AA-AAAS Bibliography: Search

Search Filters

Keywords

Search Results

1250 results.

  • 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., Bonati, M. L., Plotner, A. J., Neeper, L. S., & Kim, R. (2024). Trends in secondary curriculum for transition-age students with severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 59(1), 85–96. https://www.jstor.org/journal/eductraiautideve

  • 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

  • Dynia, J. M., Walton, K. M., Sagester, G. M., Schmidt, E. K., & Tanner, K. J. (2023). Addressing sensory needs for children with autism spectrum disorder in the classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, 58(4), 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512221093786

  • 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., & O’Day, J. (2009). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume V - Implementation of the 1 percent rule and 2 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, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. https://www.loc.gov/item/2023692162/

  • 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. J. (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

  • Erdem, R. (2017). Students with special educational needs and assistive technologies: A literature review. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

  • Erickson, K. A., & Geist, L. A. (2016). The profiles of students with significant cognitive disabilities and complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 32(3), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2016.1213312

  • Erickson, K. A., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (2020). Comprehensive literacy for all: Teaching students with significant disabilities to read and write. Brookes.

  • Erickson, K. A., Hatch, P., & Clendon, S. (2010). Literacy, assistive technology, and students with significant disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v42i5.6904