scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reading and Writing Interventions for Students with Disorders of Intellectual Development

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 638
Author(s):  
Randi Karine Bakken ◽  
Kari-Anne B. Næss ◽  
Christopher J. Lemons ◽  
Hanne Næss Hjetland
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cognitive Skills ◽  
Intellectual Development ◽  
Word Reading ◽  
Reading Interventions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Sight Word ◽  
Writing Interventions ◽  
Quasi Experimental

Students with disorders of intellectual development (ID) experience challenges in reading and writing, indicating the need for research-based interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of reading and writing interventions for students aged 4–19 with disorders of ID using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental designs (QEDs). We conducted electronic searches of relevant databases, backward and forward searches, and contacted experts in the field. Based on predefined criteria, nine studies were included in the systematic review, and seven were included in the meta-analysis. The reading interventions included decoding strategies, often combined with sight-word and supplemental instructions appropriate to the participants’ adaptive and cognitive skills. None of the studies aimed to increase writing skills. The overall mean effect size from the reading interventions for trained reading was large (g = 0.95, 95% CI = [0.51, 1.38]), for transfer reading small-to-moderate (g = 0.49, 95% CI = [0.20, 0.78]) and for transfer writing small (g = 0.04, 95% CI = [−0.36, 0.44]). Students with disorders of ID can benefit from reading interventions combining decoding strategies and sight word reading. There is a need for RCT and QED studies investigating writing interventions for students with disorders of ID only.

The effectiveness of hope-fostering interventions in palliative care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 026921632199472
Author(s):  
Natalia Salamanca-Balen ◽  
Thomas V Merluzzi ◽  
Man Chen
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Medium Effect ◽  
Spiritual Well Being ◽  
Quasi Experimental

Background: The concept of hope is an important theme in chronic illness and palliative care and has been associated with increased psycho-spiritual well-being and quality of life. Psycho-spiritual interventions have been described in this population, but no systematic review of hope-enhancing interventions or hopelessness-reducing interventions has been conducted for persons with palliative care diseases. Aim: To describe and assess the effectiveness of interventions in palliative care that measure hope and/or hopelessness as an outcome. Design: This systematic review and meta-analysis was pre-registered (Prospero ID: CRD42019119956). Data sources: Electronic databases, journals, and references were searched. We used the Cochrane criteria to assess the risk of bias within studies. Results: Thirty-five studies (24 randomized controlled trials, 5 quasi-experimental, 6 pre-post studies) involving a total of 3296 palliative care patients were included. Compared with usual/standard cancer care alone, interventions significantly increased hope levels at a medium effect size ( g = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.28–0.93) but did not significantly reduce hopelessness ( g = −0.08, 95% CI = −0.18 to 0.02). It was found that interventions significantly increase spirituality ( g = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.02–1.37) and decrease depression ( g = −0.29, 95% CI = −0.51 to −0.07), but had no significant effect over anxiety, quality of life, and symptom burden. Overall, quality of evidence across the included studies was rated as low. Conclusions: Evidence suggests that interventions can be effective in increasing hope in palliative care patients.

What Does Science Say About Orton-Gillingham Interventions? An Explanation and Commentary on the Stevens et al. (2021) Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Solari ◽  
Yaacov Petscher ◽  
Colby Hall
Keyword(s):  
Word Reading ◽  
Reading Interventions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reading Difficulties ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Exceptional Children ◽  
Reading Research ◽  
Education Science ◽  
Clear Description

A recent meta-analysis published in Exceptional Children (Stevens et al., 2021) looked at the effects of Orton-Gillingham (OG) reading interventions on reading outcomes for students who have word reading difficulties. The results of the study have led to questions and lively conversation among practitioners and reading researchers. One of the things that is important about science is that it is constantly evolving: this is true in education science as much as it is in the health sciences. Because this journal is committed to translating empirical findings from reading research in order to make education science accessible to practitioners, the intent of this commentary is to provide a clear description of the findings reported in this recent meta-analysis, addressing the degree to which they align with those reported in similar reviews of OG interventions. We discuss the degree to which the findings represent an evolution of reading science and their implications for instructional practice, policy, and future research.

Multicomponent Reading Interventions for Students With Intellectual Disability

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 229-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kemal Afacan ◽  
Kimber L. Wilkerson ◽  
Andrea L. Ruppar
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
General Education ◽  
Reading Instruction ◽  
Reading Skills ◽  
Word Reading ◽  
Reading Interventions ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Sight Word ◽  
The Impact

Reading instruction for students with intellectual disability (ID) has traditionally focused on single skill instruction such as sight word reading. Given that multicomponent reading interventions have been linked to improved reading skills across multiple reading components for students in general education, it is logical to examine the impact of multicomponent reading interventions for students with ID. The purpose of this literature review was to examine characteristics, outcomes, and quality of multicomponent reading interventions for students with ID. In this review, seven empirical articles fit the inclusionary criteria. Findings indicate that students with ID who were exposed to multicomponent reading programs significantly improved their reading skills compared to their peers with ID who received traditional sight word instruction or to their previous reading performance. This literature review highlights effective strategies used to provide multicomponent reading instruction to students with ID. Implications for reading instruction for students with ID are provided, along with implications for future research.

Are Reading Interventions for English Language Learners Effective? A Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 220-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caralyn Ludwig ◽  
Kan Guo ◽  
George K. Georgiou
Keyword(s):  
English Language Learners ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Reading Fluency ◽  
English Language ◽  
Reading Skills ◽  
Word Reading ◽  
Reading Interventions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reading Accuracy ◽  
Positive Effects

Despite concerted efforts to improve the reading skills of English language learners (ELLs), it remains unclear if the interventions they have been receiving produce any positive results. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine how effective reading interventions are in improving ELLs’ reading skills and what factors may influence their effectiveness. Twenty-six studies with reported outcomes for pretest and posttest were selected, and four moderators (group size, intensity of intervention, students’ risk status, and type of intervention) were coded. The results of random-effects analyses showed that the reading interventions had a large effect on ELLs’ reading accuracy ( d = 1.221) and reading fluency ( d = 0.802) and a moderate effect on reading comprehension ( d = 0.499). In addition, for real-word reading accuracy, intervention groups composed of more than five students were less effective than groups composed of two to five students, and longer intervention sessions were less effective than shorter ones. Overall, our findings suggest that reading interventions have positive effects on ELLs’ reading skills, and they should not be delayed until these students have reached a certain level of oral English proficiency.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Digital Interventions for Psychological Well-Being in the Workplace: A Systematic Review Protocol

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Armaou ◽  
Stathis Konstantinidis ◽  
Holly Blake
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Psychological Well Being ◽  
Scientific Databases ◽  
Digital Interventions ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Mental Well Being

Objective: Psychological well-being has been associated with desirable individual and organisational outcomes. This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of digital interventions for the improvement of psychological well-being and/or the prevention/management of poor mental well-being in the workplace. Methods: This review protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019142428). Scientific databases including MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE will be searched for relevant studies published between January 1990 and July 2019. Studies will be included if they report specific primary and secondary outcomes of digital interventions delivered to adults in the workplace for the improvement of their psychological wellbeing and/or the prevention/management of poor mental well-being and were published in English. Following screening of titles and abstracts, full texts of potentially eligible papers will be screened in duplicate to identify studies that assess the effectiveness of those digital interventions. Discrepancies will be resolved through consensus or by consulting a third reviewer. An integrated narrative synthesis will assess included studies’ findings, and a meta-analysis will be performed if included studies appear to be homogeneous. The “Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias” tool and the JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies will be used to appraise included studies. Conclusion: The results of this work will provide recommendations on the use of digital interventions for the promotion of psychological well-being at work. It will also guide the development of future workplace digital interventions and subsequent primary research in this field.

scholarly journals Do early life “non-cognitive skills” matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis of early life effects on academic achievement, psychosocial, language and cognitive, and health outcomes

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa G. Smithers ◽  
Alyssa C. P. Sawyer ◽  
Catherine R. Chittleborough ◽  
Neil Davies ◽  
George Davey Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Academic Achievement ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Early Life ◽  
Cognitive Skills ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Sample Type ◽  
Cross Sectional

AbstractBackgroundSuccess in school and the labour market is due to more than just high intelligence. Associations between traits such as attention, self-regulation, and perseverance in childhood, and later outcomes have been investigated by psychologists, economists, and epidemiologists. Such traits have been loosely referred to as “non-cognitive” skills. There has been no attempt to systematically assess the relative importance of non-cognitive skills in early life on later outcomes.MethodsThe systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42013006566) in December 2013. We systematically reviewed electronic databases covering psychology, education, health and economics for articles published from database conception until September 2015. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility, and from eligible articles data was extracted on study design, sample type and size, age of participants at exposure and outcome, loss to follow up, measurement of exposure and outcome, type of intervention and comparison group, confounding adjustment and results. Where possible we extracted a standardised effect size. We reviewed all studies and rated their evidence quality as ‘better, weak, or poor’ on the basis of study design and potential for confounding, selection and measurement bias.ResultsWe reviewed 375 studies and provided interpretation of results from 142 (38%) better quality studies comprising randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental, fixed effects including twin studies, longitudinal and some cross-sectional designs that made reasonable attempts to control confounding. In the academic achievement category outcomes were reported in 78 publications of better quality studies which were consistent with 0.1-0.2 SD effects.Psychosocial outcomes were reported in 65 better quality studies consistent with effects of 0.3-0.4 SD. For the language and cognitive category there were 42 publications reporting better quality studies consistent with effects of 0.3-0.4 SD. For physical health, results across only eight better quality studies were inconsistent but centred around zero. Analysis of funnel plots consistently showed asymmetric distributions, raising the potential of small study bias which may inflate these observed effects.ConclusionsThe evidence under-pinning the importance of non-cognitive skills for life success is diverse and inconsistent. Nevertheless, there is tentative evidence from published studies that non-cognitive skills associate with modest improvements in academic achievement, psychosocial, and language and cognitive outcomes with effects in the range of 0.2-0.4 SD. The quality of evidence under-pinning this field is generally low with more than a third of studies making little or no attempt to control even the most basic confounding (endogeneity) bias. The evidence could be improved by adequately powering studies, and using procedures and tools that improve the conduct and reporting of RCTs and observational studies. Interventions designed to develop children’s non-cognitive skills could potentially improve opportunities, particularly for disadvantaged children. The inter-disciplinary researchers interested in these skills should take a more rigorous approach to determine which interventions are most effective.

scholarly journals Virtual Reality for Health Professions Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bhone Myint Kyaw ◽  
Nakul Saxena ◽  
Pawel Posadzki ◽  
Jitka Vseteckova ◽  
Charoula Konstantia Nikolaou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Cognitive Skills ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Traditional Learning ◽  
Digital Education

BACKGROUND Virtual reality (VR) is a technology that allows the user to explore and manipulate computer-generated real or artificial three-dimensional multimedia sensory environments in real time to gain practical knowledge that can be used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of VR for educating health professionals and improving their knowledge, cognitive skills, attitudes, and satisfaction. METHODS We performed a systematic review of the effectiveness of VR in pre- and postregistration health professions education following the gold standard Cochrane methodology. We searched 7 databases from the year 1990 to August 2017. No language restrictions were applied. We included randomized controlled trials and cluster-randomized trials. We independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, and then, we compared the information in pairs. We contacted authors of the studies for additional information if necessary. All pooled analyses were based on random-effects models. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of the body of evidence. RESULTS A total of 31 studies (2407 participants) were included. Meta-analysis of 8 studies found that VR slightly improves postintervention knowledge scores when compared with traditional learning (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.44; 95% CI 0.18-0.69; I2=49%; 603 participants; moderate certainty evidence) or other types of digital education such as online or offline digital education (SMD=0.43; 95% CI 0.07-0.79; I2=78%; 608 participants [8 studies]; low certainty evidence). Another meta-analysis of 4 studies found that VR improves health professionals’ cognitive skills when compared with traditional learning (SMD=1.12; 95% CI 0.81-1.43; I2=0%; 235 participants; large effect size; moderate certainty evidence). Two studies compared the effect of VR with other forms of digital education on skills, favoring the VR group (SMD=0.5; 95% CI 0.32-0.69; I2=0%; 467 participants; moderate effect size; low certainty evidence). The findings for attitudes and satisfaction were mixed and inconclusive. None of the studies reported any patient-related outcomes, behavior change, as well as unintended or adverse effects of VR. Overall, the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE criteria ranged from low to moderate. We downgraded our certainty of evidence primarily because of the risk of bias and/or inconsistency. CONCLUSIONS We found evidence suggesting that VR improves postintervention knowledge and skills outcomes of health professionals when compared with traditional education or other types of digital education such as online or offline digital education. The findings on other outcomes are limited. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of immersive and interactive forms of VR and evaluate other outcomes such as attitude, satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, and clinical practice or behavior change.

scholarly journals Are digital technology interventions effective to reduce loneliness in older adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah ◽  
David Nogueras ◽  
Hugo Cornelis van Woerden ◽  
Vasiliki Kiparoglou
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Quasi Experimental

Objective: To review the latest literature on the effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness in (older) adults. Data Sources: Electronic searches in PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science covering publication period from 1 January 2010 to 31 July 2019. Subjects: Adult men and women Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis Main Outcome Measure: Loneliness. Study Selection: Primary studies that used DTIs for tackling loneliness in adults (aged ≥18 years) with follow-up measurements at least three months or more and publication in the English language. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two researchers independently screened articles and extracted data on several variables: participants, interventions, comparators and outcomes. Data was extracted on the primary outcome i.e. loneliness measured at the baseline and follow-up measurements at three, four, six and twelve months after the intervention. Results: Six studies were selected from 4939 articles screened. Selected studies included 5 clinical trials (4 RCTs and 1 quasi experimental study) and one before and after study, which enrolled 646 participants (men =154 (24%), women =427 (66%), no gender information =65 (10%) with average age between 73 and 78 years (SD 6-11). Five clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis and standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated for each trial and pooled across studies using a random effects model. The overall effect estimates were not statistically significant in follow-up measurements at three months (SMD= 0.02, 95% CI= -0.36, 0.40; P=0.92), four months (SMDs= -1.11, 95% CI= -2.60, 0.38; P=0.14) and six months (SMD= -0.11, 95% CI= -0.54, 0.32; P=0.61). The quality of evidence was very low to moderate in these trials. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to make conclusions that DTIs are effective in reducing loneliness in older adults. Future research may consider RCTs with larger sample sizes and longer duration of interventions and follow-up.

Differentiated Literacy Instruction: Boondoggle or Best Practice?

2020 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-498
Author(s):  
Kelly Puzio ◽  
Glenn T. Colby ◽  
Dana Algeo-Nichols
Keyword(s):  
General Education ◽  
Literacy Instruction ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Word Reading ◽  
Classroom Teacher ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Letter Word ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
The Individual

With increasingly diverse students, schools and districts are under pressure to meet rigorous standards and raise student achievement in reading and literacy. Most teachers respond by differentiating their instruction to some extent, but not all scholars and educators agree on whether differentiated instruction works. This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to determine the effects of Tier 1 differentiation, which is provided by the general education classroom teacher, on literacy outcomes. Distinguishing between designed differentiation and interactional differentiation, the authors provide multiple examples of content, process, and product differentiation in the context of literacy instruction. Reviewing more than 20 years of literacy research, the authors located 18 studies with 25 study cohorts. Outcomes include fluency, decoding, letter-word reading, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing achievement. The overall weighted mean effect size (g) was +0.13 (p = .002) with 88% of the individual point estimates being positive. Overall, the findings indicate that differentiated literacy instruction is an effective evidence-based practice at the elementary level. When teachers are supported to differentiate instruction, students have significantly higher literacy achievement scores, particularly for letter-word (g = +0.20, p = .014) and writing outcomes (g = +0.96, p < .001). The most successful programs took very different approaches to differentiation, including individualization, choice, and an alternate curriculum. However, across the studies, there was an alarming lack of information about the decision-making processes used to guide differentiation and there were no experimental or quasi-experimental studies on guided reading. This review may be helpful as schools clarify their vision for literacy differentiation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document