A Preliminary Investigation of the Empirical Validity of Study Quality Appraisal

Bryan G. Cook, Danielle N. Dupuis, Asha K. Jitendra

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

When classifying the evidence base of practices, special education scholars typically appraise study quality to identify and exclude from consideration in their reviews unacceptable-quality studies that are likely biased and might bias review findings if included. However, study quality appraisals used in the process of identifying evidence-based practices for students with learning and other disabilities have not been empirically validated (e.g., studies classified as unacceptable quality shown to have different, and presumably more biased, effects than high-quality studies). Using Gersten et al.’s (2005) approach for appraising the quality of group experimental studies in special education, we examined whether (a) studies classified as unacceptable quality and high quality had meaningfully different effects and (b) unacceptable-quality studies were more likely to have outlying effects than high-quality studies among 36 group experimental studies that investigated the effectiveness of instructional practices for students with learning disabilities. Our preliminary analyses found that the effects of unacceptable-quality studies were not meaningfully different from the effects of high-quality studies. We discuss implications of these findings and call for more research to be conducted in this area.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)14-22
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Learning Disabilities
Volume50
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2015.

Keywords

  • efficacy
  • quantitative
  • research method
  • treatment

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Preliminary Investigation of the Empirical Validity of Study Quality Appraisal'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this