Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

1. “ADA: Let Us Show You What Works”Fae Mellichamp Senior Psychometrician, PTIShelby KeiserPresident, Keiser ConsultingRina SjolundAsst.Vice President, ACT Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

2. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

3. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

4. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

5. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

6. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

7. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

8. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

9. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

10. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

11. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

12. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

13. “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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

14. “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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

15. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

16. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

17. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

18. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

19. 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 Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

20. Fae Mellichamp Professional Testing, Inc. 1705 Metropolitan Blvd. Ste. 102 Tallahassee, FL 32308 850-386-4444, fax 850-385-2404 fmellichamp@proftesting.com www.proftesting.com Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

21. Shelby Keiser Keiser Consulting 1355 W. Indian Creek Dr. Wynnewood, PA 19096 (610) 649-1887 fax (610) 649-1887 skeiser@keiserconsulting.com www.keiserconsulting.com Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri

22. Rina Sjolund ACT, Inc. 101 ACT Drive PO Box 168 Iowa City, IA 52243 (319) 337-1128, fax 319-337-1229 rina.sjolund@act.org www.act.org Presented at the 2004 CLEAR Annual Conference September 30 – October 2 Kansas City, Missouri