class

https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451218819234

Intervention in School and Clinic 2019, Vol. 54(5) 272 –279 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2019

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1053451218819234

isc.sagepub.com

Feature

Despite advances in research and increasing knowledge of empirically supported practices, there continues to be a sig- nificant research-to-practice gap for practitioners in schools. Unfortunately, special education research knowledge is not frequently incorporated into the classroom (Hott, Berkeley, Fairfield, & Shora, 2017). These gaps may exist for a mul- titude of reasons, including but not limited to (a) clear sep- arateness between research and practice communities, (b) lack of practical interventions that can be easily incorpo- rated into the classroom, and (c) lack of ongoing opportuni- ties for professional development or collaboration between researchers and practitioners (Van Ingen, Alvarez McHatton, & Vomvoridi-Ivanovic, 2016).

With growing caseloads, increasing paperwork demands, and pressure from parents and administrators to produce results, teachers are looking for effective strate- gies. Far too often, teachers gravitate toward quick-fix practices that are popular and claim to produce results. These promised new ways claim to deliver beneficial out- comes that are less stressful, lower in cost, easier to imple- ment, and less risky than previous interventions (Schreck, Russell, & Vargas, 2013). New fads are implemented and tossed aside, with no actual student improvement. With increasing demands and limited time, teachers do not

always look to the research to determine whether these interventions are worthwhile and scientifically validated. Increases in diagnoses, especially in autism, have led to increases in the number of treatments that are not sup- ported by quality research (Zane, Davis, & Rosswurm, 2008). The use of these treatments wastes time that could be better spent supporting student growth and progress. Examples of current trends that do not have solid research backing include (a) mindfulness exercises to improve aca- demic performance (Burke, 2010), (b) use of tinted lenses (Hyatt, Stephenson, & Carter, 2009) to help students with dyslexia, (c) sensory integration therapy for students with autism (Lang et al., 2012), (d) instruction tailored to meet students’ “learning styles” (Willingham, Hughes, & Dobolyi, 2015), and (e) use of high-tech educational apps, which are often not designed with principles of effective instruction in mind (Boone & Higgins, 2007). Practitioners’ adoption of these practices illustrates that well-meaning

819234 ISCXXX10.1177/1053451218819234Intervention in School and ClinicKonrad et al. research-article2019

1The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Corresponding Author: Moira Konrad, PhD, The Ohio State University, A358 PAES Building, 305 Annie & John Glenn Ave., Columbus, OH 43210, USA. Email: [email protected]

Fads or Facts? Sifting Through the Evidence to Find What Really Works

Moira Konrad, PhD1, Caitlin J. Criss, MA1, and Alana Oif Telesman, MA1

Abstract Despite the requirement that teachers implement evidence-based instruction in their classrooms, a significant research-to- practice gap persists. Far too often, teachers resort to quick fixes found through online searches or rely on conventional wisdom to make instructional decisions. This is no surprise as identifying evidence-based interventions can be time- consuming, overwhelming, and confusing. Indeed, claims of practices being evidence based are ubiquitous, even for practices that clearly lack evidence to support their efficacy. In addition, once an evidence-based practice is selected, the process for implementing it and evaluating its effectiveness can be an additional challenge. The purposes of this article are to distinguish between an evidence-based practice as an instructional strategy and evidence-based education as a problem-solving process and to assist teachers in identifying, implementing, and evaluating evidence-based practices in their classrooms.

Keywords evidence-based practice, evidence-based education, high-incidence disabilities, data-based decision making

Konrad et al. 273

teachers are often confused about where to start or how to select an appropriate intervention.

The purposes of this article are to (a) distinguish between “evidence-based practice” as a specific treatment or strategy and evidence-based education as a problem-solving process and (b) describe steps and resources to assist teachers as they adopt an evidence-based approach to teaching—an approach that will yield improved academic and social outcomes for their students with high-incidence disabilities.

Evidence-Based Practice or Evidence- Based Education?

The term evidence-based practice has become ubiquitous (Cook & Cook, 2013; Detrich, 2008)—it seems everything is “evidence based” now. Even those who have solid criteria for identifying a practice as evidence based are not in agree- ment about what it means, and far more problematic is pub- lishers, and even researchers, using the term to describe practices that have not been found to be effective. Adding to the confusion are the myriad other terms used to describe recommended practices: research-based practice, empiri- cally supported treatment, best practice, scientifically based research, and high-leverage practice, just to name a few.

Detrich and Lewis (2012) suggested that it is limiting to use the term “evidence-based practice” to describe a spe- cific teaching practice that has met a specific set of eviden- tiary criteria. A broader, more flexible definition of evidence-based practice, according to Detrich (2008), is teaching that includes three steps: (a) identifying a practice, (b) implementing the practice, and (c) evaluating that prac- tice. However, Cook and Cook (2013) noted that using the term evidence-based practice in this way may be confusing to educators and suggested the term evidence-based educa- tion as an alternative. The term evidence-based education is used throughout this article to refer to an approach to teach- ing and problem solving in the classroom.

Evidence-Based Education: A Problem- Solving Process

As educators work to close achievement gaps, it is critical they identify, implement, and evaluate their practice. This involves more than simply finding a practice that has been deemed effective. It involves a scientific approach to educa- tion and professional wisdom (Cook, Tankersley, & Harjusola-Webb, 2008). Rather than simply taking a prac- tice and blindly implementing it in their classrooms, teach- ers should use their knowledge and previous experiences to make judgments about how to best incorporate this practice in their unique classrooms. What follows is a description of this process. A checklist provided in Figure 1 can help teachers as they embrace evidence-based education.

Step 1: Identify the Practice

Identifying an evidence-based practice (EBP) can be frus- trating and time-consuming; sifting through the numerous resources, books, and online search engines can be over- whelming. Fortunately, there are resources (see Table 1) teachers and other practitioners can keep in their toolkits to identify effective practices for their classroom (e.g., meta- analyses, expert panels, and clearinghouses). It should be noted that these three types of resources are not mutually exclusive; an expert panel, for instance, may conduct a meta-analysis and/or develop and oversee a clearinghouse. All three of these resources can guide educators in their selection and evaluation of EBPs.

Meta-Analysis and Meta-Meta-Analysis

Using statistical analysis to synthesize findings from mul- tiple studies into a comprehensive review is called meta- analysis. Educators can refer to meta-analyses to determine if a specific intervention has been shown to work with stu- dents similar to those in their classrooms or compare vari- ous interventions to identify the ones with the most robust effects. Some meta-analyses that have been conducted in the field of special education include Therrien’s (2004) review of repeated reading, Kroesbergen and Van Luit’s (2003) review of math interventions, Gillespie and Graham’s (2014) review of writing interventions, and Murawski and Swanson’s (2001) review of coteaching. For more examples of meta-analyses and discussion of how to use meta-analysis as a guide for intervention selection, see Banda and Therrien (2008).

Hattie (2009) took meta-analysis further by conducting a comprehensive meta-meta-analysis (i.e., an analysis of meta-analyses) to identify and compare influences related to learning outcomes. Using information gathered from over 1,200 meta-analyses across the field of education, Hattie determined the efficacy of these influences based on their outcomes and ranked them according to their effec- tiveness. In a 2017 update, he listed 256 influences in order of most effective to least effective. Many of the strategies Hattie found to be effective can be applied broadly across different subjects, interventions, and teaching methods.

Expert Panels

When looking for effective practices, teachers can also use information from an expert panel—a group of individuals from the field that work collaboratively to outline effective practices. The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) fre- quently convenes expert panels to disseminate information to educators. For example, CEC and the Center for Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR; McLeskey et al., 2017) convened an

274 Intervention in School and Clinic 54(5)

expert panel of practitioners, researchers, and advocates to outline effective practices for special education teachers and teacher candidates, which resulted in publication of High- Leverage Practices in Special Education. The high-leverage practices (HLPs) include 22 effective practices for school- age special education teachers organized into four categories: collaboration, assessment, social/emotional/behavioral prac- tices, and instruction (McLeskey et al., 2017). Other exam- ples of expert panels include the National Reading Panel, the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, and the National Standards Project.

Clearinghouses

Educators can also access national clearinghouses, which house findings from literature reviews conducted to deter- mine the effectiveness of interventions. Often clearinghouse reports will present both the quality and quantity of research to determine if there is enough evidence to rate intervention effectiveness. National clearinghouses may focus on a

specific population (e.g., the National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice) or include a more compre- hensive list of educational interventions for all students (e.g., What Works Clearinghouse [WWC]). The Results First Clearinghouse Database (see Table 1) contains data from eight different national clearinghouses to identify EBPs for educators and policy makers. As of June 2018, the Results First Clearinghouse included information on over 2,800 pro- grams focused on education and social change. Users can search the database by intervention name, age, setting, and effectiveness. Practitioners can also search for interventions they are currently using to determine their effectiveness.

Identifying Evidence-Based Practices

No clearinghouse, expert panel, or meta-analysis is the “end all be all.” Expert panels may be biased, meta-analyses are often fraught with methodological problems (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001), and clearinghouses may be both biased and compromised by methodological issues and may be

Step Zero: Determine your broad goal(s).  Have you analyzed your current environment (e.g., classroom climate, family concerns, student population, profession development oppor-

tunities and initiatives, philosophical approaches, financial resources)?  Are you searching for an evidence-based practice that will benefit all your students in a classwide setting, or are you targeting a specific

student or small group of students who needs intervention in a specific area?  Are you trying to find a practice to meet a need, or are you trying to figure out if a practice you’ve heard about or read about is effective?

Step One: Identify an evidence-based practice.  Use a reliable source (see Table 1) to identify a practice that fits your needs and setting (i.e., those identified in Step Zero).

o Start with What Works Clearinghouse or Best Evidence Encyclopedia, and use the filters or topic links to identify practices that match your needs.

o If your goal is to determine effectiveness of a practice you’ve heard about, be sure to evaluate it using resources in Table 1, and look for signs of pseudoscience (Travers, 2017).

o Look for overlapping/corroborating evidence (i.e., more than one source documenting its effectiveness), if possible. Pay particular attention to CEC’s high-leverage practices.

 Gather student outcome data (baseline data) in the area(s) you’re targeting for intervention. Be sure the skills and behaviors you’re targeting are meaningful.

 Set a more specific objective/learning outcome.

Step Two: Implement the practice.  Be sure you are equipped to implement the practice with fidelity. Do you have the proper training, administrative support, time, space,

human resources, materials, and technology? If not, seek out needed resources.  Begin implementation. Be sure to implement the most critical components of the intervention (e.g., those that overlap with high-leverage

practices) with fidelity. You may want to develop a checklist of implementation steps or use one that already exists (see Table 2 for resources to assist).

 Collect frequent data on outcomes that are meaningful. See Table 3 for resources to assist with data collection.

Step Three: Evaluate the practice  Analyze data, and make instructional decisions accordingly (see Table 3 for resources to assist with data analysis).  If students are not progressing or are progressing too slowly, consider the following:

o Are you implementing with fidelity? Has someone else observed to collect fidelity data? o Are students accessing your instruction, or are there other interventions (e.g., classroom management tactics or academic interventions

targeting prerequisite skills) that need to be in place? o Do you need to change intensity, group size, opportunities to respond, feedback, or setting?

 If students are exceeding expectations, consider increasing expectations.

Figure 1. Checklist for implementing evidence-based education.

Konrad et al. 275

characterized by somewhat arbitrary criteria. Indeed, although the WWC has been widely adopted as the pre- ferred source for identifying EBPs, it is not above criticism. For instance, Engelmann (2008) noted that although there have been over 90 studies documenting the effectiveness of Reading Mastery (see https://www.nifdi.org/programs /reading/reading-mastery), many published in peer-reviewed journals, the WWC has indicated that no Reading Mastery studies met their evidentiary standards. This is quite prob- lematic and confusing for educators and underscores the importance of professional judgment and evidence-based education as an approach, not merely a collection of prac- tices that have been deemed effective by one organization.

However, despite their limitations, these comprehensive reviews represent a good place to start. As Wilczynski (2012) noted, “Although there are inherent risks associated with practice guidelines, consumers must not lose sight of the fact that the greatest risk comes from the failure to use the best available evidence as the basis for making impor- tant decisions” (p. 309). But educators should be cautious.

Because of the limitations of expert panels, clearinghouses, and meta-analyses, it is important to look for overlapping/ corroborating evidence (i.e., more than one source docu- menting its effectiveness). For example, although repeated reading instruction has not qualified as an EBP by the WWC, it is a common intervention for reading fluency. Before negating this practice as ineffective, teachers should look to other sources, such as expert panels and meta-analyses, to corroborate these conclusions. In Hattie’s 2018 updated list of “Factors Related to Student Achievement,” he found that repeated reading had an effect size of d = 0.75, indicating a strong, positive effect. With two differing judgments, each teacher must use professional wisdom to determine whether or not to adopt this practice. And, more importantly, the teacher must not assume the practice will work but rather should approach implementation scientifically by collect- ing and monitoring data.

Although deep discussion of these ideas is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to note that a practice should not be considered evidence-based until the

Table 1. Resources to Assist in Identifying and Evaluating Evidence-Based Practices.

Resource Description

High-Leverage Practices www.highleveragepractices.org Complementary resources can be found at http://

ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ HLPs-and-EBPs-A-Promising-Pair.pdf

An expert panel of educators, researchers, and advocates identified 22 effective practices—high-leverage practices—for special educators. Practices relate to collaboration; assessment; social, emotional, and behavioral practices; and instruction.

What Works Clearinghouse https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

WWC is a free search engine educators can use to learn about effectiveness of interventions based on evidence. Teachers can filter searches by topic, outcome, age/grade, name, population, and setting.

Best Evidence Encyclopedia http://www.bestevidence.org/

Provides educators and researchers information about strength of evidence supporting a variety of programs available for students in grades K–12.

Results First Clearinghouse http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/

data-visualizations/2015/results-first-clearinghouse- database

Focused on social change and created to provide policy makers a source for identifying evidence-based interventions, the Results First Clearinghouse compiles results from 8 different clearinghouses. Educators can search by topic, setting, overall rating, and individual clearinghouses.

John Hattie’s Visible Learning https://visible-learning.org/ Complementary resources can be found at www.

evidencedbasedteaching.org.au

These 256 influences on student learning were identified, and ranked, through a study of nearly 1,200 meta-analyses. Teachers can identify most effective influential practices by searching according to rank, name, effectiveness, and focus.

The Iris Center https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/

Developed by experts in education, including researchers and educators, the Iris Center shares information on a variety of topics such as accommodations, diversity, and transition. Teachers can search by topic and type of resources.

EBI Network http://ebi.missouri.edu/ Complementary resources can be found at www.

interventioncentral.com.

Website developed to provide practitioners with guidance for choosing and implementing evidence-based practices. Resources include intervention briefs, implementation videos, and guidance for linking intervention and assessment.

NTACT https://transitionta.org/effectivepractices

The National Technical Assistance Center on Transition has evaluated a range of secondary transition practices and rated them as evidence based, research based, promising, or unestablished. Target skills include academic, vocational, and life skills.

276 Intervention in School and Clinic 54(5)

following criteria have been met: (a) adequate experimental research designs, (b) sufficient quantity of studies, (c) high- quality research, and (d) robust effects on meaningful out- comes (Cook & Cook, 2013). Also beyond the scope of this article is how to identify practices that are backed by pseu- doscience—practices that are actually ineffective, and in some cases harmful. For a discussion of pseudoscience, including why people adopt unproven practices and how to spot pseudoscientific claims, see Travers (2017).

What If There Are No Evidence-Based Practices?

Despite advances the scientific field has made in identify- ing practices that are effective, there are many unanswered questions. When a teacher identifies a problem for which there is no clear EBP, what should she do? Although there may be no specific intervention to implement, teachers can still incorporate evidence-based strategies (e.g., HLPs) that have broad enough utility that they can apply to virtually all academic and social behavior. For example, if a teacher is struggling to find an EBP to teach a specific skill, she can incorporate HLPs such as explicit and intensive instruction (HLPs 16 and 20), scaffolding (HLP 15), active student responding (HLP 18), and feedback (HLP 22). Even if she hasn’t selected a specific EBP, applying these strategies will likely benefit her students. See Table 1 for website addresses.

Step 2: Implement the Practice

Selecting an evidence-based teaching practice does not guarantee that practice will be effective. This is only the beginning. “An evidence-based practice is one thing, imple- mentation of that practice is another thing altogether” (Fixsen, Blase, Horner, & Sugai, 2009, p. 5). Detrich (2008) noted that an evidence-based approach must include not only identifying and implementing the intervention but evaluating it as well. Teachers should use their professional wisdom and expertise to adapt EBPs to the unique needs of their students and to harness their own strengths as educa- tors (Cook et al., 2008). In addition, teachers should con- sider their environment and capacity within their school when selecting EBPs for their classroom. For example, some interventions may not be feasible to implement in smaller schools with less flexibility in schedules and staff.

Adapting EBPs to match factors such as student popula- tion, school culture, and practitioner needs may contribute to higher student achievement (Webster-Stratton, Reinke, Herman, & Newcomer, 2011). However, it is still important to understand how to implement EBPs with fidelity (Harn, Parisi, & Stoolmiller, 2013). If the intervention is not imple- mented with adherence to the procedures that were found effective in the research, the teacher cannot be confident about what is contributing to student growth or lack thereof. Furthermore, implementing programs with fidelity ensures

that teachers do not simply discard practices without using sound reasoning and data-based rationales. Jones (2009) found that when special educators implemented EBPs, they were used for only a short period of time. When using an EBP it is critical for practitioners to understand how to best fit it into their classrooms. However, before making adapta- tions to the practices, teachers must be aware of the critical elements that should not be modified in order to maintain the integrity of the intervention (Harn et al., 2013).

There are many fidelity checklists available to teachers to determine what key “ingredients” are necessary to con- tribute to student success. These elements represent sound principles of instruction and should not be modified because they are imperative for the success of the EBP. For instance, Beecher, Abbott, Petersen, and Greenwood (2017) provided a checklist for implementing high quality early literacy instruction. Similarly, Walker, Clancy, Tsai, and Cheney (2013) described a process for engaging teachers in pro- gram evaluation to improve their delivery of services to stu- dents with emotional or behavioral disorders.

There are also many free or low-cost resources available to support teachers as they implement a new practice. For instance, the WWC has several practice guides (e.g., Teaching Secondary Students to Write Effectively) based on research reviews, expert opinions, and previous experiences of practitioners. These guides summarize helpful strategies and examples that teachers can implement in their class- rooms. They may also highlight student work samples, include webinars and other training materials, and suggest ways to overcome implementation obstacles in the class- room. See Table 2 for additional implementation resources.

While implementing an EBP, it is critical to collect fre- quent data by directly measuring the skills being targeted for improvement. Good measures for monitoring student progress should be valid, reliable, repeatable, and meaning- ful. Meaningful skills and behaviors are those that (a) allow the students to access other skills and opportunities, (b) align with grade-level/district standards and IEP goals, (c) address concerns of students’ families, (d) promote inde- pendence and generalization, and (e) promote success and self-efficacy. Table 3 provides resources for data collection and monitoring progress.

Step 3: Evaluate the Practice

Data collection is necessary, but not sufficient, for evaluat- ing an EBP and making subsequent data-based decisions. Teachers must carefully analyze their student data to judge the effectiveness of an EBP. Table 3, in addition to providing data collection tools, provides some resources to assist with data analysis. For teachers using curriculum-based measure- ment (e.g., Aimsweb), the process generally includes graph- ing baseline fluency data, setting a goal, and creating a goal line or aim line connecting baseline data to the goal.

Konrad et al. 277

Table 3. Free Resources to Assist With Evaluating Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Practices.

Resource Description

Intervention Central https://www.interventioncentral.org/

Resources for progress monitoring, including charts, data collection forms, and customizable assessments and forms

Center on Response to Intervention https://rti4success.org/

Resources and training materials for progress monitoring, data collection, and making data-based decisions

RTI Action Network http://rtinetwork.org/essential/assessment

Resources for using curriculum-based measurement for progress monitoring and data-based decision making

National Center on Intensive Intervention https://charts.intensiveintervention.org/chart/progress-monitoring

Comprehensive list of progress monitoring tools and reviews of their validity, reliability, and effectiveness

Autism Classroom News and Resources https://www.autismclassroomresources.com

Data sheets and other resources for measuring academic and social behavior—not just for autism!

DIBELS https://dibels.uoregon.edu

Progress-monitoring resources and information on screening, benchmarking, and evaluating student growth

Recommendations for Data-Based Decision Making https://www.mayinstitute.org/pdfs/presentations/2016PBIS%20

C1-4%20EvidenceBasedInstructionalImprovementChecklist.pdf

Checklists of quantitative and qualitative changes to instruction teachers can try when students are not meeting goals; strategies linked to hypotheses about why students are not responding

Table 2. Resources to Assist With Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs).

Resource Focus Area Description

The IRIS Center https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/

General evidence-based practices

Free resource with information and training materials for a range of EBPs

Center on Instruction http://www.centeroninstruction.org/

General evidence-based practices

Practitioner guides, professional development materials, tools for educators, and examples

WWC Practice Guides https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuides

General evidence-based practices

Guides include actionable steps for using EBPs in a range of subject and skill areas and suggestions for overcoming implementation challenges

Explicit Instruction Checklists http://yostscience.weebly.com/

uploads/2/1/7/5/2175283/explicit_ instruction_checklist__reflection_copy.pdf

http://resources.buildingrti.utexas. org/documents/Explicit_Systematic_ Instruction_Tool.pdf

Explicit instruction Checklists to help teachers implement explicit instruction with fidelity; forms include guides for self-reflection as well as those that can be used by observers to provide teachers with feedback on fidelity of implementation

Ok, Kim, Kang, and Bryant (2016) Technology: Educational apps

Article provides guidelines to help teachers and parents evaluate quality of educational apps for children with learning disabilities

Beecher, Abbott, Petersen, and Greenwood (2017)

Literacy Article presents an early literacy implementation checklist teachers can use to assess their implementation of EBPs that support literacy

Center on Instruction Guide for Teaching Math

http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/ Mathematics%20Instruction%20LD%20 Guide%20for%20Teachers.pdf

Math Guide reports findings from two research syntheses on effective math intervention and provides seven specific teaching recommendations

Evidence-Based Practices for Writing Instruction

http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/ uploads/2014/09/IC-5_FINAL_08-31-14.pdf

Written expression Guide features a matrix that can (a) guide teachers’ planning and (b) help teachers evaluate their writing curriculum

Walker, Clancy, Tsai, and Cheney (2013) MacSuga and Simonsen (2011)

Social behavior and classroom management

Articles describe EBPs for addressing challenging behavior and social skills; provide checklists to help teachers evaluate their use of EBPs

278 Intervention in School and Clinic 54(5)

Intervention data are then plotted on a graph and compared to the goal line to determine whether or not students are on track for meeting their goals at the expected rate.

But what criteria should the teacher apply to make such a judgment? In some cases, the student’s data may be clearly below, at, or above the goal line, but in many cases, the conclusions are not so obvious. The Center on Response to Intervention (Lembke, 2016) recommended choosing a decision-making rule and sticking with it, specifically col- lecting 8 to 10 curriculum-based measurement data points across 4 to 6 weeks and then applying one of the following decision rules:

1. The 4-point rule indicates examining the 4 most recent data points. If all 4 points are below the goal line, make a change in intervention. If all 4 are above the goal line, raise the goal. If the data are trending right along the goal line, proceed with the intervention.

2. The trend line rule indicates creating a trend line through about 8 points of student data and then com- paring the slope of that line to the goal line. If the slope of the trend line is not as steep as the goal line, the student is not progressing at an adequate rate, and the teacher should consider adjusting interven- tion. Many progress monitoring programs show trend lines, or teachers can use graphs in Microsoft Excel and click on “Add Trendline.”

Whichever method the teacher selects, it is important to continue to use professional judgment. These decision rules are guidelines, and sometimes common sense and profes- sional wisdom will tell the teacher to deviate from these rules. For instance, for a student who is not showing any response to intervention, the teacher may want to make instructional changes (e.g., increase intensity/frequency of intervention) more quickly, rather than waiting 4 to 6 weeks. Or if a student was absent during critical instructional time, lack of growth is likely a result of lack of access to instruc- tion, not an ineffective teaching practice, so changing the EBP does not make sense in this case. Regardless of the situation, before changing an intervention, teachers should ask themselves the following questions:

1. Am I implementing this EBP with fidelity? 2. Are my students accessing instruction? For instance,

do students need an academic intervention targeting prerequisite skills? Are students attending school regularly? Are students on-task, or do I need to implement a behavior change intervention?

3. If students are progressing, but not at an adequate rate, should I change intervention intensity, group size, opportunities for students to response, feed- back, or setting?

Conclusion

The bottom line is teachers want strategies that work—in their classrooms, with their students, addressing their con- cerns. The only way teachers will truly know what works is for them to try it and see. Unfortunately, teachers may take this try-it-and-see approach too far by starting with strate- gies that have little to no empirical support, by implement- ing strategies with little attention to treatment fidelity, by giving up too soon, by not collecting appropriate data, or by not analyzing data collected. The approach described in this article offers teachers the antidote: Start with EBPs; imple- ment those practices with fidelity, making adjustments to fit the needs of your students; collect data to monitor progress; and analyze those data to make sound instructional deci- sions. Effective teaching and intervention rely on this sys- tematic approach. Indeed, some argue that education will not have true standing as a profession until its practitioners use EBPs (Carnine, 2000; Connelly & Rosenberg, 2009) and embrace a scientific approach to teaching. Of course, the real beneficiaries of evidence-based education are not the practitioners, but rather the students they serve.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, author- ship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Banda, D. R., & Therrien, W. J. (2008). A teacher’s guide to meta- analysis. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(2), 66–71.

Beecher, C. C., Abbott, M. I., Petersen, S., & Greenwood, C. R. (2017). Using the quality of literacy implementation checklist to improve preschool literacy instruction. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45, 595–602.

Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2007). The role of instructional design in assistive technology research and development. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 135–140.

Burke, C. A. (2010). Mindfulness-based approaches with children and adolescents: A preliminary review of current research in an emergent field. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 133–144.

Carnine, D. (2000). Why education experts resist effective prac- tices (and what it would take to make education more like medicine). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from https://edexcellence.net/publications/edex pertsresist.html

Connelly, V. J., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2009). Special education teaching as a profession: Lessons learned from occupa- tions that have achieved full professional standing. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 201–214. doi:10.1177 /0888406409339575

Konrad et al. 279

Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2013). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. Journal of Special Education, 47, 71–82.

Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Harjusola-Webb, S. (2008). Evidence-based special education and professional wisdom: Putting it all together. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 105–111. doi:10.1177/1053451208321566

Detrich, R. (2008). Evidence-based, empirically supported, or best practice? A guide for the scientist-practitioner. In J. K. Luiselli, D. C. Russo, W. P. Christian, & S. M. Wilczynski (Eds.), Effective practices for children with autism: Educational and behavior support interventions that work (pp. 3–25). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Detrich, R., & Lewis, T. (2012). A decade of evidence-based edu- cation: Where are we and where do we need to go? Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15, 214–220.

Engelmann, S. (2008). Machinations of What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://www.zigsite.com /PDFs/MachinationsWWC(V4).pdf

Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (2009). Developing the capacity for scaling up the effective use of evidence-based programs in state departments of educa- tion. Retrieved from http://fpg.unc.edu/sites/fpg.unc.edu /files/resources/reports-and-policy-briefs/SISEP-Brief1 -ScalingUpEBPInEducation-02-2009.pdf

Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2014). A meta-analysis of writ- ing interventions for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 80, 454–473.

Harn, B., Parisi, D., & Stoolmiller, M. (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know about fidel- ity of implementation in schools? Exceptional Children, 79, 181–193.

Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hott, B., Berkeley, S., Fairfield, A., & Shora, N. (2017). Intervention in School and Clinic: An analysis of 25 years of guidance for practitioners. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40, 54–64.

Hyatt, K. J., Stephenson, J., & Carter, M. (2009). A review of three controversial educational practices: Perceptual motor programs, sensory integration, and tinted lenses. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 313–342.

Jones, M. L. (2009). A study of novice special educators’ views of evidence-based practices. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 101–120.

Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. (2003). Mathematics inter- ventions for children with special educational needs: A meta- analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97–114.

Lang, R., O’Reilly, M., Healy, O., Rispoli, M., Lydon, H., Streusand, W., . . . Giesbers, S. (2012). Sensory integration therapy for autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1004–1018.

Lembke, E. (2016, January 8). I’ve been collecting progress monitoring data: When do I know it’s time to make an inter- vention change? Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com /watch?time_continue=340&v=GC_K3ZD4rZo

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

MacSuga, A. S., & Simonsen, B. (2011). Increasing teachers’ use of evidence-based classroom management strategies through consultation: Overview and case studies. Beyond Behavior, 20(2), 4–12.

McLeskey, J., Barringer, M.-D., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M., . . .Ziegler, D. (2017, January). High-leverage practices in special education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.

Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258–267.

Ok, M. W., Kim, M. K., Kang, E. Y., & Bryant, B. R. (2016). How to find good apps: An evaluation rubric for instructional apps for teaching students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51, 244–252.

Schreck, K. A., Russell, M., & Vargas, L. A. (2013). Autism treat- ments in print: Media’s coverage of scientifically supported and alternative treatments. Behavioral Interventions, 28, 299–321.

Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252–261.

Travers, J. C. (2017). Evaluating claims to avoid pseudoscientific and unproven practices in special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52, 195–203.

Van Ingen, S., Alvarez McHatton, P., & Vomvoridi-Ivanovic, E. (2016). How do preservice teachers understand the use of research to inform practice? Foundational knowledge for bridging the gap. Action in Teacher Education, 38, 175–189.

Walker, B., Clancy, M., Tsai, S., & Cheney, D. (2013). Bridging the research-to-practice gap: Empowering staff to implement meaningful program evaluation and improvement to better serve students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Beyond Behavior, 22, 3–14.

Webster-Stratton, C., Reinke, W. W., Herman, K. C., & Newcomer, L. L. (2011). The incredible years teacher class- room management training: The methods and principles that support fidelity of training and delivery. School Psychology Review, 40, 509–529.

Wilczynski, S. M. (2012). Risk and strategic decision-making in developing evidence-based practice guidelines. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 291–311.

Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42, 266–271.

Zane, T., Davis, C., & Rosswurm, M. (2008). The cost of fad treatments in autism. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 5, 44–51.