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.

  • Russell, M. (1999). Testing on computers: A follow-up study comparing performance on computer and on paper. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(20). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v7n20.1999

    Detail

  • Russell, M., & Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers: An experiment comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via paper-and-pencil. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v5n3.1997

    Detail

  • Russell, M., & Plati, T. (2000). Mode of administration effects on MCAS composition performance for grades four, eight, and ten (A Report of Findings Submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Education). National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED456142

    Detail

  • Russell, M., & Plati, T. (2001). Effects of computer versus paper administration of a state-mandated writing assessment. Teachers College Record, 103. http://www.tcrecord.org/

    Detail

  • Russell, M., Hoffmann, T., & Higgins, J. (2009). NimbleTools: A universally designed test delivery system. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 42(2), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990904200201

    Detail
  • Russell, M., Kavanaugh, M., Masters, J., Higgins, J., & Hoffmann, T. (2009). Computer-based signing accommodations: Comparing a recorded human with an avatar. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 10(3). https://jattjournal.net/
    Detail
  • Russell, R. (2014). The impact of using calculators as an accommodation on the math achievement of students with learning disabilities (Publication No. 3630205) [Doctoral dissertation, Grand Canyon University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1564022570
    Detail
  • Römhild, A., & Hollederer, A. (2024). Effects of disability-related services, accommodations, and integration on academic success of students with disabilities in higher education: A scoping review. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 39(1), 143–166. https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/rejs20
    Detail
  • Sack, W., Gale, J., Gulati, S., Gunther, M., Nesheim, R., Stoddard, F., & St. John, R. (2008). Requesting accommodation for a disability: A telephone survey of American medical schools. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 20(2), 92–99. https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/publications/jped
    Detail

  • Saigh, P. A., & Payne, D. A. (1979). The effect of type of reinforcer and reinforcement schedule on performances of EMR students on four selected subtests of the WISC-R. Psychology in the Schools, 16(1), 106–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(197901)16:1<106::AID-PITS2310160119>3.0.CO;2-R

    Detail

  • Salend, S. (2009). Using technology to create and administer accessible tests. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41(3), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990904100305

    Detail

  • Sattler, J. M., & Tozier, L. L. (1970). A review of intelligence test modifications used with cerebral palsied and other handicapped groups. The Journal of Special Education, 4(4), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246697000400402

    Detail
  • Saß, S., Schütte, K., & Lindner, M. A. (2017). Test-takers’ eye movements: Effects of integration aids and types of graphical representations. Computers & Education, 109, 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.007
    Detail

  • Scalise, K., Irvin, P. S., Alresheed, F., Zvoch, K., Yim-Dockery, H., Park, S., Landis, B., Meng, P., Kleinfelder, B., Halladay, L., & Partsafas, A. (2018). Accommodations in digital interactive STEM assessment tasks: Current accommodations and promising practices for enhancing accessibility for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33(4), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643418759340

    Detail

  • Scarpati, S. E., Wells, C. S., Lewis, C., & Jirka, S. (2011). Accommodations and item-level analyses using mixture differential item functioning models. The Journal of Special Education, 45(1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466909350224

    Detail

  • Scheuneman, J. D., Camara, W. J., Cascallar, A. S., Wendler, C., & Lawrence, I. (2002). Calculator access, use, and type in relation to performance in the SAT I: Reasoning test in mathematics. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1501_06

    Detail
  • Schmitt, A. J., Hale, A. D., McCallum, E., & Mauck, B. (2011). Accommodating remedial readers in the general education setting: Is listening-while-reading sufficient to improve factual and inferential comprehension? Psychology in the Schools, 48(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20540
    Detail

  • Schmitt, A. J., McCallum, E., Hawkins, R. O., Stephenson, E., & Vicencio, K. (2019). The effects of two assistive technologies on reading comprehension accuracy and rate. Assistive Technology, 31(4), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2018.1431974

    Detail

  • Schmitt, A. J., McCallum, E., Hennessey, J., Lovelace, T., & Hawkins, R. O. (2012). Use of reading pen assistive technology to accommodate post-secondary students with reading disabilities. Assistive Technology, 24(4), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2012.659956

    Detail

  • Schmitt, A. J., McCallum, E., Rubinic, D., & Hawkins, R. (2011). Reading pen decoding and vocabulary accommodations: Impact on student comprehension accuracy and rate. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 12(2), 223–240. https://rowman.com/page/je

    Detail