Professional Practice

Identifying Evidence-Based Special EducationInterventions FromSingle-Subject ResearchJennifer Freeman and George Sugai

Special educators are aware of the

need to use evidence-based academic

and behavioral interventions in their

classrooms. Using research to guide

decision making in the classroom—

whether at the program, school, or dis-

trict level—can help ensure students

are effectively served. A second-grade

resource room teacher, Mark, struggles

with managing the behavior of several

students who have trouble staying on

task and completing work. Cindy, a

middle school special education

teacher, teaches a self-contained pro-

gram and is looking for a way to teach

writing skills to a seventh-grade stu-

dent with a learning disability. How

can Mark and Cindy find out about

best practices, and read reviews or

summaries of recent studies? Cur-

rently, there is no rigorous and com-

prehensive database to support educa-

tors. It also can be difficult for teach-

ers, schools, and policy makers to

interpret the results of research. Des-

pite the limitations in currently avail-

able resources, there are ways for spe-

cial education teachers and administra-

tors to identify evidence-based prac-

tices that fit their specific contexts.

6 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

The most recent authorizations of theIndividuals With Disabilities EducationAct (IDEA, 2006) and the No Child LeftBehind Act of 2001 (2006] provide amandate for the use of evidence-basedpractices (EBPs) in the areas of aca-demic and behavioral education (20U.S.C. § 1414[b][6][B], 20 U.S.C. §7801 [37]). However, the lack of a clearunderstanding of what EBPs are andthe difficulty finding EBPs that addressthe specific needs of students can befrustrating for many teachers andadministrators. In response, education-al researchers have attempted to evalu-ate the current research base and todefine clear criteria for determining

and evaluating EBPs without clearcriteria.

In order to address this issue, theU.S. Department of Education createdthe What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)as a resource for teachers. In addition,several other agencies, such as theCouncil for Exceptional Children(CEC), the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA), and the PromisingPractices Network (PPN), also haveattempted to bring together researchresults in a concise, user-friendly wayfor educators. Each organization hasdeveloped criteria for determiningEBPs, and their web sites providequick and easy access to EBPs for spe-

The body of educational research in special education is extremely

varied in both methodology and quality, often leaving special educationteachers with the very difficult task of identifying and evaluating

[evidence based practices] without clear criteria.

EBPs (Odom et a l , 2005). However,the body of educational research inspecial education is extremely varied inboth methodology and quality, oftenleaving special education teachers withthe very difficult task of identifying

cific categories of students. However,differing criteria, a mismatch betweencurrent research practices and EBPstandards, and limited access tospecific research studies limit the use-fulness of these resources for special

education teachers. In particular, priorto 2010 the WWC prioritized random-ized group design studies and excludedfrom consideration the results of stud-ies using single-subject designs. Thispractice was particularly problematicfor special educators due to the preva-lence of single-subject designs in spe-cial education research (Horner et a l ,2005).

In 2010, the WWC announced stan-dards that included criteria for identify-ing EBPs through the use of single-sub-ject research (Kratochwill et a l , 2010),and both the CEC and APA have alsodeveloped standards. However, theWWC standards do not yet align withthe current standard of practice in thefield of special education. Conse-quently, few special education prac-tices meet both WWC design and evi-dence standards.

Identilying Evidence-BasedPractices

Table 1 provides a comparison of sev-eral web-based resources to assist spe-cial educators looking for EBPs. How-ever, to benefit from these resources,educators must be critical consumers;the sites use varying criteria to evalu-ate the design standards and effects of

single-subject research. In order to beable to evaluate practices based on sin-gle-subject research, educators must befluent with the purpose and character-istics of single-subject research designsand the guidelines for evaluation andinterpretation of that research.

Recognizing Well DesignedSingle-Subject Research

To judge the usefulness and strength ofthe results and implications from sin-gle-subject research, educators mustunderstand the specific methods used,the strengths, and the limitations ofsingle-subject research designs. Single-subject design studies are distinguishedby several key characteristics:

• The individual case (individual orgroup of individuals), rather than agroup, is the unit of analysis.

• The individual case serves as his orher own control.

• The researcher conducts frequentand repeated observations andmeasures outcomes over time toassess changes in level, trend, vari-ability, and immediacy of the inter-vention effect across differing condi-tions (e.g., participants, settings).

Despite the strengths of single-sub-ject research for special education (seebox, "Strengths of Single-SubjectResearch"), determining what is and isnot an EBP based on single-subjectresearch can be difficult, because thereis no standardized method for synthe-sizing results (Conroy, Dunlap, Clarke,& Alter, 2005; Mooney, Epstein, Reid &Nelson, 2003). Single-subject researchdesigns identify causal relationshipsbetween an intervention and anobserved effect in a specific setting andcontext and with a specific individual.Generalizable statements to larger pop-ulations of individuals are difficult tomake from single-subject research.

Systematic and repeated demon-stration of the effect of the interven-tion is a key requirement for establish-ing a causal relationship between anintervention and an observed effect. Insingle-subject research these replica-tions occur across individual students,settings, or conditions. Common single-subject designs include ABAB, alternat-ing treatment, or multiple baselinedesigns. The goal is to control andaccount for internal threats to validitysuch as practice effects or an outsideevent that may affect the outcomes.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | MAY/JUNE 2013 7

Table 1 . Web Resources for Identifying Evidence-Based Practices

Features

Designstandardsfor SSRpublished andavailable

Designstandardsmatched tocurrent researchpractices

Evidencestandards forSSR publishedand available

Provides linksto interventiondescriptions

Provides linksor referencesto researchused fordeterminations

Fee required

ft

What WorksClearinghouse

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

X

X

X

X

Resource iiMiiM|iMi[MimM

Council forExceptional Childrenhttp://www.cec.sped.org

X

X

X

X

only includesresearch

commissionedby CEC

X

American PsychologicalAssociation

Iittp://www.apa.org/education/kl2/index.aspx

X

X

X

Promising

Practices Network

http://www.promisingpractices.net/

group designs only

group designs only

X

Note. SSR = single-subject research.

Traditionally, the effects of single-subject research are evaluated usingvisual analysis. Researchers graph andevaluate outcome data for changes intrend (direction), level (mean/medianlevel), and variability (fluctuation)within and across phases. Becausedecision rules have not been sufflcient-ly tested and established to guide visu-al analysis and interpretation of single-subject research data, inaccurate,inconsistent, or limited interpretationscan result.

In addition to visual analysis, sin-gle-subject researchers often calculatean effect size, typically reported instandardized units that make compar-isons of effect easier across studiesand participants. The most prevalentreported effect size involves an exami-nation of non-overlapping data points(54.65%) followed by a calculation ofthe standardized mean difference(18.6%; Maggin, 2011). There is cur-rently no agreed-upon method for cal-

culating an effect size in single-subjectresearch, which makes it difflcult tosynthesize research results.

In sum, single-subject researchdesigns have a number of strengthsand useful characteristics that makethem appealing to conducting studiesthat identify EBPs in special education.However, because of (a) a reliance onvisual analysis procedures, (b) a lackof an effect size metric and methodolo-gy, and (c) a need for standardized cri-teria for effective implementation andinterpretation, special educators alsoneed guidance on how to systematical-ly evaluate the existing research evi-dence base.

Evaluating and InterpretingResearch

Given the signiflcant but insufflcientadvances associated with using single-subject research methodologies to iden-tify EBPs, teachers and administratorsrequire additional guidance as they

attempt to interpret research and judge

practices that are examined with sin-

gle-subject research methods. Table 2

lists six steps to guide decision making;

Figure 1 illustrates how to evaluate and

implement interventions.

1. Identify the Problem. The flrst

step in the decision-making process is

to have a specific, measurable, and

complete identification of the problem

or need. After determining whether the

primary area of concern is academic,

social, or both, assess

• The nature of the problem (fre-

quency, duration, intensity, etc.).

• The context in which it is occurring

(instructional curriculum, environ-

mental conditions, etc.).

• Characteristics of the learner (dis-

abilities, learning history, etc.).

• Other factors that might affect

intervention responsiveness and

effectiveness.

8 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

This specification would also includestating what a successful outcomewould look like if an effective inter-vention could be identified. A varietyof formal and informal assessmenttools and procedures exist to structurethis specification and identificationstep.

For Mark, the process of clearly identi-fying the problem included writing aclear description of each problembehavior, keeping a record of the fre-quency of these behaviors, as well asthe time and the activity that wasgoing on when the problem behaviorsoccurred. Cindy needed informationabout the specific part of the writingprocess that was proving difficult forher student. Using curriculum-basedmeasurement tools, she was able todetermine that her student neededspecific instruction on spelling andgrammar.

2. Identify Possible Interventions.After establishing an understanding ofthe problem, need, and context, thenext step is to identify a list of inter-vention practices that might addressthe intended outcome. Although theutility and comprehensiveness of theWWC is not currently sufficient withrespect to special education EBPs, it isan excellent starting place because of(a) high acceptability standards, (b)detailed procedural descriptions, (c)access to supporting research, and (d)thorough research reviews. An EBPselection made at the WWC is support-ed by high research standards and canbe used with confidence by specialeducators; however, the numberand/or range of choices might belimited.

Although Mark and Cindy both begantheir search for EBPs at the WWC website, neither was able to find an EBPthat had been rated effective for thespecial education populations andproblems they needed to address. Theycontinued their search by looking atthe CEC, APA, and PPN databases, andgeneral Internet searches. Both teach-ers put together a short list of inter-vention ideas but needed to learnmore about the evidence base behind

Strengths of Single-Subject Research

Single-subject designs are ideal for the field of special education for severalreasons (Horner et al., 2005). First, in special education the number ofstudents with specific disabilities is relatively small, making large groupdesign studies more difficult and often impractical. Second, in single-sub-ject research designs, researchers are able to examine the specific condi-tions under which a particular student is responding to an intervention.Having specific information at the individual student level is critical inspecial education for the delivery of individualized intervention plans andevaluation of student outcomes. Finally, students with disabilities have adiverse range of learning characteristics, and single-subject research designsallow individual students to serve as their own controls.

them. Mark's list included interven-tions such as student self-monitoring(Briere & Simonsen, 2011; Reid, Trout,& Schwartz, 2005) and greeting stu-dents and providing a behavioralprompt prior to the start of class(Allday & Pakurar, 2007; Simonsen,Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai,2008). Cindy was interested in the useof peer tutoring to improve her stu-dent's spelling and grammar (Burks,2004).

3. Consider the Target Population.After increasing the specification of theproblem or need, and identifying a listof possible interventions, consider thefit between the target population andthe intervention:

• Was the intervention designed for astudent or group of students thatshare the characteristics of the tar-get population?

• How difficult might it be to general-ize the findings from the researchsubjects to the target population ofstudents?

• How similar/different is theresearch setting from the settingwhere the intervention will beimplemented?

• Can the intervention be adapted tothe characteristics (e.g., learning,cultural, linguistic) of the targetpopulation of students?

Mark explored the research related toboth intervention practices and discov-ered that the research in both caseswas conducted with middle school stu-dents. He decided that self-monitoring

might not be a good match for his sec-ond-graders, but that greeting andprompting students at the beginning ofa class period might be a good fit forhis younger group. Cindy discoveredthat the research on peer tutoring wasconducted with fifth-graders withlearning disabilities, and decided thiswould be a good match for her sev-enth-grade student who was severalyears behind in writing skills.

4. Consider the Scope of the

Decision. The size of the research baseshould match the level of the decisionbeing considered. Large-scale deci-sions—such as adopting a new evi-dence-based intervention for an entirespecial education program—are moredifficult to change and require moreresources than individual-level inter-ventions. Special education teachershave more freedom and opportunitiesto change with individual and small-group intervention decisions. Withprogram- and schoolwide decisions,the stakes are higher, and educatorsmust have the most and best empiri-cal evidence to support their interven-tion decisions, which also mightinclude group design studies, generaleducation or other students, and pro-gram-level intervention evaluations.When making school- or program-level decisions, educators shouldconsider:

• Does the design of the researchstudy or studies demonstrate a clearrelationship between the interven-tion and the effect?

TEACHINC EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN MAY/JUNE 2013 9

Table 2 . How to Identify Evidence-Based Practices From Single-Sub¡ect Researcb

1. Identify the problem

2. Identify possibleinterventions

3. Consider the targetpopulation

4. Consider the scope of thedecision

5. Consider the quality ofthe research design.

6. Consider the effect of theintervention.

Clearly identify an area of academic or social need, using reliable and valid assessments.

Identify a list of possible intervention practices related to the specific need and the researcharticles associated with those practices.

Determine if the research studies were conducted with populations with similarcharacteristics to the target population.

Match the size of the research base to the level of decision (classroom, school, or programlevel).

Assess the evidence of effect for the studies in the research literature base; design shouldallow for the determination of causal relationship between intervention and outcome(s).

Assess the extent to which the observed effects can be attributed to the intervention.

• Has the effect of the interventionbeen demonstrated in a variety ofsettings wide enough with a varietyof participants to support a range ofpractice uses?

• Is the total research evidence basesufficient enough to support highstakes decision making related tolarge numbers of students or severeproblem need?

Both Mark and Cindy were looking forintervention practices to use at the

their attention on the research designsand the evidence of effect for each ofthe studies in the research literaturebase. Examining design standards priorto evidence of effects is importantbecause the value of the evidence ofeffects is directly linked to the qualityof the design and integrity of theanalysis.

• Are student characteristics describedin sufficient detail to enable com-parisons with target population?

Special education teachers have more

freedom and opportunities to change with individual

and small-group intervention decisions.

classroom level, so an individual studywith positive results was an appropri-ate evidence base from which to start.Mark also was reassured to see theresults of a literature review (Simon-sen et al., 2008) that indicated thatproviding prompts to students prior tobehavioral difficulties was an effectivestrategy. This finding allowed Mark tofeel more confident that the resultsfrom the middle school study mightgeneralize to his second graders.

S. Consider the Quality of theResearch Design. Educators must focus

• Are descriptions of the setting andintervention specific and detailed?

• Are instructions and procedures forimplementing a practice or interven-tion detailed enough to supportdirect replication?

• Are data collection proceduresdescribed in sufficient detail toenable data collection in the appliedsetting?

Additionally, evaluate the design tosee if it allows for the determination ofcausal relationship between the inter-vention and the outcomes. Although

the standards of the WWC are higher,the consensus in the research commu-nity is that studies must have at leastthree data points in each phase andallow for at least three demonstrationsof effect in order to clearly show afunctional relationship between theintervention and the outcome. Themost common ways to demonstratethis functional relationship is usingwithdrawal/reversal (ABAB) designs ormultiple-baseline designs (Hammond &.Gast, 2010). In an ABAB design, educa-tors should look for a clear base-line-intervention-baseline-interventionpattern. In a multiple-baseline design,demonstrations of effect can take placeacross settings or participants. Phasechanges should occur at differentpoints in time. Studies that aredesigned to allow for at least threedemonstrations of effect can be used todetermine the presence of a causalrelationship between the interventionand the outcome. Educators should feelcomfortable that the demonstratedeffects are a direct result of the inter-vention, rather than some other vari-able or event.

The student characteristics and inter-vention descriptions were describedexplicitly for both Mark's promptingstrategy and Cindy's peer-tutoringstrategy and both teachers felt confi-

10 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Figure 1. Evaluating and Implementing an Intervention

Identify interventionpractice designedto address target

problem

1

tA/ \/ \ . IstheX/ intervention a \

<

^ good fit for ^your target

\ student/ /\ students? /

\ /

YYes 1

^ \/ l . Is the^\

/ research base ^y/ broad enough ^

\ to guide^^ decision /

^v making? /

\ /

YYes *

/ \/ Is tbe \ ^/ intervention \

/^ considered\ evidenced

\ ^ based by y/\ WWC /

\ /

Yes

\

Use interventionand continue tocollect data tomonitor effect

Identifying SpecialPractices From

K ^ ^ ^ and\ ' ^ ° ^ ''«turn to list of' intervention 7

practice£^^^

Stop and ' ^return to list of

No intervention^ practices

\ ^ / iiiiinmniiiiiiniii"

4f/

Review researchstudies related tothe intervention

1No / *

/ / \/ / \/ / ^- '^'^^ \

y / the study \ ."^ / design allow for ^

\ the determination\^ of a functional /

^^ relationship?/

Yes 1

/ \/ \/ \

^v^^ Yes / 4. Does the \^ \ ^ ^ / study show ^

^v positive\ effects? /

\ /

Education Evidence-BasedSingle-Subject Research

No stop and\ ^ return to list of/ intervention

practices -^

j p Stop andV return to list ofy ^" intervention

practices

1. Is the intervention a good fit foryour target student/students?A) Was the intervention designed for

use by students of similar age orability level?

B) Is the intervention a good match foryour setting (ie., group size, time, orresources)?

C) Is the intervention a good match forthe disability of your target studentor population?

2. Is the research base broad enough toguide decision making?A) For single students or small groups

are there at least 1 or 2 promisingstudies?

B) For programs or schools are there3-5 promising studies?

3. Does the study design allow forthe determination of a functionalrelationship?A) Is the intervention clearly defined

to allow for replication?B) Are there at least 3 data points in

each phase?C) Are there at least 3 demonstrations

of effect?

4. Does the study show positive effects?A) Is a change noted in the level of

the data between baseline andintervention?

B) Is a change noted in the trend ofthe data between baseline andintervention?

C) Is a change noted in the variabilityof the data between baseline andintervention?

4) Are any non-effects noted?

Note. WWC = What Works Clearinghouse.

dent that they could replicate thestrategies in their classrooms. Next,Mark and Cindy evaluated the designof each of their studies. Mark's studywas a clear multiple-baseline single-subject design. In each case there wereat least three data points per phaseand the design allowed for threedemonstrations of effect. Mark feltconfident that this study would allowhim to determine if this interventionresulted in changes in the students'behavior. Cindy's study on peer tutor-

ing was slightly different. It was anABA design where baseline data wascollected prior to and after the strategyimplementation. Although the articlereported at least three data points perphase, because the study design didnot include a second interventionphase that would allow for a thirddemonstration of effect Cindy was notable to confidently determine if thereported results are a direct function ofthe intervention. Cindy could not con-

sider peer tutoring an EBP based onthis study.

6. Consider the Effect of the Inter-vention. In the final step, examine theeffects of the intervention, in particularthe extent to which the observedeffects could be attributed to the inter-vention and whether the size of theeffects is educationally important orrelevant. As indicated, single-subjectresearchers rely on visual analysis pro-cedures primarily and statistical tests

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN [ MAY/JUNE 2013 11

secondarily (Maggin, 2011) to judge theeffects of the intervention. Consider:

• Are graphs prepared accurately,appropriately, and clearly?

• Are changes in level, trend, variabil-ity, and immediacy of effectdescribed within and across phasesadequately?

• Are changes aligned with the intro-duction of or manipulation of theintervention?

• Is the effect of intervention demon-strated sufficiently?

• Do statistical test results support thevisual analysis descriptions?

Mark reviewed the results from theprompting study and concluded thatfor all three students in the study theprompting intervention resulted inclear and positive effects on the stu-dents' behavior. He decided to try theintervention in his classroom andmonitor the effects for his students.Cindy reviewed the results of the peer-tutoring study and also determinedthat the effects for students were clearand positive for all the studentsalthough graphs were not provided,and she had to make these conclu-sions from individual data points andmeans reported in a table. Because thestudy design did not clearly allow forthree demonstrations of effect, she wasnot confident that the results that werereported were a direct result of thepeer-tutoring intervention. Because shewas making an individual student-level decision and she felt that peertutoring might be motivating for herstudent, Cindy decided to try the inter-vention while carefully monitoring herstudent's progress. In addition, shedecided to return to the research to seeif she could find a strategy with anevidence base she could be more con-fident about for her student.

Final Tiiouglils

Regardless of whether a strong or weakresearch database exists, special educa-tors must be smart consumers. Regard-less of their confidence in their EBPdecisions, educators also must con-tinuously monitor their interventionimplementation fidelity and student

responsiveness to the intervention.Implementation of every interventioncan be "tweaked" to improve its effec-tiveness over time, and the responsive-ness of every student can change overtime and conditions.

Mark and Cindy were both able tomake informed decisions about EBP fortheir classrooms despite the fact thatthe body of special education researchis varied and clear standards for EBPare not yet clearly defined. Severalorganizations have attempted to com-pile intervention resources on a largescale; however, at this time none ofthese is mature enough to serve as aprimary comprehensive and practicalguide for special educators. Single-sub-ject research designs and studies canbe a valuable tool for guiding the selec-tion of EBP, even though standards forevaluating interventions and outcomesbased on single-subject researchdesigns have not been established(Horner et al, 2005). Special educatorscan improve their identification of EBPby having solid background knowledgeabout the purpose, characteristics, andrequirements of single-subject researchdesigns; and a systematic process toguide their evaluation of single-subjectresearch design, quality, and demon-strations of meaningful effects.

ReferencesAllday, R. A., & Pakurar, K. (2007). Effects

of teacher greetings on student on-taskbehavior. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 40, 317-320. http://dx.doi.org/lO. 1901/jaba.2007.86-06

Briere, D. E., Ill, & Simonsen, B. (2011).Self-monitoring interventions for at-riskmiddle school students: The importanceof considering function. Behavioral Disor-ders, 36, 129-140.

Burks, M. (2004). Effects of classwide peertutoring on the number of words spelledcorrectly by students with LD. Interven-tion in School & Clinic, 39, 301-384.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10534512040390050701

Conroy, M. A., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., &Alter, P. J. (2005). A descriptive analysisof positive behavioral interventionresearch with young children with chal-lenging behavior. Topics in Early Child-hood Special Education, 25, 157-166.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02711214050250030301

Hammond, D., & Gast, D. L. (2010). Des-criptive analysis of single-subject

research designs: 1983-2007. Educationand TYaining in Autism and Develop-mental Disabilities, 45, 187-202.

Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee,G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). Theuse of single-subject research to identifyevidence-based practice in special educa-tion. Exceptional Children, 71, 165-179.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act,20U.S.C. §4301 et seq. (2006).

Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J. J., Horner,R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rind-skopf, D., & Shadish,W.R. (2010, June).Single-case design technical documenta-tion: Version 1.0 (Pilot). Washington, DC:Institute of Education Sciences, WhatWorks Clearinghouse. Retrieved fromhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/documentsum.aspx?sid = 229

Maggin, D. (2011, February 14). Identifyingevidence through synthesis of single-sub-ject research [PowerPoint slides]. Univer-sity of Connecticut, Storrs.

Mooney, P., Epstein, M. H., Reid, R., &Nelson, J. R. (2003). Status of and trendsin academic intervention research for stu-dents with emotional disturbance.Remedial and Special Education, 24,273-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240050301

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.§6301 et seq. (2006).

Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R.,Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris,K. R. (2005). Research in special educa-tion: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71,137-148.

Reid, R., Trout, A. L., & Schwartz, M.(2005). Self-regulation interventionsfor children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. ExceptionalChildren, 71, 361-377.

Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A.,Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom manage-ment: Considerations for research topractice. Education and Treatment ofChildren, 31, 351-380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0007

Jennifer Freeman (Maine CEC), GraduateAssistant: and George Sugai (ConnecticutCEC), Professor of Special Education andDirector, Center for Behavioral Education &Research, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Address correspondence concerning thisarticle to Jennifer Freeman, 249 Glen-brook Road, Storrs, CT 06269 (e-mail:iennifer.freeinan@uconn.edu).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 45,No. 5, pp. 6-12.

Copyright 2013 CEC.

12 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Copyright of Teaching Exceptional Children is the property of Council for Exceptional Children and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.