The application of scientific research has resulted in tremendous gains in many fields. However, Slavin (2002) noted that educational research has been applied haphazardly in schools. The gap between research and practice is particularly problematic in special education, as learners with disabilities require highly effective instruction to reach their potential. Accordingly, bridging the research-to-practice gap is a prominent theme in contemporary special educational reforms. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 both emphasize using research as the basis of training and practice. Yet, important caveats exist for using research to identify what works in special education. Research is difficult to conduct in real world educational settings, error is present in all research, not all research is designed to examine the effects of instruction, and research is sometimes conducted poorly. All of these issues can result in inaccurate research findings that should not serve as a basis for practice. Thus, rather than relying on the findings of a single, potentially flawed study, research consumers should identify effective practices on the basis of multiple, high-quality studies that use experimental research designs and demonstrate robust effects on student outcomes (i.e., evidence-based practices or EBPs).To guide the identification of EBPs in special education, prominent special education scholars delineated (a) indicators of high-quality research and (b) criteria for identifying EBPs on the basis of those high-quality studies for group experimental (Gersten et al., 2005) and single-subject research (Horner et al., 2005). The pioneering work of Gersten et al. (2005) andHorner et al. (2005) has been applied to examine the evidence base of practices in many areas of special education (e.g., Cook, Tankersley, & Landrum, 2009b) and has been instrumental in advancing evidence-based special education. Yet, these scholars were charged with identifying and describing indicators of quality research (Cook, Tankersley, & Landrum, 2009a), not 557271R SEXXX10.

Much of the focus on the relationship between parents and professionals in early intervention has been on the rationale for working with families and the processes by which that rationale should be implemented. Although some discussion has occurred regarding desired outcomes, approaches and strategies by which the attainment of family outcomes could be documented have not been widely discussed or agreed upon by the field. In this article we suggest eight questions that could serve as a framework for determining the extent to which early intervention has accomplished the goals inherent in a family-centered approach. Conceptual issues and methodological considerations associated with documenting these outcomes are presented, and recommendations regarding implementation and future directions are made.

Only true experiments offer definitive evidence for causal inferences, but not all educational interventions are readily amenable to experiments. Correlational evidence can at least tentatively inform evidence-based practice when sophisticated causal modeling or exclusion methods are employed. Correlational evidence is most informative when exemplary practices are followed as regards (a) measurement, (b) quantifying effects, (c) avoiding common analysis errors, and (d) using confidence intervals to portray the range of possible effects and the precisions of the effect estimates.

Children with disabilities have been found to be engaged for less time and at lower levels than children without disabilities. The purpose of this study was to examine further the effects of disability as well as age grouping and adult involvement on engagement, with developmental age serving as a covariate. Thirty-two children without disabilities and 16 children with disabilities were observed in four free-play sessions and four sessions with adult involvement. All observations occurred during regularly scheduled classroom activities. Children with disabilities were found to spend less time interactively engaged with adults, attentionally engaged with peers, and in masterylevel engagement with materials than did children without disabilities; they spent more time passively nonengaged. One finding supported mixed-age groups for less attentional engagement with peers among all children when adults were involved, whereas another finding supported same-age groups for less attentional engagement with adults among children with disabilities. Two phenomena previously not reported were discovered. First, there were differences in engagement between children with and children without disabilities, even when controlling for developmental age. Second, at different developmental ages, the qualitative difference between the two groups of children changed. The complex nature of engagement is discussed as it identifies differences associated with disability when controlling for developmental age.

No abstract