Group design research studies can provide evidence to draw conclusions about "what works," "for whom," and "under what conditions" in special education. The quality indicators introduced by Gersten and colleagues (2005) have contributed to increased rigor in group design research, which has provided substantial evidence about what works across various content areas. However, there is a need to more fully understand the range of effects within studies and individual differences in treatment response. In this article, we identify contemporary considerations for group design research in special education. First, we propose an expanded set of quality indicators that broaden our lens of inquiry to promote understanding of for whom and under what conditions interventions, programs, and practices are more or less effective. Next, we introduce new quality indicators to further methodological rigor in using open science practices. We recommend that researchers consider the full set of quality indicators and document their decision-making related to the design, implementation, and analysis of group design research. These efforts can generate new scientific knowledge with the potential to advance equity and inclusion of students with disabilities.