AA-AAAS Bibliography: Search

Search Filters


Search Results

856 results.
  • Cho, H.-J., & Kingston, N. (2015). Examining teachers’ decisions on test-type assignment for statewide assessments. The Journal of Special Education, 49(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466913498772

  • Choe, N., Shane, H., Schlosser, R. W., Haynes, C. W., & Allen, A. (2020). Directive-following based on graphic symbol sentences involving an animated verb symbol: An exploratory study. Communication Disorders Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740120976332

  • Christensen, L. L., Mitchell, J. D., Shyyan, V. V., & Ryan, S. (2018). Characteristics of English learners with significant cognitive disabilities: Findings from the individual characteristics questionnaire. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Alternate English Language Learning Assessment (ALTELLA), Wisconsin Center for Education Research. http://altella.wceruw.org/resources.html

  • Christmus, M. J. B. (2019). Curricular assessments in South Carolina by teachers of students with severe disabilities (Publication No. 22587001) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

  • Chung, Y.-C., & Carter, E. W. (2013). Promoting peer interactions in inclusive classrooms for students who use speech-generating devices. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(2), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.2511/027494813807714492

  • Cizek, G. J., Kosh, A. E., & Toutkoushian, E. K. (2018). Gathering and evaluating validity evidence: The generalized assessment alignment tool. Journal of Educational Measurement, 55(4), 477–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12189

  • Clancy, M., & Gardner, J. (2017). Using digital portfolios to develop non-traditional domains in special education settings. International Journal of ePortfolio, 7(1), 93–100. http://theijep.com/

  • Clark, A. K., & Karvonen, M. (2020). Constructing and evaluating a validation argument for a next-generation alternate assessment. Educational Assessment, 25(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2019.1702463

  • Clausen, A. M., Tapp, M. C., Pennington, R. C., Spooner, F., & Teasdell, A. (2021). A systematic review of modified schema-based instruction for teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities to solve mathematical word problems. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 46(2), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969211007561

  • Clayton, J., Burdge, M., & Kleinert, H. (2001). Integrating alternate assessment with ongoing instruction. In H. L. Kleinert & J. F. Kearns (Eds.), Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities (pp. 77–91). Paul H. Brookes.

  • Clayton, J., Burdge, M., Denham, A., Kleinert, H., & Kearns, J. (2006). A four-step process for accessing the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38(5), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990603800503

  • Coffin, A. B., Myles, B. S., Rogers, J., & Szakacs, W. (2016). Supporting the writing skills of individuals with autism spectrum disorder through assistive technologies. In T. A. Cardon (Ed.), Technology and the treatment of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (pp. 59–73). Springer International.

  • Coffman, D. M., Rutt, B. T., & Shaftel, J. (2011). Qualitative analysis of Kansas Alternate Assessment data folio comments. Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, University of Kansas. https://aai.ku.edu/technical-reports

  • Cohen, D. J., Zhang, J., & Wothke, W. (2019). Effects of item modifications on test accessibility for persistently low-performing students with disabilities. Applied Measurement in Education, 32(4), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2019.1660343

  • Coleman, A. L., & Palmer, S. R. (2003). Summary and analysis of the U.S. Department of Education’s final regulations on alternate achievement standards and alternate assessments under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and Nixon Peabody LLC. https://ccsso.org/resource-library/topic/topics?

  • Coleman, M. B., Cramer, E. S., Park, Y., & Bell, S. M. (2015). Art educators’ use of adaptations, assistive technology, and special education supports for students with physical, visual, severe and multiple disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 27(5), 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-015-9440-6

  • Collins, B. C. (2012). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Paul H. Brookes.

  • Collins, B. C., Hager, K. L., & Galloway, C. C. (2011). Addition of functional content during core content instruction with students with moderate disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(1), 22–39. http://www.daddcec.com/etadd.html

  • Collins, B., Kleinert, H., & Land, L. (2006). Addressing math standards and functional math. In D. M. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching language arts, math and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 197–227). Paul H. Brookes.

  • Condon, A. W. (2017). Impact of standards-based instruction on achievement levels of students with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities: An action research study (Publication No. 10263022) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4200/