“ADA: Let Us Show You What Works”
Fae Mellichamp Senior Psychometrician, PTI
Shelby KeiserPresident, Keiser Consulting
Rina SjolundAsst. Vice President, ACT
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual Conference
September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
Overview
• Revised Edition of CLEAR’s document “ADA: Information for Credentialing Examinations
• ADA vs. IDEA• Identifying Functional Limitations• ADA vs. Courtesy Accommodations• Making Accommodations Fit• Abuses of ADA• Example Cases
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
The Americans with Disabilities Act: Information for Credentialing
ExaminationsRevised Edition: February 2004
• Updated references to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (1999)
• Expanded overview of best practices• Broader discussion of documentation
– What to tell applicants– What to look for
• Case studies
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
The Americans with Disabilities Act: Information for Credentialing
ExaminationsRevised Edition: February 2004
• Expanded and more current bibliography– New case law– Agency decisions and settlements
• More references and resources• Added appendices
– The American with Disabilities Act of 1990, Section 309
– DOJ, ADA Title III Regulations– DOJ, ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual– EEOC Regulations– USMLE Guidelines for Documenting
Disabilities
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
ADA vs. IDEA
• Requirements in the Law• Definition of Disability• Who is Covered• Services Provided• Evaluation/Documentation• IEP vs. Accommodations
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
Identifying Functional Limitations
• Substantial impairment of vision, hearing, mobility, speech, learning, etc. which interferes with normal behavior.
• Average person standard (Gonzales v. NBME - 6th Circuit)
• Bartlett v. NY State Board of Law Examiners – 2nd Circuit
• Medication (Sutton)
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
Typical Case
• Reading Disorder – sometimes w/ ADHD & anxiety
• Most have no childhood diagnosis or documentation
• Most use subjective criteria– Most say they work harder than everyone
else– Most say they read slowly & need to reread– Most say assignments take them longer
• Most have been academically successful• Most have had accommodations on SAT
and/or GRE, LSAT, MCAT, etc.
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
Typical Evaluation
• Brief background sketch• Interview w/ examinee who
reports symptoms• Testing: IQ, Cognitive,
Achievement, Nelson Denny Reading Test
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
Typical Results
• Above average IQ• Average or better achievement• Possible score discrepancy
between IQ-Achievement• Usually low NDRT Rate and
Comprehension
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
Typical Conclusions
• Evaluator almost always makes a diagnosis
• Almost all recommend extended time• Usually no link between findings and
recommended accommodations• Usually no identification of
substantial limitation in current functioning (major life activity)
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
ADA vs. Courtesy Accommodations
• People sometimes request accommodations for situations that are not considered to be disabilities under ADA
• Examples include pregnancy, temporary physical impairments, English as 2nd language, diabetes
• Agencies may decide to grant an accommodation, such as seating near the restroom, a stool to support a broken leg, translation dictionary, snacks
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
ADA vs. Courtesy Accommodations
• Agencies need to decide whether they will strictly adhere to ADA – does the person have a substantial limitation in one or more major life activities when compared to average people?
• Critical to be consistent in granting (or not granting) courtesy accommodations
• Each Agency should establish a policy regarding courtesy accommodations
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
“One Size Does Not Fit All”
• The accommodation should match the documented need
• The accommodation is intended to reduce or eliminate the impact of the disability when taking THIS standardized test.
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
“One Size Does Not Fit All”
• What does the documentation tell you?
– Physical Impairments– Cognitive impairments
• Is the evaluator qualified to recommend the accommodation?
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
Abuses of the ADA
• Some candidates may attempt to use the ADA in order to gain an advantage over other candidates
• This is most likely in cases where obtaining extended time could result in improved performance
• Examples include open book examinations and speeded examinations (as opposed to power tests)
• Taking the exam in a private room could benefit any candidate regardless of test type
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
Abuses of the ADA
• Some “abuses” are accidental• Agencies may be tempted to grant
accommodations in order to avoid the difficult task of saying no
• Fear of litigation is a factor, agency is less likely to be sued if they say yes
• Workload associated with properly processing requests may be a factor
• Tendency to take the easiest route instead of doing the right thing
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
Example Case• FL Construction Industry Licensure
Examinations are open book, long exam, about half the candidates fail
• FL experienced an increase in requests for accommodations for learning disabilities
• Candidates were requesting extra time• Many provided documentation from the
same psychologist, most were from S FL and were found to have attended the same exam prep school
• The psychologist was selling LD diagnoses to construction candidates
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
Example Case
• Applicant requested zero distraction test site • Given individual room but complained about
outside noise• Offered sound-proof booth used for media
production but rejected• What is functional limitation that
necessitates zero distraction? Documentation?
• Offer of “reasonable accommodation” • Burden on applicant
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
Example Case• Applicant first diagnosed with ADHD while in law
school. Graduated from a Big 12 university with 2.9 GPA.
• Aptitude assessment: average general ability with high average verbal comprehension and expression, low average non-verbal reasoning.
• Self report of learning & study skill demonstrated low motivation to maintain study activities.
• No standardized behavior rating scales reported, no documentation submitted of prior history except mother’s report.
• Requesting double-time for a non-speeded test.
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
Fae Mellichamp
Professional Testing, Inc.1705 Metropolitan Blvd. Ste. 102 Tallahassee, FL 32308850-386-4444, fax [email protected]
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
Shelby Keiser
Keiser Consulting1355 W. Indian Creek Dr.
Wynnewood, PA 19096(610) 649-1887 fax (610) [email protected]
Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual ConferenceSeptember 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri
Rina Sjolund
ACT, Inc.101 ACT DrivePO Box 168Iowa City, IA 52243(319) 337-1128, fax [email protected]
