Secondary data analyses occur when new analyses are proposed for existing data. Although they are prevalent in special education research, there is little guidance on how to prepare secondary data analyses studies. Preregistration of secondary data analyses studies provides a nice opportunity and structure for fellow researchers to share innovative questions and analytic approaches to existing data sets as well as increase transparency. In this manuscript, we (a) describe quality indicators of secondary data analyses consistent with open science practices and (b) provide applied examples of these indicators from a sampling of published studies based on two iterations of data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS2 and NLTS2012) with the overall goals to provide guidance to authors and peer reviewers and promote collaboration among fellow researchers engaged in secondary analyses for a range of purposes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaldwinJ. R.PingaultJ. B.SchoelerT.SallisH. M.MunafòM. R. (2022). Protecting against researcher bias in secondary data analysis: Challenges and potential solutions. European Journal of Epidemiology, 37, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00839-0
2.
CookB. G.FlemingJ. I.HartS. A.LaneK. L.TherrienW. J.van DijkW.WilsonS. E. (2022). A how-to guide for open-science practices in special education research. Remedial and Special Education, 43(4), 270–280.
3.
CroonM. (2002). Using predicted latent scores in general latent structure models. In MarcoulidesG.MoustakiI. (Eds.), Latent variable and latent structure models (pp. 195–223). Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
CruzR. A.LeeJ. H.AylwardA. G.VoulgaridesC. K. (2022). The effect of school funding on opportunity gaps for students with disabilities: Policy and context in a diverse urban district. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 33(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207320970545
5.
DongN.MaynardR. (2013). PowerUp! A tool for calculating minimum detectable effect sizes and minimum required sample sizes for experimental and quasi-experimental design studies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(1), 24–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2012.673143
6.
DevliegerI.TalloenW.RosseelY. (2019). New developments in factor score regression: Fit indices and a model comparison test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(6), 1017–1037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164419844552
7.
EndersC. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.
8.
FlemingJ. I.CookB. G. (2022). Open access in special education: A review of journal and publisher policies. Remedial and Special Education, 43(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932521996461
9.
GelmanA.HillJ. (2006). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press.
10.
Grigal M.Hart& MiglioreD., A. (2011) Comparing the transition planning, postsecondary education, and employment outcomes of students with intellectual and other disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728811399091
11.
Hall-MillsS. (2019). A comparison of the prevalence rates of language impairment before and after response-to-intervention implementation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 703–709. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-18-0144
KlineR. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
15.
LangK. M.WuW. (2017). A comparison of methods for creating multiple imputations of nominal variables. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52(3), 290–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2017.1289360
16.
LeppoR.CawthonS.BondM. (2013). Including deaf and hard-of-hearing students with co-occurring disabilities in the accommodations discussion. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ent029
17.
LittleT. D.JorgensenT. D.LangK. M.MooreE. W. G. (2014). On the joys of missing data. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst048
18.
LoganT. (2020) A practical, iterative framework for secondary data analysis in educational research. Australian Educational Researcher, 47, 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00329-z
19.
LombardiA.RifenbarkG.HicksT.TaconetA. V.ChallengerC. (2021). College and career readiness support for youth with and without disabilities based on the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012. [Stage-1 Registered Report] https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/C9D4P
20.
LombardiA. R.RifenbarkG. G.HicksT. A.TaconetA.ChallengerC. (2022). College and career readiness support for youth with and without disabilities based on the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012. Exceptional Children, 89(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221088940
MazzottiV. L.RoweD. A.SinclairJ.PoppenM.WoodsW. E.ShearerM. L. (2016). Predictors of post-school success: A systematic review of NLTS2 secondary analyses. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 39(4), 196–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143415588047
McCoachD. B.RifenbarkG. G.NewtonS. D.LiX.KookenJ.YomtovDGambinoA. J.BellaraA. (2018). Does the package matter? A comparison of five common multilevel modeling software packages. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 43(5), 594–627. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998618776348
25.
McNeishD.StapletonL. M.SilvermanR. D. (2017). On the unnecessary ubiquity of hierarchical linear modeling. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 114. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000078
26.
MorganP.FarkasG.HillemeierM. M.MaczugaS. (2017). Replicated evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in disability identification in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17726282
27.
NosekB. A.EbersoleC. R.DeHavenA. C.& MellorD. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114
RaudenbushS. W.SpybrookJ.CongdonR.LiuX.MartinezA.BloomH.HillC. (2011). Optimal design software for multi-level and longitudinal research (Version 3.01) [Computer software].
RubinD. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Wiley.
32.
SchuckL.EmersonR. W.KimD. S.NelsonN. W. (2018). An approach to using orientation and mobility (O&M) variables from the second National Longitudinal Transition Study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 112(2), 203–208https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1811200208
33.
ShogrenK. A.KennedyW.DowsettC.Garnier VillarrealM.LittleT.D. (2014). Exploring essential characteristics of self-determination for diverse students using data from NLTS2. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37(3), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143413486927
34.
ShogrenK. A.PaceJ. R.WittenburgD. C.RaleyS. K.HicksT. A.RifenbarkG. G.LaneK. L.AndersonM. H. (2022). Self-report and administrative data on disability and IEP status: Examining differences and impacts on intervention outcomes. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073221094811
35.
TalbottE.De Los ReyesA.KearnsD. M.Mancilla-MartinezJ.CookC. R.WangM. (2023). Evidence based assessment in special education research: Advancing the use of evidence in methods, tools, and empirical processes. Exceptional Children, 89(4).
36.
TestD. W.MazzottiV. L.MustianA. L.FowlerC. H.KorteringL.KohlerP. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(3), 160–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728809346960
37.
van den AkkerO. R., WestonS., CampbellL., ChopikB., DamianR., Davis-KeanPHallA.KosieJ.KruseE.OlsenJ.RitchieS.ValentineK.van't VeerA.BakkerM. (2021). Preregistration of secondary data analysis: A template and tutorial. Meta-Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2020.2625
38.
Van BuurenS.Groothuis-OudshoornK. (2011). mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67.
ZablockiM.KrezmienM. P. (2013). Drop-out predictors among students with high-incidence disabilities: A National Longitudinal and Transitional Study 2 analysis. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 24(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207311427726
41.
ZhouL.Griffin-ShirleyN.KelleyP.BandaD. R.LanW. Y.ParkerA. T.SmithD. W. (2012). The relationship between computer and internet use and performance on standardized tests by secondary school students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106(10), 609–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1210601005
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
