We examined the mean effect of teachers’ use of data‐based individualization (DBI) on the performance of students with intensive learning needs across academic areas and factors influencing the effects of DBI on student achievement. A total of 57 effect sizes from 14 studies were categorized into two comparisons: DBI Only (comparisons between DBI and a business‐as‐usual control) and DBI Plus (comparisons in which DBI implementers had access to additional information on student performance while they implemented DBI, compared to a control). The mean effect of DBI Only on student performance was g = 0.37; the mean effect of DBI Plus was g = 0.38. Differential effects of DBI were found depending on the nature of CBM tasks, frequency of CBM administration, and type and frequency of supports provided to teachers. Findings support the use of DBI to enhance student outcomes across academic areas.

This study examined the quality of the research base related to strategy instruction priming the underlying mathematical problem structure for students with learning disabilities and those at risk for mathematics difficulties. We evaluated the quality of methodological rigor of 18 group research studies using the criteria proposed by Gersten et al. and 10 single case design (SCD) research studies using criteria suggested by Horner et al. and the What Works Clearinghouse. Results indicated that 14 group design studies met the criteria for high-quality or acceptable research, whereas SCD studies did not meet the standards for an evidence-based practice. Based on these findings, strategy instruction priming the mathematics problem structure is considered an evidence-based practice using only group design methodological criteria. Implications for future research and for practice are discussed.

The purpose of this best evidence synthesis was to identify promising interventions that align with a theoretical model of early writing development, targeting three components of early writing: transcription, text generation, and self-regulation. We determined the extent to which these interventions are effective for children who struggle with early writing skills, by calculating effect sizes for group and single-subject designs, and we examined the overall quality of the research. Twenty-five studies met inclusion criteria. Among group design studies, mean effects (Hedge's g) ranged from 0.19 to 1.17 for measures of writing quantity and from 0.17 to 0.85 for measures of writing quality. Percentage of all nonoverlapping data for single-subject designs ranged from 83% to 100% for measures of writing quantity. Interventions with the strongest evidence of effects and highest methodological quality are described in detail. Recommendations for research and practice are provided.

No abstract

No abstract