1 University of Massachusetts Lowell, MA, USA.
2 University of California, Riverside, CA, USA.
Behav Modif. 2019 Jul;43(4):587-611. doi: 10.1177/0145445518762398. Epub 2018 Mar 12.
The majority of students receiving special education services for emotional disturbance (ED) receive a significant amount of instruction in general education classrooms, which emphasizes curriculums based on college and career readiness standards. In turn, those teachers who provide instruction to students with ED in inclusive settings are responsible for using evidence-based practices (EBPs) for those teaching situations in which they exist to meet free appropriate public education (FAPE) mandates. However, the identification of EBPs is a necessary pre-condition to eventual school adoption and teacher use of such practices. In this investigation, we completed a synthesis of syntheses to (a) determine the degree to which academic intervention research has focused on students with ED in general education classrooms and (b) identify practices that are effective at improving the academic performance of students with ED in these settings. Overall, few studies were identified. Of those studies identified, half did not disaggregate outcomes for students with ED. A quality indicator coding based on the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) design standards revealed that no studies with disaggregated outcomes permitted causal inferences. Implications for school practice and areas for future research are discussed.
大多数接受特殊教育服务的情绪障碍（ED）学生在普通教育教室中接受大量的指导，这些课程强调基于大学和职业准备标准的课程。反过来，那些在包容环境中为 ED 学生提供指导的教师，有责任在存在的情况下使用基于证据的实践（EBP）来满足免费适当公共教育（FAPE）的要求。然而，EBP 的确定是最终学校采用和教师使用这些实践的必要前提条件。在这项调查中，我们对综合研究进行了综合分析，以确定学术干预研究在普通教育教室中关注 ED 学生的程度，以及确定在这些环境中提高 ED 学生学业成绩的有效实践。总的来说，确定的研究很少。在确定的研究中，有一半没有对 ED 学生的结果进行细分。基于“有效实践研究中心”（What Works Clearinghouse，简称 WWC）设计标准的质量指标编码显示，没有一项具有细分结果的研究允许进行因果推断。讨论了对学校实践的影响和未来研究的领域。
