Preview

We are pleased to have the opportunity to provide an issue with excellent reports from fine scholars. Here we show how robust research about special education and rehabilitation is, has been, and will be. Applied and basic research is alive and well, and these articles show it. In the first article for this issue, Cook et al. provide evidence establishing a baseline for special education researchers’ adoption of open practices (e.g., preregistration, registered reports, open materials). They analyzed a sample of 250 articles from special education journals to assess authors’ use of open practices. They found that most articles reported some features (e.g., statements about conflicts of interest) but few reported other features (e.g., preregistration, registered reports, open peer review). This article earned three openscience badges. In the context of current political controversies, Scott et al. provide a teacher-characteristic study about whether teachers who are racially diverse differentially intend to remain in special education teaching positions. They report that special education teachers of color, especially in urban schools, were more likely to say they would continue teaching. They also found that teachers of color reported good support and that teachers in urban areas said they were more likely to expect to continue teaching than those in more rural areas. Stevens et al. wondered whether adding explicit and detailed vocabulary features to instruction teaching word-problem solving would increase outcomes for students with mathematics disabilities. They compared outcomes of third graders in three groups: business as usual, schema instruction alone, and schema instruction combined with explicit vocabulary instruction. Students who got schema and vocabulary instruction had better outcomes, and those benefits persisted over time. Cumming et al. scrutinized the executive functioning of young children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Using sophisticated statistical methods, they examined whether there are patterns among measures of cognition for at-risk children. They found that students’ levels of problematic behavior, social competence, and language difficulties showed severity. Their next task will be to show the extent to which these patterns relate to independently and objectively assessed behavior. Employing their refined professional development strategies for improving instruction for students with autism, Ann et al. assessed the effects of special training on employing evidence-based practices (e.g., reinforcement, prompting, time delay, and visual supports) on paraprofessionals’ implementation of those practices and students’ progress on learning goals. Using a multiple-probe design, they found that the professional development resulted in the use of the practices with fidelity in both separate and inclusive settings. Fuchs et al. continued their efforts to develop effective mathematics instruction. They examined whether instructional sequences focused on only one calculation operation or one type of problem at a time were more beneficial than instruction that integrated practice examples and problem types. Using a randomized control trial, they tested blocked and integrated instructional designs in comparison to common instruction. They found that children who received interleaved instruction sequences had better outcomes and that some of those effects were apparent a year later. The current articles illustrate fine research about rehabilitation and special education. Exceptional Children has received Editorial