What Works Clearinghouse Guidelines 对单一案例设计的影响:空培训阶段调查

IF 2.3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Remedial and Special Education Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1177/07419325241287935
Derek B. Rodgers, Seth A. King
{"title":"What Works Clearinghouse Guidelines 对单一案例设计的影响:空培训阶段调查","authors":"Derek B. Rodgers, Seth A. King","doi":"10.1177/07419325241287935","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The What Works Clearinghouse quality standards provide guidance regarding studies capable of supporting evidence-based practices. Standards concerning single-case designs have been extensively revised to accommodate new evaluation methods, such as the design comparable effect size. These designs often omit data in which children and other participants receive training. Recently, the What Works Clearinghouse suggested studies with such “empty training phases” do not meet minimum standards of evidence. However, evidence regarding the effect of empty training phases on results is limited. This study used a subset of single-case design data from a recent meta-analysis to simulate studies with empty training phases. We calculated design-comparable effect sizes, evaluated differences between simulated and unsimulated data, and conducted random effects meta-analyses. Effects of simulated studies with artificially designed empty training phases were nearly four times as large as effects of the original, unaltered data. Guidance for intervention researchers follows a description of findings.","PeriodicalId":48042,"journal":{"name":"Remedial and Special Education","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implications of What Works Clearinghouse Guidelines on Single-Case Design: An Investigation of Empty Training Phases\",\"authors\":\"Derek B. Rodgers, Seth A. King\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/07419325241287935\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The What Works Clearinghouse quality standards provide guidance regarding studies capable of supporting evidence-based practices. Standards concerning single-case designs have been extensively revised to accommodate new evaluation methods, such as the design comparable effect size. These designs often omit data in which children and other participants receive training. Recently, the What Works Clearinghouse suggested studies with such “empty training phases” do not meet minimum standards of evidence. However, evidence regarding the effect of empty training phases on results is limited. This study used a subset of single-case design data from a recent meta-analysis to simulate studies with empty training phases. We calculated design-comparable effect sizes, evaluated differences between simulated and unsimulated data, and conducted random effects meta-analyses. Effects of simulated studies with artificially designed empty training phases were nearly four times as large as effects of the original, unaltered data. Guidance for intervention researchers follows a description of findings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48042,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Remedial and Special Education\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Remedial and Special Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325241287935\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Remedial and Special Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325241287935","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

What Works Clearinghouse 质量标准为能够支持循证实践的研究提供了指导。为了适应新的评估方法,如设计可比较的效果大小,对有关单一案例设计的标准进行了广泛的修订。这些设计往往忽略了儿童和其他参与者接受培训的数据。最近,"有效信息交流中心"(What Works Clearinghouse)建议,带有这种 "空洞的培训阶段 "的研究不符合最低证据标准。然而,有关空培训阶段对结果影响的证据非常有限。本研究使用了最近一项荟萃分析中的单例设计数据子集来模拟空洞训练阶段的研究。我们计算了设计可比效应大小,评估了模拟数据与非模拟数据之间的差异,并进行了随机效应荟萃分析。人为设计空洞训练阶段的模拟研究的效果是原始、未改动数据效果的近四倍。在对研究结果进行描述之后,还为干预研究人员提供了指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Implications of What Works Clearinghouse Guidelines on Single-Case Design: An Investigation of Empty Training Phases
The What Works Clearinghouse quality standards provide guidance regarding studies capable of supporting evidence-based practices. Standards concerning single-case designs have been extensively revised to accommodate new evaluation methods, such as the design comparable effect size. These designs often omit data in which children and other participants receive training. Recently, the What Works Clearinghouse suggested studies with such “empty training phases” do not meet minimum standards of evidence. However, evidence regarding the effect of empty training phases on results is limited. This study used a subset of single-case design data from a recent meta-analysis to simulate studies with empty training phases. We calculated design-comparable effect sizes, evaluated differences between simulated and unsimulated data, and conducted random effects meta-analyses. Effects of simulated studies with artificially designed empty training phases were nearly four times as large as effects of the original, unaltered data. Guidance for intervention researchers follows a description of findings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Remedial and Special Education
Remedial and Special Education EDUCATION, SPECIAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Remedial and Special Education (RASE) is devoted to the discussion of issues involving the education of persons for whom typical instruction is not effective. Emphasis is on the interpretation of research literature and recommendations for the practice of remedial and special education. Appropriate topics include, but are not limited to, definition, identification, assessment, characteristics, management, and instruction of underachieving and exceptional children, youth, and adults; related services; family involvement; service delivery systems; legislation; litigation; and professional standards and training.
期刊最新文献
Racial and Gender Bias in School Psychologists’ Special Education Classification Considerations Life After High School: The Employment Experiences of Autistic Young Adults Implications of What Works Clearinghouse Guidelines on Single-Case Design: An Investigation of Empty Training Phases Grade Retention: The Role of Speech and Language Disorders, Race and Ethnicity, Sex, Socioeconomic Status, Special Education, and Bilingualism Do I Belong Yet? The Relationship Between Special Education, In-School Suspension, Belonging, and Engagement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1