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.

  • Wick, J. W. (1983). Reducing proportion of chance scores in inner-city standardized testing results: Impact on average scores. American Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 461–463. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312020003461

    Detail
  • Williams, A. D. (2015). Middle school students’ experience of receiving test accommodations (Publication No. 3713969) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1709469936
    Detail
  • Williams, P., Wray, J., Farrall, H., & Aspland, J. (2014). Fit for purpose: Traditional assessment is failing undergraduates with learning difficulties. Might eAssessment help? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(6), 614–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.802029
    Detail

  • Willis, J., & Shibata, B. (1978). A comparison of tangible reinforcement and feedback effects on the WPPSI I.Q. scores of nursery school children. Education & Treatment of Children, 1(2), 31–45. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1980-06444-001

    Detail
  • Wilson, S. C. (2023). Testing accommodations decision-making policies and procedures at New York area independent schools: A qualitative study (Publication No. 30529414) [Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2828615684
    Detail
  • Wiltshire, D. (2023). Understanding students with disabilities in online higher education courses and their retention (Publication No. 30485593) [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2828109457
    Detail

  • Wise, S. L., & Wise, L. A. (1987). Comparison of computer-administered and paper-administered achievement tests with elementary school children. Computers in Human Behavior, 3(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(87)90006-9

    Detail

  • Wise, S. L., Kuhfeld, M. R., & Soland, J. (2019). The effects of effort monitoring with proctor notification on test-taking engagement, test performance, and validity. Applied Measurement in Education, 32(2), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2019.1577248

    Detail
  • Witmer, S. E., & Bouck, E. C. (2023). Predictors of accessibility tool use on a low-stakes computer-based math test. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 49(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084231152477
    Detail
  • Witmer, S. E., & Roschmann, S. (2020). An examination of measurement comparability for a school accountability test among accommodated and non-accommodated students with autism. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 55(2), 173–184. https://www.jstor.org/journal/eductraiautideve
    Detail

  • Witmer, S. E., & Roschmann, S. (2020). Exploring measurement comparability of accommodated math tests for students with emotional impairments. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 53(4), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2020.1735205

    Detail
  • Witmer, S. E., Lovett, B. J., & Buzick, H. M. (2023). Extended time accommodations on the 2017 NAEP Grade 8 Mathematics Test: Eligibility, use, and benefit. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 41(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829221130457
    Detail
  • Wizikowski, H. T. (2013). Academic support experiences and perceptions of postsecondary students with disabilities: A public and private university comparison (Publication No. ED552851) [Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1347671491
    Detail
  • Wolf, J. (2007). The effects of testing accommodations usage on students’ standardized test scores for deaf and hard-of-hearing students in Arizona public schools (Publication No. 3268570) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304894200
    Detail
  • Wood, R., & Happé, F. (2023). Barriers to tests and exams for autistic pupils: Improving access and longer-term outcomes. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 27(5), 603–619. https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/tied20
    Detail

  • Wood, S. G., Moxley, J. H., Tighe, E. L., & Wagner, R. K. (2018). Does use of text-to-speech and related read-aloud tools improve reading comprehension for students with reading disabilities? A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416688170

    Detail

  • Woods, K. (2004). Deciding to provide a reader in examinations for the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE): Questions about validity and inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 31(3), 122–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0952-3383.2004.00342.x

    Detail

  • Woods, K. (2007). Access to General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations for students with special education needs: What is “best practice”? British Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2007.00461.x

    Detail
  • Worland, K. M. (2014). The effects of prompt condition and genre on the writing performance of students in 3rd and 5th grade (Publication No. 3644214) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1624928240
    Detail
  • Wrage, J. (2017). Understanding the perceptual divide between students with disabilities, faculty and administration in an open enrollment environment (Publication No. 10276943) [Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1906270126
    Detail