The Journal of Special Education

http://sed.sagepub.com/

Student and Teacher Variables Contributing to Access to the General Education Curriculum for Students
With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
Suk-Hyang Lee, Jane H. Soukup, Todd D. Little and Michael L. Wehmeyer
J Spec Educ 2009 43: 29 originally published online 13 May 2008
DOI: 10.1177/0022466907313449
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://sed.sagepub.com/content/43/1/29

Published by:
Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for The Journal of Special Education can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://sed.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://sed.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Apr 10, 2009

OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 13, 2008
What is This?

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

Student and Teacher Variables

Contributing to Access to the General
Education Curriculum for Students With
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

The Journal of Special Education

Volume 43 Number 1
May 2009 29-44
2009 Hammill Institute on Disabilities
10.1177/0022466907313449
http://journalofspecialeducation.sagepub.com
hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Suk-Hyang Lee
Ewha Womans University, South Korea

Jane H. Soukup
Todd D. Little
Michael L. Wehmeyer
University of Kansas, Lawrence
The predictors of student and teacher variables on the access to the general education curriculum of 19 students with
intellectual and developmental disabilities were examined based on the observation data collected for a total of 1,140
minutes. Multilevel regression analyses were employed to analyze the data. The findings indicated that both student
and teacher variables are strong predictors of access to the general education curriculum. A complicated pattern of
the relationship between student and teacher variables (e.g., suppression, correction of distortion) was found along
with interaction between these variables and environmental factors. These findings also suggest future practices and
research that can be considered to enhance access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities.
Keywords:

access to general education curriculum; mental retardation (MR)

romoting student access to the general education

curriculum has become an expectation of federal
law governing educational services for students with
disabilities. The emphasis on student involvement with
and progress in core academic content areas is significantly changing the way educational programs for
students with more severe disabilities, whose educational programs have focused, traditionally, on functional content, are developed (Browder & Spooner,
2006). Among other requirements pertaining to student
involvement and progress in the general education curriculum, the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEIA) 2004 reauthorization
requires that the educational programs of all students
receiving special education services, including
students with severe disabilities, identify supplementary aids and services to ensure student involvement
with and progress in the general education curriculum.
Relevant supplementary aids and services might include
curriculum modifications such as curriculum adaptations and curriculum augmentations, modifications to
the physical structure of the campus or classroom,

modifications to classroom ecological variables, access

to educational and assistive technology, assessment and
task accommodations, and the availability of paraeducators or peer supports. These requirements (e.g., that
students with disabilities have access to the general education curriculum content and participate in alternative assessments based on grade-level standards)
must be addressed independently of special education placement (Browder et al., 2007).
Although the IDEIA requirements essentially
mandate that schools to institute programmatic efforts
to ensure student progress in the general education
curriculum, access to content and instruction is a selfevident first step to such involvement and eventual
Authors Note: Funding for this study was provided by Grant
H324D000025 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Special Education Programs, awarded to the University of
Kansas. Endorsement by the Federal Government should not,
however, be assumed. Address correspondence to Suk-Hyang
Lee, Department of Special Education, College of Education,
Ewha Womans University, 11-1 Daehyeon-Dong, Sedemun-Gu,
Seoul 120-750, Korea; e-mail: deepjoy@ewha.ac.kr.
29

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

30 The Journal of Special Education

progress. Promoting access to the curriculum for

students with disabilities requires a focus on (a) the
ways in which content is delivered to students and
how students respond to that content (e.g., universal
design for learning [UDL], curriculum modification),
(b) classroom ecological and setting factors, and
(c) student and teacher variables, including studentteacher interactions.
Access to general education content can be
achieved by using technology to develop instructional
materials based upon the principles of UDL (Rose &
Meyer, 2002; Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock, 2005) as
well as by pedagogical means, including effective
instructional strategies and curriculum modifications
(Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000; Wehmeyer, Lance, &
Bashinski, 2002). Curriculum modifications, such as
graphic organizers, have been shown as effective in
meeting the unique learning needs of students with
disabilities in the general education classroom (Fisher
& Nancy, 2001; Janney & Snell, 2000; Kameenui &
Simmons, 1999; Nolet & McLaughlin; 2000;
Wehmeyer, Sands, Knowlton, & Kozleski, 2002). In
this respect, then, the IDEIA access to the general
education curriculum mandate is connected to and
must be considered along with the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) requirements that highly qualified
teachers use evidence-based practices in teaching content and implementing appropriate pedagogy (Kossar,
Mitchem, & Ludlow, 2005; Paulsen, 2005).
In addition to effective pedagogy to meet the individual needs of students with disabilities, classroom
ecological and setting factors are important to enhance
access to the general education curriculum. There is
an emerging knowledge base documenting the degree
to which students with disabilities have access to the
general education curriculum that provides preliminary information pertaining to the role of classroom ecological and setting factors on such access.
Wehmeyer and colleagues have conducted several
studies examining the degree to which students with
intellectual disability are engaged with the general
education curriculum; are provided supports they need
to do so effectively; and have student, setting, and
classroom ecological factors related to such access.
Wehmeyer, Lattin, Lapp-Rincker, and Agran (2003)
examined these issues, observing 33 middle school
students with intellectual disability for a total of 6,585
minutes across general education and self-contained
settings. During 70% of the observed intervals,
students were engaged in a task related to a school
district standard. This varied, however, by level of

disability. Students with mild cognitive impairments

were engaged in a task linked to a standard in 87% of
intervals, while students with more severe intellectual
impairments were doing so during only 55% of intervals. Further, students observed in the general education classroom were observed working on tasks linked
to a standard in 90% of intervals, while students
served primarily in self-contained settings engaged in
tasks related to a standard in only 50% of the intervals.
Although students were working on tasks linked to the
general education curriculum for a fairly high number
of intervals, Wehmeyer, Lattin, et al. (2003) found
that the percentage of intervals in which students used
some form of curriculum modification was just 2.78%
of observed intervals.
Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, and Bovaird (2007)
observed 19 elementary students with intellectual and
developmental disabilities for a total of 1,140 minutes
and recorded the occurrence of curriculum adaptations
and augmentations. The result of this study mirrored
the Wehmeyer, Lattin, et al. (2003) findings. Students
with intellectual and developmental disabilities worked
on grade-level standards (60% of the intervals) more
than three times the frequency of intervals in which
they worked on a standard linked to just any grade
(20% of intervals) or on Individualized Education
Program (IEP) objectives (23% of objectives). Clear
differences existed, however, in the frequency of intervals in which students worked on grade-level standards and IEP objectives as a function of the students
participation in the general education classroom, with
students in a general education setting working on any
general education standard in 97.5% of intervals and
with students working on an activity linked to a gradelevel standard in 83% of those intervals. Students not
included in general education settings, however, were
observed working on an activity linked to any general
education standard only 46.11% of intervals, and not
a single interval was observed in which a student in
the low-inclusion group worked on a grade-level standard. Similarly, curriculum adaptations were observed
in only 18% of intervals, and no occurrences of curriculum augmentations were observed.
In addition to classroom setting (e.g., general education vs. self-contained classroom), Soukup and
colleagues (2007) examined classroom ecological
variables such as instructional grouping strategies
(e.g., whole class, small group, one on one, independent,
and no instruction) and classroom physical arrangements (entire group, divided group, and individual
group) on student access. Individually, classroom

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

Lee et al. / Predictors of Access 31

setting and physical arrangement predicted access

(using multilevel modeling), with students educated
in the general education classroom and in large-group
physical arrangements having the highest access.
When considered together, classroom setting and
physical arrangements were significant predictors of
access, and small group instructional grouping strategies were also predictive of greater access.
Both Wehmeyer, Lattin, et al. (2003) and Soukup
et al. (2007) found that settingthat is, where students
were receiving instructionwas predictive of their
relative access to the general education curriculum. In
essence, students receiving instruction in the general
education classroom were most likely to be working
on activities linked to general education content standards, albeit without the types of curriculum modifications and universal design features that would support
their progress. Additionally, both studies found that
access was partly a function of student level of intellectual impairment; students with more severe disabilities were engaged in fewer activities linked to the
general education curriculum. The findings of both
studies also mirrored findings from Dymond and
Russell (2004), who examined the impact of grade and
disability on interactions among students, teachers,
and the environment in elementary general education
classrooms. These authors findings revealed that
students with severe disabilities spent less time in general education classrooms than students with mild disabilities and received more paraprofessional supports.
Also, curriculum modifications were almost nonexistent for students with mild disabilities but were used
some with students with severe disabilities.
Along with effective pedagogy and ecological factors, student and teacher variables, including studentteacher interactions, are important to promote access
to the general education curriculum. Observational
methodologies based upon ecobehavioral assessment
have been widely used to investigate classroom setting,
student, and teacher variables in typical classroom
settings (Ross, Singer-Dudek, & Greer, 2005; Salend,
2000). Ecobehavioral assessment is designed to reveal
sequential and concurrent interrelationships between
environmental stimuli and a childs responding
(Greenwood, Schulte, Kohler, Dinwiddie, & Carta,
1986, p. 71). Ecobehavioral assessment can provide a
portrait of a target setting or program by revealing
detailed ecological and ecobehavioral data in a natural
context (Brown, Odom, Li, & Zercher, 1999).
Ecobehavioral assessment also has been employed
successfully in a number of research studies related to

effectiveness in classroom settings (Greenwood, Carta,

Arreaga-Mayer, & Rager, 1991; Kamps, Leonard,
Dugan, Boland, & Greenwood, 1991; Logan, Bakeman,
& Keefe, 1997; Logan & Keefe, 1997). In particular, it
has been used to investigate student engagement time,
instructional strategies, and context factors in group
comparison studies for a variety of situations, including
observing the same participants in different education
settings (e.g., home school vs. public school; Duvall,
Delquadri, & Ward, 2004; Katz, Mirenda, & Auerbach,
2002; Woolsey, Harrison, & Gardner, 2004) and observing different student groups (e.g., students with disabilities vs. their peers, low-SES vs. high SES, at-risk
vs. not-at-risk students) in the same setting, typically
a general education classroom (Greenwood, 1991;
Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989; McDonnell,
Thorson, & McQuivey, 2000; Wallace, Anderson,
Bartholomay, & Hupp, 2002). Furthermore, ecobehavioral assessment has been used to assess and evaluate teacher behaviors and performance in classroom
settings (Roberson, Woolsey, Seabrooks, & Williams,
2004a, 2004b; Ross et al., 2005).
Research findings on student and teacher variables
from these and similar studies using ecobehavioral
observation methodologies show a well-established
link between student achievement and time spent in
academic engagement and instructional factors
(Brophy & Good, 1986; Greenwood, 1991; Salend,
2000; Wallace et al., 2002) and show that the academic engagement of students with disabilities is significantly higher during teacher-directed instruction than
during seatwork in both resource room and general
education settings (Friedman, Cancelli, & Yoshida,
1988). In addition to teacher instructional behaviors,
this line of research has identified teacher attention as
an important variable influencing desirable and undesirable student behavior (Vyse & Mulick, 1988). There
are, however, few studies applying ecobehavioral
observations to understand the impact of the abovereferenced variables on student access to the general
education curriculum, and no studies of which we are
aware using this methodology to examine the role of
teacher and student variables and patterns of studentteacher interactions to promote access to the general
education curriculum. Soukup et al. (2007) used
ecobehavioral observations to examine classroom ecological and setting factors on student access to the general education curriculum but did not report on the role
of teacher and student variables to such access.
Given the above, the purpose of this study was
to examine the degree to which student and teacher

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

32 The Journal of Special Education

variables predicted access to the general education

curriculum for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. To achieve this, we conducted
multiple observations of students with intellectual
and developmental disabilities using ecobehavioral
observational techniques and analyzed the data
employing a multilevel modeling process.

Method
Participants
Participants were 19 elementary students with intellectual disability (n = 17) or autism (n = 2) from three
suburban school districts in the Midwest. Students
ranged in age from 7 to 12 years (M = 10.63 years,
SD = 1.34) and were enrolled in Grades 2 through 6.
Twelve students were male (M = 10.67, SD = 1.50);
seven students were female (M = 10.57, SD = 1.13).
Fifteen students (79%) were Caucasian, two students
(10%) were Asian-Pacific Islander, one student was
African American (5%), and one student was Hispanic
American (5%). Current (e.g., within 2 years) scores
from standardized intelligence tests were not available
for most students. To provide an indicator of student
level of functioning, a modified version of the
Supports Intensity Scale (SIS; Thompson et al., 2004)
was completed by each students special education
teacher. The SIS is a measure of the intensity of support a person needs to function independently. Student
support needs on items are rated by the respondent
using a Likert-type scale on which responses range
from 1 to 5 (1 = no support needed, 5 = full support
needed). Teacher ratings yielded two scores, overall
support needs and learning support needs. Overall support needs scores measured how much support
teachers believed would be required for students to be
successful in any type of activity. Learning support
needs scores measured how much assistance teachers
believed would be required for students to work on
activities associated with learning. Participants averaged an overall support need score of 3.58, with a
median score of 4 (on a 1-5 Likert scale, where 5 = the
most intense support needs). Participants had a mean
learning support need score of 4.26 and a median score
of 4 (similarly, on a 1-5 scale, where 5 = intense support needs). In essence, then, students involved in the
study had moderate to heavy support needs to function
in overall and learning contexts.
The following criteria were used for recruiting participants: (a) kindergarten through sixth grade with

mental retardation or autism and (b) receiving science

or social studies instruction in any setting. Students
varied in the time in which they received instruction in
the general education classroom, and as a result,
65.7% of observations in which students were receiving social studies or science instruction were conducted in general education settings, 28.7% of the
observations were in special education settings, and
5.6% were in other educational settings, including in
the library and in the school but outside any classroom
setting (e.g., the hall). The teacher providing the
science or social studies instruction varied according
to setting, and at any given time that instruction may
have been provided by a general education teacher, a
special education teacher, or a paraeducator.
Participants were recruited by contacting district
personnel to obtain permission to conduct the study.
Once permission was obtained, special education
coordinators in each district were contacted to discuss
the study and determine if the district had any
students who met the study criteria. If so, the special
education coordinator provided contact information
for each students special education teacher. The
researcher then contacted each teacher, explained the
study, and provided them with consent forms to send
to parents or guardians of prospective study participants. All students for whom informed consent was
obtained were included in the study.

Instrumentation
Data regarding student access to the general education curriculum were collected with a Windows
PCbased, time-sampling data collection system
called the Access CISSAR. The Access CISSAR is an
expanded version of a direct observational system,
the MainStream Version of the Code for Instructional
Structure and Student Academic Response (MS-CISSAR; Carta, Greenwood, Schulte, Arreaga-Mayer, &
Terry, 1988), a component of the EcoBehavioral
Assessment System Software designed to collect classroom observational data (Greenwood, Carta, Kamps,
Terry, & Delquadri, 1994).
The MS-CISSAR focuses on an individual student
as an observers target and structures the collection of
data, using a momentary time-sampling methodology,
on 105 individual codes in 13 categories of variables
across three conceptual groupings: classroom ecology
(5 categories), teacher behavior (5 categories), and
student behavior (3 categories). Using the MS-CISSAR,
data are collected in each of the 13 categories of
variables during a 60-second interval composed of

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

Lee et al. / Predictors of Access 33

20-second observation intervals. One event may be

recorded for each of the 13 categories during each
interval, and data entry is limited to four active keys to
reduce the probability of erroneous entries. Length of
data collection sessions using the MS-CISSAR is
flexible and may be structured in full-minute increments as a researcher deems appropriate.
The MS-CISSAR was subjected to rigorous technical scrutiny during its development and field testing.
Test-retest reliabilities averaged .85 overall (Greenwood
et al., 1997). The MS-CISSARs divergent validity
was demonstrated through the correlation of students
higher levels of academic responding in the classroom
with posttest gains on the Metropolitan Achievement
TestBasic Scale (Greenwood, Arreaga-Mayer, &
Carta, 1994). Additionally, Kamps, Greenwood, and
Leonard (1991) documented treatment validity in an
investigation with students with autism.
Bashinski and Wehmeyer (2002) expanded the
MS-CISSAR to collect additional data regarding
when and how opportunities were made available for
students to access the general education curriculum.
This expanded version, called the Access CISSAR,
includes all 13 of the original classroom ecology,
teacher behavior, and student behavior categories
from the MS-CISSAR, and 102 of the original 105
variables (3 codes were eliminated from the teacher
behavior category). In addition to the original MSCISSAR variables, the Access CISSAR was designed
to capture data indicating the degree to which students
had access to the general education curriculum.
These observational categories were derived from the
model for access proposed by Wehmeyer, Lance, et al.
(2002) and codes developed by Wehmeyer, Lattin,
et al. (2003). The final codes (from F2 to F9) were
(a) whether a participants peers were engaged in a
task linked to any general education standard (F2),
(b) whether a participants peers were engaged in a
task linked to a grade-level standard (F3), (c) whether
a participant (e.g., the student with a disability being
observed) was engaged in a task linked to any general
education standard (F4), (d) whether a participant
was engaged in a task linked to a grade-level standard
(F5), (e) whether a participant was engaged in a task
linked to an IEP goal (F6), (f) whether accommodations
were in place to support the student (F7), (g) whether
curriculum augmentations were observed (F8), and
(h) whether curriculum adaptations were provided
(F9). With regard to the Access CISSAR, each of
these behaviors or activities was linked to a virtual
toggle switch identified by the labels F2 through F9

on the computers keyboard. Table 1 lists the access

toggle labels. Each toggle was set at off or on
before the start of each observation. For intervals in
which a toggle was on, the variable was counted as
present. Toggles could be switched on or off at any
time during the observation if any aspect of the situation
changed, and the entire interval in which a change
was made reflected such.
In addition, if during the observation period any
accommodations, including supplementary aids and
services, curriculum adaptations, or curriculum augmentations, were observed, the observer selected from
among subcategories to describe the specific type of
accommodation or curriculum modifications provided
to the student. There were eight additional coding
variables further describing the accommodations,
five describing curriculum augmentations, and eight
describing curriculum adaptations (see Table 1). All
Access CISSAR variables could be reentered or
changed at any time during data collection. The observer
could simultaneously code as many access-related
variables as were observed.

Procedures
Once parental consent was obtained, each
students special education teacher was interviewed
to collect information about the student. During this
interview, the researcher reviewed IEPs to record
information about each students IEP for use during
classroom observations. The primary data collector
received one-on-one training from one of the developers of the Access CISSAR, who in turn had been
trained to mastery on the MS-CISSAR. Training began
with an instrument calibration processa test of an
observers capacity to collect data from a videotaped
classroom simulation in agreement with a standard
set by the original MS-CISSARs software developers.
Reliability training for the MS-CISSAR also included
live in-school practice and in-school reliability
sessions.
After receiving an overall reliability rating of 96.61%
agreement for three 15-minute in-school training sessions on the MS-CISSAR, the primary observer
received training on the Access CISSAR, obtaining a
reliability score of 97.03% for that version. Overall,
the primary observer received 33.75 hours of training
for the MS-CISSAR and Access CISSAR systems.
A person to serve as a reliability coder had been
trained to mastery using the Access CISSAR with
the same training process and trainer as discussed

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

34 The Journal of Special Education

Table 1
Access CISSAR Toggle Number, Description, and Frequency of Intervals Observed
Toggle #
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7

F8

F9

Toggle Description

Sum

Peers: any general education standard

Peers: grade-level standard
Participant: any general education standard
Participant: grade-level standard
Participant: IEP objectives
Accommodations (at least one of the following)
1. Paraprofessional
2. Peer support
3. Note taker
4. Environmental adjustment
5. Extended time
6. Redistributed time
7. Assistive technology
8. Other
Augmentations (at least one of the following)
1. Strategies for learning
2. Strategies for test taking
3. Strategies for organization
4. Strategies for self-regulation
8. Other
Adaptations (at least one of the following)
1. Adjusted reading demand
2. Adjusted cognitive demand (not reading)
3. Nonprint content
4. Content through technology
5. Enhanced content
6. Nontraditional response(s) to instruction
7. Nontraditional instructional materials
8. Other

1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140
1,140

162
765
229
691
266
768
745
11
31
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
201
71
96
88
0
7
0
0
0

14.21
67.11
20.09
60.61
23.33
67.37
65.35
0.96
2.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.63
6.23
8.42
7.72
0.00
0.61
0.00
0.00
0.00

Note: IEP = Individualized Education Program.

previously. Total training time for the reliability

coder was 32 hours for the MS-CISSAR and Access
CISSAR data collection systems. The reliability coder
received an overall reliability score of 93.4% for
three 15-minute in-school training sessions on the
Access CISSAR.

Data Collection
Upon completion of reliability training, the primary
data collector contacted the teacher providing science
or social studies instruction (either the general or special education teacher) for each participant to schedule
dates and times for observations. Using a repeated
measures observational research design, students were
observed during instructional time in science or social
studies for three 20-minute intervals each. As discussed previously, about two thirds of the observations
took place in a general education setting, almost 30%
in a special education setting, and almost 6% in other

instructional settings. Interrater reliability was collected

for each of the 19 students for one of the three data
collection sessions. Data collection began and was
completed within a 3-month period in the spring
semester of the school year. Immediately before each
data collection session, the researcher (and reliability
coder, if scheduled) met with and asked the teacher
responsible for science or social study instruction that
day about that periods lesson and activities. To systematize this process, we developed and used an information collection sheet that contained questions
about the days lesson, objectives, main activities, any
curriculum/activities modifications for the target
student, content areas, and standards. Immediately following this, the lead researcher matched the teachers
answers to state student achievement standards in
science or social studies. This enabled the researcher to
determine what, if any, content standards were to be
addressed by that days lesson and whether they were
on or off grade level. The researcher then set the Access

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

Lee et al. / Predictors of Access 35

Table 2
Definitions and Examples of Student and Teacher Variables
Variables
Student
variables

Definitions and Examples

Academic
response
Task
management
Competing
response

Teacher
variables

Instructional
behavior
Management
behavior
Teacher
focus

Student behaviors made directly in response to an academic task, command, or prompts; behaviors
reflect active academic engagement: writing, task participation, reading aloud, reading silently, and
talking (academic)
Student behaviors that enable the student to engage in academic tasks: hand raising, task-directed
movement, interacting appropriately, manipulating materials, task-oriented talking, and
task-focused attention
Student behaviors that are unacceptable in the context of academic instruction, academic responding,
social conventions, classroom rules, and teacher direction: aggressive behavior, disruption, talking
inappropriately, looking around, noncompliance, self-stimulation, and self-abusive behavior
Teacher behaviors that are directly related to teacher instruction: asking academic questions, talking
about academic content, giving attention (looking at a student or engaging in related behaviors that
indicate that he or she is paying attention to the student), and reading aloud
Teacher behaviors that are classroom and task managementrelated activities: verbal directives and
questions regarding management and discipline, and nonverbal prompts for preparing for academic
responding
Teacher focus reveals who was the recipient of the teacher behaviors and attention: directed at target
student (with disabilities), target students and other students (without disabilities), and others only

CISSAR toggles from F2 to F9 accordingly, that is,

turned to on for yes or off for no to identify
whether tasks were linked to any grade level (F2, F4) or
ongrade-level student performance standards (F3, F5);
whether tasks were linked to an IEP goal or objective
(F6); and what types of accommodations (F7), augmentations (F8), or curriculum adaptations (F9) were in
place for the student at the start of the observation.
During each session, the observer was seated to
record data where she was able to hear and see a study
participant, but not intrude on instructional activities.
First, the observer entered student information
required by the Access CISSAR software and coded
the initial Access toggle settings before beginning the
coding interval. The observer then began the formal
coding session by enter ing information that corresponded to the situation observed using the MSCISSAR protocol look, record, and rest pattern. All
students were observed continuously for 20 minutes
for a combined observation time of 60 minutes per
student. This resulted in coding 180 20-second intervals
per student and 1,140 total minutes of observations
across all students.
The Access CISSAR data collection options pertaining to instructional grouping were whole class,
small group, one on one, and independent. Physical
arrangement options included entire group, divided
group, and individual group. In addition to the teachergenerated levels of inclusion, the Access CISSAR
recorded whether the observation interval occurred
in the general education classroom, a self-contained

classroom, a resource room, the library, music room,

art room, therapy room, hall, auditorium, or other.

Predictor and Dependent Variables

Predictor variables for the regression analysis
(described in next section) included both student
(i.e., academic response, task management, competing response) and teacher variables (i.e., instructional
behavior, management behavior, teacher focus). Table 2
outlines definitions and examples of student and teacher
variables. Table 3 presents frequencies and percentages of intervals observed for the student and teacher
variables that served as predictor variables.
The dependent variable for these analyses was an
overall access score calculated, as indicated in
Equation 1, by combining assigned point values for
the F4 toggle (participant engaged in task linked to
any general education standard) or F5 toggle (participant engaged in task linked to grade-level standard),
plus F7 (accommodations), F8 (curriculum augmentations), and F9 (curriculum adaptations):
8
< 1 * F4 + 1 * F7 + 3 * F8 + 3 * F9 if F4 = 1
Access = 3 * F5 + 1 * F7 + 3 * F8 + 3 * F9 if F5 = 1
:
0 if F4 = F5 = 0

(1)

During each observation, each minute the F4 (i.e.,

any general education standard) toggle was activated
counted as 1 point. If the F5 (i.e., grade-level general
education) toggle was activated, 3 points were tallied

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

36 The Journal of Special Education

Table 3
Frequency of Intervals Observed of Student and Teacher Variables
Student Variable (N = 1,140)

Sum

Teacher Variables (N = 1,140)

Sum

Academic response
Writing
Task participation
Reading aloud
Reading silently
Talking, academic
Task management
Raising hand
Interacting appropriately
Manipulating materials
Moving
Talking, management
Attention
Competing response
Aggression
Disruption
Talking, inappropriate
Looking around
Noncompliance
Self-stimulation
Self-abuse

413
45
203
15
49
101
538
13
21
60
32
56
356
186
0
1
13
59
12
100
1

36.2
3.9
17.8
1.3
4.3
8.9
47.2
1.1
1.8
5.3
2.8
4.9
31.2
16.3
0
0.1
1.1
5.2
1.1
8.8
0.1

Instructional behavior
Questioning, academic
Talking, academic
Attention
Reading aloud
Management behavior
Questioning, management
Questioning, discipline
Talking, management
Talking, discipline
Nonverbal prompting
Teacher focus
Target student
Target student and others

742
133
310
281
18
242
20
0
205
2
15
662
347
315

65.1
11.7
27.2
24.6
1.6
21.2
1.8
0
18.0
0.2
1.3
58.1
30.4
27.6

for the total access score. When any F7 (i.e., accommodation) was coded during an observation interval
concurrently with either F4 or F5 (i.e., any standard
or grade-level standard), 1 point was counted toward
the total access score. In any interval in which an F8
(curriculum augmentation) or F9 (curriculum adaptation) was coded concurrently with F4 or F5, 3 points
were added to the total access score. Thus, the resulting
access score for any given observation interval per
student could range between 0 and 10.
The weighted value for each variable was based on
the hypothesized importance of that variable, as determined by Soukup et al. (2007), for students with
severe disabilities to achieve access to the general education curriculum. In essence, the gold standard for
access should be that students are working on gradelevel general education standards (F5) and receive
needed accommodations and curriculum modifications
(F7F9). The weighting system was put in place to
better differentiate between circumstances in which
students were receiving instruction and curriculum
modifications that met or approached that gold standard and circumstances when only one component was
in place (e.g., only paraprofessional support).

Analytic Procedures
Multilevel modeling, which describes how students
change over time and how these changes vary across

students (Singer, 1998; Singer & Willett, 2003), was

used to analyze the data collected. The multilevel
model provides a number of advantages for this study.
First, multilevel models provide an efficient framework for analyzing a nested data structure (Guo &
Zhao, 2000). As mentioned, using a repeated measures observational research design, 19 students were
observed during science or social studies instructional
time for three 20-minute intervals each (i.e., 60 observation intervals for each student). That is, each of the
60 observation intervals (Level 1) was nested within
each student (Level 2). Second, above all, multilevel
models correct the biases in parameter estimates and
standard errors that result from the clustering that
occurs when observations are correlated within clusters (Browne & Rasbash, 2004; Guo & Zhao, 2000).
Given the nested structure of the data, the observation
intervals from the same students are likely to be more
correlated (Rabe-Hesketh, Toulopoulou, & Murray,
2001; Rasbash, 2007) than those from different students
when differences regarding severity of disability, support needs, and the classroom context are considered.
In this case, applying a simple regression technique,
which is based on independence between observations
(Kenny & Judd, 1986; Rabe-Hesketh et al., 2001), to
the clustered data results in inefficient and biased
parameter estimates by underestimating the standards
of regression (Browne & Rasbash, 2004; Carvajal,
Baumler, Harrist, & Parcel, 2001; Rasbash, 2007).

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

Lee et al. / Predictors of Access 37

Table 4
Correlations Between Predictors and Access Scores and Other Access Toggles
SACAD
STASK
SCOMP
TEINS
TEMAG
TEFOS
ACCESS
AcsF4
AcsF5
AcsF6
AcsF7
AcsF9

SACAD

STASK

SCOMP

TEINS

TEMAG

TEFOS

ACCESS

AcsF4

AcsF5

AcsF6

AcsF7

AcsF9

1.00
.75
.55
.12
.26
.42
.16
.04
.14
.16
.31
.01

1.00
.13
.25
.17
.42
.05
.12
.07
.05
.18
.03

1.00
.31
.21
.08
.21
.11
.24
.15
.17
.03

1.00
.61
.48
.30
.15
.38
.28
.27
.07

1.00
.53
.21
.01
.22
.25
.43
.14

1.00
.40
.01
.37
.46
.45
.01

1.00
.13
.74
.58
.41
.43

1.00
.62
.23
.06
.14

1.00
.66
.27
.08

1.00
.40
.01

1.00
.03

1.00

Note: SACAD = student academic response; STASK = student task management; SCOMP = student competing response; TEINS =
teacher instructional behavior; TEMAG = teacher management behavior; TEFOS = teacher focus; ACCESS = Access score; AcsF4 =
Access toggle, tasks linked to off-grade standard; AcsF5 = Access toggle, tasks linked to on-grade standard; AcsF6 = Access toggle, tasks
linked to individualized education program objectives; AcsF7 = Access toggle, curriculum accommodation; AcsF9 = Access toggle,
curriculum adaptation.

Therefore, multilevel models can be used for this

analysis with the data nested within individuals based
on repeated measurements of individuals (Carvajal
et al., 2001) because it corrects possible biased inferences by dealing with data correlated within clusters
and possible differences unobserved related to severity of disability, support needs, and natural class contexts. Third, it partitions the variance in the dependent
variable into portions associated with each level (Guo &
Zhao, 2000).

Results
Interrater Reliability
The average Cohens kappa for observations across
all study participants was .938, ranging from .851 to
.993. For 16 of the 19 students, interrater reliability
was calculated based on 20 observation intervals,
with 21 intervals for 2 participants and 18 intervals
for 1 participant.

Regression Analysis
Table 4 presents the simple correlations across the
six predictors and the access score and access toggles.
Consistent with multilevel modeling procedures, we
first estimate an unconditional baseline means model
(null model or empty model). This model provides a
baseline against which we can compare more complex models. Specifically, this model simply estimates

the amount of variation in the dependent variable

across the 60 intervals (Level 1). In comparison to the
unconditional means model, which does not have any
predictors, we examined the significance and impact
of the three Level 2 predictors reflecting student
behaviors (academic response, task management,
competing response) and the three Level 2 predictors
reflecting teacher behaviors (instructional behavior,
management behavior, teacher focus). Specifically,
we employed a forward stepwise procedure, adding
one variable at a time from most important to next
most important. To identify this order, we fit models
in which only a single predictor is in the model. The
order of significant predictors was identical to the
order of the largest to smallest correlation between
each variable and access score (see Table 4): (a) teacher
focus, (b) teacher instructional behavior, (c) student
competing response, (d) teacher management behavior, (e) student academic behavior, and (f) student
task management. The final model was based on the
maximum R2 and chi-square difference from the null
model as well as the significance of the predictors in
the model.
As seen in Table 5, the final model was significantly
different from the unconditional model on the access
score: 2(5, n = 1,140) = 17.576, p < .01, R2 =. 61.
The chi-square difference in the final model was also
substantially different from that of the previous model,
which included only four predictors except the last
variable of the final model (academic response):
2(4, n = 1,140) = 13.418, p < .01, R2 =. 51.

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

38 The Journal of Special Education

Table 5
Multilevel Regression Model Fit for Level 2
Predictor Model

Level 2 Predictors

Access Score
(R2 = .611)
Estimatesa (SE)

Teacher focus
Teacher instructional behavior
Student competing response
Teacher management behavior
Student academic response
2
df
p value

.563 (.223)*
.800 (.233)**
.855 (.224)**
.578 (.209)**
.438 (.218)*
17.576
5
< .01***

a. Estimates are completely standardized.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Relationship Between Student/Teacher

Behaviors and Access
The final model indicates that five predictors are
significant predictors of the degree of access to the
general education curriculum (access score). These
predictors are student academic response, student
competing response, teacher instructional behavior,
teacher management behavior, and teacher focus.
Of the five significant predictors, only teacher focus
had a negative relationship with the access score. The
negative relationship is related to the fact that the
degree of teacher focus differs depending on the degree
of difficulty of tasks in which students are engaged.
For example, if we examine the components of the
access score, the correlation between teacher focus
and student engagement in ongrade-level standard
activities was .37, while correlations with engagement
in offgrade-level standard activities and IEP-relevant
objectives were .01 and .46, respectively. That is,
while teachers were likely to give more focus to target
students (with disabilities) when the students were
engaged in IEP-relevant tasks, they were apt to give
less focus to target students when the students were
engaged in more difficult tasks linked to ongrade-level
standard. In this case, when teachers needed to teach
content regarding on-grade standards, their attention
was shifted away from students with disabilities to the
other students in the classroom.
General education teachers provided instruction
when students were engaged in on-grade standard
activities. When the students were involved in tasks
regarding off-grade standards, special education
teachers instructed them more than general education
teachers did. When students were involved in tasks

related to IEP goals, only special education teachers

interacted with students (see Figure 1). In addition to
these relationships, there was a negative correlation
between teacher focus and curriculum accommodation
(i.e., paraprofessional support; r = .45). This correlation illustrates that teachers were likely to give much
less focus to target students when curriculum accommodations were provided. As seen in Figure 1, in spite
of the presence of paraprofessional support in the class,
it was special or general education teachers who
directly interacted with target students by providing
instruction and attention for them.
As seen in Table 5, there were positive relationships between the other predictor variables (teacher
instructional and management behavior, and student
academic and competing responses) and the access
score. The positive relationship between student competing response and access score indicates that more
competing responses require more access needs to be
addressed in more detail. Like teacher focus, the positive relationship between competing response and
access score is explained in its relationship with the
degree of difficulty of tasks linked to on-/off-grade
standard and IEP. In other words, target students were
likely to show more behavior problems when they
were engaged in more difficult tasks regarding on-grade
standards (r =.24) that affect mostly access score,
while they were likely to show less behavior problems when they were involved in less difficult tasks
such as those linked to off-grade standard (r = .11)
or IEP-relevant tasks (r = .15).

Relationships Across Student

and Teacher Behaviors
A comparison of Tables 4 and 5 reveals a couple of
suppressor relationships. In general, a suppressor variable has a zero or close-to-zero correlation with the
criterion, but nevertheless contributes to the predictive
validity of a test (Horst, 1941). Three types of suppressor variables have been identified by Conger (1974)
traditional, negative, and reciprocaldepending on the
correlation patterns between predictors and criterions
and the correlation between predictors. The same categories regarding suppression were renamed as classical,
net, and cooperative suppression by Cohen and Cohen
(1975). Krus and Wilkinson (1986) expanded the categories of suppression by adding positive or negative
labels to each category depending on the sign of beta
weight. We conducted supplemental analyses to identify the nature of the suppressor relationships, which we
describe in the following.

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

Lee et al. / Predictors of Access 39

Figure 1
Teacher Definition and Paraprofessional Support in the Different Tasks Linked to On-/Off-Grade
Standard Activities and Individualized Education Program (IEP) Objectives
Tasks Linked to On-Grade Level Standard
Percent of Cycle

83.2
60.3

22.9

16
0

0.8

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

82.1
74.4

2.6

4.5

8.7

0.1

R
eg
ul
ar
T
Sp
ec
ia
lE
T
Ai
de
/p
ar
a
St
ud
en
tT
Vo
lu
nt
ee
R
r
el
at
ed
S
Su
bs
tit
ut
e
Pe
er
tu
to
r
no
s
ta
F7
ff
(p
ar
a
su
p)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Re
gu
la
rT
Sp
ec
ia
lE
T
Ai
de
/p
ar
a
St
ud
en
tT
Vo
lu
nt
ee
R
r
el
at
ed
S
Su
bs
tit
ut
e
Pe
er
tu
to
r
no
st
F7
af
f
(p
ar
a
su
p)

Percent of Cycle

Tasks Linked to Off-Grade Level Standard

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

17.2
0

1.8

te
er
Re
la
te
d
S
Su
bs
tit
ut
e
Pe
er
tu
to
r
no
st
af
F7
f
(p
ar
a
su
p)

un

tT

Vo
l

en
ud

St

de

ia
ec

/p

lE

ar

Ai

la
Sp

Re
gu

16

rT

Percent of Cycle

Tasks Linked to IEP Objectives

81

Note: T = teacher; ET = education teacher; S = services personnel.

Positive cooperative suppression: teacher instructional behavior and student competing response.
Cooperative suppression occurs when the two predictors are negatively correlated with each other, but both
are positively or negatively correlated with a criterion
(Cohen & Cohen, 1975; Darmawan & Keeves, 2006).
Teacher instructional behavior and competing response
were negatively correlated each other (r = .31), but
both were positively correlated with the access score
(r = .30 and r = .21, respectively). This pattern of correlations indicates that there was positive cooperative suppression between both variables (Krus &
Wilkinson, 1986). In other words, teacher instructional
behavior and competing behavior accounted for more
of the variance in access score when both were in an
equation together than they did when each variable
was presented alone. For example, when teacher
instructional behavior was excluded from the final
model fit, 2(5, n = 1,140) = 17.576, p < .01, R2 =. 61,
which included both instructional behavior and competing response, the chi-square difference from the
unconditional model significantly reduced: 2(4, n =
1,140) = 8.839, p= .07, R2 =. 38. Likewise, when
student competing response was excluded from
the final model fit, the chi-square difference from the

unconditional model also significantly decreased:

2(4, n = 1,140) = 7.084, p = .13, R2 =. 32.
Correction of distortion: teacher management
behavior and student academic response. In this study,
both teacher management behavior and student academic response were negatively correlated to access
scores (r = .21 and r = .16, respectively) when the
influence of other variables were ignored in prediction.
However, in the final model, their beta weight had an
opposite direction to the access score by becoming
positive. The changed direction is explained through
the concept of correction for distortion suggested by
Rosenberg (1968). Distortion occurs when a confounding variable obscures the direction of the predictorcriterion relationship, such that the introduction of the
confounding variable to the regression equation changes
the direction of the relationship (Smith, Ager, &
Williams, 1992, p. 27).
To identify which variable affected the change in
the direction of association, further analyses were
conducted. Teacher focus was identified as the variable that affected the change of the direction of
the relationship between teacher management and
access score, and between academic behavior and

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

40 The Journal of Special Education

access score. That is, when teacher focus was added

to the model, the distorted direction of the relationship
was corrected.
The zero-order relationship between teacher
management and access score was negative (r = .21;
i.e., the less teacher task management behavior, the
higher the degree of access). However, less teacher
focus predicts a higher degree of access (r = .40)
and also tends to predict less teacher management
behavior (r = .53). Specifically, without focusing on
target students, teacher management behaviors for other
students without disabilities (i.e., explanation; questions; nonverbal prompts about tasks, worksheets, or
talk discipline) still help the students with disabilities
initiate or keep doing tasks. So if teacher focus is added
to a regression equation predicting access score from
teacher management, the distortion (the negative relationship between teacher management and access) is
corrected, and the beta weight assessing the relationship
between teacher management and access reverses and
becomes positive.
The same logical reasoning is applied to the relationship between academic response and access. The
uncontrolled relationship between academic response
and access score was negative (r = .16; i.e., the less
academic response, the higher the degree of access).
However, less teacher focus that predicts a higher
degree of access (r = .40) also tends to predict less
academic response (r = .42). Actually, academic
responses can be continued without teacher focus
when teachers provide students with worksheets and
materials or explain class activities for them (i.e.,
teacher management). Positive correlation between
teacher management and academic response (r = .26)
supports it. Therefore, if teacher focus is added to a
regression equation predicting access score from
academic behavior, the distortion (the negative relationship between academic response and access) is
corrected, and the beta weight assessing the relationship between academic response and access reverses
and becomes positive.

Second, student and teacher variables are not independent but correlated and interact with each other
regarding the degree to which students gain access to
the general education curriculum. In a sense, this
study shows the complicated pattern of relationships
between student and teacher variables in more detail.
The positive cooperative suppression between teacher
instructional behavior and student competing response
is a good example of the potential impact of interactions between both variables on the access score, and
thus access to the general education curriculum, along
with the finding that the confounding variable (teacher
focus) obscures the direction of relationship between
the predictor (teacher management behavior and
student academic response) and the criterion (access
score). Third, in addition to interacting with each
other, student and teacher variables (i.e., competing
response, teacher focus) are influenced by environmental factors, especially the degree of difficulty of
tasks in which students are engaged.
While this study provided information about student
and teacher variables pertaining to access in the general curriculum, the findings should be interpreted with
the following limitations in mind: First, this study did
not compare student and teacher variables as a function
of the type and severity of a students disability due to
the size of the sample. Second, for the most part we
were not interested in setting (e.g., general education
or special education class) as a predictor variable
mainly because students received their instruction in
science and social studies across multiple environments. It is clear, however, that these setting variables
will directly impact teacher and student behavior in
ways that would affect the interpretation of these findings. In the future, research with larger sample sizes
should include this as a factor to consider when examining teacher and student variables. We believe, however, that despite these limitations, these findings have
implications for future research and practice pertaining
to promoting access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities.

Implications for Practice

Discussion
The above findings in this study are summarized as
follows: First, both student and teacher variables
(i.e., student academic/competing response, teacher
instruction/management behavior, and teacher focus)
are strong predictors of access to the general education
curriculum for students with intellectual disability.

Importance of appropriate curriculum modifications. As previously mentioned, teacher focus and

student competing responses were correlated with the
degree of difficulty of tasks linked to on-grade or offgrade standard. That is, less teacher focus and more
student competing responses were observed when
students were involved in tasks linked to on-grade

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

Lee et al. / Predictors of Access 41

standard, and more teacher focus and fewer competing responses were observed when they were engaged
in less difficult tasks linked to off-grade standard.
However, this is still obviously a complex triumvirate
of behaviors and actions, the causal nature of which
is unclear. It may not be surprising that competing
responses are observed more often during difficult tasks,
particularly when those tasks are associated with lower
teacher focus. Independent of the causal relationship,
perhaps the take-home message is the need to provide
supports that enable students to engage in more difficult tasks more successfully, including curriculum
modifications such as curriculum adaptations (modifications to the way content is presented or represented,
or to the way the student responds to the curriculum)
and augmentations (learning-to-learn or studentdirected learning strategies). As aforementioned, such
curriculum modifications have become best practice
to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities
in the general education classroom (Fisher & Nancy,
2001; Janney & Snell, 2000; Kameenui & Simmons,
1999; Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000; Wehmeyer, Sands,
et al., 2002), although as noted previously, Wehmeyer,
Lattin, et al. (2003) and Soukup et al. (2007) found
that students with intellectual and developmental disabilities were not engaged with or utilizing these types
of supports when they engaged in the general education
curriculum. Dymond and Russell (2004) also reported
that curriculum adaptations were almost nonexistent
for students with mild disabilities who were more
included in the general education classroom.
In particular, curriculum augmentations like studentdirected learning strategies (self-instruction, selfevaluation, etc.) have been shown to be effective with
students with intellectual disability in general education
settings (Agran, Blanchard, Hughes, & Wehmeyer,
2002; Embregts, 2003; Martin, Mithaug, Peterson,
VanDycke, & Cash, 2003; Mayer, Lochman, & Acker,
2005; Shogren, Faggella-Luby, Bae, & Wehmeyer,
2004; Wehmeyer, Yeager, Bolding, Agran, & Hughes,
2003). Besides student-directed learning strategies,
grouping strategies are also a useful way to augment the
curriculum to support students with disabilities to gain
greater access to the general education curriculum as
well as to improve social interactions (Johnson &
Johnson, 2000). Cooperative learning groups, small
groups, and one-to-one grouping have been effectively
used to help students with disabilities gain more meaningful academic achievement and to learn other targeted
skills (Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz, 1994; McDonnell,
Thorson, & McQuivey, 1998; Rankin et al., 1999;

Vaughn et al., 2003). Soukup et al. (2007) found that

such small group instructional strategies were also predictors for greater access. As another grouping strategy,
peer supports have been widely used to help students
with disabilities, including students with severe disabilities, access general education (Cater, Cushing, Clark, &
Kennedy, 2005; McDonnell, Mathot-Buckner, Thorson,
& Fister, 2001).
Importance of teacher education. Recognition of
the importance of appropriate curriculum modifications leads to and is associated with the need to ensure
that teacher education addresses the issue of providing
such curriculum modifications to all students, including students with intellectual and developmental
disabilities. The finding in this study that all teacher
variables (i.e., teacher instructional/management
behaviors, teacher focus) were strong predictors of
student access emphasizes the self-evident importance
of teacher variables in instruction and, as such, teacher
education. Perhaps the overlooked variable is the
importance of the general education teacher being
able to provide such supports (Giangreco, Broer, &
Edelman, 2001; Olson, Chalmers, & Hoover, 1997).
In this study, the teacher in charge of instruction during 82% of intervals in which a student with intellectual disability was engaged with the general education
curriculum was the general education teacher. As
such, it is important to provide intensive training for
general education teachers on these types of instructional strategies. A recent study investigating the use
of specific instructional practices and assessment
accommodations by secondary special and general
educators supports the necessity of intensive training
for general education teachers (Maccini & Gagnon,
2006). The results of this study demonstrated that general educators were less likely to use specific instructional practices and testing accommodations than
special educations teachers, in spite of having more
knowledge about the content.
In addition to both general education and special
education teachers, training for paraprofessionals is
also important. As noted in Figure 1, while special
education teachers were primarily engaged with
instruction pertaining to offgrade-level tasks, paraprofessionals played a role in instruction in both
ongrade-level and offgrade-level tasks. Further,
again referring to Figure 1, from the fact that general
education or special education teachers were likely to
dominate instruction on tasks linked to on-grade and
off-grade standards, respectively, it seems evident

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

42 The Journal of Special Education

that teacher education is also needed to encourage

collaboration between general education and special
education teachers so that they can provide appropriate
instructional strategies for students with disabilities.

Implications for Research

Even though there is an emerging body of research
illustrating the relationship and impact of student and
teacher variables on access to the general education
curriculum of students with disabilities, there are still
research gaps to be addressed. First, this study showed
that students and teacher variables interacted with
environmental factors, such as degree of difficulty of
tasks. Thus, it is important to explore the relationships
among and between student, teacher, and environmental variables and their contribution to student access to
and progress in the general education curriculum in
greater detail and to sort out issues pertaining to, for
example, the causal direction of relationships like those
between teacher focus, student competing behavior,
and task difficulty. Second, despite the importance of
curriculum modifications to enhance access to the
general education curriculum, there is little research
about the direct relationship between the different
types of curriculum modifications and student academic
or competing behaviors for students with intellectual
disability. Future research about such relationships
would provide researchers and practitioners with
in-depth understanding about what kinds of curriculum
modifications would work best for students to gain
greater access and, presumably, to enable them to
succeed in their classroom. Third, as previously mentioned, this study did not compare student and teacher
variables as a function of the type and severity of a
students disability due to the size of the sample, and
future research that compares student-teacher behaviors
and their interactions should examine such factors.
Finally, an obvious next step would be interventionbased research examining the impact of the types of
factors (UDL, context/setting, teacher/student/interaction
variables) on changing student access.

References
Agran, M., Blanchard, C., Hughes, C., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002).
Increasing the problem-solving skills of students with developmental disabilities participating in general education.
Remedial and Special Education, 23, 279288.
Bashinski, S. M., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2002). Access CISSAR
(Version 1.0) [Computer software]. Lawrence: University of
Kansas.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student

achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching (pp. 340370). New York: Macmillan.
Browder, D., & Spooner, F. (2006). Teaching language arts,
math, and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Flowers, C., Rickelman, R.,
Pugalee, D., & Karvonen, M. (2007). Creating access to the
general curriculum with links to grade-level content for
students with significant cognitive disabilities: An explication
of the concept. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 216.
Brown, W. H., Odom, S. L., Li, S., & Zercher, C. (1999).
Ecobehavioral assessment in early childhood programs: A
portrait of preschool inclusion. The Journal of Special
Education, 33, 138153.
Browne, W. J., & Rasbash, J. (2004). Multilevel modelling. In
M. A. Hardy & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis
(pp. 459480). London: Sage.
Carta, J. J., Greenwood, R., Schulte, D., Arreaga-Mayer, C., &
Terry, B. (1988). Code for instructional structure and student
academic response: Mainstream version (MS-CISSAR).
Kansas City: Juniper Gardens Childrens Project, Bureau of
Child Research, University of Kansas.
Carter, E. W., Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., & Kennedy, C. H.
(2005). Effects of peer support interventions on students access
to the general curriculum and social interactions. Research &
Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 30, 1525.
Carvajal, S. C., Baumler, E., Harrist, R. B., & Parcel, G. S.
(2001). Multilevel models and unbiased tests for group based
interventions: Examples from the Safer Choices Study.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 185205.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York:
John Wiley.
Conger, A. J. (1974). A revised definition for suppressor variables:
A guide to their identification and interpretation. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 34, 3546.
Darmawan, I. G. N., & Keeves, J. P. (2006). Suppressor variables
and multilevel mixture modeling. International Education
Journal, 7, 160173.
Duvall, S. F., Delquadri, J. C., & Ward, D. L. (2004). A preliminary
investigation of the effectiveness of homeschool instructional
environments for students with attention deficit/hyperactivity
disorder. School Psychology Review, 33, 140158.
Dymond, S. K., & Russell, D. L. (2004). Impact of grade and
disability on the instructional context of inclusive classrooms.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39,
127140.
Embregts, P. J. (2003). Using self-management, video feedback,
and graphic feedback to improve social behavior of youth
with mild mental retardation. Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 38, 283295.
Fisher, D., & Nancy, F. (2001). Access to the core curriculum:
Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial and Special
Education, 22, 148157.
Friedman, D. L., Cancelli, A. A., & Yoshida, R. K. (1988).
Academic engagement of elementary school children with
learning disabilities. Journal of Psychology, 26, 327340.
Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. (2001). Teacher
engagement with students with disabilities: Differences based

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

Lee et al. / Predictors of Access 43

on paraprofessional service delivery models. Journal of the

Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 26, 7586.
Greenwood, C. R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus nonrisk students.
Exceptional Children, 57, 521535.
Greenwood, C. R., Arreaga-Mayer, C., & Carta, J. J. (1994).
Identification and translation of effective, teacher-developed
instructional procedures for general practice. Remedial and
Special Education, 15, 140151.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Arreaga-Mayer, C., & Rager, A.
(1991). The behavior analyst consulting model: Identifying
and validating naturally effective instructional procedures.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 165191.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Kamps, D., Delquadri, J., Terry, B.,
Finney, R., et al. (1997). Ecobehavioral Assessment Systems
Software (EBASS). Practitioners manual (Version 3.0)
[Computer software]. Kansas City: Juniper Gardens Childrens
Project, University of Kansas.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Kamps, D., Terry, B., &
Delquadri, J. (1994). Development and validation of standard
classroom observation systems for school practitioners:
Ecobehavioral Assessment Systems Software (EBASS).
Exceptional Children, 61, 197210.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C., & Hall, R. V. (1989).
Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 371383.
Greenwood, C., Schulte, D., Kohler, F., Dinwiddie, G., & Carta, J.
(1986). Assessment and analysis of ecobehavioral interaction
in school settings. In R. J. Prinz (Ed.), Advances in behavioral
assessment of children and families (pp. 6998). Lincoln,
NE: JAI.
Guo, G., & Zhao, H. (2000). Multilevel modeling for binary data.
Annual Reviews Sociology, 26, 441462.
Horst, P. (1941). The role of predictor variables which are independent of the criterion. Social Science Research Bulletin,
48, 431436.
Hunt, P., Staub, D., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1994). Achievement
by all students within the context of cooperative learning
groups. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe
Handicaps, 19, 290301.
Janney, R., & Snell, M. (2000). Teachers guides to inclusive
practices: Modifying schoolwork. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2000). Joining together: Group
theory and group skills (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1999). Toward successful
inclusion of students with disabilities: The architecture of
instruction. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Kamps, D., Greenwood, C. R., & Leonard, B. (1991).
Ecobehavioral assessment in classrooms serving children with
autism and developmental disabilities. In R. Prinz (Ed.),
Advances in behavior assessment of children and families
(pp. 203239). New York: Kingsley.
Kamps, D. M., Leonard, B. R., Dugan, E. P., Boland, B., &
Greenwood, C. R. (1991). The use of ecobehavioral assessment to identify naturally occurring effective procedures in
classrooms serving children with autism and other developmental disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 1, 367397.
Katz, J., Mirenda, P., & Auerbach, S. (2002). Instructional strategies and educational outcomes for students with developmental disabilities in inclusive multiple intelligences and typical

inclusive classrooms. Research & Practice for Persons With

Severe Disabilities, 27, 227238.
Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (1986). Consequences of violating
the independence assumption in the analysis of variance.
Psychological Bulletin, 99, 422, 431.
Kossar, K., Mitchem, K., & Ludlow, B. (2005). No Child Left
Behind: A national study of its impact on special education in
rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24, 38.
Krus, D. J., & Wilkinson, S. M. (1986). Demonstration of properties of a suppressor variable. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, and Computers, 18, 2124.
Logan, K., Bakeman, R., & Keefe, E. (1997). Effects of instructional variables on engaged behavior of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children,
64, 481497.
Logan, K., & Keefe, E. (1997). A comparison of instructional
context, teacher behavior, and engaged behavior for students
with severe disabilities in general education and self-contained
elementary classrooms. Journal of the Association for Persons
With Severe Disabilities, 22, 1627.
Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2006). Mathematics instructional
practices and assessment accommodations by secondary
special and general educators. Exceptional Children, 72,
217234.
Martin, J. E., Mithaug, D. E., Peterson, L. Y., VanDycke, J. L., &
Cash, M. E. (2003). Increasing self-determination: Teaching
students to plan, work, evaluate, and adjust. Exceptional
Children, 69, 431447.
Mayer, M., Lochman, J., & Acker, R. V. (2005). Introduction to
the special issue: Cognitive-behavioral interventions with
students with EBD. Behavioral Disorders, 30, 197212.
McDonnell, J., Mathot-Buckner, C., Thorson, N., & Fister, S.
(2001). Supporting the inclusion of students with moderate
and severe disabilities in junior high school general education
classes: The effects of classwide peer tutoring, multi-element
curriculum, and accommodations. Education and Treatment
of Children, 24, 141160.
McDonnell, J., Thorson, N., & McQuivey, C. (1998). The instructional characteristics of inclusive classes for elementary students
with severe disabilities: An exploratory study. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 8, 415437.
McDonnell, J., Thorson, N., & McQuivey, C. (2000). Comparison
of the instructional contexts of students with severe disabilities and their peers in general education classes. Journal of the
Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 25, 5458.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Accessing the general
curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standardsbased reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Olson, M. R., Chalmers, L., & Hoover, J. H. (1997). Attitudes and
attributes of general education teachers identified as effective
inclusionists. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 2835.
Paulsen, K. J. (2005). Infusing evidence-based practices into the
special education preparation curriculum. Teacher Education
and Special Education, 28, 2128.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., Toulopoulou, T., & Murray, R. M. (2001).
Multilevel modeling of cognitive function in schizophrenic
patients and their first degree relatives. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 36, 179198.
Rankin, D. H., Logan, K. R., Adcock, J., Angelucci, J., Pittman, C.,
Sexstone, A., et al. (1999). Small group learning: Effects of

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013

44 The Journal of Special Education

including a student with intellectual disabilities. Journal of

Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 11, 159177.
Rasbash, J. (2007). What are multilevel models and why should I
use them? Centre for Multilevel Modelling. Retrieved July 14,
2007, from http://www.cmm.bristol.ac.uk/learning-training/
multilevel-models/what-why.shtml
Roberson, L., Woolsey, M. L., Seabrooks, J., & Williams, G.
(2004a). An ecobehavioral assessment of the teaching behaviors
of teacher candidates during their special education internship
experiences. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27,
264275.
Roberson, L., Woolsey, M. L., Seabrooks, J., & Williams, G.
(2004b). Data-driven assessment of teacher candidates during
their internships in deaf education. American Annals of the
Deaf, 148, 403412.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the
digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Curriculum Development and Supervision.
Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005). The universally
designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital
technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Publishing
Group.
Rosenberg, M. (1968). The logic of survey analysis. New York:
Basic Books.
Ross, D. E., Singer-Dudek, J., & Greer, R. D. (2005). The Teacher
Performance Rate and Accuracy Scale (TPRA): Training as
evaluation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation
and Developmental Disabilities, 40, 411423.
Salend, S. J. (2000). Strategies and resources to evaluate the
impact of inclusion programs on students. Intervention, 35,
264270, 289.
Shogren, K., Faggella-Luby, M., Bae, S. J., & Wehmeyer, M. L.
(2004). The effect of choice-making as an intervention for
problem behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 6, 228237.
Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel
modes, hierarchical models, and individual growth models.
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323355.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data
analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Smith, R. L., Ager, J. W., & Williams, D. L. (1992). Suppressor
variables in multiple regression/correlation. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 52, 1729.
Soukup, J. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Bashinski, S. M., & Bovaird, J.
(2007). Classroom variables and access to the general education
curriculum of students with intellectual and developmental
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101120.
Thompson, J., Bryant, B., Campbell, E., Craig, E., Hughes, C.,
Rotholz, D., et al. (2004). Supports Intensity Scale. Washington,
DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Kouzekanani, K., Bryant, D. P.,
Dickson, H., & Blozis, S. A. (2003). Reading instruction
grouping for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and
Special Education, 24, 301315.
Vyse, S. A., & Mulick, J. A. (1988). Ecobehavioral assessment of
a special education classroom: Teacher-student behavioral covariation. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities,
1, 201206.

Wallace, T., Anderson, A. R., Bartholomay, T., & Hupp, S. (2002).

An ecobehavioral examination of high school classrooms that
include students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68,
345359.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Lance, D., & Bashinski, S. (2002). Promoting
access to the general curriculum for students with mental
retardation: A multi-level model. Education and Training in
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37,
223234.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., Lapp-Rincker, G., & Agran, M.
(2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle-school
students with mental retardation: An observational study.
Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262272.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Sands, D. J., Knowlton, E., & Kozleski, E. B.
(2002). Teaching students with mental retardation: Providing
access to the general curriculum. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Yeager, D., Bolding, N., Agran, M., & Hughes, C.
(2003). The effects of self-regulation strategies on goal attainment for students with developmental disabilities in general
education classrooms. Journal of Developmental and Physical
Disabilities, 15, 7991.
Woolsey, M. L., Harrison, T. J., & Gardner, R. (2004). A preliminary
examination of instructional arrangements, teaching behaviors,
levels of academic responding of deaf middle school students
in three different educational settings. Education and
Treatment of Children, 27, 263279.
Suk-Hyang Lee, PhD, is a full-time lecturer in the Department of
Special Education at Ewha Womans University in Korea. Her
current interests include access to the general education curriculum
for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities, selfdetermination, secondary special education, teacher education,
family support, and reciprocal research to practice.
Jane H. Soukup, PhD, studies the effects of educational placement
on active engagement levels and the opportunity to access the
general education curriculum for students who experience intellectual disabilities. Her other research interests are driven by her
work as a classroom teacher and administrator and include facilitating community transition teams, the ability of school principals
to better implement the Individuals With Disabilities Act, school
unification, and full-service community schooling efforts.
Todd D. Little, PhD, is a professor of psychology, directs the
Quantitative Psychology Program, and codirects the Developmental
Psychology Program at the University of Kansas. He is also a
research scientist with the Schiefelbusch Institute for Life Span
Studies, where he is the senior scientific director of the Research
Design and Analysis Unit. His research focuses on the development
of applied quantitative techniques and on understanding the development of self-regulation and personal agency across the life span.
Michael L. Wehmeyer, PhD, is a professor of special education,
director of the Kansas University Center on Developmental
Disabilities, and a senior scientist and associate director at
the Beach Center on Disability. His research focuses on selfdetermination, access to the general education curriculum for
students with severe disabilities, and technology use by people
with cognitive disabilities.

Downloaded from sed.sagepub.com at University of Thessaly on November 10, 2013