AA-AAAS Bibliography: Search

Search Filters


Search Results

878 results.
  • Drasgow, E., Wolery, M., Halle, J., & Hajiaghamohseni, Z. (2011). Systematic instruction of students with severe disabilities. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 516–531). Routledge.

  • Driver, M. K. (2022). Culturally sustaining mathematics for dual language learners in a multitiered system of supports. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2021-V27-I1-9988
  • Dueker, S. A. (2018). Teaching a learning strategy for computational mathematics to students with moderate to profound intellectual disabilities using video prompting (Publication No. 11005240) [Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:osu1523452761926852

  • Dueker, S. A., & Cannella-Malone, H. I. (2019). Teaching addition to students with moderate disabilities using video prompting. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 8(2), 1-20 (article 2). https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/josea/

  • Dukes, C., Darling, S. M., & Bielskus-Barone, K. (2017). States’ description of Common Core State Standards to support students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(3), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796917715016

  • Dyehouse, M., & Bennett, D. (2006). Validity evidence for a computer-based alternate assessment instrument. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31(3), 11–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724770603100302

  • Dymond, S. K. (2017). Functional curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 675–686). Routledge.

  • Dymond, S. K., Butler, A. M., Hopkins, S. L., & Patton, K. A. (2018). Curriculum and context: Trends in interventions with transition-age students with severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 52(3), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918768776

  • Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Gilson, C. L., & Slagor, M. T. (2007). Defining access to the general curriculum for high school students with significant disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.32.1.1

  • Eckhout, T. J., Plake, B. S., Smith, D. L., & Larsen, A. (2007). Aligning a state’s alternative standards to regular core content standards in reading and mathematics: A case study. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340709336731

  • El Zein, F., Solis, M., Vaughn, S., & McCulley, L. (2014). Reading comprehension interventions for students with autism spectrum disorders: A synthesis of research. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(6), 1303–1322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1989-2

  • Elbaum, B. (2020). Developmental outcomes of preschool special education. Infants and Young Children, 33(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000155

  • Elledge, A., Le Floch, K. C., Taylor, J., & Anderson, L. (2009). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume V - Implementation of the 1 percent rule and 1 percent interim policy options (“A Report from the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind (SSI-NCLB), U.S. Department of Education”). U. S. Department of Education. http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/nclb-disab/nclb-disab-highlights.pdf

  • Elliott, S. N. (2009). Key issues in the use of alternate assessments: Closing comments to open more discussion and exploration of solutions. In W. D. Schafer & R. W. Lissitz (Eds.), Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: Policy, practice, and potential (pp. 335–340). Paul H. Brookes.

  • Elliott, S. N. (2009). Understanding the construct to be assessed. In W. D. Schafer & R. W. Lissitz (Eds.), Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: Policy, practice, and potential (pp. 23–32). Paul H. Brookes.

  • Elliott, S. N., & Roach, A. T. (2007). Alternate assessments of students with significant disabilities: Alternative approaches, common technical challenges. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(3), 301–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340701431385

  • Elliott, S. N., Braden, J. P., & White, J. L. (2001). Assessing one and all: Educational accountability for students with disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children (CEC).

  • Elliott, S. N., Compton, E., & Roach, A. T. (2007). Building validity evidence for scores on a state-wide alternate assessment: A contrasting groups, multimethod approach. Applied Measurement in Education, 26(2), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00092.x

  • Elliott, S. N., Roach, A. T., Kaase, K. J., & Kettler, R. (2009). The Mississippi alternate assessment of extended curriculum frameworks: Purpose, procedures, and validity evidence summary. In W. D. Schafer & R. W. Lissitz (Eds.), Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: Policy, practice, and potential (pp. 239–274). Paul H. Brookes.

  • Engevik, L. I., Næss, K.-A. B., & Hagtvet, B. E. (2016). Cognitive stimulation of pupils with Down syndrome: A study of inferential talk during book-sharing. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 55, 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.05.004