Suppr超能文献

Raising the Bar.

作者信息

Seftor Neil

机构信息

1 Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, NJ, USA.

出版信息

Eval Rev. 2017 Jun;41(3):212-239. doi: 10.1177/0193841X16665023. Epub 2016 Sep 7.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In 2002, the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES) established the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) at the confluence of a push to improve education research quality, a shift toward evidence-based decision-making, and an expansion of systematic reviews. In addition to providing decision makers with evidence to inform their choices, a systematic review sets expectations regarding study quality and execution for research on program efficacy. In this article, we examine education research through the filter of a long running systematic review to assess research quality over time and the role of the systematic review in producing evidence.

METHOD

Using the WWC's database of reviewed studies, we explored the relationships between study characteristics and dispositions as well as the differences by topic area and changes over time.

CONCLUSION

Through its design standards, the WWC has defined its requirements for a study to be considered causal evidence, which may have been one of the factors contributing to observed improvement in the quality of education research over the past 15 years. The levels and rates of studies meeting standards have been increasing over the life of the WWC. Additionally, the number and proportion of studies excluded due to ineligible design are decreasing. Thus, less research is ineligible due to design issues, and more eligible studies are meeting standards. As IES continues to conduct and fund studies designed to meet standards, and more decisions are directly tied to evidence, the body of rigorous education research may continue to grow.

摘要

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验