K–TEA Comprehensive Reading scores of 34 elementary boys in either resource rooms or regular settings were compared. The boys were identified as learning disabled in reading. They were pretested at the beginning of the school year and posttested at the end. Treatment was one year of daily instruction in reading provided by six teachers in resource settings and six teachers in regular settings. K–TEA Reading Decoding and Reading Comprehension scores, separately compared in 2 × 2 repeated-measures analysis of variance, were not significantly different.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BraatenS.KauffmanJ.BraatenB.PolsgroveL., & NelsonC. (1988) The regular education initiative: patent medicine for behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 55, 21–27.
2.
FuchsD., & FuchsL. (1993) Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309.
3.
KaufmanA. S., & KaufmanN. L. (1985) Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Comprehensive Form (K–TEA). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
4.
LyonG. R. (1996) The future of children: special education for students with disabilities. Los Altos, CA: David and Lucille Packard Foundation.
5.
MoatsL. C., & LyonG. R. (1993) Learning disabilities in the United States: advocacy, science, and the future of the field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 282–294.
6.
RoseD., & RoseC. (1994) Practical questions about collaboration between general and special educators. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26, 8–10.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. (1995) Seventeenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of IDEA. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
