Protocol: Interventions aimed at preventing out-of-home placement of children: A systematic review.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The aim of the present review is to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of interventions for at-risk families aimed at preventing the out-of-home placement of children or increasing the likelihood that children are reunited with their birth families following temporary care arrangements. The review has two objectives: (1) To assess the effectiveness of interventions for at-risk families with children aged between 0 and 17 years old on measures of out-of-home placement and on secondary outcomes. (2) To identify factors that modify intervention effectiveness (e.g., prior placements, parental risk factors such as substance abuse, mental health issues, age, minority status, child risk factors such as disabilities, age, and gender).

Occupational health and safety regulatory interventions to improve the work environment: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies.

Background: Unsafe and unhealthy working conditions lead to injuries and financial losses across the globe, resulting in a need for research into effective work environment interventions. Objectives: The objective of this evidence and gap map (EGM) is to provide an overview of existing systematic reviews and primary studies examining the effects of occupational health and safety regulatory interventions. Search Methods: Relevant studies are identified through searches in published and unpublished literature performed up to January 2023. Selection Criteria: The population for this EGM is workers above the age of 15 and their workplaces within the OECD. We include randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies with a comparison of two or more groups of participants, and systematic reviews of effects. Data Collection and Analysis: The map has been populated based on information about interventions and outcomes, study design, OECD country, and publication status. We have performed critical appraisal of included systematic reviews using an adjusted version of the AMSTAR-2 tool. Main Results: The included studies for this report consist of six systematic reviews, 28 primary effect studies, and three on-going studies. The interactive map shows that the largest cluster of studies is located in the inspection activity domain, while the sickness absence outcome domain and the intervention categories for training initiatives and formulation of regulatory standards are only scarcely populated. Additionally, the AMSTAR-appraisal suggests a lack of rigorous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors' Conclusions: More research in the form of primary studies and rigorous systematic reviews is needed to provide stakeholders with better guidance as to what constitutes the most efficient regulatory approaches to improve the work environment.

The effects of small class sizes on students' academic achievement, socioemotional development and well-being in special education: A systematic review.

Background: Class size reductions in general education are some of the most researched educational interventions in social science, yet researchers have not reached any final conclusions regarding their effects. While research on the relationship between general education class size and student achievement is plentiful, research on class size in special education is scarce, even though class size issues must be considered particularly important to students with special educational needs. These students compose a highly diverse group in terms of diagnoses, functional levels, and support needs, but they share a common need for special educational accommodations, which often entails additional instructional support in smaller units than what is normally provided in general education. At this point, there is however a lack of clarity as to the effects of special education class sizes on student academic achievement and socioemotional development. Inevitably, such lack of clarity is an obstacle for special educators and policymakers trying to make informed decisions. This highlights the policy relevance of the current systematic review, in which we sought to examine the effects of small class sizes in special education on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well-being of children with special educational needs. Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to uncover and synthesise data from studies to assess the impact of small class sizes on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well-being of students with special educational needs. We also aimed to investigate the extent to which the effects differed among subgroups of students. Finally, we planned to perform a qualitative exploration of the experiences of children, teachers, and parents with class size issues in special education. Search Methods: Relevant studies were identified through electronic searches in bibliographic databases, searches in grey literature resources, searches using Internet search engines, hand-searches of specific targeted journals, and citation-tracking. The following bibliographic databases were searched in April 2021: ERIC (EBSCO-host), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO-host), EconLit (EBSCO-host), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO-host), SocINDEX (EBSCO-host), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), and Web of Science (Clarivate, Science Citation Index Expanded & Social Sciences Citation Index). EBSCO OPEN Dissertations was also searched in April 2021, while the remaining searches for grey literature, hand-searches in key journals, and citation-tracking took place between January and May 2022. Selection Criteria: The intervention in this review was a small special education class size. Eligible quantitative study designs were studies that used a well-defined control or comparison group, that is, studies where there was a comparison between students in smaller classes and students in larger classes. Children with special educational needs in grades K-12 (or the equivalent in European countries) in special education were eligible. In addition to exploring the effects of small class sizes in special education from a quantitative perspective, we aimed to gain insight into the lived experiences of children, teachers, and parents with class size issues in special education contexts, as they are presented in the qualitative research literature. The review therefore also included all types of empirical qualitative studies that collected primary data and provided descriptions of main methodological issues such as selection of informants, data collection procedures, and type of data analysis. Eligible qualitative study designs included but were not limited to studies using ethnographic observation or field work formats, or qualitative interview techniques applied to individual or focus group conversations. Data Collection and Analysis: The literature search yielded a total of 26,141 records which were screened for eligibility based on title and abstract. From these, 262 potentially relevant records were retrieved and screened in full text, resulting in seven studies being included: three quantitative and five qualitative studies (one study contained both eligible quantitative and qualitative data). Two of the quantitative studies could not be used in the data synthesis as they were judged to have a critical risk of bias and, in accordance with the protocol, were excluded from the meta-analysis on the basis that they would be more likely to mislead than inform. The third quantitative study did not provide enough information enabling us to calculate an effect size and standard error. Meta-analysis was therefore not possible. Following quality appraisal of the qualitative studies, three qualitative studies were judged to be of sufficient methodological quality. It was not possible to perform a qualitative thematic synthesis since in two of these studies, findings particular to special education class size were scarce. Therefore, only descriptive data extraction could be performed. Main Results: Despite the comprehensive searches, the present review only included seven studies published between 1926 and 2020. Two studies were purely quantitative (Forness, 1985; Metzner, 1926) and from the U.S. Four studies used qualitative methodology (Gottlieb, 1997; Huang, 2020; Keith, 1993; Prunty, 2012) and were from the US (2), China (1), and Ireland (1). One study, MAGI Educational Services (1995), contained both eligible quantitative and qualitative data and was from the U.S. Authors' Conclusions: The major finding of the present review was that there were virtually no contemporary quantitative studies exploring the effects of small class sizes in special education, thus making it impossible to perform a meta-analysis. More research is therefore thoroughly needed. Findings from the summary of included qualitative studies reflected that to the special education students and staff members participating in these studies, smaller class sizes were the preferred option because they allowed for more individualised instruction time and increased teacher attention to students' diverse needs. It should be noted that these studies were few in number and took place in very diverse contexts and across a large time span. There is a need for more qualitative research into the views and experiences of teachers, parents, and school administrators with special education class sizes in different local contexts and across various provision models. But most importantly, future research should strive to represent the voices of children and young people with special needs since they are the experts when it comes to matters concerning their own lives.

Adult/child ratio and group size in early childhood education or care to promote the development of children aged 0-5 years: A systematic review.

Background: Worldwide, a large number of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers are enroled in formal non-parental early childhood education or care (ECEC). Theoretically, lower adult/child ratios (fewer children per adult) and smaller group sizes are hypothesised to be associated with positive child outcomes in ECEC. A lower adult/child ratio and a smaller group size may increase both the extent and quality of adult/child interactions during the day. Objectives: The objective of this review is to synthesise data from studies to assess the impact of adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC on measures of process characteristics of quality of care and on child outcomes. Search Methods: Relevant studies were identified through electronic searches of bibliographic databases, governmental and grey literature repositories, Internet search engines, hand search of specific targeted journals, citation tracking and contact to experts. The primary searches were carried out up to September 2020. Additional searches were carried out in February 2022. Selection Criteria: The intervention was changes to adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC with children aged 0-5 years old. All study designs that used a well-defined control group were eligible for inclusion. Data Collection and Analysis: The total number of potential relevant studies constituted 14,060 hits. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria and were critically appraised by the review authors. The 31 studies analysed 26 different populations. Only 12 studies analysing 8 different populations (N = 4300) could be used in the data synthesis. Included studies were published between 1968 and 2019, and the average publication year was 1992. We used random-effects meta-analysis, applying both robust-variance estimation and restricted maximum likelihood procedures to synthesise effect sizes. We conducted separate analyses for process quality measures and language and literacy measures. Main Results: The meta-analysis using measures of process quality as the outcome included 84 effect sizes, 5 studies, and 6256 observations. The weighted average effect size was positive but not statistically significant (effect size [ES] = 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [-0.07, 0.27]) using robust-variance estimation. The adjusted degrees of freedom were below 4 (df = 1.5), meaning that the results were unreliable. Similarly, the low number of studies made the estimation of heterogeneity statistics difficult. The I 2 and τ 2 estimates were both 0, and the Q-statistic 2.3 (p = 0.69). We found a similar, but statistically significant, weighted average effect size using a restricted maximum likelihood procedure (ES = 0.10, 95% CI = [0.004, 0.20]), and similar low levels of heterogeneity (Q = 0.7, I 2 = 0%, τ 2 = 0). The meta-analysis of language and literacy outcomes is based on three studies exploring different changes to group size and/or adult/child ratio in ECEC. The meta-analysis of language and literacy measures included 12 effect sizes, 3 studies, and 14,625 observations. The weighted average effect size was negative but not statistically significant (ES = -0.04, 95% CI = [-0.61, 0.53]) using the robust variance estimation procedure. The adjusted degrees of freedom were again below 4 (df = 1.9) and the results were unreliable. The heterogeneity statistics indicated substantial heterogeneity (Q = 9.3, I 2 = 78.5%, τ 2 = 0.07). The restricted maximum likelihood procedure yielded similar results (ES = -0.06, 95% CI = [-0.57, 0.46], Q = 6.1, I 2 = 64.3%, τ 2 = 0.03). Authors' Conclusions: The main finding of the present review is that there are surprisingly few quantitative studies exploring the effects of changes to adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC on measures of process quality and on child outcomes. The overall quality of the included studies was low, and only two randomised studies were used in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias in the majority of included studies was high, also in studies used in the meta-analysis. Due to the limited number of studies that could be used in the data synthesis, we were unable to explore the effects of adult/child ratio and group size separately. No study that examined the effects of changes of the adult/child-ratio and/or group size on socio-emotional child outcomes could be included in the meta-analysis. No high quality study examined the effects of large changes in adult/child ratio and group size on measures of process quality, or explored effects for children younger than 2 years. We included few studies (3) in the meta-analysis that investigated measures of language and literacy and results for these outcomes were inconclusive. In one specification, we found a small statistically significant effect on process quality, suggesting that fewer children per adult and smaller group sizes do increase the process quality in ECEC. Caution regarding the interpretation must be exerted due to the heterogeneity of the study designs, the limited number of studies, and the generally high risk of bias within the included studies. Results of the present review have implications for both research and practice. First, findings from the present review tentatively support the theoretical hypothesis that lower adult/child ratios (fewer children per adult) and smaller group sizes beneficially influence process quality in ECEC. This hypothesis is reflected in the existence of standards and regulation on the minimum requirements regarding adult/child ratios and maximum group size in ECEC. However, the research literature to date provides little guidance on what the appropriate adult/child ratios and group sizes are. Second, findings from the present review may be seen as a testimony to the urgent need for more contemporary high-quality research exploring the effects of changes in adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC on measures of process quality and child developmental and socio-emotional outcomes.

PROTOCOL: Occupational health and safety regulatory interventions to improve the work environment: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: provide an overview of the existing evidence base by identifying available systematic reviews and primary effectiveness studies, identify clusters of evidence suitable for a systematic review and identify gaps in evidence where primary research is needed.

PROTOCOL: Testing frequency and student achievement: A systematic review.

This is the protocol for a Campbell review. Our primary research question is: What are the effects of different testing frequencies on student achievement? Our secondary research question is: What are the effects of different testing frequencies on measures of students' testing anxiety? Our third research question is: How are the effects of different testing frequencies on student achievement and testing anxiety moderated by subject, grade, type of test, duration of the intervention, and gender?

The effects of inclusion on academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special educational needs.

Background: Considering the rapid global movement towards inclusion for students with special educational needs (SEN), there is a surprising lack of pedagogical or didactic theories regarding the ways in which inclusive education may affect students with SEN. Group composition within the educational setting may play a role in determining the academic achievement, socio-emotional development, and wellbeing of students with SEN. Proponents of inclusion propose that segregated educational placement causes stigmatisation and social isolation which may have detrimental effects on the self-concept and self-confidence of students with SEN. On the other hand, opponents of inclusion for all special needs students suggest that placement in general education classrooms may have adverse effects especially if the time and resources allocated for individualisation are not aligned with student needs. Since the 1980s, a number of reviews on the effects of inclusion have been published. Results are inconsistent, and several reviews point to a number of methodological challenges and weaknesses of the study designs within primary studies. In sum, the impact of inclusion on students with SEN may be hypothesised to be both positive and negative, and the current knowledge base is inconsistent. Objectives: The objective was first: To uncover and synthesise data from contemporary studies to assess the effects of inclusion on measures of academic achievement, socio-emotional development, and wellbeing of children with special needs when compared to children with special needs who receive special education in a segregated setting.A secondary objective was to explore how potential moderators (gender, age, type and severity of special need, part or full time inclusive education, and co-teaching) relate to outcomes. Search Methods: Relevant studies were identified through electronic searches in Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO), EconLit (EBSCO), ERIC (EBSCO), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web Of Science), Social Sciences Citation Index (Web Of Science), and SocINDEX (EBSCO). The database searches were completed on 24 April 2021 and other resources: grey literature repositories, hand search in targeted journals and Internet search engines were searched in August/September 2021. The search was limited to studies reported after 2000. Selection Criteria: The review included studies of children with special needs in grades K to 12 in the OECD countries. Children with all types of verifiable SEN were eligible. Inclusion refers to an educational setting with a mixture of children with and without SEN. Segregation refers to the separate education of children with SEN. All studies that compared inclusive versus segregated educational settings for children with SEN were eligible. Qualitative studies were not included. Data Collection and Analysis: The total number of potentially relevant studies constituted 20,183 hits. A total of 94 studies met the inclusion criteria, all were non-randomised studies. The 94 studies analysed data from 19 different countries. Only 15 studies could be used in the data synthesis. Seventy-nine studies could not be used in the data synthesis as they were judged to be of critical risk of bias and, in accordance with the protocol, were excluded from the meta-analysis on the basis that they would be more likely to mislead than inform. The 15 studies came from nine different countries. Separate meta-analyses were conducted on conceptually distinct outcomes. All analyses were inverse variance weighted using random effects statistical models. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of pooled effect sizes across components of risk of bias. Main Results: The average baseline year of the interventions analysed in the 15 studies used for meta-analysis was 2006, ranging from 1998 to 2012. The average number of participants analysed in the interventions was 151, ranging from 10 to 1357, and the average number of controls was 261, ranging from 5 to 2752. The studies included children with multiple types of disabilities such as learning disorders/intellectual disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, ADHD, physical handicaps, visual impairments, and Down syndrome. At most, the results from eight studies could be pooled in any of the meta-analyses. All the meta-analyses showed a weighted average that favoured the intervention group. None of them were statistically significant. The random effects weighted standardised mean difference was 0.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.01 to 0.42) for overall psychosocial adjustment; 0.04 (95% CI: -0.27 to 0.35) for language and literacy learning outcomes, and 0.05 (95% CI: -0.16 to 0.26) for math learning outcomes. There were no appreciable changes in the results as indicated by the sensitivity analyses. There was some inconsistency in the direction and magnitude of the effect sizes between the primary studies in all analyses and a moderate amount of heterogeneity. We attempted to investigate the heterogeneity by single factor sub-group analyses, but results were inconclusive. Authors' Conclusions: The overall methodological quality of the included studies was low, and no experimental studies in which children were randomly assigned to intervention and control conditions were found. The 15 studies, which could be used in the data synthesis, were all, except for one, judged to be in serious risk of bias. Results of the meta-analyses do not suggest on average any sizeable positive or negative effects of inclusion on children's academic achievement as measured by language, literacy, and math outcomes or on the overall psychosocial adjustment of children. The average point estimates favoured inclusion, though small and not statistically significant, heterogeneity was present in all analyses, and there was inconsistency in direction and magnitude of the effect sizes. This finding is similar to the results of previous meta-analyses, which include studies published before 2000, and thus although the number of studies in the current meta-analyses is limited, it can be concluded that it is very unlikely that inclusion in general increases or decreases learning and psychosocial adjustment in children with special needs. Future research should explore the effects of different kinds of inclusive education for children with different kinds of special needs, to expand the knowledge base on what works for whom.

PROTOCOL: The effects of small class sizes on students' academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well-being in special education.

This is the protocol for a Campbell review. The objective of this systematic review is to uncover and synthesise data from studies to assess the impact of small class sizes on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well-being of students with special educational needs. Where possible, we will also investigate the extent to which the effects differ among subgroups of students. Furthermore, we will perform a qualitative exploration of the experiences of children, teachers, and parents with special education class sizes.

PROTOCOL: Adult/child ratio and group size in early childhood education or care to promote the development of children aged 0-5 years: A systematic review.

This is the protocol for a Campbell review. The objectives are as follows: To synthesize data from studies to assess the impact of adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC on measures of process characteristics of quality of care and on child outcome measures.