A Critical Analysis of the Nelson Denny Reading Test as a Method of Identifying Reading Impairment in Adults
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.
KeywordsAssessment Norms/normative Disability Reading Adult
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.
This article involved no human experimentation or need for informed consent.
No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.
- Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. (2008).Google Scholar
- Bibber v. National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, Inc. (April, 2016). Unites states district court, E. D. Pennsylvania, Civil Action 15 – 4987.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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/.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- U.S. Census Bureau retrieved October 2, 2017 https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/educational-attainment/time-series/p20-476/tab18.pdf