Pub Date : 2026-01-31DOI: 10.1177/01987429261416533
Julie Atwood, Jacquelyn Purser, Corey Peltier, Brittany L. Hott
Classroom teachers may be tasked with implementing behavior intervention plans (BIPs) requiring intensive individualized intervention for students with significant behavioral needs. However, depending on teacher knowledge and experience, districts may need more time, resources, or personnel to provide sufficient support and training for educators to ensure that BIPs are implemented with fidelity. This study used a nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across participants to investigate the effects of a delayed online performance feedback intervention on increasing mean levels of fidelity of BIP implementation across two classroom teachers. Data indicate that both participants showed increases in the mean fidelity of BIP implementation following intervention. A pre-intervention/post-intervention social validity survey indicated high teacher acceptance of the delayed online performance feedback intervention, suggesting the intervention may be helpful for districts with limited resources and a cost/time-effective alternative to traditional teacher training models that could be implemented district-wide. Future research directions are discussed.
{"title":"Effects of Delayed Online Performance Feedback on BIP Implementation Fidelity","authors":"Julie Atwood, Jacquelyn Purser, Corey Peltier, Brittany L. Hott","doi":"10.1177/01987429261416533","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429261416533","url":null,"abstract":"Classroom teachers may be tasked with implementing behavior intervention plans (BIPs) requiring intensive individualized intervention for students with significant behavioral needs. However, depending on teacher knowledge and experience, districts may need more time, resources, or personnel to provide sufficient support and training for educators to ensure that BIPs are implemented with fidelity. This study used a nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across participants to investigate the effects of a delayed online performance feedback intervention on increasing mean levels of fidelity of BIP implementation across two classroom teachers. Data indicate that both participants showed increases in the mean fidelity of BIP implementation following intervention. A pre-intervention/post-intervention social validity survey indicated high teacher acceptance of the delayed online performance feedback intervention, suggesting the intervention may be helpful for districts with limited resources and a cost/time-effective alternative to traditional teacher training models that could be implemented district-wide. Future research directions are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47249,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Disorders","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146098403","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-26DOI: 10.1177/01987429251409776
Rayan Alqunaysi, Hedda Meadan
Professionals working with individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities in Saudi Arabia have identified limited professional development opportunities related to autism as a persistent challenge. They also report insufficient use of data to inform decisions regarding plans and instructions for autistic individuals. To address these needs, we culturally and linguistically adapted online training modules that cover strategies based on applied behavior analysis (ABA) principles to address challenging behaviors exhibited by individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities. We employed a convergent mixed-methods design to assess the training modules’ impact on the participants’ knowledge and self-efficacy and evaluate the social validity of the training modules. We collected quantitative data using various scales to assess knowledge and self-efficacy and gathered qualitative data via semi-structured interviews and a social validity questionnaire. The results indicate that the culturally and linguistically adapted online training modules positively impacted the participants’ knowledge and self-efficacy and were perceived as socially valid, although participants identified areas for improvement. Limitations and implications for practice and future research are discussed.
{"title":"Evaluating the Impact of Online Training Addressing Challenging Behaviors of Children With Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities in Saudi Arabia: A Pilot Mixed-Methods Study","authors":"Rayan Alqunaysi, Hedda Meadan","doi":"10.1177/01987429251409776","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429251409776","url":null,"abstract":"Professionals working with individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities in Saudi Arabia have identified limited professional development opportunities related to autism as a persistent challenge. They also report insufficient use of data to inform decisions regarding plans and instructions for autistic individuals. To address these needs, we culturally and linguistically adapted online training modules that cover strategies based on applied behavior analysis (ABA) principles to address challenging behaviors exhibited by individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities. We employed a convergent mixed-methods design to assess the training modules’ impact on the participants’ knowledge and self-efficacy and evaluate the social validity of the training modules. We collected quantitative data using various scales to assess knowledge and self-efficacy and gathered qualitative data via semi-structured interviews and a social validity questionnaire. The results indicate that the culturally and linguistically adapted online training modules positively impacted the participants’ knowledge and self-efficacy and were perceived as socially valid, although participants identified areas for improvement. Limitations and implications for practice and future research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47249,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Disorders","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146048485","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-23DOI: 10.1177/01987429251409768
Ashley Rila, Seth A. King, Allison L. Bruhn, Sara Estrapala
Interventions for students with or at-risk of emotional/behavioral disorders (EBDs) frequently target idiosyncratic behaviors defined by teachers, behavior specialists, or researchers. Consequently, the extent to which a problem behavior exists and the operationalization of the problem behavior largely depend on the perceptions of school staff. A number of research practices, including the use of standardized screening measures and the assessment of social validity, are designed to ensure that students who receive behavior interventions present with legitimate problems that are meaningful to stakeholders. The prevalence of such methods in recent studies for children with EBD remains unclear. This review examined the use of methods to validate the need for behavior intervention in single-case design studies involving EBD published in Behavior Disorders from 2000 to 2021. Identified articles ( n = 34) featured 129 student participants. Teachers were typically responsible for identifying study participants; however, standardized screening methods were used in most articles. Targeted behaviors were generally created by researchers or teachers. Task engagement represented the dependent variable in more than 50% of studies. Less than half of the articles featured social validity, with many procedures assessing both teacher and student perspectives. Key findings, limitations, and implications for research and practice are discussed.
{"title":"Measures Validating the Behavior Intervention for Children With or At-Risk for Emotional/Behavioral Disorders: A Review","authors":"Ashley Rila, Seth A. King, Allison L. Bruhn, Sara Estrapala","doi":"10.1177/01987429251409768","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429251409768","url":null,"abstract":"Interventions for students with or at-risk of emotional/behavioral disorders (EBDs) frequently target idiosyncratic behaviors defined by teachers, behavior specialists, or researchers. Consequently, the extent to which a problem behavior exists and the operationalization of the problem behavior largely depend on the perceptions of school staff. A number of research practices, including the use of standardized screening measures and the assessment of social validity, are designed to ensure that students who receive behavior interventions present with legitimate problems that are meaningful to stakeholders. The prevalence of such methods in recent studies for children with EBD remains unclear. This review examined the use of methods to validate the need for behavior intervention in single-case design studies involving EBD published in <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">Behavior Disorders</jats:italic> from 2000 to 2021. Identified articles ( <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">n</jats:italic> = 34) featured 129 student participants. Teachers were typically responsible for identifying study participants; however, standardized screening methods were used in most articles. Targeted behaviors were generally created by researchers or teachers. Task engagement represented the dependent variable in more than 50% of studies. Less than half of the articles featured social validity, with many procedures assessing both teacher and student perspectives. Key findings, limitations, and implications for research and practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47249,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Disorders","volume":"101 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146042675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-19DOI: 10.1177/01987429251410961
Amy K. Wasersztein, Matt Tincani, Tess Fruchtman, Jason C. Travers, Katie Kostin, Olivia Wallace, Bruna F. Gonçalves, Bryan G. Cook, Art Dowdy
Crisis management programs are marketed to help special education professionals support students with disabilities who engage in challenging behavior. There is a critical need to appraise the evidence supporting these programs, particularly whether they benefit students in crisis intervention and prevention. This need is particularly urgent given documented misapplication and overuse of physical restraint, which is a common component of these programs. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the research in support of crisis management programs that target PK–12 students with disabilities who display challenging behavior in educational settings. We conducted database searches, ancestral searches, and website searches of organizations that produce crisis management programs to identify published and unpublished studies evaluating the programs. Our search process yielded just six studies evaluating five of 23 commercially available crisis management programs. Given the scarcity of supporting studies, none of the programs meet currently established thresholds for evidence-based practice in special education. Our review identifies a critical need for rigorous research on these programs to inform practice and policy, ensuring student safety and wellbeing. Consumers should exercise caution in adopting these programs based on claims made by the programs’ producers.
{"title":"Systematic Review of Crisis Management Programs for Students With Disabilities","authors":"Amy K. Wasersztein, Matt Tincani, Tess Fruchtman, Jason C. Travers, Katie Kostin, Olivia Wallace, Bruna F. Gonçalves, Bryan G. Cook, Art Dowdy","doi":"10.1177/01987429251410961","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429251410961","url":null,"abstract":"Crisis management programs are marketed to help special education professionals support students with disabilities who engage in challenging behavior. There is a critical need to appraise the evidence supporting these programs, particularly whether they benefit students in crisis intervention and prevention. This need is particularly urgent given documented misapplication and overuse of physical restraint, which is a common component of these programs. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the research in support of crisis management programs that target PK–12 students with disabilities who display challenging behavior in educational settings. We conducted database searches, ancestral searches, and website searches of organizations that produce crisis management programs to identify published and unpublished studies evaluating the programs. Our search process yielded just six studies evaluating five of 23 commercially available crisis management programs. Given the scarcity of supporting studies, none of the programs meet currently established thresholds for evidence-based practice in special education. Our review identifies a critical need for rigorous research on these programs to inform practice and policy, ensuring student safety and wellbeing. Consumers should exercise caution in adopting these programs based on claims made by the programs’ producers.","PeriodicalId":47249,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Disorders","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145995239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-19DOI: 10.1177/01987429251409770
Robin Parks Ennis, Lauren Evanovich, Antonis Katsiyannis, Ashley J. Shaw
Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) represent a diverse group of individuals, often characterized by internalizing and/or externalizing behavior patterns and comprised of students receiving special education services and those who do not. As the field seeks to identify evidence-based practices for students with EBD, we need a better understanding of the characteristics of students included under the umbrella of EBD. To accomplish this task, we conducted a hand search of the last 10 years (2015–2024) of intervention research within four prominent journals in the field of EBD. Our search yielded 102 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Once identified, we coded articles in terms of student, setting, and study characteristics, with particular focus on the procedures for screening, identification, and evaluation, to better understand the students sampled within EBD intervention research. Implications of these findings, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed. These findings point to a call for future researchers to engage in (a) clear distinction of EBD terminology; (b) explicit standards for the identification and description of student participants; (c) inclusion of students with internalizing, externalizing, and co-occurring behavior patterns; (d) combined or comprehensive interventions to support the complex needs of this population; and (e) more intervention research.
{"title":"Intervention Research for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders: Who Are We Serving? A Scoping Review and Call to Action","authors":"Robin Parks Ennis, Lauren Evanovich, Antonis Katsiyannis, Ashley J. Shaw","doi":"10.1177/01987429251409770","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429251409770","url":null,"abstract":"Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) represent a diverse group of individuals, often characterized by internalizing and/or externalizing behavior patterns and comprised of students receiving special education services and those who do not. As the field seeks to identify evidence-based practices for students with EBD, we need a better understanding of the characteristics of students included under the umbrella of EBD. To accomplish this task, we conducted a hand search of the last 10 years (2015–2024) of intervention research within four prominent journals in the field of EBD. Our search yielded 102 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Once identified, we coded articles in terms of student, setting, and study characteristics, with particular focus on the procedures for screening, identification, and evaluation, to better understand the students sampled within EBD intervention research. Implications of these findings, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed. These findings point to a call for future researchers to engage in (a) clear distinction of EBD terminology; (b) explicit standards for the identification and description of student participants; (c) inclusion of students with internalizing, externalizing, and co-occurring behavior patterns; (d) combined or comprehensive interventions to support the complex needs of this population; and (e) more intervention research.","PeriodicalId":47249,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Disorders","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145995238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-31DOI: 10.1177/01987429251407679
Angus Kittelman, Robert H. Horner
Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) is a multitiered approach to school-wide behavior support implemented in over 27,000 schools in the U.S. Although Tier 1 (universal behavior supports for all students) is widely scaled up within districts, districts often struggle to implement and scale up Tiers 2 and 3 (targeted or intensive supports for students with or at risk for behavioral disorders). In this paper, we propose that Tier 2 and 3 practices are less likely to be implemented with fidelity, and scaled up within districts, because schools and districts too often launch Tier 2 and 3 practices without the organizational systems needed for high-fidelity implementation. From an implementation science perspective, personnel preparation training in the practices associated with Tiers 2 and 3 too often occurs without completing the Exploration and Installation stages of effective implementation. Recommendations are offered for investing in the infrastructure needed to implement Tier 2 and Tier 3 practices within schools and to scale up these practices across schools within districts.
{"title":"Scaling Up Tier 2 and 3 Behavior Supports Within School Districts","authors":"Angus Kittelman, Robert H. Horner","doi":"10.1177/01987429251407679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429251407679","url":null,"abstract":"Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) is a multitiered approach to school-wide behavior support implemented in over 27,000 schools in the U.S. Although Tier 1 (universal behavior supports for all students) is widely scaled up within districts, districts often struggle to implement and scale up Tiers 2 and 3 (targeted or intensive supports for students with or at risk for behavioral disorders). In this paper, we propose that Tier 2 and 3 practices are less likely to be implemented with fidelity, and scaled up within districts, because schools and districts too often launch Tier 2 and 3 practices without the organizational systems needed for high-fidelity implementation. From an implementation science perspective, personnel preparation training in the practices associated with Tiers 2 and 3 too often occurs without completing the Exploration and Installation stages of effective implementation. Recommendations are offered for investing in the infrastructure needed to implement Tier 2 and Tier 3 practices within schools and to scale up these practices across schools within districts.","PeriodicalId":47249,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Disorders","volume":"253 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145893920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-13DOI: 10.1177/01987429251399205
John J. Augustine, Madison H. Imler-Brandt, Wendy L. Cornell, Megyn E. Martin, Charrisa D. Richards, Timothy J. Lewis
Over the last 50 years, Behavioral Disorders has been a leading journal for disseminating key information in the field of emotional and/or behavioral disorders (EBD). The current review extends previous work done by Gage and colleagues and provides a similar comprehensive summary of all articles published in Behavioral Disorders over the past 15 years. Several national and international events such as the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the COVID-19 pandemic have occurred since the original 2010 review. In this review, articles published in volumes 35(1) through 49(4) were reviewed and cataloged over multiple variables. Results provide a review of key trends across published manuscripts and discuss the most prominent trends published from the last decade and a half. Implications for the journal and field of EBD are discussed.
{"title":"A Comprehensive Review of Articles Published in Behavioral Disorders : Volumes 35–49","authors":"John J. Augustine, Madison H. Imler-Brandt, Wendy L. Cornell, Megyn E. Martin, Charrisa D. Richards, Timothy J. Lewis","doi":"10.1177/01987429251399205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429251399205","url":null,"abstract":"Over the last 50 years, <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">Behavioral Disorders</jats:italic> has been a leading journal for disseminating key information in the field of emotional and/or behavioral disorders (EBD). The current review extends previous work done by Gage and colleagues and provides a similar comprehensive summary of all articles published in <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">Behavioral Disorders</jats:italic> over the past 15 years. Several national and international events such as the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the COVID-19 pandemic have occurred since the original 2010 review. In this review, articles published in volumes 35(1) through 49(4) were reviewed and cataloged over multiple variables. Results provide a review of key trends across published manuscripts and discuss the most prominent trends published from the last decade and a half. Implications for the journal and field of EBD are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47249,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Disorders","volume":"143 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145730966","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-12DOI: 10.1177/01987429251400223
Bryan G. Cook, William J. Therrien
Registered Reports are a novel approach to publishing research that involves two rounds of peer review, one before and one after the study is conducted, that is starting to be used for systematic reviews, as in this special series. In the commentary, we briefly provide an overview of Registered Reports, including potential benefits (e.g., increased transparency, increased credibility due to constraining researcher flexibility, increased study quality and rigor due to prospective feedback from reviewers) and challenges (e.g., over-specifying exploratory elements of the review in the stage-1 manuscript, delayed or lack of completion after in-principle acceptance of the proposed study) for systematic reviews. We conclude with recommendations for addressing these challenges and for future research to inform the use of Registered Reports for systematic reviews.
{"title":"Commentary on Publishing Systematic Reviews as Registered Reports","authors":"Bryan G. Cook, William J. Therrien","doi":"10.1177/01987429251400223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429251400223","url":null,"abstract":"Registered Reports are a novel approach to publishing research that involves two rounds of peer review, one before and one after the study is conducted, that is starting to be used for systematic reviews, as in this special series. In the commentary, we briefly provide an overview of Registered Reports, including potential benefits (e.g., increased transparency, increased credibility due to constraining researcher flexibility, increased study quality and rigor due to prospective feedback from reviewers) and challenges (e.g., over-specifying exploratory elements of the review in the stage-1 manuscript, delayed or lack of completion after in-principle acceptance of the proposed study) for systematic reviews. We conclude with recommendations for addressing these challenges and for future research to inform the use of Registered Reports for systematic reviews.","PeriodicalId":47249,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Disorders","volume":"08 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145730969","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-12DOI: 10.1177/01987429251400222
Benjamin S. Riden, Joshua M. Pulos, Corey Peltier, Art Dowdy, Noah A. Wisnieski, Megan E. Bell, Alexandra P. Brandenberger, Jane E. Britton, Elisabeth R. Morris
Self-determination is a latent variable that has been conceptualized differently across academic domains. Due to the variability in the conceptualization of self-determination interventions, a thorough exploration of the approaches is needed. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore the literature-base on self-determination interventions to establish if the strategy is an evidence-based practice for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. We examined whether self-determination is an evidence-based practice by evaluating the risk of bias and quantitative evidence available for qualifying interventions. Although case-level effect sizes varied, the results indicate that self-determination interventions were associated with significant behavioral changes for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. However, approximately 12.5% of participants across studies had negative or negligible responses, suggesting the need to modify specific iterations based on student characteristics, environmental factors, and specific behavioral targets. The individual variability is consistent with the emphasis on individualization within special education and provides important guidance for teachers considering using the intervention to support students with emotional and behavioral disorders.
{"title":"A Meta-Analysis of Self-Determination Interventions for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders","authors":"Benjamin S. Riden, Joshua M. Pulos, Corey Peltier, Art Dowdy, Noah A. Wisnieski, Megan E. Bell, Alexandra P. Brandenberger, Jane E. Britton, Elisabeth R. Morris","doi":"10.1177/01987429251400222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429251400222","url":null,"abstract":"Self-determination is a latent variable that has been conceptualized differently across academic domains. Due to the variability in the conceptualization of self-determination interventions, a thorough exploration of the approaches is needed. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore the literature-base on self-determination interventions to establish if the strategy is an evidence-based practice for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. We examined whether self-determination is an evidence-based practice by evaluating the risk of bias and quantitative evidence available for qualifying interventions. Although case-level effect sizes varied, the results indicate that self-determination interventions were associated with significant behavioral changes for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. However, approximately 12.5% of participants across studies had negative or negligible responses, suggesting the need to modify specific iterations based on student characteristics, environmental factors, and specific behavioral targets. The individual variability is consistent with the emphasis on individualization within special education and provides important guidance for teachers considering using the intervention to support students with emotional and behavioral disorders.","PeriodicalId":47249,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Disorders","volume":"227 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145730987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-12DOI: 10.1177/01987429251400215
Corey Peltier, Joshua M. Pulos, Benjamin S. Riden
This special issue examines the application of open-science practices—particularly registered reports—to systematic reviews and meta-analyses in special education and synthesizes evidence for three widely used classroom interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD): self-determination interventions, time-out, and token economies. The issue was motivated by gaps identified in prior mega-reviews and a broader concern about publication bias and methodological opacity in the review literature. Collectively, the papers highlight persistent methodological and reporting limitations and argue that broader adoption of open-science practices is essential to reduce bias, enhance replicability, and better inform equitable, scalable practices for students with EBD. Finally, in a concluding commentary, experts discuss the potential benefits and challenges of publishing systematic reviews as registered reports and offer practical recommendations.
{"title":"Special Issue on Registered Reports of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses","authors":"Corey Peltier, Joshua M. Pulos, Benjamin S. Riden","doi":"10.1177/01987429251400215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429251400215","url":null,"abstract":"This special issue examines the application of open-science practices—particularly registered reports—to systematic reviews and meta-analyses in special education and synthesizes evidence for three widely used classroom interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD): self-determination interventions, time-out, and token economies. The issue was motivated by gaps identified in prior mega-reviews and a broader concern about publication bias and methodological opacity in the review literature. Collectively, the papers highlight persistent methodological and reporting limitations and argue that broader adoption of open-science practices is essential to reduce bias, enhance replicability, and better inform equitable, scalable practices for students with EBD. Finally, in a concluding commentary, experts discuss the potential benefits and challenges of publishing systematic reviews as registered reports and offer practical recommendations.","PeriodicalId":47249,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Disorders","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145731025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：