Introduction: This descriptive study identified types of articles published and research designs used in targeted special education journals. Articles in visual impairment (i.e., low vision or blindness) published between 2012 and 2017 were examined to determine what literature informed the field during the 6-year period. Method: A total of 4,850 articles from 37 journals were reviewed. Initially, all articles published from 2012 through 2014 in targeted disability journals across categories related to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were reviewed. Subsequently, articles published from 2015 through 2017 in six key journals in visual impairment and deafblindness were reviewed. Each article in every volume of selected journals in the 6-year period was coded for type, research design, and target population. Results: The majority of research designs implemented with IDEA-eligible individuals with visual impairments were quantitative, specifically regression analyses, comparative, and single-case research designs (hereafter, single-case designs). Studies targeting non-IDEA eligible participants nearly doubled those targeting children with visual impairments. Less than one third of studies identified were intervention studies. Single-case designs were the most commonly used designs for intervention studies, and few reported effect size. The overall small number of studies with children with visual impairments indicate an increased need for experimental studies to identify evidence-based practices. Discussion: A greater number of empirical than nonempirical articles was identified in visual impairment, possibly indicating increased investigation of practices and interventions. This trend aligns with the current focus on using evidence and data to support practice and policy. Further research should evaluate quality of studies. Implications for practitioners: It is important to be familiar with the body of research informing the field of visual impairment to understand the evidence underlying its practices and policies. It is recommended that increased numbers of high-quality intervention studies be conducted to identify evidence-based practices.

中文翻译：

---

视觉障碍领域的研究设计和文献：是什么影响了我们的实践？

简介：这项描述性研究确定了目标特殊教育期刊中发表的文章类型和研究设计。检查了 2012 年至 2017 年间发表的视觉障碍（即低视力或失明）文章，以确定在 6 年期间哪些文献对该领域有所了解。方法：共审查了 37 种期刊的 4,850 篇文章。最初，审查了 2012 年至 2014 年在与《残疾人教育法》(IDEA) 相关的各类目标残疾期刊上发表的所有文章。随后，回顾了2015年至2017年在视觉障碍和聋盲领域的六种重点期刊上发表的文章。6 年期间选定期刊的每一卷中的每篇文章都根据类型、研究设计和目标人群进行编码。结果：对符合 IDEA 资格的视力障碍人士实施的大多数研究设计是定量的，特别是回归分析、比较和单案例研究设计（以下简称单案例设计）。针对非 IDEA 合格参与者的研究几乎是针对视力障碍儿童的研究的两倍。确定的研究中不到三分之一是干预研究。单案例设计是干预研究中最常用的设计，很少报道效应量。对视力障碍儿童进行的总体研究数量很少，这表明越来越需要进行实验研究来确定循证实践。讨论：在视觉障碍中发现的经验性文章比非经验性文章更多，可能表明对做法和干预措施的调查有所增加。这一趋势与当前对使用证据和数据支持实践和政策的关注一致。进一步的研究应该评估研究的质量。对从业者的影响：熟悉为视力障碍领域提供信息的研究主体以了解其实践和政策背后的证据非常重要。建议进行更多高质量的干预研究，以确定循证实践。熟悉为视力障碍领域提供信息的研究主体以了解其实践和政策背后的证据非常重要。建议进行更多高质量的干预研究，以确定循证实践。熟悉为视力障碍领域提供信息的研究主体以了解其实践和政策背后的证据非常重要。建议进行更多高质量的干预研究，以确定循证实践。