BoltS. E.ThurlowM. L. (2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy: Synthesis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 25(3), 141-152. doi:10.1177/07419325040250030201
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound test accommodation decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(3), 174-181. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00018
4.
HodgsonJ. R.LazarusS. S.ThurlowM. L. (2010). Characteristics of states’ alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in 2009-2010 (Synthesis Report 80). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/onlinepubs/Synthesis80/default.htm
5.
Ketterlin-GellerL. R. (2008). Testing students with special needs: A model for understanding the interaction between assessment and student characteristics in a universally designed environment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 3-16. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2008.00124.x
6.
Ketterlin-GellerL. R.CrawfordL.Huscroft-D’AngeloJ. N. (2014). Screening to assign accommodations: Using data to make decisions. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(2), 61-74.
7.
Ketterlin-GellerL. R.JamgochianE. M. (2012). Instructional accommodations and modifications that support accessible instruction. In ElliottS. N.KettlerR. J.BeddowP. A.KurzA. (Eds.), Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students: Bridging the gaps between research, policy, and practice (pp. 131-146). New York, NY: Springer.
8.
KettlerR. (2012). Testing accommodations: Theory and research to inform practice. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 59, 53-66. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2012.654952
9.
LaiS. A.BerkeleyS. (2012). High-stakes test accommodations: Research and practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(3), 158-169. doi:10.1177/0731948711433874
10.
LazarusS. S.CormierD. C.ThurlowM. L. (2011). States’ accommodations policies and development of alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards: A discriminant analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 301-308. doi:10.1177/0741932510362214
11.
PhillipsS. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 93-120. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame0702_1
12.
SalendS. J. (2008). Determining appropriate testing accommodations: Complying with NCLB and IDEA. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40(4), 14-22. doi:10.1177/004005990804000402
13.
SchrankF. A.MatherN.McGrewK. S. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
14.
SchrankF. A.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
15.
SireciS. G.ScarpatiS. E.LiS. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 457-490. doi:10.3102/00346543075004457
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: Author.
18.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2007). Title I–Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged; Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)–Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities (Department of Education Pub. No. 07-1700). Retrieved from https://federalregister.gov/a/07-1700
19.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2013). Title I–Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged: A proposed rule by the Education Department (Department of Education Pub. No. 2013-20665). Retrieved from https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-20665
20.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.