The current meta-analysis examined the use of deep touch pressure (DTP; e.g., weighted vests) with students with disabilities. DTP is a form of sensory integration therapy that is currently used extensively in schools with students with autism and other disabilities. Each study in the analysis was evaluated using the Council for Exceptional Children's guidelines for evidence-based practices. In addition, noting the debate regarding appropriate single-case effect sizes, the current study calculated omnibus effect sizes utilizing a variety of single-case design effect sizes. Results of the current study suggest that DTP interventions are of generally poor quality and demonstrate effects that do not validate their current use for students with disabilities. Keywords autism, weighted vests, therapeutic brushing, deep touch pressure, sensory integration therapy Both the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2001) and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2004) mandate that instructional strategies must be research-based. While both pieces of legislation use different terms (research-based vs. peer-reviewed research), the end result is that the field of education has begun to devote considerable attention to identifying evidence-based practices (EBPs) for practitioners to use toward improving student performance (Cook & Tankersley, 2013). The primary method for determining the evidence base for a particular practice entails conducting a systematic review of the literature (Schlosser, Raghavendra, & Sigafoos, 2013). The field of education and special education has a long history of publishing reviews; however, only in the last few decades have guidelines been established for assessing groups of studies to determine whether a practice is evidence based. For example, both the What Works Clearinghouse (2014) and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC; 2014) have established guidelines for determining the evidence that can be inferred from a single study and the body of studies as a whole. In the case of providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities, the identification and use of EBPs is essential (Yell, Katsiyannis, & Losinski, 2015; Yell & Rozalski, 2013). Furthermore, Cook, Tankersley, and Landrum (2013) suggest that students with disabilities require the most effective interventions to succeed; however, practices meeting evidence-based standards are rarely used (Maheady, Smith, & Jabot, 2013). The reasons for the lack of EBP utilization by educators of students with disabilities are varied and