我国农村教师心理健康状况的元分析

目的：对1998年至2007年10年来关于农村教师心理健康的研究进行评价总结。方法：搜索国内10年来借助症状自评量表（SCL-90）来研究农村教师心理健康的研究文献,对其结果进行多水平分析技术的元分析。结果：在与国内常模的对照中,躯体化、抑郁、焦虑、偏执、精神病性5个因子的95％可信限（95％CI）均未包括＂“0”;在性别因素上,躯体化、抑郁、焦虑、恐怖4个因子的95％可信限未包含“0”;在“已婚-未婚”对照中,各因子的95％可信限未包含“0”。结论：农村教师心理健康水平较城市教师偏低,女性农村教师心理健康状况较男性差;已婚农村教师的心理健康水平较未婚者差。     

Individual participant data meta-analysis of the impact of educational interventions on pupils eligible for Free School Meals

Meta-analysis is the synthesis of findings from research projects, which enables an estimate of the average or pooled effect across various studies. This study presents findings from the intention to treat analysis for a series of educational evaluations in England using a two-stage meta-analysis with standardised outcome data and individual participant data meta-analyses. The research estimates the overall impact of educational trials on pupils eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) and the attainment gap in literacy and mathematics performance between FSM and non-FSM pupils based on analysis of 88 trials and data from over half a million pupils. For the meta-analyses, frequentist and Bayesian multilevel models were used to estimate the individual and pooled effect size across categories of explanatory variables such as age groups (key stages in England) and aspects of the type of interventions (one-to-one, small group, whole class). Results indicated that the overall impact of interventions on the literacy outcomes of FSM pupils was positive, with a pooled effect size of 0.06 (0.03, 0.08). However, for mathematics, no overall effect on FSM pupils was observed. Analysis of the attainment gap indicated that literacy outcomes for FSM pupils were improved by interventions marginally more than for non-FSM pupils (pooled attainment gap 0.01 (−0.01, 0.04)). The risk of bias assessment showed that estimates were consistent across different methodological approaches. Overall, evidence from this study can be used to identify, test and scale educational interventions in schools to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged pupils.     

PUBLICATION BIAS: THE ACHILLES' HEEL OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS?

ABSTRACT:  The term 'publication bias' usually refers to the tendency for a greater proportion of statistically significant positive results of experiments to be published and, conversely, a greater proportion of statistically significant negative or null results not to be published. It is widely accepted in the fields of healthcare and psychological research to be a major threat to the validity of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Some methodological work has previously been undertaken, by the author and others, in the field of educational research to investigate the extent of the problem. This paper describes the problem of publication bias with reference to its history in a number of fields, with special reference to the area of educational research. Informal methods for detecting publication bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of controlled trials are outlined and retrospective and prospective methods for dealing with the problem are suggested.     

Communicating comparative findings from meta-analysis in educational research: some examples and suggestions

ABSTRACT

This article reviews some of the strengths and limitations of the comparative use of meta-analysis findings, using examples from the Sutton Trust-Education Endowment Foundation Teaching and Learning ‘Toolkit’ which summarizes a range of educational approaches to improve pupil attainment in schools. This comparative use of quantitative findings has similar characteristics to umbrella reviews which provide a succinct but applicable summary of the current state of evidence to inform practice or policy. Meta-analysis helps to identify which approaches have, on average, made the most difference to tested learning outcomes, in terms of effect size. We suggest that any comparative inferences made between meta-analyses should be treated cautiously, but taken seriously. Additionally, we present alternative ways of interpreting effect sizes, security ratings and cost-estimates to make research findings accessible, whilst retaining appropriate accuracy which is discussed using the ‘Toolkit’ as an example. We conclude by arguing that we should consider the available information not as ‘what works’, but ‘what has worked’ to understand its value and limits in terms of supporting the development of research-based practice.     

A meta-analysis on the relationship between school characteristics and student outcomes in science and maths – evidence from large-scale studies

ABSTRACT

In the present meta-analysis, we examine how secondary school characteristics – such as schools’ academic press, school climate, material resources, personnel resources, classroom climate, instructional practices, out-of-school activities, and socioeconomic status (SES) composition – provide opportunities for students to engage in science and maths, and how these matter with regard to students’ cognitive and motivational-affective outcomes. The meta-analysis includes 71 (international) articles from large-scale studies with a total of 3,960,281 students, 260,390 schools, and 285 effect sizes that were transformed to correlation coefficients. Multilevel meta-analyses were performed. Results identified a number of school variables that can be regarded as relevant for making a difference in student outcomes and at the same time be influenced by education. These refer to school variables such schools’ academic press, classroom climate, instructional practices, and out-of-school activities. Moreover, SES composition was significantly related to student outcomes. Material and personnel resources as well as school climate yielded a close to zero effect. No differences were found between cognitive and motivational-affective outcome variables or between science and maths. The results point to the most promising school characteristics for promoting students’ outcomes and emphasise schools’ potential for students’ engagement in science and maths.     

基于PRISMA声明的我国运动干预类元分析报告质量评价

目的:评价我国运动干预类元分析研究的报告质量,并分析其影响因素。方法:应用PRISMA声明中"系统评价和元分析优先报告清单"作为评估指标,评估近十年CSSCI和CSCD收录的运动干预类元分析报告质量。结果:共纳入文献68篇,运动干预类研究数量呈现逐年上升趋势。纳入论文均有不同程度的报告缺陷,主要存在标题不规范、不符合结构式摘要的要求、前言部分未报告前人的研究成果、方法学部分未报告研究方案与注册信息、研究结果不完整等问题。高、中、低质量的论文分别占22.1%、45.5%、32.4%,CSCD论文的报告质量优于CSSCI论文(t=-0.498,P=0.02)。结论:运动干预类元分析报告规范性较差,报告质量中低水平较多。"运动干预方案和注册体系的不完善"以及"元分析报告范式的随意性"是制约元分析报告质量的重要因素。     

太极拳习练过程中安全性的meta分析

摘要：太极拳风靡海内外,但是近年来有报告对其安全性提出了质疑。分析已发表的随机对照试验文献,证实太极拳安全性。检索MEDLINE/PubMed,EBSCO host和the Cochrane Library从建库到2016年2月的文献。纳入标准：1）随机对照试验;2）两组平行;3）太极拳是核心干预;4）详细报告不良反应。使用Cochrane偏倚风险评价表评估纳入文献质量。研究结果：最终24项研究（26篇文献;2003-2016年;共1794受试者）符合纳入标准。12项研究报告了完整的随机序列生成和分配隐藏。太极拳与运动或非运动干预相比,严重、一般、干预引发的不良反应均无显著差异。与非运动干预相比,包含不良反应监测预案的研究与未提及的研究在一般不良反应发生数量上有显著差异(RD=0.05,95%CI：0.00,0.10;P= 0.05)。对于心脏病人来说,太极拳干预与非运动干预相比严重不良反应发生数量存在显著差异(RD=-0.11,95% CI:-0.20, -0.03;P= 0.01)。研究结论：在随机对照实验中,太极拳干预与其他运动或非运动干预相比是安全的,特别是适合心脏病人练习。希望今后的研究采用更严谨的研究方法,纳入足够的样本量,报告高质量的不良反应数据,这样才能更好地总结归纳评价太极拳的安全性。     

BORG主观体力感等级量表的生理效度研究:一项元分析

为了明确Borg主观体力感等级量表(简称RPE)的实际效度,尤其是与心率、血乳酸、最大摄氧量(%)、摄氧量、乳酸阈、呼吸频率等的生理效度。通过使用元分析为主要手段,对主观体力感与各项生理参数之间的关系进行整合分析。结果表明:主观体力感等级与心率的加权平均效度系数为0.55,血乳酸为0.61,最大摄氧量(%)为0.65,摄氧量为0.59,通气阈为0.68,呼吸频率为0.75,其量表的总体效度并不像以往研究所提出的那样高(r=0.80-0.95)。同时,在不同的研究特征下,通过方差分析表现出较大的统计学差异,文中将对不同研究特征下的相关效度进行论述。     

反馈对儿童早期数学学习效果的影响元分析

反馈被认为是促进学生学习的最有力方式,信息技术的发展为反馈设计提供了支持.采用元分析方法考察反馈对儿童早期数学学习的影响,研究发现:反馈对儿童早期数学学习有较小的积极效果.通过调节分析发现,任务类型和反馈类型对反馈效果具有调节作用,反馈媒介、反馈时机和反馈效果测量时间对反馈效果无调节作用.未来关于反馈对儿童早期数学学习效果影响的研究,应在教育信息化背景下从任务特征、学习者特点和反馈特征3个方面综合考虑,提高反馈的针对性和个性化.     

The effects of teacher expectation interventions on teachers’ expectations and student achievement: narrative review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

This study provides a systematic review of the effects of 19 teacher expectation interventions. Prior research on teacher expectations primarily focussed on correlational relationships with student and teacher characteristics, leaving open the questions of whether it is possible to raise teacher expectations and to prevent (too) low expectations from having detrimental effects on student achievement. These questions were the scope of the current review. We distinguished 3 types of interventions: changing teacher behaviour, creating awareness of expectancy effects, and addressing the beliefs underlying the expectations. The results indicated that it was possible to raise teacher expectations and subsequent student achievement. We found summary effects of Hedges’ g?=?0.38 and 0.30, respectively. The narrative review suggested that the intervention type did not affect the effectiveness, but teacher support for the intervention did. However, verification of this suggestion with moderator analysis was not possible due to the limited number of interventions.