Method: A total of 453 articles (APAQ n=203; EC n=250) from 2004 to 2013 were coded and analyzed. Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were calculated and met established thresholds (APAQ= 91%, 96%; EC= 96%, 96%). The variables used for the analysis were: (a) country of affiliation of the first author; (b) theoretical framework; (c) intervention; (d) research methods; (e) disability of participants; (f) data-based; and (g) topic of study.
Analysis/Results: Few empirical studies across journals were intervention-based (14% for APAQ; 38% for EC), with only a small percentage of those explicitly identifying a theoretical framework (36%, APAQ; 20%, EC). In consideration to research design, more single-subject studies were present in EC (n=17) than in APAQ (n=4), and APAQ included more mixed method studies (n=8) compared to EC (n=1). Overall, the majority of studies used a statistical aggregation of data (e.g., means, standard deviations), which was operationally defined as group design research. Target populations in both journals were well-distributed across categories; however, APAQ tended to have more articles (n=51) about physical disabilities than EC(n=1). Other differences were found in regard to topic of studies and country of affiliation of authors.
Conclusions: Similarities and differences were found between APA and SE research conducted over the past ten years. Across research areas, scholars have relied heavily on descriptive/correlational research paradigms. Few studies in either area have used intervention approaches and have explicitly identified theoretical frameworks. Further, group designs have dominated studies that have been published. These findings suggest that previous suggestions regarding the use of a theoretical framework (Porretta & Sherrill, 2005) and the use of non-group designs such as single-subject designs (Zhang, deLisle & Chen, 2006) in APA research may also be applicable to other research pertaining to individuals with disabilities in the SE context.