Understanding the differences between research-based and evidence-based programs is essential for those interested in careers in education and education research.
Although these terms are frequently used interchangeably, they carry specific definitions that can greatly influence how programs are chosen and put into practice within schools.
This understanding is particularly important in ensuring alignment with educational standards like those outlined in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
This article provides clear definitions of both types of programs, emphasizes their distinctions, and examines their significance within the framework of ESSA guidelines.
Research-based Program
A research-based program is one developed from established scientific theories in education. Researchers design interventions based on existing educational theories and published studies.
These programs are termed research-based because they incorporate well-supported theories and analyses during development. However, they lack specific evidence demonstrating their effectiveness through practical application.
For instance, an education researcher might utilize established learning theories to create an intervention for dyslexic students learning to write their names. While the program is research-based, its effectiveness in real-world settings has not been empirically proven yet.
Evidence-based Program
An evidence-based program is one that has undergone rigorous testing and systematic evaluation to establish its effectiveness.
These programs are subjected to peer review and expert evaluation, typically in controlled settings where data is collected and analyzed to validate their impact.
Practical models are developed based on these findings, enabling educators to implement them confidently in classrooms. This thorough process ensures that evidence-based programs are recognized as credible and capable of delivering expected outcomes.
In the example of the dyslexia intervention program, after its development based on established theories, the researcher conducts a study to assess its effectiveness. This involves implementing the program with a test group and documenting its impact on students. The study is then reviewed by field experts to evaluate the methods and results, validating the program’s efficacy.
Consequently, the intervention program transitions to being evidence-based due to empirical evidence demonstrating its effectiveness.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is legislation aimed at ensuring equitable educational opportunities for all students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds due to factors like family income, minority status, or disability.
It mandates that schools and educators are responsible for students’ learning, growth, and achievement, holding them accountable through defined frameworks set by the government.
States have the autonomy to develop their educational plans under ESSA, which must include details such as academic standards, annual testing expectations, school accountability measures, goals for academic progress, and strategies for addressing achievement gaps among students.
Unlike previous education laws, ESSA requires schools to demonstrate the effectiveness of the programs they adopt. This contrasts with earlier requirements that simply mandated the use of programs rooted in scientific research.
Educators must understand the distinction between research-based and evidence-based programs to ensure they select interventions that align with their state’s ESSA obligations and effectively support student success.
Evidence-based vs. Research-based Programs
While research-based programs can be credible, evidence-based programs typically undergo more rigorous validation and adhere to distinct criteria to confirm their effectiveness.
Moreover, research-based programs might not meet the specific standards outlined by ESSA to demonstrate program effectiveness. Here are the detailed differences between these types of programs:
1. Verification Standards
Evidence-based programs undergo rigorous verification through peer review by field experts. These reviewers assess manuscripts for validity, identifying research method flaws or biases. Based on method quality and conclusion validity, they may reject, request revisions, or approve publication. Importantly, these experts are unbiased, as they do not profit from or assist in developing the study or program.
In contrast, research-based programs, rooted in scientific theories, may not always undergo peer review. Developers often rely on theoretical frameworks without conducting empirical tests, potentially bypassing formal evaluation. Some research-based manuscripts are peer-reviewed before journal publication, while others are published in non-peer-reviewed venues without formal assessment.
2. Reading Interventions
Dr. Sally Shaywitz from the Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity clarifies the distinction between research-based and evidence-based programs, particularly in the context of reading interventions. Research-based indicates programs built on theories, yet unproven.
In contrast, evidence-based programs demonstrate efficacy through rigorous, impartial studies, not tied to program creators’ interests. Criteria for evidence-based programs include comparison with alternatives, validated measurement of student progress, detailed implementation descriptions, and statistically significant improvements.
Dr. Shaywitz stresses the importance of adopting evidence-based practices in education, ensuring effective interventions for students with reading difficulties.
3. Evidence of effectiveness
Evidence-based programs validate their effectiveness through rigorous testing, unlike research-based programs that rely solely on existing theories and evidence. These programs demonstrate:
- Comparable outcomes with similar interventions
- Targeted improvements in specified areas
- Use of reliable measurement tools
- Clearly documented, repeatable methods
- Consideration of potential biases
- Statistical significance indicating results are not random
4. ESSA expectations of effectiveness
ESSA Effectiveness Standards Research-based programs may not meet ESSA’s rigorous effectiveness criteria, categorized into four levels:
- Strong: Thorough studies with significant positive results.
- Moderate: Well-conducted studies, possibly semi-experimental.
- Promising: Correlational results suggesting potential effectiveness.
- Demonstrates rationale: Logical conclusions based on credible research, potentially under evaluation. Most evidence-based programs align with strong, moderate, or promising standards, while some research-based ones may meet the rationale category. Educators often prioritize programs meeting higher ESSA standards.