Special communication| Volume 99, ISSUE 1, P204-210, January 2018

Interdisciplinary Approach to the Development of Accessible Computer-Administered Measurement Instruments

Published:September 04, 2017DOI:


      Principles of fairness in testing require that all test takers, including people with disabilities, have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their capacity on the construct being measured. Measurement design features and assessment protocols can pose barriers for people with disabilities. Fairness in testing is a fundamental validity issue at all phases in the design, administration, and interpretation of measurement instruments in clinical practice and research. There is limited guidance for instrument developers on how to develop and evaluate the accessibility and usability of measurement instruments. This article describes a 6-stage iterative process for developing accessible computer-administered measurement instruments grounded in the procedures implemented across several major measurement initiatives. A key component of this process is interdisciplinary teams of accessibility experts, content and measurement experts, information technology experts, and people with disabilities working together to ensure that measurement instruments are accessible and usable by a wide range of users. The development of accessible measurement instruments is not only an ethical requirement, it also ensures better science by minimizing measurement bias, missing data, and attrition due to mismatches between the target population and test administration platform and protocols.


      List of abbreviations:

      IT (Information technology), NIH (National Institutes of Health)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Quatrano L.A.
        • Cruz T.H.
        Future of outcomes measurement: impact on research in medical rehabilitation and neurologic populations.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: S7-S11
        • Tulsky D.S.
        • Carlozzi N.E.
        • Cella D.
        Advances in outcomes measurement in rehabilitation medicine: current initiatives from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: S1-S6
        • Bagiella E.
        Clinical trials in rehabilitation: single or multiple outcomes?.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009; 90: S17-S21
        • Bauer R.M.
        • Iverson G.L.
        • Cernich A.N.
        • Binder L.M.
        • Ruff R.M.
        • Naugle R.I.
        Computerized neuropsychological assessment devices: joint position paper of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology and the National Academy of Neuropsychology.
        Clin Neuropsychol. 2012; 26: 177-196
        • Rabin L.A.
        • Spadaccini A.T.
        • Brodale D.L.
        • Grant K.S.
        • Elbulok-Charcape M.M.
        • Barr W.B.
        Utilization rates of computerized tests and test batteries among clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and Canada.
        Prof Psychol Res Pract. 2014; 45: 368
        • Hill-Briggs F.
        • Dial J.G.
        • Morere D.A.
        • Joyce A.
        Neuropsychological assessment of persons with physical disability, visual impairment or blindness, and hearing impairment or deafness.
        Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007; 22: 389-404
        • Brucker D.L.
        • Houtenville A.J.
        People with disabilities in the United States.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 96: 771-774
        • Rios D.
        • Magasi S.
        • Novak C.
        • Harniss M.
        Conducting accessible research: including people with disabilities in public health, epidemiological, and outcomes studies.
        Am J Public Health. 2016; 106: 2137-2144
        • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education
        Standards for educational and psychological testing.
        American Educational Research Association, Washington (DC)2014
        • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education
        Standards for educational and psychological testing.
        American Educational Research Association, Washington (DC)1999
        • Gershon R.C.
        • Wagster M.V.
        • Hendrie H.C.
        • Fox N.A.
        • Cook K.F.
        • Nowinski C.J.
        NIH Toolbox for assessment of neurological and behavioral function.
        Neurology. 2013; 80: S2-S6
        • Harniss M.
        • Amtmann D.
        • Cook D.
        • Johnson K.
        Considerations for developing interfaces for collecting patient-reported outcomes that allow the inclusion of individuals with disabilities.
        Med Care. 2007; 45: S48
        • Victorson D.
        • Manly J.
        • Wallner-Allen K.
        • et al.
        Using the NIH Toolbox in special populations: considerations for assessment of pediatric, geriatric, culturally diverse, non-English-speaking, and disabled individuals.
        Neurology. 2013; 80: S13-S19
        • United Nations
        Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Articles.
        United Nations, Geneva2006 (Available at:)
        • Thompson S.
        • Thurlow M.
        Universally designed assessments: better tests for everyone!.
        National Center on Educational Outcomes, Univ of Minnesota, Minneapolis2002 (NCEO Policy Directions No. 14. Available at:)
        • Hansen E.G.
        • Mislevy R.J.
        • Steinberg L.S.
        • Lee M.J.
        • Forer D.C.
        Accessibility of tests for individuals with disabilities within a validity framework.
        System. 2005; 33: 107-133
        • Mislevy R.J.
        • Haertel G.
        • Cheng B.H.
        • et al.
        A “conditional” sense of fairness in assessment.
        Educ Res Eval. 2013; 19: 121-140
        • American Psychological Association
        Guidelines for assessment of and intervention with persons with disabilities.
        Am Psychol. 2012; 67: 43
        • Thurlow M.L.
        • Lazarus S.S.
        • Christensen L.L.
        • Shyyan V.
        NCEO reports: principles and characteristics of inclusive assessment systems in a changing assessment landscape.
        Univ of Minnesota, Minneapolis2016 (NCEO Report No. 400)
        • Kettler R.J.
        Testing accommodations: theory and research to inform practice.
        Int J Disabil Dev Educ. 2012; 59: 53-66
        • Babbar S.
        • Behara R.
        • White E.
        Mapping product usability.
        Int J Oper Prod Manage. 2002; 22: 1071-1089
        • Arthanat S.
        • Bauer S.M.
        • Lenker J.A.
        • Nochajski S.M.
        • Wu Y.W.
        Conceptualization and measurement of assistive technology usability.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007; 2: 235-248
        • Willis G.B.
        • Royston P.
        The use of verbal report methods in the development and testing of survey questionnaires.
        Appl Cogn Psychol. 1991; 5: 251-267
        • Fuchs L.S.
        • Fuchs D.
        Helping teachers formulate sound test accommodation decisions for students with learning disabilities.
        Learn Disabil Res Pract. 2001; 16: 174-181
        • Fuchs L.S.
        • Fuchs D.
        • Capizzi A.M.
        Identifying appropriate test accommodations for students with learning disabilities.
        Focus Except Child. 2005; 37: 1-8
        • Fuchs L.S.
        • Fuchs D.
        • Eaton S.B.
        • Hamlett C.
        • Binkley E.
        • Crouch R.
        Using objective data sources to enhance teacher judgments about test accommodations.
        Except Child. 2000; 67: 67-81
      1. Magasi S, Harniss M, Tulsky DS, Cohen ML, Heaton RK, Heinemann AW. Test accommodations for individuals with neurological conditions completing the NIH Toolbox - Cognition Battery; An evaluation of frequency and appropriateness. Rehab Psych; in press.