An Investigation of Uncertainty Intolerance and Uncertainty Management Research in Educational Institutions: Meta-Analysis Study

Savaş Varlik
{"title":"An Investigation of Uncertainty Intolerance and Uncertainty Management Research in Educational Institutions: Meta-Analysis Study","authors":"Savaş Varlik","doi":"10.24106/kefdergi.1271533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: In this meta-analysis study, it was aimed to analyze uncertainty intolerance and uncertainty management researches in educational institutions using meta-analysis method. \nDesign/Methodology/Approach: This research was carried out as a type of group comparison meta-analysis, which is one of the types of meta-analysis. In the meta-evaluation, eight studies that met the inclusion criteria were reached. By combining these studies, a study was conducted on 2704 sample groups. In determining the meta-analysis model type of the research, first a funnel plot diagram was drawn for a general impression of publication bias, and then statistical calculations were carried out to reach a real conclusion. As a result of the diagram and statistical calculations, it was decided that there was no publication bias in the studies included in the meta-analysis. After determining that there was no publication bias, heterogeneity test was performed for model selection. \nFindings: As a result of the analysis, it was decided to interpret the meta-analysis according to the random effects model. Title and publication type were determined as moderators for heterogeneity. As a result of the meta-analysis, it was found that research into intolerance of uncertainty and uncertainty management in educational institutions had an average effect, the moderator effect of the theses was higher in the calculations regarding the moderator effect, and the titles of teachers and education administrators did not have any moderator effect in the title variable. \nHighlights: It was seen that the number of empirical studies on uncertainty intolerance and uncertainty management in educational institutions was few. It was determined that the studies could not provide the big picture of uncertainty management, even the effect sizes of the studies were not calculated in any of the studies, and a statistical conclusion could not be reached on whether the teachers' intolerance of uncertainty and uncertainty management perceptions work in practice. Therefore, the need to synthesize results on the effectiveness of intolerance of uncertainty and uncertainty management research emerged.","PeriodicalId":33167,"journal":{"name":"Kastamonu Egitim Dergisi","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kastamonu Egitim Dergisi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.1271533","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: In this meta-analysis study, it was aimed to analyze uncertainty intolerance and uncertainty management researches in educational institutions using meta-analysis method. Design/Methodology/Approach: This research was carried out as a type of group comparison meta-analysis, which is one of the types of meta-analysis. In the meta-evaluation, eight studies that met the inclusion criteria were reached. By combining these studies, a study was conducted on 2704 sample groups. In determining the meta-analysis model type of the research, first a funnel plot diagram was drawn for a general impression of publication bias, and then statistical calculations were carried out to reach a real conclusion. As a result of the diagram and statistical calculations, it was decided that there was no publication bias in the studies included in the meta-analysis. After determining that there was no publication bias, heterogeneity test was performed for model selection. Findings: As a result of the analysis, it was decided to interpret the meta-analysis according to the random effects model. Title and publication type were determined as moderators for heterogeneity. As a result of the meta-analysis, it was found that research into intolerance of uncertainty and uncertainty management in educational institutions had an average effect, the moderator effect of the theses was higher in the calculations regarding the moderator effect, and the titles of teachers and education administrators did not have any moderator effect in the title variable. Highlights: It was seen that the number of empirical studies on uncertainty intolerance and uncertainty management in educational institutions was few. It was determined that the studies could not provide the big picture of uncertainty management, even the effect sizes of the studies were not calculated in any of the studies, and a statistical conclusion could not be reached on whether the teachers' intolerance of uncertainty and uncertainty management perceptions work in practice. Therefore, the need to synthesize results on the effectiveness of intolerance of uncertainty and uncertainty management research emerged.
教育机构不确定性容忍与不确定性管理研究:元分析研究
目的:本荟萃分析研究旨在运用荟萃分析方法对教育机构的不确定性容忍与不确定性管理研究进行分析。设计/方法/方法:本研究采用分组比较meta分析,这是meta分析的一种类型。在meta评价中,有8项研究符合纳入标准。结合这些研究,对2704个样本组进行了一项研究。在确定本研究的meta分析模型类型时,首先绘制漏斗图,得出发表偏倚的总体印象,然后进行统计计算,得出真实结论。通过图表和统计计算,我们认为meta分析中纳入的研究不存在发表偏倚。在确定无发表偏倚后,进行模型选择异质性检验。结果:经分析,决定采用随机效应模型对meta分析进行解释。标题和出版类型被确定为异质性的调节因子。通过meta分析发现,对教育机构不确定性容忍和不确定性管理的研究具有平均效应,在调节效应的计算中,论文的调节效应较高,教师和教育管理人员的职称在职称变量中不存在调节效应。亮点:研究发现,关于教育机构不确定性容忍与不确定性管理的实证研究较少。确定这些研究无法提供不确定性管理的全貌,甚至没有在任何研究中计算研究的效应量,并且无法得出教师对不确定性的不容忍和不确定性管理感知是否在实践中起作用的统计结论。因此,需要综合研究结果对不确定容忍的有效性和不确定管理的研究应运而生。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
50 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信