The purpose of this study was to identify evidenced-based, focused intervention practices for children and youth with autism spectrum disorder. This study was an extension and elaboration of a previous evidence-based practice review reported by Odom et al. (Prev Sch Fail 54:275-282, 2010b, doi: 10.1080/10459881003785506 ). In the current study, a computer search initially yielded 29,105 articles, and the subsequent screening and evaluation process found 456 studies to meet inclusion and methodological criteria. From this set of research studies, the authors found 27 focused intervention practices that met the criteria for evidence-based practice (EBP). Six new EBPs were identified in this review, and one EBP from the previous review was removed. The authors discuss implications for current practices and future research.

The involvement ofparaprofessionals in the education of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) has been both complex and controversial. Many scholars and advocates have raised concerns about the roles these staff members play in schools and the degree to which there is empirical support for their direct work with students. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to address two primary questions: To what extent have paraprofessional-implemented educational practices been shown to improve outcomes for elementary and secondary students with IDD, and what professional development strategies enable paraprofessionals to implement these strategies with fidelity? These studies indicate paraprofessionals, when given adequate training, are capable of effectively implementing a number of educational practices that result in improved academic and social outcomes, specifically, teaching communication skills, reducing problem behaviors, and increasing independence for students with IDD. Follow-up training and support, modeling, and performance feedback were prominent training components across most studies in this review and are validated in the broader research literature. However, limitations leave many questions unanswered about how to best train and support paraprofessionals. We discuss recommendations for preparing paraprofessionals who work with students with IDD, as well as future directions for research.

Over the past decade, growing attention has centered on identifying how best to support students with severe disabilities to access rigorous, relevant learning opportunities within the general education classroom (e.g., McLeskey, Waldron, Spooner, & Algozzine, 2014;Ryndak, Jackson, & White, 2013). Myriad legislative, policy, and research developments have changed expectations not only for what students with severe disabilities can and should learn, but also where they should receive this instruction. Although not disaggregated by disability severity, national data indicate 43% of students with intellectual disability, 57% of students with autism, and 28% of students with multiple disabilities now spend at least 40% of their day in general education 598780E CXXXX10.

Although paraprofessionals have become an increasingly integral part of special education services, most paraprofessionals lack training in evidence-based instructional strategies. We used a randomized contolled experimental design to examine the efficacy of a professional development training package and its individual components to equip 25 paraprofessionals to implement constant time delay. The effect of the training package on implementation fidelity was statistically significant and large in magnitude (d = 2.67; p < .001). Video modeling and coaching components were effective, although the effect of coaching alone (d = 2.23; p < .01) was larger than video modeling alone (d = .55; p = .18). Recommendations for further refining effective professional development opportunities for special education paraprofessionals are offered along with discussion of future research needs.

A utism spectrum disorders (ASD) has the most rapidly increasing prevalence rate of any disability (Boyle et al., 2011). Increasing prevalence has intensified the need to provide high-quality educational services in public school settings through the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Such needs may be addressed through professional development, and an "enlightened" professional development model should follow the principles of implementation science (Odom, 2009). The National Professional Development Center on ASD (NPDC) professional development program provides an example of how implementation science can enhance program quality and teachers' use of EBPs for students with ASD.

Preparing teachers to implement evidence-based practices for students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a pressing need. We surveyed 456 teachers and administrators in a southern state about professional development related to educating students with ASD. Specifically, we were interested in confidence in implementation of evidence-based practices, interest in accessing training on these topics, perceived benefit of different avenues of professional development, and interest in accessing these avenues. Overall, teachers were not very confident in their ability to implement evidencebased practices and address important issues for students with ASD. Surprisingly, lower confidence was not related to increased interest in training. In addition, teachers and administrators perceived workshops to be a more beneficial and attractive avenue of professional development compared with coaching, despite empirical evidence to the contrary. We offer possible explanations for these findings and share implications for administrators, technical assistance providers, and policy makers who make decisions about professional development opportunities.

Teachers and paraprofessionals need effective training to improve their implementation of interventions for students with disabilities. Reviews of the single-case design literature have identified some features associated with effective training for these educators, but the group-design literature has received little attention. This meta-analysis systematically reviews group-design studies testing the efficacy of training to improve implementation of interventions for students with disabilities. The mean effect size of educator training on implementation fidelity was g = 1.08, and results from meta-regression analysis suggest training that involves a combination of two specific training strategies (i.e., modeling and performance feedback) was associated with improved implementation fidelity. Increased duration of training was not associated with larger effects. Considered alongside findings from the single-case design literature, these results suggest that how educators are trained is a more important consideration than the number of hours they spend in training.

Existing reviews address important questions about subsets of practitioner training studies in special education but leave important questions about the broader literature unanswered. In this comprehensive review, we identified 118 peer-reviewed single-case-design studies in which researchers tested the efficacy of practitioner training on implementation of educational practices to students with disabilities. We found publication of studies has proliferated in recent years, and most studies involved a multiple-baseline or multiple-probe design, researchers as training agents, in-service special education teachers or paraprofessionals as trainees, and students with learning disabilities or autism spectrum disorder as recipients of intervention. Through visual analysis, we detected 521 effects out of 626 opportunities across studies. The mean d-Hedges-Pustejovky-Shadish effect size was d = 2.48. Behavioral-skills training was associated with the most consistent improvement of implementation fidelity. We found statistically significant associations between implementation fidelity and modeling, written instructions for implementation, and verbal performance feedback.