Four Best Practices for Meta-Analysis: A Systematic Review of Methodological Rigor in Mathematics Interventions for Students With or at Risk of Disabilities

8Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Your institution provides access to this article.

Abstract

Meta-analysis methodology has evolved with the development of more robust statistical techniques; however, few reviews in special education have focused specifically on methodological rigor in meta-analyses. In this study, we examined 29 meta-analyses of mathematics interventions published from 2000 to 2022 to determine the extent to which researchers have applied four best practices in meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with disabilities. Our findings were (a) studies used three primary moderator techniques: meta-regression (k = 10), subgroup analysis (k = 8), analysis of variance (k = 3), and both subgroup analysis and meta-regression (k = 1); (b) only one study considered small sample corrections for hypothesis tests; (c) few researchers handled the dependence between multiple effect sizes (k = 3); and (d) the funnel plot was commonly used to detect publication bias (k = 8). Based on our findings, we make recommendations for methodological considerations for future meta-analyses.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Park, S., Lee, Y. R., Nelson, G., & Tipton, E. (2024, November 1). Four Best Practices for Meta-Analysis: A Systematic Review of Methodological Rigor in Mathematics Interventions for Students With or at Risk of Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly. SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487231185133

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free