The research-to-practice gap in special education refers to educators' limited use of practices that are supported by empirical evidence. Procedures specifying criteria for the determination of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in special education have the potential to address challenges associated with identifying EBPs. Although meta-analyses and systematic reviews are widely used for this purpose, they have previously excluded single case designs (SCD) owing to lack of consensus among researchers regarding ideal effect size methods to analyze them. Common SCD synthesis techniques are characterized by limitations regarding the extent to and ways in which SCD data can be analyzed. The introduction of novel Between Case Effect Sizes (BCES) promises to address most of these issues. More importantly, BCES enable reviewers to aggregate effects across both group and SCDs. This meta-analysis evaluated reading intervention studies (n = 21) for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) using Hedges' g, a BCES. A random effects meta-analysis of 25 studies indicated that, overall, reading interventions increased reading outcomes of students with EBD by a large margin [ g = 0.817, SE = 0.157, CI (0.509, 1.125), p < 0.05]. A meta-regression analysis consisting of six moderators resulted to statistically significant effects of participants' grades, intervention agent, and instructional format. These results indicate that generally, students with EBD respond to reading interventions. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]