| 1. |
- Batinovic, Lucija, 1997-, et al.
(author)
-
Ageism in Hiring: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Age Discrimination
- 2023
-
In: Collabra: Psychology. - : University of California Press. - 2474-7394. ; 9:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We aimed to identify effect sizes of age discrimination in recruitment based on evidence from correspondence studies and scenario experiments conducted between 2010 and 2019. To differentiate our results, we separated outcomes (i.e., call-back rates and hiring/invitation to interview likelihood) by age groups (40-49, 50-59, 60-65, 66+) and assessed age discrimination by comparing older applicants to a control group (29-35 year-olds). We conducted searches in PsycInfo, Web of Science, ERIC, BASE, and Google Scholar, along with backward reference searching. Study bias was assessed with a tool developed for this review, and publication bias by calculating R-index, p-curve, and funnel plots. We calculated odds ratios for callback rates, pooled the results using a random-effects meta-analysis and calculated 95% confidence intervals. We included 13 studies from 11 articles in our review, and conducted meta-analyses on the eight studies that we were able to extract data from. The majority of studies were correspondence studies (k=10) and came largely from European countries (k=9), with the rest being from the U.S. (k=3) and Australia (k=1). Seven studies had a between-participants design, and the remaining six studies had a within-participants design. We conducted six random-effects meta-analyses, one for each age category and type of study design and found an average effect of age discrimination against all age groups in both study designs, with varying effect sizes (ranging from OR = 0.38, CI [0.25, 0.59] to OR = 0.89, CI [0.81, 0.97]). There was moderate to high risk of bias on certain factors, e.g., age randomization, problems with application heterogeneity. Generally, there’s an effect of age discrimination and it tends to increase with age. This has important implications regarding the future of the world’s workforce, given the increase in the older workforce and later retirement.
|
|
| 2. |
- Batinović, Lucija, 1997-, et al.
(author)
-
ELD CAMA Platform: Facilitating Meta-Analyses and Evidence-Based Practice in Education
- 2023
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The increasing adoption of open science practices in disability research and education highlights the need for tools that facilitate FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) data sharing. Community-augmented meta-analysis (CAMA) platforms have emerged as promising solutions, enabling dynamic, interactive meta-analyses while ensuring reproducibility (Tsuji et al., 2014). However, evidence synthesis quality remains a challenge in educational research (Nordström et al., 2022).We present the development of a CAMA platform for Evidence in Learning, Didactics, and Disability research, focusing on quantitative methods for conducting frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses of educational interventions built with R and Shiny. The platform organizes studies into categories for typically developing students and students with intellectual disabilities, subdivided by educational domains: writing, reading, math, science, and others.Our objectives are to develop a platform that enables sharing of high-quality meta-analyses, incorporating features such as publication bias assessment, effect size aggregation, and moderator analysis, with mandatory risk of bias assessments for dataset inclusion, and to design a versatile platform suitable as both a pedagogical and research tool. The platform will serve as a guide on evidence-based practices for practitioners and an easy-to-use tool for students and researchers aiming to conduct meta-analyses. During the poster session visitors will get a hands-on experience of the platform.
|
|
| 3. |
- Batinović, Lucija, 1997-, et al.
(author)
-
ELD CAMA platform for educational interventions
- 2023
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Background:Community-augmented meta-analysis (CAMA) platforms have begun to set a new standard for promoting FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) data sharing. They allow dynamic and interactive meta-analysis of data and ensure reproducibility of results (Tsuji et al., 2014). As the area of disability research and education moves towards open science practices, the newly created CAMA platform sets to facilitate data sharing of meta-analyses and make evidence-based practice accessible to practitioners. Furthermore, we aim to promote high-quality standards in conducting evidence synthesis, which are still not readily implemented in the education research area (Nordström et al., 2022).Objectives of the CAMA platform:The Evidence in Learning and Didactics, and Disability research CAMA platform will provide meta-analytic tools to conduct both frequentist (http://194.47.110.50:3838/visualization/), and Bayesian meta-analyses (http://194.47.110.51:3838/) of educational interventions for typically developing and students with intellectual disability. Studies will be subdivided into categories of typically developing students and students with intellectual disability, with further subdivision of educational domains: writing, reading, math, science, and other.First objective: Create a platform that facilitates sharing of high-quality meta-analyses. The platform will allow publication bias assessment, effect size aggregation and moderator analysis. One important feature of this CAMA platforms is the ability to do analyses based on risk of bias assessments. Quality assessment and risk of bias estimation will be mandatory for dataset inclusion and it will be possible to conduct analyses on studies with different risks of bias estimation.Second objective: Create a platform that is valuable both as a pedagogical and research tool. Apps will allow high flexibility in model building and provide an interface that provides plain and technical explanations/summaries of statistical outputs. The goal is to have the apps become an easy-to-use tool for students and researchers aiming to conduct meta-analyses and serve as a guide on evidence based practices for practitioners.
|
|
| 4. |
- Carlsson, Rickard, 1984-, et al.
(author)
-
Community Augmented Meta-analysis
- 2021
-
In: Swedish Reproducibility Network (SweRN) and 2nd annual conference of Open Science Community Sweden, Stockholm, November 25, 2021.
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The presentation covers an overview of community-augmented meta-analysis (CAMA) and why CAMAs are to be preferred over traditional meta-analyses, for example that CAMAS can easily be updated when new research is published but also that syntheses are accessible and interactive to any user. The presentation also covers newly started and planned CAMAs; Evidence in learning and didactics (ELD) and in Disability research.
|
|
| 5. |
- Nordström, Thomas, Filosofie doktor i psykologi, 1977-, et al.
(author)
-
Meta-Review of Systematic Reviews in Educational Research : Risk of Bias and Open Practices
- 2022
-
In: 2022 Unconference on Open Scholarship Practices in Education Research, Centre for Open Science, Charlottesville, United States of America.
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- As part of a larger meta-review project that aims to assess the quality of systematic reviews of educational intervention, this study provides a snapshot of reviews published between 2019 and 2021. Main goal was to assess the current state of literature and have the best studies published as CAMAs. We looked for reviews that investigated educational interventions’ effectiveness for the k-12 population using experimental designs (RCT, QED, SCD). We searched for systematic reviews in the ERIC database and four journals which publish educational reviews. Studies that were included in the full-text screening were assessed using the ROBIS (risk of bias in systematic reviews) tool, first by assessing if the PICOS fit ours, then moved on to first stage ROBIS screening, which was conducted for all articles included in the full-text reading phase. Preliminary results of the first stage ROBIS screening indicate the lack of preregistration and data sharing practice, no standardized approach in conducting searches and reporting results, and often absent quality check of studies included in the reviews.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Nordström, Thomas, Filosofie doktor i psykologi, 1977-, et al.
(author)
-
Risk of bias and open science practices in systematic reviews of educational effectiveness : A meta-review
- 2023
-
In: Review of Education. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 2049-6613. ; 11:3
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In order to produce the most reliable syntheses of the effectiveness of educational interventions, systematic reviews need to adhere to rigorous methodological standards. This meta-review investigated risk of bias occurring while conducting a systematic review and the presence of open science practices like data sharing and reproducibility of the review procedure, in recently published reviews in education. We included all systematic reviews of educational interventions, instructions and methods for all K-12 student populations in any school form with experimental or quasi-experimental designs (an active manipulation of the intervention) with comparisons and where the outcome variables were academic performance of any kind. We searched the database Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) through the years 2019–2021. In parallel we hand-searched four major educational review journals for systematic reviews: Educational Research Review (Elsevier), Educational Review (Taylor & Francis), Review of Education (Wiley), and Review of Educational Research (AERA). Systematic reviews were assessed with the risk of bias tool ROBIS and whether the studies had pre-registered protocols, shared primary research data, and whether a third party could reproduce search strings and details of where exactly primary research data were extracted. A total of 88 studies that matched our PICOS were included in this review; of these, 10 educational systematic reviews were judged as low risk of bias (approximately 11%) . The rest were classified as high risk of bias during a shortened ROBIS assessment or assessed as high risk or unclear risk of bias following a full ROBIS assessment. Of the 10 low risk of bias reviews, 6 had detailed their search sufficiently enough for a third party to reproduce, 3 reviews shared the data from primary studies, however none had specified how and from where exactly data from primary studies were extracted. The study shows that at least a small part of systematic reviews in education has a low risk of bias, but most systematic reviews in our set of studies have high risk of bias in their methodological procedure. There are still improvements in this field to be expected as even the low risk of bias reviews are not consistent regarding pre-registered protocols, data sharing, reproducibility of primary research data and reproducible search strings.
|
|
| 8. |
- Stacey, Jemaine E, et al.
(author)
-
Relationship between self-reported listening and communication difficulties and executive function: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2023
-
In: BMJ Open. - : BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP. - 2044-6055. ; 13:11
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- IntroductionListening and communication difficulties can limit people’s participation in activity and adversely affect their quality of life. Hearing, as well as listening and communication difficulties, can be measured either by using behavioural tests or self-report measures, and the outcomes are not always closely linked. The association between behaviourally measured and self-reported hearing is strong, whereas the association between behavioural and self-reported measures of listening and communication difficulties is much weaker, suggesting they assess different aspects of listening. While behavioural measures of listening and communication difficulties have been associated with poorer cognitive performance including executive functions, the same association has not always been shown for self-report measures. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to understand the relationship between executive function and self-reported listening and communication difficulties in adults with hearing loss, and where possible, potential covariates of age and pure-tone audiometric thresholds.Methods and analysisStudies will be eligible for inclusion if they report data from both a self-report measure of listening difficulties and a behavioural measure of executive function. Eight databases are to be searched: MEDLINE (via Ovid SP), EMBASE (via Ovid SP), PsycINFO (via Ovid SP), ASSIA (via ProQuest), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature or CINAHL (via EBSCO Host), Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index). The JBI critical appraisal tool will be used to assess risk of bias for included studies. Results will be synthesised primarily using a meta-analysis, and where sufficient quantitative data are not available, a narrative synthesis will be carried out to describe key results.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical issues are foreseen. Data will be disseminated via academic publication and conference presentations. Findings may also be published in scientific newsletters and magazines.
|
|
