Evaluation of Research for Usable Knowledge in Behavioral Disorders: Ignoring the Irrelevant, Considering the Germane

Abstract

A central and ongoing concern in the field of emotional or behavioral disorders (E/BD) relates to the efficacy of educational and behavioral interventions. Recently, wider debates about how knowledge is generated have impacted the field, sometimes leading to less than useful debates around positivist versus postpositivist research approaches for generating knowledge. These debates detract from the immediate need of establishing the real-world worth of interventions for children and youth with E/BD. We suggest that reorientation to a more evaluative stance is necessary to generate usable knowledge for effective practice. This is most ably accomplished through the rigor of analytical narrative synthesis and meta-analysis, which we see as far more useful than qualitative approaches. The evaluative power of these two approaches is illustrated by examples related to the efficacy of Facilitated Communication and social skills instruction and by comparing evaluations of behavioral interventions via medication and diet.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.