Review article
Evidence-based practice: A quality indicator analysis of peer-tutoring in adapted physical education

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.05.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • A quality indicator analysis of studies addressing peer tutoring.

  • Fifteen research studies employing group-experimental or single-subject designs.

  • Claims of peer-tutoring being an evidence-based practice are premature.

  • Recommendations for clarifying and applying the quality indicators offered.

Abstract

The purpose of the research was to conduct a quality indicator analysis of studies investigating peer-tutoring for students with a disability in adapted physical education. An electronic search was conducted among English journals published from 1960 to November 2012. Databases included ERIC, PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus. Fifteen research studies employing group-experimental (Gersten et al., 2005) or single-subject designs (Horner et al., 2005) met inclusion criteria. Each study was assessed for the presence and clarity of quality indicators. Group designs met an average of 62.5% essential and 69% desirable indicators. An average of 80% of indicators was present for single-subject designs. Results suggest claims of peer-tutoring being an evidence-based practice are premature. Recommendations for clarifying and applying the quality indicators are offered.

Introduction

Evidence-based practice (EBP) was first used in medicine in the late 1900s (Odom et al., 2005) and was defined as integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available evidence from systematic research (Balsor et al., 2000). Presently, EBP has been proposed in many areas including medicine (Sackett, 1997), rehabilitation (Cicerone et al., 2000), nursing (Melnyk, 2010), psychology (Kratochwill & Shernoff, 2004), and education (Pring & Thomas, 2004), including adapted physical education (Hutzler, 2011, Bouffard and Reid, 2012 and Reid, Bouffard, and MacDonald (2012)). An emphasis has been placed on delivering services based on the best possible research evidence (Worrall, 2002). In accordance with policies such as the No Child Left Behind Act, many schools presently focus on improving the quality of education by implementing teaching practices that have been demonstrated to be effective by scientific evidence (Odom et al., 2005). Peer-tutoring involves one student enhancing the learning of another (Ehly & Larsen, 1976). Research suggests peer-tutoring has positive effects in physical education for students with a disability (Klavina, 2008, Lieberman et al., 1997) and therefore it might be a candidate for evidence-based practice.

In 2003, the Council for Exceptional Children's Division for Research established a task force to assess the quality of individual studies in special education and to identify effective practices. In the 2005 special issue of Exceptional Children (Odom et al., 2005), the task force identified four types of research methodologies used in special education; experimental group (Gersten et al., 2005), correlational (Thompson, Diamond, McWilliam, Snyder, & Snyder, 2005), single-subject (Horner et al., 2005) and qualitative designs (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005). For each methodology, indicators of research quality were presented to serve as standards for determining the strength of specific studies. In general, more quality indicators were assumed to be associated with research of high quality and therefore practices that might be considered evidence-based. For example, providing sufficient detail of participants for replicable precision is an indicator for single-subject articles (Horner et al., 2005). The quality indicators were developed by the Task Force which aimed to put forth clearly stated, understandable, and easily accessible guidelines to identify high-quality research in special education to serve researchers, reviewers, and practitioners who determine the usability of findings (Odom et al., 2005).

Gersten et al. (2005) outlined quality indicators for group-experimental and quasi-experimental research. They divided the quality indicators into two groups: essential for quality and desirable for quality. For a study to be considered “acceptable” it must: (a) meet all but one of the essential quality indicators and (b) at least one of the desirable quality indicators. For a report to be considered “high quality” it must: (a) meet all but one of the essential quality indicators and (b) at least four of the desirable quality indicators. Notably, the authors provided no clear rationale of those criteria. Essential quality indicators were arranged into four groups, coinciding with four areas of a group experimental research report. These included (a) describing participants, (b) implementation of the intervention and description of comparison conditions, (c) outcome measures, and (d) data analysis (Gersten et al., 2005). For example, one of the quality indicators for describing participants considers if sufficient information was provided to verify the participants’ disabilities.

Horner et al. (2005) presented only a single list of essential quality indicators for single-subject research. They did not distinguish between essential and desirable indicators. Seven broad categories were proposed for single-subject research: (a) description of participants and settings, (b) dependent variable, (c) independent variable, (d) baseline, (e) experimental control/internal validity, (f) external validity, and (g) social validity. To attain a replicable status, a study must describe an intervention with sufficient clarity so that it may be duplicated. The current study aims to apply the aforementioned quality indicators for group-experimental and single-subject designs within the peer-tutoring literature to determine if this popular practice can be deemed evidence-based.

Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975), later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) requires students with a disability to receive physical education. Peer-tutoring, also known as peer-teaching, is one of the instructional models that can be considered an innovation in the way physical education subject matter is taught (Metzler, 2000) and might be particularly beneficial for students with a disability. Peer-tutoring can be categorized as peer-assisted learning and includes other forms such as class-wide peer-tutoring (Ward & Ayvazo, 2006) and peer-assessment (Block, Conatser, Montgomery, & Flynn, 2001). These instructional approaches use tutors to directly teach their peers, with minor variations. Class-wide peer-tutoring involves the class working in reciprocal, rotating roles of the tutor and the tutee (Ward & Ayvazo, 2006), whereas peer-tutoring occurs when students are arranged in established pairs (Ward & Lee, 2005). Peer assessment encompasses either method, with a specific focus on the outcome of students assessing others (Ward & Lee, 2005). In physical education, it is argued that peer-tutoring supports the inclusion of students with a disability (Block & Obrusnikova, 2007), provides social and health benefits (Block & Oberweiser, 1995), and enhances student learning and participation. For example, Lieberman et al. (1997) found that peer-tutoring can help students with Down syndrome become more focused and involved. Similarly, Ward and Ayvazo (2006) determined that peer-tutoring facilitated inclusion of students with autism and an enabled them to perform an increased number of correct ball catches. Peer-tutoring has been used among students with varying disabilities, including visual impairments (Wiskochil, Lieberman, Houston-Wilson, & Petersen, 2007), autism (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006), and Down syndrome (Lieberman et al., 1997). Several studies have examined the effects of peer-tutoring on individuals with specific disabilities whereas others have investigated its effects on individuals with general disabilities (Turlington, 2009) or severe multiple disabilities (Klavina & Block, 2008). Peer-tutoring has been a popular research topic in adapted physical education and research supports it as a favorable practice, but according to CEC criteria, is the research evidence of sufficient quality to claim peer-tutoring as an evidence-based practice?

The current research will assess individual studies on peer-tutoring in adapted physical education using the quality indicators presented by The Council for Exceptional Children's Division for Research task force in 2005 (Odom et al., 2005). It will also evaluate the clarity and ease of interpretation of the quality indicators themselves (Cook, Tankersley, & Landrum, 2009). Do they highlight all the necessary areas of the research studies? Are all indicators clearly identified and easy to interpret? Thus, the purpose of the current research is to assess individual studies using a quality indicator analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of peer-tutoring in adapted physical education. The clarity of the quality indicators was also evaluated to enhance their practicality.

Section snippets

Criteria for inclusion

Studies selected were required to meet several inclusion criteria. First, the primary purpose of the study was to investigate the use of peer-tutoring among students with a disability. Second, the authors had to specifically state that the intervention was taking place in physical education as opposed to a classroom. Third, the study adopted a single-subject or group-experimental design. Fourth, studies were published in peer-reviewed journals or included in PhD Dissertations and theses between

Results

Table 1 presents the number of quality indicators for the five studies with group-experimental designs (Gersten et al., 2005). Table 2 is a condensed version of Table 1, showing the total number of quality indicators present in each study. On average, the studies included 62.5% of the essential indicators and 69% of the desirable indicators. In some studies the two attrition rate indicators were not applicable making the number of desirable indicators 10 rather than 12. The total number of

Discussion

Only one group-experimental study by DeLuzio (2009) was considered acceptable and high quality according to the criteria described by Gersten et al. (2005). The other research reports failed to meet criteria to be considered acceptable. Essential indicators for describing participants and the interventionist/teacher were frequently omitted from the studies. According the Gersten et al. (2005), it is not sufficient to merely indicate the disability when describing participants; a diagnosis also

Conclusion

Fifteen studies that examined the effects of peer-tutoring in physical education were divided into two groups: group experimental and single-subject designs. Five group-experimental designs and 10 single-subject studies were evaluated individually using the quality indicators developed for their respective methodologies (Gersten et al., 2005, Horner et al., 2005). Only one group-experimental study by DeLuzio (2009) was considered acceptable and high quality according to the criteria described

Acknowledgement

Our thanks to Melanie Kasner for assisting with the reliability analysis.

References (44)

  • K.D. Cicerone et al.

    Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: Recommendations for clinical practice

    Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

    (2000)
  • D.L. Sackett

    Evidence-based medicine

    Seminars in Perinatology

    (1997)
  • S. Baker et al.

    Teaching writing to at-risk students: The quality of evidence for self-regulated strategy development

    Exceptional Children

    (2009)
  • B. Balsor et al.

    Against the myth of evidence-based practice

    Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy

    (2000)
  • M. Block et al.

    Effects of middle school-aged partners on the motor and affective behaviors of students with severe disabilities

    Palaestra

    (2001)
  • M. Block et al.

    Using classwide peer-tutoring to facilitate inclusion of students with disabilities in regular physical education

    Physical Educator

    (1995)
  • M. Block et al.

    Inclusion in physical education: A review of the literature from 1995–2005

    Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly

    (2007)
  • E. Brantlinger et al.

    Qualitative studies in special education

    Exceptional Children

    (2005)
  • M. Bouffard et al.

    The good, the bad, and the ugly of evidence-based practice

    Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly

    (2012)
  • D. Chard et al.

    Repeated reading interventions for students with learning disabilities: Status of the evidence

    Exceptional Children

    (2009)
  • B.G. Cook et al.

    Determining evidence-based practices in special education

    Exceptional Children

    (2009)
  • P. Davies

    What is evidence-based education?

    British Journal of Educational Studies

    (1999)
  • J.M. DeLuzio

    Peer interactions of preschool children with and without hearing loss

    (2009)
  • J. DePaepe

    The influence of three least restrictive environments on the content motor-ALT and performance of moderately mentally retarded students

    Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

    (1985)
  • D. Donder et al.

    Nonhandicapped adolescents teaching playground skills to their mentally retarded peers: Toward a less restrictive middle school environment

    Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded

    (1981)
  • Education for All Handicapped Children Act

    Public Law No. 94-142

    (1975)
  • S. Ehly et al.

    Peer-tutoring to individualize instruction

    The Elementary School Journal

    (1976)
  • R. Gersten et al.

    Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education

    Exceptional Children

    (2005)
  • J. Halle et al.

    Effects of a peer-mediated aerobic conditioning program on fitness measures with children who have moderate and severe disabilities

    Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps

    (1989)
  • R.H. Horner et al.

    The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education

    Exceptional Children

    (2005)
  • C. Houston-Wilson et al.

    The effect of peer tutors on motor performance in integrated physical education classes

    Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly

    (1997)
  • Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act

    Public Law No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647

    (2004)
  • Cited by (12)

    • Results reporting in single case experiments and single case meta-analysis

      2018, Research in Developmental Disabilities
      Citation Excerpt :

      Some issues may be problems with the quality of the study itself. Examples include missing justification of design selection in relationship to threats to internal validity (Moeller et al., 2014), incomplete or thin participant description (Kalef et al., 2013), insufficient replications of treatment effect (King, Lemmon, & Davidson, 2016), a lack of generalization and maintenance data (Neely, Garcia, Bankston, & Green, 2018), and a lack of decision making rules and problems with reliability in visual analysis (Ninci, Vannest, Willson, & Zhang, 2015). The assertion to “always report effect sizes” (Wilkinson and the Task Force on Statistical Inference 1999, p. 599); or that “it is almost always necessary to include some measure of effect in the results section” (APA Publication Manual 2010, p. 34) is not widely applied in either group or SCED.

    • A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities

      2015, Research in Developmental Disabilities
      Citation Excerpt :

      Moreover, what matters is that each of the individual studies included in the analysis provide enough data and description to allow for missing information to be derived after the fact. Thus, it is of little surprise that individuals in the field have suggested that the quality indicators should be revisited and/or revised (Kalef et al., 2013; Kasner et al., 2012) and that further discussion should occur especially when involving participants with low incidence disabilities (Browder et al., 2008). Publication bias, sometimes referred to as the “file drawer problem”, refers to the notion that studies that are included within a meta-analysis tend to be those that have been published (Borenstein et al., 2009; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text