Learning What Works in Improving Writing: A Meta-Analysis of Technology—Oriented Studies Across Saudi Universities

Author(s):  
Lee McCallum ◽  
Mubina Rauf
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bettina Moltrecht ◽  
Jessica Deighton ◽  
Praveetha Patalay ◽  
Julian Childs

Background: Research investigating the role of emotion regulation (ER) in the development and treatment of psychopathology has increased in recent years. Evidence suggests that an increased focus on ER in treatment can improve existing interventions. Most ER research has neglected young people, therefore the present meta-analysis summarizes the evidence for existing psychosocial intervention and their effectiveness to improve ER in youth. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Twenty-one randomized-control-trials (RCTs) assessed changes in ER following a psychological intervention in youth exhibiting various psychopathological symptoms.Results: We found moderate effect sizes for current interventions to decrease emotion dysregulation in youth (g=-.46) and small effect sizes to improve emotion regulation (g=0.36). Significant differences between studies including intervention components, ER measures and populations studied resulted in large heterogeneity. Conclusion: This is the first meta-analysis that summarizes the effectiveness for existing interventions to improve ER in youth. The results suggest that interventions can enhance ER in youth, and that these improvements correlate with improvements in psychopathology. More RCTs including larger sample sizes, different age groups and psychopathologies are needed to increase our understanding of what works for who and when.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4-5 ◽  
pp. 52-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Robinson ◽  
Eleanor Bailey ◽  
Katrina Witt ◽  
Nina Stefanac ◽  
Allison Milner ◽  
...  

Evaluation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Lemire ◽  
Christina A. Christie

The push for evidence-based practice is persistent in the public sector—what counts is what works. One central premise for evidence-based practice is the existence of an evidence base; that is, an accumulated and generalizable body of knowledge. Informed by a recent systematic review, we examine the promises and pitfalls of meta-analysis (the statistical workhorse of systematic reviews) as the primary blueprint for cumulative knowledge building in evaluation. This analysis suggests that the statistical assumptions underlying the meta-analytic framework raise issues that, at least in regards to producing generalizable knowledge, may cut even deeper than is suggested by common criticisms. Advancing beyond meta-analysis, we consider alternative approaches for knowledge building and reflect on the implications of these for individual evaluations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 419-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Wolitzky-Taylor ◽  
Richard T. LeBeau ◽  
Marcelina Perez ◽  
Elizabeth Gong-Guy ◽  
Timothy Fong

Criminology ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 575-608 ◽  
Author(s):  
PAUL GENDREAU ◽  
TRACY LITTLE ◽  
CLAIRE GOGGIN
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 894-931 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Card ◽  
Jochen Kluve ◽  
Andrea Weber

2009 ◽  
Vol 135 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Tedlie Moskowitz ◽  
Jen R. Hult ◽  
Cori Bussolari ◽  
Michael Acree

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document