The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Extra-Examination Time Granting Policy: A Reconceptualization
Abstract
Differential granting of extra-examination time (EET) is commonly based on learning disabilities (LD) status: EET is granted to LD examinees and is denied to nondisabled examinees. We argue that LD serves as a proxy for the extent to which time limitation affects the examinee’s test score ( e). Hence, the validity of the LD-based EET granting policy depends on how well LD status serves as a proxy for e. Reanalysis of 11 comparative experimental studies of the effect of EET shows that LD status is a poor proxy for e. The proportion of nondisabled examinees who benefit from EET roughly equals the corresponding proportion among LD students. Implications of these results for the validity and fairness of this policy are discussed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“A study reanalysing existing data on extra time (ET) comparing pupils with LD and without found considerable variation in time length from 50% to unlimited”
From A rapid review of supports for neurodivergent students in higher education. Implications for research and practice (2024) · cites this paper as Cahan et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“yet evidence from school contexts points to potentially unfair advantages if such adjustments are dispensed to certain groups only (Cahan et al. 2016).”
From A rapid review of supports for neurodivergent students in higher education. Implications for research and practice (2024) · cites this paper as Cahan et al. 2016
Citations
Cites
Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2005) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7 · Cited by 1,608 · cited 1×
“Because X is binary in this case, rXG is directly obtained from r d d n n n XG G G = + +( )2 1 2 2 1 2 n , (1) where dG (Cohen, 1988) is the standardized mean GS difference between the LD and non-LD groups (see Rice & Harris, 2005).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Cohen J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
- 10.1177/001440290407000306 · DOI
- 10.1177/001440290006700105 · DOI
- Fuchs L. S., Fuchs D., Eaton S. B., Hamlett C. L., Karns K. M. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65-85. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/219654518?accountid=14546 · DOI
- 10.1177/0022219409355484 · DOI
- Halla J. W. (1988). A psychological study of psychometric differences in Graduate Record Examinations General Test scores between learning disabled and non-learning disabled adults (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
- Huesman R. L., 2000, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education
- Koenig J.A., 2004, Keeping score for all: The effects of inclusion and accommodation policies on large-scale educational assessments
- 10.1007/s11145-005-4714-5 · DOI
- 10.1177/0734282912462693 · DOI
- 10.1177/0734282908315757 · DOI
- 10.3102/0034654310364063 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00106.x · DOI
- 10.1007/s11881-003-0001-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/00220671.1991.10702812 · DOI
- National Research Council, 1999, High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation
- 10.1207/s15324818ame0702_1 · DOI
- The Princeton Review. (n.d.). Learning disabilities and the SAT/ACT. Retrieved from http://www.princetonreview.com/learning-disabilities-sat-act.aspx
- 10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.83 · DOI
- 10.1037/13275-007 · DOI
- 10.1177/002221949102400207 · DOI
- 10.1023/B:READ.0000017688.67137.80 · DOI
- 10.3102/00346543075004457 · DOI
- 10.1177/002221940103400507 · DOI
- 10.1207/s15324818ame1301_5 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
McDowall, A., & Kiseleva, M. (2024) · Neurodiversity · doi:10.1177/27546330241291769 · Cited by 43
“…existing data on extra time (ET) comparing pupils with LD and without found considerable variation in time length from 50% to unlimited yet found that both groups of student would stand to bene fi t from time extensions, thus raising questions of fairness and validity (Cahan et al., 2016).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Cahan, S., Nirel, R., & Alkoby, M.
- Affiliations
- The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
- Venue
- Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-12-03
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 461-472
- ISSN
- 0734-2829
- 1557-5144
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
