Meta-Analyses of Reading Intervention Studies Including Students With Learning Disabilities: A Methodological Review.

IF 2.4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Seth King, Lanqi Wang, Shawn M Datchuk, Derek B Rodgers
{"title":"Meta-Analyses of Reading Intervention Studies Including Students With Learning Disabilities: A Methodological Review.","authors":"Seth King,&nbsp;Lanqi Wang,&nbsp;Shawn M Datchuk,&nbsp;Derek B Rodgers","doi":"10.1177/00222194221077688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Learning disabilities (LD) may affect a range of academic skills but are most often observed in reading. Researchers and policymakers increasingly recommend addressing reading difficulties encountered by students with LD using evidence-based practices, or interventions validated through multiple, high-quality research studies. A valuable tool in identifying evidence-based practices is the meta-analysis, which entails statistically aggregating the results obtained through primary studies. Specific methods used in meta-analyses have the potential to influence their findings, with ramifications for research and practice. This review assessed the methodological features of the systematic reviews and analytic procedures featured in meta-analyses of reading intervention studies that included students with LD written between 2000 and 2020. Identified articles (<i>N</i> = 23) suggest that meta-analyses have become more prevalent and transparent over time, notwithstanding issues related to publication bias and the opacity of coding procedures. A discussion of implications follows a description of results.</p>","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"56 3","pages":"210-224"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221077688","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Learning disabilities (LD) may affect a range of academic skills but are most often observed in reading. Researchers and policymakers increasingly recommend addressing reading difficulties encountered by students with LD using evidence-based practices, or interventions validated through multiple, high-quality research studies. A valuable tool in identifying evidence-based practices is the meta-analysis, which entails statistically aggregating the results obtained through primary studies. Specific methods used in meta-analyses have the potential to influence their findings, with ramifications for research and practice. This review assessed the methodological features of the systematic reviews and analytic procedures featured in meta-analyses of reading intervention studies that included students with LD written between 2000 and 2020. Identified articles (N = 23) suggest that meta-analyses have become more prevalent and transparent over time, notwithstanding issues related to publication bias and the opacity of coding procedures. A discussion of implications follows a description of results.

包括学习障碍学生在内的阅读干预研究的荟萃分析:方法学回顾。
学习障碍(LD)可能会影响一系列的学术技能,但最常在阅读中观察到。研究人员和政策制定者越来越多地建议使用基于证据的实践或通过多个高质量研究验证的干预措施来解决LD学生遇到的阅读困难。确定循证实践的一个有价值的工具是荟萃分析,它需要统计汇总通过初步研究获得的结果。在荟萃分析中使用的特定方法有可能影响他们的发现,对研究和实践产生影响。本综述评估了阅读干预研究的系统综述和分析程序的方法学特征,这些研究包括2000年至2020年间写的阅读障碍学生。已识别的文章(N = 23)表明,随着时间的推移,meta分析变得更加普遍和透明,尽管存在与发表偏倚和编码程序不透明相关的问题。对结果的描述之后是对含义的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: The Journal of Learning Disabilities (JLD), a multidisciplinary, international publication, presents work and comments related to learning disabilities. Initial consideration of a manuscript depends upon (a) the relevance and usefulness of the content to the readership; (b) how the manuscript compares to other articles dealing with similar content on pertinent variables (e.g., sample size, research design, review of literature); (c) clarity of writing style; and (d) the author"s adherence to APA guidelines. Articles cover such fields as education, psychology, neurology, medicine, law, and counseling.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信