As a discipline of inquiry and influence, implementation science emerged in response to a need. In the early 1970s, Archie Cochrane (1972) voiced the concern that health care workers in England were not basing their practice on scientific evidence. His voice was influential in the start of the evidence-based medicine movement, which gained further traction through the work of Sackett and colleagues in Canada (Sackett et al., 1996). The parallel effort in education emerged from the concern about the gap between research and practice and the need for “evidence-based education” (Davies, 1999). In the field of special education, this message extends well back into the 1980s and 1990s, with Exceptional Children publishing a set of articles led by Doug Carnine’s (1997) paper, calling for research that is trustworthy, accessible, and usable. Although Carnine and other leaders at the time questioned the relevance of the educational research being conducted, a National Academy of Sciences panel questioned the methodological and scientific quality of educational research (Shavelson & Towne, 2002). This concern led to the Education Science Reform Act of 2002, which had for its goal the improvement of the methodological quality of educational research. The Institute of Education Sciences was created to achieve that goal. The assumption was that as teachers and other service providers learned more about practices, strategies, and curriculum demonstrated as effective, they would use these in their instruction. However, this assumption was faulty. Although identification of evidencebased practices (EBPs) is the initial and necessary first step, implementation of such practices in classrooms and schools does not naturally follow from just the presence of knowledge about the practices (Odom, 2009). The failure of the “single-day workshop” approach (i.e., the primary approach in schools to share knowledge about EBPs) to close the research-to-practice gap reflects the need for strategies that specifically lead to implementation of EBPs. Responding to this need in health and human services and education, implementation science emerged as a clear movement in the first decade of the 2000s. In their inaugural issue of the journal Implementation Science, Eccles and Mittman (2006) defined implementation science at “the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other EBPs into routine practice, and, hence, to improve the quality and effectiveness of health services” (p. 1). Around the same time, the landmark monograph by Fixsen et al. (2005) caught the attention of many researchers conducting randomized clinical trials in school settings who were seeing challenges to implementation. In the subsequent years, researchers have proposed many models of implementation (Bauer et al., 2015). Common themes across those models are a focus on organizational systems perspectives, the phaseor stage-like process that implementation follows, and consideration of the different factors within and outside an organization that operate at the different phases of the process (Odom, Hall, & Suhrheinrich, 2019). In a previous issue of Exceptional Children, Cook and Odom (2013) brought attention to the importance of implementation science for the field of special education. Articles in that issue addressed the definition of implementation science, dissemination and diffusion, scaling up effective interventions, the tension between fidelity and adaptation, and also a model the special education programs in states could use for promoting EBPs. However, only one article in the issue provided any empirical findings related to their application of implementation. In this current special section of Exceptional Children, we 889888 ECXXXX10.1177/0014402919889888Exceptional Children editorial2019

中文翻译：

---

实施科学研究与特殊教育

作为一门探究和影响的学科，实施科学应运而生。在 1970 年代初期，Archie Cochrane (1972) 表示担心英国的卫生保健工作者没有将他们的实践建立在科学证据的基础上。他的声音在循证医学运动的开始中具有影响力，该运动通过 Sackett 及其同事在加拿大的工作获得了进一步的推动（Sackett 等，1996）。教育方面的平行努力源于对研究与实践之间差距的担忧以及对“基于证据的教育”的需求（戴维斯，1999）。在特殊教育领域，这一信息可以追溯到 1980 年代和 1990 年代，Exceptional Children 发表了以 Doug Carnine (1997) 论文为首的一系列文章，呼吁进行值得信赖、可访问和可用的研究。尽管当时 Carnine 和其他领导人质疑正在进行的教育研究的相关性，但美国国家科学院的一个小组质疑教育研究的方法论和科学质量（Shavelson & Towne，2002 年）。这种担忧导致了 2002 年教育科学改革法案的出台，该法案的目标是提高教育研究的方法论质量。教育科学研究所的成立就是为了实现这一目标。假设是，随着教师和其他服务提供者更多地了解实践、策略和课程证明是有效的，他们会在教学中使用这些。然而，这个假设是错误的。尽管确定循证实践 (EBP) 是最初和必要的第一步，在课堂和学校中实施此类实践并不仅仅源于对实践的了解（Odom，2009）。“单日研讨会”方法（即学校分享 EBP 知识的主要方法）未能缩小研究与实践之间的差距，这反映了需要专门导致实施 EBP 的策略。为响应健康、人类服务和教育方面的这种需求，实施科学在 2000 年代的第一个十年成为一项明确的运动。Eccles 和 Mittman（2006 年）在他们的首期《实施科学》杂志上将实施科学定义为“促进将研究结果和其他 EBP 系统地应用到日常实践中的方法的科学研究，因此，提高卫生服务的质量和有效性”（第 1 页）。大约在同一时间，Fixsen 等人的具有里程碑意义的专着。(2005) 引起了许多在学校环境中进行随机临床试验的研究人员的注意，他们看到了实施方面的挑战。在随后的几年中，研究人员提出了许多实施模型（Bauer 等，2015）。这些模型的共同主题是关注组织系统的观点、实施所遵循的阶段或类似阶段的过程，以及考虑在过程的不同阶段运作的组织内部和外部的不同因素（Odom、Hall 和 Suhrheinrich , 2019)。在上一期《特殊儿童》中，Cook 和 Odom（2013 年）关注实施科学对特殊教育领域的重要性。该期文章涉及实施科学的定义、传播和传播、扩大有效干预措施、忠诚与适应之间的紧张关系，以及各州特殊教育计划可用于促进 EBP 的模型。但是，该问题中只有一篇文章提供了与其实施应用相关的任何实证结果。在当前特殊儿童的这个特别版块中，我们 889888 ECXXXX10.1177/0014402919889888特殊儿童社论2019 以及各州特殊教育计划可用于促进 EBP 的模型。但是，该问题中只有一篇文章提供了与其实施应用相关的任何实证结果。在当前特殊儿童的这个特别版块中，我们 889888 ECXXXX10.1177/0014402919889888特殊儿童社论2019 以及各州特殊教育计划可用于促进 EBP 的模型。但是，该问题中只有一篇文章提供了与其实施应用相关的任何实证结果。在当前特殊儿童的这个特别版块中，我们 889888 ECXXXX10.1177/0014402919889888特殊儿童社论2019