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
共 50 条