The quality of systematic reviews of effectiveness in literacy learning in English: A 'tertiary' review

Journal of Research in Reading

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 287-315

  Torgerson, Carole J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547678672     PISSN: 01410423     EISSN: 14679817     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00318.x     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Altman, D.G. (1996). Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: The CONSORT statement. British Medical Journal, 313, 570 571.
2. Altman, D.G., Schulz, K.F., Moher, D., Egger, M., Davidoff, F., Elbourne, D. et al 2001). The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 134 (8), 663 694.
3. Bangert-Drowns, R.L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63 (1), 69 93.
4. Blok, H. (1999). Reading to young children in educational settings: A meta-analysis of recent research. Language Learning, 49 (2), 343 371.
5. Bus, A.G. van IJzendoorn, M.H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (3), 403 414.
6. Bus, A.G., van IJzendoorn, M.H. Pellegrini, A.D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65 (1), 1 21.
7. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York : Academic Press.
8. Cook, T.D. Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company.
9. Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Stahl, S.A. Willows, D.M. (2001a). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71 (3), 393 447.
10. Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Willows, D.M., Schuster, B.V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z. Shanahan, T. (2001b). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36 (3), 250 287.
11. Elbaum, B. Vaughn, S. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (4), 605 619.
12. Gersten, R. Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Elementary School Journal, 101 (3), 251 272.
13. Glass, G.V. (1976). Primary, secondary and meta-analysis. Educational Researcher, 5, 3 8.
14. Glass, G.V., McGaw, B. Smith, M.L. (1981). Meta analysis in social research. Beverley Hills, CA : Sage.
15. Guthrie, J.T., Seifert, M. Mosberg, L. (1983). Research syntheses in reading: Topics, audiences and citation rates. Reading Research Quarterly, 19 (1), 16 27.
16. Haller, E.P., Child, D.A. Walberg, H.J. (1988). Can comprehension be taught? A quantitative synthesis of 'meta-cognitive' studies. Educational Researcher, 17 (9), 5 8.
17. Hedges, L.V. Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York : Academic Press.
18. Jeynes, W.H. Littell, S.W. (2000). A meta-analysis of studies examining the effect of whole language instruction on the literacy of low-SES students. Elementary School Journal, 101 (1), 21 33.
19. Lipsey, M.W. Wilson, D.B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48 (12), 1181 1209.
20. Mathes, P.G. Fuchs, L.S. (1994). The efficacy of peer tutoring in reading for students with mild disabilities: A best evidence synthesis. School Psychology Review, 23 (1), 59 80.
21. Moher, D., Cook, D.J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D. Stroup, D.F. (1999). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet, 354, 1896 1900.
22. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company.
23. Shea, B., Dube, C. Moher, D. (2001). Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: The QUOROM statement compared to other tools. In M. Egger, G. Davey-Smith D. Altman (Eds.), Systematic reviews in healthcare: Meta-analysis in context 2nd edn, pp. 122 139). London : BMJ Publishing Group.
24. Torgerson, C.J. (2003). Systematic reviews. London : Continuum Books.
25. Torgerson, C.J. (2006). Publication bias: The Achilles of systematic reviews? British Journal of Educational Studies, 54 (1), 89 102.
26. Torgerson, C.J. Elbourne, D. (2002). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of information and communication technology (ICT) on the teaching of spelling. Journal of Research in Reading, 25 (2), 129 143.
27. Torgerson, C.J., King, S.E. Sowden, A.J. (2002). Do volunteers in schools help children learn to read? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Educational Studies, 28 (4), 433 444.
28. Torgerson, C.J. Zhu, D. (2004). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of ICT on literacy learning in English. In R. Andrews (Ed.), The impact of ICT on literacy education pp. 5 16). London : RoutledgeFalmer.