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)