L’affidabilità dei criteri di inclusione nelle meta-analisi in educazione: una rassegna di studi

IF 0.3 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Marta Pellegrini
{"title":"L’affidabilità dei criteri di inclusione nelle meta-analisi in educazione: una rassegna di studi","authors":"Marta Pellegrini","doi":"10.7358/ECPS-2017-016-PELL","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reliability of meta-analysis standards in education: an overview of studies. Research syntheses, such as meta-analyses and systematic reviews, are methods for combining results of different primary studies on a certain theme. These methods have been widespread in the early eighties in educational research with the purpose of giving more reliable information to the teaching practice. As primary studies, not all the reviews carried out are reliable to inform practice on programs and strategies that are effective for learning. Although some systematic reviews and meta-analyses have weaknesses, it is possible to identify which procedures and standards are more valid and reliable for carrying out metaanalyses. This article reviews and examines studies that have evaluated methodological factors that affect effect sizes in meta-analyses of educational practices. The studies of this review have showed that the following methodological factors affect effect sizes: publication bias, sample size, study design, outcome measures and intervention duration. The conclusion specifies which inclusion criteria, based on the review results, are more reliable to carry out meta-analyses that have the objective to inform educational practices.","PeriodicalId":41872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Cultural and Psychological Studies","volume":"13 1","pages":"317-333"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Cultural and Psychological Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7358/ECPS-2017-016-PELL","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Reliability of meta-analysis standards in education: an overview of studies. Research syntheses, such as meta-analyses and systematic reviews, are methods for combining results of different primary studies on a certain theme. These methods have been widespread in the early eighties in educational research with the purpose of giving more reliable information to the teaching practice. As primary studies, not all the reviews carried out are reliable to inform practice on programs and strategies that are effective for learning. Although some systematic reviews and meta-analyses have weaknesses, it is possible to identify which procedures and standards are more valid and reliable for carrying out metaanalyses. This article reviews and examines studies that have evaluated methodological factors that affect effect sizes in meta-analyses of educational practices. The studies of this review have showed that the following methodological factors affect effect sizes: publication bias, sample size, study design, outcome measures and intervention duration. The conclusion specifies which inclusion criteria, based on the review results, are more reliable to carry out meta-analyses that have the objective to inform educational practices.
教育元分析中包含标准的可靠性:研究综述
教育中元分析标准的可靠性:研究综述。研究综合,如荟萃分析和系统综述,是将某一主题的不同初步研究结果结合起来的方法。这些方法在八十年代初的教育研究中得到了广泛的应用,目的是为教学实践提供更可靠的信息。作为初步研究,并不是所有的审查都是可靠的,可以为有效的学习计划和策略的实践提供信息。尽管一些系统评价和荟萃分析存在弱点,但有可能确定哪些程序和标准对进行荟萃分析更有效和可靠。这篇文章回顾和检查了在教育实践的荟萃分析中评估影响效应大小的方法学因素的研究。本综述的研究表明,以下方法学因素影响效应量:发表偏倚、样本量、研究设计、结果测量和干预持续时间。结论明确了基于综述结果的哪些纳入标准更可靠,以开展旨在为教育实践提供信息的荟萃分析。
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
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
×
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