Anatomy of an Evidence Base

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 454-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Malouf ◽  
Juliana M. Taymans
Keyword(s):  
Education Policy ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Intervention Effect ◽  
What Works ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Education Interventions ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse ◽  
Adequate Research

An analysis was conducted of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) research evidence base on the effectiveness of replicable education interventions. Most interventions were found to have little or no support from technically adequate research studies, and intervention effect sizes were of questionable magnitude to meet education policy goals. These findings painted a dim picture of the evidence base on education interventions and indicated a need for new approaches, including a reexamination of federal reliance on experimental impact research as the basis for gauging intervention effectiveness.

The Use of Computer-Assisted Instruction to Improve the Reading Comprehension of Students With Learning Disabilities: An Evaluation of the Evidence Base According to the What Works Clearinghouse Standards

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 233-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min Kyung Kim ◽  
John William McKenna ◽  
Yujeong Park
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Comparison Group ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Computer Assisted Instruction ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Students With Learning Disabilities ◽  
What Works ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse ◽  
Assisted Instruction

The purpose of this study was to investigate the evidence base for using computer-assisted instruction (CAI) to improve the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities (LD). Twelve peer-reviewed studies (seven comparison group studies, five single-case studies) met selection criteria and were evaluated according to the relevant What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) procedures and standards. Results showed that seven studies (five comparison group and two single-case studies) met WWC standards with or without reservations. Key instructional features employed in CAI studies meeting the WWC standards without reservations included practice opportunities, self-correction and immediate corrective feedback, teacher-directed instruction, and contingencies for enhancing student motivation and engagement. Implications for future research and suggestions for using quality indicators to improve the rigor of future CAI investigations are discussed.

Considerations for Evidence Frameworks in Education Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-128
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Taylor ◽  
Elisabeth Davis ◽  
Laura E. Michaelson
Keyword(s):  
Education Research ◽  
Youth Development ◽  
Social Programs ◽  
Intervention Effectiveness ◽  
What Works ◽  
Randomized Studies ◽  
Outcome Domain ◽  
Education Interventions ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse ◽  
Vote Counting

In this chapter, we describe and compare the standards for evidence used by three entities that review studies of education interventions: Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Social Programs that Work, and the What Works Clearinghouse. Based on direct comparisons of the evidence frameworks, we identify key differences in the level at which effectiveness ratings are granted (i.e., intervention vs. outcome domain), as well as in how each entity prioritizes intervention documentation, researcher independence, and sustained versus immediate effects. Because such differences in priorities may result in contradictory intervention ratings between entities, we offer a number of recommendations for a common set of standards that would harmonize effectiveness ratings across the three entities while preserving differences that allow for variation in user priorities. These include disentangling study rigor from intervention effectiveness, ceasing vote counting procedures, adding replication criteria, adding fidelity criteria, assessing baseline equivalence for randomized studies, making quasi-experiments eligible for review, adding criteria for researcher independence, and providing effectiveness ratings at the level of the outcome domain rather than the intervention.

Essential elements of treatment and care in high secure forensic inpatient services: an expert consensus study

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Tapp ◽  
Fiona Warren ◽  
Chris Fife-Schaw ◽  
Derek Perkins ◽  
Estelle Moore
Keyword(s):  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
Hospital Treatment ◽  
Hospital Services ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Forensic Patients ◽  
What Works ◽  
High Security

Purpose – The evidence base for what works with forensic patients in high-security inpatient settings has typically focused on outcome research and not included clinical expertise from practice-based experience, which is an important facet of evidence-based practice. The purpose of this paper is to establish whether experts with clinical and/or research experience in this setting could reach consensus on elements of high-security hospital services that would be essential to the rehabilitation of forensic patients. Design/methodology/approach – A three-round Delphi survey was conducted to achieve this aim. Experts were invited to rate agreement with elements of practice and interventions derived from existing research evidence and patient perspectives on what worked. Experts were also invited to propose elements of hospital treatment based on their individual knowledge and experience. Findings – In the first round 54 experts reached consensus on 27 (out of 39) elements that included physical (e.g. use of CCTV), procedural (e.g. managing restricted items) and relational practices (e.g. promoting therapeutic alliances), and to a lesser extent-specific medical, psychological and social interventions. In total, 16 additional elements were also proposed by experts. In round 2 experts (n=45) were unable to reach a consensus on how essential each of the described practices were. In round 3 (n=35), where group consensus feedback from round 2 was provided, consensus was still not reached. Research limitations/implications – Patient case complexity, interventions with overlapping outcomes and a chequered evidence base history for this population are offered as explanations for this finding alongside limitations with the Delphi method. Practical implications – Based on the consensus for essential elements derived from research evidence and patient experience, high-secure hospital services might consider those practices and interventions that experts agreed were therapeutic options for reducing risk of offending, improving interpersonal skills and therapeutic interactions with patients, and mental health restoration. Originality/value – The study triangulates what works research evidence from this type of forensic setting and is the first to use a Delphi survey in an attempt to collate this information.

An Evidence-Based Review and Meta-Analysis of Active Supervision

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-128
Author(s):  
Nicholas A. Gage ◽  
Todd Haydon ◽  
Ashley S. MacSuga-Gage ◽  
Emily Flowers ◽  
Lyndsie Erdy
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Student Behaviors ◽  
Design Standards ◽  
Calculated Effect ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse

Active supervision—defined as circulating, scanning, interacting with students, and reinforcing demonstrations of expected academic and social behaviors by a teacher or other staff member—is often considered a component of safe and secure schools. Yet, the evidence base supporting the effectiveness of active supervision has not been synthesized or evaluated for its quality. Therefore, we conducted an evidence-based review and meta-analysis of empirical research evaluating the effects of active supervision in schools. We identified 12 research studies evaluating active supervision, assessed the quality of each study, and calculated effect sizes for student behaviors, including disruptive behavior. Results from the four studies meeting data requirements for estimating standardized mean difference effect sizes suggest that, on average, active supervision reduced problem behavior by almost 2.0 standard deviation units. Only four studies met the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) design standards and the results of those were mixed, thus not meeting the WWC evidence-based criteria. Limitations and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Ending Homelessness?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Allen ◽  
Lars Benjaminsen ◽  
Eoin O'Sullivan ◽  
Nicholas Pleace
Keyword(s):  
Research Evidence ◽  
Detailed Comparison ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Policy Objective ◽  
The Past ◽  
What Works ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Support Mechanisms ◽  
Key Driver

In recent years, across Europe, North America and the Antipodes, a significant number of countries, states and regions have devised strategies that aim to end long-term homelessness and the need to sleep rough. Long considered an intractable or ‘wicked’ social problem, the notion that homelessness could be ended represents a significant sea change in conceptualising and responding to homelessness. A key driver for states, regions and municipalities to devise plans to end homelessness, and an optimism that this policy objective can be achieved, is that there is an increasing research evidence base on what works to end homelessness. This increasingly sophisticated research evidence covers both the prevention of homelessness in the first instance and the support mechanisms that can ensure sustainable exits and stable, secure accommodation for people who have experienced homelessness. This book explores these issues through a detailed comparison of the experiences of Denmark, Finland and Ireland over the past decade. From 2008 to the end of 2018, the numbers living rough and in temporary and emergency accommodation showed a decline of 72 per cent in Finland, while the number of households in emergency accommodation increased by 300 per cent in Ireland; in Denmark, the number of adults in emergency accommodation increased by 12 per cent over the shorter time period of 2009–17. The purpose of this book is to offer explanations for stark variations in these outcomes despite similar starting points.

Effectiveness of psychological interventions to improve emotion regulation in youth - a meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bettina Moltrecht ◽  
Jessica Deighton ◽  
Praveetha Patalay ◽  
Julian Childs
Keyword(s):  
Emotion Regulation ◽  
Emotion Dysregulation ◽  
Psychological Intervention ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
What Works ◽  
Large Heterogeneity ◽  
Larger Sample

Background: Research investigating the role of emotion regulation (ER) in the development and treatment of psychopathology has increased in recent years. Evidence suggests that an increased focus on ER in treatment can improve existing interventions. Most ER research has neglected young people, therefore the present meta-analysis summarizes the evidence for existing psychosocial intervention and their effectiveness to improve ER in youth. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Twenty-one randomized-control-trials (RCTs) assessed changes in ER following a psychological intervention in youth exhibiting various psychopathological symptoms.Results: We found moderate effect sizes for current interventions to decrease emotion dysregulation in youth (g=-.46) and small effect sizes to improve emotion regulation (g=0.36). Significant differences between studies including intervention components, ER measures and populations studied resulted in large heterogeneity. Conclusion: This is the first meta-analysis that summarizes the effectiveness for existing interventions to improve ER in youth. The results suggest that interventions can enhance ER in youth, and that these improvements correlate with improvements in psychopathology. More RCTs including larger sample sizes, different age groups and psychopathologies are needed to increase our understanding of what works for who and when.

“State standards and IEP goals. A lot of TPT products.” What Early Childhood Educators Report Using to Plan Mathematics Instruction

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey Peltier ◽  
Tiffany K Peltier ◽  
Taylor Werthen ◽  
Andy Heuer
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Early Childhood ◽  
Special Education Teachers ◽  
Mathematics Instruction ◽  
State Standards ◽  
Early Childhood Educators ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Exceptional Children ◽  
What Works ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse

Access to high-quality resources is integral for educators to provide research-aligned mathematics instruction. Identifying the supplemental resources educators use to plan mathematics instruction can inform the ways researchers and organizations disseminate research-based practices. The goal of this study was to identify the frequency in which early childhood educators (i.e., pre-Kindergarten through third grade) reported using various resources to plan for mathematics instruction. Furthermore, we investigated whether differences were observed based on teacher factors (i.e., general or special education, route to certification, years of experience) and locale (i.e., rural, urban, suburban). We retained data from 917 teachers for data analysis. The three most frequently reported resources by educators were colleagues, Teachers Pay Teachers, and Google/Yahoo. The three least frequently reported resources were the typical outlets researchers use to reach teachers: What Works Clearinghouse, Teaching Exceptional Children, and Teaching Children Mathematics. General and special education teachers differed on their self-reported usage of five resources: colleagues, Google/Yahoo, teaching blogs, Teaching Exceptional Children, and the What Works Clearinghouse. Rural educators self-reported that they were less likely than suburban educators to use colleagues or specialists at the district to plan instruction. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document