Assessment has always been an integral component of the educational process, but the importance to students of performing effectively on district and statewide tests has increased the visibility of testing and assessment for students with and without disabilities. There are several factors that limit the reliability of common testing formats for students with intellectual disabilities, including limitations in literacy and problems with fine-motor and eye-hand coordination. Even when students with intellectual disabilities can read test or survey items, they may focus on an irrelevant aspect of the question. Finally, there are often difficulties with determining the best response format for students in this population. Individuals with intellectual disabilities are more likely to respond in an acquiescent manner, and there is concern that yes/no test formats may be unreliable due to this acquiescence bias. On the other hand, students have difficulty understanding gradations between options in a Likert-format scale (Sigelman, Budd, Spanhel, & Schoenrock, 1981; Wehmeyer, 1994). For these reasons, educators working with students with intellectual disabilities tend to minimize or eliminate the use of standard testing or survey formats, choosing instead to employ a variety of assessment methods to determine student progress and knowledge or skills, including ecological inventories, task analytic assessment, curriculum?based assessment, portfolio assessment, and so forth (Browder, 2001; Macfarlane, 1998). There are, however, situations in which information derived from more traditional test, self-report questionnaires, or survey formats would be useful for educational purposes. There is increased emphasis in special education practices on the importance of universal design for learning (UDL) and for universally-designed materials if students with disabilities are to access the general curriculum (Rose & Meyer, 2002), including students with more severe disabilities (Wyer, Lance, & Bashinski, 2002). Issues of universal design and students with intellectual disabilities were discussed in the introductory article to this special issue (Wehmeyer, Smith, Palmer, & Davies, this issue) and JSET readers are well aware of the application of UDL principles through the JSET Universal Design for Learning columns. As such, we will simply note that the application of principles of UDL to assessment formats has the same potential to ensure access for students with cognitive impairments that the application of these principles to curricular presentation and content has. While it is likely the case that the educational assessment of students with intellectual disabilities will best be accomplished through multiple means, there is potential value to examining how typical testing or survey formats can be modified so as to be useful with this population. The objective of this pilot study was to determine the technical merit, feasibility of use, and required functional features of an Internet-based multimedia software approach for creating independently accessible and self-directed tests and assessments for individuals with intellectual disabilities. The goals of this project follow: (1) To define the interface, functional and technical requirements for a prototype software system designed to enable individuals with intellectual disabilities to respond to test, assessment or other evaluation questions in an independent and self-paced manner; (2) To implement these requirements in a fully functioning, Internet-based software prototype; and (3) To conduct a pilot study to measure the effectiveness of the prototype against existing tools and systems for administering assessments or tests in the areas of self-direction, independent use, accuracy of results and efficiency of process. These objectives were accomplished by designing, building and field testing an Internet based software prototype, called QuestNet, utilizing support from both a public school transition program and local adult service provider agencies. The specific project task steps included (a) preliminary requirements development; (b) initial design and prototype development; and (c) evaluation of the QuestNet prototype.