Null Effects in the Special Education Research Base

Full and clear reporting of null effects is important for a robust and valid research base. The purpose of this Registered Report is to review the presence and reporting of null findings in the special education research base. Preregistered hypotheses predicted (a) few studies with all or primary null findings and (b) spin in reporting and discussing null findings. We searched all 2020 publications—41 special education journals—and identified 121 group-design intervention studies, coding the number of significant and non-significant p -values reported. We identified two (1.7%) articles reporting all null findings and no articles reporting null primary findings; both all-null studies were coded as containing one instance of spin. Exploratory analyses indicated hypotheses or predictions were stated in only 38.8% of studies and both instances of spin were low level. We discuss implications of findings and approaches for disseminating studies with null findings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Remedial and Special Education
Published
2025-08-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325251361907
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Family and Disability Support Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.61
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Null Effects in the Special Education Research Base

Jesse Irvan Fleming, William J. Therrien, Alan Scott McLucas, Bryan G. Cook et al.
2 citations
Remedial and Special Education
Family and Disability Support Research
4.61
article

Null Effects in the Special Education Research Base

Jesse Irvan Fleming, William J. Therrien, Alan Scott McLucas, Bryan G. Cook, Jaret Hodges, Daniel R. Espinas, Xiaolu Fan
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Full and clear reporting of null effects is important for a robust and valid research base. The purpose of this Registered Report is to review the presence and reporting of null findings in the special education research base. Preregistered hypotheses predicted (a) few studies with all or primary null findings and (b) spin in reporting and discussing null findings. We searched all 2020 publications—41 special education journals—and identified 121 group-design intervention studies, coding the number of significant and non-significant p -values reported. We identified two (1.7%) articles reporting all null findings and no articles reporting null primary findings; both all-null studies were coded as containing one instance of spin. Exploratory analyses indicated hypotheses or predictions were stated in only 38.8% of studies and both instances of spin were low level. We discuss implications of findings and approaches for disseminating studies with null findings.

Remedial and Special EducationVol. 47(1)
University of North Texas (US), Vanderbilt University (US), University of Virginia (US), Arizona State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Family and Disability Support Research
4.61
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.