How Methodological Features Affect Effect Sizes in Education

Educational Researcher

Volumn 45, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 283-292

  Cheung, Alan C K ^a   Slavin, Robert E ^b  

^a CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

disparities; effect size; program evaluation; research methodology; research utilization

Indexed keywords

EID: 84978052446     PISSN: 0013189X     EISSN: 1935102X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X16656615     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. J.Baron (2003). How to assess whether an educational intervention has been “proven effective” in rigorous research. Washington, DC: Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy.
2. Best-Evidence Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Available from www.bestevidence.org
3. H.S.BloomC.J.HillA.R.BlackM.W.Lipsey (2008). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1(4), 172–177.
4. N.BorensteinL.V.HedgesJ.P.T.HigginsH.R.Rothstein (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2). Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
5. S.BuckJ.McGee (2015). Why government needs more randomized control trials: Refuting the myths. Houston, TX: Laura and John Arnold Foundation.
6. B.*ChambersA.CheungR.E.Slavin (2015). Literacy and language outcomes of balanced and developmental approaches to early childhood education: A systematic review. Manuscript submitted for publication.
7. A.*CheungR.E.Slavin (2012a). Effective reading program for Spanish-dominant English language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 351–395.
8. A.*CheungR.E.Slavin (2012b). How features of educational technology programs affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review. 7(3), 198–215.
9. A.*CheungR.E.Slavin (2013a). Effects of instructional technology applications on reading outcomes for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3), 277–299.
10. A.*CheungR.E.Slavin (2013b). The effectiveness of educational technology applications on mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9(1), 88–11.
11. A.*CheungR.E.SlavinE.KimC.Lake (2015). Effective science programs: A best evidence synthesis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
12. D.J.CookG.H.GuyattG.RyanJ.CliftonA.WillanW.McIlroyA.D.Oxman (1993). Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. JAMA, 269(21), 2749–2753.
13. L.J.CronbachS.R.AmbronS.M.DornbuschR.O.HessR.C.HornikD.C.Phillips. (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation: Aims, methods, and institutional arrangements. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14. H.de BoerA.S.DonkerM.P.C.van der Werf (2014). Effects of the attributes of educational interventions on students’ academic performance: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 509–545.
15. M.S.EdmondsS.VaughnJ.WexlerC.ReutebuchA.CableK.K.TackettJ.W.Schnakenberg (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300.
16. C.J.FergusonM.Heene (2012). A vast graveyard of un-dead theories publication bias and psychological sciences aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 555–561.
17. G.V.GlassB.McGawM.L.Smith (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
18. R.Haskins (2014). Show me the evidence: Obama’s fight for rigor and results in social policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
19. T.H.HeinsmanW.R.Shadish (1996). Assignment methods in experimentation: When do nonrandomized experiments approximate answers from randomized experiments?Psychological Methods, 1(2), 154–169.
20. S.HopewellS.McDonaldM.ClarkeM.Egger (2007). Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000010.pub3
21. Q.LiX.Ma (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 215–243.
22. Y.K.C.Liao (1999). Effects of hypermedia on students’ achievement: a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(3), 255–277.
23. M.W.LipseyD.B.Wilson (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation form meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181–1209.
24. M.W.LipseyD.B.Wilson (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
25. M.Melby-LervagC.Hulme (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 270–291.
26. J.NussleP.Orszag (Eds.). (2014). Moneyball for government. Washington, DC: Disruption Books.
27. P.D.PearsonR.E.FerdigR.L.BlomeyerJ.Moran (2005). The effects of technology on reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendation for policy. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
28. C.R.RakeJ.C.ValentineM.B.McGathaR.N.Ronau (2010). Methods of instructional improvement in Algebra: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 372–400.
29. S.W.RaudenbushA.S.Bryk (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
30. N.ScammaccaG.RobertsS.VaughnM.EdmondsJ.WexlerC.K.ReutebuchJ.K.Torgensen (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC, Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
31. R.E.Slavin (2008). What works? Issues in synthesizing education programs. Educational Researcher, 37(1), 5–14.
32. R.E.Slavin (2013). Overcoming the four barriers to evidence-based education. Education Week, 32(29), 24.
33. R.E.*SlavinA.CheungC.GroffC.Lake (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322.
34. R.E.*SlavinC.Lake (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 427–515.
35. R.E.*SlavinC.LakeB.ChambersA.CheungS.Davis (2009). Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1391–1466.
36. R.E.*SlavinC.LakeS.DavisN.A.Madden (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6, 1–26.
37. R.E.*SlavinC.LakeC.Groff (2009). Effective programs in middle and high mathematics: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 839–911.
38. R.E.*SlavinC.LakeP.HanleyA.Thurston (2014). Experimental evaluations of elementary science programs: A best-evidence synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 870–901. doi:10.1002/tea.21139
39. R.E.SlavinN.A.Madden (2011). Measures inherent to treatments in program effectiveness reviews. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 370–380.
40. R.E.SlavinD.Smith (2009). The relationship between sample sizes and effect sizes in systematic review in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 500–506.
41. M.SongR.Herman (2010). Critical issues and common pitfalls in designing and conducting impact studies in education: Lessons learned from the What Works Clearinghouse. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(3), 351–371.
42. C.J.Torgerson (2007). The quality of systematic reviews of effectiveness in literacy learning in English: A “tertiary” review. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(3), 287–315.
43. What Works Clearinghouse. (2014). Procedures and standards handbook (Version 3.0). Washington, DC: Author.