations. Althoughearly litigation and legal responses focused on issues such as physical accessto testing accommodations (e.g., college test companies must providewheelchair-accessible furniture when administering tests), the discussion hasexpanded to balance the rights of test takers against the obligations of testproviders to ensure accommodations are fair and equitable. To guide thesedecisions, Phillips draws a distinction between two types of skills thatassessments require: access skills and target skills.Access SkillsAssessment conditions require or assume that examinees have certain skills. Forexample, reading achievement tests require examinees to be able to see test items(visual acuity skills), sit upright throughout the test session (gross motor skills),indicate correct answers (fine motor skills), and work on test items throughout thetesting interval (attention, stamina skills). These skills are not the focus of theassessment; rather, they are skills required to access the test items and content.Therefore, these skills are considered access skills. <strong>Accommodations</strong> to addressaccess skills level the playing field for examinees with disabilities because theyremove the barriers these examinees have and allow examinees to show theirtrue skills. Furthermore, examinees with disabilities have the right, and testadministrators have the obligation, to adapt the testing situation to minimize theeffects of these access skills on test outcomes. Therefore, testing accommodationsshould address access skills so that examinees are afforded appropriate access toassessments.Target SkillsIn contrast to access skills, target skills are the skills that assessments areintended to measure or reflect. Examinees with disabilities do not have the rightto accommodations that address target skills because such accommodationswould be unfair (i.e., they would incorrectly inflate the examinee’s scores relativeto those who did not have accommodations). To return to the example of a readingachievement test, some of the target skills in the test would be the ability to decodetext (word reading), understand text (comprehension), and apply previousknowledge to information in the text (evaluate and extend meaning). Providing alarge print version of the test to an examinee with a visual impairment would beappropriate (i.e., the accommodation addresses the access skill of visual acuity), butreading the test aloud to the examinee would not be appropriate (i.e., it changes thetarget skill—decoding text—by substituting a different skill—listening comprehension).<strong>Accommodations</strong> that alter target skills are inappropriate and are likely to4

violate the rights of other test takers by providing an unfair advantage toexaminees with disabilities. However, accommodations that address access skillsare not only allowed but are required because they protect the examinee’s right togain the same access to the test afforded to examinees without disabilities.There are strong parallels between validity and legal perspectives on testingaccommodations. Both approaches direct examiners to ensure that assessmentaccommodations retain adequate construct representation (i.e., do not affecttarget skills) and concurrently reduce construct-irrelevant variance (i.e., reduce oreliminate the influence of access skills).<strong>Accommodations</strong> Versus ModificationsContemporary research (e.g., Thurlow, Elliott, & Ysseldyke, 1998) and theStandards (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999) concur in drawing a distinction betweentest accommodations and test modifications. Test accommodations are changes tothe testing situation that retain construct representation (i.e., do not affect targetskills), while reducing construct-irrelevant variance (i.e., address access skills). Incontrast, test modifications are changes to testing that affect the construct ortarget skills of the test (e.g., providing easier items, substituting tests of otherskills). Therefore, test accommodations are legally mandated and appropriate toensure validity, whereas test modifications are neither mandated nor desirablebecause they are likely to alter validity.ConclusionsHistorically, cognitive assessment research and practice addressing the needs ofdisabled examinees have approached the issue of accommodations in anintuitive manner (Braden, in press). Clinicians, and the ethical standards andpractices they have developed, have been intrinsically more concerned withreducing construct-irrelevant variance than with ensuring adequate constructrepresentation. That is, fairness in response to client concerns has receivedgreater attention than ensuring adequate breadth in assessments. However,advances in cognitive theory have increased the degree to which clinicians canidentify, and thus adequately include, construct representation in cognitiveassessments (Braden).Contemporary legal and ethical developments also provide a mandate fortesting accommodations. Moreover, scientific and legal perspectives provideprinciples that examiners can use to guide decisions about whether, when, andhow to accommodate examinees with disabilities in assessments. The next sectionof this bulletin reviews the literature on assessment accommodations to provide abackground for the recommendations that follow.Assessment <strong>Accommodations</strong> ResearchThe key question driving assessment accommodations research is whether thescores with and without accommodations are comparable (Phillips, 1994). Ineffect, do scores from nonstandard test administrations mean the same thing asscores from standard test administrations? Test standardization is the traditionalmethod for making test results among examinees comparable (McDonnell,McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997). Standardization, however, may reduce the5

comparability of scores for students with disabilities because the disability itselfbiases the score by creating construct-irrelevant variance in the score (McDonnellet al., p. 173). Therefore, the use of accommodations reduces that variation inscore caused by a disability but precludes standardization becauseaccommodations, by their very nature, change the standard administration of thetest. The essential questions are: At what point does the change from standardtest administration intended to improve score comparability actually change thetask and harm score comparability? and How does an examiner know whetherthe tasks and resulting scores are no longer comparable?Interestingly, most of the research addressing these questions has beenundertaken in assessment contexts not involving intelligence tests. That is, themajority of research focuses on the inclusion of test takers with disabilities innonclinical assessments, such as large-scale achievement testing, college entranceexams, or employment tests. Research in contexts other than intelligence testingis reviewed first, and then a review of available research using previous editionsof the Stanford-Binet and other clinical tests of intelligence is presented.Decisions About Score Comparability: The Roleof Different Research DesignsTindal (1998) proposed three models for making decisions about task comparability.These models are descriptive (model 1), comparative (model 2), and experimental(model 3) in nature. The focus of all three models is to determine whether theconstruct that is being measured changes as a result of testing accommodations.The models represent a continuum of evidence for task comparability from theweakest evidence (descriptive) to the strongest (experimental).In Tindal’s (1998) descriptive model, evidence about task comparability relieson current policy for decision-making. Many testing accommodation policiesprovide descriptive evidence because they do not offer explanations orjustifications of why judgments about accommodations in policy are made.Instead, policies can be created based on external information (e.g., the policies ofother states) or may offer simple procedural recommendations for selecting andusing accommodations without stating a rationale for doing so. As part of theirpolicies, school districts may track the implementation of various accommodationsto understand how frequently accommodations are selected and used for certaintasks. This tracking may provide further descriptive evidence about therelationship of tasks to one another when accommodations are provided.The comparative model moves beyond descriptive information by relying onmultiple sources of data to judge comparability (Tindal, 1998). These data provideretrospective information about the use of accommodations, judgments about theirappropriateness, and performance outcomes to make relational statements aboutaccommodations and performance. However, because of its post-hoc nature, causeand effect relationships between accommodations and outcomes cannot be inferred.Threats to internal validity, such as selection bias, participant maturation, or lackof comparison groups, exist that compromise the utility of this approach for makingmeaningful and appropriate decisions about task comparability.Some of the aforementioned threats to validity can be avoided by establishinga research design prior to the collection of data; this is the hallmark of theexperimental model for determining task comparability (Tindal, 1998).6

Experimental models include research designs and technically soundmeasurements to enhance the likelihood that meaningful inferences aboutoutcomes can be made. Both large-group and single-case designs fall under therealm of the experimental model. To be informative, these designs must provideinferences about cause and effect on the general population with statisticalconclusions. In large-group designs, groups of students are compared with themselvesor with other groups under varying test-taking conditions. In single-case designs,the performance of the same student under varying test-taking conditions iscompared. The results of experimental studies are likely to provide the bestevidence for task and score comparability because these studies account for thelimitations encountered by descriptive or comparative methods.Of course, most educators or assessment professionals are unlikely toundertake an experimental approach to determine if a testing accommodation iseffective and valid. They most often will be confronted with the need for and useof testing accommodations during a referral or individualized education plan(IEP) meeting and may need assistance in selecting, planning, and implementingtesting accommodations. Research suggests that most educators and assessmentprofessionals will benefit by using a structured process to make these decisions(Elliott, Kratochwill, & Schulte, 1999). Phillips (1994) suggested the following fivequestions that assessment professionals might consider when looking atdepartures from standard testing conditions:❑❑❑❑❑Will the skills measured be altered by changes to the format or testingconditions?Will scores mean the same thing for examinees depending on whether theyobtained them under standard or accommodated testing conditions?Would receiving the same accommodation benefit nondisabled examinees?Might the examinee with the disability be able to adapt to the conditions ofstandard test administration?Do procedures of limited reliability and validity affect either the evidence ofthe examinee’s disability or the policy for testing accommodations?Phillips argued that an accommodation might be inappropriate if the answer toany of these questions is “yes.” However, the assessment specialist will always bein a somewhat difficult position, balancing the need to maintain a valid (and asmuch as possible, standard) assessment activity versus the rights of examineeswith disabilities. As Phillips put it, “the goals of providing maximum participationin society for the disabled and maintaining the validity of the testing programmay be at odds” (p. 104).Testing <strong>Accommodations</strong>: What Does the ResearchLiterature Tell Us?Elliott, Kratochwill, and McKevitt (2001) conducted a study designed to(a) describe the nature of information on testing accommodations listed onstudents’ IEPs, (b) document the testing accommodations educators actually usewhen assessing students via performance assessment tasks, and (c) examine theeffect accommodations have on the test results of students with and withoutdisabilities. Participants in the study included 218 fourth-grade students from7

disabilities. The authors predicted that accommodations would significantlyimprove the test scores of students with disabilities but would not significantlyimprove the test scores of students without disabilities. Participants in thestudy were 86 fourth-grade students, including 43 students with disabilities(entitled students with mild disabilities) and 43 students without disabilities.The students’ performances were measured on two equivalent versions of themathematics test of the TerraNova CTBS TM Multiple Assessments(CTB/McGraw-Hill, 1994–2000), designed to align with the Standards of theNational Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989).Teachers of participants who had disabilities reviewed their IEPs todetermine which accommodations the research team would use. Each studentwho did not have a disability was paired with a student who did have adisability, and the research team administered the TerraNova CTBS MultipleAssessments (CTB/McGraw-Hill, 1994–2000) to the students in pairs. Bothstudents in each pair received the accommodations outlined on the IEP of thestudent who had the disability. All students participated in a practice session tobecome familiar with the testing procedures and accommodations, and allstudents took one version of the test with accommodations and one version ofthe test without accommodations. The researchers randomly assigned the orderof accommodated and nonaccommodated conditions as well as the pairs ofstudents. The key independent variables in the study were testing condition(accommodated versus nonaccommodated) and disability status (with disabilityversus without disability). The dependent variables in the study were the scoresfrom the TerraNova CTBS Multiple Assessments. The results showed that bothgroups improved significantly when the accommodated condition was comparedto the nonaccommodated condition. However, students with disabilities benefitedmore from accommodations on multiple-choice questions, and both groupsbenefited equally on constructed-response questions. For multiple-choicequestions considered alone, students with disabilities yielded an effect size of .41between accommodated and nonaccommodated conditions, while studentswithout disabilities yielded an effect size of 0. On constructed-responsequestions alone, those effect sizes were .31 and .35, respectively. On anindividual level, there was essentially no difference between the effects ofaccommodations on students with disabilities and the effects of accommodationson students without disabilities. Twenty-seven out of 43 students withdisabilities, and 29 out of 43 students without disabilities, achieved higher scoreson the test when accommodations were available. Seventeen out of 43 studentswith disabilities, and 16 out of 43 students without disabilities, achieved higherproficiency levels on the test when accommodations were available. Twenty outof 43 students with disabilities, and 21 out of 43 students without disabilities,experienced no change in proficiency levels on the test when accommodationswere available.The finding that both groups of students experienced benefits from testingaccommodations indicates that the changes in test procedure may be affectingboth construct-relevant and construct-irrelevant variance. The differentialinteraction between accommodation group and question type could indicate thatconstructed-response questions are more difficult for all students, and thataccommodations remove barriers to these questions that are not present inmultiple-choice questions. These findings reinforce the notion that research ontesting accommodations must take an individual perspective, and that all9

students in such research should take the tests in both accommodated andnonaccommodated conditions, to determine whether accommodations truly helpperformance.In a study conducted by Elliott and Marquart (in press), the use of an“extended time” accommodation on a mathematics achievement test wasexamined. Elliott and Marquart predicted (a) that students with disabilities, butnot students without disabilities, would score significantly higher in the extendedtime condition than in the standard time condition, (b) that students with lowmath skills, but not students with higher math skills, would score significantlyhigher in the extended time condition, and (c) that all student groups wouldperceive the extended time condition as helpful in reducing anxiety by allowingthem to exhibit what they know and increasing their motivation to finish tests.Participants in the study included 69 eighth-grade students, 14 of their parents,and 7 of their teachers. Among the students, 23 were classified as havingdisabilities, 23 were classified as educationally at-risk in the area of mathematics,and 23 were classified as students performing at grade level. Teachers completedthe Academic Competence Evaluation Scales (ACES) (DiPerna & Elliott, 2000), arating scale to classify students without disabilities as at-risk or performing atgrade level. Student participants completed the mathematics test of theTerraNova CTBS Multiple Assessments (CTB/McGraw-Hill, 1994–2000), as wellas a survey about the effects of the extended time accommodation. Each testingsession included students from each of the three groups. Elliott and Marquartrandomly assigned the order of conditions (accommodated and nonaccommodated)in which each student performed the test. When performing in the accommodatedcondition, students had up to 40 minutes to complete the test. When performingin the nonaccommodated condition, students had 20 minutes to complete the test.Parents and teachers of students in the study also completed the survey aboutthe effects of the extended time accommodation.Elliott and Marquart (in press) found that the effect of the extended timeaccommodation was not significant for students without disabilities, who yieldedan effect size of .34. The accommodation was not significant for students withdisabilities either, as their effect size was .26. The three groups (students withdisabilities, at-risk, and grade level) did not differ significantly in their amount ofchange between accommodated and nonaccommodated conditions. When studentswithout disabilities were considered as at-risk and grade level groups, thestudents in the at-risk group experienced an effect size of .48 betweenaccommodation conditions, and students in the grade level group experienced aneffect size of .20. However, according to the survey, most students perceived thefollowing advantages in the extended time condition: they felt more comfortable,were more motivated, felt less frustrated, thought they performed better, reportedthe test seemed easier, and overall preferred taking the test under the extendedtime condition. Although most teachers held a similarly positive view of theextended time condition (88% indicated that a score from an accommodated testwould be as valid as one for the same test without accommodations) few parents(21%) shared that view. Many parents (43%), but no teachers, believed that thescore from an accommodated test would be less valid, and some members fromboth groups (36% of parents and 12% of teachers) were uncertain. Mostmembers of each group (63% of teachers and 56% of parents) believed that ifaccommodations are used on a test, those accommodations should be reportedwith the test results.10

McKevitt and Elliott (in press) studied the effects of testing accommodations onstandardized reading test scores and the consequences of using accommodationson score validity and teacher and student attitudes about testing. Whileread-aloud accommodations are considered invalid by the testing policies in manystates, to date there have been no published studies that actually analyzed theireffects on reading test performance. To test the effects of the read-aloudaccommodation, the reading performance of 79 eighth-grade students was testedon the TerraNova CTBS Multiple Assessments Reading Battery–Research Version(Form A) (CTB/McGraw Hill, 1999). Forty of those students were diagnosed withan educationally defined disability and received special education services in thearea of reading and/or language arts. The other 39 students were generaleducation students used for comparison purposes. Four special education teachersand one general education teacher participated by recommending testingaccommodations for these students using the Assessment <strong>Accommodations</strong>Checklist (Elliott, Kratochwill, & Schulte, 1999). They also rated students’ readingachievement levels using the Academic Competence Evaluation Scales (DiPerna &Elliott, 2000). An additional 43 teachers and all tested students completed surveysabout their perceptions of and attitudes about testing accommodations andstandardized testing.Once students were identified, they were divided into two groups (studentswith disabilities and students without disabilities). Within those groups, studentswere then divided into two test conditions (students receiving teacher-recommendedaccommodations and students receiving teacher-recommended accommodationsplus a read-aloud accommodation). Students in each group and each conditioncompleted two alternate parts of the reading test—one with accommodations(either teacher-recommended accommodations or teacher-recommendedaccommodations plus read-aloud accommodations) and the other withoutaccommodations. The part of the test that was accommodated was determined byrandom assignment. This design yielded a repeated measures ANOVA with effectsize calculations used to test the predictions. The results showed that teachersselected accommodations they considered valid and fair for use on a standardizedtest. They did not recommend using a read-aloud accommodation, as thisaccommodation would interfere with the purpose of the test (i.e., to measurereading ability) and thus would invalidate resulting test scores. Next, theaccommodations that teachers recommended did not significantly affect testscores for either group of students. However, the read-aloud accommodation, whenused in addition to those recommended by the teacher, did positively andsignificantly affect test scores for both groups of students. There was nodifferential benefit from the read-aloud accommodation, indicating overall scoreboosts for both groups of students, rather than the boost only for students withdisabilities that was predicted.Interestingly, there was much individual variability in the accommodationeffects. As indicated by effect size statistics, the accommodations positivelyaffected the scores for half of all students with disabilities and 38% of all studentswithout disabilities. Furthermore, neither group of students scored significantlyhigher when the test was read aloud to them as compared to the groups thatreceived other accommodations. While the read-aloud method helped both groupscompared to their own performance without accommodations, using the read-aloudmethod did not produce a significant effect when groups receiving the methodwere compared to those receiving only the teacher-recommended accommodations.11

Finally, McKevitt and Elliott (in press) found that students and teachers hadmixed feelings about the accommodations. Students were generally positive abouttheir use, but they expressed some concern that the read-aloud accommodationwas too difficult to follow. Likewise, teachers felt positive about the use ofaccommodations for students with disabilities but also were concerned about howaccommodations would affect test score validity. Teachers reported they relyprimarily on professional judgment when making accommodations decisions,rather than on their own empirical testing of accommodations effects. Therefore, itis important to ensure teachers are knowledgeable about the use and effects oftesting accommodations.In summary, the McKevitt and Elliott (in press) study contributed to theincreasing evidence that accommodations may have either positive or negativeeffects for individual students with and without disabilities. It also lendssupport to the popular belief that reading aloud a reading test to students asan accommodation invalidates test scores. The lack of differential boost (i.e.,the finding that both groups of students profited from a read-aloudaccommodation) observed in the study is one piece of evidence that theread-aloud accommodation has an invalidating effect. But the lack ofdifferential benefit alone may not be sufficient to conclude invalidity of scoresresulting from the use of accommodations. In the case of the students receivingthe teacher-recommended accommodations alone, a differential boost also wasnot observed, and scores did not improve significantly for either group.However, a conclusion cannot be drawn just by this evidence that theaccommodations were invalid. The accommodations still may have served toremove a disability-related barrier for the student tested but may not have hada significant effect on scores. Thus, evidence to support the validity ofaccommodations needs to come from multiple sources, examining studentfactors, test factors, and the accommodations themselves.Clinical Assessment ResearchPrevious versions of the Stanford-Binet were popular with clinicians forassessing the intelligence of clients with disabilities (e.g., Braen & Masling,1959). Hayes (1950) recommended a set of adaptations for clients with visualimpairments, which became known as the Perkins-Binet (see Genshaft & Ward,1982 and Ward & Genshaft, 1983 for reviews). Sattler (1972a, 1972b) conductedresearch with the Stanford-Binet with children who had mental retardation,cerebral palsy, speech difficulties, and no known disabilities. He concluded thatthe Stanford-Binet was useful for assessing the intelligence of these individuals.Sattler also recommended specific alterations in procedures and materials(i.e., accommodations and modifications) for low-performing and young children,but he noted that such modifications were inappropriate for higher-performingchildren. One outcome of this research (reviewed by Harrington, 1979) was torecommend a nonverbal set of tests selected from the Stanford-Binet andWechsler Scales for low-performing children with disabilities. Katz (1956, 1958)recommended examiners use a modified pointing procedure in which clients wereallowed to direct their movements through commands and gestures, as anaccommodation for testing. Finally, Bloom, Klee, and Raskin (1977) investigatedthe impact of abbreviated and complete versions of the Stanford-Binet with12

children with developmental delays, and concluded that abbreviated forms,although correlating well with complete forms, missed essential features ofperformance that could lead to misclassification. Such findings probablyinfluenced the design of the SB5 (Roid, 2003a), in which each of the five factorsmeasured by the instrument incorporates both a verbal and a nonverbalsubscale, resulting in the nonverbal index providing a comprehensive, compositemeasure of ability.Unfortunately, most of this research is descriptive, with little effort to validateassessment accommodations and modifications through experimental means.Exceptions to this conclusion include work by Sattler (1972a, 1972b) and Handy(1996). Sattler included multiple measures of intelligence, and Handysystematically varied pantomimed and standardized administration of theStanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition (Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler,1986) and the Wechsler Scales among both students with mild hearingimpairments and those with no impairments. Both these researchers concludedthat accommodations made small differences in test outcomes, although wheredifferences occurred, scores were higher in accommodated versusnonaccommodated conditions.More commonly, researchers have conducted a logical or rational analysis andsimply made recommendations. Occasionally recommendations are supplementedby reporting whether changes in test conditions affect test scores. Theseprocedures are inadequate for validating accommodations, as the effect of suchchanges on nondisabled populations are not known. Also, the literature onassessment accommodations in intellectual assessment uniformly ignores the needto retain construct representation. This is problematic, as many recommendedaccommodations and practices involve eliminating items or subtests from clinicalbatteries (e.g., Brauer, Braden, Pollard, & Hardy-Braz, 1997). The lack of attentionto construct representation has been exacerbated by poor specification of cognitiveabilities and the assumption that general intellectual abilities are adequatelyrepresented by virtually any portion of an intelligence test battery (McGrew,Keith, Flanagan, & Vanderwood, 1997). However, as test publishers and cliniciansincreasingly understand and apply cognitive frameworks, such as the CHC theorythat drives the SB5, it will be possible to more accurately specify the constructstests intend to measure and ensure accommodations adequately retain constructrepresentation (Braden, in press).Identifying Appropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>on the SB5Making decisions about appropriate accommodations requires professionaljudgments. These judgments are influenced directly by knowledge of the client,recognition of general access skills for most tests, knowledge of the content anddemand characteristics of the test and respective subtests, and a well-groundedunderstanding of test score validity. In some cases, it is only as a result of testinga client that an examiner becomes aware of key factors that influence accommodationdecisions. However, with some planning and knowledge of the role that testaccommodations can play in testing, assessment results can be more meaningful.13

Know the ClientExaminers should become familiar with the client’s physical, emotional, andcognitive abilities and disabilities prior to testing. The SB5 is designed to measurea wide range of cognitive abilities but not physical or emotional abilities. Ofcourse, these domains of abilities are correlated to some degree. Therefore, it isquite challenging for an examiner to select appropriate accommodations. Thischallenge is reduced, however, when the examiner observes the client in his or hernatural setting (school, work, etc.) and interacts with the client before testing toget a clear understanding of his or her motor and sensory skills and ability toregulate emotions. Examiners should also interview others who know the clientwell to gain a good understanding of client attributes and essential skills neededto meaningfully access and respond to test items.Recognize Key Access SkillsIn theory, there are hundreds of potential skills needed to access and respond toan item on a test like the SB5. Based on a comprehensive understanding of theconstructs targeted by the SB5, there are a number of general access skills thatclients need to facilitate accurate measurement of their cognitive abilities. Thesecan include:■■■■■■■■■■■■■AttendingListening to and understanding languageSeeingSitting still for an extended period of timeReadingWritingFollowing directionsManipulating materialsTracking examiner’s movements and related materialsProcessing information in a timely mannerWorking for a sustained period of timeCommunicating personal needsAsking questions when they do not understand.Whether or not a skill is an access skill is determined by the purpose of thetest. In other words, some skills may be access skills for one subtest but not foranother subtest because that subtest includes the skill or construct in theconstruct it intends to assess (i.e., target skills).Know the Test Content and Administration ProceduresThere is no substitution for knowing the content of a test when making decisionsabout appropriate accommodations. If examiners have a comprehensiveunderstanding of the knowledge and skills targeted by the test, they can deducemany of the necessary skills needed to access and respond to the test content.14

Familiarity with the test and the related underlying cognitive abilities measuredby the test provides the foundation for making professional judgments aboutappropriate accommodations for any client. An initial analysis of the cognitiveabilities targeted by SB5 scales and subtests is included in this bulletin alongwith suggestions for appropriate accommodations. Inappropriate modifications tothe subtests are also identified.Built-In <strong>Accommodations</strong>By incorporating adaptive testing, extra time, and the availability of verbal vs.nonverbal scales, many concerns regarding accommodation have already beenaddressed and built into the administration procedures of the SB5. In adaptivetesting, the examiner gives items that are relevant to the particular examinee andavoids items irrelevant to estimating the examinee’s ability level (i.e., items thatare too difficult or too easy). The SB5 incorporates adaptive testing by usingrouting tests so that subsequent testing is adapted to the examinee’s ability level.Extra time is perhaps the most common assessment accommodation (Elliott,Braden, & White, 2001). Fortunately, few SB5 subtests have any time limits, andmost time limits are merely to avoid examinee frustration and fatigue. Theexaminer can generally ignore those time limits when judgment indicates that thebenefits to the examinee exceed the costs of fatigue or lost attention. Finally, theavailability of language-loaded (verbal) and language-reduced (nonverbal) scalesthat comprise all five of the cognitive factors assessed on the SB5 allow examinersto adapt the assessment to different language abilities without significantlysacrificing construct representation. For example, most other cognitive abilitybatteries use exclusively verbal subtests to measure Knowledge and exclusivelynonverbal subtests to measure Fluid Reasoning. On these batteries, examinersmust decide whether to omit these tests for some clients (e.g., clients who aredeaf, hard of hearing, or visually impaired) and sacrifice construct representation,or whether to include them and consequently threaten results due toconstruct-irrelevant variance. The SB5 provides examiners with the means to useeither a language-reduced or language-loaded approach to testing withoutsacrificing construct representation.Scale and Subtest-Specific Information to Guide<strong>Accommodations</strong>This section provides specific suggestions for accommodations on the SB5.It is assumed that examiners will address noncognitive access skills in SB5administration. For example, examiners routinely provide wheelchair-accessiblefurniture, allow communication devices (e.g., speech synthesizers, keyboards) usedby examinees to express themselves, provide adequate breaks or rest to reducephysical fatigue, and so forth. However, it is not possible to anticipate all of thephysical accommodations that examinees might require, and examiners areencouraged to consider carefully whether the change in the test setting, timing,presentation, or response characteristics affects the target skills (constructrepresentation) of the examination. If not, examiners should be flexible, practical,and welcoming as they consider assessment accommodations, while criticallyevaluating potential accommodations to ensure that they do not invalidate15

Table 1Nonverbal Subtest/Activity Target Skills, Appropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>, andInappropriate ModificationsObject Series/MatricesTarget SkillsAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>Inappropriate ModificationsFluid reasoning, induction, general sequential reasoning, visual memory, visualization of abstractstimuli, attention to visual cues, concentration for long periods, systematic visual scanning,search strategies, mental review of potential answers, visual discrimination, tracking visualsequences, pattern recognition, and mental verbal mediationAllow extra time, allow vocal response in lieu of motor response or vice versa to indicateselection, allow any modality for presenting directions (signing, writing, speaking)Allow additional or nonstandard cuing or feedback on errors (except on starting items asindicated), reduce number of alternatives for any item, create manipulative materials for matrixitemsProcedural KnowledgeTarget SkillsAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>Inappropriate ModificationsPicture AbsurditiesTarget SkillsAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>Inappropriate ModificationsNonverbal Quantitative ReasoningTarget SkillsAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>Inappropriate ModificationsForm BoardTarget SkillsAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>Inappropriate ModificationsCrystallized abilities/knowledge, general information, oral production and fluency, visualizationof meaningful stimuli, freedom from visual neglect, toleration of ambiguity, search strategies,and visual discriminationAllow extra time, allow vocal response in lieu of motor response to indicate selection, allow anymodality for presenting directions (signing, writing, speaking), allow tactile contact with materials,allow examinee to “guide” examiner to respond (but do not suggest alternatives)Allow additional or nonstandard cuing or feedback on errors (except on starting items asindicated), offer examinee a finite set of alternatives (e.g., “This way or that way?”)Crystallized abilities/knowledge, general information, oral production and fluency, visualizationof meaningful stimuli, freedom from visual neglect, toleration of ambiguity, search strategies,and visual discriminationAllow extra time, allow motor/gestured or vocal response (i.e., do not require both gestures andvocalization as long as the examinee provides unambiguous, scoreable responses), allow anymodality for presenting directions (signing, writing, speaking) that does not describe the problemdepicted in the itemAllow additional or nonstandard cuing or feedback on errors (except on starting items asindicated), use nonstandard query (e.g., “Yes, that’s silly, but there’s something even sillier.”)Quantitative reasoning, mathematical knowledge, concentration for long periods, andproduction of conventional answersAllow extra time, allow vocal response in lieu of motor response or vice versa to indicateselection, allow any modality for presenting directions (signing, writing, speaking) but do not usegestures that clearly indicate correct answer (e.g., bigger must be represented symbolically viavoice, print, or sign), allow examinee to vocalize or “guide” examiner to respond (but do notsuggest alternatives), provide scratch paper or calculator to assist in mental calculationsAllow additional or nonstandard cuing or feedback on errors (except on starting items asindicated), reduce number of alternatives for any item, provide a calculator for calculationsVisual-spatial processing, spatial relations, visualization of meaningful stimuli, inspection ofobjects by touch, freedom from visual neglect, precision of movement, tracking visual sequences,and retention spanAllow extra time, allow vocal response in lieu of motor response or vice versa to indicateselection, allow any modality for presenting directions (signing, writing, speaking), allow examineeto “guide” examiner to respond (but do not suggest alternatives)Allow additional or nonstandard cuing or feedback on errors (except on starting items asindicated), reduce the number of items pieces (i.e., presentation in sequence rather than allat once)17

Table 1 (Continued)Nonverbal Subtest/Activity Target Skills, Appropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>, andInappropriate ModificationsForm PatternsTarget SkillsAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>Inappropriate ModificationsVisual-spatial processing, spatial relations, closure speed, visualization of meaningful stimuli,inspection of objects by touch, freedom from visual neglect, precision of movement, trackingvisual sequences, and retention spanAllow extra time to execute response, adjust precision rules for scoring if examiner concludesexaminee’s motor skills (not visual-spatial processing) caused poor placement of pieces, allowexaminee to vocalize or “guide” examiner to respond (but do not suggest alternatives)Allow extra time to consider or plan response, provide options and ask examinee to select “best”response, allow drawing responseDelayed ResponseTarget SkillsAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>Inappropriate ModificationsBlock SpanTarget SkillsAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>Inappropriate ModificationsWorking memory, memory span, impulse control, freedom from distractibility, patience withdifficult tasks, speed of movement, precision of movement, tracking visual sequences, andretention spanAllow extra time, allow vocal response in lieu of motor response or vice versa to indicateselection, allow any modality for presenting directions (signing, writing, speaking)Allow additional or nonstandard cuing or feedback on errors (except on starting items as indicated)Working memory, memory span, visual memory, serial perception, impulse control, freedom fromdistractibility, patience with difficult tasks, speed of movement, precision of movement, trackingvisual sequences, and retention spanAllow extra time, allow vocal response in lieu of motor response or vice versa to indicateselection, allow any modality for presenting directions (signing, writing, speaking), adjustprecision rules for tapping if examiner concludes examinee’s motor skills (not working memory)caused misplaced strike, allow examinee to vocalize or “guide” examiner to respond (but do notsuggest alternatives)Allow additional or nonstandard cuing or feedback on errors (except on starting items asindicated), repeat items, slow or speed up presentation, vocalize block numbers or provide otherauditory or linguistic cuesNote. Italicized target skills are drawn from Stratum I narrow cognitive abilities listed in Table 1.3 of the SB5 Interpretive Manual (Roid, 2003c). Unitalicized target skills aredrawn from cognitive abilities (processes) listed in Table 1.5 of the same manual.Table 2Verbal Subtest/Activity Target Skills, Appropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>, and InappropriateModificationsEarly ReasoningTarget SkillsFluid reasoning, general sequential reasoning, oral production and fluency, visual memory, attentionto verbal cues, mental review of potential answers, verbal fluency, rapid retrieval of words andexplanations, and production of creative answersAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong> Allow signed, oral, and written presentation of directions and examinee responses; Level 2—Accept gestured responses that clearly explain/extend (rather than merely represent) the picture;Level 3—Allow examinee to identify groups of three using words or pointing if accompanied byverbal or abstract (not necessarily vocal) description of categoryInappropriate ModificationsAllow additional or nonstandard cuing or feedback (except as indicated), Level 2—Accept asimple representation (e.g., drawing, gestured tableau) of stimulus (rather than explanation orextension), Level 3—Accept clusters without explicitly naming or indicating the characteristic thatmembers share within groupsVerbal AbsurditiesTarget SkillsAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>Inappropriate ModificationsFluid reasoning, induction, attention to verbal cues, mental review of potential answers, verbalfluency, rapid retrieval of words and explanations, and production of creative answersAllow signed, oral, and written presentation of directions and examinee responses; allow gesturedquery by the examiner to the examinee (e.g., folds hands, brings hands to body to encourage anelaborated response)Gesture to present items, represent items as pictures, provide finite responses and inviteexaminee to select response18

Table 2 (Continued)Verbal Subtest/Activity Target Skills, Appropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>, and InappropriateModificationsVerbal AnalogiesTarget SkillsAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>Inappropriate ModificationsVocabularyTarget SkillsAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>Inappropriate ModificationsVerbal Quantitative ReasoningTarget SkillsAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>Inappropriate ModificationsPosition and DirectionTarget SkillsAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>Inappropriate ModificationsMemory for SentencesTarget SkillsAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>Inappropriate ModificationsLast WordTarget SkillsAppropriate <strong>Accommodations</strong>Inappropriate ModificationsFluid reasoning, attention to verbal cues, mental review of potential answers, verbal fluency,rapid retrieval of words and explanations, and production of creative answersAllow signed directions, items, and responsesGesture to present items, represent items as pictures, provide finite responses and inviteexaminee to select responseCrystallized abilities/knowledge, lexical knowledge, language development, fund of generalinformation, and rapid retrieval of words and explanationsAllow signed or written directions, items, and responses; allow gestured responses that explain orextend picture itemsAllow gestured responses that simply mimic or copy correct answers (e.g., “Put your finger onyour nose.”), provide synonyms or act out the meaning of words, translate words to more or lesscommon alternatives (e.g., such as through signing), provide finite responses and invite examineeto select responseQuantitative reasoning, mathematical knowledge, concentration for long periods, and productionof conventional answersAllow extra time, allow any modality for presenting directions and for responding (signing, writing,speaking), allow examinee to tap (the number of objects) or gesture (hold up fingers, use hashmarks), or write answers to counting items, provide scratch paper to assist in mental calculationsAllow examinee to use calculator for arithmetic items, create visual cues to reduce mathematicalcomplexity (e.g., drawing out story problems, writing down key facts, providing partial solution),provide scratch paper for visual items unless otherwise allowedVisual-spatial processing, visualization, attention to verbal cues, and recognition and evaluation of partsAllow signed or written directions, items, and responses; use simplified directions that emphasizekey phrases or words (e.g., on, bottom); allow vocal or pointing response; allow examinee to“guide” examiner to respond (but do not suggest alternatives)Allow gestured responses that simply mimic or copy correct answers (e.g., “Put the ball on thetable.”), provide synonyms, act out the meaning of words, use gestured presentations that indicatethe correct placement or response, accept pointing response to indicate routes on a map in lieuof directions (i.e., answers must be given from the perspective of the people in the map, not themap reader), provide pencil and paper to allow trial and error responses to last two itemsWorking memory, memory span, language development, impulse control, freedom from distractibility,patience with difficult tasks, wide auditory attention span, and retention spanCue examinee that item is about to be presented; allow time to respond; allow responses inwriting or signs (only after the item is presented); present items in signs while using a single,unique sign for each word in the sentencePresent items in writing, repeat items, segment items into phrases, suggest or model retentionstrategies, allow examinee to write or record items during item presentationWorking memory, memory span, language development, impulse control, freedom from distractibility,patience with difficult tasks, wide auditory attention span, and retention spanCue examinee that item is about to be presented; allow time to respond; allow responses inwriting or signs (only after the item is presented); present items in signs while using a single,unique sign for the last word in each questionPresent items in writing, repeat questions, emphasize last word in each question, suggest ormodel retention strategies, advise examinees to ignore question, allow examinee to write orrecord items during item presentationNote. Italicized target skills are drawn from Stratum I narrow cognitive abilities listed in Table 1.3 of the SB5 Interpretive Manual (Roid, 2003c). Unitalicized target skills aredrawn from cognitive abilities (processes) listed in Table 1.5 of the same manual.19

ReferencesAmerican Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council onMeasurement in Education (AERA, APA, & NCME). (1999). Standards for educational and psychologicaltesting (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. AmericanPsychologist, 57, 1060–1073.Bloom, A. S., Klee, S. H., & Raskin, L. M. (1977). A comparison of the Stanford-Binet abbreviated and completeforms for developmentally disabled children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(2), 477–480.Braden, J. P. (in press). Accommodating clients with disabilities on the WAIS-III/WMS. In D. Saklofske & D.Tulsky (Eds.), Use of the WAIS-III/WMS in clinical practice (pp. 451–486). New York: Houghton-Mifflin.Braen, B. B., & Masling, J. M. (1959). Intelligence tests used with special groups of children. ExceptionalChildren, 26, 42–45.Brauer, B. A., Braden, J. P., Pollard, R. Q., & Hardy-Braz, S. T. (1997). Deaf and hard of hearing people. InJ. Sandoval, C. L. Frisby, K. F. Geisinger, J. D. Scheuneman, & J. R. Grenier (Eds.), Test interpretation anddiversity: Achieving equity in assessment (pp. 297–315). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1994–2000). TerraNova CTBS Multiple Assessments. Monterey, CA: Author.CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1999). CTBS Multiple Assessments Reading Battery–Research Version (Form A).Monterey, CA: Author.DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2000). Academic Competence Evaluation Scales (ACES). San Antonio: ThePsychological Corporation.Elliott, S. N., Braden, J. P., & White, J. L. (2001). Assessing one and all: Educational accountability for studentswith disabilities. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & McKevitt, B. C. (2001). Experimental analysis of the effects of testingaccommodations on the scores of students with and without disabilities. Journal of School Psychology,39(1), 3–24.Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & Schulte, A. G. (1999). Assessment accommodations checklist. Monterey, CA:CTB/McGraw Hill.Elliott, S. N., & Marquart, A. M. (in press). Extended time as a testing accommodation: Its effects andperceived consequences. Exceptional Children.Genshaft, J., & Ward, M. E. (1982). A review of the Perkins-Binet Tests of Intelligence for the Blind withsuggestions for administration. School Psychology Review, 11(3), 338–341.Handy, L. A. (1996). Pantomime administration of the WISC-III and SB: FE to hearing and otitis prone NativeIndian students. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences,56(8-A), 3058.Harrington, R. G. (1979). A review of Sattler’s modifications of standard intelligence tests for use withhandicapped children. School Psychology Digest, 8(3), 296–302.Hayes, S. P. (1950). Measuring the intelligence of the blind. In P. A. Zahl (Ed.), Blindness: Modern approachesto the unseen environment (pp. 141–173). Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press.20

Katz, E. (1956). The pointing scale method: A modification of the Stanford-Binet procedure for use withcerebral palsied children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 60, 838–842.Katz, E. (1958). The “Pointing Modification” of the revised Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, forms L and M,years II through VI: A report of research in progress. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 62, 698–707.McGrew, K. S., Keith, T. Z., Flanagan, D. P., & Vanderwood, M. (1997). Beyond “g”: The impact of “Gf-Gc”specific cognitive abilities research on the future use and interpretation of intelligence test batteries inthe schools. School Psychology Review, 26(2), 189–210.McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (Eds.) (1997). Educating one and all: Students withdisabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.McKevitt, B. C., & Elliott, S. N. (in press). The effects and consequences of using testing accommodations on astandardized reading test. School Psychology Review.Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses andperformances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.National Association of School Psychologists. (2000). Professional conduct manual. Principles for professionalethics: Guidelines for the provision of school psychological services. Retrieved July 1, 2003, fromhttp://ericcass.uncg.edu/virtuallib/assess/1023.pdfNational Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for schoolmathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Office of Civil Rights (2000). The use of tests as part of high-stakes decision-making for students: A resourceguide for educators and policy makers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (Available athttp://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/testing/index1.html)Phillips, S. E. (1993). Testing condition accommodations for disabled students. West’s Education LawQuarterly, 2(2), 366–389.Phillips, S. E. (1994). High stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. AppliedMeasurement in Education, 7(2), 93–120.Roid, G. H. (2003a). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Roid, G. H. (2003b). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, examiner’s manual. Itasca, IL: RiversidePublishing.Roid, G. H. (2003c). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, interpretive manual: Expanded guide tothe interpretation of SB5 test results. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Roid, G. H. (2003d). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, technical manual. Itasca, IL: RiversidePublishing.Sattler, J. M. (1972a). Intelligence test modifications on handicapped and nonhandicapped children: Finalreport. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 095673). San Diego, CA: San Diego State UniversityFoundation.Sattler, J. M. (1972b). Intelligence test modifications on handicapped and nonhandicapped children:Supplement to final report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 095674). San Diego, CA: San DiegoState University Foundation.Schrank, F. A., & Flanagan, D. P. (Eds.). (2003). WJ III clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitionerperspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Schulte, A. G., Elliott, S. N., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2001). Experimental analysis of the effects of testingaccommodations on students’ standardized achievement test scores. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 527–547.21

Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition.Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Thurlow, M. L., Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1998). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategiesfor complying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Tindal, G. (1998). Models for understanding task comparability in accommodated testing. Eugene, OR: Councilof Chief State School Officers State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards AssessmentSpecial Education Students (ASES) Study Group III, University of Oregon.Ward, M. E., & Genshaft, J. (1983). The Perkins-Binet Tests: A critique and recommendations foradministration. Exceptional Children, 49(5), 450–452.425 Spring Lake DriveItasca, IL 60143-20791.800.323.9540www.stanford-binet.com9-95585