Lysandra Cook

Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education: Some Practical Considerations

A major tenet of both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the No Child Left Behind Act is the identification and use of evidence-based practices, or those instructional techniques shown by research as most likely to improve student outcomes meaningfully. However, much confusion exists regarding the meaning and potential applications of evidence-based practices in special education. Evidence-based practices are traditionally supported by the findings of multiple, high-quality, experimental research studies. Rather than changing the nature of teaching or limiting teachers to following prescribed methods, prioritizing evidence-based practices will allow teachers to maximize the impact of their instructional efforts.

Moving Research into Practice: Can We Make Dissemination Stick?

Although researchers in special education have made significant advances in defining and identifying evidence-based practices, scholars often constitute an insular group that disseminates research findings primarily through outlets and venues targeting like-minded researchers using traditional approaches. Thus, despite tangible results in determining what works, using dissemination approaches that fail to resonate with or influence practitioners represents an important but often overlooked contributor to the ongoing research-to-practice gap in special education. The authors argue that empirical and theoretical literature outside of special education may offer insight into how ideas take hold, which may be especially relevant to the effective dissemination of evidence-based practices. Drawing on Heath and Heaths (2008) model, the authors describe 6 characteristics of messages that are likely to “stick”: (a) simple, (b) unexpected, (c) concrete, (d) credible, (e) emotional, and (f) stories. The authors consider each in terms of implications for dissemination of special education research findings, and urge special education researchers to consider researching, refining, and applying dissemination strategies that can make special education research matter on a broader scale.

Nonexperimental Quantitative Research and Its Role in Guiding Instruction

Different research designs answer different questions. Educators cannot use nonexperimental quantitative research designs, such as descriptive surveys and correlational research, to determine definitively that an intervention causes improved student outcomes and is an evidence-based practice. However, such research can (a) inform educators about a number of issues related to the education of students with disabilities and (b) guide experimental research efforts that can more definitively determine whether a practice is evidence based. Additionally, in the absence of relevant, high-quality experimental research, special educators can use some types of correlational research as the best available evidence to guide their instructional and curricular decision making.

Examining the Role of Group Experimental Research in Establishing Evidenced-Based Practices

Using evidence-based practices, or those instructional techniques shown by research to improve student outcomes meaningfully, increases the performance of students with disabilities and should therefore be a priority for special educators. But how does a practice come to be considered evidence based? The unique characteristics of group experimental research (i.e., the use of a meaningful comparison group and the active manipulation of an intervention) allow research consumers to conclude whether an intervention causes desired changes in student outcomes. As such, group experimental research is one type of research that is well suited to determine evidence-based practices. Examples of group experimental research are provided from the contemporary special education literature.

A Preliminary Examination to Identify the Presence of Quality Indicators in Single-Subject Research.

Scholars in the field of special education put forth a series of papers that proposed quality indicators for specific research designs that must be present for a study to be considered of high quality, as well as standards for evaluating a body of research to determine whether a practice is evidence-based. The purpose of this article was to pilot test the quality indicators proposed for single-subject research studies in order to identify points that may need clarification or revision. To do this, we examined the extent to which the proposed quality indicators were present in two single-subject studies, both examining the effects of teacher praise on specific behaviors of school-age children. Our application of the quality indicators indicated that neither study met the minimal acceptable criteria for single-subject research. We discuss the use of the quality indicators in relation to their clarity and applicability and suggest points for deliberation as the field moves forward in establishing evidence-based practices.

Facilitating the Effective Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices through Teacher-Parent Collaboration:

become a popular term in education (Detrich, 2008; Kretlow & Blatz, 2011). Although most special education stakeholders share a general notion that evidence-based practice refers to instruction that is supported in some manner by research, (a) those promoting practices and products often use the term indiscriminately and inappropriately (e.g., as if the term provided an ironclad assurance of effectiveness), and (b) many educators and parents lack a clear understanding of what evidencebased practices are and how they are identified. It is important to recognize that EBP can be used in two related but distinct ways. It can refer to an approach for making educational decisions that considers findings from rigorous research (Eddy, 2005). Used this way, evidencebased practice might be considered a general orientation to instruction (e.g., “My son’s teacher is wonderful, she engages in evidence-based practices with all of the children in her class”). Eddy noted that EBP also refers to the specific instructional techniques supported by rigorous research (e.g., “My son’s teacher started using time delay, which she says is an evidence-based practice”). Used in this way, EBP can be defined as instructional approaches supported by trustworthy bodies of research that meet standards regarding quantity, quality, research design, and effect on student outcomes (see Cook, Tankersley, Cook, & Landrum, 2008). To avoid confusion, Cook and Cook (2011) recommended that special educators might use evidence-based special education to refer to the broad decision-making approach, and use EBP when referring to particular instructional practices that are supported by rigorous research. EBPs represent an important policy development with broad implications for students with disabilities. Both the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2006) emphasize practices supported by scientifically based research (e.g., EBP). Moreover, response to intervention (RTI), articulated through IDEA 2004 as an authorized approach for identifying learning disabilities, is predicated on the use of EBPs in instruction and assessment at the classroom and individual levels (Batsche et al., 2006; Fuchs & Deshler, 2007). In an RTI model, EBPs are relevant for all students, but are especially important for students whose eligibility for special education may now be determined by their response to selected intervention approaches. Most generally, EBPs are important for students with disabilities because they represent a tool for identifying the instructional

A Replication by Any Other Name A Systematic Review of Replicative Intervention Studies

Replication research is essential to scientific knowledge. Reviews of replication studies often electronically search for replicat* as a textword, which does not identify studies that replicate previous research but do not self-identify as such. We examined whether the 83 intervention studies published in six non-categorical research journals in special education in 2013 and 2014 might be considered replications regardless of using the term replicat* by applying criteria related to (a) the stated purpose of the study and (b) comparing the findings of the study with the results of previous studies. We coded 26 intervention studies as replications. Authors of 17 of these studies reported that their findings solely agreed with the results of the original study(ies). Author overlap occurred for half of the replicative studies. The likelihood of findings being reproduced did not vary as a function of author overlap. We discuss implications and recommendations based on these findings.

Bringing Science Into the Classroom by Basing Craft on Research

In response to Crocketts analysis of the relation of science and the instruction of students with learning disabilities, we discuss reasons why teaching in special education is infrequently affected by science and research, and we propose a model of naturalistic decision making and make recommendations for bridging the gap between research and practice based on that model. By building an extensive experiential base in using effective practices, we propose that teachers can become experts at the craft of applying research-based methods. Bringing science into the classroom by basing craft on research in this way represents one promising alternative for improving outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities.

Republication of “Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education: Some Practical Considerations”:

A major tenet of both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the No Child Left Behind Act is the identification and use of evidence-based practices, or those instructional techniques shown by research as most likely to improve student outcomes meaningfully. However, much confusion exists regarding the meaning and potential applications of evidence-based practices in special education. Evidence-based practices are traditionally supported by the findings of multiple, high-quality, experimental research studies. Rather than changing the nature of teaching or limiting teachers to following prescribed methods, prioritizing evidence-based practices will allow teachers to maximize the impact of their instructional efforts.

Null Hypothesis Significance Testing and "p" Values.

p values are commonly reported in quantitative research, but are often misunderstood and misinterpreted by research consumers. Our aim in this article is to provide special educators with guidance for appropriately interpreting p values, with the broader goal of improving research consumers’ understanding and interpretation of research findings. Specifically, we discuss null hypothesis significance testing, describe what p values mean and how they are reported, describe some common misconceptions of p values, and provide two examples from the research literature to illustrate how p values are used in the field. Our take-home message is that p values indicate how likely study results are to occur if the null hypothesis is true, and that p values should be cautiously interpreted.