AIMSweb. (2007). AIMSweb progress monitoring and response to intervention system. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://aimsweb.com/.
2.
BarlowD. H.HersenM. (1984). Single case experimental designs (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
3.
Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon, & American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC. (2006). Including students with disabilities in large-scale assessment: Executive summary. Retrieved April 27, 2006, from http://osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/tk_lrgAssmnt_ES.asp.
4.
CalhoonM. B.FuchsL. S. (2003). The effects of peer-assisted learning strategies and curriculum-based measurement on mathematics performance of secondary students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 235–245.
5.
Center for Technology in Education & Technology and Media Division of the Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). Considering the need for assistive technology within the individualized educational program. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
6.
ChambersA. C. (1997). Has technology been considered? A guide for IEP teams. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
7.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
8.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192.
9.
EdyburnD. L. (2005). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities: From consideration to outcome measurement. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 239–270). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
10.
FriendM.CookL. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. (4th ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
11.
GalvinJ. C.DonnellC. M. (2002). Educating the consumer and caretaker on assistive technology. In SchererM. J. (Ed.), Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation (pp. 153–167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12.
HowellK. W.NoletV. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thompson Learning.
13.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
14.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2001).
15.
OosterhofA. (1999). Developing and using classroom assessments (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
16.
ParetteP. (2006, March). Assessment for assistive technology. Workshop presented at the National Association of School Psychologists 2006 Annual Convention, Anaheim, CA.
PophamW. J. (2002). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
19.
ShinnM. R. (Ed). (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford.
20.
ShinnM. R.HubbardD. D. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement and problem-solving assessment: Basic procedures and outcomes. Focus on Exceptional Children, 24(5), 1–20.
21.
Silver-PacuillaH. (2005). Moving towards solutions. Assistive & learning technology for all students. Washington, DC: National Center for Technology Innovation.
22.
SmithR. O. (2000). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in education. Diagnostique, 25, 273–290.
23.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum-based measurement: The importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 128–134.
24.
TawneyJ. W.GastD. L. (1984). Single-subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
25.
WattsE. H.O'BrienM.WojcikB. W. (2004). Four models of assistive technology consideration: How do they compare to recommended educational assessment practices?. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(1), 43–56.
26.
ZabalaJ. (1995). The SETT framework: Critical areas to consider when making informed assistive technology decisions. Retrieved April 27, 2006, from http://sweb.uky.edu/∼jszaba0/SETTintro.html.
