对教育研究证据框架的思考

IF 2.4 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Joseph A. Taylor, Elisabeth Davis, L. Michaelson
{"title":"对教育研究证据框架的思考","authors":"Joseph A. Taylor, Elisabeth Davis, L. Michaelson","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20985077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this chapter, we describe and compare the standards for evidence used by three entities that review studies of education interventions: Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Social Programs that Work, and the What Works Clearinghouse. Based on direct comparisons of the evidence frameworks, we identify key differences in the level at which effectiveness ratings are granted (i.e., intervention vs. outcome domain), as well as in how each entity prioritizes intervention documentation, researcher independence, and sustained versus immediate effects. Because such differences in priorities may result in contradictory intervention ratings between entities, we offer a number of recommendations for a common set of standards that would harmonize effectiveness ratings across the three entities while preserving differences that allow for variation in user priorities. These include disentangling study rigor from intervention effectiveness, ceasing vote counting procedures, adding replication criteria, adding fidelity criteria, assessing baseline equivalence for randomized studies, making quasi-experiments eligible for review, adding criteria for researcher independence, and providing effectiveness ratings at the level of the outcome domain rather than the intervention.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"101 - 128"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Considerations for Evidence Frameworks in Education Research\",\"authors\":\"Joseph A. Taylor, Elisabeth Davis, L. Michaelson\",\"doi\":\"10.3102/0091732X20985077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this chapter, we describe and compare the standards for evidence used by three entities that review studies of education interventions: Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Social Programs that Work, and the What Works Clearinghouse. Based on direct comparisons of the evidence frameworks, we identify key differences in the level at which effectiveness ratings are granted (i.e., intervention vs. outcome domain), as well as in how each entity prioritizes intervention documentation, researcher independence, and sustained versus immediate effects. Because such differences in priorities may result in contradictory intervention ratings between entities, we offer a number of recommendations for a common set of standards that would harmonize effectiveness ratings across the three entities while preserving differences that allow for variation in user priorities. These include disentangling study rigor from intervention effectiveness, ceasing vote counting procedures, adding replication criteria, adding fidelity criteria, assessing baseline equivalence for randomized studies, making quasi-experiments eligible for review, adding criteria for researcher independence, and providing effectiveness ratings at the level of the outcome domain rather than the intervention.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Research in Education\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"101 - 128\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Research in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985077\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Research in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985077","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在本章中,我们描述并比较了三个审查教育干预研究的实体所使用的证据标准:健康青年发展蓝图、有效的社会项目和有效的信息交换中心。基于对证据框架的直接比较,我们确定了有效性评级授予水平的关键差异(即干预与结果领域),以及每个实体如何优先考虑干预文件、研究人员独立性、持续效果与即时效果。由于优先级的差异可能导致实体之间相互矛盾的干预评级,因此我们提供了一些关于一套通用标准的建议,这些标准将协调三个实体之间的有效性评级,同时保留允许用户优先级变化的差异。这些措施包括将研究的严谨性与干预的有效性分开,停止计票程序,增加复制标准,增加保真度标准,评估随机研究的基线等效性,使准实验有资格进行审查,增加研究人员独立性标准,以及在结果域而不是干预层面提供有效性评级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Considerations for Evidence Frameworks in Education Research
In this chapter, we describe and compare the standards for evidence used by three entities that review studies of education interventions: Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Social Programs that Work, and the What Works Clearinghouse. Based on direct comparisons of the evidence frameworks, we identify key differences in the level at which effectiveness ratings are granted (i.e., intervention vs. outcome domain), as well as in how each entity prioritizes intervention documentation, researcher independence, and sustained versus immediate effects. Because such differences in priorities may result in contradictory intervention ratings between entities, we offer a number of recommendations for a common set of standards that would harmonize effectiveness ratings across the three entities while preserving differences that allow for variation in user priorities. These include disentangling study rigor from intervention effectiveness, ceasing vote counting procedures, adding replication criteria, adding fidelity criteria, assessing baseline equivalence for randomized studies, making quasi-experiments eligible for review, adding criteria for researcher independence, and providing effectiveness ratings at the level of the outcome domain rather than the intervention.
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
Review of Research in Education
Review of Research in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Review of Research in Education (RRE), published annually since 1973 (approximately 416 pp./volume year), provides an overview and descriptive analysis of selected topics of relevant research literature through critical and synthesizing essays. Articles are usually solicited for specific RRE issues. There may also be calls for papers. RRE promotes discussion and controversy about research problems in addition to pulling together and summarizing the work in a field.
×
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