Preregistration involves researchers publicly registering key study elements before conducting a study to increase the transparency of research and limit the use and impact of questionable research practices. To support special education researchers’ engagement with preregistrations, in this article we provide an overview of preregistration and systematically review four preregistration registries (Open Science Framework, Registry of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies, AsPredicted, and ClinicalTrials). Each of the registry templates reviewed effectively addresses most questionable research practices and can accommodate a variety of research designs, with the exception of mixed-methods research. Among the benefits of Registry of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies, Open Science Framework, and ClinicalTrials are the provision of highly specific templates and allowing users to update the preregistration when changes to the original study occur. Researchers can use this review to help select and use a registry that is appropriate for their study design and purpose.
AdelsonJ. L.BartonE.BradshawC.BryantB.BryantD.CookB. G.CoyneM. D.deBettencourtL.DeHavenA. C.DymondS. K.EspositoJ.FarmerT. W.FlakeJ. K.GageN. A.KennedyM. J.KernL.LaneK. L.LeeD. L.LembkeE.. . . TroiaG. A. (2019). A roadmap for transparent research in special education and related disciplines. EdArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/sqfy3
2.
AndersonD.SpybrookJ.MaynardR. (2019). REES: A registry of efficacy and effectiveness studies in education. Educational Researcher, 48(1), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X18810513
3.
BakkerM.VeldkampC.van AssenM.CrompvoetsE.OngH. H.NosekB. A.SoderbergC. K.MellorD.WichertsJ. M. (2020). Ensuring the quality and specificity of preregistrations. PLOS Biology, 18(12), Article e3000937. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000937
ButlerN.DelaneyH.SpoelstraS. (2017). The gray zone: Questionable research practices in the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0201
6.
ClaesenA.GomesS. L. B. T.TuerlinckxF.VanpaemelW. (2019). Preregistration: Comparing dream to reality. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/d8wex
7.
CookB. G.BuysseV.KlingnerJ.LandrumT.McWilliamR.TankersleyM.TestD. (2014). Council for exceptional children: Standards for evidence-based practices in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(6), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914531389
8.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211019100
9.
CookB. G.LloydJ. W.MellorD.NosekB. A.TherrienW. 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%2F0014402918793138
10.
CookB. G.MagginD. M.RobertsonR. E. (2021). Registered reports in special education: Introduction to the special series. Remedial and Special Education, 42(3), 131–139.
11.
CookB. G.van DijkW.VargasI.FlemingJ. I.McDonaldS. D.RichmondC. L.CarlisleL. M.McLucasA. S.JohnsonR. M. (2022). Transparent research practices in special education. EdArXiv. https://edarxiv.org/d8unh
12.
CookB. G.WongV.FlemingJ. I.SolariE. J. (2022). Preregistration of randomized controlled trials. Research on Social Work Practice. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10497315221121117
13.
CorrC.SnodgrassM. R.LoveH.ScottI. M.KimJ.AndrewsL. (2021). Exploring the landscape of published mixed methods research in special education: A systematic review. Remedial and Special Education, 42(5), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741932520924030
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
16.
FlemingJ. I.WilsonS. E.EspinasD. R.van DijkW.CookB. J. (2022). Special education researchers’ knowledge, attitudes, and reported use of open science practices. EdArXiv. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/tyc36
17.
FlemingJ. I.WilsonS. E.HartS. A.TherrienW. J.CookB. 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
18.
GehlbachH.RobinsonC. 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
19.
HavenT. L.ErringtonT. M.GleditschK. S.van GrootelL.JacobsA. M.KernF. G.PiñeiroR.RosenblattF.MokkinkL. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920976417
20.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203
KiyonagaA.ScimecaJ. 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
23.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 363–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786
MakelM. C.HodgesJ.CookB. G.PluckerJ. (2021). Both questionable and open research practices are prevalent in education research. Educational Researcher, 50, 493–504. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211001356
26.
NosekB. A.BeckE. D.CampbellL.FlakeJ. K.HardwickeT. E.MellorD. T.van’t VeerA. E.VazireS. (2019). Preregistration is hard, and worthwhile. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(10), 815–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.009
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
28.
OdomS. L.BrantlingerE.GerstenR.HornerR.ThompsonB.HarrisK. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100201
29.
SchäferT.SchwarzM. (2019). The meaningfulness of effect sizes in psychological research: Differences between sub-disciplines and the impact of potential biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(813), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00813
30.
ScheelA. M.SchiejenM. R. M. J.LakensD. (2021). An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467
31.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
32.
SzollosiA.KellenD.NavarroD.ShiffrinR.van RooijI.Van ZandtT.DonkinC. (2019). Is preregistration worthwhile?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(2), 94–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.009
van den AkkerO.WestonS. J.CampbellL.ChopikW. J.DamianR. I.Davis-KeanP.HallA. N.KosieJ. E.KruseE.OlsenJ.RitchieS. J.ValentineK. D.van’t VeerA. E.BakkerM. (2019). Preregistration of secondary data analysis: A template and tutorial. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hvfmr
35.
van DijkW.SchatschneiderC.HartS. A. (2021). Open science in education sciences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022219420945267
36.
WagenmakersE. J.WetzelsR.BorsboomD.van der MaasH. L.KievitR. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 632–638. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691612463078
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.
