This issue highlights open-science practices in systematic reviews of classroom interventions for emotional and behavioral disorders, suggesting systematic changes are needed to reduce bias.
This special issue examines the application of open-science practices—particularly registered reports—to systematic reviews and meta-analyses in special education and synthesizes evidence for three widely used classroom interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD): self-determination interventions, time-out, and token economies. The issue was motivated by gaps identified in prior mega-reviews and a broader concern about publication bias and methodological opacity in the review literature. Collectively, the papers highlight persistent methodological and reporting limitations and argue that broader adoption of open-science practices is essential to reduce bias, enhance replicability, and better inform equitable, scalable practices for students with EBD. Finally, in a concluding commentary, experts discuss the potential benefits and challenges of publishing systematic reviews as registered reports and offer practical recommendations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peltier et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: