This investigation examines teachers' attitudes toward their included students with disabilities. Seventy general education teachers of inclusive elementary classrooms nominated three of their students to prompts corresponding with the attitudinal categories of attachment, concern, indifference, and rejection. Consistent with predictions based on a theory of instructional tolerance, chi-square analyses indicated that included students with disabilities were significantly underrepresented in the attachment category, and significantly overrepresented in the concern and rejection categories. Greater experience teaching in inclusive classes was also associated with higher rates of concern nominations for included students with disabilities. Results are discussed in regard to their implications for inclusive policies and practice.

Single‐case research methods provide the basis for evaluating effective instructional approaches in special education. The purpose of this article is to provide special educators an overview of single‐case research methods, with an emphasis on how these designs are used to establish whether an instructional practice relates to improved learner outcomes. Specifically, we describe (1) core principles of single‐case design (SCD) research, (2) two frequently used SCDs—withdrawal and multiple‐baseline designs, (3) how visual analysis of graphed data is used to examine functional relations in SCDs, (4) limitations to the generalizability of findings from individual SCD studies, and (5) two studies in the special education literature that use SCDs. Our take‐home message is that SCDs can be used to determine whether an instructional intervention causes improved outcomes for students, but caution is warranted when generalizing results from individual SCD studies.

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.

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.

I n his 1993 Academy of Management Presidential address, Hambrick (1994) opined that academics seem to have a minimalist ethos: . . . minimal innovation, minimal visibility, minimal impact. Each August, we come to talk to each other [at the Academy of Management's annual meeting]; during the rest of the year we read each others' papers in our journals and write our own papers so that we may, in turn, have an audience the following August: an incestuous, closed loop. Colleagues, if we believe highly in what we do, if we believe in the significance of advanced thinking and research on management, then it is time we showed it. . . . It is time for us to break out of our closed loop. It is time for us to matter. (p. 13)

The aim of this article is to provide practitioners and other nonresearchers a basic understanding of research designs to aid in appropriately interpreting and applying research findings in special education. Research design provides the blueprint for conducting a research study and shapes what kind of knowledge is generated by the study. We discuss the purpose of, types of questions addressed by, and different types of studies associated with four research designs commonly used in special education-descriptive, relational, experimental, and qualitative designs, as well as briefly review an example study using each research design. The take-away message of this article is that different research designs address different types of questions. Therefore, it is important that research consumers know what type of questions each research design addresses and interpret and apply research findings accordingly.

Evidence-based reviews are a type of systematic literature review used to identify evidencebased practices. When conducting an evidence-based review, researchers apply predetermined standards to identify evidence-based practices-practices that have been shown to reliably improve an outcome for a population of learners, according to evidence from a body of rigorous, experimental studies. In this article, we describe evidence-based reviews, provide an overview of one set of evidence standards used in special education, and describe important caveats and considerations related to evidence-based reviews. We conclude with two examples of evidence-based reviews in the field of learning disabilities. Our take-home message is that evidence-based reviews are a trustworthy approach for identifying generally effective instructional practices-but no practices, not even evidence-based practices, are effective for all learners.

This meta-analysis included experimental or quasi-experimental intervention studies conducted between 1980 and 2020 that aimed to improve reading outcomes for Grade K-5 students with or at risk for dyslexia (i.e., students with or at risk for word reading difficulties, defined as scoring at or below normreferenced screening or mean baseline performance thresholds articulated in our inclusion criteria). In all, 53 studies reported in 52 publications met inclusion criteria (m = 351; total student N = 6,053). We employed robust variance estimation to address dependent effect sizes arising from multiple outcomes and comparisons within studies. Results indicated a statistically significant main effect of instruction on norm-referenced reading outcomes (g = 0.33; p < .001). Because there was significant heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies (p < .01), we used meta-regression to identify the degree to which student characteristics (i.e., grade level), intervention characteristics (i.e., dosage, instructional components, multisensory nature, instructional group size), reading outcome domain (i.e., phonological awareness, word reading/ spelling, passage reading, or reading comprehension), or research methods (i.e., sample size, study design) influenced intervention effects. Dosage and reading outcome domain were the only variables that significantly moderated intervention effects (p = .040 and p = .024, respectively), with higher dosage studies associated with larger effects (b = 0.002) and reading comprehension outcomes associated with smaller effects than word reading/spelling outcomes (b = −0.080).