BennettR. E. (2002, June). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1(1). Retrieved February 11, 2009, from http://www.jtla.org.
DolanR. P.HallT. E.BanerjeeM.ChunE.StrangmanN. (2005, February). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment3(7). Retrieved February 11, 2009, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=jtla.
5.
DriscollD. P. (2007). Requirements for the participation of students with disabilities in MCAS. Malden, MA: Massachusetts Department of Education.
HannaE. I. (2005). Inclusive design for maximum accessibility: A practice approach to universal design. PEM Research Report 05–04. Iowa City, IA: Pearson Educational Measurement.
8.
MirandaH.RussellM.HoffmannT. (2004). Examining the feasibility and effect of a computer-based read-aloud accommodation on mathematics test performance. Boston: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College.
9.
RoseD.MeyerA. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 66–67.
10.
RoseD. H. (2001). Universal design for learning: Deriving guiding principles from networks that learn. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(1), 66–70.
SalendS. (2009). Using technology to create and administer accessible tests. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41(3), 40–51.
13.
ThompsonS. J.JohnstoneC. J.ThurlowM. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments. Synthesis Report 44. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.html.