A Meta-analysis of Challenging Behavior Interventions for Students with Developmental Disabilities in Inclusive School Settings.

Lory et al. (2020) pooled every single-case study that tested behavior-reduction plans for students with developmental disabilities in regular classrooms. They only looked at studies done inside inclusive schools, not separate special-ed rooms.

The team used Tau-U, a non-overlap metric, to size up how well the plans worked.

Across all included studies, the average Tau-U hit 0.94. That is a very large drop in challenging behavior when kids stay in class with their peers.

In plain words, the interventions almost wiped out the target behaviors.

Heyvaert et al. (2010) ran a similar meta but pulled from any setting. Their effect was only medium. The new review shows that when you zero in on inclusive classrooms, the payoff jumps from medium to very large.

van der Miesen et al. (2024) focused only on self-injury across homes, clinics, and schools. They also found a very large reduction (Tau-U = -0.90) and added that caregiver-run plans at home work just as well. Lory et al. (2020) now tells us the same big win happens inside general-ed rooms.

Adriaanse et al. (2026) looked at transition-only behaviors and saw mixed results. Their weaker numbers do not clash with Catharine et al. — they simply narrowed the lens to one trigger, while Catharine captured all topographies in class.

You can tell teachers and parents that evidence-based plans deliver huge gains right at the desk. Push for inclusion and keep the student in the room — the data says behavior plans work best there.