Evidence-Based Assessment in Special Education Research: Advancing the Use of Evidence in Assessment Tools and Empirical Processes

Author:

Talbott Elizabeth1ORCID,De Los Reyes Andres2,Kearns Devin M.3ORCID,Mancilla-Martinez Jeannette4,Wang Mo5

Affiliation:

1. William and Mary

2. University of Maryland, College Park

3. University of Connecticut

4. Vanderbilt University

5. University of Florida

Abstract

Evidence-based assessment (EBA) requires that investigators employ scientific theories and research findings to guide decisions about what domains to measure, how and when to measure them, and how to make decisions and interpret results. To implement EBA, investigators need high-quality assessment tools along with evidence-based processes. We advance EBA in three sections in this article. First, we describe an empirically grounded framework, the Operations Triad Model (OTM), to inform EBA decision-making in the articulation of relevant educational theory. Originally designed for interpreting mental health assessments, we describe features of the OTM that facilitate its fusion with educational theory, namely its falsifiability. In turn, we cite evidence to support the OTM's ability to inform hypothesis generation and testing, study design, instrument selection, and measurement validation. Second, we describe quality indicators for interpreting psychometric data about measurement tools, which informs both the development and selection of measures and the process of measurement validation. Third, we apply the OTM and EBA to research in special education in two contexts: (a) empirical research for causal explanation and (b) implementation science research. We provide open data resources to advance measurement validation and conclude with future directions for research.

Funder

Institute of Education Sciences

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Developmental and Educational Psychology,Education

Reference117 articles.

1. Commentary: Definitely More Than Measurement Error: But How Should We Understand and Deal With Informant Discrepancies?

2. Bottom-Up and Top-Down Paradigms for Psychopathology: A Half-Century Odyssey

3. Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity.

4. Should the Simple View of Reading Include a Fluency Component?

5. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. https://www.aera.net/Portals/38/1999%20Standards_revised.pdf

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3