Writing Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities: Quality Appraisal of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

被引:10
|
作者
Roitsch, Jane [1 ]
Gumpert, Mindy [1 ]
Springle, Alisha [1 ]
Raymer, Anastasia M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Old Dominion Univ, Norfolk, VA USA
关键词
INTERVENTIONS; CHILDREN; SKILLS; READ;
D O I
10.1080/10573569.2019.1708221
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Purpose: Students with learning disabilities (LD) often struggle to initiate writing tasks and have difficulty devoting sufficient resources to complete written compositions. Educators must determine the most effective writing instruction to help these students. Evidence-based educational practices benefit from research reviews such as systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). However, not all SRs and MAs are conducted with utmost rigor. The purpose of this project was to examine existing reviews of writing instruction for students with LD, appraise their methodologic quality, and summarize findings. Methods: Following an extensive search of 10 databases, we identified two SRs and four MAs that summarized evidence for writing instruction for students with LD. Four trained examiners evaluated the quality of those reviews with an appraisal tool, the Evidence in Augmentative and Alternative Communication Systematic Review Scale. We extracted critical elements summarizing findings of each review. Results: One article met standards of methodologic rigor. While search methods were well-described across reviews, rigor in data extraction and analyses were lacking. The reviewed studies identified strategy instruction as the most effective approach to improve writing for students with LD. Conclusions: Evidence suggests explicit instruction and goal-setting approaches may benefit students with LD who demonstrate writing difficulties. Findings suggest the need for increased rigor when conducting these reviews to optimize evidence-based writing interventions for students with LD.
引用
收藏
页码:32 / 44
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Appraising systematic reviews and meta-analyses
    Bigby, M
    Williams, H
    ARCHIVES OF DERMATOLOGY, 2003, 139 (06) : 795 - 798
  • [42] Interpreting meta-analyses in systematic reviews
    Perera, Rafael
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2009, 150 (04)
  • [43] Glossary for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
    Nagendrababu, V
    Dilokthornsakul, P.
    Jinatongthai, P.
    Veettil, S. K.
    Pulikkotil, S. J.
    Duncan, H. F.
    Dummer, P. M. H.
    INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL, 2020, 53 (02) : 232 - 249
  • [44] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in surgery
    Diener, M. K.
    Seiler, C. M.
    Antes, G.
    CHIRURG, 2007, 78 (10): : 938 - 944
  • [45] Understanding Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
    Koretz, Ronald L.
    Lipman, Timothy O.
    JOURNAL OF PARENTERAL AND ENTERAL NUTRITION, 2017, 41 (03) : 316 - 323
  • [46] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses "For Dummies"
    Biondi-Zoccai, Giuseppe G. L.
    Abbate, Antonio
    Sheiban, Imad
    EUROINTERVENTION, 2009, 5 (03) : 289 - 291
  • [47] NUTS AND BOLTS OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES, INCLUDING NETWORK META-ANALYSES
    Juni, P.
    OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE, 2019, 27 : S20 - S20
  • [48] Reporting quality in abstracts of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
    Rice, Danielle B.
    Kloda, Lorie A.
    Shrier, Ian
    Thombs, Brett D.
    BMJ OPEN, 2016, 6 (11):
  • [49] Challenges in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Mediation Analyses
    Vo, Tat-Thang
    Vansteelandt, Stijn
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 191 (06) : 1098 - 1106
  • [50] Quality of abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals
    Pulikkotil, S. J.
    Jayaraman, J.
    Nagendrababu, V
    EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY, 2019, 20 (05) : 383 - 391