Where possible we have recommended interventions that have support in the research literature. Practices in education are always evolving and some adjustments or interventions have not been assessed in all contexts and with all kinds of learners. School leaders and researchers must take into account the quality and quantity of the research evidence, the nature of the student and the context and the values of the teacher, family, and student. A good framework for considering the level of research support for a practice or intervention is provided by Carter and Wheldall (2008).
There are several terms used in relation to research evidence for educational practices. Terms include evidence-based practices, research-based practices and evidence-informed practices. These terms may have different meanings depending on the context. On this website, we have used the term evidence-based to refer to practices for which there is sufficient research that provides evidence of the effectiveness of the strategy. The table below provides a guide to the level of evidence that may be available.
| Rating | Description | Recommendation | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 – Gold standard | Extremely promising as has a number of quality research studies supporting its effectiveness and is consistent with current theory and recommended practice. | Use with high degree of confidence | Prompting; Reinforcement of alternative behaviours; Modeling (video and direct); Response cards |
| Level 2 – Silver standard | Promising as has some studies supporting its effectiveness, although more is still needed, and is consistent with current theory and recommended practice. | Use with reasonable degree of confidence | Social narratives/scripts; Task analysis; Picture exchange communication system (PECS) |
| Level 3 – Bronze standard | Safe but potentially ineffective as studies have not found evidence of effectiveness, but the strategy or practice is consistent with current theory. | Worth a try – but paired with systematic data collection and evaluation | Universal Design for Learning; Alert program; Zones of Regulation |
| Level 4 – Brass Standard | Not recommended as few high quality studies have found evidence for effectiveness and they do not make sense with current theory or practice. | Should not be used until new evidence becomes available. | Sensory integration/sensory diet; Perceptual motor programs; Gluten/casein free diet; Auditory integration training |
| Level 5 – Tin Standard | Rated as educationally unsafe, these practices have been disproved, contradict current theory, and may even have been linked to harmful effects or outcomes. | Should not be used under any circumstances | Chelation; Withholding vaccines; Facilitated Communication |
When there is less research support, there is a greater responsibility on educators to use “data-based teaching”, collecting data on how students respond to interventions to ensure they are achieving the desired outcomes. Data-based teaching means having clearly identified outcomes and using data to measure the effectiveness of the strategy or practice in meeting that outcome. If outcomes are not achieved, the intervention needs changing.
The strategies described in this website include suggestions for identifying outcomes and collecting data to evaluate whether the strategy is effective in achieving these outcomes. Links to research examining the suggested strategies are also provided
It is also important to be wary of false claims about the effectiveness of some interventions. These are particularly problematic in the area of disability. A good guide to identifying false claims, pseudoscience or scams can be found at: Is it a scam? (PDF)
