Inside IES Research

In October, the Council for Exceptional Children’s Division for Early Childhood (DEC) honored recipients of the DEC Awards at their Annual International Conference on Young Children with Special Needs and Their Families. These awards are conferred upon individuals who are making a difference in the lives of young children with disabilities and their families. A number of NCSER-funded Principal Investigators (PIs) were among those honored by the DEC.

Kathleen Hebbeler (left) was one of two recipients of the Mary McEvoy Service to the Field Award, which recognizes an individual who has made significant national or international contributions to the field of early childhood special education. Dr. Hebbeler, of SRI International, has served as the PI on two NCSER-funded awards. She explored participation in and characteristics of early intervention services that predict child outcomes in kindergarten using data from the National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study. She also examined the reliability and validity of the Child Outcomes Summary Form, a tool used by many states in reporting annual child progress for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) preschool programs.

Karin Lifter (center) was the recipient of the Merle B. Karnes Award for Service to the Division for Early Childhood. This award recognizes an individual who has made a significant contribution to DEC in areas of leadership, service, research, advocacy, or publications. With NCSER funding, Dr. Lifter, of Northeastern University, has been validating the Developmental Play Assessment, an instrument designed to generate a profile of a child’s skills in play for progress monitoring and instructional planning. 

Michaelene M. Ostrosky (right) was awarded the DEC Award for Mentoring, an honor that recognizes an individual who has provided significant guidance to the development of students and/or new practitioners in the field. This award highlights the importance of training and guiding the next generation of leaders in the field. Dr. Ostrosky, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, served as PI on a project to evaluate the efficacy of Special Friends, a class-wide kindergarten program designed to improve the social outcomes of children with disabilities. She is currently serving as co-PI on a project that is developing a class-wide motor skills intervention for preschool children with developmental disabilities, called CHildren in Action: Motor Program for PreschoolerS (CHAMPPS).

Written by Amy Sussman, program officer, NCSER and Wendy Wei, program assistant, NCSER/NCER

Replication research may not grab the headlines, but reproducing findings from previous studies is critical for advancing scientific knowledge. Some have raised concerns about whether we conduct a sufficient number of replication studies. This concern has drawn increased attention from scholars in a variety of fields, including special education.

Several special education researchers explored this issue in a recent Special Series on Replication Research in Special Education in the journal, Remedial and Special Education. The articles describe replication concepts and issues, systematically review the state of replication research in special education, and provide recommendations for the field. One finding is that there may be more replication studies than it seems—but authors don’t call them replications.

Contributors to the special issue include Bryan Cook from the University of Hawaii, Michael Coyne from the University of Connecticut, and Bill Therrien from the University of Virginia, who served as guest editors, and Chris Lemons, from Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. They shared more about the special issue and their collective insights into replications in special education research.

(In photo array, top left going clockwise: Therrien, Lemons, Coyne, and Cook)

How did you become interested in replication work?

Replication is a core component of the scientific method. Despite this basic fact that we all learned in Research 101, it is pretty apparent that in practice, replication is often ignored. We noticed how much attention the lack of replication was starting to get in other fields and in the press and were particularly alarmed by recent work showing that replications often fail to reproduce original findings. This made us curious about the state and nature of replication in the field of special education.

What is the state of replication research in special education?

It depends on how you define replication and how you search for replication articles. When a narrow definition is used and you require the term “replication” to be in the article, the rate of replication doesn’t look too good. Using this method, Lemons et al. (2016) and Makel et al. (2016) reported that the rate of replication in special education is between 0.4 to 0.5%, meaning that out of all the articles published in our field, less than 1% are replications. We suspected that—for a number of reasons (e.g., perceptions that replications are difficult to publish, are less prestigious than novel studies, and are hostile attempts to disprove a colleague’s work)—researchers might be conducting replication studies but not referring to them as such. And, indeed it’s a different story when you use a broad definition and you do not require the term replication to be in the article. Cook et al. (2016) found that out of 83 intervention studies published in six non-categorical special education journals from 2013-2014, there were 26 (31%) that could be considered replications, though few authors described their studies that way. Therrien et al. (2016) selected eight intervention studies from 1999-2001 and determined whether subsequently published studies that cited the original investigations had replicated them. They found that six of the eight original studies had been replicated by a total of 39 different studies (though few of the replications identified themselves as such).

What were some other key findings across the review articles?

Additional findings indicated that: (a) most replications conducted in special education are conceptual (i.e., some aspects are the same as the original study, but some are different) as opposed to direct (i.e., as similar to the original study as possible), (b) the findings of the majority of replications in special education agreed with the findings of the original studies, and (c) most replications in the field are conducted by one or more authors involved in the original studies. In three of the four reviews, we found it was more likely for a replication to produce the same outcome if there was author overlap between the original and replication studies. This may be due to the challenges of replicating a study with the somewhat limited information provided in a manuscript. It also emphasizes the importance of having more than one research team independently replicate study findings.  

What are your recommendations for the field around replicating special education interventions?

The article by Coyne et al. (2016) describes initial recommendations for how to conceptualize and carry out replication research in a way that contributes to the evidence about effective practices for students with disabilities and the conditions under which they are more or less effective:

• Many studies evaluate an approach that has previously been studied under different conditions. In this case, researchers should specify which aspects replicate previous research;
• Conceptualize and report intervention research within a framework of systematic replications, or a continuum of conceptual replications ranging from those that are more closely aligned to the original study to those that are less aligned;
• Design and conduct closely aligned replications that duplicate, as faithfully as possible, the features of previous studies.
• Design and conduct less closely aligned replications that intentionally vary essential components of earlier studies (e.g., participants, setting, intervention features, outcome measures, and analyses); and
• Interpret findings using a variety of methods, including statistical significance, directions of effects, and effect sizes. We also encourage the use of meta-analytic aggregation of effects across studies.

One example of a high-quality replication study is by Doabler et al. The authors conducted a closely aligned replication study of a Tier 2 kindergarten math intervention. In the design of their IES-funded project, the authors planned a priori to conduct a replication study that would vary on several dimensions, including geographical location, participant characteristics, and instructional context. We believe this is a nice model of designing, conducting, and reporting a replication study.

Ultimately, we need to conduct more replication studies, we need to call them replications, we need to better describe how they are alike and different from the original study, and we need to strive for replication by researchers not involved in the original study. It is this type of work that may increase the impact research has on practice, because it strengthens our understanding of whether, when, and where an intervention works.

By Katie Taylor, Program Officer, National Center for Special Education Research

Although traditional pencil and paper tests provide good information for many purposes, technology presents the opportunity to assess students on tasks that better elicit the real world skills called for by college and career standards. IES supports a number of researchers and developers who are using technology to develop better assessments through grants as well as the Small Business Innovation Research program. 

One example of the power of technology to support innovative assessment  is the Global, Integrated, Scenario-based Assessment (known as ‘GISA’), developed by John Sabatini and Tenaha O’Reilly at the Educational Testing Service as part of a grant supported by the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative.

Each GISA scenario is structured to resemble a timely, real-world situation. For example, one scenario begins by explaining that the class has been asked to create a website on green schools. The student is assigned the task of working with several students (represented by computer avatars) to create the website. In working through the scenario, the student engages in activities that are scaffolded to support students in summarizing information, completing a graphic organizer, and collaborating to evaluate whether statements are facts or opinions. The scenario provides a measure of each student’s ability to learn from text through assessing his or her knowledge of green schools before and after completing the scenario. This scenario is available on the ETS website along with more information about the principles on which GISA was built.

Karen Douglas, of the National Center for Education Research, recently spoke to Dr. Sabatini and Dr. O’Reilly on the role of technology in creating GISA, what users think of it, and their plans for continuing to develop technology-based assessments.

How did the use of technology contribute to the design of GISA?

Technological delivery creates many opportunities over more traditional paper and pencil test designs. On the efficiency side of the argument, items and tasks can be delivered over the internet in a standardized way and there are obvious advantages for automated scoring. However, the real advantage has to do with both the control over test environment and what can be assessed. We can more effectively simulate the digital environments that students use in school, leisure and, later, in the workforce. GISA uses scenario-based assessment to deliver items and tasks. During a scenario-based assessment students are given a plausible reason for reading a collection of thematically related materials. The purpose defines what is important to focus on as students work towards a larger goal. The materials are diverse and may reflect different perspectives and quality of information. 

In 2013, the National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) launched the Accelerating the Academic Achievement of Students with Learning Disabilities Research Initiative (A3). The goal was to develop and evaluate intensive interventions—such as curricula, instructional approaches and technology—that could improve the academic achievement of students with or at risk of a disability.

A five-year grant in this initiative went to Dr. Douglas Fuchs and Dr. Lynn Fuchs (pictured), of Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College, who for the past three years have been developing and piloting intensive interventions focused on improving students’ reading comprehension of informational texts and fraction and pre-algebra performance.

Earlier this month, the Fuchs joined Dr. Lou Danielson and Dr. Rebecca Zumeta Edmonds from the National Center on Intensive Interventions (NCII) for a webinar: “Intensive Intervention: What is it, Who it’s For, and Why it’s Important?” (NCII is a research initiative funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs.)

The NCII/A3 webinar was purposely held in October—which is Learning Disabilities Awareness Month—to raise awareness of research and resources to support students with learning disabilities. The session was recorded and is available through the NCII website or you can watch it below.

The panelists discussed the intensive intervention process, methods of identifying students not making adequate academic progress, and recent related research. Specifically, the Fuchs’ shared their research designing and piloting two innovative components that seek to expand responsiveness to intervention:

• Capitalizing on the power of prior knowledge to build informational text comprehension; and
• Capitalizing on the power of executive function to build fractions knowledge

As part of this NCSER A3 Initiative, these and other intervention components are being developed, integrated into comprehensive intervention programs, and rigorously tested. Please visit the project website to learn more and keep up to date with the latest findings from this research. Viewers of the recorded webinar can also learn more about implementation support resources available through NCII.

In the final years of their five-year NCSER grant, Doug and Lynn Fuchs will work to understand the efficacy of intensive interventions for improving outcomes for students with learning disabilities.  

Written by Sarah Brasiel, Program Officer, NCSER

Photo by Wolf Hoffmann,courtesy of Vanderbilt University

A paper based on an IES-funded grant has been recognized as a “must read” by the Council for Learning Disabilities.

IES-funded researcher, Stephen Hooper, and his colleagues were recently recognized by the Council for their paper: Writing disabilities and reading disabilities in elementary school students: Rates of co-occurrence and cognitive burden (PDF). The paper was written by Lara-Jeane Costa, Crystal Edwards, and Dr. Hooper and published in Learning Disability Quarterly. Every year, the Council for Learning Disabilities acknowledges outstanding work published in its journals and selected this paper as one of two Must Read pieces for 2016. The authors will present on the paper at the Council's annual conference in San Antonio this week (October 13-14, 2016).

This paper was funded through a grant from the National Center for Education Research (NCER) to examine written language development and writing problems, and the efficacy of an intervention aimed at improving early writing skills. The results of the paper found that the rate of students with both writing and reading disabilities increased from first to fourth grade and these students showed lower ability in language, fine motor skills and memory compared with students with neither disability or only a writing disability.  

The team continues their IES-funded work by looking at the efficacy of the Self-Regulated Strategy Development intervention on struggling middle school writers’ academic outcomes.

Written by Becky McGill-Wilkinson, Education Research Analyst, NCER