Re-examining Evidence Based Practice in Special Education: A Discussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) recently released updated standards regarding how to determine whether any particular intervention may be deemed an evidence-based practice (EBP). As new criteria regarding the acceptance of any specific intervention as evidence-based become available, the question arises: Would the application of new standards to studies completed under the older guidelines result in changes to past conclusions? The current study examined if changes in EBP standards might change the classification of an exemplar practice that was previously designated as an EBP. In this case, we examined video modeling (VM), an accepted practice regarding skill acquisition in special education as an exemplar practice. In order to determine if the new CEC 2014 standards would impact a previously determined EBP finding, a re-examination of Bellini and Akullian's (2007) frequently cited meta-analysis that focused on VM as an intervention for individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) was conducted. The results revealed that if Bellini and Akullian had conducted their review using updated CEC 2014 standards, VM applied to individuals with ASD would not have been classified as an EBP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".