MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1542571519

The Efficacy of Extended Time on Tests for Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities.

2000· article· en· W1542571519 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan M. Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueLearning Disabilities: a Multidisciplinary Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLearning disabilityPsychologyTest (biology)Reading (process)Raven's Progressive MatricesMathematics educationPostsecondary educationCommunity collegeMedical educationDevelopmental psychologyHigher educationMedicineCognitionPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined the effects ofextended and untimed testing on postsecondary students with and without learning disabilities. Extended time on tests is one of the most frequently requested academic accommodations for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. The subjects were students with and without learning disabilities enrolled in a university and a community college in Ontario, Canada. Students were administered the Nelson-Denny Reading Test under various timing c9nditions. The Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices and the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory were also completed. The results ofthe study presented here show that by extending the time limits on the Nelson Denny Reading Test students with learning disabilities realized significant gains on their test scores with the students without learning disabilities making less dramatic gains. Students with learning disabilities had significant differences from their peers without learning disabilities on  several scales of the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLearning Disabilities: a Multidisciplinary JournalSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207