Effects of computer-based test accommodations on mathematics performance assessments for secondary students with learning disabilities

Learning Disability Quarterly

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 271-282

  Calhoon, Mary Beth ^a   Fuchs, Lynn S ^b   Hamlett, Carol L ^b  

^a NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034347916     PISSN: 07319487     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1511349     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bakken, J. P., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. Journal of Special Education, 31, 300-324.
2. Bottge, B. A., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59, 556-566.
3. Bristor, V. J. (1993). Enhancing text structure with video for improving reading comprehension. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 216-223.
4. Burk, M. (1998). Computerized test accommodations: A new approach for inclusion and success for students with disabilities. Washington, DC: A.U. Software Incorporated.
5. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.
6. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.
7. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991b). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 31(5), 34-40.
8. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45-58.
9. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65-85.
10. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Waltz, L., & Germann, G. (1994). Formative evaluation of student progress: How much growth should we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27-48.
11. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S., Karns, K., Calhoon, M. B., Hamlett, C. L., & Hewlett, S. (2000). The effects of workgroup structure and size on student productivity during collaborative work on complex tasks. Elementary School Journal, 100, 183-212.
12. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C. L., Dutka, S., & Katzaroff, M. (2000). The importance of providing background information on the structure and scoring of performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 1-34.
13. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C. L., & Katzaroff, M. (1999). Mathematics performance assessment in the classroom: Effects on teacher planning and student learning. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 609-646.
14. Gajria, M., Salend, S. J., & Hemrick, M. (1994). Teacher acceptability of testing modifications for mainstreamed students. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9, 236-243.
15. Greenstein, J., & Strains, P. S. (1977). The utility of the KeyMath Diagnostic Arithmetic Test for adolescent learning disabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 14, 275-282.
16. Hanley, T. V. (1995). The need for technological advances in assessment related to national educational reform. Exceptional Children, 61, 222-229.
17. Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (1997). The compensatory effectiveness of optical character recognition/speech synthesis on reading comprehension of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 8(2), 75-87.
18. Howe, M. E., Thames, D. G., & Kazelskis, R. (1997). The relationship between third grade students' definitions of reading, self-perceptions as readers, and their reading performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Memphis, TN.
19. Kansas State Board of Education. (1991). Kansas quality performance accreditation. Topeka: Author.
20. McLeod, T. M., & Armstrong, S. W. (1982). Learning disabilities in mathematics - Skill deficits and remedial approaches at the intermediate and secondary level. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 305-311.
21. Means, B., & Knapp, M. S. (1991). Cognitive approaches to teaching advanced skills to educationally disadvantaged students. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 282-289.
22. Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1997). Educational aspects of mathematics disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 47-56.
23. Runyan, M. K. (1991). Reading comprehension performance of learning disabled and non-learning disabled college and university students under timed and untimed conditions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
24. Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers' perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12(4), 18-27.
25. Smith, C. R. (1994). Learning disabilities: The interaction of learner, task, and setting (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
26. Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64, 439-450.
27. Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 703-713.
28. Willingham, W. W., Ragosta, M., Bennett, R. E., Braun, D. A., Rock, D. A., & Powers, D. E. (Eds.). (1988). Testing handicapped people. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.