为工作选择合适的工具:教育系统审查的筛选工具

IF 1.7 4区教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness Pub Date : 2023-05-11 DOI:10.1080/19345747.2023.2209079

Qiyang Zhang, Amanda J. Neitzel

{"title":"为工作选择合适的工具:教育系统审查的筛选工具","authors":"Qiyang Zhang, Amanda J. Neitzel","doi":"10.1080/19345747.2023.2209079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, the rapid development of artificial intelligence has enabled the launch of many new screening tools. This review aims to facilitate screening tool selection through a systematic narrative review and feature analysis. The current adoption rate of transparent tool reporting is low: by screening 191 studies published in the Review of Educational Research since 2015, we found that only eight studies reported screening tools. More research is needed to understand the reasons behind this phenomenon. After consulting various sources, 26 available screening tools in the market were found. Among them, we identified and evaluated 12 screening tools for educational reviewers and ranked them in descending order of feature score: Covidence (1), DistillerSR (2, tied), EPPI-Reviewer (2, tied), CADIMA (4), Swift-Active (5), Rayyan (6, tied), SysRev (6, tied), Abstrackr (8, tied), ReLiS (8, tied), RevMan (8, tied), ASReview (11), and Excel (12). In the discussion, we provide insights into the promise and bias in tools' machine learning algorithms. Our results encourage researchers to report their tool usage in publications and select tools based on suitability instead of convenience. © 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.","PeriodicalId":47260,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choosing the Right Tool for the Job: Screening Tools for Systematic Reviews in Education\",\"authors\":\"Qiyang Zhang, Amanda J. Neitzel\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/19345747.2023.2209079\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent years, the rapid development of artificial intelligence has enabled the launch of many new screening tools. This review aims to facilitate screening tool selection through a systematic narrative review and feature analysis. The current adoption rate of transparent tool reporting is low: by screening 191 studies published in the Review of Educational Research since 2015, we found that only eight studies reported screening tools. More research is needed to understand the reasons behind this phenomenon. After consulting various sources, 26 available screening tools in the market were found. Among them, we identified and evaluated 12 screening tools for educational reviewers and ranked them in descending order of feature score: Covidence (1), DistillerSR (2, tied), EPPI-Reviewer (2, tied), CADIMA (4), Swift-Active (5), Rayyan (6, tied), SysRev (6, tied), Abstrackr (8, tied), ReLiS (8, tied), RevMan (8, tied), ASReview (11), and Excel (12). In the discussion, we provide insights into the promise and bias in tools' machine learning algorithms. Our results encourage researchers to report their tool usage in publications and select tools based on suitability instead of convenience. © 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47260,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2023.2209079\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2023.2209079","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

近年来，人工智能的快速发展使许多新的筛选工具得以推出。本综述旨在通过系统的叙事回顾和特征分析，促进筛选工具的选择。目前透明工具报告的采用率很低:通过筛选2015年以来发表在《教育研究评论》上的191项研究，我们发现只有8项研究报告了筛选工具。需要更多的研究来了解这一现象背后的原因。在查阅了各种资料后，我们在市场上找到了26种可用的筛选工具。其中，我们确定并评估了12种教育审稿人筛选工具，并按功能评分降序对它们进行了排名:Covidence(1)、DistillerSR(2，并列)、EPPI-Reviewer(2，并列)、CADIMA(4)、Swift-Active(5)、Rayyan(6，并列)、SysRev(6，并列)、Abstrackr(8，并列)、ReLiS(8，并列)、RevMan(8，并列)、ASReview(11)和Excel(12)。在讨论中，我们提供了工具机器学习算法的前景和偏见的见解。我们的研究结果鼓励研究人员在出版物中报告他们的工具使用情况，并根据适用性而不是便利性选择工具。©2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Choosing the Right Tool for the Job: Screening Tools for Systematic Reviews in Education

In recent years, the rapid development of artificial intelligence has enabled the launch of many new screening tools. This review aims to facilitate screening tool selection through a systematic narrative review and feature analysis. The current adoption rate of transparent tool reporting is low: by screening 191 studies published in the Review of Educational Research since 2015, we found that only eight studies reported screening tools. More research is needed to understand the reasons behind this phenomenon. After consulting various sources, 26 available screening tools in the market were found. Among them, we identified and evaluated 12 screening tools for educational reviewers and ranked them in descending order of feature score: Covidence (1), DistillerSR (2, tied), EPPI-Reviewer (2, tied), CADIMA (4), Swift-Active (5), Rayyan (6, tied), SysRev (6, tied), Abstrackr (8, tied), ReLiS (8, tied), RevMan (8, tied), ASReview (11), and Excel (12). In the discussion, we provide insights into the promise and bias in tools' machine learning algorithms. Our results encourage researchers to report their tool usage in publications and select tools based on suitability instead of convenience. © 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

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 Research on Educational Effectiveness EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-

CiteScore

4.00

自引率

11.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： As the flagship publication for the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, the Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness (JREE) publishes original articles from the multidisciplinary community of researchers who are committed to applying principles of scientific inquiry to the study of educational problems. Articles published in JREE should advance our knowledge of factors important for educational success and/or improve our ability to conduct further disciplined studies of pressing educational problems. JREE welcomes manuscripts that fit into one of the following categories: (1) intervention, evaluation, and policy studies; (2) theory, contexts, and mechanisms; and (3) methodological studies. The first category includes studies that focus on process and implementation and seek to demonstrate causal claims in educational research. The second category includes meta-analyses and syntheses, descriptive studies that illuminate educational conditions and contexts, and studies that rigorously investigate education processes and mechanism. The third category includes studies that advance our understanding of theoretical and technical features of measurement and research design and describe advances in data analysis and data modeling. To establish a stronger connection between scientific evidence and educational practice, studies submitted to JREE should focus on pressing problems found in classrooms and schools. Studies that help advance our understanding and demonstrate effectiveness related to challenges in reading, mathematics education, and science education are especially welcome as are studies related to cognitive functions, social processes, organizational factors, and cultural features that mediate and/or moderate critical educational outcomes. On occasion, invited responses to JREE articles and rejoinders to those responses will be included in an issue.