Exploring the Relationship between access Technology and Standardized Test Scores for Youths with Visual Impairments: Secondary Analysis of the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2010
Exploring the Relationship between access Technology and Standardized Test Scores for Youths with Visual Impairments: Secondary Analysis of the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2
This article presents the findings of a secondary analysis of the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 that explored the predictive association between training in access technology and performance on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Academic Achievement: III. The results indicated that the use of access technology had a limited predictive relationship to performance on tests. Practical implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlperS., & RaharinirinaS. (2006). Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(21), 47–64.
American Printing House for the Blind. (2007). Distribution of eligible students, based on the federal quota census of January 2, 2006 (fiscal year 2007). In 2007 annual report, October 1, 2006–September 30, 2007, American Printing House for the Blind. Retrieved from http://www.aph.org/fedquotpgm/dist07.html
4.
BlackorbyJ., ChorostM., GarzaN., & GuzmanA. (2003). The academic performance of secondary school students with disabilities. In WagnerM., MarderC., BlackorbyJ., CametoR., NewmanL., LevineP., & Davies-MercierE. (with M. Chorost, N. Garza, A. Guzman, & C. Sumi), The achievements of youth with disabilities during secondary school (pp. 4.1–4.15). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
5.
BlackorbyJ., ChorostM., GarzaN., & GuzmanA. (2004). The academic performance of elementary and middle school students with disabilities. In BlackorbyJ., WagnerM., CametoR., DaviesE., LevineP., NewmanL., MarderC., & SumiC. (with ChorostM., GarzaN., & GuzmanA.), Engagement, academics, social adjustment, and independence: The achievements of elementary and middle school students with disabilities (pp. 4.1–4.22). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
6.
CornA., HatlenP., HuebnerK., RyanF., & SillerM. A. (1995). The national agenda for the education of children and youths with visual impairments, including those with multiple disabilities.New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
7.
DuhaneyD., & DuhaneyL. (2000). Assistive technology: Meeting the needs of learners with disabilities. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27, 393–401.
8.
GambleM. J., DowlerD. L., & HirschA. E. (2003). Informed decision making on assistive technology workplace accommodations for people with visual impairments. Work, 22, 123–130.
9.
GerberE. (2003). The benefits and barriers of computer use for individuals who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 97, 536–550.
10.
HatlenP. (1996). The core curriculum for blind and visually impaired students, including those with additional disabilities. RE:view, 28, 25–32.
11.
HuebnerK. E., Merk-AdamB., StrykerD., & WolffeK. E. (2004). The national agenda for the education of children and youths with visual impairments, including those with multiple disabilities—revised.New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
12.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
13.
KappermanG., & StickenJ. (2003). Using the Braille Lite to produce mathematical expressions in print. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 97, 710–719.
14.
MichaelsC. A., & McDermottJ. (2003). Assistive technology integration in special education teacher preparation: Program coordinators’ perceptions of current attainment and importance. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(3), 29–41.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, § 6301 et seq. (2002).
18.
SRI International. (2000). National Longitudinal Transition Study 2: Planned direct assessment content and process.Menlo Park, CA: Author.
19.
WagnerM., BlackorbyJ., & HebbelerK. (1993). Beyond the report card: The multiple dimensions of secondary school performances of students with disabilities.Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
20.
WagnerM., NewmanL., CametoR., & LevineP. (2006). The academic achievement and functional performance of youth with disabilities. A final report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2006-3000). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
21.
WilloughbyD., & DuffyS. (1989). Handbook for itinerant and resource teachers of blind and visually impaired students.Baltimore, MD: National Federation of the Blind.
22.
WoodcockR. W., McGrewK. S., & MatherN. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Academic Achievement—Research edition.Itasca, IL: Riverside.
