Curbing Our Enthusiasm: An Analysis of the Check-In/Check-Out Literature Using the Council for Exceptional Children's Evidence-Based Practice Standards.

The authors read every Check-in/Check-out study they could find. They scored each one against the Council for Exceptional Children rules for evidence-based practice.

No new kids were tested; the team just graded the quality of past papers.

The review does not say “CICO works” or “CICO fails.” It only warns that many CICO studies are weak on design, so the practice cannot yet be called evidence-based.

Sottilare et al. (2023) showed CICO helped three elementary kids stay on task. That small success is one of the very studies the 2017 review would flag as too thin to trust.

Andrews et al. (2024) pooled many single-case CICO papers and saw steady, positive effects. Again, the 2017 paper reminds us those single cases rarely meet CEC standards, so the shiny meta-result may rest on shaky legs.

Root et al. (2017) used the same review rules on computer lessons for students with autism and declared that method evidence-based. CICO, reviewed the same year with the same checklist, did not earn the same label.

Before you roll CICO out to every classroom, treat it like a promising but unproven tool. Run your own brief pilot, collect simple data, and keep the program only if you see clear gains. Share your data so future reviews can finally tip the scale.