University admissions testing has a long history and is still applied in many countries (Oliveri & Wendler, 2020, Geisinger, 2023). Legal and psychometric issues related to admissions testing concern the protected group status of certain individuals. In the United States, this is the case for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, women, and men over forty. Statutory changes and case law have driven such changes (Geisinger, 2022). With the passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991, individuals with disabilities have been, in general, granted protected status. However, their protections differ legally and operationally from those of the other protected groups. One requirement is that assessed individuals must receive accommodations so that their scores reflect their abilities, not their disabilities. The most common accommodation is extra time, but others include large print, Braille, the use of an amanuensis, paper-and-paper forms instead of computer administration, and the like. Psychometric evidence (e.g., Willingham et al. 1988; Sireci, et al, 1995) has demonstrated that scores earned with accommodations are valid, that is, comparably valid to those of typical students who take the same tests without accommodations.

Practices that have been common over recent decades in the United States, however, are not commonplace in other countries. Most Latin American countries do not have statutes regulating the testing of students with disabilities. Their approach is based on their testing agencies’ capacity or, in some cases, on what courts order. Courts can play an important role in realizing the right to be fairly assessed (Barroilhet et al., 2024). For example, Saber 11—Colombia’s university admission test—was recently legally challenged by a student with ASD (autism spectrum disorder) who received accommodations appropriate for Down syndrome students. Chile’s university admission test (PAES) has offered accommodations for visual and hearing impairments since 2017, but, like Colombia, it has not settled all aspects of testing individuals with disabilities. In both countries, the type of disability (and its documentation) that is eligible for special accommodations remains an open issue and is therefore subject to legal challenge.

Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Although much of the literature regarding the assessment of individuals with disabilities is based on U.S. legislation, a more global set of principles is available for guiding practice internationally. The United Nations adopted its Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD; UN, 2006) and over 190 countries have signed the convention, and a nearly comparable number ratified it (United Nations, 2014; Geisinger & McCormick, 2016). The UN-CRPD directs that countries prohibit discrimination based on disability in a wide range of life activities, several of which apply to assessment.

The UN-CRPD states that the right to accommodations extends to the assessment process. The language of the UN-CRPD resembles that of the US. legislation: “'Reasonable accommodation' means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden where needed in a particular case to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms” (UN, 2006, p. 4). The UN-CRPD explicitly urges using Universal Design in test development where possible. Such practice may effectively address requirements across various contexts and purposes and may be preferable to country-specific standards for accommodation decisions.

Similarly, the CRPD describes the right of children and adults with disabilities to be given full access to high-quality education in an inclusive and supportive environment. The educational component of the Convention describes the need to provide reasonable accommodations and support within the general education system, including the testing process at all compulsory educational levels. Though the ratification of a UN convention is distinct from official policies adopted in a congress or parliament, ratifying states must make decisions and changes consistent with the ratified convention.

Thus, the CRPD provides a common framework for making decisions about incorporating individuals with disabilities in a wide range of areas, including assessment. Even the local laws of individual countries that have ratified the CRPD may not yet reflect the full scope intended by the convention. While countries have increasingly agreed to implement the convention’s goals into their national policies, these countries are certain to do this at different rates. Thus, the universal framework presented in the CRPD provides a necessary, albeit not sufficient, basis for decision-making in international assessment programs. The assessment of the validity of scores earned under accommodations for students with disabilities needs to be addressed in different countries and with varying accommodations. Policy is not enough; research in this arena needs to be encouraged.

1 Buros Center for Testing, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. USA
2 Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile
3 Escuela de Administración, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

References

Avances en la PAES (Desembre 5, 2023). Editorial Note, Diario El Mercurio, p. A3.

Barroilhet, A., Silva, M., & Geisinger, K. F. (2024). The Right to be Fairly Assessed. Higher Education Policy. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-024-00352-5

Geisinger, K (2022). Testing individuals with disabilities: The case of flagging. Unpublished document.

Geisinger, K. F. (Ed.) (2023). College admissions and admissions testing in a time of transitional change. Routledge.

Geisinger, K. F. & McCormick, C. (2016). Testing individuals with disabilities: An international perspective, In F. T. L. Leung, Bartram, D., Cheung, F., Geisinger, K. F. & Iliescu, D. Eds.) The ITC International Handbook of Testing and Assessment (pp. 259-275). Oxford Press.

Oliveri, M. E. & Wendler, C. (Eds.) (2020). Higher Education Admissions Practices: An International Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

Santelices, M. V., & Wilson, M. (2010). Unfair treatment? The case of Freedle, the SAT, and the standardized approach to differential item functioning. Harvard Educational Review, 80(1), 106–133. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.80.1.j94675w001329270

Sireci, S. G., Scarpatti, S. E., & Li. H. (1995). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 457-490.

Willingham, W. W. (1988). Testing handicapped people. Allyn & Bacon, Inc.