School & Classroom

Impact of Educational Placement on the Goal Attainment Outcomes of K-6 Students With Complex Needs Across Academic and Social-Behavioral-Communication Domains.

Shogren et al. (2024) · American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities 2024
★ The Verdict

A kid’s own skills drive most IEP goal success; placement and support level account for only a quarter of the difference.

✓ Read this if BCBAs writing elementary IEPs for students with multiple disabilities.
✗ Skip if Clinicians only serving infants or post-secondary clients.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team tracked 53 K-6 students with complex needs. They used IEP goal scores and asked how much of the change came from the kid versus the classroom setting.

A Bayesian model split the variance. It told us what slice of success lives inside the child and what slice lives in the placement.

02

What they found

Three-quarters of the difference in meeting goals sat within the same child. One-quarter sat between kids and was tied to placement type and support level.

In plain words: the room matters, but the kid matters more.

03

How this fits with other research

Oh-Young et al. (2015) pooled 24 studies and saw better scores in inclusive rooms. McQuaid et al. (2024) agree placement moves the needle, but show the effect is modest.

Hardiman et al. (2009) found no social-skill gap between inclusive and segregated rooms for kids with moderate ID. The new numbers back them up: setting explains only 25 % of goal variance.

van den Helder et al. (2025) add that autistic children in special schools have tougher co-occurring conditions yet equal quality of life. Together the papers say: placement tracks severity, not destiny.

04

Why it matters

When you write an IEP, do not fight for a room label alone. Push for high-impact supports inside any room. Use data on the individual child to pick goals, then tweak placement only if progress stalls. This keeps your energy on teaching, not on geography.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Graph the last four weeks of each goal; if flat across two settings, adjust instruction before you ask for a room change.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
other
Sample size
53
Population
mixed clinical
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

Students with complex support needs have intense and frequent support needs for learning and participating across multiple domains. Addressing those needs in a comprehensive manner is the purpose of special education, which is accomplished through instructional and Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals. Yet simply setting goals is insufficient; to facilitate positive student outcomes, there is an inherent expectation that students will meet those goals to achieve their potential. Understanding factors that impact variability in goal attainment is essential to this purpose. This includes the extent to which variability in goal attainment is explained by factors varying within students (e.g., goal domains being targeted) or by factors varying between students (e.g., education placement, overall intensity of student support needs). Using Bayesian multi-level modeling analysis to examine the instructional goals of 53 elementary students with complex support needs, we found that 75% of variability in goal attainment exists within student's goals. However, 25% of variability is explained by factors that vary across students-in this case, educational placement and overall intensity of support needs. We conclude with recommendations for research and practice aimed at enhancing goal attainment for students with complex support needs.

American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2024 · doi:10.1352/1944-7558-129.5.405