Individual intervention: Research and practice

2020 ◽  
pp. 237-245
Author(s):  
Yola Center
Author(s):  
William E. Tunmer ◽  
James W. Chapman ◽  
Keith T. Greaney ◽  
Jane E. Prochnow

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 457-465
Author(s):  
Greg Roberts ◽  
Nancy Scammacca ◽  
Garrett J. Roberts

Understanding the factors that mediate the effect of educational or behavioral intervention is critical to advancing both research and practice. When properly implemented, mediators add depth to the results of intervention research, indicating why a program works, highlighting ways to enhance its effectiveness, and revealing the elements that are essential to successful implementation. However, many researchers find mediation a difficult topic and struggle to implement it properly in statistical models of effects from between-groups randomized studies. In an effort to bring clarity to the topic of mediation and encourage its use where appropriate, this article lays out the requirements for evidence of a causal-mediated effect. An example of a randomized trial of an intervention targeting self-regulation and student behavior is used to illustrate the process of conceptualizing and testing for mediation of treatment effects. Statistical considerations also are addressed.


2017 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 244-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell Gersten ◽  
Madhavi Jayanthi ◽  
Joseph Dimino

The report of the national response to intervention (RTI) evaluation study, conducted during 2011–2012, was released in November 2015. Anyone who has read the lengthy report can attest to its complexity and the design used in the study. Both these factors can influence the interpretation of the results from this evaluation. In this commentary, we (a) explain what the national RTI evaluation examined and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the design, (b) clarify the results of the evaluation and highlight some key implementation issues, (c) describe how rigorous efficacy trials on reading interventions can supplement several issues left unanswered by the national evaluation, and (d) discuss implications for future research and practice based on the findings of the national evaluation and reading intervention research.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathy Leadbitter ◽  
Karen Leneh Buckle ◽  
Ceri Ellis ◽  
Martijn Dekker

The growth of autistic self-advocacy and the neurodiversity movement has brought about new ethical, theoretical and ideological debates within autism theory, research and practice. These debates have had genuine impact within some areas of autism research but their influence is less evident within early intervention research. In this paper, we argue that all autism intervention stakeholders need to understand and actively engage with the views of autistic people and with neurodiversity as a concept and movement. In so doing, intervention researchers and practitioners are required to move away from a normative agenda and pay diligence to environmental goodness-of-fit, autistic developmental trajectories, internal drivers and experiences, and autistic prioritized intervention targets. Autism intervention researchers must respond to these debates by reframing effectiveness, developing tools to measure autistic prioritized outcomes, and forming partnerships with autistic people. There is a pressing need for increased reflection and articulation around how intervention practices align with a neurodiversity framework and greater emphasis within intervention programmes on natural developmental processes, coping strategies, autonomy, and well-being.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document