View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Evidence-Based Reviews: How Evidence-Based Practices are Systematically Identified

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Evidence-Based Reviews: How Evidence-Based Practices are Systematically Identified
Language: English
Authors: Cook, Bryan G. (ORCID 0000-0001-9294-0873), Collins, Lauren W., Cook, Sara Cothren (ORCID 0000-0002-5521-2778), Cook, Lysandra
Source: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. Feb 2020 35(1):6-13.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 8
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Evidence Based Practice, Literature Reviews, Standards, Special Education, Learning Disabilities, Identification, Educational Practices
DOI: 10.1111/ldrp.12213
ISSN: 0938-8982
Abstract: Evidence-based reviews are a type of systematic literature review used to identify evidence-based practices. When conducting an evidence-based review, researchers apply predetermined standards to identify evidence-based practices--practices that have been shown to reliably improve an outcome for a population of learners, according to evidence from a body of rigorous, experimental studies. In this article, we describe evidence-based reviews, provide an overview of one set of evidence standards used in special education, and describe important caveats and considerations related to evidence-based reviews. We conclude with two examples of evidence-based reviews in the field of learning disabilities. Our take-home message is that evidence-based reviews are a trustworthy approach for identifying generally effective instructional practices--but no practices, not even evidence-based practices, are effective for all learners.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1243583
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFsEBiXWhQk2E2oayKoc8_QAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNTXkzplYczlaOJxSgIBEICBm4JAXFxiLeu0m43KjhfhT9NhrFudgLBDIbD4R06hwLEKAVn4-Yh96Be6_DcJEaoVSNV0AK5HwX2ySHy2JgBcM5G-h1gYagfN1Y9cnTUecODhUE8I5MiOIE7SPQSd1c0PAg06ZDWcx4eVHNasxVXASxdAbHLt8HAkbrMLuB_OmXiabSjaPCp2ma9CQK4EKeN-oGAJkRgumli9kt7_
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0141720216;7mj01feb.20;2020Feb17.03:38;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0141720216-1">Evidence‐Based Reviews: How Evidence‐Based Practices are Systematically Identified </title> <p>Evidence‐based reviews are a type of systematic literature review used to identify evidence‐based practices. When conducting an evidence‐based review, researchers apply predetermined standards to identify evidence‐based practices—practices that have been shown to reliably improve an outcome for a population of learners, according to evidence from a body of rigorous, experimental studies. In this article, we describe evidence‐based reviews, provide an overview of one set of evidence standards used in special education, and describe important caveats and considerations related to evidence‐based reviews. We conclude with two examples of evidence‐based reviews in the field of learning disabilities. Our take‐home message is that evidence‐based reviews are a trustworthy approach for identifying generally effective instructional practices—but no practices, not even evidence‐based practices, are effective for all learners.</p> <p>Mrs. Robinson, a third‐grade special education teacher, has noticed that Benjamin, one of her students with learning disabilities (LD), is struggling in math. After analyzing his work samples, Mrs. Robinson concludes that he is struggling with basic computation skills. Mrs. Robinson remembers hearing in a recent professional development that the concrete–representational–abstract (CRA) strategy is an evidence‐based practice (EBP) for improving math computation for students with LD. Mrs. Robinson wonders whether she should implement CRA for Benjamin. She has tried using other practices that she was told were EBPs before, but they were difficult for her to use and did not work for some of her students, so she is skeptical. She is curious how a practice is identified as an EBP. Who determines whether instructional practices are considered evidence based, and how are those determinations made? Can a practice be identified as an EBP based on any type of research, or are there standards for what types of studies are considered and how many studies must support a practice? Mrs. Robinson wishes there was a way to quickly tell whether CRA is supported by meaningful research as being effective.</p> <p>Scientific research is a reliable means for determining the effectiveness of instructional interventions (Cook & Cook, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref1">3</reflink>]). No study, however, is perfect, especially when conducted in the real world of schools and classrooms, sites that are often unpredictable and do not lend themselves to tight control over factors that might influence study outcomes. Indeed, all studies contain some degree of error. Special educators should not, then, put too much stock in the findings of any single study. To address this issue, researchers often conduct research reviews or syntheses to examine research findings across multiple studies on a topic. If, for example, results from six different studies all show that CRA is effective for improving math computation of students with LD, Mrs. Robinson can have much greater confidence that these practices are, in fact, generally effective than if only one study showed that outcome.</p> <p>In this article, we consider one specific type of research review: evidence‐based reviews. In evidence‐based reviews, researchers review the body of research examining the effectiveness of an instructional practice (e.g., the CRA strategy) for increasing an outcome (e.g., math performance) for a population of learners (e.g., students with LD), and determine whether the practice can be classified as an EBP according to a predetermined set of standards. As "evidence‐based" and EBPs have become buzzwords, in‐service providers, purveyors of products on the internet, colleagues, and others increasingly refer to practices they promote as evidence based. Some of these practices, however, are not actually effective, and there is considerable confusion among educators about what "evidence‐based" means, and about which practices are in fact EBPs (Cook, Cook, & Collins, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref2">5</reflink>]). Our take‐home message in this article is that evidence‐based reviews are a trustworthy approach for identifying generally effective instructional practices; yet no practice, not even an EBP, is effective for all learners.</p> <p>In the following sections, we (a) discuss what evidence‐based reviews are and how they are conducted, (b) examine a set of standards for identifying EBPs in special education, (c) highlight important caveats and considerations when reading evidence‐based reviews and applying their findings, and (d) provide examples of recent evidence‐based reviews for students with LD in the professional literature. See Table  for definitions and examples of key terms, such as "evidence‐based practice" and "evidence‐based review," used in this article.</p> <p>Key Terms, Definitions, and Examples</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Term</th><th align="center">Definition</th><th align="center">Example</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Evidence‐based practice (EBP)</td><td>An instructional practice supported as being effective for increasing an outcome for a population of learners by multiple, high‐quality, experimental studies.</td><td>Bouck et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">1</xref>) reported that the concrete–representational–abstract strategy is an EBP for improving math outcomes for students with learning disability (LD).</td></tr><tr><td>Evidence‐based review</td><td>A systematic review examining whether a research base supporting an instructional practice meets predetermined standards for identifying the practice as evidence based.</td><td>Bouck and colleagues (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">1</xref>) conducted an evidence‐based review using the Council for Exceptional Children's (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">7</xref>) EBP standards to conclude that the concrete–representational–abstract strategy is an EBP for improving math outcomes for students with LD.</td></tr><tr><td>Implementation fidelity</td><td>Applying an instructional practice as designed, with appropriate dosage and adherence to critical elements of the practice.</td><td>When teachers implement EBPs with fidelity, they maximize the likelihood that the practice will have positive effects for their students.</td></tr><tr><td>Meta‐analysis</td><td>A type of research review in which researchers statistically combine results across multiple studies.</td><td>Meta‐analyses can be conducted to determine the average effect of an intervention across studies.</td></tr><tr><td>Narrative literature review</td><td>A type of research review in which researchers describe narratively findings across multiple studies.</td><td>Narrative literature reviews are a traditional approach for describing findings across studies.</td></tr><tr><td>Progress monitoring</td><td>Frequently monitoring the progress of students to evaluate the effectiveness of EBPs or other instructional practices.</td><td>Because no instructional practices, not even EBPs, are guaranteed to work for every learner, teachers should engage in progress monitoring to determine whether students are making adequate progress.</td></tr><tr><td>Quality indicators</td><td>Elements of studies indicative of a high‐quality research. EBP standards require that studies meet certain quality indicators to be considered when classifying the evidence base of practices.</td><td>Bouck and colleagues (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">1</xref>) found that eight of the 20 studies they initially identified met all quality indicators, and were therefore considered when classifying the evidence base for the concrete–representational–abstract strategy.</td></tr><tr><td>Systematic reviews</td><td>Reviews of the literature in which objective and transparent procedures are used to identify which studies are included in the review.</td><td>Evidence‐based reviews are one type of systematic review.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0141720216-2">EVIDENCE‐BASED REVIEWS</hd> <p>Evidence‐based reviews are one type of systematic review. In systematic reviews, researchers select studies to review using objective and clearly stated procedures that others can apply to verify their search results. For example, researchers report the exact search terms and databases they used to electronically search for relevant studies, and specify criteria for including or excluding studies identified in their search (see Maggin, Talbott, Van Acker, & Kumm, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref3">15</reflink>]). In this way, systematic reviews minimize the likelihood of researchers "cherry picking" selected studies and drawing biased conclusions from a review. In other words, studies are included in systematic reviews based on whether they meet objective inclusion and exclusion criteria, not because the researchers liked their findings. After systematically identifying all relevant studies that meet search criteria, researchers might narratively describe study findings (a narrative literature review), statistically combine findings across studies (a meta‐analysis), or determine whether the identified studies meet predetermined criteria for classifying the targeted practice as an EBP (an evidence‐based review).</p> <p>Evidence‐based reviews are defined by three features that distinguish them from other types of reviews:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Researchers classify the evidence base of an instructional practice—for example, as an EBP, a promising practice, or an ineffective practice—based on the strength of the research base supporting the effectiveness of the practice.</item> <p></p> <item> Only experimental studies deemed to be of acceptable quality or rigor are considered when categorizing the evidence base of practices.</item> <p></p> <item> Predetermined standards (for identifying high‐quality studies, and for how many high‐quality, experimental studies must support a practice as effective) are used to categorize the evidence base of practices.</item> </ulist> <p>As with other types of systematic reviews, the first step researchers take when conducting an evidence‐based review is posing a research question and identifying relevant studies to address that question. Like Mrs. Robinson, researchers conducting EBP reviews typically ask whether an intervention (e.g., CRA) has been shown to be effective for improving an outcome (e.g., math performance) for a group of students (e.g., students with LD). To answer this question, researchers would systematically search the literature to identify all studies examining the effectiveness of CRA on math outcomes for students with LD. Researchers typically search multiple electronic databases, and might also hand‐search relevant journals and contact prominent researchers in the field, to identify potential studies. Then relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria (e.g., only including studies if the majority of participants were identified as having LD) are applied to select an initial pool of studies to review.</p> <p>Once all relevant studies are identified, researchers screen the studies for design and quality. Only studies with experimental designs—typically including randomized controlled trials, group quasi‐experimental studies, and single‐case designs—are included in evidence‐based reviews. The reason is that these types of studies are designed specifically to examine whether a practice causes improved outcomes. Descriptive, relational, and qualitative studies provide important information to special educators, but they are not designed to meaningfully examine whether a practice causes improved student outcomes. Experimental studies employ design features (e.g., control or comparison groups and conditions) to rule out alternative explanations that something other than the instructional practice caused improved outcomes. See Cook and Cook ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref4">3</reflink>]) for a nontechnical description of why experimental studies are designed to determine whether a practice causes improved outcomes.</p> <p>Another hallmark of evidence‐based reviews is that only studies of adequate methodological quality or rigor are considered when classifying the evidence base of an instructional practice. Studies of low methodological quality are more likely to be biased and to report inaccurate findings. For example, if a group quasi‐experimental study involved a control and experimental group that were clearly unequal (e.g., the experimental group consisted of students with higher abilities than students in the control group), these differences would likely bias study outcomes. In other words, although researchers may find that the experimental group improved more than the control group during the study, these differences in performance may be due to the disparities between the groups, rather than the effect of the intervention. Thus, experimental studies must meet a requisite number of indicators of high‐quality research, often called "quality indicators," to be considered when classifying the evidence base of a practice.</p> <p>Finally, after all the high‐quality, experimental studies examining the effectiveness of an instructional practice on a particular outcome for a population of learners are identified, researchers count up the number of studies showing that the practice was effective or ineffective, and classify the practice according to a set of predetermined standards. There are multiple sets of EBP standards used in special education and related fields (see Table ). Although the EBP standards differ from one another on some specifics, they are quite similar; all require that multiple, high‐quality, experimental studies demonstrate that a practice has meaningfully positive effects on a targeted outcome before a practice can be classified as an EBP. In contrast, if (a) high‐quality studies show that the practice has negligible or negative effects or (b) no or very little high‐quality, experimental research has been conducted on a practice, the practice is not classified as an EBP. Therefore, although special educators should be aware that different standards are used to identify EBPs in special education, they can feel confident that a practice identified as an EBP using any of these standards listed in Table  (see Table  for organizations that use these standards and identify EBP for students with disabilities on their websites) is generally effective. Accordingly, if Mrs. Robinson can find an evidence‐based review using one of these sets of standards that identifies CRA as an EBP for increasing math computation for students with LD, she can be confident that it is a generally effective practice and will likely work for Benjamin. In the following section, we describe the Council for Exceptional Children's (CEC's) EBP standards (Cook et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>]) to provide an example of a set of standards frequently used in evidence‐based reviews in special education.</p> <p>Example of Evidence‐Based Practices Standards Used in Special Education</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Standards</th><th align="center">Where to Access</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Council for Exceptional Children (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">7</xref>)</td><td><ext-link href="https://www.cec.sped.org/∼/media/Images/Standards/CEC%20EBP%20Standards%20cover/CECs%20Evidence%20Based%20Practice%20Standards.pdf" title="https://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Images/Standards/CEC%20EBP%20Standards%20cover/CECs%20Evidence%20Based%20Practice%20Standards.pdf" /></td></tr><tr><td>Gersten et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">8</xref>)</td><td>Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">8</xref>). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi‐experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164. <ext-link href="https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202" /></td></tr><tr><td>Horner et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">9</xref>)</td><td>Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">8</xref>). The use of single‐subject research to identify evidence‐based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179. <ext-link href="https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203" /></td></tr><tr><td>National Autism Center</td><td><ext-link href="http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf" /></td></tr><tr><td>Reichow et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">19</xref>)</td><td>Reichow, B., Volkmar, F. R., & Cicchetti, D. V. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">19</xref>). Development of the evaluative method for evaluating and determining evidence‐based practices in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 1311–1319. <ext-link href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0517-7" /></td></tr><tr><td>What Works Clearinghouse</td><td><ext-link href="https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Examples of Online Sources of Evidence‐Based Practices in Special Education</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Organization</th><th align="center">Where to Access</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>National Autism Center</td><td><ext-link href="http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf" /></td></tr><tr><td>National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder</td><td><ext-link href="https://autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/evidence-based-practices" /></td></tr><tr><td>National Technical Assistance Center on Transition</td><td><ext-link href="https://transitionta.org/effectivepractices" /></td></tr><tr><td>What Works Clearinghouse</td><td><ext-link href="https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0141720216-3">CEC EBP STANDARDS</hd> <p>CEC ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>]) developed a set of EBP standards for classifying the evidence base of instructional practices in special education, based on the findings of high‐quality group experimental and single‐case design studies. The CEC standards include quality indicators in eight different areas: context and setting, participants, intervention agent, description of practice, implementation fidelity, internal validity, outcome measures, and data analysis. For a study to be classified as methodologically sound (i.e., high quality) according to the CEC standards, it must meet all of the quality indicators (22 quality indicators for single‐case design studies, and 24 for group‐design studies). Results of each methodologically sound study are then classified as demonstrating that the practice had either positive effects, mixed or neutral effects, or negative effects on the targeted outcome. The criteria for these classifications differ based on the research design of the study. For example, classification of study effects is based on effect sizes (i.e., the magnitude of differences between the performance of the experimental and control groups; see Cook, Cook, & Therrien, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>]) for group experimental studies. When considering single‐case design studies, researchers consider whether a functional relationship was established between the presence of the intervention and a participant's outcomes (see Maggin, Cook, & Cook, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref8">14</reflink>]) and, if so, for what proportion of participants in a study. CEC ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref9">7</reflink>]) standards require a functional relation in the therapeutic or desired direction for 75 percent of participants in the study, with no participants showing an adverse change in outcomes, for a single‐case design study to be classified as having positive effects.</p> <p>Once individual studies have been evaluated for quality, and once researchers have categorized the effects of each high‐quality study, the practice is classified as (a) being an EBP, (b) being potentially evidence based, (c) having mixed evidence, (d) having insufficient evidence, or (e) demonstrating negative effects. The practice's evidence‐based classification is based on the number of high‐quality (i.e., methodologically sound) studies supporting a practice and the number of participants in those studies. To be considered an EBP according to the CEC ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref10">7</reflink>]) standards, the practice must be supported by either (a) two or more high‐quality, randomly assigned group studies with positive effects and a minimum of 60 total participants; (b) four or more high‐quality nonrandomly assigned group design studies with positive effects and at least 120 total participants; or (c) five or more high‐quality single‐case studies with at least 20 total participants. Practices can also be classified as EBPs if the evidence base meets at least 50 percent of the criteria for two of these standards—for example, if the practice is supported as having positive effects by three high‐quality single‐case design studies with at least 10 participants and two high‐quality randomized group experimental studies with at least 60 participants. As noted previously, although the various standards used to identify EBPs in special education differ in some specific ways, they all use the same basic approach of identifying EBPs when multiple high‐quality, experimental studies demonstrate positive effects.</p> <hd id="AN0141720216-4">CAVEATS AND CONSIDERATIONS</hd> <p>When reading evidence‐based reviews and thinking about practices that have or have not been classified as EBPs, it is important to bear in mind some caveats and considerations.</p> <hd id="AN0141720216-5">EBPs are Not Guaranteed to Work for Every Learner, and Not All Effective Practices are Classi...</hd> <p>When a practice is classified as an EBP as a result of an evidence‐based review, one can have confidence that the practice is generally effective for improving a targeted outcome for a targeted population of learners. Yet no instructional practice, not even an EBP, works for everyone. Some students, sometimes referred to as nonresponders or treatment resistors, do not respond to even the most effective practices. Therefore, although EBPs are highly likely to be effective, it is important that special educators frequently monitor the performance of their students to determine whether a selected EBP is effective for each learner (see Hosp, Hosp, & Howell, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>], for more information on progress monitoring).</p> <p>It is also important to recognize that not all effective practices have been identified as EBPs through systematic evidence‐based reviews. One reason for this is that researchers have conducted a limited number of evidence‐based reviews. Accordingly, some instructional practices with strong research support that could be classified as EBPs have not been identified as such, simply because they have not yet been the subject of an evidence‐based review. Additionally, some practices that have been the focus of evidence‐based reviews are not identified as EBPs because few or no high‐quality, experimental studies have been conducted on them. Some of those practices are likely effective. Indeed, at one point every practice now classified as an EBP was a practice that had not been sufficiently researched. Therefore, it is important for special educators to know why a practice is not considered an EBP. If a practice has been shown by multiple high‐quality, experimental studies to be ineffective, it should be avoided. However, if it has not been classified as an EBP because an evidence‐based review has not been conducted, or because an evidence‐based review found that insufficient research has been conducted, it is possible that the practice is effective and will be classified as an EBP when an evidence‐based review or more research is conducted.</p> <hd id="AN0141720216-6">Different EBP Classifications</hd> <p>One potentially confusing aspect of evidence‐based reviews is that different organizations and groups in special education have put forward different sets of EBP standards (see Table ) that use different classification systems to categorize the evidence base of practices. In the first sets of EBP standards developed specifically for special education, Gersten et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref12">8</reflink>]) classified practices as evidence based, promising, or not evidence based/promising (based on the evidence from group‐experimental studies); and Horner et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]) classified practices as evidence based or not (based on the evidence from single‐case design research). In contrast, CEC's ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref14">7</reflink>]) EBP standards classify practices as evidence based, potentially evidence based, mixed evidence, insufficient evidence, or negative effects. Reichow, Volkmar, and Cicchetti ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref15">19</reflink>]) standards categorize practices as established EBPs, promising EBPs, or not EBPs. Other sets of standards use terms other than EBP in their classifications. For example, the National Autism Center ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref16">18</reflink>]) classifies practices as either established, emerging, or unestablished based on their 2015 standards; and the What Works Clearinghouse ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref17">21</reflink>]) standards for group‐experimental research classify instructional practices and programs as having positive effects, potentially positive effects, mixed effects, no discernible effects, potentially negative effects, or negative effects. When searching for EBPs, it is important, then, that educators like Mrs. Robinson understands that EBP, established practice, and practice with positive effects mean roughly the same thing (a practice that has been shown to have positive effects across multiple high‐quality, experimental studies) depending on which set of EBP standards are used.</p> <hd id="AN0141720216-7">Limited EBPs</hd> <p>Although many EBPs have been identified by professional organizations and researchers conducting evidence‐based reviews, there is an insufficient amount of EBPs to meet the needs of all teachers and students. That is, although we recommend that special educators prioritize EBPs when they identify one that is a good fit for their student, themselves, and their classroom, there will be times when (a) no relevant EBP exists or (b) identified EBPs did not improve the student's outcomes. In such cases, educators should prioritize practices that, though not formally identified as EBPs, are supported as effective by the best available evidence.</p> <p>Educators can locate practices supported by the best available evidence in many ways. For example, many EBP standards identify practices that are supported as effective by some high‐quality, experimental research evidence, but not enough to be identified as an EBP (e.g., the CEC standards classify potential EBPs). So, educators can examine evidence‐based reviews to identify potential EBPs (in evidence‐based reviews using the CEC standards), emerging practices (in evidence‐based reviews using the National Autism Center's standards), and practices with positive effects (in evidence‐based reviews using the WWC group‐experimental standards). Additionally, there are many reputable websites that, though they do not formally apply EBP standards to identify EBPs, highlight practices shown by research to be generally effective for students with disabilities. For example, CEC's Division for Learning Disabilities identifies practices supported by research as effective for student with LD in their Current Practice Alerts series (https://<ulink href="http://www.teachingld.org/practice-alerts/">www.teachingld.org/practice-alerts/</ulink>). Additionally, the Evidence‐Based Intervention Network (<ulink href="http://ebi.missouri.edu">http://ebi.missouri.edu</ulink>) and Evidence for ESSA (https://<ulink href="http://www.evidenceforessa.org">www.evidenceforessa.org</ulink>) identify research‐supported instructional practices and programs for students with and at risk for disabilities. Published meta‐analyses of experimental research are also good sources for identifying practices supported by the best available evidence. Thus, if Mrs. Robinson cannot find a relevant EBP for Benjamin, she should search for a practice supported by the best available evidence. It is important for educators not to select a practice devoid of research support if they cannot identify a relevant EBP.</p> <hd id="AN0141720216-8">Imprecise Terminology</hd> <p>The different ways in which educators use the term EBP can be confusing. In this article, we have discussed EBPs as being identified by evidence‐based reviews showing that the evidence base supporting a practice meets specific, predetermined standards. However, many educators use "EBP" more generally, referring broadly to practices supported as effective by any type of evidence—even a single, nonexperimental study. Indeed, we (the authors) have all experienced colleagues, in‐service providers, and textbook authors referring to practices as evidence based that are not actually supported as effective by high‐quality, experimental studies. When someone refers to a practice as an EBP, one should not assume that the practice has been formally identified as an EBP through a systematic review applying a set of rigorous standards. To clarify whether and what type of evidence supports an ostensible EBP, we recommend that educators inquire about the supporting evidence and whether and which EBP standards were used.</p> <hd id="AN0141720216-9">Identification Does Not Entail Effective Implementation</hd> <p>Identifying EBPs through evidence‐based reviews to determine which instructional practices are generally effective is an important first step in effective instruction. However, simply knowing that a practice is an EBP does not necessarily mean that special educators will broadly adopt it or will implement it effectively. Indeed, many EBPs, such as behavior‐specific praise, are seldom used in classrooms; although practices not supported by research, such excluding students from the classroom for minor disciplinary infractions often are. This disparity between research evidence and classroom practice is sometimes referred to as the research‐to‐practice gap (see Cook & Farley, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref18">6</reflink>]). Changing teaching routines and adopting new practices, such as EBPs, is difficult. To bridge the research‐to‐practice gap, teachers need to carefully select, implement, and evaluate EBPs.</p> <p>Based on recommendations from Torres, Farley, and Cook ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref19">20</reflink>]) and Leko, Roberts, Peyton, and Pua ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref20">13</reflink>]), we propose the following steps for effectively using EBPs:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Identify important student learning needs</emph>: Based on objective assessment data, identify a critical outcome on which a student is not making adequate progress. For example, Mrs. Robinson knows from her assessments that she needs a practice to improve Benjamin's performance in math computation.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Search for relevant EBPs</emph>: Examine the websites in Table  and electronically search professional journals (e.g., using Google Scholar) for evidence‐based reviews that have identified EBPs for improving the targeted outcome for similar learners. Mrs. Robinson is interested in whether CRA is an EBP for improving math computation for students with LD, and found an evidence‐based review showing that CRA is an EBP for this outcome (Bouck, Satsangi, & Park, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Select an EBP</emph>: Although special educators can trust that EBPs are generally effective, they should also consider important issues such as cost, flexibility, and fit. If the EBP is too expensive, takes more time than is available, or has to be implemented in a way that the teacher is not comfortable with, it should not be selected. See Leko et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]) for guidelines regarding selecting an appropriate EBP. Mrs. Robinson identified CRA as an EBP, and after reading about it, she believes it is a good fit for her, Benjamin, and her classroom.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Implement the EBP appropriately</emph>: It is important that the selected EBP should be implemented with fidelity, or as designed; otherwise it may be ineffective. Educators should acquire or develop implementation checklists to guide their implementation of the EBP. Some EBP sources, such as the National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders, provide implementation checklists. If no implementation checklist is available, educators can develop their own based on descriptions of the EBP. For example, Miller, Stringfellow, Kaffar, Ferreria, and Mancl ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref23">17</reflink>]) described how CRA can be implemented to teach mathematics computations and provided a script as an example of what effective CRA instruction might look like. Mrs. Robinson used this resource to develop an implementation checklist for CRA.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Assess effectiveness of EBP</emph>: As noted previously, EBPs are not guaranteed to work for everyone, and are not always implemented appropriately. Accordingly, educators should frequently monitor student progress on the targeted outcome. If the student is making adequate progress, great! Then the EBP is working. If not, move to Step 6. In Benjamin's case, Mrs. Robinson monitored Benjamin's performance in math calculations using CBM‐computation twice per week, which indicated little progress initially.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Assess fidelity and/or make adaptations</emph>: If students are not making adequate progress, ensure that the EBP is being implemented as designed. Self‐assess or have someone else (e.g., an administrator, a paraprofessional) observe instruction and evaluate whether all critical elements of the EBP are being implemented as designed. Ensure the EBP is being implemented as often and for as long as it designed to be. If the EBP is being implemented with fidelity and the student is still not responding, consider adapting it in ways that might make it more effective for the student, but that do not alter its critical elements. See Leko ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref24">12</reflink>]) for an excellent discussion of balancing fidelity and adaptation. For example, Mrs. Robinson self‐assessed using her implementation checklist and found that she was implementing CRA as designed. Before abandoning the EBP, she thought about how she might adapt it without altering the critical elements of the intervention. She knew that Benjamin loved dinosaurs. So, she began to use plastic dinosaurs as concrete manipulatives to heighten his engagement.</item> </ulist> <p>Once teachers ensure that an initially ineffective EBP is being implemented with fidelity and have adapted the EBP appropriately, they should continue to monitor student progress. If the student continues to make inadequate progress, they may be a nonresponder to that EBP, and the teacher should select another EBP (or practice supported by the best available evidence). In Benjamin's case, Mrs. Robinson's adaptation seemed to spark an interest in the CRA procedure, and Benjamin's performance in math computation started to improve.</p> <hd id="AN0141720216-10">EXAMPLES FROM THE LITERATURE</hd> <p>In this section, we describe two examples of evidence‐based reviews that classified the evidence bases of practices for students with LD. Bouck et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>]) used the CEC ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>]) EBP standards to conduct an evidence‐based review of CRA for students with LD. For this review, the authors identified 20 studies that met all of their inclusion criteria, such as (a) including students with LD as participants, (b) using CRA to improve at least one mathematics outcome, and (c) using either a single‐case or group experimental research design. By applying CEC's ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]) quality indicators, Bouck and colleagues identified eight of these studies (seven single‐case designs and one group design) as being of high methodological quality. Six of the high‐quality studies were classified as having positive effects on math outcomes, whereas the high‐quality group design study and one high‐quality single‐case design study were classified as having mixed/neutral effects. A total of 33 participants with LD were included in the six single‐case design studies with positive effects. Therefore, CRA met CEC's ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref28">7</reflink>]) EBP standard of having at least five high‐quality single‐case design studies with positive effects and at least 20 total participants. The authors noted that although one high‐quality study focused on teaching fractions, seven out of eight high‐quality studies focused on basic operations and, therefore, suggested that CRA is an EBP specifically for computational instruction.</p> <p>In another evidence‐based review, McKenna, Flower, Kyung Kim, Ciullo, and Haring ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>]) employed the What Works Clearinghouse single‐case design standards (Kratochwill et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref30">11</reflink>]) to classify function‐based interventions (i.e., interventions based on the identified function of student behavior) for students with LD. In this review, McKenna and colleagues identified 14 studies that (a) included students with LD or academic delay in grades K‐12, (b) used functional behavioral assessment or function‐based intervention, (c) targeted a school‐based outcome, and (d) used a single‐case experimental design. The authors reported that five of the studies met criteria for being categorized as high methodological quality. Four of these studies were classified as showing "moderate evidence of effectiveness" (p. 23) and one study was determined to have no evidence of effect on the targeted outcome. For a practice to be classified as evidence based according to the What Works Clearinghouse single‐case design standards, at least five high‐quality studies that were conducted by at least three independent teams of researchers with at least 20 total participants must show evidence of positive effects. Therefore, the authors did not classify function‐based interventions as an EBP. However, this finding does not mean that function‐based interventions are ineffective for students with LD. Rather, as the authors suggested, the evidence in this review suggests that function‐based interventions may improve behavior outcomes for students with LD, but there is insufficient evidence to classify the practice as an EBP for students with LD at this time. To strengthen the evidence base of function‐based interventions, more high‐quality research is needed.</p> <hd id="AN0141720216-11">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>Systematic research reviews can be informative and efficient resources for special education stakeholders wanting to know what the research says about the effectiveness of instructional practices. Research consumers can have greater confidence in research findings when multiple studies consistently report similar results. However, it is time‐consuming and difficult for educators to identify, read, evaluate, and synthesize all the relevant research on an instructional practice. Therefore, we recommend that busy practitioners (and other stakeholders, such as parents) consider systematic reviews, in which researchers have done all of the legwork of objectively identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the relevant research on a topic.</p> <p>Evidence‐based reviews are one type of systematic review that classifies the evidence base for a practice by comparing the number of high‐quality, experimental studies supporting the practice as effective to predetermined standards. Our take‐home message is that evidence‐based reviews are a trustworthy approach for identifying generally effective instructional practices (i.e., EBPs); however, no practices, not even EBPs, are effective for all learners. Moreover, some effective practices may not yet be identified as EBPs. We recommend that special educators prioritize the use of EBPs, as identified in evidence‐based reviews, when instructing students with LD and other disabilities; and select, implement, and evaluate EBPs appropriately and effectively to help bridge the research‐to‐practice and improve students' learning outcomes—as Mrs. Robinson did with Benjamin.</p> <ref id="AN0141720216-12"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref21" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bouck, E. C., Satsangi, R., & Park, J. (2018). The concrete–representational–abstract approach for students with learning disabilities: An evidence‐based practice synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 211 – 228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517721712</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Cook, B., Buysse, V., Klingner, J., Landrum, T., McWilliam, R., Tankersley, M. et al. (2014). Council for exceptional children: Standards for evidence‐based practices in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46, 206 – 212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914531389</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref1" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2016). Research designs and special education research: Different designs address different questions. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31, 190 – 198. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref7" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Cook, B. G., Cook, L., & Therrien, W. J. (2018). Group‐difference effect sizes: Gauging the practical importance of findings from group‐experimental research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33, 56 – 63. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12167</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref2" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cook, B. G., Cook, S. C., & Collins, L. W. (2016). Terminology and evidence‐based practice for students with EBD: Exploring some devilish details. Beyond Behavior, 25 (2), 4 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1177/107429561602500202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref18" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cook, B. G., & Farley, C. (2019). The research‐to‐practice gap in special education. In D. F. Bateman & M. L. Yell (Eds.), Current trends and legal issues in special education (pp. 110 – 125). Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref6" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (2014). Council for Exceptional Children standards for evidence‐based practices in special education. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Files/Standards/Evidence%20based%20Practices%20and%20Practice/EBP%20FINAL.pdf">http://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Files/Standards/Evidence%20based%20Practices%20and%20Practice/EBP%20FINAL.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref12" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi‐experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum‐based measurement (2nd ed.). New York : Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kratochwill, T., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R., Levin, J., Odom, S., Rindskoph, D. et al. (2010). Single‐case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510743.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leko, M. M. (2015). To adapt or not to adapt: Navigating an implementation conundrum. Teaching Exceptional Children, 48 (2), 80 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915605641</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leko, M. M., Roberts, C., Peyton, D., & Pua, D. (2019). Selecting evidence‐based practices: What works for me. Intervention in School and Clinic, 54 (5), 286 – 294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451218819190</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maggin, D. M., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2018). Using single‐case research designs to examine the effects of interventions in special education. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33 (4), 182 – 191. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12184</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maggin, D. M., Talbott, E., Van Acker, E. Y., & Kumm, S. (2017). Quality indicators for systematic reviews in behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 42, 52 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742916688653</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenna, J. W., Flower, A., Kyung Kim, M., Ciullo, S., & Haring, C. (2015). A systematic review of function‐based interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30, 15 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, S. P., Stringfellow, J. L., Kaffar, B. J., Ferreria, D., & Mancl, D. B. (2011). Developing computation competence among students who struggle with mathematics. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44, 38 – 46. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991104400204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Autism Center. (2015). Findings and conclusions: National standards project, phase 2. Randolph, MA : Author. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf">http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reichow, B., Volkmar, F. R., & Cicchetti, D. V. (2008). Development of the evaluative method for evaluating and determining evidence‐based practices in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 1311 – 1319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0517-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torres, C., Farley, C. A., & Cook, B. G. (2014). A special educator's guide to successfully implementing evidence‐based practices. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47, 85 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914553209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> What Works Clearinghouse. (2017). Procedures handbook, version 4.0. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_procedures_handbook_v4.pdf</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Bryan G. Cook; Lauren W. Collins; Sara Cothren Cook and Lysandra Cook</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Bryan G. Cook is a Professor in the Special Education Program at the Curry School of Education and Human Development, and received his Ph.D. in Special Education at the University of California at Santa Barbara. His primary lines of inquiry include open science, conducting meta‐research on the special education research base, and evidence‐based practices.</p> <p>Lauren W. Collins is an Assistant Professor of Special Education at San Diego State University. She earned her Ph.D. from Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. Prior to entering academia, Dr. Collins was an elementary special education teacher. Her research focuses on the identification and dissemination of evidence‐based practices for students with EBD and other high‐incidence disabilities, specifically in the areas of literacy instruction and behavioral interventions.</p> <p>Sara Cothren Cook is an Associate Professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa (UHM). Dr. Cook earned her Ph.D. in Exceptionalities at UHM. Her research interests include the identification and dissemination of evidence‐based practices for secondary students with high‐incidence disabilities and supporting co‐teachers in integrating specialized instruction into inclusive settings.</p> <p>Lysandra Cook is an Associate Professor in the Special Education Program at the Curry School of Education and Human Development, and received her Ph.D. from Kent State University. Her scholarly interests revolve around translating research to practice in special education, including (a) identifying and implementing evidence‐based practices, (b) supporting pre‐ and in‐service teachers to be critical consumers of research, and (c) researching high‐quality teacher preparation.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref30"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1243583
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Evidence-Based Reviews: How Evidence-Based Practices are Systematically Identified
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cook%2C+Bryan+G%2E%22">Cook, Bryan G.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9294-0873">0000-0001-9294-0873</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Collins%2C+Lauren+W%2E%22">Collins, Lauren W.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cook%2C+Sara+Cothren%22">Cook, Sara Cothren</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5521-2778">0000-0002-5521-2778</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cook%2C+Lysandra%22">Cook, Lysandra</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Learning+Disabilities+Research+%26+Practice%22"><i>Learning Disabilities Research & Practice</i></searchLink>. Feb 2020 35(1):6-13.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 8
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence+Based+Practice%22">Evidence Based Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literature+Reviews%22">Literature Reviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standards%22">Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education%22">Special Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Disabilities%22">Learning Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Identification%22">Identification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ldrp.12213
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0938-8982
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Evidence-based reviews are a type of systematic literature review used to identify evidence-based practices. When conducting an evidence-based review, researchers apply predetermined standards to identify evidence-based practices--practices that have been shown to reliably improve an outcome for a population of learners, according to evidence from a body of rigorous, experimental studies. In this article, we describe evidence-based reviews, provide an overview of one set of evidence standards used in special education, and describe important caveats and considerations related to evidence-based reviews. We conclude with two examples of evidence-based reviews in the field of learning disabilities. Our take-home message is that evidence-based reviews are a trustworthy approach for identifying generally effective instructional practices--but no practices, not even evidence-based practices, are effective for all learners.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1243583
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1243583
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ldrp.12213
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 6
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Evidence Based Practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literature Reviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Identification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Evidence-Based Reviews: How Evidence-Based Practices are Systematically Identified
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cook, Bryan G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Collins, Lauren W.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cook, Sara Cothren
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cook, Lysandra
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0938-8982
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 35
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice
              Type: main
ResultId 1