Educational/Psychological Intervention Research Circa 2012

Levin, Joel R.; Kratochwill, Thomas R.

doi:10.1002/9781118133880.hop207019

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 110 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a recent chapter in the Handbook of Psychology, Levin and Kratochwill (2013) offered a number of suggestions directed at improving the "awful reputation" of educational research (Kaestle, 1993). Specifically, they recommended that intervention researchers should design and conduct research that fulfills the following:…”

Section: A Stage Model Of Educational/psychological Intervention Rese...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: Randomization to the rescue.

Kratochwill,

Levin

2014

Single-Case Intervention Research: Methodological and Statistical Advances.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, a premium has been placed on the use of randomized experimental design methodology-and synonymously in selected contexts, randomized controlled trials (RCTs)-for evaluating the efficacy of psychological and educational interventions. Indeed, the term "gold standard" has often been applied to intervention research that adheres to the principle of randomization when imputing causal connections between interventions and outcomes (e.g.,

show abstract

Section: A Stage Model Of Educational/psychological Intervention Rese...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: Randomization to the rescue.

Kratochwill,

Levin

2014

Single-Case Intervention Research: Methodological and Statistical Advances.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Australian Research in Early Childhood Education and Care: Insights Into the Actual; Imagining the Possible

Garvis

Phillipson

2021

Review of Research in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early childhood education and care (ECEC) remains a priority area for public policy, internationally and in Australia. However, an analysis of empirical research published internationally up to 2008 has identified a bias toward positivist methodologies within a “scientific/psychological’ rather than educational perspective and with a focus on the interactions between preschoolers, family, and child care variables. For some researchers, this bias raises concerns that public policy in ECEC is based on limited research perspectives. This chapter examines research focusing on the Australian context and published between 2010 and 2014 to determine whether this bias exists in Australian research. We explore the quality of ECEC research to develop an overall understanding of the current situation of ECEC research in Australia. Our findings suggest that Australian research in ECEC is very dissimilar to research published internationally, especially in its reliance on qualitative paradigms and a focus on the educators (principals, teachers, and teacher aides). The strong qualitative focus may allow a diverse range of voices within the ECEC sector to be heard and identified, moving beyond traditional notions of historically marginalized individuals and communities that dominate other education research areas.

show abstract

Educational/Psychological Intervention Research Circa 2012

Cited by 2 publications

References 110 publications

Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: Randomization to the rescue.

Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: Randomization to the rescue.

Australian Research in Early Childhood Education and Care: Insights Into the Actual; Imagining the Possible

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About