PROTOCOL: School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: An updated systematic review

IF 4 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Sara Valdebenito, Hannah Gaffney, Darrick Jolliffe
{"title":"PROTOCOL: School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: An updated systematic review","authors":"Sara Valdebenito,&nbsp;Hannah Gaffney,&nbsp;Darrick Jolliffe","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The primary goal of the present mixed methods review is to systematically examine the available evidence for the effectiveness of different types of school-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion. Quantitative evidence will help to understand the overall size of the impact, as well as the factors that better explain it. Qualitative evidence will help to better understand how these programmes may work, and what factors aid or hinder implementation and success.</p><p>The research questions underlying the quantitative review are as follows:\n\n </p><p>If sufficient data are available, we will compare different approaches (e.g., school-wide management, classroom management, restorative justice, cognitive-behavioural interventions) and identify those that could potentially demonstrate larger effects. We will also (potentially) run analysis controlling for characteristics of <i>participants</i> (e.g., age, ethnicity, level of risk); <i>interventions</i> (e.g., theoretical bases, components); <i>implementation</i> (e.g., facilitators’ training, doses, quality); and <i>methodology</i> (e.g., research design).</p><p>The research questions underlying the qualitative review are defined as follows:</p><p>\n \n </p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1344","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1344","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The primary goal of the present mixed methods review is to systematically examine the available evidence for the effectiveness of different types of school-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion. Quantitative evidence will help to understand the overall size of the impact, as well as the factors that better explain it. Qualitative evidence will help to better understand how these programmes may work, and what factors aid or hinder implementation and success.

The research questions underlying the quantitative review are as follows:

If sufficient data are available, we will compare different approaches (e.g., school-wide management, classroom management, restorative justice, cognitive-behavioural interventions) and identify those that could potentially demonstrate larger effects. We will also (potentially) run analysis controlling for characteristics of participants (e.g., age, ethnicity, level of risk); interventions (e.g., theoretical bases, components); implementation (e.g., facilitators’ training, doses, quality); and methodology (e.g., research design).

The research questions underlying the qualitative review are defined as follows:

方案:以学校为基础的干预措施,以减少纪律学校排斥:一项更新的系统综述
当前混合方法综述的主要目标是系统地检查现有证据,以证明不同类型的学校干预措施对减少纪律学校排斥的有效性。定量证据将有助于了解影响的总体规模,以及更好地解释影响的因素。定性证据将有助于更好地了解这些规划如何运作,以及哪些因素有助于或阻碍实施和成功。量化评估的研究问题如下:如果有足够的数据,我们将比较不同的方法(例如,全校管理、课堂管理、恢复性司法、认知行为干预),并确定那些可能显示出更大影响的方法。我们还将(潜在地)进行分析,控制参与者的特征(例如,年龄、种族、风险水平);干预措施(如理论基础、组成部分);实施(例如,调解员的培训、剂量、质量);以及方法论(例如,研究设计)。定性回顾的研究问题定义如下:
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
Campbell Systematic Reviews
Campbell Systematic Reviews Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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