阅读障碍试点项目研究的现实主义回顾。

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Brian Gearin, Jessica Turtura, Kim Anderson, Melissa Colsman, Samantha Durrance, Wendy McColskey, Joan Mele-McCarthy, Laura Schultz, Karleen Spitulnik
{"title":"阅读障碍试点项目研究的现实主义回顾。","authors":"Brian Gearin,&nbsp;Jessica Turtura,&nbsp;Kim Anderson,&nbsp;Melissa Colsman,&nbsp;Samantha Durrance,&nbsp;Wendy McColskey,&nbsp;Joan Mele-McCarthy,&nbsp;Laura Schultz,&nbsp;Karleen Spitulnik","doi":"10.1007/s11881-023-00284-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We \nconducted a realist review of state-authorized dyslexia pilot projects to understand how they have been implemented and evaluated, and the extent to which they adhere to best practice recommendations. We found that states have piloted broadly similar policy programs minimally consisting of professional development, universal screening, and instructional intervention. However, none of the pilot report documents we reviewed included explicit logic models or theories of action, which makes it difficult to understand the pilot projects and their results. Officially, most of the pilot project evaluations sought to establish the effectiveness of their programs. However, only two states used evaluation designs that are well-suited to making causal inferences about program effects, which complicates the interpretation of pilot project results. To make future pilot projects more useful to evidence-based policymaking, we make recommendations to improve their design, implementation, and evaluation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47273,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Dyslexia","volume":"73 3","pages":"393 - 414"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A realist review of dyslexia pilot project research\",\"authors\":\"Brian Gearin,&nbsp;Jessica Turtura,&nbsp;Kim Anderson,&nbsp;Melissa Colsman,&nbsp;Samantha Durrance,&nbsp;Wendy McColskey,&nbsp;Joan Mele-McCarthy,&nbsp;Laura Schultz,&nbsp;Karleen Spitulnik\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11881-023-00284-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>We \\nconducted a realist review of state-authorized dyslexia pilot projects to understand how they have been implemented and evaluated, and the extent to which they adhere to best practice recommendations. We found that states have piloted broadly similar policy programs minimally consisting of professional development, universal screening, and instructional intervention. However, none of the pilot report documents we reviewed included explicit logic models or theories of action, which makes it difficult to understand the pilot projects and their results. Officially, most of the pilot project evaluations sought to establish the effectiveness of their programs. However, only two states used evaluation designs that are well-suited to making causal inferences about program effects, which complicates the interpretation of pilot project results. To make future pilot projects more useful to evidence-based policymaking, we make recommendations to improve their design, implementation, and evaluation.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Dyslexia\",\"volume\":\"73 3\",\"pages\":\"393 - 414\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Dyslexia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11881-023-00284-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Dyslexia","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11881-023-00284-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们对国家授权的阅读障碍试点项目进行了现实主义审查,以了解这些项目是如何实施和评估的,以及它们在多大程度上遵守了最佳实践建议。我们发现,各州已经试行了大致相似的政策项目,其中包括专业发展、普遍筛查和教学干预。然而,我们审查的试点报告文件中没有一份包含明确的逻辑模型或行动理论,这使得我们很难理解试点项目及其结果。官方表示,大多数试点项目评估都试图确定其项目的有效性。然而,只有两个州使用了非常适合对项目效果进行因果推断的评估设计,这使试点项目结果的解释变得复杂。为了使未来的试点项目对循证决策更有用,我们提出了改进其设计、实施和评估的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A realist review of dyslexia pilot project research

A realist review of dyslexia pilot project research

We conducted a realist review of state-authorized dyslexia pilot projects to understand how they have been implemented and evaluated, and the extent to which they adhere to best practice recommendations. We found that states have piloted broadly similar policy programs minimally consisting of professional development, universal screening, and instructional intervention. However, none of the pilot report documents we reviewed included explicit logic models or theories of action, which makes it difficult to understand the pilot projects and their results. Officially, most of the pilot project evaluations sought to establish the effectiveness of their programs. However, only two states used evaluation designs that are well-suited to making causal inferences about program effects, which complicates the interpretation of pilot project results. To make future pilot projects more useful to evidence-based policymaking, we make recommendations to improve their design, implementation, and evaluation.

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
Annals of Dyslexia
Annals of Dyslexia Multiple-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Annals of Dyslexia is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the scientific study of dyslexia, its comorbid conditions; and theory-based practices on remediation, and intervention of dyslexia and related areas of written language disorders including spelling, composing and mathematics. Primary consideration for publication is given to original empirical studies, significant review, and well-documented reports of evidence-based effective practices. Only original papers are considered for publication.
×
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