Analysis of Differences Across Two Unaffiliated Systematic Reviews Using What Works Clearinghouse Single-Case Design Standards.
Saved in:
| Title: | Analysis of Differences Across Two Unaffiliated Systematic Reviews Using What Works Clearinghouse Single-Case Design Standards. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Shepley, Collin1 collinshepley@uky.edu, Lane, Justin D.1, Ault, Melinda J.1 |
| Source: | Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. Sep2020, Vol. 45 Issue 3, p143-160. 18p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Experimental design, *Research methodology, *Special education, Medical research, Systematic reviews |
| Abstract: | The system of least prompts response prompting procedure has a rich history in special education research and practice. Recently, two independent systematic reviews were conducted to determine if the system of least prompts met criteria to be classified as an evidence-based practice. Both reviews used single-case design standards developed by What Works Clearinghouse to evaluate the rigor and effects of studies; however, findings and implications varied significantly across reviews. We examined the data supporting each review and discuss how two reviews on the same topic area using the same standards for evaluating studies could arrive at different conclusions. Results indicate that varying search parameters, visual analysis protocols, and the flexibility allotted by the design standards may have contributed to differences. We discuss the importance of multiple literature reviews on the same topic area with regard to replication research in special education. In addition, we highlight the necessity of open data in such reviews. Finally, we recommend how practitioners and researchers should collectively interpret the differing findings and conclusions from the reviews examining the system of least prompts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The system of least prompts response prompting procedure has a rich history in special education research and practice. Recently, two independent systematic reviews were conducted to determine if the system of least prompts met criteria to be classified as an evidence-based practice. Both reviews used single-case design standards developed by What Works Clearinghouse to evaluate the rigor and effects of studies; however, findings and implications varied significantly across reviews. We examined the data supporting each review and discuss how two reviews on the same topic area using the same standards for evaluating studies could arrive at different conclusions. Results indicate that varying search parameters, visual analysis protocols, and the flexibility allotted by the design standards may have contributed to differences. We discuss the importance of multiple literature reviews on the same topic area with regard to replication research in special education. In addition, we highlight the necessity of open data in such reviews. Finally, we recommend how practitioners and researchers should collectively interpret the differing findings and conclusions from the reviews examining the system of least prompts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 15407969 |
| DOI: | 10.1177/1540796920913867 |
