Understanding the Differences Between Practice Articles and Applied Research Articles

Practice Reflections

Practice reflections describe ideas and instructional strategies that have been effective with learners. Such articles will provide other practitioners with ideas and approaches that may allow them to enhance the effectiveness of their instruction. Practice reflection manuscripts do not follow a prescribed format. However, they should follow American Psychological Association (APA) style guidelines and may not exceed 2,000 words.

Practice Reports

Practice reports are descriptions of methods and materials that implement evidence-based or promising practices and include outcomes consistent with progress monitoring. They may report on activities with learners on a practitioner's caseload as long as they are part of usual educational practices and anonymity is ensured. Practitioners may use the information collected as part of progress monitoring to report on the effectiveness of procedures used. However, the instructor must be certain that the procedures being used are a part of regular instruction and are not connected with identified individuals. If doubt remains, before collecting data, the practitioner must seek guidance from TNR about whether or not an IRB review is needed.

The format of a practice report manuscript should consist of the following:

• Title

• Abstract

• Introduction

• Context

• Staff (including the author's role)

• Procedures

• Outcomes

• Conclusions

• Application to practice

• References

Practice Reports should closely follow APA guidelines and may range between 1,000 and 3,000 words, including references.

Applied Research Reports

Applied research reports are based on a recognized research methodology, which may include quantitative (group or single-subject designs), qualitative, or mixed-methods research. An IRB review must be sought when the procedures being tested are not part of everyday instruction, are part of a controlled study that involves human subjects, and are intended to be generalizable. It is unethical to engage in such research without putting such safeguards in place. Authors submitting research manuscripts to TNR must indicate the approval of the study by an IRB.

The format of research manuscripts should include the following elements:

• Title

• Abstract

• Introduction

• Literature review

• Methods

• Results

• Discussion

• Application for practitioners

• References

Applied research reports should closely follow APA seventh edition guidelines and may not exceed 5,000 words, including tables and references. The abstract should follow the above structure, should not include references, and may not exceed 300 words.

The goal of applied research reports is to gather data about individuals to generalize from a sample to a larger population. This often requires asking subjects to participate in designated procedures designed to determine the effectiveness of a strategy. This approach is not a part of the everyday instruction that is normally provided in typical education and rehabilitation settings. As with all formal research, an IRB review must take place to make sure that those who participate are protected from physical and psychological harm. IRB review is most often left up to a university or a large educational entity to protect participants. Usually, an IRB review is only within the reach of someone who is employed by a university or a by school district that administers its own IRB.

When IRB review is required, there are various standards that must be met in protecting participants. One of the most succinct descriptions of these protections was formulated in what is considered to be the “common rule” (National Archives, 2022, October 01a). The common rule spells out the criteria an IRB must use in evaluating a study:

1. Risks to subjects are minimized: (i) by using procedures which are consistent with sound research design, and which do not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk, and (ii) whenever appropriate, by using procedures already being performed on the subjects for diagnostic or treatment purposes.

2. Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result. In evaluating risks and benefits, the IRB should consider only those risks and benefits that may result from the research (as distinguished from risks and benefits of therapies subjects would receive, even if not participating in the research). The IRB should not consider possible long-range effects of applying knowledge gained in the research (for example, the possible effects of the research on public policy) as among those research risks that fall within the purview of its responsibility.

3. Selection of subjects is equitable. In making this assessment, the IRB should take into account the purposes of the research, and the setting in which the research will be conducted and should be particularly cognizant of the special problems of research involving vulnerable populations, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons.

4. Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in accordance with, and to the extent required by §46.116.

5. Informed consent will be appropriately documented, in accordance with, and to the extent required by §46.117.

6. When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected, to ensure the safety of subjects.

7. When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.

The common rule states the basic elements of informed consent (National Archives, 2022, October 01b):

1. A statement that the study involves research, an explanation of the purposes of the research, a statement of the expected duration of the subject's participation, a description of the procedures to be followed, and identification of any procedures which are experimental.

2. A description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the subject.

3. A description of any benefits to the subject or to others which may reasonably be expected from the research.

4. A disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment, if any, that might be advantageous to the subject.

5. A statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of records identifying the subject will be maintained.

6. For research involving more than minimal risk, an explanation as to whether any compensation will be provided, and an explanation as to whether any medical treatments are available if injury occurs and, if so, what they consist of, or where further information may be obtained.

7. An explanation of whom to contact for answers to pertinent questions about the research and research subjects' rights, and whom to contact in the event of a research-related injury to the subject; and

8. A statement that participation is voluntary, refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled, and the subject may dis-continue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits, to which the subject is otherwise entitled.

The common rule standards help ensure that subjects will be protected and can freely decide to withdraw from the study at any time. There are additional requirements when subjects are from a group considered to be vulnerable, such as children or prisoners.