Search

This article is part of a special LDRP research‐to‐practice series introducing key concepts to enable special education practitioners and other nonresearchers to be more informed research consumers. In the article, we explore how social validity is assessed in special education research and how to interpret social validity assessments. Rather than focusing on measuring intervention effects, social validity involves assessing the social importance of the goals, procedures, and outcomes of interventions and programs. We define social validity, provide questions to consider when examining assessments of social validity in research papers, review approaches commonly used to assess social validity with examples from the research literature, and make recommendations for reconciling findings of positive intervention effects on targeted outcomes but absent or negative findings related to social validity in a study. Our take‐home message is that considering social validity assessments helps research consumers interpret study findings and informs how to apply findings in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mixed‐methods research can uniquely inform special education practice by combining qualitative and quantitative research approaches. However, its distinct features can also make mixed‐methods research difficult to understand and apply. In this article, we provide an introduction to mixed‐methods research purposes, designs, and quality considerations to help practitioners critically consume and apply this type of research when working with students with learning disabilities and their families. We describe three sample research studies to illustrate mixed‐methods designs and contributions. Our take‐home message is that mixed‐methods research (a) requires unique research practices to meaningfully combine qualitative and quantitative research approaches in a single study and (b) can be particularly useful for informing special education practice in real‐world contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Qualitative research methods are used within special education research to provide insights about how and why phenomena occur. They can, however, be misunderstood and applied inappropriately. Our aim in this article is to provide an overview of qualitative methods, including their purpose, contributions to research involving students with learning disabilities, limitations, and quality indicators for methodological rigor. Additionally, we highlight common qualitative methods and data sources. We review a recent study that exemplifies the use of qualitative methods in the field. Our take‐home message is that qualitative methods can provide valuable in‐depth information about how and why phenomena occur, but they are not intended to support causal relationships or large‐scale generalizability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

p values are commonly reported in quantitative research, but are often misunderstood and misinterpreted by research consumers. Our aim in this article is to provide special educators with guidance for appropriately interpreting p values, with the broader goal of improving research consumers' understanding and interpretation of research findings. Specifically, we discuss null hypothesis significance testing, describe what p values mean and how they are reported, describe some common misconceptions of p values, and provide two examples from the research literature to illustrate how p values are used in the field. Our take-home message is that p values indicate how likely study results are to occur if the null hypothesis is true, and that p values should be cautiously interpreted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence-based reforms that emphasize the identification and implementation of empirically validated practices are at the forefront of educational research, and recently, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC; 2014) published a set of standards for establishing evidence-based practices in special education. Although 30 years of research supports the effectiveness of ClassWide Peer Tutoring (CWPT), an instructional strategy intended to increase engagement and improve academic outcomes for students with disabilities, a formal evidence-based review has not yet been conducted on the practice. The purpose of this study is to examine whether CWPT, as developed by the Juniper Gardens Children’s Project at the University of Kansas, can be considered an evidence-based practice for academic outcomes of students with high incidence disabilities using the CEC standards. Sixteen single-case design studies met inclusion criteria; no studies addressed all the required quality indicators. Although results of multiple studies show that CWPT had positive effects, the lack of methodologically sound studies supporting the practice means that CWPT is not considered an evidence-based practice according to the CEC (2014) standards. Implications for research and practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Although researchers in special education have made significant advances in defining and identifying evidence-based practices, scholars often constitute an insular group that disseminates research findings primarily through outlets and venues targeting like-minded researchers using traditional approaches. Thus, despite tangible results in determining what works, using dissemination approaches that fail to resonate with or influence practitioners represents an important but often overlooked contributor to the ongoing research-to-practice gap in special education. The authors argue that empirical and theoretical literature outside of special education may offer insight into how ideas take hold, which may be especially relevant to the effective dissemination of evidence-based practices. Drawing on Heath and Heath's (2008) model, the authors describe 6 characteristics of messages that are likely to "stick": (a) simple, (b) unexpected, (c) concrete, (d) credible, (e) emotional, and (f) stories. The authors consider each in terms of implications for dissemination of special education research findings, and urge special education researchers to consider researching, refining, and applying dissemination strategies that can make special education research matter on a broader scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars in the field of special education put forth a series of papers that proposed quality indicators for specific research designs that must be present for a study to be considered of high quality, as well as standards for evaluating a body of research to determine whether a practice is evidence-based. The purpose of this article was to pilot test the quality indicators proposed for single-subject research studies in order to identify points that may need clarification or revision. To do this, we examined the extent to which the proposed quality indicators were present in two single-subject studies, both examining the effects of teacher praise on specific behaviors of school-age children. Our application of the quality indicators indicated that neither study met the minimal acceptable criteria for single-subject research. We discuss the use of the quality indicators in relation to their clarity and applicability and suggest points for deliberation as the field moves forward in establishing evidence-based practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]