Abstract
The purpose of this article is to examine the application of randomized controlled trial (RCT) methodology for determining the efficacy of school-based interventions in general and special education. In education science, RCTs are widely acknowledged as the gold standard of efficacy research, with other methodologies relegated to a lower level of credibility. However, scholars from different disciplines have raised a variety of issues with RCT methodology, such as the utility of random assignment, external validity, and the challenges of applying the methodology for assessing complex service interventions, which are necessary for many students with disabilities. Also, scholars have noted that school-based RCT studies have largely generated low effect sizes, which indicate that the outcomes of the interventions do not differ substantially from services as usual. The criticisms of RCT studies as the primary methodology in school-based intervention research for students with disabilities are offered along with recommendations for extending the acceptability of a broader variety of research approaches.
Highlights
The purpose of this article is to examine the application of randomized controlled trial (RCT) methodology for determining the efficacy of school-based interventions in general and special education
I have described the hesitations that researchers from a variety of disciplines have in adopting RCTs as a gold standard methodology that might address those issues and suggest that RCTs could have an important place in some research endeavors when integrated with other methodological approaches
Other types of studies, I propose, will have great value in this research endeavor
Summary
The purpose of this article is to examine the application of randomized controlled trial (RCT) methodology for determining the efficacy of school-based interventions in general and special education. There is great interest in discovering interventions or programs, which occasionally are multicomponents that produce specific outcomes for individual students with disabilities when employed in specific contexts (Frey et al, 2005). Striving to produce such evidence, the mainstream of education, psychology, health sciences, and other disciplines has largely adopted the randomized controlled trial (RCT) as the methodological gold standard for providing the evidence for evidence-based practice. This designation informally acknowledges the application of RCT experimentation under conditions that cannot be as tightly controlled as would occur in the laboratory
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
