The purpose of this study was to determine if meta-analysis can be used to enhance efforts to identify evidence-based practices (EBPs). In this study, the quality of included studies acted as the moderating variable. I used the quality indicators for experimental and quasi-experimental research developed by Gersten, Fuchs, Coyne, Greenwood, and Innocenti (2005) to label studies high quality, acceptable quality, or not acceptable quality. Using meta-analysis, I examined whether the effect size of an academic intervention was related to level of research quality, as measured by the quality indicators. Mnemonic strategy instruction is the intervention that was examined. I applied the quality indicators to 32 studies. Twelve of the included studies met the criteria to be labeled acceptable quality. Twenty of the included studies did not meet the criteria to be labeled acceptable quality. Zero of the included studies met the criteria to be labeled high quality. Meta-analysis of the included studies produced an average effect size of 1.53. Using quality as a moderating variable resulted in effect sizes of 1.85 for not acceptable quality studies and 1.41 for acceptable quality studies. The results of this study have implications for future attempts to identify EBPs. Several of the proposed quality indicators might benefit from further operationalization. A dichotomous application of the quality indicators appears to be more practical than a 4-point scale application. Meta-analysis is likely to be of benefit to efforts to identify EBPs because it allows for a more nuanced understanding of individual practices and their quality. [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://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]