Translating Intervention Research for Students With Mild Disabilities to Practice: A Systematic Journal Analysis

Abstract

Gains have been made over the last two decades in how to identify evidence-based practices for students with disabilities, but less progress has been made in ensuring that these interventions are used by classroom teachers. Although it is not the only area that needs to be addressed to bridge this research-to-practice gap, providing high-quality information about effective interventions in a format that is easy for teachers to understand is an important piece of a much larger implementation science puzzle. The current study analyzed a wide range of prominent special education practitioner journals to develop a comprehensive picture of the extent to which research is translated to practice for teachers who work with students with mild disabilities (learning disabilities, emotional/behavioral disorders, autism-Level 1 [A-L1]). Results from the analysis of 3,245 articles showed that across journals, fewer than 30% of articles translated intervention research findings to practice, with over half targeting academics.

Keywords

intervention synthesis special education mild disabilities professional development

Although great gains have been made over the last two decades in how to identify evidence-based practices for students with disabilities, the potential benefit of these efforts is “bounded by the quality, reach, and maintenance of implementation” (Cook & Odom, 2013, p. 135). In other words, the field has made strides toward identifying interventions that have the greatest probability for improving outcomes for students (Vaughn & Swanson, 2015), but less progress has been made in ensuring that these interventions are used by classroom teachers as a part of daily instruction (Cook & Odom, 2013). This research to practice gap is a long-standing issue in special education for a variety of reasons, including inadequate training, resources, and administrative support and inaccessibility of the literature base (Cook, Landrum, Tankersley, & Kauffman, 2003; Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003). Because it is critical for educators to have access to quality practices, strategies, and interventions to meet the needs of students with disabilities, efforts in this area continue to be a priority in the field.

Translating Research to Practice

Trustworthiness, usability, and accessibility are related to the effective translation of research to practice (Carnine, 1997). To gain insights into how research can be made relevant and useful to practitioners, the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) recently conducted a technical working group comprised of expert practitioners with a wide range of backgrounds (2014). The panel posited that researchers have a responsibility to share findings from intervention research in a way that makes transparent the strength of the evidence using easily understandable language that demonstrates the usability of the practice. Therefore, if researchers are to be truly successful in disseminating research findings, they must publish not only in outlets that have a researcher audience but also in outlets that are accessible to practitioners.

Practitioner journals are one such outlet. Unlike commonly used social media sources (e.g., Pinterest®, blogs), information disseminated through these outlets goes through a peer review process that ensures that the information presented is trustworthy and based on research evidence. In an age of information overload, special education practitioner journals play an important role as a reliable source of information about evidence-based practices for students with disabilities. While it is certainly not the only area that needs to be addressed to bridge the research to practice gap (see Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005, for an extensive review of the implementation science literature), providing high-quality information about effective interventions in a format that is easy for teachers to understand is an important piece of the much larger implementation science puzzle (Cook, Cook, & Landrum, 2013).

The Current Investigation

Numerous systematic reviews of special education research journals have been conducted to determine the amount and topics (e.g., specific academic areas, behavior) of research that is published (e.g., Clarke, Dunlap, & Stichter, 2002; Gage, Lewis, & Adamson, 2010; Graff, Berkeley, Evmenova, & Park, 2014; McFarland, Williams, & Miciak, 2013). For example, two comprehensive journal reviews give a broad picture of trends in the amount of intervention research with students with mild disabilities (Lessen, Dudzinski, Karsh, & Van Acker, 1989; Mastropieri et al., 2009). The majority of students who receive special education services have mild disabilities, such as specific learning disabilities (LD), emotional/behavioral disorders (EBD), autism-Level 1 (A-L1), and mild intellectual disabilities (ID). While these disabilities can significantly impact students in a variety of areas, the term mild is generally used to juxtapose the needs of these students to students with disabilities that are more profoundly impactful (e.g., severe ID, multiple disabilities) or that are sensory in nature (e.g., deaf, blind).

In 1989, Lessen and colleagues completed a seminal journal review of eight special education research journals with a focus on academic interventions for students with LD and found that only 4% of articles published between 1978 and 1987 were intervention research studies. In 2009, Mastropieri and colleagues replicated the work of Lessen et al. (1989) by conducting a comprehensive review of 11 special education research journals related to students with mild disabilities between 1988 and 2006. While the majority of journal articles were original research, only 15.9% were academic or behavioral intervention studies. Of the articles targeting academic areas, the majority were interventions for reading (35%), mathematics (15%), or general learning strategies (14%). Fewer articles addressed writing and spelling (14%), content area instruction (7%), or technology interventions (2%). Approximately 39% of articles included a social/behavioral intervention. These findings indicate that there has been an increase in the amount of intervention research published over the last two decades. Furthermore, fine-tuned analysis of specific types of academic interventions lent insights into the scope of research conducted in each academic area.

Less is known about how frequently this research is disseminated to practitioners. Recently, Hott, Berkeley, Fairfield, and Raymond (2017) completed a comprehensive review of the prominent practitioner journal Intervention in School and Clinic between 1990 and 2014 to explore this issue. Researchers found that less than half (43%) of the 925 reviewed articles translated findings from intervention research for practitioners. Other articles focused on policy updates or other information needed by practitioners, such as strategies for general lesson planning, adapting materials and tests, collaborating and co-teaching, and working with culturally diverse students and their families. Half of the articles that translated research to practice focused on academic interventions, 43% focused on behavioral interventions, and 7% focused on other educational interventions, such as transition and dropout prevention. Academic interventions most often related to reading, writing, or math; however, topics such as content area strategies, assessment, learning strategies, technology, and test taking/study skill were also occasionally published. Findings from a single journal, however, are inherently limited in scope.

The purpose of this study was to analyze a wide range of prominent special education practitioner journals to develop a comprehensive picture of the extent to which research is translated to practice for teachers who work with students with mild disabilities. To accomplish this, the current review spanned the same data range as the most current systematic review of research journal is special education (Mastropieri et al., 2009) and extended to present. Specifically, this research addresses the following research questions:

Research Question 1: How many articles published in prominent special education practitioner journals are specific to students with mild disabilities?

Research Question 2: Is the proportion of articles that translate research to practice consistent over time compared with other articles published (i.e., articles on other educational practices, original research, or literature reviews)?

Research Question 3: How do articles vary by format (i.e., overview of practice, description with examples, “how to”) and topic (e.g., academic areas, behavior)?

Method

Peer-reviewed journals were selected for inclusion in this review based on two criteria: (a) The target readership is practitioners (e.g., teachers, other school-based personnel) and (b) the content primarily focuses on special education topics that are relevant for educators of students with mild disabilities and their families. Exclusion criteria included (a) outlets that were primarily newsletters rather than full journals (e.g., LD Forum), (b) journals whose primary purpose was to describe identification and intensive clinical interventions primarily for dyslexia—a severe form of LD (e.g., Perspectives on Language and Literacy), and (c) journals that have not been in print for at least 5 years (e.g., Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals).

Delphi procedures were used to identify journals appropriate for the synthesis. Delphi procedures involve asking a confidential panel of experts to address a series of questions, followed by a review process, to reach consensus (Moore, 1987). The method was originally used in industry and has more recently been applied to education decision making (see Clayton, 1997). First, the research team identified a panel of 12 special education experts including (a) reading content specialists, (b) math specialists, (c) writing researchers and practitioners, (d) behavior specialists, (e) teacher educators, and (f) district curriculum leaders. In addition to being content specialists, each had relevant experience working with students with mild disabilities including relevant disability-specific knowledge. Each expert was contacted individually by email and asked to list special education journals that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Next, a follow-up email was sent to panelists that listed journals identified by the group and asked them to rate each of the journals based on study inclusion criteria on a scale that ranged from −2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree) (Clayton, 1997). Finally, the Delphi process resulted in unanimous agreement on the following journals: Teaching Exceptional Children, Teaching Exceptional Children-Plus, Intervention in School and Clinic, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (practice section), and Beyond Behavior. A description of each is provided next.

Teaching Exceptional Children is the practitioner journal of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). Although the journal does not have a ranking or impact factor, Teaching Exceptional Children is the largest print journal for special education practitioners with a circulation of approximately 31,000. The journal publishes 12- to 18-page articles 6 times per year. Feature articles address evidence-based practices for teaching students with exceptionalities in preschool, elementary, secondary, or postsecondary settings (SAGE, n.d.). Teaching Exceptional Children author guidelines indicate that the following types of articles are of interest: (a) instructional and management interventions, (b) guidance for responding to underrepresented points of view, (c) service delivery, (d) improving professional development practices, (e) information related to policies and regulations, and (f) issues related to programs or specific practices.

Teaching Exceptional Children-Plus was first published in 2004 as a companion journal to Teaching Exceptional Children. Articles for publication in Teaching Exceptional Children-Plus were selected from the pool of manuscripts accepted for publication in Teaching Exceptional Children. These articles generally included nonprint media such as “video or audio segments, narrated presentation slides, or downloadable forms” (SAGE, n.d.). Until 2010, a one-page summary of the online Teaching Exceptional Children-Plus issue was included in the print version of Teaching Exceptional Children. After this date, companion articles were only sporadically published; therefore, any articles after 2010 were not coded in the current review. While Teaching Exceptional Children-Plus has now been discontinued, archived articles remain online in ERIC and other repositories.

Intervention in School and Clinic is a practitioner journal associated with the Council for Learning Disabilities (CLD) and published by the Hammill Institute on Disabilities (2012). It is currently ranked 36 out of 39 special education journals and has an impact factor of .306 (Thomson Reuters, 2015). Intervention in School and Clinic currently publishes five issues a year consisting of 11 types of articles (2 to 18 pages in length): (a) feature articles, (b) behavior management, (c) collaboration column, (d) current topics, (e) diversity dispatches, (f) global perspectives, (g) interviews, (h) policy and law briefs, (i) teacher education, (j) technology trends, and (k) what works.

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, the flagship journal of the Division for Learning Disabilities (DLD) within CEC, is published quarterly by Wiley (n.d.). The journal includes two distinct sections—one devoted to research and the other specifically to practice. Only the practice section of this journal was included in the current analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice is ranked 19th out of 39 special education journals and has an impact factor of 1.118 (Thomson Reuters, 2015). Journal guidelines stipulate that practice articles be grounded in research and written in a style accessible to practitioners (Wiley, n.d.).

Beyond Behavior, initiated in 1990, is one of the major publications of the CEC Council for Children With Behavioral Disorders (CCBD). Beyond Behavior is published by the Hammill Institute on Disabilities and SAGE (n.d.). Beyond Behavior is not included in Thomson Reuters ratings. Issues are published 3 times a year with typical articles ranging between 15 and 20 pages. The stated mission of the journal is to (a) disseminate methods and resources that can be implemented in a variety of settings, (b) provide innovative ways of thinking about behavior, (c) address research to practice in schools by making research accessible, and (d) give support and information to practitioners working with youth who have EBD (CCBD, 2013).

Coding Protocol

Coding conventions and corresponding protocols were collaboratively developed by the first and second authors, based on procedures used by Mastropieri et al. (2009). The coding conventions included an operationalized definition of each item in the coding protocol with multiple detailed examples and corresponding codes for each categorical item. Both authors have PhDs in education and are certified special education teachers. The first author has specialized training in mathematics, and the second author has specialized training in literacy. The coding instrument and corresponding coding conventions included primary and secondary coding levels along with hypothetical examples of each code.

Primary coding

Articles went through primary coding to establish whether the article would require additional in-depth coding. First, the following basic information about the issue was coded: (a) journal name, year, volume, and issue; (b) whether there was an introduction to the issue; (c) whether it was a special issue and topic when applicable, and (d) the number of articles in the issue (excluding book/media reviews, blogs, and other front/back matter). Then, identifying information about the article, and first author name and affiliation, was coded.

Each article was then evaluated to determine whether the target population of the article was primarily focused on mild disabilities (LD, EBD, A-L1, or mild ID). Next, articles were categorized as (a) based on intervention research (articles that cited relevant intervention research studies supporting the effectiveness of the intervention); (b) a practitioner article, but not intervention research based (these articles reported on practices that were not considered interventions, such as collaboration, policy or law, or disability characteristics); or (c) a reporting of original research data or a literature review. For example, an article that included information about an intervention for schema-based strategies for solving word problems, with supporting research citations, was coded as an article based on intervention research.

Secondary coding

The secondary coding protocol was intended to capture more detailed information about the nature of the intervention described. Secondary coding was only completed for articles that were both based on intervention research and intended for teachers of students with mild disabilities.

Each article that qualified for secondary coding was first classified by article format. “Overview of practice” articles served to introduce the reader to an important educational problem faced by students with mild disabilities and provide a general description of interventions that would address the issue. These articles may have contained resources where a reader could locate additional information on the topic. “Description with examples” articles contained information similar to that in overview of practice articles, but they also included sample teaching materials or descriptions of real-world applications of the interventions. These articles were best suited for a reader who already had a general understanding of the nature of the educational problem and wanted additional information about how to address the issue. These articles sometimes included resources to help the reader find more information. Finally, “how to” articles may have included some information similar to overview of practice and description of practice articles, but the primary purpose was to provide step-by-step directions that would enable an educator to implement a specific intervention after reading the article. Because these articles offered detailed explanations, they most often focused on a single intervention. This type of article would be of most interest to an educator who already had a solid understanding of the educational problem and needed specific, concrete directions and materials to help get them started with implementing the chosen intervention.

Then, the article was categorized as addressing either academics or behavior, following the general categories used in previous comprehensive reviews of research journals (e.g., Mastropieri et al., 2009). Articles that addressed academics addressed (a) reading (early reading, basic reading skills, comprehension, combination or other), (b) writing (spelling, mechanics/usage, composition, combination, or other), (c) math (early math, basic math, problem solving, combination, or other), (d) content area instruction (social studies, science, or other), or (e) “other” (e.g., general test-taking strategies). It was noted whether the intervention included technology (i.e., hardware or software was a component of the intervention). Behavior was defined broadly to encompass both behavioral and social interventions, again following practices used in previous systematic reviews (e.g., Mastropieri et al., 2009). Examples of behavior interventions included check-in/check-out, praise, self-monitoring, and social skills instruction. It was noted whether the intervention included technology.

Training Procedures

Ten graduate research assistants, each with a minimum of 3 years of teaching experience, served as coders. All had certifications in special education and/or school psychology and had completed advanced research coursework. Collectively, research assistants had experience working with students with a variety of exceptionalities across grade levels.

Articles published in a practitioner journal targeting general education teachers were selected for coder training; all training articles were related to students with disabilities or special education, and all articles contained information needed for coders to demonstrate competency in coding conventions. Training materials included hard copies of articles, the coding conventions and protocols manual, and coding record sheets. The first author conducted a group training session in which coding conventions were reviewed, the step-by-step process for completing coding record sheets was explained, and procedures for managing data were discussed. Finally, the graduate assistants independently coded training articles until they demonstrated 100% accuracy with all coding conventions. Both steps were completed within one 3-hr training.

Reliability

Two research assistants were assigned to code each journal. The first research assistant coded all published articles in the assigned journal, and the second research assistant independently coded a subset of articles from the same journal to establish reliability. To ensure that coding remained consistently accurate over time, a subset of issues was purposefully sampled for reliability coding. Journals were divided into 5-year increments starting with the first issue and ending with the last issue, and an online random number generator was used to select 30% of issues within each journal within each 5-year increment. In keeping with methods used in previous systematic reviews, interrater reliability was calculated by adding the total number of agreements and dividing by the total number of possible items. Overall reliability across all journals was 95.64% (range = 92.64%-100%). Disagreements were resolved to 100% agreement, and a consensus model was used to determine the final code.

Results

Articles Specific to Students With Mild Disabilities

In all, researchers coded 3,245 articles published in the five targeted practitioner journals between 1988 and 2015 (see Figure 1). Sixty-four percent (n = 2,080) of these articles provided information for practitioners related to students with mild disabilities. The remaining 1,165 articles targeted “other populations” that included students with more severe disabilities (e.g., ID) or sensory disabilities (e.g., deafness, blindness), and adults who work with persons with disabilities (e.g., teachers, instructional assistants, administrators, parents).

Figure 1.

Frequency of articles by disability area.

Trends in Translating Intervention Research to Practice

Of the 2,080 articles that provided information related to mild disabilities, 45% were articles that translated intervention research to practice, 44% were “other” practitioner articles, and 11% were original research reports or literature reviews. Of the 1,165 articles that provided information related to other populations, the majority (81%) were “other” practitioner articles, followed by articles translating intervention research for students with severe or sensory disabilities to practice (13%), and original research or literature reviews (6%).

Types of articles published were evaluated both by journal (see Table 1) and over time (see Figure 2). Types of articles published in Teaching Exceptional Children and Teaching Exceptional Children-Plus fluctuated over the last 30 years. Over time, the proportion of intervention research translated to practice through Intervention in School and Clinic was consistently higher than other types of papers. Since 2005, Beyond Behavior had consistently published a relatively higher number of articles translating research to practice; prior to this, articles about other educational practices appeared most frequently. With the exception of Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, practitioner journals published relatively fewer numbers of original research papers or literature reviews.

Table 1.

Frequency of Article Type by Journal.

Journal	Total mild disabilities articles, n	Intervention research translated to practice, n (%)	Other educational practice, n (%)	Original research or literature review, n (%)	Notes on journal that explain number of articles
TEC	791	309 (39)	433 (54.7)	49 (6)	Journal targets all disability categories
ISC	685	438 (64)	188 (27)	59 (9)
BB	281	90 (32)	170 (61)	21 (8)	Journal first published in 1990
LDRP	209	43 (21)	72 (34)	94 (45)	Practice articles only in practice section; practice section intermittent between 2004 and 2015
TEC Plus	114	48 (42)	48 (42)	18 (16)	Only published between 2004 and 2010

Note. TEC = Teaching Exceptional Children; ISC = Intervention in School and Clinic; BB = Beyond Behavior; LDRP = Learning Disabilities Research & Practice; TEC Plus = Teaching Exceptional Children-Plus.

Figure 2.

Proportion of intervention research translated to practices over time for studies involving students with mild disabilities.

Format and Topic of Articles

The largest number of articles (43%) that translated research with students with mild disabilities to practice through articles were categorized as “descriptions with examples.” Thirty-three percent of articles were categorized as “how to” in that they provided step-by-step instructions to implement a particular practice. The remaining 23% of articles provided a summary of a practice or series of practices (classified as “overview of practice”).

As shown in Figure 3, intervention article topics included academic (53%), social/behavioral (38%), or “other” (6%) interventions. The 553 academic articles were further classified as targeting reading (36%), writing (16%), math, (16%) content areas (14%), or “other” academic areas (17%). Articles classified as “other academic areas” were further identified as (a) learning strategies, motivation, and engagement (n = 31); (b) technology (n = 17); (c) test-taking and study skills (n = 16); (d) other instructional arrangements and methods (e.g., peer tutoring, feedback; n = 14); and (e) language or communication (n = 10).

Figure 3.

Frequency of academic intervention articles.

Articles that were identified as dealing with reading, writing, math, and content area instruction were further reviewed. Areas addressed within the 189 reading articles coded were 19% early reading skills (e.g., phonological awareness), 26% basic reading (e.g., phonics, fluency), 34% reading comprehension, and 21% a combination of these areas. Areas addressed in the 85 writing articles were 12% spelling, 20% mechanics and usage, 38% composition, and 31% a combination of these areas. Areas addressed in the 82 math articles were 6% early math skills (e.g., numeracy), 35% basic math skills (e.g., computation), 35% problem solving, and 23% a combination of these areas. Areas addressed in the 75 content instruction articles were 24% instructional practices in social studies, 25% instructional practices in science, and 51% other content areas (e.g., foreign language, health).

Discussion

The focus on evidence-based practices in the field of special education is a relatively new phenomenon. Language within the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (and again in the 2015 reauthorization) for the first time placed requirements on schools to use research-based interventions as a means to improve academic outcomes for subgroups of students who traditionally underperform, including students with disabilities. Nearly 6 million students receive special education and related services in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015), so this legislation has been impactful for schools and teachers. It is critical that both special and general education teachers are knowledgeable of effective interventions for these students because most students with mild disabilities receive instruction in general education classrooms where they are expected to demonstrate adequate progress toward meeting grade-level performance (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015;; Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 2004).

Since that initial legislation, large-scale efforts have been undertaken to vet effective instructional practices for use in schools, such as the establishment of the federal What Works Clearinghouse. In the field of special education, there have been prolific discussions around various approaches for both evaluating and synthesizing intervention research to establish practice with sufficient empirical evidence for use with students with disabilities (e.g., CEC, 2014; Gersten et al., 2005; Horner et al., 2005). Furthermore, a large number of research syntheses have been published that evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for students with mild disabilities in a range of academic areas, including reading, writing, mathematics, and content areas instruction (e.g., Edmonds et al., 2009; Gersten et al., 2009; Gillespie & Graham, 2014; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Berkeley, & Graetz, 2010). Yet, findings from systematic journal reviews suggest that the number of intervention research studies published in special education research journals is surprisingly low.

It is promising that the percentage of articles translating intervention research to practice found in this investigation is almost double the percentage (15.9%) of original intervention studies published in special education research journals reported by Mastropieri et al. (2009). However, considering the importance of providing teachers with exposure to evidence-based practices, this percentage is relatively small in comparison with the cumulative information needed by teachers to adequately provide intervention to students with mild disabilities. The current systematic analysis reviewed 3,245 articles published in special education practitioner journals between the years 1988 and 2015. The number of articles published within the time frame of the investigation varied by journal (range = 114-791), as did the percentage of articles that translated intervention research to practice related to students with mild disabilities (range = 21%-64%). Across journals, findings showed that fewer than 30% of articles translated intervention research findings for students with mild disabilities in a format accessible to teachers.

Implications for Stakeholders

Results from this systematic review have the potential to inform several parties focused on providing quality instruction to students with mild disabilities, including researchers, teacher educators and professional development providers, and practitioners. A few of the possible implications are outlined below.

Special education researchers have a responsibility to conduct high-quality research and ensure that outcomes are translated for practitioners. Results of this review may be used to identify areas of dissemination need. For example, only 5 articles addressed early mathematics skills such as numeracy and only 10 articles addressed spelling interventions. The field of special education has made significant progress in determining evidence-based interventions, including interventions to support early mathematics development and spelling. To assist with dissemination efforts, researchers may use results to identify areas of need and submit associated manuscripts. These manuscripts may address empirically supported numeracy interventions such as explicit, systematic instruction, “think-alouds,” and multiple representations and spelling interventions such as self-correction and cover-copy-compare. In addition, editors of practitioner journals may consider findings to assist with identifying areas of need, potentially create special issue topics to solicit invited manuscripts, or to make adjustments to calls for manuscripts. Consideration of special issue topics such as numeracy and spelling interventions may be helpful to the field.

It is important that dissemination efforts promote practitioner trust, access, and usability (Carnine, 1997); therefore, attention to practitioner journal offerings is an important effort. Yet, all teachers are not at the same level of readiness for all practices, and as such, a continuum of information is needed to meet this range of needs (Vaughn, Klingner, & Hughes, 2000). To foster adoption of evidence-based practices in the classroom, researchers must be attuned to this continuum of needs of practitioners (Vaughn et al., 2000). Some teachers are in the beginning stages of understanding and need exposure to research-validated practices. Others understand the need for empirically validated practices but need assistance with determining which practices are appropriate. Finally, some educators have a sound grasp of an effective intervention, but may need assistance in implementing it with fidelity. Findings from the current study show that practitioner journals consist of a range of articles that vary in scope to meet this continuum of practitioner needs. However, the issue of ensuring that research-based practices are implemented is a multifaceted and highly complex process (Fixsen et al., 2005). As such, information within practice articles serve as an important gateway for teachers to locate additional information and resources related to the practice, regardless of the format of the article (e.g., overview of practice, description with examples, how to).

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, results of this analysis provide practitioners with an overview of resources to address areas that they may identify as needs. Many articles can be accessed through open sources such as Google Scholar or by joining relevant professional organizations. Having an understanding of the types and format of resources available has the potential to empower practitioners to seek information from practitioner journals rather than sources that may be less credible (social media outlets, Pinterest®) or accessible (research articles with complicated statistical procedures and jargon; see Brigham, Gustashaw, Wiley, & Brigham, 2004; Cook, Tankersley, Cook, & Landrum, 2008).

Future Directions

The current investigation found that the proportion of topic areas paralleled findings from Mastropieri et al. (2009) with reading being most prevalent, and articles addressing technology being sparse. However, we did not assess intervention quality or the evidence base supporting academics interventions. Research quality is an important consideration when determining the strength of the evidence base for an intervention, and as such, criteria for research quality have been an area of focus within the field of special education (e.g., CEC, 2014; Odom et al., 2005; What Works Clearinghouse, 2014). Future researchers might take this work a step further by determining how often interventions with the strongest evidence bases are translated for a practitioner audience.

Inability to manage student behavior is a highly cited reason why teachers leave the profession (Brill & McCartney, 2008; Brownell, Smith, McNellis, & Miller, 1997). Therefore, in addition to understanding how to provide effective instruction to students with disabilities, it is important to translate intervention research related to behavior. This comprehensive overview found 36% of articles addressed behavioral issues for students with mild disabilities. There is a wide variety of effective classroom management and behavioral intervention strategies, such as positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), applied behavioral analysis, and self-regulation strategies. In addition, many elements of behavioral interventions are intertwined or are applied across a wide range of academic and social settings. To understand the nature of these practices, research is needed with a coding scheme designed to capture the complexities of these behavioral interventions.

Finally, because it was beyond the scope of the current study, we did not complete an in-depth analysis of articles that were based on types of research other than intervention research. However, anecdotal observations suggest that these articles often contained information of importance to the field, including legal updates and strategies for remaining in compliance with state and federal regulations, information about characteristics of disabilities, assessment approaches to help monitor student progress, and guidance to help special education teachers navigate other professional responsibilities (e.g., co-teaching and collaborating with other professionals, communicating with parents, writing Individual Education Programs [IEPs], and providing accommodations). This is another possible area for further study.

Although our primary purpose in this investigation was to get a sense of the scope of articles published, it would be worthwhile for future research to consider the features within articles that can foster implementation. Cook and colleagues (2013) provided a dissemination framework for implementation science in special education based on Heath and Heath’s (2008) model applied in the medical field. For research to resonate with practitioners, Cook et al. suggested that educators benefit from messages that are (a) simple (e.g., an identifiable, clear message delivered through effective marketing strategies), (b) unexpected (e.g., surprising components such as “highlighting key text in written reports” or “using colors or styles that make key information standout”), (c) concrete (e.g., accessible terminology, “vivid details” that trigger an emotional response), (d) credible (e.g., expertise and experience rather than only academic credentials), (e) emotional (e.g., a personal connection), and (f) stories (e.g., narratives that summarize practice). Based on our observations while coding, we believe this may be a viable framework for qualitatively evaluating article content. Following, we provide two examples of how future researchers might approach operationalizing the Cook et al. framework for such an investigation.

One approach might be to evaluate each article holistically based on cumulative evidence of messages within the framework. For example, an article within Intervention in School and Clinic (2010, volume 45, number 4) adhered to all of the principles in the dissemination framework proposed by Cook and colleagues (2013). The cover of the issue depicts a stack of well-read books with a small tree taking root in the center. This is certainly an unexpected image and serves the purpose to draw the reader’s attention and pique curiosity about the content within. The image pertains to the first feature article on creating informal reading inventories (IRIs) that are literature-based (Provost, Lambert, & Babkie, 2010). The article contains a simple singular focus with core messages that are limited to components and applications of IRIs, and the authors clearly identify how the approach was driven by identified needs of schools and teachers (e.g., “not all teachers may have ready access to commercially produced IRIs,” p. 212). Furthermore, although teachers do not always trust experts or research findings (Boardman, Arguelles, Vaughn, Hughes, & Klingner, 2005), the article is credible in that it is written by established scholars in the field who cite research on the application of this assessment approach. One particularly vivid example within the article is a figure of a reading selection where all sight word vocabulary are highlighted—This image provides a concrete visual display that illustrates how impactful fluent sight word performance is to student reading proficiency and why it is so important for teachers to measure. Finally, the entire application section is written in a narrative story format where a teacher, Ms. Parker, creates and administers the assessment with a third-grade student, Jacob. While this article was about assessment rather than an evidence-based practice, all of the elements of the dissemination framework proposed by Cook and colleagues (2013), with the exception of tapping into the emotions of the reader, were addressed in this single article. As such, this article might be rated highly on a holistic rating scale.

A second approach might be to look for evidence of each principle of the dissemination framework across articles. For example, the use of concrete elements could be explored across a subject area such as mathematics as illustrated in the following examples. Scheid’s (1994) article published in Teaching Exceptional Children provides step-by-step instructions to include principles of cognitive instruction in mathematics classes. In the article, Scheid provides concrete examples illustrating how to incorporate “how” and “why” questions to assist students with developing a conceptual understanding of problem-solving techniques. Furthermore, terms (e.g., concepts, relationships, processes, procedures) are defined using simple terminology with concrete examples. In another Teaching Exceptional Children article, Fuchs, Fuchs, Prentice, Burch, and Paulson (2002) use concrete elements to share the “Hot Math” strategy. The article includes two sample problems with clear, step-by-step directions. A self-monitoring chart provides a temperature gauge with measurable increments to track student progress. In an article published in Beyond Behavior, Wells, Sheehey, and Sheehey’s (2017) concrete elements are evident in their description of self-monitoring and self-graphing procedures to increase academic productivity in math. The article includes a list of procedures followed by clearly defined steps to complete each procedure, a picture of a self-monitoring device, a visual schedule that can be used to teach the student, and an example of a student’s graph. Furthermore, the article defines key terms and is written in a “jargon” free format, and sufficient examples and graphics to support implementation are provided. Qualitative approaches such as this have the potential to identify exemplars that could be used as models for future articles.

Conclusion

Results from this study revealed a variety of articles are available to support practitioners working with students with mild disabilities. It is promising that nearly 30% of practitioner articles focus on interventions. Like previous reviews of research journals, the majority of articles focused on reading interventions with fewer articles addressing mathematics and writing. This study provides a basis for future work with practitioner journals that may include measures of both quantity and quality.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Boardman

A. G.

Arguelles

M. E.

Vaughn

Hughes

M. T.

Klingner

(2005). Special education teachers’ views of research-based practices. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 168–180.

Brigham

F. J.

Gustashaw

W. E.

Wiley

A. L.

Brigham

M. S. P.

(2004). Research in the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act: Why the controversies will continue and some suggestions for controversial research. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 300–310.

Brill

McCartney

(2008). Stopping the revolving door: Increasing teacher retention. Politics & Policy, 36, 750–774.

Brownell

M. T.

Smith

S. W.

McNellis

J. R.

Miller

M. D.

(1997). Attrition in special education: Why teachers leave the classroom and where they go. Exceptionality, 7, 143–155.

Carnine

(1997). Bridging the research-to-practice gap. Exceptional Children, 63, 513–521.

Clarke

Dunlap

Stichter

(2002). A descriptive analysis of intervention research in emotional and behavioral disorders from 1980 through 1999. Behavior Modification, 26, 659–683. doi:10.1177/014544502236656

Clayton

M. J.

(1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17, 373–386.

Cook

B. G.

Cook

Landrum

T. J.

(2013). Moving research into practice: Can we make dissemination stick? Exceptional Children, 79, 163–180.

Cook

B. G.

Landrum

T. J.

Tankersley

Kauffman

J. M.

(2003). Bringing research to bear on practice: Effecting evidence-based instruction for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 26, 345–361.

10.

Cook

B. G.

Odom

S. L.

(2013). Evidenced-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79, 135–144.

11.

Cook

B. G.

Tankersley

Cook

Landrum

T. J.

(2008). Evidence-based practices in special education: Some practical considerations. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 69–75.

12.

Council for Children With Behavioral Disorders. (2013). Beyond Behavior author submission guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net/publications/beyondbehavior

13.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). Council for Exceptional Children standards for evidence-based practice in special education. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Files/Standards/Evidence%20based%20Practices%20and%20Practice/CECs%20Evidence%20Based%20Practice%20Standards.pdf

14.

Edmonds

M. S.

Vaughn

Wexler

Reutebuch

Cable

Tackett

K. K.

Schnakenberg

J. W.

(2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262–300.

15.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-195, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2015).

16.

Fixsen

D. L.

Naoom

S. F.

Blase

K. A.

Friedman

R. M.

Wallace

(2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication #231). Tampa: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network. Retrieved from http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-MonographFull-01-2005.pdf

17.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Prentice

Burch

Paulson

(2002). Hot math: Promoting mathematical problem solving among third-grade students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32, 70–73.

18.

Gage

Lewis

Adamson

(2010). An examination of 35 years of behavioral disorders: What, how, and who has been published. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 280–293.

19.

Gersten

Chard

D. J.

Jayanthi

Baker

S. K.

Morphy

Flojo

(2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242.

20.

Gersten

Fuchs

Compton

Coyne

Greenwood

Innocenti

M. S.

(2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.

21.

Gillespie

Graham

(2014). A meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 80, 454–473.

22.

Graff

H. J.

Berkeley

Evmenova

A. S.

Park

K. L.

(2014). Trends in autism research: A systematic journal analysis. Exceptionality, 22, 158–172.

23.

Hammill Institute on Disabilities. (2012). Author guidelines. Retrieved from https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/societyimages/isc/AuthorGuidelines_ISC_11_16.pdf

24.

Heath

(2008). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. New York, NY: Random House.

25.

Horner

R. H.

Carr

E. G.

Halle

McGee

Odom

Wolery

(2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.

26.

Hott

Berkeley

Fairfield

Raymond

(2017). Intervention in school and clinic: An analysis of 25 years of guidance for practitioners. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40, 54–64.

27.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

28.

Institute for Education Sciences, Technical Work Group. (2014). Summary of practitioner perspectives on emerging research needs and improving relevance in education research. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncer/whatsnew/techworkinggroup/pdf/PractitionerTWG.pdf

29.

Klingner

J. K.

Ahwee

Pilonieta

Menendez

(2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 411–429.

30.

Lessen

Dudzinski

Karsh

Van Acker

(1989). A survey of ten years of academic intervention research with learning disabled students: Implications for research and practice. Learning Disabilities Focus, 4, 106–122.

31.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Berkeley

McDuffie

K. A.

Graff

Marshak

Conners

N. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

(2009). What is published in the field of special education? An analysis of 11 prominent journals. Exceptional Children, 76, 95–109.

32.

McFarland

Williams

Miciak

(2013). Ten years of research: A systematic review of three referred LD journals. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 60–69.

33.

Moore

C. M.

(1987). Group techniques for idea building. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

34.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Digest of education statistics, 2013 (NCES 2015-011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

35.

Odom

S. L.

Brantlinger

Gersten

Horner

R. H.

Thompson

Harris

K. R.

(2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.

36.

Provost

M. C.

Lambert

M. A.

Babkie

A. M.

(2010). Informal reading inventories: Creating teacher-designed literature-based assessments. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 211–220.

37.

SAGE. (n.d.). Teaching exceptional children: Author guidelines. Retrieved from https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/teaching-exceptional-children/journal202279#submission-guidelines

38.

Scheid

(1994). Cognitive-based methods for teaching mathematics: Matching classroom resources to instructional methods. Teaching Exceptional Children, 26(3), 6–10.

39.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Berkeley

Graetz

J. E.

(2010). Do special education interventions improve learning of secondary content? A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 437–449.

40.

Thomson Reuters. (2015). 2014 journal citation reports. Available from https://jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com

41.

Vaughn

Klingner

Hughes

(2000). Sustainability of research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 66, 163–171.

42.

Vaughn

Swanson

E. A.

(2015). Special education research advances knowledge in education. Exceptional Children, 82, 11–24.

43.

Wells

J. C.

Sheehey

P. H.

Sheehey

(2017). Using self-monitoring of performance with self-graphing to increase academic productivity in math. Beyond Behavior, 26, 57–65.

44.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2014). Procedures and standards (3.0). Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf

45.

Wiley. (n.d.). Learning disabilities research and practice: Guidelines for authors. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5826/homepage/ForAuthors.html