Accommodations for Students with Disabilities Bibliography: Database

Search Filters

Keywords
% of Sample with Disability
Intended audience
Data collection instrument(s)
Technique(s) used in data analysis

Search Results

935 results.

  • Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M. A., & Tindal, G. (2002). An oral versus standard administration of a large-scale mathematics test. University of Delaware Education Research and Development Center.

    Detail

  • Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M. A., Tindal, G., Heath, B., & Almond, P. (1999). Reading as an access to mathematics problem solving on multiple-choice tests for sixth-grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597635

    Detail

  • Helwig, R., Stieber, S., Tindal, G., Hollenbeck, K., Heath, B., & Almond, P. (1999). A comparison of factor analyses of handwritten and word-processed writing of middle school students. University of Oregon Research Consultation, and Teaching Program.

    Detail

  • Helwig, R., Stieber, S., Tindal, G., Hollenbeck, K., Heath, B., & Almond, P. (2000). A comparison of factor analyses of handwritten and word-processed writing of middle school students. University of Oregon Research Consultation, and Teaching Program. http://www.brtprojects.org/publications

    Detail
  • Herridge, A. S. (2017). First-year performance: Students with disabilities transitioning to college from high school. College Student Affairs Leadership, 4(1), article 4. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/csal/
    Detail

  • Hetzroni, O. E., & Shrieber, B. (2004). Word processing as an assistive technology tool for enhancing academic outcomes of students with writing disabilities in the general classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370020501

    Detail

  • Hewett, R., Douglas, G., McLinden, M., & Keil, S. (2017). Developing an inclusive learning environment for students with visual impairment in higher education: Progressive mutual accommodation and learner experiences in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1254971

    Detail

  • Hidi, S. E., & Hildyard, A. (1983). The comparison of oral and written productions in two discourse types. Discourse Processes, 6(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538309544557

    Detail

  • Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (1995). Compensatory effectiveness of speech recognition on the written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511202

    Detail

  • Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (2005). The compensatory effectiveness of the Quicktionary Reading Pen II on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340502000103

    Detail

  • Higgins, J. A., Famularo, L., Cawthon, S. W., Kurz, C. A., Reis, J. E., & Moers, L. M. (2016). Development of American Sign Language guidelines for K–12 academic assessments. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 21(4), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw051

    Detail

  • Higgins, J., & Katz, M. (2013). A comparison of audio representations of mathematics content. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28(3), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341302800305

    Detail

  • Higgins, J., Russell, M., & Hoffmann, T. (2005). Examining the effect of computer-based passage presentation on reading test performance. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(4). https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/issue/archive

    Detail
  • Hill, G. A. (1984). Learning disabled college students: The assessment of academic aptitude (Publication No. 555914) [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/303338414
    Detail

  • Hipkiss, A., Woods, K. A., & McCaldin, T. (2021). Students’ use of GCSE access arrangements. British Journal of Special Education, 48(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12347

    Detail
  • Hiscox, L., Leonavičiute, E., & Humby, T. (2014). The effects of automatic spelling correction software on understanding and comprehension in compensated dyslexia: Improved recall following dictation. Dyslexia, 20(3), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1480
    Detail
  • Hodgson, J. R., Lazarus, S. S., Price, L. M., Altman, J. R., & Thurlow, M. L. (2012). Test administrators’ perspectives on the use of the read aloud accommodation in math on state tests for accountability (Technical Report No. 66). University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/OnlinePubs/Tech66/default.htm
    Detail

  • Hollenbeck, K. (2005). Validity issues and decisions about testing accommodations. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724770503100102

    Detail

  • Hollenbeck, K., Rozek-Tedesco, M. A., Tindal, G., & Glasgow, A. (2000). An exploratory study of student-paced versus teacher-paced accommodations for large-scale math tests. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(2), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340001500203

    Detail

  • Hollenbeck, K., Tindal, G., & Almond, P. (1998). Teachers’ knowledge of accommodations as a validity issue in high-stakes testing. The Journal of Special Education, 32(3), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699803200304

    Detail