Discussion: Evidence-Based Practices: How Do You Know They Are Working?

Vol. 79. No. 2, pp. 135-144. ©20 J 3 Council for Exceptional Children.

Exceptional Children

Evidence-Based Practices and Implementation Science in Special Education

BRYAN G. COOK University of Hawaii

SAMUEL L. ODOM University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

ABSTRACT:r: Establishing a process for identifying evidence-based practices (EBPs) in special educa-

tion has been a significant advance for the field because it has the potential for generating more

effective educational pro-ams and producing more positive outcomes for students with disabilities.

However, the potential benefit of EBPs is bounded by the quality, reach, and maintenance of

implementation. The cross-disciplinary field of implementation science has great relevance for

translating the promise of EBPs into positive outcomes for children and youth with disabilities.

This article examines the history, extent, and limitations of EBPs and describes the emergence and

current state of implementation science as applied in special education. Subsequent articles in this

special issue i?/Exceptional Children address a range of issues related to implementation science in

special education: the research-to-practice gap, dissemination and diffusion, adherence and sustain-

ability, scaling up, a model for state-level implementation, and fostering implementation through

professional development.

ducators generally agree that broad implementation of prac- tices shown by scientific research to reliably cause increased student performance

(i.e., evidence-based practices; EBPs) will result in increased student outcomes (Cook, Smith, &: Tankersley, 2012; Slavin, 2008b). Despite special educators' general affinity for the concept of EBPs, as Odom and colleagues (2005) suggested, the devil of EBPs is in the details. Odom et al. were referring to the difficulties involved in identi- fying EBPs (e.g.. How many studies must support an EBP? What research designs should be consid-

ered? What quality indicators are necessary for a trustworthy study? What effects must a practice have to be considered an EBP?). Although these issues continue to be debated (see Cook, Tankers- ley, & Landrum, 2009a; Slavin, 2008a), there has been considerable progress in generating and ap- plying guidelines for identifying EBPs in general (e.g.. What Works Clearinghouse, WWC, 2011) and special (e.g.. National Professional Develop- ment Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders, n.d.; National Secondary Transition Technical Assis- tance Center, n.d.) education. However, the EBP movement may have leapt from the frying pan into the fire: The progress made in identifying

Exceptional Children

EBPs has highlighted the devilish details involved with implementation of EBPs, which now need to be addressed.

The gap—described by some as a chasm (e.g., Donovan &C Cross, 2002)—between research and practice is a recurring theme in special education. Indeed, we suspect that the gap has been present in special education as long as research and prac- tice have co-existed. Attempts to bridge the re- search-to-practice gap by identifying and implementing effective practices are a rich part of special education's history (Mostert & Crockett, 1999-2000). Despite considerable focus on the research-to-practice gap (e.g., Carnine, 1997; Greenwood 8¿ Abbott, 2001) and on identifying EBPs as means to bridge it (e.g.. Cook et al., 2009b; Odom et al., 2005), there is little evidence suggesting that the gap has been meaningfully re- duced. For example, a U.S. Department of Educa- tion report (Crosse et al., 2011) noted that only 7.8% of prevention programs related to substance abuse and school crime used in over 5,300 schools met their standards for an EBP. And, in special ed- ucation, practitioners have reported using instruc- tional practices shown by research to be ineffective (e.g., learning styles) with similar or greater fre- quency than some research-based practices (e.g., mnemonics; Burns &C Ysseldyke, 2009).

This special issue of Exceptional Children fo- cuses on addressing some of the devilish details related to bridging the research-to-practice gap by achieving broad, sustained, and high-quality im- plementation of EBPs. There is an emerging field of implementation science (Eccles & Mittman, 2006) that can be applied in special education to enhance the utilization of EBPs. To contextualize consideration of implementation science related to EBPs in special education, it's important to define what an EBP is, as well as to be aware of critical caveats and controversies related to EBPs in the field of special education.

E V I D E N C E - B A S E D P R A C T I C E S

WHAT ARE EBPS?

Emerging from the field of medicine in the early 1990s (Sackett, Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes, & Richardson 1996), EBPs are practices and pro- grams shown by high-quality research to have

meaningful effects on student outcomes. The logic behind EBPs is simple: Identifying and using the most generally effective practices will increase consumer (e.g., student) outcomes. This logic rests on the assumptions that the most effec- tive practices were not previously identified, im- plemented, or both; and that certain types of research (i.e., high-quality studies using designs from which causality can be inferred) are the best tools to determine effectiveness. Although not without detractors (e.g., Gallagher, 2004; Ham- mersley, 2005) this logic has been generally accepted (Slavin, 2008b) and even written into law (i.e., the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001's emphasis on "scientifically based research").

Unlike previous approaches for identifying ef- fective practices in education (e.g., best practices, research-based practices), supporting research for EBPs must meet prescribed, rigorous standards (Cook & Cook, 2011). Although specific stan- dards for EBPs vary between and within fields, research support for EBPs generally must meet standards along several dimensions, including research design, quality, and quantity. Typical guidelines require that for a practice to be consid- ered evidence-based it must be supported by multiple, high-quality, experimental or quasi- experimental (often including single-case research) studies demonstrating that the practice has a meaningful impact on consumer (e.g., student) outcomes.

Discussion and promotion of EBPs have be- come seemingly ubiquitous in education in recent years (Detrich, 2008)—EBPs are promoted in na- tional, state, and local educational policies; in pro- fessional conferences, university courses, and professional development; in professional stan- dards; and in informal discussions among educa- tors. The federally funded WWC (http://ies.ed .gov/ncee/wwc/), established in 2002, is perhaps the most comprehensive and well known source of EBPs for education. Until recently, however, the WWC did not identify EBPs for students with dis- abilities, and now does so only for certain disability groups. (The WWC has begun reviewing the evi- dence base of practices for students with learning disabilities, in early childhood special education, and with emotional and behavioral disorders.)

To address the need for standards for EBPs designed for and by special educators, Gersten et

1 3 6 Winter 2013

al. (2005) and Horner et al. (2005) generated standards for identifying EBPs in special educa- tion using group experimental and single-subject research, respectively, in a special issue of Excep- tional Cbildren (Odom, 2005). Since that special issue, various organizations and teams of special education scholars have used the standards pro- posed by Gersten et al. and Horner et al. (2005; e.g., Cook et al., 2009a), used standards adapted from Gersten et al. and Horner et al. (Odom, Collet-Klingenberg, Rogers, & Hatton, 2010), and developed independent sets of standards (e.g.. National Autism Center, 2009) to begin to iden- tify a corpus of EBPs in special education. These and other ongoing efforts to establish EBPs in special education represent an important advance for the field. However, EBPs are not a panacea, and considerable and fundamental work remains to be done if they are to meaningfully improve outcomes for children and youth with disabilities.

CAVEATS AND CONTROVERSIES

The introduction of EBPs in any field seems to be inexorably followed by a period of questioning and resistance, which certainly has occurred in education (e.g., Hammersley, 2007; Thomas & Pring, 2004). Although a complete discussion of caveats and controversies regarding EBPs in (spe- cial) education are beyond the scope of this article (see Cook et al., 2012 for an extended discus- sion), we focus our attention here on a few prominent issues of which special educators should be aware: EBPs are not guaranteed to work for everyone, identification of EBPs is in- complete and variable, and EBPs will not be im- plemented automatically or easily in the "real world" of schools and classrooms.

EBPs Are Not Guaranteed to Work for Every- one. No practice will work for every single stu- dent; this is a reality of education (indeed, for all social sciences) of which special educators are keenly aware. As such, when educational re- searchers speak of causality, they do so in a proba- bilistic rather than absolute sense. That is, saying that an instructional practice causes improved ed- ucational outcomes means that the practice reli- ably results in improved outcomes for the vast majority, but not all, students who receive the in- tervention. Eor example, Torgesen (2000) esti-

mated that the most effective early reading inter- ventions do not positively impact between 2% and 6% of children. Researchers typically refer to students for whom effective practices do not cause meaningfully improved outcomes as treatment resisters or nonresponders. Although EBPs have relatively low rates of nonresponders, it is impor- tant to recognize that even when implemented with fidelity and over time EBPs will not result in optimal outcomes for all students. Thus, when se- lecting practices to use in special educatiorl pro- grams, EBPs are a good place to start; but the application of an EBP, like any other instructional practice, represents an experiment of sorts in which special educators must validate its effective- ness for each individual child.

No practice will work for every single student; this is a reality of education.

Incomplete and Variable Identification of EBPs. Although more and more EBPs are being identi- fied in both general and special education, be- cause of the considerable time and expertise it takes to complete an evidence-based review (i.e., apply standards for EBPs to the body of research literature examining the effectiveness of a prac- tice) many practices have not yet been reviewed. And because of the relative scarcity of high- quality, experimental research in the educational literature (Berliner, 2002; Seethaler & Euchs, 2005), many evidence-based reviews result in the conclusion that there is simply not enough high- quality research utilizing appropriate designs to meaningfully determine whether a practice is evi- dence-based. In other words, just because a prac- tice is not considered an EBP does not necessarily mean that it is ineffective. It is then important to distinguish between practices that are not consid- ered evidence-based because (a) they have been shown by multiple, high-quality research studies from which causality can be inferred to be ineffec- tive and (b) an evidence-based review has not been conducted or there is insufficient research to conclusively determine whether the practice is effective (Cook & Smith, 2012). The former practices should rarely if ever be used, whereas the latter might be implemented when relevant EBPs have not been identified or a student has been shown to be a nonresponder to identified EBPs.

Exceptional Children

Special educators also should recognize that there are many difFerent approaches for identifying and categorizing EBPs. For example. Homer et al. (2005) proposed dichotomously categorizing prac- tices (i.e., evidence-based or not evidence-based), Gersten et al. (2005) proposed a three-tiered ap- proach (i.e., evidence-based, promising, and not evidence-based), and the W W C (2011) uses six classifications (i.e., practices with positive, poten- tially positive, mixed, indeterminate, potentially negative, and negative effects) to categorize the ev- idence base of practices. Moreover, approaches for identifying EBPs in education vary on specific standards For research design, quality of research, quantity of research, and efFect size (see Cook et al., 2012, For an extended discussion). Accord- ingly, the evidence-based status oF some practices will likely vary across EBP sources (Cook & Cook, 2011). It is important, then, to consider EBPs within the context oFthe specific standards used to identify them.

Implementation. The research-to-practice gap underlies what is probably the most vexing caveat related to EBPs: the diFficulty in translating re- search findings to the everyday practices oF teach- ers in typical classrooms. As EBPs in education began to be identified, relatively little attention was given to how to implement them, perhaps under the assumption that school personnel would eagerly and readily apply identified EBPs. How- ever, as Fixsen, Blase, Homer, and Sugai (2009) noted, "choosing an evidence-based practice is one thing, implementation oF that practice is another thing altogether" (p. 5). The problem oF imple- mentation is not unique to EBPs and likely under- lies the generally d i s a p p o i n t i n g o u t c o m e s associated with most school reForm eFForts (e.g., Sarason, 1993). Implementing and sustaining new practices involves a host oF complex and interre- lated problems, including issues related to the practice being promoted (e.g., relevance and fit to target environment, eFFiciency and practicality), users (e.g., available time, mistrust oF research, knowledge oF EBPs, skills), and the institutional context (e.g., available resources, organizational structures and culture, stafTlng, coaching, training, administrative support; Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005; Nelson, LeFfler & Hansen, 2009; Tseng, 2012).

Implementation issues have been reFerred to as "wicked" problems (e.g., Fixsen, Blase, Duda, Naoom, ôqVan Dyke, 2009; Signal et al., 2012) because, among other characteristics, they are moving targets that fight back (Rittel S¿ Webber, 1973). For example, Fixsen, Blase, Metz, and Van Dyke (this issue) noted that organizational sys- tems work to sustain the status quo by "over- whelm[ing] virtually any a t t e m p t to use new evidence-based programs" (i.e., fight back). In contrast, tame issues may be complex but they tend not to change or actively resist being solved. As diFFicult as it may be to address the tame issue oF how to identify EBPs, it is a fixed, circum- scribed issue that once solved, stays solved. It is hardly surprising, then, that typical, passive ap- proaches For promoting the implementation oF EBPs (e.g., "train and hope") that do not provide systematic and ongoing supports almost invari- ably Fail to address the wicked problems oF imple- mentation and thereFore seldom result in broad, sustained change (Fixsen et al., 2005).

Implementation is the critical link between research and practice. Fixsen et al. (this issue) pro- posed a simple Formula to represent the critical interaction oF research eFFicacy and practice (im- plementation) in generating outcomes:

Effective interventions X effective implementation = improved outcomes

The implication oF this Formula is that in the ab- sence oF implementation, even the most eFFective intervention will not yield desired outcomes. Glasgow, Vogt, and Boles (1999) conceptualized the slightly more elaborate RE-AIM Framework to represent the importance oF multiple dimensions oF implementation in determining a practice's real-world impact. The RE-AIM model considers Four aspects oF implementation in addition to a practice's eFFicacy in determining impact—R X E X A X I X M = impact, where:

• Reach: the proportion oF the target popula-

tion reached by a practice.

• EFficacy: the success rate oF a practice when

implemented appropriately.

• Adoption: the proportion oF targeted settings

that adopt the practice.

1 3 8 Winter 2013

• Implementation: the proportion of interven- tionists who implement the practice with fidelity in real world settings.

• Maintenance: proportion of organizations (e.g., schools) and interventionists (e.g., teachers) who maintain implementation of the practice over time.

Imagine, for example, that a school district adopts an EBP for its students with learning dis- abilities in elementary schools. District personnel are understandably excited to begin the new year by rolling out a practice that has been shown by multiple, high-quality studies to meaningfully im- prove outcomes for, say, 95% of elementary chil- dren with learning disabilities. However, only 80% of elementary schools agree to participate in the project (reach). Further, given problems re- lated to training, planning and instructional time, and reluctance to adopt new practices, only 70% of teachers within targeted schools end up using the practice at all (adoption). Due to sometimes ineffectual training and lack of ongoing support, perhaps only 60% of teachers who adopt the practice implement it with fidelity; and only 50% of those maintain their use of the practice over the entire school year. In this scenario, actual im- pact is calculated as

.95 (efficacy) X .80 (reach) X .70 (adoption) X .60 (implementation) X .50 (maintenance) = .16

In other words, due to problems at various levels of implementation, the EBP actually had the de- sired impact on slightly less than 16% of elemen- tary students with learning disabilities—a far cry from the rosy 95% efficacy that district adminis- trators found so attractive.

After considering these numbers, it may seem that special educators would be better served by pursuing practices that appeal to teachers and are easily implemented, but which are less effec- tive (i.e., typical practice), than by chasing the large effects of EBPs that may be difficult to real- ize. However, special educators sell themselves short—and, more important, do a disservice to the students they serve—by settling for practices with limited effects. Efficacy and implementation both set a ceiling for real-world impact. Just as a highly efficacious intervention that is not imple- mented will have no real effect, an ineffective

practice that is broadly implemented remains an ineffective practice that will, at best, have limited impact. When considering the importance of im- plementation, educators should not disregard the importance of efficacy, but rather realize the sym- biotic relationship of efficacy and implementation in determining impact.

The recent emphasis on EBPs in special edu- cation is laudable, encouraging, and necessary, but identification of EBPs is insufficient without sup- porting their use in common practice (Odom, 2009). The challenge is how to achieve high levels of implementation of the most effective practices. Unfortunately, because sound research investigat- ing implementation has been sparse, "we are faced with the paradox of non-evidence-based imple- mentation of evidence-based programs" (Drake, Gorman, & Torrey; as cited in Fixsen et al., 2005, p. 35). Special educators do not yet have com- plete, empirically substantiated guidelines for sup- porting implementation of EBPs. The emerging field of implementation science has begun to address this issue by conducting research and gen- erating theories regarding the implementation of EBPs.

I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S C I E N C E

In the inaugural issue of Implementation Science, Eccles and Mittman (2006) defined implementa- tion science as "the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research find- ings and other evidence-based practices into rou- tine practice" (p. 1). A number of related terms have been used to refer to this area of study (e.g., knowledge utilization, knowledge transfer, knowl- edge translation, implementation research, transla- tional research, diffusion, uptake; Straus, Tetroe, & Graham, 2009). We use implementation science because, in our experience, it is the most fre- quently used term by contemporary education scholars. This is not meant to suggest that a definitive corpus of knowledge has been estab- lished in the area of implementation (i.e., a sci- ence of implementation); rather, it denotes a field of scientific inquiry in which issues related to implementation are investigated.

Implementation science, which draws on a rich history of foundational research investigating

Exceptional Children 139

implementation in various fields (e.g., Rogers, 1962; see Weatherly & Lipsky, 1977, for an example in special education), is associated most closely with the second of two phases of transla- tion research. The first phase of translating research into practice involves the relatively neat, orderly, and relatively well funded, endeavors of conducting and synthesizing applied research to determine what works in real-world settings (i.e., establishing EBPs; Hiss, 2004). Hiss suggested that Phase 2 translation research, which investi- gates adopting and sustaining the EBPs identified in Phase 1 translation research, tends to be messy and poorly funded. However, with the recent increase in attention being paid to implemen- tation (or lack thereof), funding appears to be increasing. For example, the W. T. Grant founda- tion recently funded 15 research projects in gen- eral education designed to examine how research is used to inform policy and practice in local schools (Tseng, 2012).

Essentially, the goal of inquiry in implemen- tation science is to research and understand how innovations are adopted and maintained, so that implementation moves from "letting it happen" to "making it happen" (Greenhalgh, Robert, Mac- Farlane, Bate, Si Kyriakidou, 2004). As has been the case with the vast majority of previous educa- tion reforms, letting EBPs happen (i.e., assuming that they will be implemented by virtue of their identification) has proven largely unsuccessful (Tseng, 2012). To bring about the broad and sus- tained implementation of EBPs, special educators need to (a) look to the lessons learned thus far from implementation science and (b) identify what is not known about making EBP implemen- tation happen and condtict research to systemati- cally fill those gaps in our knowledge base.

Based on their comprehensive review of the literature in implementation science, Fixsen et al. (2005) concluded that the relatively sparse experi- mental research in implementation science indi- cates that providing guidelines, policies, information, and training are not enough to "make it happen." In contrast, long-term, multi- level strategies tend to result in successful imple- mentation. The authors gleaned seven core implementation components (or implementation drivers) that, when in place and functioning at a high level, can routinely change and improve

practitioner behavior related to the implementa- tion of EBPs: staff selection, pteservice and inser- vice training, ongoing consultation and coaching, staff evaluation, ptogram evaluation, facilitative administrative support, and systems interventions (i.e., "strategies to work with external systems to ensure the availability of the financial, organiza- tional, and human resources required to support the work of the practitioners," p. 29). They sug- gested that purveyors—change agents who are experts at identifying and addressing obstacles to implementation—are critical for utilizing core implementation components to achieve broad and sustained implementation of EBPs.

Schoolwide positive behavior support (SWPBS) is a good example of a program used in special education that incorporates lessons from implementation science into its design (see Mcln- tosh. Filter, Bennett, Ryan, & Sugai, 2010). In- deed, SWPBS implementation is guided by a model incorporating five principles drawn from implementation science: contextual fit, priority, effectiveness, efficiency, and using data for contin- uous regeneration (Mclntosh, Horner, & Sugai, 2009). For example, SWPBS practices ate modi- fied to maximize fit with the environment in which they will be implemented, although modifi- cations are made with a strong understanding of SWPBS such that they do not violate the integrity of core components of the intervention (i.e., fidelity with flexibility; see Harn, Parisi, & Stoolmiller, this issue). Moreover, SWPBS fre- quently utilizes structures such as state leadership teams that lead and coordinate training, coaching, and evaluation to systematically support and scale up SWPBS (see Fixsen et al., this issue; Sugai & Horner, 2006). Such attention to the principles of implementation science has, no doubt, contribu- ted to SWPBS's extensive, sustained, and effective application (e.g., Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010).

Fixsen et al. (2005) defined implementation broadly: "activities designed to put into practice an activity or program" (p. 5). Thus, virtually any activity involved in the implementation process might be considered under the purview of imple- mentation science. The topics addressed in this special issue of Exceptional Children (i.e., a theo- retical framework for linking research to practice, dissemination, balancing fidelity with fiexibility

1 4 O Winter 2013

and fit, scaling-up implementation efforts, statewide implementation efforts, and profes- sional development) are by no means exhaustive of the many and varied elements of implementa- tion science that have application for special edu- cation. We have included topics that represent what we believe to be among the most critical areas for improving the implementation of EBPs in special education.

We have included topics that represent what we believe to be

among the most critical areas for

improving the implementation of EBPs in special education.

A R T I C L E S I N T H I S

S P E C I A L I S S U E

The purpose of this special issue, and each of the articles in it, is two-fold: (a) review emerging evi- dence in the area of implementation science that special education scholars, policy makers, admin- istrators, and other stakeholders can apply to advance the implementation of EBPs and (b) pro- vide a framework for identifying unanswered questions for future research to explore related to implementation of EBPs in special education. In the first article. Smith, Schmidt, Edelen-Smith, and Cook propose a conceptual framework for understanding and bridging the research-to-prac- tice gap. Drawing from Stoke's (1997) Pasteur's quadrant model, they posit that rather than di- chotomizing research as either rigorous or rele- vant, research must be both rigorous and relevant to be translated into practice and positively im- pact student outcomes. Smith et al. propose that educational design research conducted within communities of practices is a promising approach for conducting relevant and rigorous inquiry that will facilitate implementation of EBPs.

One of the critical stages of translating re- search to practice is disseminating and diffusing EBPs. Unfortunately, EBPs are primarily dissemi- nated in traditional and passive ways (e.g., journal articles, research briefs) that hold little sway with the practitioners who actually implement the practices. In the second article. Cook, Cook, and

Landrum explore a variety of approaches for actively and effectively disseminating research- validated practices. They utilize Heath and Heath's (2008) SUCCESs model, which posits that dissemination efforts that "stick" are simple, unexpected, concrete, credible, emotional, and conveyed as stories. They provide theoretically and empirically validated dissemination ap- proaches that might be utilized and researched further by special educators in each of these areas.

If practitioners do not implement EBPs with fidelity or as designed, the practices may not have the same positive effect demonstrated in research studies. However, in the third article, Harn, Parisi, and Stoolmiller note that demanding rigid adher- ence to predetermined procedures will decrease the likelihood that practitioners will adopt and sustain a practice. Moreover, practitioners being more concerned with adherence than meeting the needs of their students may actually decrease EBP effectiveness. Ham et al. discuss different aspects of the multifaceted construct of implementation fidelity and how programs and practices can be designed flexibly so that they can be implemented with fidelity but still meet the needs of different students in varying educational contexts.

In the fourth article. Klingner, Boardman, and McMaster discuss issues related to scaling up EBPs. The issue of scale is of critical importance in implementation science. Although implementing an EBP in a single school will positively impact the outcomes of a limited number of students with disabilities, if implementation of EBPs is addressed one school at a time, the research-to- practice gap is likely to remain wide. Klingner et al. propose a model of scaling up at the district level that involves district—researcher partnerships, integrating new practices with other district initia- tives, tailoring the EBP to the districts' needs, en- lightened professional development that includes team building and coaching, and district leader- ship that ensures communication with school per- sonnel. They also provide an example of the model in practice.

In the fifth article, Eixsen and colleagues from the National Implementation Research Net- work (NIRN) apply a model of implementation science to address the problem of promoting pro- grams that utilize EBPs for students with disabili- ties. They emphasize the importance of building

Exceptional Children

an infrastructure at the state level, and propose a framework that involves external systems change support, the creation of an executive management team, a process for training and support that flows from policy to practice levels, and, of partic- ular importance, a feedback loop that incorpo- rates information from the practice level into ongoing planning to support implementation.

The sixth article relates Odom, Cox, Brock and the NPDC Research Group's design of a pro- fessional development program supporting im- provement in program quality and practitioners' use of EBPs for students with autism spectrum disorders, which followed an implementation sci- ence process based on the work of Eixsen, NIRN, and others. The process begins with developing a planning team at the state policy level, selecting a team or teams for providing technical assistance and coaching, providing training to practitioners and technical assistance providers together, and transferring control from professional develop- ment projects (i.e., Fixsen et al.'s, this issue, exter- nal systems change support) to state providers.

C O N C L U S I O N

We have been involved with two previous special issues of Exceptional Children that, respectively, set forth guidelines for identifying EBPs in special education (Odom, 2005) and applied those guidelines to a variety of research bases in special education to identify EBPs in our field (Cook et al., 2009b). We believe that this work has helped to advance the potential role of research in prac- tice, although the actual impact of EBPs on the outcomes of children and youth with disabilities is unavoidably bounded by implementation. EBPs cannot have an impact unless they are im- plemented. Difficulties with implementation are not unique to education, and they have spawned an emerging multidisciplinary field of implemen- tation science, dedicated to better understanding how to translate research knowledge into practice. It will be important for special education scholars to understand and apply relevant lessons from the implementation science literature, some of which are included in this special issue, to realize the fruits of their labor related to EBPs; that is, to translate research findings into improved practice

and student outcomes. This special issue is, we believe, a fitting conclusion to what is now a tril- ogy of Exceptional Cbildren special issues on EBPs. Implementation is the next, and arguably most critical, stage of evidence-based reforms.

R E F E R E N C E S

Berliner, D . C. (2002). Educational research: The hard-

est science of all. Educational Research, 31(8), 18-20.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008018

Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2009). Reported

prevalence of evidence-based instructional practices in

special education. The fournal of Special Education, 43,

3 - 1 1 . http://dx.doi.0rg/lO.l 177/0022466908315563

Carnine, D. (1997). Bridging the research-to-practice gap. Exceptional Children, 63, 5 1 3 - 5 2 1 .

Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2011). Unraveling evi- dence-based practices in special education, fournal of Special Education. A d v a n c e o n l i n e p u b l i c a t i o n . http://dx.doi.0rg/lO.l 177/0022466911420877

Cook, B. G., & Smith, G. J. (2012). Leadership and instruction: Evidence-based practices in special educa- tion. In J. B. Crockett, B. S. Billingsley, & M. L. Boscardin (Eds.), Handbook of leadership in special edu- cation (pp. 281-296). London, England: Routledge.

Cook, B. G., Smith, G. J., & Tankersley, M. (2012). Evidence-based practices in education. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psy- chology handbook, volume 1 (pp. 4 9 3 - 5 2 8 ) . Washing- ton, D C : American Psychological Association.

C o o k , B. G . , Tankersley, M . , & L a n d r u m , T. j . (2009a). Determining evidence-based practices in spe- cial education. Exceptional Children, 75, 3 6 5 - 3 8 3 .

Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Ô£ Landrum, T. J. (Eds.). (2009b). Evidence-based practices for reading, math, writing, and behavior [Special issue]. Exceptional Chil- dren, 75.

Crosse, S., Williams, B., Hagen, C. A., Harmon, M., Ristow, L., DiGaetano, R., . . . Derzon, J. H . (2011). Prevalence and implementation fidelity of research-based

prevention programs in public schools: Final report. Wash- ington, D C : U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/research- based-prevention.pdf

Detrich, R. (2008). Evidence-based, empirically sup- ported, or best practice? A guide for the scientist-practi- tioner. In J. K. Luiselli, D. C. Russo, W. P. Christian, & S. M. Wilczynski (Eds.), Effective practices for chil- dren with autism (pp. 3—25). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Winter 2013

Donovan, M. S., Sí Cross, C. T. (Eds.) (2002). Minor-

ity students in special and ffßed education. Washington,

DC: National Academies Press.

Eccles, M. P., & Mittman, B. S. (2006). Welcome to Implementation Science. Implementation Science, l(\),

1—3. Retrieved from http://www.implenientacion science.com/content/1/1/1

Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Horner, R., & Sugai G. (2009).

Concept paper: Developing the capacity for scaling up the

effective use of evidence-based programs in state depart-

ments of education. Retrieved from h t t p : / / e a .

n i u s i l e a d s c a p e . o r g / d o c s / F I N A L _ P R O D U C T S

/LearningCarousel/DevelopingCapaciry.pdf

Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Duda, M. A., Naoom, S. E,

ÔC Van Dyke, M. (2009). Wicked problems: From

demonstrations to transformation zones. Retrieved From

http://www.kl2.wa.us/RTl/Implementation/pubdocs/

WA_2WickedProblems_NIRN0409_HO.pdf

Eixsen,- D. L., Naoom, S. E, Blase, K. A., Friedman, R.

M., & Wallace, E (2005). Implementation research: A

synthesis of the literature. Tampa, EL: University of

South Florida, Louis de la Parte Elorida Mental Health

Institute, The National Implementation Research Net-

work (EMHI Publication #231). Retrieved from

http://www.fpg.unc.edu/-nirn/resources/publications/

Monograph/pdf/Monograph_full.pdf

Gallagher, D. J. (2004). Educational research, philo- sophical orthodoxy, and unfulfilled promises: The quandary of traditional research in U.S. special educa- tion. In G. Thomas & R. Pring (Eds.), Evidence-based practices in education (pp. 119-132). Columbus, OH: Open University Press.

Gersten, R., Euchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C , & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experi- mental research in special education. Exceptional Chil- dren, 71, 149-164.

Glasgow, R., Vogt, T., & Boles, S. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact oF health promotion interven- tions: The RE AIM framework. American journal of Public Health, 89, 1322-1327. http://dx.dol.org/10 .2105/AJPH.89.9.1322

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacEarlane, E, Bate, P.,

& Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in

service organizations: Systematic review and recom-

mendations. The Milbank Qiiarterly, 82, 581-629.

http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x

Greenwood, C. R., & Abbott, M. (2001). The research

to practice in special education. Teacher Education and

Special Education, 24, 2 7 6 - 2 8 9 . http://dx.doi.org

/lO.l 177/088840640102400403

Hammersley, M. (2005). Is the evidence-based practice

movement doing more good than harm? Reflections on

lain Chambers' case For research-based policy making

a n d p r a c t i c e . Evidence & Policy, 1{\), 8 5 - 1 0 0 .

http://dx.doi.Org/l 0.1332/1744264052703203

Hammersley, M. (Ed.). (2007). Educational research

and evidence-based practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, C , & Heath, D. (2008). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. New York, NY: Ran- dom House.

Hiss, R. G. (2004). Translational research—two phases of a continuum. In Erom clinical trials to community: the science of translating diabetes and obesity research (pp. 11 - 14). Bethesda, MD: National Institute oF Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Retrieved From http:// www2.niddk.nih.gov/NR/rdonlyres/864EE73D-C876- 4B30-A0EB-l4E3911E2499/4589/Confpublication.pdF

Horner, R. H., Carr, E .G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single- subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165-179.

Homer, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base For school-wide positive behavior support. Eocus on Exceptional Children, 42{8), 1-14.

Mclntosh, K., Filter, K. J., Bennett, J. L., Ryan, C , & Sugai, G. (2010). Principles of sustainable prevention: Designing scale-up of school-wide positive behavior support to promote durable systems. Psychology in the Schools, 47,5-2\.

Mclntosh, K., Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2009). Sus- tainability of systems-level evidence-based practices in schools: Current knowledge and future directions. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. H. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 327-352). New York, NY: Springer.

Mostert, M. P , & Crockett, J. B. ( 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 ) . Reclaiming the history of special education For more effective practice. Exceptionality, S{2), 1 3 3 - 1 4 3 . http://dx.d0i.0rg/l 0.12O7/S15327O35EX0802_4

National Autism Center. (2009). National standards report. Randolph, MA: Author.

National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders, (n.d.). Evidence-based practices. Retrieved from h t t p : / / a u t i s n i p d c . f p g . u n c . e d u /content/evidence-based-practices

National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance

Center, (n.d.). Evidence based practices. Retrieved From

http://www.nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-practices

Nelson, S. R., LeFfler, J. C , & Hansen, B. A. (2009). Toward a research agenda for understanding and improv-

Exceptional Children 1 4 3

ing the use of research evidence. Portland, OR: North- west Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/311

Odom, S. L. (2005). Criteria for evidence-based prac- tice in special education [Special issue]. Exceptional Children, 71.

Odom, S. L. (2009). The ties that bind: Evidence- based practice, implementation science, and outcomes for children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Educa-

tion, 29, 53-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0271121 408329171

Odom, S. L., Brandinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence- based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137-148.

Odom, S. L., CoUet-Klingenberg, L., Rogers, S., & Hatton, D. (2010). Evidence-based practices for chil- dren and youth with autism spectrum disorders. Pre- venting School Failure, 54, 275-282. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/10459881003785506

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY Free Press.

Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal, 312, 71-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj .312.7023.71

Sarason, S. B. (1993). The predictable failure of educa- tional reform: Can we change course before it's too late? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Seethaler, P. M., & Fuchs L. S. (2005). A drop in the bucket: Randomized controlled trials testing reading and math interventions. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 98-102. http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/j .1540-5826.2005.00125.X

Signal, L. N., Walton, M. D., Mhurchu, C. N., Mad- dison, R., Bowers, S. G., Carter, K. N., . . . Pearce, J. (2012). Tackling 'wicked' health promotion problems: A New Zealand case study. Health Promotion Interna- tional, 31,

Slavin, R. E. (2008a). Evidence-based reform in educa- tion: Which evidence counts? Response to comments. Educational Researcher, 37, 47—50. http://dx.doi.org /10.3102/0013189X08315082

Slavin, R. E (2008b). What works? Issues in synthesiz- ing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37, 5-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013 189X08314117

Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington DC: Brook- ings Institution Press.

Straus, S. E., Tetroe, & Graham. (2009). Defining knowledge translation. Canadian Medication Association Journal, 181{3-4), 165-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1503 /cmaj.081229

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2006). A promising ap- proach for expanding and sustaining the implementa- tion of school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 245-259.

Thomas, G., & Pring, R. (Eds.). (2004). Evidence-based practice in education. Berkshire, England: Open Univer- sity Press.

Torgesen, J. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering prob- lem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207 /SLDRP1501_6

Tseng, V. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice. Social Policy Report, 26{2). Retrieved from http://www.srcd.org/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&ici=232ôiltemid=658

Weatherly, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977) Street-level bu- reaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 171-197.

What Works Clearinghouse. (201 1). Procedures and standards handbook (Version 2.1). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources /wwc_procedures_v 2_l_standards_handbook.pdf

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R S

BRYAN G. COOK (Hawaii CEC), Professor of Special Education, University of Hawaii, Hon- olulu. SAMUEL L. ODOM (North Carolina CEG), Director, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Car- olina at Chapel Hill.

Address correspondence concerning this article to Bryan G. Cook, University of Hawaii at Manoa, College of Education, Department of Special Education, 1776 University Avenue, Wist Hall 123, Honolulu, HI 96822 ([email protected]).

Manuscript received April 2012; accepted July 2012.

1 4 4 Winter 2013

Copyright of Exceptional Children is the property of Council for Exceptional Children and its content may not

be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.