美國身心障礙學生考試調整策略成效之後設分析

The Effects of Test Accommodation on Students with Disabilities: A Meta-analysis

本文旨在後設分析美國1999 到2008 年間，38 篇考試調整策略對一般和全體身心障礙學生的成效；接著分析考試調整的效果是否會因學科、策略類型，以及身心障礙學生的障礙特性、教育階段和人數而有差異。結果顯示考試調整對一般學生為些微效果；對身心障礙學生為小效果量，符合「差別增長」和「互動」假設。未接受考試調整之一般學生的測驗成績，高於接受調整之身心障礙學生，二者間呈現「中」效果量的差異，顯示考試調整能維持「公平與權益的平衡」。考試調整對其他學科的效果最佳，其次分別為閱讀和數學。於調整策略上，以延長時間的效果較佳，報讀較差。在考試調整實施的教育階段上，以國中最佳，國小次之，而高中職效果最差。考試調整對100 人以下身心障礙學生人數的效果最佳，人數愈多，效果愈差。最後，考試調整對學障學生的效果，優於其他身心障礙學生。

The purposes of this research were to use meta-analysis to examine the overall effects of 38 test accommodation studies conducted in 1999-2008 on the performance of students with and without disabilities, and to analyze whether there were differences on moderator variables of subject area, accommodation strategy, educational level, sample size, and disability status. The findings were as follows: first, test accommodation had a minimal effect on students without disabilities, and a small effect on students with disabilities. The results validated theinteraction effect and differential boost hypotheses, whereby students with disabilities benefited more than students without disabilities. Second, students without disabilities tested on standard formats scored higher than students with disabilities accepting test accommodation, and the differences amounted to a medium effect. The results validated the hypothesis that test accommodation could create a level playing field for all test-takers. Third, the effect of test accommodation on other subject areas was higher than on math and reading. There was a higher effect from “extended time” strategy than “reading test items aloud”. Regarding educational level, the effects of test accommodation were ranked as follows, from high to low: junior high school, elementary, and senior high school levels. There was a higher effect on a smaller number of students with disabilities (i.e., below 100), and the effect decreased as the number of students increased. The effect of test accommodation on students with learning disabilities was higher than on students with other disabilities.