This article is intended to assist teachers and researchers in designing studies that examine the efficacy of a particular intervention or strategy with students with sensory disabilities. Ten research designs that can establish causal inference (the ability to attribute any effects to the intervention) with and without randomization are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abou-GareebI.LewallenS.BassettK., & CourtrightP. (2001). Gender and blindness: A meta-analysis of population-based prevalence surveys. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 8, 39–56.
2.
AtkinsonR. C. (1968). Computerized instruction and the learning process. American Psychologist, 23, 225–239.
3.
BartlettD. J.MacNabJ.MacArthurC.MandwichA.Magill-EvansJ.YoungN. L.BealD.Conti-BeckerA., & PolatajkoH. J. (2006). Advancing rehabilitation research: An interactionist perspective to guide question and design. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28, 1169–1176.
4.
BotsfordK. D. (2013). Social skills for youths with visual impairments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 107, 497–508.
5.
BrantlingerE. V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207.
6.
CawthonS., & LeppoR. (2013). Assessment accommodations on tests of academic achievement for students who are deaf or hard of hearing: A qualitative meta-analysis of the research literature. American Annals of the Deaf, 158, 363–376.
7.
ConroyP. W. (2007). Paraprofessionals and students with visual impairments: Potential pitfalls and solutions. RE:view, 39, 43–55.
8.
CookT. D. (2002). Randomized experiments in educational policy research: A critical examination of the reasons the educational evaluation community has offered for not doing them. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 175–199.
9.
CookT. D., & CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings.Chicago: Rand McNally.
10.
CronbachL. J. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social problems.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
EdgingtonE. S. (1975). Randomization tests for one-subject operant experiments. Journal of Psychology, 90, 57–68.
12.
EdgingtonE. S. (1992). Nonparametric tests for single-case experiments. In KratochwillT. R., & LevinJ. R. (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis (pp. 133–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
FerrellK. A. (2006). Evidence-based practices for students with visual disabilities. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 28(1), 42–48.
14.
FerrellK. A.BruceS., & LucknerJ. L. (2014). Evidence-based practices for students with sensory impairments (Document No. IC-4). Gainesville, FL: Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center, University of Florida. Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations
15.
FerrellK. A.BuettelM.SebaldA. M., & PearsonR. (2006). American Printing House for the Blind mathematics research analysis[Technical Report]. Greeley, CO: University of Northern Colorado, National Center on Low-Incidence Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.unco.edu/ncssd/research/math_meta_analysis.shtml
FerrellK. A.MasonL.YoungJ., & CooneyJ. (2006). Forty years of literacy research in blindness and visual impairment[technical report]. Greeley, CO: University of Northern Colorado, National Center on Low-Incidence Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.unco.edu/ncssd/research/literacy_meta_analyses.shtml
18.
FitzC. O.MorrisP. E., & RichlerJ. J. (2012). Effect size estimates, current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 141, 2–18,
19.
ForsterE. M., & HolbrookM. C. (2005). Implications of paraprofessional supports for students with visual impairments. RE: view, 36, 155–163.
20.
GerstenR. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.
21.
GraemeD.McLindenM.McCallS.PaveyS.WareJ., & FarrellA. M. (2011). Access to print literacy for children and young people with visual impairment: Findings from a review of literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26, 25–38.
HarrisB. (2011). Effects of the proximity of paraeducators on the interactions of braille readers in inclusive settings. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105, 467–478.
24.
HersenM., & BarlowD. H. (1976). Single-case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change.New York: Pergamon Press.
25.
HornerR. M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.
26.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 (2004).
27.
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (2008). Technical methods report: Statistical power for regression discontinuity designs for education evaluation.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20084026/index.asp
28.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. (2007). Year 2007 position statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics, 120, 898–921.
29.
KazdinA. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings.New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
KellyS. M., & SmithD. W. (2011). The impact of assistive technology on the educational performance of students with visual impairments: A synthesis of the research. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105, 73–83.
31.
KennedyC. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
32.
KeppelG., & ZedeckS. (1989). Data analysis for research designs.New York: W. H. Freeman.
33.
KimD. S. (2015). Power, effect size, and practical significance: How the reporting in Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness articles has changed in the past 20 years. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 109, 214–218.
34.
KoenigA. J., & HolbrookM. C. (2000). Professional practice. In HolbrookM. C., & KoenigA. J. (Eds.), Foundations of education: Vol. 1. History and theory of teaching children and youths with visual impairments (2nd ed., pp. 260–276). New York: AFB Press.
35.
KoehlerM. J., & LevinJ. R. (1998). Regulated randomization: A potentially sharper analytical tool for the multiple-baseline design. Psychological Methods, 3(2), 206–217.
36.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M., & ShadishW. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf
37.
KratochwillT. R., & LevinJ. R. (2010). Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: Randomization to the rescue. Psychological Methods, 15(2), 124–144.
38.
LevinJ. R., & WampoldB. E. (1999). Generalized single-case randomization tests: Flexible analyses for a variety of situations. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 59–93.
39.
LevinJ. R.O'DonnellA. M., & KratochwillT. R. (2003). Educational/psychological intervention research. In WeinerI. B. (Series Ed.), W. M. Reynolds, & G. E. Miller (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 7. Educational psychology (pp. 557–581). New York: Wiley.
40.
LewisS., & McKenzieA. R. (2010). The competencies, roles, supervision, and training needs of paraeducators working with students with visual impairments in local and residential schools. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104, 464–477.
41.
LordF. M., & NovickM. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
42.
LucknerJ. L. (2006). Evidence-based practices with students who are deaf. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 28, 49–52.
43.
LucknerJ. L., & CookeC. (2010). A summary of the vocabulary research with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 155, 38–67.
44.
LucknerJ. L., & HandleyC. M. (2008). A summary of the reading comprehension research undertaken with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 153, 6–36.
45.
LucknerJ. L.SebaldA. M.CooneyJ.YoungJ., & MuirS. G. (2005, 2006). An examination of the evidence-based literacy research in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf, 150, 443–456.
46.
LucknerJ. L., & UrbachJ. (2012). Reading fluency and students who are deaf or hard of hearing: Synthesis of the research. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 33, 230–241.
47.
MarksS. U.SchraderC., & LevineM. (1999). Paraeducator experiences in inclusive settings. Helping, hovering, or holding their own?Exceptional Children, 65, 315–328.
48.
McKenzieA. R., & LewisS. (2008). The role and training of paraprofessionals who work with students who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 102, 459–471.
49.
Meinzen-DerrJ.WileyS., & ChooD. I. (2011). Impact of early intervention on expressive and receptive language development among young children with permanent hearing loss. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(5), 580–591.
50.
MoellerM. P. (2000). Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics, 106(3), E43.
51.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
52.
OdomS. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.
53.
ParkerA. T.DavidsonR., & BandaD. R. (2007). Emerging evidence from single-subject research in the field of deaf-blindness. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 101, 690–700.
54.
ParkerA. T.GrimmettE. S., & SummersS. (2008). Evidence-based communication practices for children with visual impairments and additional disabilities: An examination of single-subject design studies. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 102, 540–552.
55.
ParkerA. T., & IvyS. (2014). Communication development of children with visual impairment and deafblindness: Synthesis of intervention research. In D. D. Hatton (Ed.), International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities, 46, 101–144.
56.
ParkerA. T., & PogrundR. L. (2009). A review of research on the literacy of students with visual impairments and additional disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103, 635–648.
57.
PengC.-Y. J., LongH., & AbaciS. (2012). Power analysis software for educational researchers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80, 113–136.
58.
RaudenbushS. W., & BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
59.
RivlinA. M., & TimpaneP. M. (1975). Planned variation in education: Should we give up or try harder?Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
60.
RussottiJ., & ShawR. (2001). Inservice training for teaching assistants and others who work with students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 483–487.
61.
ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (1998). Summarizing single-subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22, 221–242.
62.
ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (2013). PND at 25: Past, present, and future trends in summarizing single-subject research. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 9–19.
63.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D., & CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
64.
ShavelsonR. J.TowneL., & the Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
65.
SingerJ. D., & WilletJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis.New York: Oxford University Press.
66.
SnyderT. D., & DillowS. A. (2015). Digest of Education Statistics, 2013 [Table 204.30]. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015011
67.
SullivanG. M. (2011). Getting off the “gold standard”: Randomized controlled trials and education research. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 3, 285–289. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-11-00147.1
68.
ThompsonB. W. (2005). Evaluating the quality of evidence from correlational research for evidence-based practice. Exceptional Children, 71, 181–194.
69.
ThompsonB.DiamondK. E.McWilliamR.SnyderP., & SnyderS. W. (2005). Evaluating the quality of correlational research for evidence-based practice. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207.
70.
ValentineJ. C., & CooperH. (2004). What Works Clearinghouse study design and implementation assessment device (Version 1.1). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
71.
ValentineJ. C., & CooperH. (2008). A systematic and transparent approach for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effectiveness research: The Study Design and Implementation Assessment Device (Study DIAD). Psychological Methods, 13, 130–149. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.13.2.130
72.
VlastarakosP. V.ProikasK.PapacharalampousG.ExadaktylouI.MochloulisG., & NikolopoulosT. P. (2010). Cochlear implantation under the first year of age—The outcomes. A critical systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 74, 119–126.
73.
VohrB.Jodoin-KrauzykJ.TuckerR.JohnsonM. J.TopolD., & AhlgrenM. (2008). Results of newborn screening for hearing loss: Effects on the family in the first 2 years of life. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 162(3), 205–211.
74.
WangY., & WilliamsC. (2014). Are we hammering square pegs into round holes? An investigation of the meta-analyses of reading research with students who are deaf or hard of hearing and students who are hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 159, 323–345.
75.
WautersL. N. (2001). Sign facilitation in word recognition. Journal of Special Education, 35(1), 31–40.
76.
WendelE.CawthonS. W.GeJ. J., & BeretvasS. N. (2015). Alignment of single-case design (SCD) research with individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing with the What Works Clearinghouse Standards for SCD Research. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Advance Access, February, 1–12. doi:10.1093/deafed/enu049
77.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2014). Procedures and standards handbook version 3.0.Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
78.
WrightT. (2010). Looking for power: The difficulties and possibilities of finding participants for braille research. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104, 775–780.
79.
WrightT.HarrisB., & StickenE. (2010). A best-evidence synthesis of research on orientation and mobility involving tactile maps and models. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104, 95–106.
80.
Yoshinaga-ItanoC. (2003a). Early intervention after universal neonatal hearing screening: Impact on outcomes. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 9, 252–266.
81.
Yoshinaga-ItanoC. (2003b). From screening to early identification and intervention: Discovering predictors to successful outcomes for children with significant hearing loss. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 11–30.
82.
Yoshinaga-ItanoC., & GravelJ. S. (2001). The evidence for universal newborn hearing screening. American Journal of Audiology, 10, 62–64.
83.
Yoshinaga-ItanoC.SedeyA. L.CoulterD. K., & MehlA. L. (1998). The language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss. Pediatrics, 102, 1161–1171.
