评估认知评估系统的治疗效用:阅读和数学成果的荟萃分析

IF 3.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Richard J. McNulty , Randy G. Floyd , Emily K. Lewis , Patrick J. McNicholas , John H. Kranzler , Nicholas F. Benson
{"title":"评估认知评估系统的治疗效用:阅读和数学成果的荟萃分析","authors":"Richard J. McNulty ,&nbsp;Randy G. Floyd ,&nbsp;Emily K. Lewis ,&nbsp;Patrick J. McNicholas ,&nbsp;John H. Kranzler ,&nbsp;Nicholas F. Benson","doi":"10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101384","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>There has been a long search for cognitive assessments that reveal aptitudes thought to be useful for treatment planning. In this regard, since the 1990s, there has been some enthusiasm for the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) and its potential promise for informing treatment due to its alignment of theory, assessment instrument, and suite of interventions. The purpose of this meta-analytic review was to synthesize research pertinent to the treatment utility of the CAS according to a taxonomy of treatment utility. A total of 252 articles were produced by an electronic search and eligibility screening yielded 16 articles meeting criteria for consideration. Most studies described in these articles utilized obtained difference designs, focused on the Planning composite scores from the CAS, and addressed math interventions. Only seven studies with publication dates from 1995 to 2010 yielded sufficient information to be included in the meta-analysis. A random effects model was employed to determine the overall treatment utility effect across 114 participants apportioned to 14 groups and comprising eight comparisons. Results yielded an overall moderate effect size (0.64, 95% CI [0.24, 1.03], <em>p</em> = .002), but it was associated with significant imprecision (due to a low number of viable studies and small sample sizes across most studies) that prohibits reliable conclusions from being drawn. Assessment of between-study heterogeneity and moderator analysis was not possible. Considering these findings, additional research is needed to support the treatment utility of the CAS—even after more than 27 years of study. Furthermore, there are no published studies regarding the treatment utility of the second edition of the CAS, which was published in 2014. These results suggest that there is insufficient empirical grounding to enable practitioners to use this instrument to develop effective treatments for reading, mathematics, or writing. More direct interventions designed to enhance academic skill development should be employed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48232,"journal":{"name":"Journal of School Psychology","volume":"107 ","pages":"Article 101384"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the treatment utility of the Cognitive Assessment System: A meta-analysis of reading and mathematics outcomes\",\"authors\":\"Richard J. McNulty ,&nbsp;Randy G. Floyd ,&nbsp;Emily K. Lewis ,&nbsp;Patrick J. McNicholas ,&nbsp;John H. Kranzler ,&nbsp;Nicholas F. Benson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101384\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>There has been a long search for cognitive assessments that reveal aptitudes thought to be useful for treatment planning. In this regard, since the 1990s, there has been some enthusiasm for the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) and its potential promise for informing treatment due to its alignment of theory, assessment instrument, and suite of interventions. The purpose of this meta-analytic review was to synthesize research pertinent to the treatment utility of the CAS according to a taxonomy of treatment utility. A total of 252 articles were produced by an electronic search and eligibility screening yielded 16 articles meeting criteria for consideration. Most studies described in these articles utilized obtained difference designs, focused on the Planning composite scores from the CAS, and addressed math interventions. Only seven studies with publication dates from 1995 to 2010 yielded sufficient information to be included in the meta-analysis. A random effects model was employed to determine the overall treatment utility effect across 114 participants apportioned to 14 groups and comprising eight comparisons. Results yielded an overall moderate effect size (0.64, 95% CI [0.24, 1.03], <em>p</em> = .002), but it was associated with significant imprecision (due to a low number of viable studies and small sample sizes across most studies) that prohibits reliable conclusions from being drawn. Assessment of between-study heterogeneity and moderator analysis was not possible. Considering these findings, additional research is needed to support the treatment utility of the CAS—even after more than 27 years of study. Furthermore, there are no published studies regarding the treatment utility of the second edition of the CAS, which was published in 2014. These results suggest that there is insufficient empirical grounding to enable practitioners to use this instrument to develop effective treatments for reading, mathematics, or writing. More direct interventions designed to enhance academic skill development should be employed.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of School Psychology\",\"volume\":\"107 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101384\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of School Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440524001043\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of School Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440524001043","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,人们一直在寻找能够揭示对治疗规划有用的能力倾向的认知评估方法。在这方面,自 20 世纪 90 年代以来,认知评估系统(CAS)受到了一些人的热捧,由于其理论、评估工具和一整套干预措施的一致性,该系统在为治疗提供信息方面具有潜在的前景。本荟萃分析综述的目的是根据治疗效用分类法,综合与认知评估系统治疗效用相关的研究。通过电子检索和资格筛选,共有 252 篇文章符合审议标准。这些文章中描述的大多数研究都采用了获得性差异设计,侧重于 CAS 的规划综合分数,并涉及数学干预措施。只有 7 项发表于 1995 年至 2010 年的研究提供了足够的信息,可以纳入荟萃分析。采用随机效应模型确定了 114 名参与者的总体治疗效用效应,这些参与者被分配到 14 个小组,并进行了 8 次比较。结果显示,总体效应大小适中(0.64,95% CI [0.24,1.03],p = .002),但存在明显的不精确性(由于可行的研究较少,且大多数研究的样本量较小),因此无法得出可靠的结论。无法评估研究之间的异质性和调节分析。考虑到这些发现,还需要更多的研究来支持 CAS 的治疗效用--即使是在超过 27 年的研究之后。此外,关于2014年出版的第二版CAS的治疗效用,目前还没有公开发表的研究。这些结果表明,目前还没有足够的经验基础,使从业人员能够使用该工具来开发有效的阅读、数学或写作治疗方法。应采用更直接的干预措施,以加强学术技能的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the treatment utility of the Cognitive Assessment System: A meta-analysis of reading and mathematics outcomes
There has been a long search for cognitive assessments that reveal aptitudes thought to be useful for treatment planning. In this regard, since the 1990s, there has been some enthusiasm for the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) and its potential promise for informing treatment due to its alignment of theory, assessment instrument, and suite of interventions. The purpose of this meta-analytic review was to synthesize research pertinent to the treatment utility of the CAS according to a taxonomy of treatment utility. A total of 252 articles were produced by an electronic search and eligibility screening yielded 16 articles meeting criteria for consideration. Most studies described in these articles utilized obtained difference designs, focused on the Planning composite scores from the CAS, and addressed math interventions. Only seven studies with publication dates from 1995 to 2010 yielded sufficient information to be included in the meta-analysis. A random effects model was employed to determine the overall treatment utility effect across 114 participants apportioned to 14 groups and comprising eight comparisons. Results yielded an overall moderate effect size (0.64, 95% CI [0.24, 1.03], p = .002), but it was associated with significant imprecision (due to a low number of viable studies and small sample sizes across most studies) that prohibits reliable conclusions from being drawn. Assessment of between-study heterogeneity and moderator analysis was not possible. Considering these findings, additional research is needed to support the treatment utility of the CAS—even after more than 27 years of study. Furthermore, there are no published studies regarding the treatment utility of the second edition of the CAS, which was published in 2014. These results suggest that there is insufficient empirical grounding to enable practitioners to use this instrument to develop effective treatments for reading, mathematics, or writing. More direct interventions designed to enhance academic skill development should be employed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of School Psychology
Journal of School Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
8.00%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The Journal of School Psychology publishes original empirical articles and critical reviews of the literature on research and practices relevant to psychological and behavioral processes in school settings. JSP presents research on intervention mechanisms and approaches; schooling effects on the development of social, cognitive, mental-health, and achievement-related outcomes; assessment; and consultation. Submissions from a variety of disciplines are encouraged. All manuscripts are read by the Editor and one or more editorial consultants with the intent of providing appropriate and constructive written reviews.
×
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