1 / 20

Presented by Julia Hood 3/11/09

Presented by Julia Hood 3/11/09. Special Education and Related Services: What Have We Learned From Meta-Analysis? By Steven R. Forness University of California, Los Angeles Neuropsychiatric Hospital.

lalo
Download Presentation

Presented by Julia Hood 3/11/09

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presented by Julia Hood 3/11/09 Special Education and Related Services: What Have We Learned From Meta-Analysis?By Steven R. FornessUniversity of California, Los Angeles Neuropsychiatric Hospital Training School Psychologists to be Experts in Evidence Based Practices for Tertiary Students with Serious Emotional Disturbance/Behavior Disorders US Office of Education 84.325K H325K080308

  2. Special Education • Criticism of the effectiveness of special education • Research efforts in Special Education have also been criticized • Past research efforts of narrative report are insufficient and inadequate • Lack of evidence for effective interventions based on: • Certain types of problems • Certain types of children • In comparison to other interventions

  3. Special Education • Meta-analysis is being used more frequently as a means to synthesize research in the area of interventions and special education

  4. Special Education • Current meta-analysis is an update to a previous synthesis in order to make the research more current • 24 separate meta-analyses across 20 intervention topics • Compared mean effect sizes (ES) • Difficulty because no directly comparable studies • Studies had different purposes, research samples, and outcome measures • Therefore, only tentative conclusions can be drawn as to relative effectiveness and need for further investigation

  5. Meta-Analyses for Special Education Large ES

  6. Meta-Analyses for Special Education Medium ES

  7. Meta-Analyses for Special Education Medium ES

  8. Meta-Analyses for Special Education Small ES

  9. Meta-Analyses for Special Education Small ES

  10. Single-Participant Studies • Inclusion of single-subject studies is a controversial topic • When included, Percentage of Non-overlapping Data (PND) is commonly used as the metric • Data points obtained during intervention phases that do not overlap with any data points from baseline or reversal phases are divided by the total number of intervention phase data points • Criteria for effectiveness are: • 90-100 Powerful intervention • 70-90 Favorable • 50-70 Questionable • Under 50 Unfavorable

  11. Special Education “Mega-Analysis” • When all of the mean ES’s from all of the meta-analyses were combined, there was an overall ES of .55 for special education • This was partially weighted for the interventions that had more than one meta-analysis • This would imply that there is a substantial benefit to special education • There are dangers to combining studies that are this diverse

  12. “special”, “education”, or “related” • Must look at the intervention and the emphasis of “special”, “education”, or “related” • “Special” is an intervention that involves a unique and different method that would not typically be used in general education • Usually designed solely for use in special education • Goal of enhancing hypothetical and unobservable constructs that are presumed to cause learning deficits

  13. “special”, “education”, or “related” • “Education” is the category of interventions that emphasize education by adapting and modifying instruction • Origins in general education and modified for special education to accommodate the needs of students • Direct approach of adapting instruction to enhance the academic learning of special education students

  14. “special”, “education”, or “related” • “related” services are dependent on other professionals aside from the teacher • Consultation from other professionals (school psychologists, behavior analysts) • Actual delivery of the intervention by another individual

  15. Special “Education” • Mneumonic Strategies 1.62 • Reading Comprehension Strategies 0.94 • Direct Instruction 0.84 • Formative Evaluation 0.70 • Computer-assisted Instruction 0.66 • Peer Tutoring 0.58 • Word Recognition Strategies 0.57 • Mean 0.84

  16. “Special” Education • Psycholinguistic Training 0.39 • Social Skills Training 0.20 • Modality Instruction 0.14 • Perceptual Training 0.08 • Mean 0.20

  17. “Related” Services • Behavior Modification 0.93 • Cognitive Behavior Modification 0.74 • Psychotherapy 0.71 • Stimulant Medication 0.62 • Psychotropic Medication 0.30 • Diet Restrictions -0.12 • Mean 0.53

  18. Conclusions • Best practice • Combine interventions with medium to high ES’s • Look at how the combination of certain interventions will produce varying ES’s • Monitor students’ progress • Teacher cognitive-behavioral self-management • Possibility of stimulant medications (particularly ADHD) • Professionals following these guidelines should expect better outcomes

  19. Considerations About Practice • Some versions of certain interventions can have different effect (positive or negative) • Some children will benefit more from some interventions than other children would • Many of the studies included are now over 10 years old • New research has been done and should be considered

  20. Final Thought • Overall, special education cannot be considered ineffective based on the results of this “mega-analysis”

More Related