A commonly attempted approach to modifying attitudes regarding people with disabilities is to place people without disabilities in situations that are designed for them to experience what it is like to have a disability. This approach, called disability simulation, continues despite criticisms including a reported lack of effectiveness data and the potential for negative experiences among participants. The current study examined 41 studies dealing with disability simulation and included 10 studies in a meta-analysis. Results showed an overall median effect size of .04 and a weighted median effect size of .17. Moderator variable weighted effect sizes ranged from .00 to .35. Thus, the data did not suggest that disability simulation was an effective practice, but few negative effects were noted. Suggestions for practice and future research are included.

Test items undergo multiple iterations of review before states and vendors deem them acceptable to be placed in a live statewide assessment. This article reviews three approaches that can add validity evidence to states' item review processes. The first process is a structured sensitivity review process that focuses on universal design considerations for items. The second method is a series of statistical analyses intended to increase the limited amount of information that can be derived from analyses on low‐incidence populations (such as students who are blind, deaf, or have cognitive disabilities). Finally, think aloud methods are described as a method for understanding why particular items might be problematic for students.