Studies of the quality of published educational research have indicated that, while the quality is improving, much published research still suffers from major weaknesses. This finding is particularly disconcerting since it is generally recognized that the average reader of educational journals lacks a sound understanding of the research process and of statistics and is, therefore, very likely to accept uncritically as true anything reported in the published literature. This article suggests ways in which the consumer of educational research can critically evaluate research reports in terms of sample and methodology, design and statistical treatment, and results and interpretation. The reader is alerted to sources of deliberate and nondeliberate bias and to fallacious use and/or interpretation of statistics. The reader of educational research must critically evaluate research in order to determine whether totally or partially to accept, or to question or reject reported findings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HarberJ.R.Learning disability research: How far have we progressed?Learning Disability Quarterly, in press.
2.
BatemanB.D.An educator's view of a diagnostic approach to learning disorders. In HellmuthJ. (Ed.), Learning disorders (vol. 1). Seattle: Special Child, 1965.
3.
BloomB.S.Twenty-five years of educational research. Presidential address presented to the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1966.
4.
BorgW.R.GallM.D.Educational research (3rd ed.). New York: Longman, 1979.
5.
CampbellD.T.StanleyJ.C.Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.
6.
CampbellS.K.Flaws and fallacies in statistical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974.
7.
CarverR.P.The case against statistical testing. Harvard Educational Review, 1978, 48, 378–399.
8.
ClementsS.D.Minimal brain dysfunction in children (NINDS Monograph No. 3, U. S. Public Health Service Publication No. 1415). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966.
9.
CliffordG.J.A history of the impact of research on teaching. In TraversR. M. W. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973.
10.
CohenJ.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press, 1977.
11.
CruickshankW.M.The brain-injured child in home, school and community. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1967.
12.
CruickshankW.M.Myths and realities in learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1977, 10, 51–58.
13.
DicksonW.P.Insignificant figures, statistical insignificance, and misconclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1973, 10, 183–185.
14.
DrewC.J.BuchananM.L.Research on teacher education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 1979, 2, 50–55.
15.
GephartW.J.Development of an instrument for evaluating reports of educational research (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1965). Dissertation Abstracts, 1965, 26, 2545. (University Microfilm No. 65-13, 230).
16.
HammillD.D.LarsenS.C.The relationship of selected auditory perceptual skills and reading ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 429–435.
17.
HarberJ.R.The effectiveness of selected perceptual and perceptual-motor tasks in differentiating between normal and learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1979, 2, 70–75.
18.
HauserC.Education for mildly handicapped adolescents: Structure and quality of published information from the past decade. The Journal of Special Education, 1978, 12, 285–301.
19.
HaysW.L.Statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.
20.
JohnsonD.J.MyklebustH.Learning disabilities: Educational principles and practices. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1967.
21.
KeoghB.K.MajorS.M.ReidH.P.GandaraP.OmoriH.Marker variables: A search for comparability and generalizability in the field of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1978, 1, 5–11.
22.
KerlingerF.N.Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.
MannL.Divagations III. The Journal of Special Education, 1978, 12, 238–239.
25.
MartinD.L.First-hand report: How flawed statistics can make an ugly picture look even worse. American School Board Journal, 1975, 162, 57–59.
26.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. Proposed definition of learning disabilities. Society for Learning Disabilities and Remedial Education Newsletter, 1980, 1, 4.
27.
PersellC.H.Quality, careers and training in educational and social research. Bayside, NY: General Hall, 1976.
28.
RosenthalR.RosnowR.L.The volunteer subject. New York: John Wiley, 1975.
29.
SenfG.M.A perspective on the definition of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1977, 10, 537–539.
30.
SidmanM.Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books, 1960.
31.
StanleyJ.On improving certain aspects of educational experimentation. In StanleyC.J.ElamS.M. (Eds.), Improving experimental design and statistical analysis. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.
32.
StraussA.A.LehtinenL.E.Psychopathology and education of the brain-injured child (vol. 1). New York: Grune & Stratton, 1947.
33.
TylerR.W., (Ed.), Prospects for research and development in education. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan, 1976.
34.
U. S. Office of Education, Assistance to states for education of handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 1977, 42, 65083.
35.
WandtE., (Ed.), A cross-section of educational research. New York: David McKay, 1965.
36.
WandtE., (Ed.), An evaluation of educational research published in journals. Unpublished manuscript, Committee on Evaluation of Research, American Education Research Association, 1967.
37.
WardN. E. W.HallB.W.SchrammC.F.Evaluation of published educational research: A national study. American Educational Research Journal, 1975, 12, 109–128.
