A Legal Roadmap of SBR, PRR, and Related Terms under the IDEA.

The literature of special education generally and special education law specifically tends to use "scientifically based research" (SBR), along with its shorthand "scientifically based" variation, and related terms such as "evidence-based," "research-based," and "peerreviewed research" (PRR) rather loosely and even interchangeably. This lack of differentiation causes problems in terms of potential litigation in this highly legalized, perhaps "over-legalized" (Zirkel, 2005), field. For school districts, or local education agencies (LEAs), the problem is compounded by confusion between what is legally required and what is professionally recommended. For example, Turnbull (2005, p. 321) characterized the 2004 amendments of IDEA as reiterating the NCLB "requirement" for "scientifically based instruction (SBR; sometimes called evidence-based instruction)." Similarly, other respected special education law experts (e.g., Crockett & Yell, 2008) have used SBR and PRR without clear differentiation. Even the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) publications advocate "evidence-based" interventions in relation to implementation of NCLB, which is the basis for the IDEA definition of SBR (e.g. IES, 2003), without differentiation or clarification. This article maps out the overall differences in this increasingly important terminology under the 2004 amendments and 2006 regulations of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Although not demarcating precisely bright lines, the legislation, regulations, and related USDE policy interpretations contribute to a significant differentiation among these various terms. As Figure 1.1 illustrates, the legal scope of these various terms may be visually organized into approximately situated circles. The explanation herein starts with the central terms "SBR" and "PRR" and proceeds to the outermost term, "evidence-based."