Advertisement

A Critical Analysis of the Nelson Denny Reading Test as a Method of Identifying Reading Impairment in Adults

  • Allyson G. HarrisonEmail author
  • Kathleen A. Harrison
Article

Abstract

Disability-related test accommodations are requested frequently, especially at the postsecondary level and on licensing examinations. Access to such accommodations typically relies on proof of impairment in some area of academic functioning. The Nelson Denny Reading Test (NDRT; Brown, Fishco, & Hanna, 1993a, 1993b) is often employed by clinicians in order to demonstrate the need for extra time accommodation. The NDRT employs grade-based norms, meaning that postsecondary and graduate-level students who take the test are compared not with all of their same-aged peers but rather to a rarefied group of individuals who have achieved equally high levels of education. This leads to a skewed distribution of scores that, in turn, makes otherwise normally functioning individuals appear impaired. Employing the actual normative data from the NDRT, this study investigated the effect that use of such grade-based norms has on ratings of normative and relative impairment. With the same raw score, substantially more individuals would be classified as impaired on a measure of timed reading comprehension when higher grade level norms are applied as compared with norms that represent a broader sample of individuals. These findings demonstrate clearly that grade-based norms should not be employed when using the NDRT to determine disability-related normative impairment.

Keywords

Assessment Norms/normative Disability Reading Adult 

Notes

Funding

Partial funding for this research was provided by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities of Ontario. The opinions as expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funders.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The first author works as a consultant for multiple testing organizations reviewing documentation submitted on behalf of applicants requesting accommodation. The second author declares no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

This article involved no human experimentation or need for informed consent.

Animal Rights

No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. (2008).Google Scholar
  3. Bibber v. National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, Inc. (April, 2016). Unites states district court, E. D. Pennsylvania, Civil Action 15 – 4987.Google Scholar
  4. Bolt, S. E., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks, B., Sherman, E., Iverson, G., Slick, & Strauss, E. (2011). Psychometric foundations for the interpretation of neuropsychological test results. In M. R. Schoenberg & J. G. Scott (Eds.), The little black book of neuropsychology: a syndrome-based approach (pp. 893–922). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, J. A., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. (1993a). Nelson–Denny Reading Test: manual for scoring and interpretation, forms G & H. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J. A., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. (1993b). Nelson–Denny Reading Test: technical report, forms G and H. Manual for scoring and interpretation, forms G & H. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Cressman, M. N., & Liljequist, L. (2014). The effect of grade norms in college students: Using the Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(3), 271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Educational Testing Service, Office of Disability Policy. (2017). Guidelines for documentation of learning disabilities in adolescents and adults (4th ed.). Princeton: Author https://www.ets.org/disabilities/documentation/documenting_learning_disabilities/.
  10. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Principles for the prevention and intervention of mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 85–95.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giovingo, L. K., Proctor, B. E., & Prevatt, F. (2005). Use of grade-based norms versus age-based norms in psychoeducational assessment for a college population. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gyenes, J., & Siegel, L. S. (2014). A Canada-wide examination of the criteria employed for learning disability documentation in English speaking postsecondary institutions. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 29(4), 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrison, A. G., Edwards, M. J., & Parker, K. C. (2008). Identifying students feigning dyslexia: preliminary findings and strategies for detection. Dyslexia, 14(3), 228–246.Google Scholar
  14. Harrison, A. G., & Wolforth, J. (2012). Findings from a pan-Canadian survey of disability services providers in postsecondary education. International Journal of Disability, Community and Rehabilitation, 11(1).Google Scholar
  15. Keiser, S. (1998). Test accommodations: an administrator’s view. In M. Gordon & S. Keiser (Eds.), Accommodation in higher education under the Americans with Disabilities Act. New York: Guliford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kettler, R. (2012). Testing accommodations: theory and research to inform practice. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lai, S., & Berkeley, S. (2012). High-stakes test accommodations: research and practice. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 35, 158–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lerner, C. (2004). “Accommodations” for the learning disabled: a level playing field or affirmative action for elites? Vanderbilt Law Review, 57, 1041–1122.Google Scholar
  19. Lewandowski, L. J., Cohen, J. A., & Lovett, B. J. (2013). Effects of extended time allotments on reading comprehension performance of college student with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 326–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindstrom, W., Coleman, C., Thomassin, K., Southall, C., & Lindstrom, J. (2011). Simulated dyslexia in postsecondary students: description and detection using embedded validity indicators. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 25(2), 302–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindstrom, W., & Lindstrom, J. (2017). College admissions tests and LD and ADHD documentation guidelines: consistency with emerging legal guidance. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 28(1), 32–42.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207317696261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lovett, B. J. (2010). Extended time testing accommodations for students with disabilities: answers to five fundamental questions. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 611–638.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310364063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murray-Ward, M. (1998). Test review of the Nelson Denny Reading Test Forms G & H. In J. Impara & B. Plake (Eds.), The thirteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ofiesh, N., Hughes, C., & Scott, S. (2004). Extended test time and postsecondary students with learning disabilities: a model for decision making. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93–120.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0702_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raygor, A. L. (1978). Nelson-Denny Reading Test, Forms C and D. In K. Burros (Ed.), Eighth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press.Google Scholar
  27. Raygor, A. L. & Flippo, R. F. (1980). Varieties of comprehension measures: a comparison of intercorrelations among several reading tests. Arlington, Virginia: ERIC Document Reproduction Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 193 485).Google Scholar
  28. Ready, R. E., Chaudhry, M. F., Schatz, K. C., & Strazzullo, S. (2012). “Passageless” administration of the Nelson-Denny Reading Comprehension Test: associations with IQ and reading skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 377–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roberts, B. (2012). Beyond psychometric evaluation of the student—task determinants of accommodation: why students with learning disabilities may not need to be accommodated. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27(1), 72–80.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573512437171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, D. (1998). Test review of the Nelson Denny Reading Test Forms G & H. In J. Impara & B. Plake (Eds.), The thirteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  31. Stretch, L. S., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Extended time test accommodation: directions for future research and practice. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(8), 1–8.Google Scholar
  32. Thurlow, M. L., Thompson, S. J., & Lazarus, S. S. (2006). Considerations for the administration of tests to special needs students: accommodations, modifications, and more. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 653–673). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Van Meter, B. J., & Herrmann, B. A. (1986). Use and misuse of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. Community College Review, 14(3), 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regional Assessment & Resource CentreQueens UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Neuroscience Studies at Queen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations