methodological review
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

629
(FIVE YEARS 180)

H-INDEX

56
(FIVE YEARS 7)

2022 ◽  
Vol 321 ◽  
pp. 126395
Author(s):  
B.R. Anupam ◽  
Umesh Chandra Sahoo ◽  
Anush K Chandrappa

2022 ◽  
Vol 187 ◽  
pp. 115956
Author(s):  
Debadatta Naik ◽  
Dharavath Ramesh ◽  
Amir H. Gandomi ◽  
Naveen Babu Gorojanam

2022 ◽  
pp. 101587
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Meigs ◽  
Victoria R. Bartolomeo ◽  
Amy R. Wolfson

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiyang Zhang ◽  
Amanda Jean Neitzel

In recent years, the increasing influence of evidence-based research and the rapid development of artificial intelligence have enabled the launch of many new reference screening software tools. Due to a dearth of research comparing different screening tools in educational research, researchers often choose the most convenient rather than the most suitable screening tool. This review aims to provide assistance for screening tool selection through a systematic narrative review and feature analysis of these tools’ functions and privacy policies. The current adoption rate of transparent tool reporting is low: by screening 191 studies published in the Review of Educational Research since 2015, we found that only eight (4.19%) studies reported screening tools. To locate available screening tools in the market, we consulted various sources and found 24 tools. Through citation search, we identified eight screening tools used by educational reviewers and ranked them in descending order of feature score: EPPI-Reviewer (tie), DistillerSR (tie), Covidence, Rayyan, Abstrackr, ASReview, RevMan, and Excel. For practitioners’ convenience, we concluded the paper with a decision tree to assist educational systematic reviewers in identifying suitable tools. This paper represents the first effort to provide educational researchers with guidance on how to navigate screening tools. Our results encourage researchers to report their tool usage in publications and select tools based on suitability instead of convenience.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sin Wang Chong ◽  
Lin Ting Jun ◽  
Yulu Chen

The field of higher education research has bourgeoned in the past decades, addressing a wide range of topics. Being in a rapidly expanding and interdisciplinary field of research, higher education scholars have demonstrated exigency for aggregating research findings to map the research landscape, identify future research directions, and bridge the research-practice divide. In this connection, systematic literature reviews have been carried out to consolidate research findings. With a proliferation of systematic literature reviews in higher education, the aim of this meta, methodological review is to provide a state-of-the-art systematic literature review methodologies in the field of higher education. Adhering to the exploratory nature of this study, this review analyses systematic literature reviews published in 16 top-tiered international journals in higher education (n=160). Through qualitative research synthesis using thematic analysis and informed by grounded theory, a methodological framework comprising six stages and 20 steps is developed, which might help to instigate methodological dialogue between researchers when it comes to conducting systematic literature reviews. A handy checklist for conducting and evaluating systematic literature reviews in higher education is created.


Author(s):  
Kara McTiernan ◽  
Fiona Gullon-Scott ◽  
Robert Dudley

AbstractMental health services are placing a greater emphasis on wellbeing and recovery. The current research investigated if positive psychology interventions (PPIs) increase peoples’ subjective wellbeing and reduce clinical depression. A systematic methodological review was conducted on randomized-control-trials with people attending clinical services. Five databases were searched. A hand search was then completed on the reference lists of the identified articles and the associated journals. Eleven research interventions were reviewed. PPIs were found to significantly increase wellbeing, relative to controls and there were fewer studies indicating a difference in decreasing depression. However, subsequent analysis revealed that the interventions were heterogeneous which limits the drawing of definitive systematic conclusions. A methodological evaluation also found that there were recurring issues: in delivering the interventions, measuring subjective wellbeing, and applying the design. Thus, the methodological quality of the research interventions, as measured by the current review was low. There is emerging evidence that PPIs improve peoples’ mental health. However, there is scope to standardize and to improve the quality of the research interventions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document