Sara Cothren Cook

Unraveling Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education

Evidence-based practices (EBPs) are instructional techniques that meet prescribed criteria related to the research design, quality, quantity, and effect size of supporting research, which have the potential to help bridge the research-to-practice gap and improve student outcomes. In this article, the authors (a) discuss the importance of clear understanding and communication regarding EBPs and what works in special education; (b) define EBPs and discuss how they are identified; (c) differentiate the term EBP from related terms such as research-based, best, and recommended practices; (d) consider the purview of EBPs; and (e) present relevant caveats related to EBPs. The authors conclude by providing recommendations to facilitate special educators’ clear and effectual thinking and communication about EBPs.

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.

Terminology and Evidence-Based Practice for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders: Exploring Some Devilish Details

The influence of evidence-based reforms is hard to escape in special education. Administrators and policymakers encourage practitioners to engage in evidence-based practice; providers of professional development, textbook sellers, and conference presenters promote practices by suggesting they are evidence based (e.g., a search of presentations at the 2016 Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) conference using the phrase evidencebased returned 115 hits); and websites featuring evidence-based content seem to be everywhere. Indeed, Google searches (conducted on May 3, 2016) returned more than 133 million hits for evidence-based and education and more than 62 million for evidencebased and behavior. The growing popularity of evidence-based reforms likely springs from their potential to improve learner outcomes. Implementing practices shown to be effective by scientific research in place of less effective instruction should improve student outcomes (Cook, Smith, & Tankersley, 2012). Although targeting effective practices is not unique to evidencebased reforms, how practices are identified as effective is. Virtually everyone has opinions on which practices are effective and which are not, but these opinions are based on many different sources (e.g., personal experience, expert opinion) that are often unreliable and inaccurate. For example, a new teacher might seek advice from two colleagues about the effectiveness of self-regulated strategy development (SRSD; e.g., Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2003), an instructional strategy she is considering using for her students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). One colleague remembers an in-service training she attended in which the trainer enthusiastically promoted SRSD as effective. But another colleague may say that she tried using SRSD a couple of years ago, but it did not work for her and her students. Because these beliefs are based on expert opinion and personal experience, it is difficult to tell which is right. Evidence-based reforms suggest that scientific evidence is the most trustworthy way for determining what works. Scientific research, although certainly not infallible, is generally agreed to be the most reliable method to determine the effectiveness of practices (Cook et al., 2012) and has resulted in marked improvements in many professional fields and aspects of our daily lives (Slavin, 2002). Related to the example above, an impressive body of research evidence supports SRSD as an effective practice for students with EBD (see Losinksi, Cuenca-Carlino, Zablocki, & Teagarden, 2014, for a recent review). Such research evidence is a more trustworthy basis for using SRSD than the opinion of one’s colleagues or the advice of one in-service provider. Special education has a long history of using unproven and disproven practices (Mostert, 2010). By basing teacher preparation, professional development, and classroom instruction on research evidence, we can both avoid using generally ineffective practices and ensure that highly effective practices are prioritized. For students with disabilities to maximize their potential, it is important for practitioners to identify and use highly effective practices (Kretlow & Blatz, 2011; Vaughn & Dammann, 2001). Indeed, evidencebased reforms seem particularly important for students with EBD, as they have a long-standing history of poor academic and behavioral outcomes (Bradley, Doolittle, & Bartolotta, 2008). Specifically, students with EBD are more likely to fail, drop out, or be expelled than students with other disabilities and their typically developing peers (Bradley, Henderson, & Monfore, 2004). Although the instructional focus for this population has traditionally been on behavioral interventions (Gable, Hendrickson, Tonelson, & Van Acker, 2002), there is growing recognition that teachers must also provide students with EBD highly effective academic interventions (Vannest, Temple-Harvey, & Mason, 2009). Now, more than ever, there is an impetus on the identification and use of evidence-based academic and behavioral practices for students with EBD. Before engaging in evidencebased reforms, it is important that teachers of students with disabilities, and more specifically EBD, are familiar with the meaning of evidence-based terminology. Although evidence-based reforms may appear both straightforward and promising, things are seldom as simple as they seem. As Odom and colleagues (2005) warned, “the devil is in the details” (p. 137). Terminology is one particularly devilish detail that confounds many special education TERMINOLOGY AND EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE

An Evaluation of the Evidence Base for Performance Feedback to Improve Teacher Praise Using CEC's Quality Indicators

Despite a rich body of empirical evidence that supports the use of teacher praise to improve student outcomes, it continues to be underused in practice. One method of ameliorating this problem is the use of performance feedback. Although some studies have indicated that the use of performance feedback is an effective approach for increasing teachers’ use of praise, the quality of the literature base has yet to be examined. The purpose of this study was to examine the current literature base related to the use of performance feedback to increase teachers’ use of praise to determine whether it could be classified as an evidence-based practice. A systematic review of the literature was conducted, and each study was evaluated using the Council for Exceptional Children’s (CEC) Standards for Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education (i.e., quality indicators). Fourteen single-case studies were reviewed for methodological rigor across 21 quality indicators. Results indicated that performance feedback is a promising practice to increase teachers’ use of praise; however, not enough studies met quality standards to classify the practice as evidence-based. Future research should focus on conducting studies that meet the standards set forth by the CEC to build empirical support for the use of performance feedback as a method for increasing teachers’ use of praise.

Self-Monitoring Interventions for Students with EBD: Applying UDL to a Research-Based Practice.

Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) have unique academic and behavioral needs that require the use of evidence-based practices. One way that teachers can support students with EBD is by individualizing interventions, such as self-monitoring, while maintaining a high level of fidelity. In this article, the authors describe how the Universal Design for Learning framework can be used to design individualized self-monitoring interventions for students with EBD while still maintaining core components of the intervention.

Systematically Applying UDL to Effective Practices for Students With Learning Disabilities

Based on the premise that instruction should be designed from the outset to reduce barriers, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) guidelines provide a set of flexible options and scaffolds to ensure access for all learners. Using the UDL framework, teachers and researchers can systematically adapt effective practices that have been established by methodologically sound research studies to have meaningful gains for students with learning disabilities (LD). Specifically, we suggest that teachers can select an effective practice and then use the UDL framework to individualize the practice (while maintaining core components). Furthermore, we propose that researchers may use this approach to (a) clearly define how UDL was applied to a practice and (b) systematically measure the effects of UDL when applied to practices that have been established as effective by methodologically sound research. Although teachers and researchers can apply UDL to effective practices for all students, in this article, we highlight how secondary teachers can design and adapt effective practices for students with LD, who need intensive interventions to improve skills (e.g., reading comprehension, decoding) and access to grade-level curriculum.

The review identifies evidence based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorders, but research consumers should examine original studies

This review provides a summary and appraisal commentary on the treatment review by Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K. A., Cox, A. W., Fettig, A., Kucharczyk, S., Brock, M. E. … Schultz, T. R. (2015). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A comprehensive review. Journal of Autism and Development Disorders, 45, 1951–1966. doi: 10.1007/s10803–014-2351-z Source of funding and declaration of interests: This work was supported by the US Office of Special Education Programs [grant number H325G07004]; Institute of Education Science [grant number R324B090005].