CEC’s Standards for Classifying the Evidence Base of Practices in Special Education

Abstract

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.

Meta-analysis of Single-Case Research on Teaching Functional Living Skills to Individuals with ASD

“…Regarding methodological considerations, future studies are suggested to synthesize the quality of evidence from both group research and single-case research on teaching functional living skills to persons with ASD. Standards of study quality exist from the Council for Exceptional Children which permit such a synthesis (Cook et al 2014). A similar meta-analysis of the existing group research would be a useful area for an extension and a comparison of findings.…”

Replication of Special Education Research

“…However, individual experimental studies, no matter how carefully designed and conducted, are not sufficient for identifying evidence-based practices (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). Another central tenet of scientific research is replication, ensuring that positive findings from an individual study are reproducible and not merely the result of error, bias, or chance (Cook et al, 2015;Makel & Plucker, 2014b). It is only when results from experimental studies are replicated, and more than once, that a practice can truly be considered evidence based (What Works Clearinghouse, 2014).…”

“…Experimental research has been emphasized in policy documents (e.g., National Research Council, 2002), the priorities of Congress (107th Congress; Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002), and governmental funding agencies (e.g., Institute of Educational Sciences [IES]). In special education, for example, the Council for Exceptional Children has promoted experimental research and developed quality indicators for designing and implementing group and SCD studies as well as standards for classifying evidence-based practices (Cook et al, 2015;Gersten et al, 2005;Horner et al, 2005).…”

Handbook of Early Childhood Special Education

“…Similar to the process used to select children for the Tier 2 study described above, a multiple gating process was used to identify children who would be appropriate candidates for Tier 3 intervention. Measures for universal screening included the Individual Growth and Development Indicators First Sound and Alliteration measures (Wackerle-Hollman et al, 2015 ) and DIBELS Next First Sound Fluency (FSF, Cummings, Kaminski, Good, & O'Neil, 2011 ). In a randomized trial of the intervention across the two states, approximately 30 % of the 106 participants were children with disabilities.…”