BradleyR.DanielsonL. (2004). Office of Special Education Program's ID initiative: A context for inquiry and consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27 (4), 186–188.
2.
BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD.P. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.)
3.
FuchsD.FuchsL.S.ComptonD.L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27 (4), 216–228.
4.
GerstenR. (2002). Leveling the playing field: Commentary on “Learning disabilities as operationally defined by schools.” In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 351–359). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.)
5.
LloydJ.W. (2002). There's more to identifying learning disability than discrepancy. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 427–435). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.)
6.
OrkwisR. (1999). Curriculum access and universal design. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
7.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
8.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2002). National longitudinal transition study2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
9.
WagnerR.BlackorbyJ. (2002). Disability profiles of elementary and middle school students with disabilities: Special education elementary longitudinal study (SEELS). Palo Alto, CA: SRI International.
10.
YsseldykeJ. (2002). Response to “Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives.” In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 89–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.)