The primary purpose of this study was to provide guidance to states in developing defensible modified assessments for students with disabilities. The study provided an overview of the U.S. DOE's regulations and non-regulatory guidance and also detailed the relationship of other laws that influence the interpretation of the modified assessment regulations. The study also detailed the psychometric standards that are specific to the implementation of the modified assessments. The study did this by first reviewing the materials provided by the U.S. DOE, such as the regulations themselves, the non-regulatory guidance, press releases, etc. Then related statutes and case law were identified. For the psychometric requirements, the most applicable standards from The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing ( Test Standards) were used.

A secondary purpose of the study was to provide information about the current progress of states in developing the modified assessments. This was done by searching for public documents about the modified assessments on state websites. If public documentation was not available, state testing directors or their appointed representatives were contacted to determine the status of their programs. The information was then categorized to detect commonalities in the types of programs that were being created.

Finally, the study noted some of the intended and unintended consequences of the modified assessment regulations, paying attention to the economic and non-economic costs of the modified assessments. For the economic aspect, selected state budgets for states that currently have a modified assessment testing program were reviewed. Also, grant information was reviewed.

Overall, the findings of the study suggest that the modified assessment regulations pose compliance problems for states in the areas of determining eligibility criteria, modified academic achievement standards, and high technical quality. The regulations and the guidance provided by the U.S. DOE are extremely vague. In some respects the vagueness provides flexibility to states in designing programs; however, there is also a hesitation to design a program until there is more information from the U.S. DOE. Further, in some instances the guidance from the U.S. DOE may conflict with the Test Standards, making compliance a concern for states.