Seth Andrew King

Students who require support to write sentences fluently may also have difficulties developing advanced writing skills. Adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities typically struggle to develop skills related to writing and receive minimal instructional time related to writing fluency, particularly in the context of typing. The present study investigated a supplemental remote writing intervention delivered through typed responding that consisted of timed practice and instructor feedback on the performance of three adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities using a multiple-probe across-participants design. Results suggest increases in the total words written and correct writing sequences across participants occurred following the intervention. Participants made gains relative to norms for writing performance. However, the patterns of improvement across participants were not consistent with a functional relation, and the gains were not sustained during maintenance. Future work is needed to match appropriately intensive interventions with students.

Background: Training practitioners to implement functional communication training (FCT) is resource intensive. Emerging technologies, such as virtual reality (VR) and chatbots, may deliver training at scale. Their comparative effectiveness and whether skills taught in one modality transfer to another remain uncertain. Objective: This exploratory study evaluated the effect of multicomponent training packages featuring either VR or a chatbot on (1) posttraining performance on FCT implementation probes administered in both formats and (2) changes in participants’ self-perceived knowledge, confidence, and usefulness. Methods: A convenience sample of 23 university students (mean age=24 y; 15/23, 65% female) were recruited through classroom announcements and peer referrals. Eligible participants (at least 18 years of age, available to attend trainings, and who had no history of discomfort associated with VR) were randomly assigned to either VR (n=12) or chatbot (n=11) training. Groups did not differ significantly across demographic characteristics. In-person trainings consisted of video-recorded instruction and rehearsal of steps in VR or with the chatbot during a single session. Approximate times of sessions, including tutorials and assessments, were 45 minutes (VR) and 55 minutes (chatbot). All participants’ performance on FCT procedures was measured using 2 formats: a VR-based observed mastery probe (OMP) and a text-based probe (TBP). Participants also completed a survey measuring their self-perceptions. Results: The number of FCT steps participants performed correctly (of 18) was analyzed using a binomial generalized linear mixed model, with random intercepts for participant and fixed effects of training group (chatbot vs VR), time (pretest vs posttest), and probe modality (OMP vs TBP); α =.05. Results indicated a main effect of time (odds ratio [OR] 36.09, 95% CI 20.75‐62.75; P <.001). A significant 3-way interaction (time × probe modality × training group) indicated that the pattern of skill transfer differed by training condition and probe type (OR 6.10, 95% CI 2.08‐17.86; P< .001). At posttest, the chatbot group significantly outperformed the VR group on the TBP (OR 4.14, 95% CI 1.20‐14.24; P= .049), completing, on average, 4 more steps in the procedure (average marginal effect 0.22, 95% CI 0.04‐0.41). Differences between groups on the OMP were not significant (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.18‐2.07; P =.43). Across all self-report measures, there was no differential improvement by training condition at posttest. Conclusions: This study provides the first comparison of chatbot- and VR-based training for FCT. This extends prior work that compared VR against didactic instruction or assessed performance using a single modality. Findings contribute to the field by supporting the viability of text-based chatbots in training and underscoring the importance of the alignment between training and assessment modalities. Chatbot-enhanced training systems may extend access to evidence-based techniques, such as FCT, in areas with limited training resources. More work is needed to confirm effects and demonstrate applicability to practice.

Multi-tiered systems of support in reading (MTSS-R) allocate instructional resources to identify and address students’ needs. Tier 1 instruction is designed to meet the needs of most students, with more intensive standardized instruction provided in Tier 2 for students who need additional support. Prior research has emphasized the importance of high-quality Tier 1 instruction and alignment with Tier 2 interventions, but noted that few Tier 2 studies reported sufficient information to determine fidelity or alignment of school-implemented Tier 1 instruction. This review synthesized experimental studies ( k = 26) published since 2011 and found that while reporting of Tier 2 intervention fidelity has improved, many studies provide limited information about school-implemented Tier 1 instruction. Nonetheless, more studies assess or actively manipulate Tier 1 instruction. Increased attention to the wider MTSS-R context of Tier 2 intervention has implications for practice and future research.

Students with and without disabilities increasingly learn to read within multitiered systems of support that provide universal (Tier 1) instruction and targeted (Tier 2) intervention. Researchers have emphasized the importance of evaluating Tier 2 interventions in relation to the quality and coherence of Tier 1 instruction. Although large-scale studies increasingly report implementation fidelity and alignment across tiers, it is unclear to what extent single-case research design (SCRD) studies include such information. The SCRD encompasses a variety of within-subject experiments that are common in special education and have potential benefits for students with or at-risk for learning disabilities. In this systematic review, we examined how SCRD studies of Tier 2 literacy interventions ( k = 9) reported instructional fidelity and alignment across tiers. While most studies documented fidelity for the implemented intervention, none described the nature or quality of Tier 1 instruction. Findings indicate that SCRD research rarely situates Tier 2 outcomes within the context of Tier 1, limiting interpretability and integration with the larger evidence base on reading interventions.

This issue commemorates the scholarship published in Behavioral Disorders over the past five decades. The unwavering dedication to the interests of students with emotional/behavioral disorders (EBDs) reflected in the journal’s pages has coincided with considerable variance in approaches to research, respect for participants, and intervention methodology. This article provides a summary of these changes in studies that appeared in Behavioral Disorders between 1975 and 2024. Of the 1,423 identified studies, 59.11% featured an empirical study. Of these, descriptive (52.84%) and single-case design studies (23.71%) appeared most frequently. A closer inspection of participants and methods featured in experimental research revealed greater transparency in terms of demographic variables such as race/ethnicity, with limited progress related to characteristics such as socioeconomic status or English proficiency. Interventions generally emphasized classroom applications of behavioral intervention strategies for children without disabilities. Despite considerable variance across decades, findings suggest recent work has in many ways adjusted to address contemporary emphases on factors such as fidelity and social validity. Implications for the field are discussed following a review of findings.

Educators increasingly require training to address intensive challenging behavior, such as self-injury or aggression, exhibited by students with disabilities. Although ideally acquired through hands-on experience, opportunities for training in evidence-based techniques under expert supervisors are limited. Virtual reality (VR) simulations may allow educators to train without risking harm to students. However, VR typically requires personnel to assess trainees and manage the simulation, which only partially assuages concerns regarding access to training. Artificial intelligence (AI) may be integrated into instructional VR simulations to automate content generation and assessment. Yet practices used to address severe challenging behaviors, such as functional communication training (FCT), involve complex skills. This study evaluated an automated VR simulation designed to teach steps in FCT using a waitlisted randomized controlled trial. Teacher candidates ( n = 49) were randomly assigned to an intervention (i.e., lecture, modeling, and VR) or a control group (i.e., lecture and modeling only). Trainees completed pre-, post-, and maintenance test probes during three one-to-one sessions over three weeks. Results of a mixed ANOVA indicated trainees in the VR condition exhibited more correct FCT steps at post-test ( d = 2.45) and maintenance ( d = 1.58) relative to the control group. Following delayed access to the VR simulation, control group participants also demonstrated a large within-subjects effect ( d = 2.37). Surveys of knowledge and confidence did not favor either group, however. Participants reported positive perceptions of the experience overall. Results have implications for VR development and implementation in higher education.

Time sampling, wherein an observer indicates whether a behavior occurred within a specified time interval, frequently appears in single-case designs. Partial-interval recording (PIR), the most common form of time sampling, is known to introduce error when used to estimate the duration of a behavior. Recent scholarship has suggested that PIR can be corrected statistically. However, few studies report the data needed to adjust for PIR in meta-analyses conducted to identify effective practices. This could present issues in identifying evidence-based practices in areas, such as research involving children with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), where PIR is commonly used. The present study examined the results of a previously published meta-analysis concerning the effect of self-monitoring on the challenging behavior of students with EBD (Bruhn et al. in J Positive Behav Interv 24(2):156–168, 2022). Analyses involved (a) calculating effects for each study based on three imputed average durations of their occurrence and (b) conducting meta-analyses to evaluate the impact of average duration on overall estimates of effect. Results suggest that correcting for PIR resulted in marginal changes when observation intervals were consistent with recommended lengths or when results were conclusive, but otherwise were indicative of a wide range of possible outcomes. A discussion of potential changes to reporting and analysis practices follows a description of results.

Assessing the extent to which interventions might generalize involves an understanding of for whom and in what contexts interventions have succeeded. Identifying the characteristics of service recipients as well as observers, teachers, and other members of implementation teams involved in intervention research represents an emerging consideration in special education literature involving single-case designs. In addition, the effectiveness of interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) may be influenced by cultural, linguistic, and economic differences between students and interventionists. This review describes the characteristics of students with EBD and implementation teams featured in single-case design behavior intervention studies published in nine special education journals from 2000 to 2020. Screening of available studies ( n = 4,877) resulted in a sample of 140 articles. Reports of student demographic data were high (66.4%–98.6% of articles depending on the variable); however, authors typically did not describe students’ socioeconomic status (SES). Information regarding implementation teams varied from 1.4% to 46% of articles depending on the variable. Implications for future research follows a discussion of findings.

Initially excluded from many evaluations of education research, single-case designs have recently received wider acceptance within and beyond special education. The growing approval of single-case design has coincided with an increasing departure from convention, such as the visual analysis of results, and the emphasis on effect sizes comparable with those associated with group designs. The use of design-comparable effect sizes by the What Works Clearinghouse has potential implications for the experimental literature in special education, which is largely composed of single-case designs that may not meet the assumptions required for statistical analysis. This study examined the compatibility of single-case design studies appearing in 33 special education journals with the design-comparable effect sizes and related assumptions described by the What Works Clearinghouse. Of the 1,425 randomly selected single-case design articles published from 1999 to 2021, 59.88% did not satisfy assumptions related to design, number of participants, or treatment replications. The rejection rate varied based on journal emphasis, with publications dedicated to students with developmental disabilities losing the largest proportion of articles. A description of the results follows a discussion of the implications for the interpretation of the evidence base. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).