Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:22:30.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Special Education Outcomes and Young Australian School Students: A Propensity Score Analysis Replication*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Ian Dempsey  and
Megan Valentine
Ian Dempsey*
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle, Australia
Megan Valentine
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle, Australia
*
Correspondence: Ian Dempsey, Special Education Centre, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia. Email: Ian.Dempsey@newcastle.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using a second cohort of Australian school students, this study repeated the propensity score analysis reported by Dempsey, Valentine, and Colyvas (2016) that found that 2 years after receiving special education support, a group of infant grade students performed significantly less well in academic and social skills in comparison to matched groups of students who did not receive support. Using Longitudinal Study of Australian Children data, the present study found that the second cohort of students with additional needs also performed less well than matched groups of peers and that these results also held true for the specific subgroup of these children with learning disability/learning problems. The ramifications of these results to the delivery of special education in Australia are discussed.

Keywords

research methodsmeasurementstatisticsacademic assessmentcontent area assessmentinstruction
Type
Original Articles
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , July 2017 , pp. 68 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This manuscript was accepted under the Editorship of Umesh Sharma.

References

Austin, P. C. (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 399–424. doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). NAPLAN. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan/naplan.html Google Scholar
Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2005). Summarising children's wellbeing: The LSAC Outcome Index (LSAC Technical Paper No. 2). Retrieved from http://www.growingupinaustralia.gov.au/pubs/technical/tp2.pdf Google Scholar
Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2015a). Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Retrieved from http://www.growingupinaustralia.gov.au/ Google Scholar
Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2015b). Technical papers. Retrieved from http://www.growingupinaustralia.gov.au/pubs/technical/index.html Google Scholar
Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2015c). Study questionnaires. Retrieved from http://www.growingupinaustralia.gov.au/studyqns/index.html Google Scholar
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2013). Diverting Indigenous offenders from the criminal justice system (Resource Sheet No. 24). Retrieved from http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129545614 Google Scholar
Banks, J., & McCoy, S. (2011). A study on the prevalence of special educational needs (National Council for Special Education Research Report No. 9). Retrieved from http://ncse.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Prevalence_of_SEN_10_09_12.pdf Google Scholar
Becker, A., Woerner, W., Hasselhorn, M., Banaschewski, T., & Rothenberger, A. (2004). Validation of the parent and teacher SDQ in a clinical sample. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 13 (Suppl. 2), ii11–ii16. doi:10.1007/s00787-004-2003-5 Google Scholar
Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22, 31–72. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, M., & Wheldall, K. (2008). Why can't a teacher be more like a scientist? Science, pseudoscience and the art of teaching. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 32, 5–21. doi:10.1080/10300110701845920 Google Scholar
Delgado, C. E. F., & Scott, K. G. (2006). Comparison of referral rates for preschool children at risk for disabilities using information obtained from birth certificate records. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 28–35. doi:10.1177/00224669060400010301 Google Scholar
Dempsey, I. (2014). Legislation, policies and inclusive practices. In Foreman, P. & Arthur-Kelly, M. (Eds.), Inclusion in action (4th ed., pp. 47–72). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage.Google Scholar
Dempsey, I., & Davies, M. (2013). National test performance of young Australian children with additional educational needs. Australian Journal of Education, 57, 5–18. doi:10.1177/0004944112468700 Google Scholar
Dempsey, I., Valentine, M., & Colyvas, K. (2016). The effects of special education support on young Australian school students. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 63, 271–292. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2015.1091066 Google Scholar
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar
Fixsen, D., Blasé, K., Metz, A., & Vandyk, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Exceptional Children, 79, 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foreman, P. (2014). Introducing inclusion in education. In Foreman, P. & Arthur-Kelly, M. (Eds.), Inclusion in action (4th ed., pp. 2–46). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage.Google Scholar
Glynn, R. J., Schneeweiss, S., & Stürmer, T. (2006). Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 98, 253–259. doi:10.1111/j.1742-7843.2006.pto_293.x Google Scholar
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 38, 581–586. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x Google Scholar
Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2010). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hanley-Maxwell, C., & Bottge, B. A. (2006). Reconceptualizing and recentering research in special education. In Conrad, C. F. & Serlin, R. C. (Eds.), The Sage handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 175–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412976039.n10 Google Scholar
Hawes, D. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2004). Australian data and psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 644–651. doi:10.1080/j.1440-1614.2004.01427.x Google Scholar
Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. The Review of Economic Studies, 65, 261–294. doi:10.1111/1467-937X.00044 Google Scholar
Kauffman, J. M., & Lloyd, J. W. (2011). Statistics, data, and special education decisions: Basic links to realities. In Kauffman, J. M. & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 27–36). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Kavale, K. A. (1988). Learning disability and cultural-economic disadvantage: The case for a relationship. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 195–210. doi:10.2307/1510764 Google Scholar
Kavale, K. A., & Dobbins, D. A. (1993). The equivocal nature of special education interventions. Early Child Development and Care, 86, 23–37. doi:10.1080/0300443930860103 Google Scholar
Lane, K. L., Carter, E. W., Pierson, M. R., & Glaeser, B. C. (2006). Academic, social, and behavioral characteristics of high school students with emotional disturbances or learning disabilities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14, 108–117. doi:10.1177/10634266060140020101 Google Scholar
Louden, W., Chan, L. K. S., Elkins, J., Greaves, D., House, H., Milton, M., . . . van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2000). Mapping the territory — Primary students with learning difficulties: Literacy and numeracy. Volume 2: Analysis. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
McCaffrey, D. F., Ridgeway, G., & Morral, A. R. (2004). Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychological Methods, 9, 403–425. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.403 Google Scholar
Morgan, P. L., Frisco, M. L., Farkas, G., & Hibel, J. (2010). A propensity score matching analysis of the effects of special education services. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 236–254. doi:10.1177/0022466908323007 Google Scholar
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Academic Rating Scale. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ECLS/kinderinstruments.asp Google Scholar
National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. (2011). The outcomes of early intervention for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. Retrieved from http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/pubs/outcomesofearlyintervention.pdf Google Scholar
Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148. doi:10.1177/001440290507100201 Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Observational studies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3692-2 Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1989). Optimal matching for observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 1024–1032. doi:10.1080/01621459.1989.10478868 Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 516–524. doi:10.1080/01621459.1984.10478078 Google Scholar
Schaeffer, C. M., Petras, H., Ialongo, N., Poduska, J., & Kellam, S. (2003). Modeling growth in boys’ aggressive behavior across elementary school: Links to later criminal involvement, conduct disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1020–1035. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.6.1020 Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31 (7), 15–21. doi:10.3102/0013189X031007015 Google Scholar
Stata Corporation. (2011). Stata release 11 [Computer software]. College Station, TX: Author.Google Scholar
Stürmer, T., Schneeweiss, S., Avorn, J., & Glynn, R. J. (2003). Determinants of use and application of propensity score (PS) methods in pharmacoepidemiology. Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety, 12, S121–S122.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. L., & Field, S. (2013). Do preschool special education services make a difference in kindergarten reading and mathematics skills?: A propensity score weighting analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 243–260. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.12.004 Google Scholar
Tindal, G. (1985). Investigating the effectiveness of special education: An analysis of methodology. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 101–112. doi:10.1177/002221948501800209 Google Scholar
Travers, J. C., Cook, B. G., Therrien, W. J., & Coyne, M. D. (2016). Replication research and special education. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 195–204. doi:10.1177/0741932516648462 Google Scholar
van Kraayenoord, C. E., & Elkins, J. (2004). Learning difficulties in numeracy in Australia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 32–41. doi:10.1177/00222194040370010401 Google Scholar
Winklemayer, W. C., & Kurth, T. (2004). Propensity scores: Help or hype? Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation, 19, 1671–1673. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfh104 Google Scholar