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

909 results.

  • Powers, D. E., Fowles, M. E., Farnum, M., & Ramsey, P. (1994). Will they think less of my handwritten essay if others word process theirs? Effects on essay scores of intermingling handwritten and word-processed essays. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(3), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1994.tb00444.x

    Detail
  • Price, K. N. (2018). STEM and non-STEM faculty knowledge and attitudes toward students with disabilities (Publication No. 10816493) [Doctoral dissertation, Barry University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2057991694
    Detail
  • Prisacari, A. A., & Danielson, J. (2017). Computer-based versus paper-based testing: Investigating testing mode with cognitive load and scratch paper use. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.044
    Detail
  • Prisacari, A. A., & Danielson, J. (2017). Rethinking testing mode: Should I offer my next chemistry test on paper or computer? Computers & Education, 106, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.008
    Detail
  • Pritchard, A. E., Koriakin, T., Carey, L., Bellows, A., Jacobson, L., & Mahone, E. (2016). Academic testing accommodations for ADHD: Do they help? Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(2), 67–78. https://ldaamerica.org/info/learning-disabilities-a-multidisciplinary-journal/
    Detail

  • Puhan, G., Boughton, K., & Kim, S. (2007). Examining differences in examinee performance in paper and pencil and computerized testing. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6(3). https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/issue/archive

    Detail

  • Qi, S., & Mitchell, R. E. (2012). Large-scale academic achievement testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing students: Past, present, and future. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enr028

    Detail

  • Quesen, S., & Lane, S. (2019). Differential item functioning for accommodated students with disabilities: Effect of differences in proficiency distributions. Applied Measurement in Education, 32(4), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2019.1660347

    Detail

  • Quinlan, T. (2004). Speech recognition technology and students with writing difficulties: Improving fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.337

    Detail
  • Raasch, J. L. (2017). Survey of self-determination constructs in higher education students with disabilities and campus service improvements (Publication No. 10641350) [Doctoral dissertation, Clemson University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2101376719
    Detail
  • Ragosta, M., Braun, H., & Kaplan, B. (1991). Performance and persistence: A validity study of the SAT for students with disabilities (College Board Research Report 91-3; ETS Research Report 91-41). College Board. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1991.tb01408.x
    Detail
  • Randall, C. A. (1999). Score comparability of standard and nonstandard administrations of a state-mandated fifth grade science assessment (Publication No. 9946118) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304520600
    Detail

  • Randall, J., & Engelhard, G., Jr. (2010). Performance of students with and without disabilities under modified conditions: Using resource guides and read-aloud test modifications on a high-stakes reading test. The Journal of Special Education, 44(2), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466908331045

    Detail

  • Randall, J., Cheong, Y. F., & Engelhard, G. J. (2011). Using explanatory item response theory modeling to investigate context effects of differential item functioning for students with disabilities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(1), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410391577

    Detail
  • Rao, S. M. (2002). Students with disabilities in higher education: Faculty attitudes and willingness to provide accommodations (Publication No. 3079101) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304798932
    Detail

  • Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. (1995). Effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18(2), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511201

    Detail

  • Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1998). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100104

    Detail

  • Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1999). Speaking to read: The effects of speech recognition technology on the reading and spelling performance of children with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 49(1), 259–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-999-0026-9

    Detail

  • Ray, S. (1982). Adapting the WISC-R for deaf children. Diagnostique, 7(3), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724778200700302

    Detail
  • Reed, E. D. (2002). Wrong for the right reasons: Appropriate accommodations for students with learning disabilities (LD) and/or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD) (Publication No. 3067927) [Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/305583841
    Detail