共 50 条
Four Best Practices for Meta-Analysis: A Systematic Review of Methodological Rigor in Mathematics Interventions for Students With or at Risk of Disabilities
被引:1
|作者:
Park, Soyoung
[1
,5
]
Lee, Young Ri
[2
]
Nelson, Gena
[3
]
Tipton, Elizabeth
[4
]
机构:
[1] Univ Cent Florida, Orlando, FL 32816 USA
[2] Univ Texas Austin, Austin, TX USA
[3] Univ Oregon, Eugene, OR USA
[4] Northwestern Univ, Evanston, IL USA
[5] Univ Cent Florida, Coll Community Innovat & Educ, 12494 Univ Blvd, Orlando, FL 32816 USA
关键词:
meta-analysis;
meta-analysis methodology;
systematic review;
math interventions;
students with disabilities;
ROBUST VARIANCE-ESTIMATION;
SMALL-SAMPLE ADJUSTMENTS;
PUBLICATION BIAS;
META-REGRESSION;
LEARNING-DISABILITIES;
TEACHING MATHEMATICS;
SECONDARY STUDENTS;
EMPIRICAL-RESEARCH;
EFFECT SIZE;
EDUCATION;
D O I:
10.1177/07319487231185133
中图分类号:
G76 [特殊教育];
学科分类号:
040109 ;
摘要:
Meta-analysis methodology has evolved with the development of more robust statistical techniques; however, few reviews in special education have focused specifically on methodological rigor in meta-analyses. In this study, we examined 29 meta-analyses of mathematics interventions published from 2000 to 2022 to determine the extent to which researchers have applied four best practices in meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with disabilities. Our findings were (a) studies used three primary moderator techniques: meta-regression (k = 10), subgroup analysis (k = 8), analysis of variance (k = 3), and both subgroup analysis and meta-regression (k = 1); (b) only one study considered small sample corrections for hypothesis tests; (c) few researchers handled the dependence between multiple effect sizes (k = 3); and (d) the funnel plot was commonly used to detect publication bias (k = 8). Based on our findings, we make recommendations for methodological considerations for future meta-analyses.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文