A Methodological Review of Research Syntheses Involving Reading Interventions for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Abstract

Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) exhibit problem behaviors that potentially result in lower performance in reading and related content areas. Researchers and policy makers have increasingly emphasized the need for evidence-based practices (EBPs) in reading. However, conclusions made regarding the effectiveness of the interventions strongly depend on the rigor of systematic reviews and meta-analyses used to identify intervention research. This article applied a set of established quality indicators to literature reviews of reading instruction for children with EBD. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in refereed journals between 1996 and 2018 were eligible for inclusion. Identified reviews ( n = 17) generally exhibited a range of methodological strengths; however, authors did not consistently describe coding procedures or assess the quality of primary studies. Implications for the identification of EBP follow a discussion of findings.

Meta-Analyses of Reading Intervention Studies Including Students With Learning Disabilities: A Methodological Review

“…In addition, meta-analyses involving students with LD incorporated unpublished material more frequently than systematic reviews in special education, where only 14.3% evaluated unpublished sources. The analyses were also more likely to include quality assessment procedures relative to reviews in special education (34.8%) or in reviews relevant to EBD (12%; Chitiyo et al, 2020).…”

“…The emphasis on adopting practices verified as effective through high-quality research studies is the crux of the evidence-based practice movement (EBP). Identifying EBP entails finding studies with the potential to support practice, while determining how intervention effects vary across individuals and settings (Chitiyo et al, 2020). One way to address this challenge is the meta-analysis, an increasingly popular method of statistically analyzing the overall and moderating effects of interventions (Shadish & Lecy, 2015).…”

Blending as a treatment for feeding disorders: A review of the literature

“…Given the role of visual analysis in analyzing outcomes of single‐case design research, we excluded single‐case designs in which authors did not graphically display results (Manolov, Losada, Chacon‐Moscoso, & Sanduvete‐Chaves, 2016). Dissertations were included due to concerns regarding publication bias related to the exclusion of unpublished studies and the ability to control for study rigor through the application of quality indicators (Chitiyo, King, Krizon, Ablakwa, & Markelz, 2020; King, Davidson, Chitiyo, & Apple, 2020a). We excluded master's theses and other unindexed gray literature given the potential of partially included source material to bias results (Ferguson & Brannick, 2012).…”

Reporting Quality in Math Meta-Analyses for Students with or at Risk of Disabilities

“…Subsequently, researchers in special education have begun to investigate and report on the quality of reporting in meta-analyses, such as with a focus on literature search procedures, coding, and reporting data analysis. The results of previous reviews consistently indicated a wide variety of the criteria met across the quality reporting indicators (Chitiyo et al, 2020;King et al, 2020;Maggin et al, 2017;Mostert, 2004;Roitsch et al, 2021). Roitsch et al (2021) reviewed six systematic and meta-analytic reviews focused on writing instruction for students with learning disabilities (LD), and the authors reported variability across overall study quality (quality range = 30%-65%).…”

“…The authors also reported a need for studies to provide information on the reliability of the coding process and detailed information related to the literature search process and reliability of study inclusion. Chitiyo et al (2020) conducted a methodological review of reading intervention syntheses for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) and noted that common aspects of research syntheses with low reporting included searcher qualifications, coder training and expertise, and data analysis plans. In contrast, Maggin et al (2017) conducted a quality review of systematic reviews, generally as opposed to only reading interventions, focused on students with EBD and reported that coder training and expertise and reporting the data analysis plan were relative strengths of the included syntheses.…”