Role of Research Syntheses for Identifying Evidence-Based Early Childhood Intervention Practices

Chapter

Abstract

The chapter includes the description of a framework for categorizing four types of studies (group design, single subject design, correlational, case studies) and four types of literature reviews (narrative, summative, systematic, meta-analysis) for conducting research syntheses which focus on the identification of the key characteristics of early childhood intervention practices and their functional or statistical relationship to the behavior the practices are intended to change or improve. Examples of each type of research synthesis of one or more types of studies are described. The framework and examples are the foundation for describing practice-based research syntheses and the yield from these types of literature reviews for identifying the key characteristics, features, elements, active ingredients, etc., of evidence-based early childhood intervention practices. Examples of five different practice-based research syntheses are described to illustrate what can be learned from these types of literature reviews. The chapter concludes with a description of gaps in the knowledge base and the need for additional research syntheses of early childhood intervention practices.

Keywords

Systematic review Meta-analysis Synthesis Review Children with disabilities Early intervention Early childhood special education Early childhood Special education Children with special needs 

References

  1. Akobeng, A. K. (2005). Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 90, 845–848. doi:10.1136/adc.2004.058230.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. M., Shinn, C., Fullilove, M. T., Scrimshaw, S., Fielding, J. E., & Normand, J. (2003). The effectiveness of early childhood development programs: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24(Suppl. 3), 32–41. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00655-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow, D. H., Nock, M., & Hersen, M. (2009). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior for change (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  4. Benzies, K. M., Magill-Evans, J. E., Hayden, K. A., & Ballantyne, M. (2013). Key components of early intervention programs for preterm infants and their parents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 13(Suppl. 1), 1–15. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-13-S1-S10.Google Scholar
  5. Blauw-Hospers, C. H., & Hadders-Algra, M. (2005). A systematic review of the effects of early intervention on motor development. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 47, 421–432. doi:10.1017/S0012162205000824.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 187–248). Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  7. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1999). Environments in developmental perspective: Theoretical and operational models. In S. L. Friedman & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Measuring environment across the life span: Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 3–28). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bult, M. K., Verschuren, O., Jongmans, M. J., Lindeman, E., & Ketelaar, M. (2011). What influences participation in leisure activities of children and youth with physical disabilities? A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 1521–1529. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.045.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bushman, B. J., & Wang, M. C. (2009). Vote-counting procedures in meta-analysis. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 207–220). New York, NY: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, P. H., Milbourne, S., Dugan, L. M., & Wilcox, M. J. (2006). A review of evidence on practices for teaching young children to use assistive technology devices. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26, 3–13. doi:10.1177/02711214060260010101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, P. H., Milbourne, S., & Wilcox, M. (2008). Adaptation interventions to promote participation in natural settings. Infants and Young Children, 21(2), 94–106. doi:10.1097/01.IYC.0000314481.16464.75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  13. Cheng, S., Kondo, N., Aoki, Y., Kitamura, Y., Takeda, Y., & Yamagata, Z. (2007). The effectiveness of early intervention and the factors related to child behavioural problems at age 2: A randomized controlled trial. Early Human Development, 83, 683–691. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2007.01.008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed-methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 67–100.Google Scholar
  16. Concato, J. (2004). Observational versus experimental studies: What’s the evidence for a hierarchy? NeuroRx, 1(3), 340–347. doi:10.1602/neurorx.1.3.341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooper, H. M. (1984). The integrative research review: A systematic approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Davies, P. (2000). The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education, 26, 365–378. doi:10.1080/713688543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dempsey, I., & Keen, D. (2008). A review of processes and outcomes in family-centered services for children with a disability. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 42–52. doi:10.1177/0271121408316699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dodd, K. J., Taylor, N. F., & Damiano, D. L. (2002). A systematic review of the effectiveness of strength-training programs for people with cerebral palsy. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 1157–1164. doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.34286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dunst, C. J. (2007). Social-emotional consequences of response-contingent learning opportunities. Asheville, NC: Winterberry Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dunst, C. J. (2011). Interest-based learning as an intervention practice for very young children with autism. In R. Holcraft (Ed.), Treatment strategies: Pediatrics (pp. 34–39). London, England: Cambridge Research Centre.Google Scholar
  24. Dunst, C. J. (2012, July). A simple effect size indicator for the meta-analysis of single participant design study findings. Presentation made at the U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs Project Directors Conference, Washington, DC. Retrieved from www.puckett.org/presentations
  25. Dunst, C. J., Gorman, E., & Hamby, D. W. (2010). Effects of adult verbal and vocal contingent responsiveness on increases in infant vocalizations. CELLreviews, 3(1), 1–11. Retrieved from http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/cellreviews/cellreviews_v13_n11.pdf
  26. Dunst, C. J., & Hamby, D. W. (2012). Guide for calculating and interpreting effect sizes and confidence intervals in intellectual and developmental disabilities research studies. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 37, 89–99. doi:10.3109/13668250.2012.673575.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dunst, C. J., & Kassow, D. Z. (2008). Caregiver sensitivity, contingent social responsiveness, and secure infant attachment. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 5, 40–56. Retrieved from http://www.jeibi.com/
  28. Dunst, C. J., Pace, J., & Hamby, D. W. (2007). Evaluation of the games for growing tool kit for promoting early contingency learning. Asheville, NC: Winterberry Press.Google Scholar
  29. Dunst, C. J., Raab, M., & Trivette, C. M. (2011). Characteristics of naturalistic language intervention strategies. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis, 5(3–4), 8–16. Retrieved from http://www.baojournal.com/SLP-ABA%20WEBSITE/index.html
  30. Dunst, C. J., Raab, M., Trivette, C. M., Parkey, C., Gatens, M., & Wilson, L. L. (2007). Child and adult social-emotional benefits of response-contingent child learning opportunities. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 4, 379–391. Retrieved from http://www.baojournal.com/JEIBI/jeibi-issues.html
  31. Dunst, C. J., Raab, M., Trivette, C. M., Wilson, L. L., Hamby, & D. W., Parkey, C. (2007). Characteristics of operant learning games associated with optimal child and adult social-emotional consequences. International Journal of Special Education, 22(3), 13–24. Retrieved from http://www.internationaljournalofspecialeducation.com/
  32. Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (2009a). Let’s be PALS: An evidence-based approach to professional development. Infants and Young Children, 22(3), 164–175. doi:10.1097/IYC.0b013e3181abe169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (2009b). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling of the influences of family-centered care on parent and child psychological health. International Journal of Pediatrics, 2009, 1–9. doi:10.1155/2009/596840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (2012). Moderators of the effectiveness of adult learning method practices. Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 143–148. doi:10.3844/jssp.2012.143.148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Davis, M., & Cornwell, J. (1988). Enabling and empowering families of children with health impairments. Children’s Health Care, 17, 71–81. doi:10.1207/s15326888chc1702_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2008). Research synthesis and meta-analysis of studies of family-centered practices. Asheville, NC: Winterberry Press.Google Scholar
  37. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of four adult learning methods and strategies. International Journal of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning, 3(1), 91–112. Retrieved from http://research.hkuspace.hku.hk/journal/ijcell/
  38. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2012a). Effect of interest-based interventions on the social-communicative behavior of young children with autism spectrum disorders. CELLreviews, 5(6), 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/cellreviews/cellreviews_v15_n16.pdf
  39. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2012b). Meta-analysis of studies incorporating the interests of young children with autism spectrum disorders into early intervention practices. Autism Research and Treatment, 2012, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Humphries, T., Raab, M., & Roper, N. (2001). Contrasting approaches to natural learning environment interventions. Infants and Young Children, 14(2), 48–63. doi:10.1097/00001163-200114020-00007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Masiello, T. (2011). Exploratory investigation of the effects of interest-based learning on the development of young children with autism. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 15, 295–305. doi:10.1177/1362361310370971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Raab, M. (2013). An implementation science framework for conceptualizing and operationalizing fidelity in early childhood intervention studies. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(2), 85–101. doi:10.1177/1053815113502235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Raab, M. (2014). Everyday child language learning early intervention practices. Infants and Young Children, 27(3), 207–219. doi:10.1097/IYC.0000000000000015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Raab, M., & Masiello, T. (2008). Early child contingency learning and detection: Research evidence and implications for practice. Exceptionality, 16, 4–17. doi:10.1080/09362830701796743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Starnes, A. L., Hamby, D. W., & Gordon, N. J. (1993). Building and evaluating family support initiatives: A national study of programs for persons with developmental disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
  46. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Williams, L., Simkus, A., & Hamby, D. W. (2012). Relationships between inferential reading language strategies and young children’s comprehension and expressive language competencies. CELLreviews, 5(10), 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/cellreviews/cellreviews_v15_n10.pdf
  47. Dunst, C. J., Valentine, A., Raab, M., & Hamby, D. W. (2013). Relationship between child participation in everyday activities and early literacy and language development. CELLreviews, 6(1), 1–16. Retrieved from http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/cellreviews/CELLreviews_v16_n11.pdf
  48. Dyches, T. T., Smith, T. B., Korth, B. B., Roper, S. O., & Mandleco, B. (2012). Positive parenting of children with developmental disabilities: A meta-analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 2213–2220. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2012.06.015.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Emde, R. N., & Easterbrooks, M. A. (1985). Assessing maternal emotional availability in early development. In W. K. Frankenburg, R. N. Emde, & J. W. Sullivan (Eds.), Early identification of children at risk: An international perspective (pp. 79–101). New York, NY: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Erwin, E. J., Brotherson, M. J., & Summers, J. A. (2011). Understanding qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and opportunities in early childhood intervention research. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 186–200. doi:10.1177/1053815111425493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Fiese, B. H., Tomcho, T. J., Douglas, M., Josephs, K., Poltrock, S., & Baker, T. (2002). A review of 50 years of research on naturally occurring family routines and rituals: Cause for celebration? Journal of Family Psychology, 16(4), 381–390. doi:10.1037//0893-3200.16.4.381.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Goldstein, H., Lackey, K. C., & Schneider, N. J. B. (2014). A new framework for systematic reviews: Application to social skills interventions for preschoolers with autism. Exceptional Children, 80(3), 262–286. doi:10.1177/0014402914522423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hak, T., & Dul, J. (2010). Pattern matching. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 664–666). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Harder, H. (2010). Explanatory case study. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Hebbeler, K. M., & Gerlach-Downie, S. G. (2002). Inside the black box of home visiting: A qualitative analysis of why intended outcomes were not achieved. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 28–51. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00128-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hedges, L. V. (2008). What are effect sizes and why do we need them? Child Development Perspectives, 2, 167–171. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00060.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hemphill, J. F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist, 58, 78–79. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hinkley, T., Teychenne, M., Downing, K. L., Ball, K., Salmon, J., & Hesketh, K. D. (2014). Early childhood physical activity, sedentary behaviors and psychosocial well-being: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine, 62, 182–192. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.02.007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Strain, P. S., Todd, A. W., & Reed, H. K. (2002). Problem behavior interventions for young children with autism: A research synthesis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, 423–446.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Horner, R. H., 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. doi:10.1177/001440290507100203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ingersoll, B. (2011). The differential effect of three naturalistic language interventions on language use in children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 109–118. doi:10.1177/1098300710384507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Joseph, G. E., & Strain, P. S. (2003). Comprehensive evidence-based social-emotional curricula for young children: An analysis of efficacious adoption potential. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23, 65–76. doi:10.1177/02711214030230020201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kaiser, A. P., & Trent, J. A. (2007). Communication intervention for young children with disabilities: Naturalistic approaches to promoting development. In S. L. Odom, R. H. Horner, M. E. Snell, & J. Blacher (Eds.), Handbook of developmental disabilities (pp. 224–245). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  64. Kenny, D. (2004). Correlation and causality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  65. Kim, J. M., & Mahoney, G. (2004). The effects of mother’s style of interaction on children’s engagement: Implications for using responsive interventions with parents. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24, 31–38. doi:10.1177/02711214040240010301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kim, A.-H., Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B., Hughes, M. T., Sloan, C. V. M., & Sridhar, D. (2003). Effects of toys or group composition for children with disabilities: A synthesis. Journal of Early Intervention, 25, 189–205. doi:10.1177/105381510302500304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Klassen, T. P., Jahad, A. R., & Moher, D. (1998). Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 152(7), 700–704. doi:10.1001/archpedi.152.8.812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Koerting, J., Smith, E., Knowles, M. M., Latter, S., Elsey, H., & McCann, D. C. (2013). Barriers to, and facilitators of, parenting programmes for childhood behaviour problems: A qualitative synthesis of studies of parents’ and professionals’ perceptions. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 22(11), 653–670. doi:10.1007/s00787-013-0401-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Korfmacher, J., Green, B., Staerkel, F., Peterson, C., Cook, G., & Roggman, L. (2008). Parent involvement in early childhood home visiting. Child and Youth Care Forum, 37, 171–196. doi:10.1007/s10566-008-9057-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., & Rindskopf, D. M. (2010). Single-case design technical documentation. Rockville, MD: What Works Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
  71. Kreichauf, S., Wildgruber, A., Krombholz, H., Gibson, E. L., Vögele, C., & Nixon, C. A. (2012). Critical narrative review to identify educational strategies promoting physical activity in preschool. Obesity Reviews, 13(s1), 96–105. doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00973.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Law, M. C., Darrah, J., Pollock, N., Wilson, B., Russell, D. J., & Walter, S. D. (2011). Focus on function: A cluster, randomized controlled trial comparing child-versus context-focused intervention for young children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 53, 621–629. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.03962.x.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Layzer, J. I., Goodson, B. D., Bernstein, L., & Price, C. (2001). National evaluation of family support programs: Vol. A. The meta-analysis. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.Google Scholar
  74. Leichsenring, F. (2004). Randomized controlled versus naturalistic studies: A new research agenda. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 68(2), 137–151. doi:10.1521/bumc.68.2.137.35952.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Lequia, J., Machalicek, W., & Rispoli, M. J. (2012). Effects of activity schedules on challenging behavior exhibited in children with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 480–492. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2011.07.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lipsey, M. W. (1993). Theory as method: Small theories of treatments. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 57, 5–38. doi:10.1002/ev.1637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Lucas, S. M., & Cutspec, P. A. (2007). The role and process of literature searching in the preparation of a research synthesis. Asheville, NC: Winterberry Press.Google Scholar
  78. Mahoney, G., & Nam, S. (2011). The parenting model of developmental intervention. International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 74–118. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-386495-6.00003-5.Google Scholar
  79. Marulis, L. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80, 300–335. doi:10.3102/0034654310377087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. McBride, S. L., & Peterson, C. (1997). Home-based early intervention with families of children with disabilities: Who is doing what? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17, 209–233. doi:10.1177/027112149701700206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. McConachie, H., & Diggle, T. (2007). Parent implemented early intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 13, 120–129. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00674.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., de Jong, M. T., & Smeets, D. J. H. (2008). Added value of dialogic parent-child book readings: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development, 19, 7–26. doi:10.1080/10409280701838603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Creemers, B., Timperley, H., & Earl, L. (2014). State of the art—Teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 25(2), 231–256. doi:10.1080/09243453.2014.885451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Nievar, M. A., & Becker, B. J. (2008). Sensitivity as a privileged predictor of attachment: A second perspective on De Wolff and van IJzendoorn’s meta-analysis. Social Development, 17, 102–114. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00417.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Odom, S. L., 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. doi:10.1177/001440290507100201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Odom, S. L., Brown, W. H., Frey, T., Karasu, N., Smith-Canter, L. L., & Strain, P. (2003). Evidence based practices for young children with autism: Contributions for single-subject design research. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18, 166–175. doi:10.1177/10883576030180030401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Odom, S. L., Vitztum, J., Wolery, R., Lieber, J., Sandall, S., & Hanson, M. J. (2004). Preschool inclusion in the United States: A review of research from an ecological systems perspective. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 4, 17–49. doi:10.1111/J.1471-3802.2004.00016.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003). Effect sizes in qualitative research: A prolegomenon. Quality and Quantity, 37, 393–409. doi:10.1023/A:1027379223537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., & Davis, J. L. (2011). Effect size in single-case research: A review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behavior Modification, 35, 303–322. doi:10.1177/0145445511399147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  91. Penn, H., & Lloyd, E. (2006). Using systematic reviews to investigate research in early childhood. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4, 311–330. doi:10.1177/1476718X06067582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Pennington, L., Goldbart, J., & Marshall, J. (2004). Interaction training for conversational partners of children with cerebral palsy: A systematic review. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 151–170. doi:10.1080/13682820310001625598.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Raab, M., & Dunst, C. J. (2009). Magic seven steps to responsive teaching: Revised and updated. Asheville, NC: Winterberry Press.Google Scholar
  94. Raab, M., Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (2013). Adult learning procedure for promoting caregiver use of everyday child language learning practices. Everyday Child Language Learning Reports, 3, 1–9. Retrieved from http://www.cecll.org/download/ECLLReport_3_AdultLearning.pdf
  95. Rakap, S., & Parlak-Rakap, A. (2011). Effectiveness of embedded instruction in early childhood special education: A literature review. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19, 79–96. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2011.548946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Roberts, M. Y., & Kaiser, A. P. (2011). The effectiveness of parent-implemented language interventions: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20, 180–199. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0055).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J., & Viols, C. I. (2008). Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(1), 99–111. doi:10.1002/nur.20176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Schlosser, R. W., & Sigafoos, J. (2006). Augmentative and alternative communication interventions for persons with developmental disabilities: Narrative review of comparative single-subject experimental studies. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27(1), 1–29. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2004.04.004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  100. Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (2009). Combining estimates of effect size. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 257–277). New York, NY: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  101. Shadish, W. R., & Sweeney, R. B. (1991). Mediators and moderators in meta-analysis: There’s a reason we don’t let dodo birds tell us which psychotherapies should have prizes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 883–893. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.59.6.883.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Shields, L., Pratt, J., & Hunter, J. (2006). Family centred care: A review of qualitative studies. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 15, 1317–1323. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01433.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Tarabulsy, G. M., Tessier, R., & Kappas, A. (1996). Contingency detection and the contingent organization of behavior in interactions: Implications for socioemotional development in infancy. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 25–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Thompson, B. (2007). Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and confidence intervals for effect sizes. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 423–432. doi:10.1002/pits.20234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Trivette, C. M., & Dunst, C. J. (2007). Relative effectiveness of dialogic, interactive, and shared reading interventions. CELLreviews, 1(2), 1–12. Retrieved from http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/cellreviews/cellreviews_v11_n12.pdf
  106. Trivette, C. M., & Dunst, C. J. (2011). Consequences of interest-based learning on the social-affective behavior of young children with autism. Life Span and Disability, 14, 101–110.Google Scholar
  107. Trivette, C. M., Dunst, C. J., & Hamby, D. W. (2010). Influences of family-systems intervention practices on parent-child interactions and child development. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30, 3–19. doi: 10.1177/0271121410364250.Google Scholar
  108. Trivette, C. M., Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D. W., & O’Herin, C. E. (2010). Effects of different types of adaptations on the behavior of young children with disabilities. Research Brief (Tots N Tech Research Institute), 4(1), 1–26. Retrieved from http://tnt.asu.edu/files/Adaptaqtions_Brief_final.pdf
  109. Trivette, C. M., Raab, M., & Dunst, C. J. (2014). Factors associated with Head Start staff participation in classroom-based professional development. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 2(4), 32–45. doi:10.11114/jets.v2i4.449.Google Scholar
  110. Uman, L. S. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(1), 57–69. doi:10.1002/9781444311723.ch8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  111. van Kleeck, A. (2006). Fostering inferential Language during book sharing with prereaders: A foundation for later text comprehension strategies. In A. Van Kleeck (Ed.), Sharing books and stories to promote language and literacy (pp. 269–317). San Diego, CA: Plural.Google Scholar
  112. Vanderveen, J., Bassler, D., Robertson, C., & Kirpalani, H. (2009). Early interventions involving parents to improve neurodevelopmental outcomes of premature infants: A meta-analysis. Journal of Perinatology, 29, 343–351. doi:10.1038/jp.2008.229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Vu, J. A., Hustedt, J. T., Pinder, W. M., & Han, M. (2014). Building early relationships: A review of caregiver–child interaction interventions for use in community-based early childhood programmes. Early Child Development and Care. doi:10.1080/03004430.2014.908864.Google Scholar
  114. Warren, S. F., & Brady, N. C. (2007). The role of maternal responsivity in the development of children with intellectual disabilities. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 330–338. doi:10.1002/mrdd.20177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Warren, Z., McPheeters, M. L., Sathe, N., Foss-Feig, J. H., Glasser, A., & Veenstra-VanderWeele, J. (2011). A systematic review of early intensive intervention for autism spectrum disorders. Pediatrics, 127, e1303–e1311. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0426.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Warren, S. F., Yoder, P. J., Gazdag, G. E., Kim, K., & Jones, H. A. (1993). Facilitating prelinguistic communication skills in young children with developmental delay. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 83–97. doi:10.1044/jshr.3601.83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. What Works Clearinghouse. (2006a). Dialogic reading. Rockville, MD: Author.Google Scholar
  118. What Works Clearinghouse. (2006b). Shared book reading. Rockville, MD: Author.Google Scholar
  119. What Works Clearinghouse. (2007). Interactive shared book reading. Rockville, MD: Author.Google Scholar
  120. White, P. J., O’Reilly, M., Streusand, W., Levine, A., Sigafoos, J., & Lancioni, G. (2011). Best practices for teaching joint attention: A systematic review of the intervention literature. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 1283–1295. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2011.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Wolery, M., Busick, M., Reichow, B., & Barton, E. E. (2010). Comparison of overlap methods for quantitatively synthesizing single subject data. Journal of Special Education, 44, 18–28. doi:10.1177/0022466908328009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Wortman, P. M. (1994). Judging research quality. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 97–109). New York, NY: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  123. Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  124. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  125. Ziviani, J., Feeney, R., Rodger, S., & Watter, P. (2010). Systematic review of early intervention programmes for children from birth to nine years old who have a physical disability. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 57(4), 201–223. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1630.2010.00850.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orelena Hawks Puckett InstituteMorgantonUSA

Personalised recommendations