Loading the library…
Showing 12 verified claims
Computerized working-memory training (e.g., Cogmed) reliably improves performance on the trained and closely similar memory tasks (near transfer), but multiple high-quality meta-analyses and randomized trials show it does NOT produce meaningful or lasting improvements in general cognitive ability or academic achievement (far transfer).
Explicit, systematic instruction — clear modeling, guided practice, scaffolding, and frequent feedback — is among the most reliably effective approaches for teaching academic skills to students with learning disabilities, with moderate-to-large effects replicated across half a century of research in reading and mathematics.
Facilitated communication (FC, "supported typing") is not a valid communication technique: controlled authorship studies unanimously show that FC-generated messages are authored by the facilitator rather than the person with a disability, no new validating evidence has emerged, and every major professional body opposes its use — so statements produced through FC, including abuse allegations, cannot be attributed to the person with the disability.
Early intervention for infants and toddlers with or at risk for developmental disabilities and delays (the birth-to-three window served by IDEA Part C) improves developmental and functional outcomes — especially when intensive, structured, and family-centered — though effect sizes vary by domain and disability and the strongest gains are on proximal, targeted skills.
Explicit, systematic phonics-based (structured literacy) instruction improves foundational reading and spelling for students with or at risk for reading disabilities, including dyslexia; it is the reading-disability treatment approach with the most clearly confirmed efficacy in randomized trials, with moderate effects largest on decoding and word reading, smaller on comprehension, and stronger when begun early.
Peer-mediated interventions — training typically developing peers to model and prompt social interaction — reliably increase the social interaction of autistic students in inclusive settings and are among the better-supported social interventions, though effects are strongest for increasing interaction frequency and weaker for child-initiated social bids, with generalization and maintenance less consistently demonstrated.
Stimulant medications (methylphenidate, amphetamines) produce moderate-to-large short-term reductions in core ADHD symptoms and improve on-task behavior and work completion in children; but effects on actual academic achievement and learning are small, long-term benefits are not established, and the certainty of the symptom evidence is limited by pervasive unblinding from recognizable side effects.
Early intensive behavioral and developmental intervention for young children with autism (e.g., ABA-based EIBI and the Early Start Denver Model) improves IQ, language, and adaptive behavior relative to treatment as usual, with larger gains at higher intensity and earlier start; effects on core autism symptoms are smaller and more variable, and individual response differs widely.
For students with disabilities, inclusive placement in general-education settings is associated with academic and access outcomes at least equal to — and for some groups better than — segregated special-education settings, with no consistent harm to social-emotional outcomes or to classmates without disabilities; but the evidence is observational, heterogeneous, and confounded by selection, so effects are small and depend heavily on the quality and support of the setting rather than placement itself.
Social-skills interventions for autistic children and youth produce small-to-moderate gains on rated and tested social skills, but improvements often reflect social KNOWLEDGE more than real-world social PERFORMANCE, generalization and maintenance across settings are weak, and effect sizes shrink under more rigorous designs and independent informants.
Physical restraint and seclusion in schools are disproportionately used on students with disabilities, carry documented risks of physical and psychological harm, and lack evidence that they improve behavior or serve any therapeutic or educational purpose; the science supports their use only as emergency last resorts to prevent imminent serious harm, not as behavior-management tools.