Abstract
The topic for this issue of Topics in Early Childhood Special Education is “Contributions of Research with Noneffects to Early Childhood Special Education Research.” In recent years, research findings have suggested a file drawer effect or publication bias, which means studies with noneffects are disproportionately unlikely to be published (Shadish, Zelinsky, Vevea, & Kratochwill, 2016; Sham & Smith, 2014; Tincani & Travers, 2018). Publication bias can be prevented by publishing studies based on their methodological rigor rather than the presence or magnitude of behavior change or significance (Cook & Therrien, 2017).
We identified five manuscripts for this issue that demonstrate the value of noneffects. Researchers across these manuscripts employed rigorous research designs, examined complex variables, and provided a significant contribution to advance service delivery systems for children with disabilities. I am particularly excited about the range of topics and research designs represented, which contributes broadly to early childhood special education research.
In the first manuscript, Ledford, Osbourne, Martin, and Thorne describe a multitreatment single-case research study designed to examine the relative effectiveness of multicomponent stay, play, talk interventions on peer social behaviors of children with and without disabilities. They identified functional relations for some participants and some behaviors and provide initial information regarding components that might enhance the efficacy of stay, play, talk interventions. Hendrix, Hojnoski, and Missall used a combination single-case research design to examine the effects of book content and shared book reading on parent and child math–related talk. Results for the shared book reading were mixed and no functional relation was identified. Their results highlight the need for a more robust parent training approach with particular attention to the contextual fit of the shared book reading strategies. Odom and colleagues examined the efficacy of the Children’s School Success (CSS) curriculum for 4-year-old children enrolled in inclusive preschool programs. Positive effects were identified for vocabulary, letter knowledge, math, and social problem solving for children at risk of disabilities due to poverty and children who were English language learners. However, there were no effects for children with disabilities. Their findings demonstrate that high quality early childhood placements for children with disabilities are not sufficient. In their single-case study, Coogle, Larson, Ottley, Root, and Bougher found that peer-delivered, technology-enhanced, performance-based feedback increased early intervention providers’ use of some family engagement strategies. Although their results were mixed, their use of peer-delivered feedback (i.e., authentic intervention agents) is innovative and provides an important contribution to the professional development research. In the final manuscript, Reszka, Belardi, Amsbary, Watson, and Boyd describe the results of their study examining preschool teachers’ intervention fidelity of the advancing social-communication and play (ASAP) and related child outcomes. They found teachers’ fidelity scores did not reach anticipated levels of fidelity. Furthermore, child outcomes were not mediated by intervention fidelity. Their results have important implications for advancing how the field measures fidelity and highlights the importance of identifying fidelity thresholds or criterion levels based on socially valid improvements in child outcomes.
I want to thank the authors and reviewers of this topical issue on noneffects in early childhood special education research. I hope the findings are useful as the field continues to develop a comprehensive understanding of evidence-based practices for children with disabilities. Furthermore, I hope the findings in this issue and our focus on noneffects highlight the need for rigorous research examining meaningful questions to inform research, policy, and practices rather than a narrow focus on the significance of the outcomes.