Federal law requires that individuals with handicapping conditions be administered assessments in ways that accommodate their disabilities without penalizing them. Validation studies are needed to evaluate the meaning of scores resulting from nonstandard test administrations. The limited number of these studies to date is reviewed. (SLD)

The validity of several criticisms of objective tests is addressed, and the viability of some alternatives to objective testing is discussed. Evidence against multiple-choice tests is not as strong as has been claimed. Authentic assessments may not always be better, and research about new forms of assessment is necessary. (SLD)