A Systematic Review of Student Mediated Math Interventions for Students with Emotional or Behavior Disorders

Students identified with emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD) display deficits across academic content areas, most notably in mathematics. We reviewed research on student-mediated math interventions for students with EBD. A total of 19 studies published between 1968 and 2019 met inclusion criteria, with 24 of 32 cases meeting the What Works Clearinghouse Pilot Single-Case Design Standards (Version 4.0) with or without reservations. Participants included 51 students identified with EBD, ages 8 to 16 years old. Results from visual analysis revealed 0 cases demonstrated strong evidence, 11 cases demonstrated moderate evidence, and 21 cases demonstrated weak evidence of intervention effects. The omnibus Tau-U was 74.35% (CI95 = 64.2% to 84.4%), representing data from 17 studies including 46 students. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

The Impact of Nudge Letters on Improving Attendance in an Urban District

This study evaluates a “nudge letter” to parents intervention designed to reduce chronic absenteeism among students in one urban district. Using a regression discontinuity design (RDD), it estimates the impact of the intervention on improving student attendance. The forcing variable for the RDD was 2016–2017 attendance rate, with a “threshold” of a 0.90 attendance rate (missing 10% of days). Analyses established demographic equivalence of students in the 0.88 to 0.92 baseline attendance bandwidth. Although the overall impact of the intervention on attendance change between Fall 2016 and Fall 2017 (first-quarter attendance) was small and non-significant (ES 0.09, p = .20), the effect size for middle school students (0.34, p = .044) was “substantively important” by What Works Clearinghouse standards. The effect of the intervention on the full year’s attendance rate was not significant.

The Editor’s Note: The beginning of a beautiful friendship?

Since the field of education research emerged, complaints have proliferated about its quality and researchers’ failure to share findings with practitioners. Federal initiatives such as the What Works Clearinghouse have sought to increase the availability of research, but many researchers have continued to be disconnected from practicing K-12 educators. Rafael Heller explains that the research-practice partnerships described in the April 2021 Kappan show promise for bridging the divide.

Considerations for Evidence Frameworks in Education Research

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.

A Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Research on Applied Behavior Analytic Interventions for People With Down Syndrome

This systematic review evaluates single-case research design studies investigating applied behavior analytic (ABA) interventions for people with Down syndrome (DS). One hundred twenty-five studies examining the efficacy of ABA interventions on increasing skills and/or decreasing challenging behaviors met inclusion criteria. The What Works Clearinghouse standards and Risk of Bias in N-of-1 Trials scale were used to analyze methodological characteristics, and Tau-U effect sizes were calculated. Results suggest the use of ABA-based interventions are promising for behavior change in people with DS. Thirty-six high-quality studies were identified and demonstrated a medium overall effect. A range of outcomes was targeted, primarily involving communication and challenging behavior. These outcomes will guide future research on ABA interventions and DS.

Current State of the Evidence: Examining the Effects of Orton-Gillingham Reading Interventions for Students With or at Risk for Word-Level Reading Disabilities

Over the past decade, parent advocacy groups led a grassroots movement resulting in most states adopting dyslexia-specific legislation, with many states mandating the use of the Orton-Gillingham approach to reading instruction. Orton-Gillingham is a direct, explicit, multisensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive approach to reading for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities (WLRD). Evidence from a prior synthesis and What Works Clearinghouse reports yielded findings lacking support for the effectiveness of Orton-Gillingham interventions. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions on the reading outcomes of students with or at risk for WLRD. Findings suggested Orton-Gillingham reading interventions do not statistically significantly improve foundational skill outcomes (i.e., phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, spelling; effect size [ES] = 0.32; p = .24), although the mean ES was positive in favor of Orton-Gillingham-based approaches. Similarly, there were not significant differences for vocabulary and comprehension outcomes (ES = 0.14; p = .57) for students with or at risk for WLRD. More high-quality, rigorous research with larger samples of students with WLRD is needed to fully understand the effects of Orton-Gillingham interventions on the reading outcomes for this population.

Augmentative and Alternative Communication for Adults With Complex Communication Needs: A Review of Single-Case Research

The authors conducted a systematic review of the literature including studies that used a single-case design (SCD) and taught augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) use to adults with complex communication needs. The purpose of this review was to describe (a) adults receiving AAC intervention, (b) components of the interventions used, and (c) how the literature met quality standards set by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). Across the 12 SCD studies included, a total of 28 adults with complex communication needs received intervention. As part of the intervention, the majority of the participants ( n = 24; 86%) were introduced to new AAC systems (e.g., picture, communication application). Ten of 12 studies showed at least moderate evidence of effectiveness. Only three of 12 studies met the WWC standards without reservation. Findings from this review call for action to ensure quality AAC access and services are available to adults with complex communication needs.

A Quantitative Synthesis of Intervention Research Published in Flagship EBD Journals: 2010 to 2019

Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBDs) could be considered some of the most challenging students to serve in schools. The need for effective interventions for these students is ever-present. To design and implement empirical studies to better inform the field of EBDs, researchers must have a firm understanding of the most up-to-date intervention literature. The purpose of this targeted quantitative synthesis is to create such a knowledge base for the field of EBDs. Results from 55 studies indicate a declining focus on intervention research for students with EBDs in the last 10 years (2010–2019). Of the intervention research available, the quality (40% did not meet What Works Clearinghouse standards) and effectiveness on student outcomes across academic, behavioral, and social skills domains was variable (between-case standardized mean difference [BC-SMD] = 0.13–8.26, Hedges’ g = −0.30 to 1.29). Future directions for the field of EBDs are included.

Estimating the Impact of Design Standards on the Rigor of a Subset of Single-Case Research

The implementation of research-based practices by teachers in public school classrooms is required under federal law as expressed in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. To aid teachers in identifying such practices, researchers conduct systematic reviews of the educational literature. Although recent attention has been given to changes in the quality of these reviews, there has been minimal discussion about changes in the quality of the studies that comprise them. Specifically, to what extent have educational policies leading to the creation of experimental design standards resulted in a change in the rigor of educational research? Using a subset of the single-case literature commonly published in special education journals, we estimate the impact of What Works Clearinghouse single-case design standards on the trend in the rigor of single-case studies using a comparative interrupted time series framework. Within this subset of single-case studies, our estimation strategy did not detect a change in the trend of the rigor of single-case research following the establishment of What Works Clearinghouse single-case design standards. Implications are discussed for practitioners and researchers. Study data, syntax, and supplemental materials are available for public use at https://osf.io/xp7wv/.

Evaluating Behavioral Skills Training as an Evidence-Based Practice When Training Parents to Intervene with Their Children

The authors of this systematic review identified 20 individual single-subject studies examining the efficacy of Behavior Skills Training (BST) implemented with parents. Findings indicate that researchers have used BST to successfully train parents to implement a range of evidence-based practices (EBP) with their own children. Parents of children with autism or intellectual disability made up the large majority of participants in these studies. Applying the methodological quality standards set by What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), the authors detail the evidence from 67 individual cases provided by single-subject design research. Practitioners looking to train parents of children with disabilities to implement EBPs can be confident that BST is an effective training practice.