A How-to Guide for Open-Science Practices in Special Education Research

Abstract

Open-science reforms, which aim to increase credibility and access of research, have the potential to benefit the research base in special education, as well as practice and policy informed by that research base. Awareness of open science is increasing among special education researchers. However, relatively few researchers in the field have experience using multiple open-science practices, and few practical guidelines or resources have been tailored to special education researchers to support their exploration and adoption of open science. In this article, we described and provided guidelines and resources for applying five core open-science practices—preregistration, registered reports, data sharing, materials sharing, and open-access publishing—in special education research.

Keywords

research methodology evidence-based practice special education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adelson

J. L.

Barton

E. E.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Bryant

B. R.

Bryant

D. P.

Cook

B. G.

Coyne

M. D.

. . . Troia

G. A.

(2019, February 18). A roadmap for transparent research in special education and related disciplines. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/sqfy3

Bettini

Cumming

M. M.

O’Brien

K. M.

Brunsting

N. C.

Ragunathan

Sutton

Chopra

(2020). Predicting special educators’ intent to continue teaching students with emotional or behavioral disorders in self-contained settings. Exceptional Children, 86(2), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919873556

Carnine

(1997). Bridging the research-to-practice gap. Exceptional Children, 63(4), 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299706300406

Chambers

(2019). What’s next for registered reports? Nature, 573, 187–189. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02674-6

Claesen

Gomes

Tuerlinckx

Vanpaemel

(2019, May 9). Preregistration: Comparing dream to reality. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/d8wex

Conroy

Sutherland

(2018, December 18). Prevention and treatment of problem behaviors in young children: Clinical implications from a randomized controlled trial of BEST in CLASS. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/E107827V1

Cook

B. G.

Buysse

Klingner

J. K.

Landrum

T. J.

McWilliam

R. A.

Tankersley

Test

D. W.

(2015). CEC’s standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 36(4), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514557271

Cook

B. G.

Fleming

J. I.

Hart

S. A.

Lane

K. L.

Therrien

W. J.

van Dijk

Wilson

S .E.

(2021). Steps for open practices before, during, and after a study. https://osf.io/6f3zj/

Cook

B. G.

Johnson

A. H.

Maggin

D. M.

Therrien

W. J.

Barton

E. E.

Lloyd

J. W.

. . . Travers

J. C.

(2021). Open science and single-case design research. Remedial and Special Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932521996452

10.

Cook

B. G.

Lloyd

J. W.

Mellor

Nosek

B. A.

Therrien

W. J.

(2018). Promoting open science to increase the trustworthiness of evidence in special education. Exceptional Children, 85(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918793138

11.

Cook

B. G.

Maggin

D. M.

Robertson

R. E.

(2021). Registered reports in special education: Introduction to the special series. Remedial and Special Education, 42(3), 131–139. https://10.1177/0741932521996459

12.

Cook

B. G.

Odom

S. L.

(2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79(3), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900201

13.

Day

(2005). Metadata. In Ross

Day

(Eds.), DCC digital curation manual. http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/curation-reference-manual/completed-chapters/metadata

14.

DeHaven

(2017, May 23). Preregistration: A plan, not a prison. https://www.cos.io/blog/preregistration-plan-not-prison

15.

Doabler

C. T.

Therrien

W. J.

Longhi

M. A.

Roberts

Hess

Maddox

S. A.

. . . Toprac

(2021). Efficacy of a second-grade science program: Increasing science outcomes for all learners. Remedial and Special Education.

16.

Edwards

Schatschneider

(2020a). De-identification guide. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13228664.v1

17.

Edwards

Schatschneider

(2020b). 5 things to check for data de-identification. https://venngage.net/ps/5p6yjaAGTSs/new-5-things-to-check-for-data-deidentification

18.

Fleming

J. I.

Cook

B. G.

(2020, May 28). Open access in special education: A review of journal and publisher policies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932521996461

19.

Fleming

J. I.

Cook

B. G.

(2021). 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

20.

Fleming

J. I.

Wilson

S. E.

Hart

S. A.

Therrien

W. J.

Cook

B. G.

(2021). Open accessibility in education research: Enhancing the credibility, equity, impact, and efficiency of research. Educational Psychologist, 56(2), 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1897593

21.

Fraser

Parker

Nakagawa

Barnett

Fidler

(2018). Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution. PLOS ONE, 13(7), Article e0200303. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200303

22.

D. Y.

Hughey

J. J.

(2019). Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article. eLife, 8, Article e52646. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52646

23.

Gage

N. A.

Cook

B. G.

Reichow

(2017). Publication bias in special education meta-analyses. Exceptional Children, 83(4), 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917691016

24.

Gehlbach

Robinson

C. D.

(2018). Mitigating illusory results through preregistration in education. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(2), 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2017.1387950

25.

Gesel

S. A.

Lemons

C. J.

(2020). Comparing schedules of progress monitoring using curriculum-based measurement in reading: A replication study. Exceptional Children, 87(1), 92–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402920924845

26.

Gilmore

R. O.

Kennedy

J. L.

Adolph

K. E.

(2018). Practical solutions for sharing data and materials from psychological research. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917746500

27.

Haven

T. L.

Van Grootel

D. L.

(2019). Preregistering qualitative research. Accountability in Research, 26(3), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1580147

28.

Hilton

III. Wiley

Stein

Johnson

(2010). The four “R”s of openness and ALMS analysis: Frameworks for open educational resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 25(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510903482132

29.

Institute for Education Sciences. (n.d.). Resources for researchers: Implementation guide for public access to research data. https://ies.ed.gov/funding/datasharing_implementation.asp

30.

Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. (n.d.). Guide to social science data preparation and archiving: Best practice throughout the data life (6th ed.). https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/pages/deposit/guide/

31.

John

L. K.

Loewenstein

Prelec

(2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953

32.

Johnson

A. H.

Cook

B. G.

(2019). Preregistration in single-case design research. Exceptional Children, 86(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919868529

33.

Kiyonaga

Scimeca

J. M.

(2019). Practical considerations for navigating registered reports. Trends in Neurosciences, 42(9), 568–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2019.07.003

34.

Kozleski

E. B.

Hunt

Mortier

Stepaniuk

Fleming

Balasubramanian

Leu

Munandar

(2021). What peers, educators, and principals say: The social validity of inclusive, comprehensive literacy instruction. Exceptional Children, 87, 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402920969184

35.

Laakso

(2014). Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: A study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed. Scientometrics, 99(2), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1205-3

36.

Logan

J. A. R.

Hart

S. A.

Schatschneider

(2021). Data sharing in education science. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211006475

37.

Makel

M. C.

Hodges

Cook

B. G.

Plucker

J. A.

(2021). Both questionable and open research practices are prevalent in education research. Educational Researcher, 50(8), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211001356

38.

Mangul

Martin

L. S.

Langmead

Sanchez-Galan

J. E.

Toma

Hormozdiari

Pevzner

Eskin

(2019). How bioinformatics and open data can boost basic science in countries and universities with limited resources. Nature Biotechnology, 37(3), 324–326. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0053-y

39.

Mellor

(2021). Improving norms in research culture to incentivize transparency and rigor. Educational Psychologist, 56(2), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1902329

40.

Mellor

Soderberg

DeHaven

(2017, January 5). Preregistration on the OSF [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnKkGO3OM9c

41.

Merton

R. K.

(1973). The normative structure of science. In Merton

R. K.

(Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–278). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1942.)

42.

Meyer

M. N.

(2018). Practical tips for ethical data sharing. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917747656

43.

Norris

O’Connor

D. B.

(2019). Science as behaviour: Using a behaviour change approach to increase uptake of open science. Psychology & Health, 34(12), 1397–1406. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2019.1679373

44.

Nosek

B. A.

Beck

E. D.

Campbell

Flake

J. K.

Hardwicke

T. E.

Mellor

D. T.

. . . Vazire

(2019). Preregistration is hard, and worthwhile. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(10), 815–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.009

45.

Odom

S. L.

Brantlinger

Gersten

Horner

R. H.

Thompson

Harris

K. R.

(2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100201

46.

Open Science Framework. (n.d.). Registrations. https://help.osf.io/hc/en-us/categories/360001550953-Registrations

47.

Piwowar

H. A.

Priem

Larivière

Alperin

J. P.

Matthias

Norlander

. . . Haustein

(2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ, 6, Article e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375

48.

Piwowar

H. A.

Vision

T. J.

(2013). Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ, 1, Article e175. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.175

49.

Polanin

J. R.

Tanner-Smith

E. E.

Hennessy

E. A.

(2016). Estimating the difference between published and unpublished effect sizes: A meta-review. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 207–236. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582067

50.

Quint

(2016, September 12). Impacts and implementation of the i3-funded scale-up of success for all. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36387.v1

51.

Registry of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies. (2020, June 11). Getting started in REES [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXODz7QZYmE

52.

Registry of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies. (n.d.-a). Checklist of required information for a registry entry. https://sreereg.icpsr.umich.edu/sreereg/checklist

53.

Registry of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies. (n.d.-b). Registry of efficacy and effectiveness studies. https://sreereg.icpsr.umich.edu/sreereg/userguide

54.

Registered Reports FAQ. (n.d.). https://osf.io/gha9f/

55.

Reich

Gehlbach

Albers

C. J.

(2020). “Like upgrading from a typewriter to a computer”: Registered reports in education research. AERA Open, 6(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420917640

56.

Scheel

A. M.

Schijen

Lakens

(2020, February 5). An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/p6e9c

57.

Shero

Hart

S. A.

(2020). Informed consent template (Version 1). https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13218773.v1

58.

Trainor

A. A.

Graue

(2014). Evaluating rigor in qualitative methodology and research dissemination. Remedial and Special Education, 35(5), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514528100

59.

U.S. Copyright Office. (2019, December). Copyright basics. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

60.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2012). Guidance regarding methods for de-identification of protected health information in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/common-rule/index.html

61.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (n.d.). Federal policy for the protection of human subjects (“common rule”). https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/common-rule/index.html

62.

van Dijk

Schatschneider

Hart

S. A.

(2021). Open science in education science. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420945267

63.

Vision

T. J.

(2010). Open data and the social contract of scientific publishing. BioScience, 60(5), 330–331. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.5.2