Abstract
Background
The research on evidence-based practices (EBP) in special education has shifted over the last decade from identifying efficacious interventions to exploring issues that impede implementation in the classroom. Common barriers to implementation include absence of training and resources, limited collaboration between researchers and practitioners, and the lack of fit between the intervention and environment. These obstacles are frequently cited in the literature in relation to the disparity between research and practice. Although the barriers cited in the research are valid, it is important for stakeholders to investigate this issue from other perspectives and to consider obstacles not readily discussed.
Objective
The purpose of this article is to examine how contradictions between implementation fidelity and individualized instruction, and misconceptions between educational terminology and legislation, all impede implementation of evidence-based practices.
Method
A review of the EBP literature was conducted, beginning with pivotal research discussed in evidence-based reviews to examine the differences between EBPs and other terminology. Additionally, the outcomes of various court cases were reviewed to determine whether EBPs are in fact legally required.
Conclusion
A new set of assumptions is required to highlight the barriers not readily discussed regarding the implementation of EBPs. Specifically, the importance of individualizing instruction for students and how these modifications and accommodations may impact fidelity of implementation. Additionally, researchers and policymakers must clarify the ambiguous language used in legislation and relevant terminology, and communicate these discrepancies to all stakeholders.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Cook, B., Buysse, V., Klingner, J., Landrum, T., McWilliam, R., Tankersley, M., et al. (2014). Council for exceptional children: Standards for evidence-based practices in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(6), 206–212.
Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2011). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 71–82.
Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2013). Moving research into practice: Can we make dissemination stick? Exceptional Children, 79(2), 163–180.
Cook, B., & Odom, S. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 29(2), 135–144.
Daniel, P. (2008). “Some benefit” or “maximum benefit”: Does the no child left behind act render greater educational entitlement to students with disabilities. Journal of Law and Education, 37(3), 347–365.
Dingfelder, H. E., & Mandell, D. S. (2011). Bridging the research-to-practice gap in autism intervention: An application of diffusion innovation theory. Journal of Autism and Other Developmental Disorders, 41, 597–609.
Etscheidt, S., & Curran, C. M. (2010). Reauthorization of the individuals with disabilities education improvement act (IDEA, 2004): The peer-reviewed research requirement. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21, 29–39.
Fixsen, D., Blasé, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 213–230.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.
Mandell, D. S., Stahmer, A. C., Shin, S., Xie, M., Reisinger, E., & Marcus, S. C. (2013). The role of treatment fidelity on outcomes during a randomized field trial of an autism intervention. Autism, 17(3), 281–295.
No Child Left Behind Act (2002). 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.
Odom, S., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.
Pinder, K. A. (2008). Using federal law to prescribe pedagogy: Lessons learned from the scientifically-based research requirements of no child left behind. The Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, 6(47), 47–83.
Ramanathan, A. (2008). Paved with good intentions: The federal role in the oversight and enforcement of the individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) and the no child left behind act (NCLB). Teachers College Record, 110(2), 278–321.
Smith, G. J., Schmidt, M. M., Edelen-Smith, P. J., & Cook, B. G. (2013). Pasteur’s quadrant as the bridge-linking rigor with relevance. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 147–161.
Sparks, S. D. (2016). Evidence requirements are redefined in essa. Education Week, 35(15), 18.
Zirkel, P. A. (2008). A legal roadmap of sbr, prr, and related terms under the IDEA. Focus on Exceptional Children, 40(5), 1–5.
Zirkel, P. A. (2013). Is it time for elevating the standard for FAPE under IDEA? Exceptional Children, 79, 497–508.
Zirkel, P. A., & Rose, T. (2009). Scientifically based research and peer-reviewed research under the IDEA: The legal definitions, applications, and implications. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 22(1), 36–50.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no conflict of interest.
Ethics Statement
This study does not include primary data, thus, no ethics approval was applicable.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Russo-Campisi, J. Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education: Current Assumptions and Future Considerations. Child Youth Care Forum 46, 193–205 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-017-9390-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-017-9390-5