Who, What, and How? A Scoping Review of Early Intervention Research

IF 3.8 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Ruby Batz, Lauren M. Cycyk, Benjamin W. Sanders, Veronica I. Underwood Carrasco, Sam Lim, Gauri Bharadwaj, Marijane White, Danielle D. Jones, Chloe Yocom, Katharine E. Zuckerman
{"title":"Who, What, and How? A Scoping Review of Early Intervention Research","authors":"Ruby Batz, Lauren M. Cycyk, Benjamin W. Sanders, Veronica I. Underwood Carrasco, Sam Lim, Gauri Bharadwaj, Marijane White, Danielle D. Jones, Chloe Yocom, Katharine E. Zuckerman","doi":"10.1177/00144029261491014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our review explored the following questions: Who is researched, what is researched, and how is research conducted in Part C Early Intervention (EI) in the United States? Guided by Kilbourne's health disparities framework and Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems model, we addressed these questions through a scoping review of 258 peer-reviewed empirical EI studies published between 1988 and 2024. The scoping review process followed and adapted PRISMA guidelines and used team coding with an 86-item data extraction form. It includes data from more than 4.8 million participants, including children, caregivers, and EI-related providers. Our findings indicate that EI scholarship often centers White, English-speaking, urban participants, while racially and ethnically minoritized children and families, multilingual households, rural communities, and U.S. territories are underrepresented or inconsistently reported. Reporting on language, socioeconomic status, nativity, and provider demographics was limited. Furthermore, EI research disproportionately focused on service provision within the EI pipeline, with less attention to referral, eligibility determination, Individualized Family Service Plan development, and transition, and emphasized individual-level child and family factors over organizational, community, and historical factors. Most studies employed quantitative designs, signaling the continued privileging of particular methodological approaches and data sources in EI knowledge production. Understanding who, what, and how EI research is studied is critical, as researchers, journals, and funders function as epistemological gatekeepers whose decisions shape cumulative knowledge, policy, and practice. Our review documents how incomplete demographic reporting, narrow sampling practices, and methodologically constrained approaches contribute to a fragmented and inequitable evidence base. We call for coordinated action across the research-to-practice and research-to-policy pipelines to advance more transparent, contextually grounded EI research that supports equitable access and outcomes in Part C for all children and families.","PeriodicalId":48164,"journal":{"name":"Exceptional Children","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Exceptional Children","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029261491014","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Our review explored the following questions: Who is researched, what is researched, and how is research conducted in Part C Early Intervention (EI) in the United States? Guided by Kilbourne's health disparities framework and Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems model, we addressed these questions through a scoping review of 258 peer-reviewed empirical EI studies published between 1988 and 2024. The scoping review process followed and adapted PRISMA guidelines and used team coding with an 86-item data extraction form. It includes data from more than 4.8 million participants, including children, caregivers, and EI-related providers. Our findings indicate that EI scholarship often centers White, English-speaking, urban participants, while racially and ethnically minoritized children and families, multilingual households, rural communities, and U.S. territories are underrepresented or inconsistently reported. Reporting on language, socioeconomic status, nativity, and provider demographics was limited. Furthermore, EI research disproportionately focused on service provision within the EI pipeline, with less attention to referral, eligibility determination, Individualized Family Service Plan development, and transition, and emphasized individual-level child and family factors over organizational, community, and historical factors. Most studies employed quantitative designs, signaling the continued privileging of particular methodological approaches and data sources in EI knowledge production. Understanding who, what, and how EI research is studied is critical, as researchers, journals, and funders function as epistemological gatekeepers whose decisions shape cumulative knowledge, policy, and practice. Our review documents how incomplete demographic reporting, narrow sampling practices, and methodologically constrained approaches contribute to a fragmented and inequitable evidence base. We call for coordinated action across the research-to-practice and research-to-policy pipelines to advance more transparent, contextually grounded EI research that supports equitable access and outcomes in Part C for all children and families.
谁,什么,怎么做?早期干预研究综述
我们的综述探讨了以下问题:研究了谁,研究了什么,以及如何在美国进行C部分早期干预(EI)的研究?在基尔伯恩的健康差异框架和布朗芬布伦纳的生态系统模型的指导下,我们通过对1988年至2024年间发表的258项同行评议的实证EI研究进行范围审查,解决了这些问题。范围审查过程遵循并调整了PRISMA指导方针,并使用了包含86项数据提取表单的团队编码。它包括来自480多万参与者的数据,包括儿童、护理人员和ei相关提供者。我们的研究结果表明,EI奖学金通常以白人、讲英语的城市参与者为中心,而种族和少数民族儿童和家庭、多语言家庭、农村社区和美国领土的代表性不足或报告不一致。关于语言、社会经济地位、出生和提供者人口统计的报告是有限的。此外,EI研究不成比例地侧重于EI管道内的服务提供,而对转诊、资格确定、个性化家庭服务计划的制定和过渡的关注较少,并且强调个人层面的儿童和家庭因素,而不是组织、社区和历史因素。大多数研究采用定量设计,表明在EI知识生产中,特定的方法方法和数据来源继续享有特权。研究人员、期刊和资助者是认识论的守门人,他们的决定塑造了累积的知识、政策和实践,因此了解谁、什么以及如何研究EI研究是至关重要的。我们的综述记录了不完整的人口统计报告、狭窄的抽样实践和方法学受限的方法是如何导致证据基础碎片化和不公平的。我们呼吁在“从研究到实践”和“从研究到政策”的管道中采取协调一致的行动,以推进更透明、更有背景的EI研究,支持所有儿童和家庭在C部分公平获取和取得成果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
14.30%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Exceptional Children, an official journal of The Council for Exceptional Children, publishes original research and analyses that focus on the education and development of exceptional infants, toddlers, children, youth, and adults. This includes descriptions of research, research reviews, methodological reviews of the literature, data-based position papers, policy analyses, and registered reports. Exceptional Children publishes quantitative, qualitative, and single-subject design studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书