Combining data from a series of three planned, consecutive independent randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the present study investigates two literacy interventions for preschool children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). For the first cohort, children were randomized to interactive book reading treatment (IBR)or a business-as-usual (BAU) control condition; in Cohort 2, children were randomized to phonological awareness treatment (PA)or BAU; in Cohort 3, children were randomized to IBR or PA. Both treatments were implemented weekly in the classroom from November to May. Combined across cohorts, data from n =47 IBR, n =42 PA, and n =44 BAU students from 57 classrooms in 8 districts were available for analysis. Model results showed that IBR had significantly greater pretest-posttest gains than the sample mean on expressive vocabulary and listening comprehension (d*=0.29 and 0.30), whereas PA had significantly greater phonological awareness gains (d*=0.39).

Despite the central role “evidence-based practice” (EBP) plays in special education agendas for both research and policy, it is widely recognized that achieving implementation of EBPs remains an elusive goal. In an effort to better understand this problem, we interviewed special education practitioners in four school districts, inquiring about the role evidence and EBP played in their work. Our data suggest that practitioners’ responses to policies that press for increased use of EBP are mediated by a variety of factors, including their interpretations of the EBP construct itself, as well as the organizational conditions of their work, and their access to relevant knowledge and related tools to support implementation. We interpret these findings in terms of their implications for understanding the problem of implementation through a more contextual and ecological lens than has been reflected in much of the literature to date.

No abstract

No abstract