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.

  • Bolt, S. E. (2004, April 13). Using DIF analyses to examine several commonly-held beliefs about testing accommodations for students with disabilities [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA, United States. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/Presentations/NCME04bolt.pdf

    Detail

  • Bolt, S. E., & Thurlow, M. (2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy: Synthesis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 25(3), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250030201

    Detail

  • Bolt, S. E., & Thurlow, M. L. (2007). Item-level effects of the read-aloud accommodation for students with reading disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084070330010301

    Detail

  • Bolt, S. E., & Ysseldyke, J. (2008). Accommodating students with disabilities in large-scale testing: A comparison of differential item functioning (DIF) identified across disability types. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282907307703

    Detail

  • Bolt, S. E., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2006). Comparing DIF across math and reading/language arts tests for students receiving a read-aloud accommodation. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(4), 329–355. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame1904_6

    Detail

  • Bolt, S. E., Decker, D. M., Lloyd, M., & Morlock, L. (2011). Students’ perceptions of accommodations in high school and college. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34(3), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728811415098

    Detail

  • Bolt, S., & Bielinski, J. (2002, April). The effects of the read aloud accommodation on math test items [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), New Orleans, LA, United States.

    Detail

  • Bone, E. K., & Bouck, E. C. (2018). Evaluating calculators as accommodations for secondary students with disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2018-V23-I1-8437

    Detail
  • Botello, J. A. (2014). Comparing the effect of two types of computer screen background lighting on students’ reading engagement and achievement (Publication No. 3618650) [Doctoral dissertation, Lindenwood University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1530298552
    Detail
  • Bottsford-Miller, N. A. (2008). A cross-sectional study of reported inconsistency in accommodation use in the classroom and standardized test settings for elementary and middle school students with disabilities (Publication No. 3343545) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304531581
    Detail

  • Bouck, E. (2010). Does type matter: Evaluating the effectiveness of four-function and graphing calculators. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(1), 5–17. https://www.aace.org/pubs/jcmst/

    Detail

  • Bouck, E. C. (2009). Calculating the value of graphing calculators for seventh-grade students with and without disabilities: A pilot study. Remedial and Special Education, 30(4), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508321010

    Detail
  • Bouck, E. C. (2010). The impact of calculator type and instructional exposure for students with a disability: A pilot study. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 141–148. https://www.js.sagamorepub.com/index.php/ldmj
    Detail

  • Bouck, E. C., & Bouck, M. K. (2008). Does it add up? Calculators as accommodations for sixth grade students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(2), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340802300202

    Detail

  • Bouck, E. C., & Long, H. (2021). Assistive technology for students with disabilities: An updated snapshot. Journal of Special Education Technology, 36(4), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643420914624

    Detail

  • Bouck, E. C., & Yadav, A. (2008). Assessing calculators as assessment accommodations for students with disabilities. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 5(1), 19–28. https://www.atia.org/at-resources/atob/

    Detail

  • Bouck, E. C., Bouck, M. K., & Hunley, M. (2015). The calculator effect: Understanding the impact of calculators as accommodations for secondary students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 30(2), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643415617371

    Detail
  • Bouck, E. C., Doughty, T. T., Flanagan, S. M., Szwed, K., & Bassette, L. (2010). Is the pen mightier? Using pentop computers to improve secondary students’ writing. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(4), 33–47. https://www.isetcec.org/journal-of-special-education-technology-jset/
    Detail

  • Bouck, E. C., Flanagan, S., & Joshi, G. S. (2011). Speaking math—A voice input, speech output calculator for students with visual impairments. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341102600401

    Detail

  • Bouck, E. C., Joshi, G. S., & Johnson, L. (2013). Examining calculator use among students with and without disabilities educated with different mathematical curricula. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(3), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9461-3

    Detail