Evidence-Based Practices

Abstract

At the 2015 TASH Conference in Portland, Oregon, a colloquium on the Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs) movement was conducted. The presenters included eight nationally recognized, socially committed researchers who discussed this initiative from varying perspectives, research methodologies, professional roles, disciplines, and value systems. Although many questions were addressed, much of the discussion centered on the following questions: How are EBPs identified? Is the identification, replication, and validation of EBPs solely the responsibility of quantitative research? What is required to implement EBPs on a large scale? As currently understood, what is the relation between research-driven initiatives and values-driven initiatives? And how should TASH (or other advocacy or professional organizations) position itself relative to the EBPs movement and research and values-driven initiatives? This special issue is a continuation of that discussion. Most of the presenters at the colloquium agreed to write papers for this special issue. Authors were asked to expand on points they had raised in their colloquium presentations, or to raise new points relating to EBPs and their identification or implementation. As discussed in all of the papers, given current problems with reduced funding, conflicted priorities, and value systems seemingly at odds with each other, further dialogue on sound and effective practices to increase desired learning outcomes and improve the quality of life for people with severe disabilities is warranted.

Why Aren’t Students with Severe Disabilities Being Placed in General Education Classrooms: Examining the Relations Among Classroom Placement, Learner Outcomes, and Other Factors

“…A second issue that warrants further investigation is the need for researchers to expand the focus of their research by examining not only the “efficacy” of a practice (i.e., suggesting a causal or functional relation between a practice and an outcome) but to also question the “effectiveness” of the practice, that is, the nature and extent to which this practice can be used with a larger number of diverse students across varying real world (not ideal) classroom settings (Singer, Agran, & Spooner, 2017). Such research would take into consideration the ethnicity and linguistic status of participants, as well as the long-term effects of the practices.…”

A Systematic Review of Modified Schema-Based Instruction for Teaching Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities to Solve Mathematical Word Problems

“…The identification of EBPs is crucial for students with moderate and severe disabilities (MSD), as these students require more intense intervention and additional time to learn skills compared with their peers without disabilities (Browder et al, 2020). When EBPs are not used, time and money is wasted on the implementation of ineffective practices, leading to caregiver, instructor, and student frustration (Agran et al, 2017). In addition, some non-evidence-based practices may put students at risk for harm, injury, or death (e.g., facilitated communication, restraint;Jacobson et al, 2005;Rakhmatullina et al, 2013).Although it is clear that EBPs for students with MSD are needed, there is some debate among researchers about the best method for identifying these practices.…”

What Peers, Educators, and Principals Say: The Social Validity of Inclusive, Comprehensive Literacy Instruction

“…They must be mindful of the possible positive and harmful side effects that may emerge from their research (Taylor et al, 2010). When students are not able to voice their own perspectives on their schooling experiences and the research in which they participate, researchers need a heightened sensitivity to the applied significance and the values base of their work (Agran et al, 2017). Ethical research requires that researchers attend to and report on the everyday experiences of student and teacher participants.…”