Special education researchers have made noteworthy progress toward conceptualizing literacy research questions, designing quality studies, and disseminating the results of their research. These advancements have been made through the establishment and refinement of quality research indicators. Unfortunately, this progress has mostly eluded the arena of juvenile justice special education research. The purpose of this article is to review juvenile justice literacy studies and provide juvenile justice personnel and researchers with methodological and practical considerations for improving the quality of juvenile justice literacy research. The focus is on advancing group designs. Practical concerns are based on the first-year experiences of researchers who implemented an Institute of Education Sciences Goal 3 study with the aim of determining the efficacy of literacy instructional programs in a juvenile justice setting.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsL. (2006). From corrections to community: Youth offenders’ perceptions of the challenges of transition.Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44, 31–53.
2.
Allen-DeBoerR., MalmgrenK., & GlassM. (2006). Reading instruction for youth with emotional and behavioral disorders in a juvenile correctional facility.Behavioral Disorders, 32(1), 18–28.
3.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. (West, 2009).
4.
BarnoskiR. (1997). Standards for improving research effectiveness in adult and juvenile justice.Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/ResearchStandards.pdf.
5.
BaronR. M., & KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
6.
BerlinerD. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all.Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.
7.
BloomH. S., Richburg-HayesL., & BlackA. R. (2007). Using covariates to improve precision for studies that randomize schools to evaluate educational interventions.Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 29(1), 30–59.
8.
CampbellD. T., & StanleyJ. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.Chicago: Rand McNally.
9.
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1997, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997 et seq. (West 2009).
10.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
CookB. G., TankersleyM., & LandrumT. J. (2009). Determining evidenced-based practices in special education.Exceptional Children, 75(3), 365–383.
12.
CordrayD. S., & PionG. M. (2006). Treatment strength and integrity: Models and methods. In BootzinR. R., & McKnightP. E. (Eds.), Strengthening research methodology: Psychological measurement and evaluation (pp. 103–124). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
13.
DaneA., & SchneiderB. H. (1998). Integrity in primary prevention programs: Are implementation effects out of control?Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 23–45.
14.
DrakefordW. (2002). The impact of an intensive program to increase the literacy skills of youth confined to juvenile corrections.Journal of Correctional Education, 53(4), 139–144.
15.
DuncanR. D., KennedyW. A., & PatrickC. J. (1995). Four-factor model of recidivism in male juvenile offenders.Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24(3), 250–257.
16.
EdmondsM., VaughnS., WexlerJ., ReutebuchC., CableA., TackettK., & SchnakenbergJ. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers.Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300.
FoleyR. M. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional education programs: A review.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9(4), 248–260.
19.
GerstenR., FuchsL. S., ComptonD., CoyneM., GreenwoodC., & InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education.Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164.
20.
GoodR. H., & KaminskiR. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Retrieved from http://dibels.uoregon.edu/.
21.
HarrisonP. M., & BeckA. J. (2006). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2005. Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim05.pdf.
HedgesL. V., & HedbergE. C. (2007). Intraclass correlations for planning group randomized experiments in rural education.Journal of Research in Rural Education, 22(10), 1–15.
24.
HillC. J., BloomH. S., BlackA. R., & LipseyM. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research.Child Development Perspectives, 2(3), 172–77.
25.
HouchinsD. E., HerkM., ShippenM. E., AntinozziJ., HaberlenS., HeffelfingerP., & NormanE. (2006). Profiles of children under the age of 13 in Georgia's juvenile justice system.Journal of At Risk Issues, 12(1), 21–26.
26.
HouchinsD. E., & JolivetteK. (2008). Project Liberate: Literacy Instruction Based on Evidence through Research for Adjudicated Teens to Excel abstract.Institute of Education Sciences, R324A080006. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/details.asp?ID=622.
27.
HouchinsD., JolivetteK., KrezmienM., & BaltodanoH. (2008). A multi-state study examining the impact of explicit reading instruction with incarcerated students.Journal of Correctional Education, 59(1), 65–85.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1990).
KesslerC., & KrausL. (2007). The mental health needs of young offenders: Forging paths toward reintegration and rehabilitation.New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
KrezmienM. P., MulcahyC. A., & LeoneP. E. (2008). Detained and committed youth: Examining differences in achievement, mental health needs, and special education status.Education and Treatment of Children, 31(4), 445–464.
36.
LarsenS., HammillD., & MoatsL. (1999). Test of written spelling-4.Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
37.
LeoneP., KrezmienM., MasonL., & MeiselS. (2005). Organizing and delivering empirically based literacy instruction to incarcerated youth.Exceptionality, 13(2), 89–102.
38.
LipseyM. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview.Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 124–147.
39.
MalmgrenK., & LeoneP. (2000). Effects of a short-term auxiliary reading program on the reading skills of incarcerated youth.Education & Treatment of Children, 23(3), 239.
40.
MulcahyC. A., KrezmienM. P., LeoneP. E., HouchinsD. E., & BaltodanoH. (2008). Lessons learned: Barriers and solutions for conducting reading investigations in juvenile corrections settings.Reading and Writing Quarterly, 24, 239–252.
41.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002).
42.
Puzzanchera, C., Department of Justice. (2009). Juvenile arrests, 2007.Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency PreventionWashington, D.C.
43.
QuinnM. M., RutherfordR. B., LeoneP. E., OsherD. M., & PoirierJ. M. (2005). Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey.Exceptional Children, 71(3), 339–345.
44.
RaudenbushS. (1993). A crossed random effects model for unbalanced data with applications in cross-sectional and longitudinal research.Journal of Educational Statistics, 18(4), 321–349.
ShippenM. E., MortonR. C., FlyntS., HouchinsD. E., & SmithermanT. (In press). Efficacy of a computer based reading program for incarcerated youth.Remedial and Special Education, 1–9.
47.
TorgesonJ. K., WagnerR. K., & RashotteC. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency.Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
48.
WarfC., ClarkL., HerzD., & RabinovitzS. (2009). The continuity of care to nowhere: Poverty, child protective services, juvenile justice, homelessness and incarceration: The disproportionate representation of African American children and youth.International Journal of Child and Adolescent Health, 2(1), 49–64.
