Rethinking Testing Accommodations to Effectively Support Learners

Accommodations like extended time and breaks are widely used to support students with disabilities during assessments. But how effective are these supports on their own—and in combination? Do students benefit more from receiving multiple accommodations, or can that backfire?

In a newly published study, we analyzed data from more than 2,700 eighth-grade students with disabilities who participated in the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics assessment. This nationally representative dataset allowed us to compare outcomes for students who received:

• Extended Time (ET) only
• Breaks only
• Breaks bundled with Extended Time

We looked beyond test scores and examined students’ test-taking behaviors, including how much time they spent, how many items they skipped, how often they used accessibility tools, and their attitudes toward math.

What We Found

1. Extended time alone is often more effective than when combined with breaks

Students who received only extended time outperformed those who received both breaks and extended time on the math test. The bundled group also showed more signs of cognitive effort (e.g., using digital tools and revisiting items), but this didn’t translate to higher performance.

Implication: While ET allows students more time to think and work through problems, adding breaks may disrupt focus, especially in math, where continuity is key.

2. Breaks alone may not be enough

Students who received only breaks had the lowest scores and also showed signs of lower engagement—they spent less time on the test, answered fewer questions, and skipped more items. They also reported feeling more time pressure and less interest in math.

Implication: Breaks alone, particularly in a timed testing environment, might increase anxiety instead of reducing it. For many students, this accommodation may not address the root barriers they face.

3. Bundled accommodations may improve engagement—but not always performance

Students who received both breaks and ET were more engaged than those with breaks only: they spent more time on tasks, used tools like text-to-speech more often, and felt less time pressure. But again, this did not lead to higher test scores.

Implication: Engagement is important, but not sufficient. If we want students to experience both higher effort and better performance, we must tailor accommodations more carefully.

What This Means for Educators and Individualized Education Program Teams

• Don’t assume “more is better.” Just because students qualify for multiple accommodations doesn’t mean they benefit from using them all together. Sometimes, one well-matched support (like ET) may be more effective than a bundle.
• Add structure to breaks. Unstructured or frequent breaks may interrupt cognitive flow. Consider whether other supports, like self-management tools, might better serve students who struggle with attention or anxiety.
• Match accommodations to need, not diagnosis alone. This study shows that students with learning disabilities tended to receive ET, while those with emotional or behavioral needs were more likely to receive breaks. But these patterns may reflect habit more than evidence. Use data and student feedback to guide decisions.
• Look at effort, not just scores. Some accommodations boosted engagement and perseverance even when scores didn’t rise. For some students, that’s a step in the right direction.

Accommodations shouldn’t be treated as checkboxes. They are powerful tools for promoting access and equity—but only when thoughtfully selected and aligned with student needs and assessment contexts. When we tailor accommodations based on evidence and student input, we help ensure that every second—and every break—truly supports learning.