Considering Research Quality and Applicability Through the Eyes of Stakeholders

  • Denyse V. Hayward
  • Linda M. Phillips

Adopting and implementing EBP requires that practitioners not only read research but also read the research at the right time and alter their clinical behaviors and the behavior of others in light of what they have found (Greenhalgh). Hierarchies have been developed to support practitioners’ critical appraisal and trustworthiness of the research evidence. In evidence hierarchies that evaluate quantitative research designs, studies that conduct systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and studies utilizing RCTs are at the pinnacle (Greenhalgh). Thus, the EBP model is appealing because it appears to offer objective criteria to determine best practice (Horner et al., 2005) since it allows for types and strengths of evidence to be differentiated.

There is considerable debate regarding the appropriateness and applicability of adopting EBP and the accompanying evidence hierarchies from medicine to education. Participants at the 2nd Island Conference discussed many of these issues, and the authors of Part I of this book discuss the implementation of EBP from a variety of perspectives. Our goal in this chapter is to highlight and discuss important concepts and issues raised by these authors as they relate to various stakeholders.


Educational Research Education Research Research Evidence Funding Agency Professional Body 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beecham, R. (2004). Power and practice: A critique of evidence-based practice for the profession of speech-language pathology. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 6(2), 131–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all [Comment]. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brener, L., Vallino-Napoli, L. D., Reid, J. A.,&Reilly, S. (2003). Accessing the evidence to treat the dysphagic patient: Can we get it? Is there time? Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing, 8(1), 36–43.Google Scholar
  4. Bush, G. W. (2002, November 5). Statement on signing legislation to provide for improvement of federal education research, statistics, evaluation, information, and dissemination, and for other purposes. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from getdoc.cgi?dbname = 2002_presidential_documents&docid = pd11no02_txt-21.pdf
  5. Gillam, R. B., Crofford, J. A., Gale, M. A., & Hoffman, L. M. (2001). Language change following computer-assisted language instruction with Fast ForWord or Laureate Learning Systems software. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Graham, S. (Ed.). (2005). [Special Issue]. Exceptional Children, 71(2).Google Scholar
  7. Greenhalgh, T. (2006). How to read a paper: The basics of evidence-based medicine (3rd edn.). London: Blackwell BMJ Books.Google Scholar
  8. Hargreaves, D. H. (1996). Teaching as a research based profession: Possibilities and prospects [The Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture]. London: The Teacher Training Agency.Google Scholar
  9. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179.Google Scholar
  10. Johnston, J. R. (2005). Re: Law, Garrett, & Nye (2004a). The efficacy of treatment for children with developmental speech and language delay/disorder: A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 48(5), 1114–1117.Google Scholar
  11. Lijnse, P. L. (2000). Didactics of science: The forgotten dimension in science education research. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 308–326). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Logemann, J. (2004). Evidence-based practice. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 6(2), 134–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Metcalfe, C., Lewin, R., Wisher, S., Perry, S., Bannigan, K., & Moffett, J. K. (2001). Barriers to implementing the evidence base in four NHS therapies: Dietitians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists. Physiotherapy, 87(8), 433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Montgomery, E. B., Jr., & Turkstra, L. S. (2003). Evidence-based practice: Let's be reasonable. Journal of Medical Speech Language Pathology, 11(2), ix–xii.Google Scholar
  15. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425. (2002).Google Scholar
  16. Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 137–148.Google Scholar
  17. Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., & Steffler, D. J. (2007). Potential risks to reading posed by high-dose phonics. Journal of Applied Research on Learning, 1(1), Article 2, 1–18.Google Scholar
  18. Reilly, S. (2004). The challenges in making speech pathology practice evidence based. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 6(2), 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal, 312(7023), 71–72.Google Scholar
  20. Silagy, C., & Haines, A. (Eds.). (2001). Evidence-based practice in primary care. London: Blackwell BMJ Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denyse V. Hayward
    • 1
  • Linda M. Phillips
    • 1
  1. 1.Canadian Centre for Research on LiteracyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations