View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Considering Social Validity in Special Education Research

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Considering Social Validity in Special Education Research
Language: English
Authors: Snodgrass, Melinda R. (ORCID 0000-0001-7120-0243), Cook, Bryan G. (ORCID 0000-0001-9294-0873), Cook, Lysandra
Source: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 2023 38(4):311-319.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 9
Publication Date: 2023
Intended Audience: Practitioners
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Special Education, Educational Research, Validity, Evaluation, Intervention
DOI: 10.1111/ldrp.12326
ISSN: 0938-8982
1540-5826
Abstract: This article is part of a special LDRP research-to-practice series introducing key concepts to enable special education practitioners and other nonresearchers to be more informed research consumers. In the article, we explore how social validity is assessed in special education research and how to interpret social validity assessments. Rather than focusing on measuring intervention effects, social validity involves assessing the social importance of the goals, procedures, and outcomes of interventions and programs. We define social validity, provide questions to consider when examining assessments of social validity in research papers, review approaches commonly used to assess social validity with examples from the research literature, and make recommendations for reconciling findings of positive intervention effects on targeted outcomes but absent or negative findings related to social validity in a study. Our take-home message is that considering social validity assessments helps research consumers interpret study findings and informs how to apply findings in practice.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1399769
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEemYZVo7wIprHQAmL4nXTKAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDH8jxeMYqwrR1Zj2ZwIBEICBm_AYaqE9cYZIjvBBaz30iwRou572llBrtUB7_dtLHjJe8eUWVLkcV2-iaJXOqHd5I7PEo8Tkz7Pi6NUMWXDV3RP5cLkzCqE9lcFOiNpGc7SDCHfQNY78n-rf64QwS8zehStHF4-FZAiAyHc3tZM3-3liz_XQf-A_LzUV4UykKPVPYFP6onMcB1RvzyWpeZRsgkEu-Wwg6MD0axR0
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0173586111;7mj01nov.23;2023Nov15.04:54;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0173586111-1">Considering Social Validity in Special Education Research </title> <p>This article is part of a special LDRP research‐to‐practice series introducing key concepts to enable special education practitioners and other nonresearchers to be more informed research consumers. In the article, we explore how social validity is assessed in special education research and how to interpret social validity assessments. Rather than focusing on measuring intervention effects, social validity involves assessing the social importance of the goals, procedures, and outcomes of interventions and programs. We define social validity, provide questions to consider when examining assessments of social validity in research papers, review approaches commonly used to assess social validity with examples from the research literature, and make recommendations for reconciling findings of positive intervention effects on targeted outcomes but absent or negative findings related to social validity in a study. Our take‐home message is that considering social validity assessments helps research consumers interpret study findings and informs how to apply findings in practice.</p> <p> <emph>Before the start of the new school year, the staff at Monte Verde Middle School participated in an inservice training led by the principal on an intervention aimed to decrease the noise level in the lunchroom, one of the principal's pet peeves. The intervention involved teachers and lunch staff giving "tickets" to students who were being loud. Each ticket was worth 1 to 5 points depending on the volume level. At the end of each lunch period, staff logged on to a schoolwide data collection system and entered the ticket points they had given students during that lunch period. After receiving 10 points, students were assigned to a "silent lunch period" in the vice‐principal's office the following week. Ms. Robinson, a special education teacher, confided in Mr. Abraham, with whom she cotaught seventh‐grade math, that she was concerned about the new intervention. For one, she felt the goal of the intervention—to decrease noise levels in the lunchroom—was not important. "For all the issues in this school, a little noise in the lunchroom is not a big concern for me," she said. "In fact, I want my students to be interacting with their friends at lunch, not eating quietly by themselves." Mr. Abraham chimed in, "It sounds like a lot of work. Plus, the students aren't going to like it at all." Ms. Robinson concluded, "I just don't think it will work. Students respond to being rewarded for good behavior; delayed negative consequences don't work." Other teachers shared the same concerns. Because of negative perceptions regarding the goals of the intervention (many teachers and students did not see a quiet lunchroom as an important goal), the procedures of the intervention (many teachers and students did not want to participate in a program focused on negative consequences), and the outcomes of the intervention (many teachers felt it would be ineffective), the intervention could be said to have poor social validity. Consequently, teachers did not implement the intervention as intended, students did not buy into it, and it was largely ineffective and eventually abandoned</emph>.</p> <p>Educators seek to provide effective instruction and intervention that result in students obtaining intended skills and knowledge. However, there are considerations beyond effectiveness that are important when evaluating and deciding which interventions to use. Namely, educators should think about the <emph>social validity</emph> of an intervention's goals, procedures, and outcomes (Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref1">20</reflink>]) because this influences the likelihood of an evidence‐based intervention's success each time it is used in a new context (Biggs & Hacker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]; Fixsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]; Marchant et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]). Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to social validity, with the intent of supporting practitioners and other research consumers in becoming informed consumers of research so they can better translate research to practice and improve learner outcomes. In the following sections we define social validity, discuss common approaches to assessing social validity both formally and informally, consider how to reconcile contrasting findings related to social validity and intervention effects in an article, and conclude with a take‐home message.</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-2">DEFINING SOCIAL VALIDITY</hd> <p>The term <emph>social validity</emph> has been used to capture an array of ideas about what matters about an intervention beyond its measured effects on targeted outcomes (Snodgrass et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref5">17</reflink>]). For example, questions about the social validity of the lunchroom intervention from the opening vignette are not about the measured effects on the noise level. Social validity focuses on an intervention's or program's acceptability, feasibility, cost effectiveness, and many other features beyond whether and how much the intervention changes outcomes. To better understand this multifaceted and complex concept, we consider where the term <emph>social validity</emph> originated.</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-3">Original Definition</hd> <p>In 1978, Montrose Wolf introduced social validity to the field of applied behavior analysis in a seminal paper in the <emph>Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis</emph>. He wrote:</p> <p>If our objective was ... to do something of social importance, then we needed to develop better systems and measures for asking society whether we were accomplishing this objective. ... Society would need to validate our work on at least three levels:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The social significance of the goals. Are the specific behavioral goals really what society wants?</item> <p></p> <item> The social appropriateness of the procedures. Do the ends justify the means? That is, do the participants, caregivers and other consumers consider the treatment procedures acceptable?</item> <p></p> <item> The social importance of the effects. Are consumers satisfied with the results? All the results, including any unpredicted ones?</item> </ulist> <p>We have come to refer to these as judgments of <emph>social validity</emph>. (Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref6">20</reflink>], p. 207, italics original)</p> <p>Thus, Wolf ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref7">20</reflink>]) established the basic outline of what social validity means (i.e., perceptions of goals, procedures, and effects of interventions; see Figure 1) and acknowledged that assessing social validity is complex work that requires different methods than the methods typically used to measure the direct impact of an intervention on what it was designed to address. With his paper, Wolf began a decades‐long discussion of whether and how intervention researchers should attend to these questions of the social significance and appropriateness of the interventions they research.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/7MJ/01nov23/ldrp12326-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ldrp12326-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Defining and assessing social validity.Note. Definition adapted from Wolf ([20])." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0173586111-5">Subsequent Shifts in the Definition</hd> <p>Wolf's ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref8">20</reflink>]) original definition of social validity is broad and has been applied in different ways by researchers. In a scoping review of the literature on conducting rigorous social validity assessments, Snodgrass et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref9">17</reflink>]) first found great variation in why researchers assessed social validity. There are many possible reasons one might be interested in asking questions about social validity and each reason leads to different approaches to assessment. For example, Ms. Robinson above was concerned about the value of a quiet lunchroom, so she would be interested in assessing the social validity of the goals of the intervention. In contrast, Mr. Abraham was more concerned with the amount of effort the intervention requires for the staff, which suggests the need for an investigation into the feasibility of the procedures.</p> <p>Second, researchers had strong opinions—and therefore strong disagreements—about what counts as legitimate evidence for and against the social validity of an intervention (see Ledford et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref10">8</reflink>]; Schwartz & Baer, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref11">16</reflink>]). For example, some believe each person's opinion about an intervention is valid and important, whereas others maintain that a representative sample of society or a particular social group should be evaluated. Still others argue that only experts can determine if an intervention is socially valid or that measures of change in behavior or performance are necessary to claim social validity.</p> <p>In response to these varied perspectives, the definition of social validity has expanded, contracted, and fluctuated. As Snodgrass et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref12">17</reflink>]) put it,</p> <p>Instead of consensus around a definition of social validity, multiple definitions emerged as did divergent perspectives about what comprises social validity under any definition. ...[But,] every author in our review seemed to agree that social validity is different from pure behavior change and the primary intervention effect. (p. 8)</p> <p>Changes in recipients' behavior or knowledge are the primary outcomes examined when determining what interventions are evidence based. Demonstrating that an intervention designed to improve students' word decoding skills, for example, actually does cause most students to decode more words accurately is critical to improving student learning outcomes. However, this is not the only factor that matters in making sure such evidence‐based practices have socially significant impacts (Fixsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>]). For example, evidence‐based interventions that do not align with stakeholders' priorities are unlikely to be used over time or implemented with fidelity. That is, interventions that are not socially valid are not likely to work in real life, even if there is substantial evidence that they work (Biggs & Hacker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>]; Marchant et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref15">12</reflink>]). Therefore, considering the social validity of an intervention is equally important as verifying that the intervention is an evidence‐based practice.</p> <p>Social validity assessments available in the research literature reflect a variety of perspectives on social validity; that is, <emph>what</emph> aspects of social validity assessed in one study may be slightly or very different from what is assessed in another. Although researchers may explore more than one aspect of social validity in a study (Ledford et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref16">8</reflink>]; Snodgrass et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>]), the entire construct as originally outlined by Wolf is likely too complex to fully assess in a single study. Thus, reports of social validity assessments have a variety of participants (<emph>who</emph>) offering their perspectives on the social validity of an intervention, use different methods and tools (<emph>how</emph>) to assess the social validity of the intervention, seek perspectives on the social validity of an intervention at different points in time (e.g., before, during, and/or after the intervention; <emph>when</emph>), and likely have different ideas about what to do with their findings (implications or <emph>so what?</emph>) (Snodgrass et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref18">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-6">ASSESSING SOCIAL VALIDITY</hd> <p>Most social validity assessments conducted in special education research studies are informal (Snodgrass et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref19">18</reflink>]). That is, rather than systematically examining social validity, researchers often gather informal data (e.g., talking to participants informally) and draw informal conclusions (e.g., report their general impressions of participants' perceptions) about some aspects of the social validity of their interventions. In contrast, rigorous research procedures (e.g., semi‐structured focus groups, use of validated survey measures) or analysis (e.g., qualitative analysis to identify themes in participants' comments) seldom are used to assess social validity. Additionally, social validity assessments seldom address all components of social validity (i.e., goals, procedures, and outcomes) but address only certain aspects of social validity (e.g., only feasibility of the procedures; Ledford et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>]; Snodgrass et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref21">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>If researchers assessed the social validity of the lunchroom intervention at Monte Verde Middle School, they might discuss it with some participating students and report their general impressions of what these students thought about getting ticketed during lunch. Such an approach reflects an informal assessment rather than conducting a formal study involving qualitative interviews with a purposeful sample and analyzing students comments using formal qualitative analyses. It also addresses only one aspect of social validity—the procedures used. Thus, when reading about the social validity of a particular intervention that was investigated in a research study, it is helpful to identify exactly what is and is not being considered in the assessment and the extent to which judgments about the social validity of a particular intervention are informally vs. formally researched. There is no one "right way" to assess social validity, and any method for assessing social validity can be applied to any intervention study (e.g., a qualitative investigation of the social validity could be conducted of an intervention studied using a single‐case experimental design or a randomized control trial design).</p> <p>In the next section, we provide an overview of key questions that can help define what a social validity assessment is and is not addressing. Then, we offer examples of social validity assessments that have been conducted formally using research methods across methodological traditions, rather than informal explorations of social validity.</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-7">Making Sense of Social Validity Assessments</hd> <p>Through analysis in their scoping review, Snodgrass et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref22">17</reflink>]) identified key questions for researchers to address when reporting assessments of social validity. When reading reports of social validity assessment in research articles, considering these questions can help identify what exactly was and was not addressed and if the assessment is reliable or trustworthy. It may be helpful to think of these questions as: Why? What? Who? How? When? and So what? We summarize these questions in Figure 2 and describe them below.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/7MJ/01nov23/ldrp12326-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ldrp12326-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Questions to help interpret a social validity report.Note. Some questions are adapted from Snodgrass et al. ([17])." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The first question addresses the researchers' orientation to social validity by identifying <emph>why</emph> they assessed social validity, as evidenced by the choices they made about how to assess it. For example, did the researchers focus on certain kinds of evidence? If they assessed the amount of time it takes teachers to record tickets rather than how teachers feel about spending their time on this task, or students' perception of the ticket system rather than their perceptions of the importance of decreasing the volume level in the lunchroom, this indicates why they assessed social validity. The second question helps determine the definition of social validity the researchers used for their assessment (<emph>what</emph>). They might only be considering the feasibility of the intervention (i.e., one aspect of the social validity of the intervention procedures), for example.</p> <p>Once you have an idea of the researchers' orientation and definition of social validity (<emph>why</emph> and <emph>what</emph>), determine what practical decisions they made when they conducted their social validity assessment: <emph>who</emph> they asked to participate in the assessment, what research method or data collection tools they used (<emph>how</emph>), and <emph>when</emph> social validity data were collected in relation to the intervention (before, during, or after intervention delivery; at multiple timepoints). Finally, identify what the researchers did with their social validity findings (<emph>so what?</emph>). For example, the researchers might simply report what they found or they might draw conclusions about how socially valid the intervention was (or was not) and discuss the implications of their conclusions (e.g., teachers should consider using the intervention because of positive social validity findings).</p> <p>Once you have identified these aspects of the social validity assessment, you can evaluate how much you value and trust the researchers' findings. Start by asking if the researchers' decisions make sense and if the social validity assessment was conducted informally (e.g., used an unvalidated rating scale they developed themselves that may not measure social validity consistently or accurately; held informal discussions with participants about their perceptions of the intervention and selected the most positive quotes to include) or used formal research methods (e.g., used a validated scale that measures social validity consistently and accurately; used an interview protocol to assess participants' perceptions of the intervention and used formal qualitative analyses to identify themes in the responses).</p> <p>As discussed in the following, using formal research approaches to assess social validity confers greater credibility, whereas informal measures carry less weight. Once users are comfortable with the research approach used, it is time to return to the specific aspects of social validity that were addressed in the assessment and determine what conclusions can be drawn about the social validity of the intervention. Keep in mind that most assessments of social validity only address a small portion of the original definition provided by Wolf ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref23">20</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-9">Using Qualitative Methods to Formally Assess Aspects of Social Validity</hd> <p>There are many different methods of qualitative research, many of which are well suited for assessing social validity (Leko, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref24">10</reflink>]; Snodgrass et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref25">18</reflink>]). Here we offer examples of two qualitative methods, interview and case study, that have been used to rigorously assess social validity. For each study, we describe the answers to each of the questions outlined in Figure 2; the question is indicated in parentheses throughout the description of the study.</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-10">Interviews</hd> <p>Leifler et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref26">9</reflink>]) used an in‐depth interview design to assess the social validity of a social skills program delivered to adolescents with autism or attention deficit‐hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnoses in a high school in Sweden. The researchers chose to assess social validity, as defined by Wolf ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref27">20</reflink>]) (<emph>what</emph>), to explore if their intervention worked "in reality as opposed to typically more controlled research environments" by capturing the "attitudes and experiences" (p. 1487) of the students, teachers, and administrators who experienced it (<emph>why</emph>). They included 13 students, 3 teachers and 2 social workers who implemented the program, and two school principals (<emph>who</emph>) in their social validity assessment. The social validity assessment involved structured interviews (<emph>how</emph>) that were conducted after the social skills program was completed (<emph>when</emph>), allowing the researchers to interview and compare experiences of participants who received the social skills program and those who were in the control group and did not. Through a formal thematic analysis that compared results between and within various groups of the participants (<emph>how</emph>), the researchers found evidence that some aspects of their intervention were socially valid (e.g., goals were relevant, procedures were doable, outcomes were perceived as generally positive for students and school climate) whereas others were not as socially valid (e.g., cost of the procedures could be prohibitive, procedures were more feasible with researcher support than with only school‐based resources). The researchers encouraged continued uptake of this and similar programs with attention to the barriers participants indicated (<emph>so what?</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-11">Case Studies</hd> <p>As part of a program evaluation, Leko ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref28">10</reflink>]) conducted a case study to assess the social validity of a decoding intervention that middle school teachers delivered to students, including students with disabilities. The researcher chose to assess the social validity of the goals, procedures, and outcomes of the intervention (<emph>what</emph>) to explore the extent to which the intervention demonstrated to be effective in improving students' decoding skills was perceived as being socially valid by the teachers who delivered it by capturing their perceptions and experiences with it (<emph>why</emph>). She included five teachers who had implemented the decoding program (<emph>who</emph>). The study was part of a mixed‐methods study of the decoding intervention consisting of conducting semi‐structured interviews and classroom observations (<emph>how</emph>) at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year (<emph>when</emph>).</p> <p>Through a three‐step analysis process of "(a) data reduction, (b) data display, and (c) drawing conclusions" (p. 279) (<emph>how</emph>), Leko found the decoding intervention had a "high degree of social validity" but with lower social validity for the procedures than other aspects of the intervention (p. 284). For example, the goals of the intervention aligned with the teachers' beliefs about teaching reading, the procedures were doable but challenging at first, and the outcomes were perceived as positive for students' reading as well as their socioemotional development. Leko encouraged readers to consider these findings in conjunction with other evidence from the study—the intervention improved students' decoding skills—and she encouraged continued qualitative exploration of the intervention to further establish the intervention's social validity (<emph>so what?</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-12">Using Mixed Methods to Formally Assess Aspects of Social Validity</hd> <p>As with qualitative methods, many mixed‐methods research designs can also be useful for assessing social validity (Corr et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref29">2</reflink>]; Love et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref30">11</reflink>]; Snodgrass et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref31">18</reflink>]). Mixed‐methods research is a distinct methodological tradition (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]) that allows researchers to address research questions that require the interaction (mixing) of more than one method. Although it is common to find social validity assessed using a qualitative approach in quantitative intervention studies, these studies seldom represent true mixed‐methods research, but instead often involve a separate research question related to social validity or assess social validity informally.</p> <p>Kramer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref33">7</reflink>]) used a true mixed‐methods approach in their participatory evaluation (i.e., participants in the program were involved in designing and conducting the evaluation) to assess the social validity of Project TEAM (Teens making Environment and Activity Modifications), which teaches teens with developmental disabilities to identify and remove environmental barriers to their school, work, and community‐based participation. The researchers chose to assess social validity, as defined by Wolf ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref34">20</reflink>]) (<emph>what</emph>), to explore if their intervention was "considered valuable, worth the effort and time expended, and relevant to the needs of transition age youth" with developmental disabilities (p. 59) by capturing the perspectives and experiences of 42 participating youth and 37 of their parents (<emph>why</emph> and <emph>who</emph>). The social validity component of the study was codesigned by the researchers and the youth participants and included (a) a youth vote for activity preferences, (b) a youth survey, (c) a youth focus group, and (d) a parents' asynchronous online discussion group (<emph>how</emph>), all conducted after the youth had completed the social skills program (<emph>when</emph>).</p> <p>To analyze the data, the team first analyzed the youth voting and survey results using descriptive statistics and analyzed the youth focus group transcripts and the parent discussion summaries using a content‐analysis approach (i.e., content or ideas from transcripts were coded and then categorized to capture overall perceptions). Then, data were systematically integrated across data sources based on the definition of social validity (goals, procedures, outcomes) (<emph>how</emph>). The researchers reported that "both youth and parents found Project TEAM's purpose, procedures, and perceived benefits relevant to their current and future lives" (p. 69). As a result, they encouraged adoption of Project TEAM in rehabilitation and education programs and assessing the social validity of the intervention (<emph>so what?</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-13">Using Quantitative Methods to Formally Assess Aspects of Social Validity</hd> <p>There are also many quantitative methods that can be used to assess social validity, such as rating scales, normative comparison, and behavioral data. For each study reviewed below, we highlight how researchers have addressed each of the questions outlined in Figure 2.</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-14">Rating Scales</hd> <p>A rating scale is a set of statements about which participants are asked to rate their perception (e.g., "On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being <emph>very infeasible</emph> and 5 being <emph>very feasible</emph>, please rate the feasibility of using the procedures within your current job requirements."). Each statement reflects a certain aspect (or factor) of what the scale is addressing (called the construct). Social validity could be considered a construct, for example, with goals, procedures, and outcomes each a factor that makes up that construct. By asking many participants to complete the scale and statistically analyzing responses, researchers can establish that it measures the same construct each time it is completed (i.e., it is reliable) and that it measures accurately what it says it measures (i.e., it is valid). There are a few validated scales related to social validity, including the Behavior Intervention Rating Scale (BIRS; Von Brock & Elliott, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>]). This 24‐item scale addresses perceptions of an intervention's effectiveness, acceptability, and time to effectiveness, which align with the factors of procedures and outcomes in Wolf's ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref36">20</reflink>]) definition of social validity.</p> <p>McHugh Dillon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref37">14</reflink>]) evaluated aspects of the social validity of tootling (reporting on peers' appropriate behavior) via ClassDojo technology in fifth‐grade classrooms that included students receiving special education services for specific learning disability. The researchers chose to assess "teachers' perceptions of acceptability and treatment effectiveness" (p. 22) (<emph>what</emph>) using the BIRS, although they did not further explain <emph>why</emph> they assessed social validity. Four teachers who had used the intervention (<emph>who</emph>) were asked to complete the BIRS (<emph>how</emph>) after the intervention was completed (<emph>when</emph>). The scores were summarized by mean, and range and raw scores were presented for some items (<emph>how</emph>). Social validity ratings were generally moderate to high, but "teachers consistently reported lower social validity with respect to the effectiveness of the intervention" (p. 26). The researchers encouraged the use of tootling while also encouraging teachers to consider the limited long‐term impact on student behavior before deciding to try it (<emph>so what?</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-15">Normative or Social Comparison</hd> <p>Normative or social comparison refers to comparing the performance of students who received the intervention being studied with the performance of their peers who did not need the intervention to determine if the intervention raised performance to the level of their peers (Kazdin, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]). Thus, it can be used to assess the social validity of the outcomes of an intervention.</p> <p>McNiff et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref39">15</reflink>]) combined social comparison and rating scales in a single‐case experimental research study to assess the social validity of group video self‐modeling (GVSM) when used to increase the speed with which elementary students lined up and transitioned to a new activity. The researchers assessed the social validity of procedures and outcomes (<emph>what</emph>) by using social comparison to explore if GVSM resulted in students in the "slow" and "medium" groups transitioning as quickly as the "fast" group of students (p. 125) and using a rating scale to assess the teacher's perceptions of the acceptability of the procedures and outcomes (<emph>why</emph>). They included 1 teacher and 18 students, 4 of which had disabilities (<emph>who</emph>).</p> <p>Researchers compared the time it took for student groups to transition (<emph>how</emph> for social comparison) during the intervention (<emph>when</emph> for social comparison) and asked the teacher to complete the Intervention Rating Profile‐15 (IRP‐15; Martens et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref40">13</reflink>]), another validated scale for assessing social validity (<emph>how</emph> for rating scale), after the intervention (<emph>when</emph> for rating scale). The researchers found evidence that GVSM helped students in the slow and medium groups transition at similar rates to those of the fast group and that the "GVSM procedure was generally acceptable" to the teacher (p. 124), but did not provide clear implications (<emph>so what?</emph>) related to the social validity findings.</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-16">Behavioral Data</hd> <p>Behavioral data as an indicator of social validity refers to the extent to which the intervention recipients maintain and/or generalize the skills they learned (i.e., continue to perform the behavior over time or in new situations) and/or the extent to which the intervention continues to be implemented after the researchers have ended their study (Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref41">6</reflink>]; Ledford et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref42">8</reflink>]). Such data rarely are reported as part of the social validity assessment within published research (i.e., authors seldom indicate that they conducted these analysis to assess social validity), but you might consider such data when making judgments about the social validity of an intervention. For example, McNiff et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref43">15</reflink>]) collected behavioral maintenance data (<emph>what</emph>) on how quickly students (<emph>who</emph>) lined up (<emph>how</emph>) two weeks after showing the GVSM to the class (<emph>when</emph>) and found that the students in each group transitioned at speeds similar to those during the intervention. This suggests that the GVSM helped students maintain faster transition times for a few weeks, which might inform judgments about the extent to which the procedures and outcomes were acceptable (<emph>so what?</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-17">Informal Assessments of Aspects of Social Validity</hd> <p>In many research reports, social validity is assessed informally (e.g., data collection tools are used informally to gather information about social validity and/or analysis of data is informal or unclear), rather than using a formally applied research method. Researchers commonly use several data collection tools from a variety of research methods to informally assess social validity, such as rating scales/surveys, interviews, and rationales and embedded practices.</p> <p>When used in formal research, rating scales and surveys should be validated; responses should be collected from a large, representative sample of people; and statistics should be used to analyze responses. However, surveys are often used in informal ways in social validity assessments. That is, ratings scales and surveys often are created by the researchers, not validated, and/or distributed to a small group of people that is not representative of the population of interest, and results are often described generally rather than being statistically analyzed.</p> <p>In formal research, interview protocols are carefully planned, conducted with participants until sufficient data are gathered, and one of a variety of qualitative analysis procedures are rigorously applied. In contrast, when used to assess social validity informally, interviews may involve just a few questions with findings briefly summarized or represented in a few quotes without rigorous analysis or sufficient responses to draw trustworthy conclusions.</p> <p>Experts, rather than study participants, can be recruited to assess an intervention's goals, procedures, and/or effects. This can include asking experts to review video footage of the intervention and rate the procedures or outcomes. For example, a group of behavior analysts, as experts in behavior intervention, might be asked to watch videos of the lunchroom ticket program and rate its feasibility and effectiveness. As with other types of informal methods for assessing social validity, informal expert ratings may use scales that are not validated and may only include a few items, may involve only a small number of experts, and may not use statistical techniques to analyze data to arrive at trustworthy conclusions.</p> <p>Rationales and embedded practices include conducting a literature review (e.g., to support the importance of targeted goals or outcomes), allowing participants and/or other interested parties to choose goals and/or procedures (e.g., provide input on developing aspects of the procedures, choosing between options for aspects of the procedures), using natural implementers (e.g., a classroom teacher implements the intervention rather than the researcher), and conducting the research in typical settings/activities (e.g., in a school rather than a university clinic) (Ledford et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref44">8</reflink>]). These informal activities all contribute to some aspects of social validity but do not constitute research methods for formally evaluating social validity.</p> <p>These informal approaches can all be helpful in gaining insights into social validity, but they should be interpreted with caution. In the absence of rigorous research methods, they are less trustworthy and more likely to reflect inaccurate understandings of the social validity of the intervention. For example, if researchers examine social validity informally using an unvalidated rating scale they created and report that the overall mean rating from teachers was 3.9 on a 5‐point scale, it is difficult to interpret this finding, even if authors suggest it indicates teachers positively perceived the intervention. It is not clear how many items were rated, which aspects of social validity were assessed, whether the scale measured social validity meaningfully, or whether teachers' ratings varied across aspects of social validity (e.g., perhaps teachers rated the goals of the intervention positively but were neutral about its feasibility). Similarly, if researchers informally used interviews to assess social validity by reporting that students who received the intervention generally reported positive perceptions of it and included one positive quotation from a student, it is not clear what questions students were asked, how researchers determined that students positively perceived the intervention, or how the interviews were conducted (e.g., if the researchers who conducted the intervention interviewed students, that might influence students' responses). It is also possible that researchers cherry‐picked an unrepresentative student comment to quote.</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-18">RECONCILING CONTRASTING FINDINGS ON SOCIAL VALIDITY AND INTERVENTION EFFECTS</hd> <p>It seems clear that interventions that have been shown to ineffective should not be used, even if there is evidence supporting aspects of their social validity. But how should you interpret intervention research when the intervention produces intended effects (e.g., improved student performance), but social validity findings are largely negative or absent?</p> <p>Social validity is important because perceptions of an intervention's goals, procedures, and outcomes likely influence whether and how educators will implement the intervention and whether and how students will engage in the intervention (Schwartz & Baer, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref45">16</reflink>]; Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref46">20</reflink>]). For example, teachers may not maintain implementation of the lunchroom ticket intervention if it is difficult and time‐consuming, even if it is effective. Thus, if a social validity assessment is limited, unavailable, or indicates concerns about some aspects of the goals, procedures, and/or outcomes, we recommend carefully considering those findings (or lack of findings) before deciding whether and how to use an intervention, even when positive effects on learner outcomes have been documented.</p> <p>In the case of negative evidence of social validity, you might ask if that element of social validity is a concern for you (e.g., the intervention may be time‐consuming, which resulted in teachers in a study providing low ratings on its feasibility, but you may have a lengthy block of time in your class to devote to the intervention). If the negative aspects of social validity are a concern, you can consider whether you can adapt the intervention to address the social validity concerns without changing the critical elements of the intervention (e.g., perhaps a time‐consuming intervention could be chunked into two sessions in separate class periods). If the negative aspect(s) of social validity is relevant and cannot be addressed through adaptation, consider searching for another intervention shown to be effective that also shows evidence of positive social validity. Finally, if social validity findings are absent or unclear, you might consider discussing and even piloting the intervention to conduct your own social validity assessment with the educators you work with and the children you teach.</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-19">CONCLUSION AND TAKE‐HOME MESSAGE</hd> <p>Social validity encompasses a wide variety of issues related to how aspects of an intervention or program are perceived and is important because positive perceptions of an intervention increase the likelihood that the intervention will be implemented, sustained, and effective (Biggs & Hacker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>]; Marchant et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref48">12</reflink>]). No single assessment can get at all aspects of social validity, and there is no single "right way" to assess social validity, but researchers can decide which aspects are important to a particular situation and draw on different methodological traditions (qualitative, mixed methods, quantitative) to answer questions about those aspects.</p> <p>Researchers often assess aspects of social validity informally, but we urge readers to interpret such informal assessment with caution. Regardless of the elements of social validity assessed or the methods used to assess them, social validity is not about the actual effects of an intervention on the targeted outcome, but rather about how the intervention impacts and is perceived by people in other ways. Our take‐home message, therefore, is that identifying what a social validity assessment is (and is not) trying to accomplish and whether social validity is assessed formally or informally will help research consumers make decisions about how to interpret study findings, which provides important context for thinking about and applying findings regarding intervention effectiveness.</p> <hd id="AN0173586111-20">CONFLICT OF INTERESTS</hd> <p>We have no known conflict of interests to disclose.</p> <ref id="AN0173586111-21"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Biggs, E. E., & Hacker, R. (2021). Engaging stakeholders to improve social validity: Intervention priorities for students with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 37 (1), 25 – 38. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2021.1881824</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref29" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Corr, C., Snodgrass, M. R., Love, H., Scott, I. M., Kim, J., & Andrews, L. (2021). Exploring the landscape of published mixed methods research in special education: A systematic review. Remedial and Special Education, 42 (5), 317 – 328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520924030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence‐based programs. Exceptional Children, 79 (2), 213 – 230. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref32" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14 – 26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x033007014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref38" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single‐case research designs (2nd ed.). Oxford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref41" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Kennedy, C. H. (2002). The maintenance of behavior change as an indicator of social validity. Behavior Modification, 26 (5), 594 – 605. https://doi.org/10.1177/014544502236652</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref33" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Kramer, J. M., Hwang, I‐T., Helfrich, C. A., Samuel, P. S., Carrellas, A., & the YELL Lab Project TEAM Youth Research Collaborators. (2018). Evaluating the social validity of Project TEAM: A problem‐solving intervention to teach transition age youth with developmental disabilities to resolve environmental barriers. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 65 (1), 57 – 75. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2017.1346237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref10" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Ledford, J. R., Hall, E., Conder, E., & Lane, J. D. (2016). Research for young children with autism spectrum disorders: Evidence of social and ecological validity. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 35 (4), 223 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121415585956</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref26" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Leifler, E., Coco, C., Fridell, A., Borg, A., & Bolte, S. (2022). Social skills group training for students with neurodevelopmental disabilities in senior high school—A qualitative multi‐perspective study of social validity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (3), 1 – 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031487</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leko, M. (2014). The value of qualitative methods in social validity research. Remedial and Special Education, 35 (5), 275 – 286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514524002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Love, H., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2022). Mixed‐methods approaches in special education. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 37 (4), 314 – 323. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12295</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marchant, M., Heath, M. A., & Miramontes, N. Y. (2013). Merging empiricism and humanism: Role of social validity in the School‐Wide Positive Behavior Support model. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15 (4), 221 – 230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300712459356</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martens, B. K., Witt, J. C., Elliott, S. N., & Darveaux, D. X. (1985). Teacher judgments concerning the acceptability of school‐based interventions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16 (2), 191 – 198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735‐7028.16.2.191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McHugh Dillon, M. B., Radley, K. C., Tingstrom, D. H., Dart, E. H., & Barry, C. T. (2019). The effect of tootling via ClassDojo on student behavior in elementary classrooms. School Psychology Review, 48 (1), 18 – 30. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR‐2017‐0090.V48‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNiff, M. T., Maag, J. W., & Peterson, R. L. (2019). Group video self‐modeling to improve the classroom transition speeds of elementary students. Journal of Positive Behavior Intervention, 21 (2), 117 – 127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718796788</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz, I. S., & Baer, D. M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice state of the art? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24 (2), 189 – 204. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1991.24‐189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snodgrass, M. R., Chung, M. Y., Kretzer, J. M., & Biggs, E. E. (2022). Rigorous assessment of social validity: A scoping review of a 40‐year conversation. Remedial and Special Education, 43 (2), 114 – 130. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211017295</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snodgrass, M. R., Chung, M. Y., Meadan, H., & Halle, J. W. (2018). Social validity in single‐case research: A systematic literature review of prevalence and application. Research in Developmental Disabilties, 74, 160 – 173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.01.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Von Brock, M. B., & Elliott, S. N. (1987). Influence of treatment effectiveness information on the acceptability of classroom interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 131 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022‐4405(87)90022‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11 (2), 203 – 214. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11‐203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *List of Articles in Research‐to‐Practice Series in LDRP</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook, B. G., Collins, L. W. Cook, S. C., & Cook, L. (2020). Evidence‐based reviews: How evidence‐based practices are systematically identified. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35 (1), 6 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12213</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2016). Research designs and special education research: Different designs address different questions. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31 (4), 190 – 198. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2017). Sampling and special education research: Examining whether and how study results apply to you. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32 (2), 78 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12132</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <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 (2), 56 – 63. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12167</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leko, M. M., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2021). Qualitative methods in special education research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36 (4), 278 – 286. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Love, H., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2022). Mixed methods approaches in special education research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 37 (4), 314 – 323. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12295</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., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2019). Making sense of single‐case design effect sizes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34 (3), 124 – 133. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanetti, L. M. H., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2021). Treatment fidelity: What it is and why it matters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36 (1), 5 – 11. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snodgrass, M. R., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2023). Considering social validity in special education research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 38 (4).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Therrien, W. J., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2020). Utilizing meta‐analyses to guide practice: A primer. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35 (3), 111 – 117. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12230</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Travers, J. C., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2017). Null hypothesis significance testing and p‐values. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32 (4), 208 – 215. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12147</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Melinda R. Snodgrass; Bryan G. Cook and Lysandra Cook</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Melinda R. Snodgrass is an Associate Professor in the Department of Special Education at Illinois State University and received her PhD in Special Education from the University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign. Her research is focused on promoting inclusive schools and investigating issues of research methodology critical to the pursuit of more equitable, inclusive schooling.</p> <p>Bryan G. Cook is a Professor in the Special Education Program at the University of Virginia School of Education and Human Development and received his PhD 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 practice.</p> <p>Lysandra Cook is an Associate Professor in the Special Education Program at the University of Virginia School of Education and Human Development, and received her PhD 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 inservice teachers to be critical consumers of research, and (c) researching high‐quality teacher preparation.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref40"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1399769
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Considering Social Validity in Special Education Research
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Snodgrass%2C+Melinda+R%2E%22">Snodgrass, Melinda R.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7120-0243">0000-0001-7120-0243</externalLink>)<br /><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="%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>. 2023 38(4):311-319.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: Audience
  Label: Intended Audience
  Group: Audnce
  Data: Practitioners
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education%22">Special Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Validity%22">Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation%22">Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ldrp.12326
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0938-8982<br />1540-5826
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article is part of a special LDRP research-to-practice series introducing key concepts to enable special education practitioners and other nonresearchers to be more informed research consumers. In the article, we explore how social validity is assessed in special education research and how to interpret social validity assessments. Rather than focusing on measuring intervention effects, social validity involves assessing the social importance of the goals, procedures, and outcomes of interventions and programs. We define social validity, provide questions to consider when examining assessments of social validity in research papers, review approaches commonly used to assess social validity with examples from the research literature, and make recommendations for reconciling findings of positive intervention effects on targeted outcomes but absent or negative findings related to social validity in a study. Our take-home message is that considering social validity assessments helps research consumers interpret study findings and informs how to apply findings in practice.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1399769
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1399769
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ldrp.12326
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 311
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Special Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Considering Social Validity in Special Education Research
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Snodgrass, Melinda R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cook, Bryan G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cook, Lysandra
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0938-8982
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1540-5826
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 38
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice
              Type: main
ResultId 1