Download
1 / 13
130 likes | 258 Vues
This panel discussion, led by Sandra Jo Wilson from Vanderbilt University, delves into the efficacy of truancy interventions and volunteer tutoring programs. Focusing on students with attendance challenges, the session highlights significant yet variable impacts on attendance outcomes and the absence of influential moderators. With an update on previous reviews incorporating newly available literature, key topics discussed include the challenges of narrowing research questions, data collection, and the implications of definitional and language issues. The presentation emphasizes the need for rigorous methodologies in systematic reviews and encourages collaboration among experts for improved outcomes.
E N D
Education Panel SessionComments and Points for Discussion Sandra Jo Wilson Vanderbilt University Editor, Campbell Collaboration Education Coordinating Group
Truancy Interventions • Focused on students already exhibiting attendance problems. • Broad inclusion criteria in terms of study designs. • Statistically significant effects on attendance outcomes. • Also, significant variability in those effects. • And, some question about the clinical significance.
What moderates the effects of truancy interventions? • A variety of moderators was examined, including publication type and research design, participant characteristics, and intervention characteristics. • No moderator was significantly associated with larger or smaller treatment effects. • Small sample makes it difficult to detect significant moderators. • But, interesting that different modalities had similar effects, and that participant characteristics were not influential.
Volunteer Tutoring • Update of a previous review • Intervention scope is similar to the attendance intervention review • Participant scope is broader • Broader array of outcomes • Inclusion regarding research designs more stringent • Statistically significant affects on most of the achievement outcomes • Comprehension and mathematics not significant
Updating a Previous Review • Including newly available literature and broadening the geographic scope • This should give us greater opportunities for examining variability • New innovations in meta-analysis methodology make updating reviews attractive from a methodological standpoint, in addition to the obvious policy relevance.
Discussion Points • What challenges did you face in narrowing down your question? • What challenges did you face in gathering necessary data from source studies? • What areas of support would make it easier for you to do a review like this in the future? • What were the difficult choices you had to make during the study collection process or the review process?
Scoping a Review • The research question • Are you interested in whether a particular program is effective vs. are you interested in what best improves some problem? • What research designs would be the best for answering such a question? • What designs are actually used.
Other Scoping Considerations • Your constituents • Your funding agency • The users • Budget
Challenges in the Conduct of a Review • Definitional and language challenges • Has implications for your search, for the scope, for how you combine (or not) outcomes in a meta-analysis, and for moderator analysis • What is truancy, how is it different from school refusal or attendance problems? • Programs with different labels but the same content? • Missing or vaguely reported data in primary studies
Support and Training for Conducting a Review • Creating the ideal review team • Content and methods experts • Making contact with other groups who may have access to different resources • Can help with the search and with definitional issues
Other Discussion Points? • Reporting relevant and useful reviews • How do we create useful systematic reviews? • Questions for our review authors? • Other topics?
Thank you to Brandy and Sarah And our audience! Sandra Jo Wilson email: sandra.j.wilson@vanderbilt.edu
