Search

Abstract Background At‐risk youth may be defined as a diverse group of young people in unstable life circumstances, who are currently experiencing or are at risk of developing one or more serious problems. At‐risk youth are often very unlikely to seek out help for themselves within the established venues, as their adverse developmental trajectories have installed a lack of trust in authorities such as child protection agencies and social workers. To help this population, a number of outreach programmes have been established seeking to help the young people on an ad hoc basis, meaning that the interventions are designed to fit the individual needs of each young person rather than as a one‐size‐fits‐all treatment model. The intervention in this review is targeted outreach work which may be (but does not have to be) multicomponent programmes in which outreach may be combined with other services. Objectives The main objective of this review was to answer the following research questions: What are the effects of outreach programmes on problem/high‐risk behaviour of young people between 8 and 25 years of age living in OECD countries? Are they less likely to experience an adverse outcome such as school failure or drop‐out, runaway and homelessness, substance and/or alcohol abuse, unemployment, long‐term poverty, delinquency and more serious criminal behaviour? Search Methods We identified relevant studies through electronic searches of bibliographic databases, governmental and grey literature repositories, hand search in specific targeted journals, citation tracking, and Internet search engines. The database searches were carried out in September 2020 and other resources were searched in October and November 2021. We searched to identify both published and unpublished literature, and reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were searched. Selection Criteria The intervention was targeted outreach work which may have been combined with other services. Young people between 8 and 25 years of age living in OECD countries, who either have experienced or is at‐risk of experiencing an adverse outcome were eligible. Our primary focus was on measures of problem/high‐risk behaviour and a secondary focus was on social and emotional outcomes. All study designs that used a well‐defined control group were eligible for inclusion. Studies that utilised qualitative approaches were not included. Data Collection and Analysis The total number of potentially relevant studies constituted 17,659 hits. A total of 16 studies (17 different interventions) met the inclusion criteria. Only five studies could be used in the data synthesis. Eight studies could not be used in the data synthesis as they were judged to have critical risk of bias and, in accordance with the protocol, were excluded from the meta‐analysis on the basis that they would be more likely to mislead than inform. Two studies (three interventions) did not provide enough information enabling us to calculate an effect size and standard error, and one study did not provide enough information to assess risk of bias. Meta‐analysis of all outcomes were conducted on each conceptual outcome separately. All analyses were inverse variance weighted using random effects statistical models incorporating both the sampling variance and between study variance components into the study level weights. Random effects weighted mean effect sizes were calculated using 95% confidence intervals. Too few studies were included to carry out any sensitivity analyses. Main Results Four of the five studies used for meta analysis were from the USA and one was from Canada. The timespan in which included studies were carried out was 32 years, from 1985 to 2017; on average the intervention year was 2005. The average number of participants in the analysed interventions was 116, ranging from 30 to 346 and the average number of controls was 81, ranging from 32 to 321. At most, the results from two studies could be pooled in a single meta‐analysis. It was only possible to pool the outcomes drug (other than marijuana) use, marijuana use and alcohol use each at two different time points (one and 3 months follow up). At 1 month follow up the weighted averages varied between zero and 0.05 and at 3 months follow up between −0.17 and 0.07. None of them were statistically significant. In addition, a number of other outcomes were reported in a single study only. Authors' Conclusions Overall, there were too few studies included in any of the meta‐analyses in order for us to draw any conclusion concerning the effectiveness of outreach. The vast majority of studies were undertaken in the USA. The dominance of the USA as the main country in which outreach interventions meeting our inclusion criteria have been evaluated using rigorous methods and within our specific parameters clearly limits the generalisability of the findings. None of the studies, however, was considered to be of overall high quality in our risk of bias assessment and the process of excluding studies with critical risk of bias from the meta‐analysis applied in this review left us with only five of a total of 16 possible studies to synthesise. Further, because too few studies reported results on the same type of outcome at most two studies could be combined in a particular meta‐analysis. Given the limited number of rigorous studies available from countries other than the USA, it would be natural to consider conducting a series of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of outreach for at‐risk youth in countries outside the USA. The trial(s) should be designed, conducted and reported according to methodological criteria for rigour in respect of internal and external validity to achieve robust results and preferably reporting a larger number of outcomes.

Abstract Background Considering the rapid global movement towards inclusion for students with special educational needs (SEN), there is a surprising lack of pedagogical or didactic theories regarding the ways in which inclusive education may affect students with SEN. Group composition within the educational setting may play a role in determining the academic achievement, socio‐emotional development, and wellbeing of students with SEN. Proponents of inclusion propose that segregated educational placement causes stigmatisation and social isolation which may have detrimental effects on the self‐concept and self‐confidence of students with SEN. On the other hand, opponents of inclusion for all special needs students suggest that placement in general education classrooms may have adverse effects especially if the time and resources allocated for individualisation are not aligned with student needs. Since the 1980s, a number of reviews on the effects of inclusion have been published. Results are inconsistent, and several reviews point to a number of methodological challenges and weaknesses of the study designs within primary studies. In sum, the impact of inclusion on students with SEN may be hypothesised to be both positive and negative, and the current knowledge base is inconsistent. Objectives The objective was first: To uncover and synthesise data from contemporary studies to assess the effects of inclusion on measures of academic achievement, socio‐emotional development, and wellbeing of children with special needs when compared to children with special needs who receive special education in a segregated setting. A secondary objective was to explore how potential moderators (gender, age, type and severity of special need, part or full time inclusive education, and co‐teaching) relate to outcomes. Search Methods Relevant studies were identified through electronic searches in Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO), EconLit (EBSCO), ERIC (EBSCO), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web Of Science), Social Sciences Citation Index (Web Of Science), and SocINDEX (EBSCO). The database searches were completed on 24 April 2021 and other resources: grey literature repositories, hand search in targeted journals and Internet search engines were searched in August/September 2021. The search was limited to studies reported after 2000. Selection Criteria The review included studies of children with special needs in grades K to 12 in the OECD countries. Children with all types of verifiable SEN were eligible. Inclusion refers to an educational setting with a mixture of children with and without SEN. Segregation refers to the separate education of children with SEN. All studies that compared inclusive versus segregated educational settings for children with SEN were eligible. Qualitative studies were not included. Data Collection and Analysis The total number of potentially relevant studies constituted 20,183 hits. A total of 94 studies met the inclusion criteria, all were non‐randomised studies. The 94 studies analysed data from 19 different countries. Only 15 studies could be used in the data synthesis. Seventy‐nine studies could not be used in the data synthesis as they were judged to be of critical risk of bias and, in accordance with the protocol, were excluded from the meta‐analysis on the basis that they would be more likely to mislead than inform. The 15 studies came from nine different countries. Separate meta‐analyses were conducted on conceptually distinct outcomes. All analyses were inverse variance weighted using random effects statistical models. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of pooled effect sizes across components of risk of bias. Main Results The average baseline year of the interventions analysed in the 15 studies used for meta‐analysis was 2006, ranging from 1998 to 2012. The average number of participants analysed in the interventions was 151, ranging from 10 to 1357, and the average number of controls was 261, ranging from 5 to 2752. The studies included children with multiple types of disabilities such as learning disorders/intellectual disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, ADHD, physical handicaps, visual impairments, and Down syndrome. At most, the results from eight studies could be pooled in any of the meta‐analyses. All the meta‐analyses showed a weighted average that favoured the intervention group. None of them were statistically significant. The random effects weighted standardised mean difference was 0.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.01 to 0.42) for overall psychosocial adjustment; 0.04 (95% CI: −0.27 to 0.35) for language and literacy learning outcomes, and 0.05 (95% CI: −0.16 to 0.26) for math learning outcomes. There were no appreciable changes in the results as indicated by the sensitivity analyses. There was some inconsistency in the direction and magnitude of the effect sizes between the primary studies in all analyses and a moderate amount of heterogeneity. We attempted to investigate the heterogeneity by single factor sub‐group analyses, but results were inconclusive. Authors' Conclusions The overall methodological quality of the included studies was low, and no experimental studies in which children were randomly assigned to intervention and control conditions were found. The 15 studies, which could be used in the data synthesis, were all, except for one, judged to be in serious risk of bias. Results of the meta‐analyses do not suggest on average any sizeable positive or negative effects of inclusion on children's academic achievement as measured by language, literacy, and math outcomes or on the overall psychosocial adjustment of children. The average point estimates favoured inclusion, though small and not statistically significant, heterogeneity was present in all analyses, and there was inconsistency in direction and magnitude of the effect sizes. This finding is similar to the results of previous meta‐analyses, which include studies published before 2000, and thus although the number of studies in the current meta‐analyses is limited, it can be concluded that it is very unlikely that inclusion in general increases or decreases learning and psychosocial adjustment in children with special needs. Future research should explore the effects of different kinds of inclusive education for children with different kinds of special needs, to expand the knowledge base on what works for whom.

Abstract Background Worldwide, a large number of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers are enroled in formal non‐parental early childhood education or care (ECEC). Theoretically, lower adult/child ratios (fewer children per adult) and smaller group sizes are hypothesised to be associated with positive child outcomes in ECEC. A lower adult/child ratio and a smaller group size may increase both the extent and quality of adult/child interactions during the day. Objectives The objective of this review is to synthesise data from studies to assess the impact of adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC on measures of process characteristics of quality of care and on child outcomes. Search Methods Relevant studies were identified through electronic searches of bibliographic databases, governmental and grey literature repositories, Internet search engines, hand search of specific targeted journals, citation tracking and contact to experts. The primary searches were carried out up to September 2020. Additional searches were carried out in February 2022. Selection Criteria The intervention was changes to adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC with children aged 0–5 years old. All study designs that used a well‐defined control group were eligible for inclusion. Data Collection and Analysis The total number of potential relevant studies constituted 14,060 hits. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria and were critically appraised by the review authors. The 31 studies analysed 26 different populations. Only 12 studies analysing 8 different populations (N = 4300) could be used in the data synthesis. Included studies were published between 1968 and 2019, and the average publication year was 1992. We used random‐effects meta‐analysis, applying both robust‐variance estimation and restricted maximum likelihood procedures to synthesise effect sizes. We conducted separate analyses for process quality measures and language and literacy measures. Main Results The meta‐analysis using measures of process quality as the outcome included 84 effect sizes, 5 studies, and 6256 observations. The weighted average effect size was positive but not statistically significant (effect size [ES] = 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [−0.07, 0.27]) using robust‐variance estimation. The adjusted degrees of freedom were below 4 (df = 1.5), meaning that the results were unreliable. Similarly, the low number of studies made the estimation of heterogeneity statistics difficult. The I2 and τ2 estimates were both 0, and the Q‐statistic 2.3 (p = 0.69). We found a similar, but statistically significant, weighted average effect size using a restricted maximum likelihood procedure (ES = 0.10, 95% CI = [0.004, 0.20]), and similar low levels of heterogeneity (Q = 0.7, I2 = 0%, τ2 = 0). The meta‐analysis of language and literacy outcomes is based on three studies exploring different changes to group size and/or adult/child ratio in ECEC. The meta‐analysis of language and literacy measures included 12 effect sizes, 3 studies, and 14,625 observations. The weighted average effect size was negative but not statistically significant (ES = −0.04, 95% CI = [−0.61, 0.53]) using the robust variance estimation procedure. The adjusted degrees of freedom were again below 4 (df = 1.9) and the results were unreliable. The heterogeneity statistics indicated substantial heterogeneity (Q = 9.3, I2 = 78.5%, τ2 = 0.07). The restricted maximum likelihood procedure yielded similar results (ES = −0.06, 95% CI = [−0.57, 0.46], Q = 6.1, I2 = 64.3%, τ2 = 0.03). Authors' Conclusions The main finding of the present review is that there are surprisingly few quantitative studies exploring the effects of changes to adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC on measures of process quality and on child outcomes. The overall quality of the included studies was low, and only two randomised studies were used in the meta‐analysis. The risk of bias in the majority of included studies was high, also in studies used in the meta‐analysis. Due to the limited number of studies that could be used in the data synthesis, we were unable to explore the effects of adult/child ratio and group size separately. No study that examined the effects of changes of the adult/child‐ratio and/or group size on socio‐emotional child outcomes could be included in the meta‐analysis. No high quality study examined the effects of large changes in adult/child ratio and group size on measures of process quality, or explored effects for children younger than 2 years. We included few studies (3) in the meta‐analysis that investigated measures of language and literacy and results for these outcomes were inconclusive. In one specification, we found a small statistically significant effect on process quality, suggesting that fewer children per adult and smaller group sizes do increase the process quality in ECEC. Caution regarding the interpretation must be exerted due to the heterogeneity of the study designs, the limited number of studies, and the generally high risk of bias within the included studies. Results of the present review have implications for both research and practice. First, findings from the present review tentatively support the theoretical hypothesis that lower adult/child ratios (fewer children per adult) and smaller group sizes beneficially influence process quality in ECEC. This hypothesis is reflected in the existence of standards and regulation on the minimum requirements regarding adult/child ratios and maximum group size in ECEC. However, the research literature to date provides little guidance on what the appropriate adult/child ratios and group sizes are. Second, findings from the present review may be seen as a testimony to the urgent need for more contemporary high‐quality research exploring the effects of changes in adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC on measures of process quality and child developmental and socio‐emotional outcomes.

Abstract This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: provide an overview of the existing evidence base by identifying available systematic reviews and primary effectiveness studies, identify clusters of evidence suitable for a systematic review and identify gaps in evidence where primary research is needed.

Abstract Background School‐based service‐learning is a teaching strategy that explicitly links community service to academic instruction. It is distinctive from traditional voluntarism or community service in that it intentionally connects service activities with curriculum concepts and includes structured time for reflection. Service learning, by connecting education to real world issues and allowing students to address problems they identify, may be particularly efficacious as it increases engagement and motivates students, in particular students who might not respond well to more traditional teaching methods. Objectives The main objective was to answer the following research question: What are the effects of service learning on academic success, neither employed, nor in education or training (NEET) status post compulsory school, personal and social skills, and risk behaviour of students in primary and secondary education (grades kindergarten to 12)? Further, we wanted to investigate study‐level summaries of participant characteristics (e.g., gender, age or socioeconomic level) and quality of the service learning programme. Search Methods We identified relevant studies through electronic searches of bibliographic databases, governmental and grey literature repositories, hand search in specific targeted journals, citation tracking, and Internet search engines. The database searches were carried out in November 2019 and other resources were searched in October 2020. We searched to identify both published and unpublished literature, and reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were searched. Selection Criteria The intervention was service learning which can be described as a curriculum‐based community service that integrates classroom instruction (such as classroom discussions, presentations, or directed writing) with community service activities. We included children in primary and secondary education (grades kindergarten to 12) in general education. Our primary focus was on measures of academic success and NEET status. A secondary focus was on measures of personal and social skills, and risk behaviour (such as drug and alcohol use, violent behaviour, sexual risk taking). All study designs that used a well‐defined control group were eligible for inclusion. Studies that utilised qualitative approaches were not included. Data Collection and Analysis The total number of potentially relevant studies constituted 13,719 hits. A total of 37 studies met the inclusion criteria. The 37 studies analysed 30 different populations. Only 10 studies (analysing nine different populations) could be used in the data synthesis. Eighteen studies could not be used in the data synthesis as they were judged to have critical risk of bias and, in accordance with the protocol, were excluded from the meta‐analysis on the basis that they would be more likely to mislead than inform. Five studies did not provide enough information enabling us to calculate an effects size and standard error, and one study did not provide enough information to assess risk of bias. Finally, two clusters of studies used the same data sets, resulting in an additional three studies we did not use in the data synthesis. Meta‐analysis of all outcomes were conducted on each conceptual outcome separately. All analyses were inverse variance weighted using random effects statistical models incorporating both the sampling variance and between study variance components into the study level weights. Random effects weighted mean effect sizes were calculated using 95% confidence intervals. We carried out a sensitivity analysis to examine the impact of correcting for clustered assignment of treatments. Main Results The 10 studies (analysing nine different populations) used for meta analysis were all from the United States. The timespan in which included studies were carried out was 33 years, from 1980 to 2013; on average the intervention year was 2007. The average number of participants in the analysed service learning interventions was 937, ranging from 18 to 3556 and the average number of controls was 927, ranging from 20 to 3395. At most, the results from three studies could be pooled in any of the meta‐analyses. All the meta‐analyses showed a weighted average that favoured the intervention group except the pregnancy outcome. None of them was statistically significant except the weighted average of the two studies reporting math test results. The random effects weighted standardised mean difference was 0.09 [95% confidence interval (CI): −0.02 to 0.21] for students' general grade point average; 0.04 (95% CI: −0.08 to 0.16) for reading; 0.21 (95% CI: 0.09 to 0.33) for math; 0.03 (95% CI: −0.10 to 0.16) for days absent from school; 0.13 (95% CI: −0.14 to 0.40) for self‐esteem; 0.07 (95% CI: −0.04 to 0.18) for locus of control. The random effects weighted odds ratio was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.63 to 1.74) for pregnancy and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.74 to 1.25) for sexual risk behaviour. In addition, a number of other outcomes were reported in a single study only. There were no appreciable changes in the results as indicated by the sensitivity analysis. We did not find any adverse effects. Authors' Conclusions In this review, we aimed to find evidence of the effectiveness of service learning on students' academic success, personal and social skills, and risk behaviour. However, the evidence was inconclusive. We found only few randomised controlled trials and the risk of bias in the included non‐randomised studies was very high. All available evidence used in the data synthesis was US‐based. The majority of studies available for meta‐analysis reported on a very limited number of outcomes; in particular few reported results on students' academic success even though the outcome was collected. Further, the majority of studies used in the meta‐analyses reported implementation problems. These considerations point to the need for more rigorously conducted studies performed outside the United States, reporting a larger number of outcomes. It would be natural to consider conducting a series of randomised controlled trial with specific allocation to implementation of high‐quality service learning as guided by the eight standards: (1) Meaningful service, (2) Link to curriculum, (3) Reflection, (4) Diversity, (5) Youth voice, (6) Community partnerships, (7) Progress monitoring and (8) Sufficient duration and intensity. Specific attention would also have to be paid to stringency in terms of conducting a well‐designed randomised trial with low risk of bias and ensuring that the sample sizes are large enough to enable sufficient power.

Abstract Background Adopted children and children placed in foster care are at increased risk of developing a range of mental health, behavioural, and psychosocial adjustment problems. Previous studies suggest that due to early experiences of separation and loss some children may have difficulties forming a secure attachment relationship with the adoptive/foster parents. Objectives The objectives of the present review were: (1) to assess the efficacy of attachment‐based interventions on measures of favourable parent/child outcomes (attachment security, dyadic interaction, parent/child psychosocial adjustment, behavioural and mental health problems, and placement breakdown) within foster and adoptive families with children aged between 0 and 17 years. (2) to identify factors that appear to be associated with more effective outcomes and factors that modify intervention effectiveness (e.g., age of the child at placement and at intervention start, programme duration, programme focus). Search Methods Relevant studies were identified through electronic searches of bibliographic databases, governmental and grey literature repositories, hand search in specific targeted journals, citation tracking, contact to international experts and Internet search engines. The database searches were carried out to October 2020. Selection Criteria The interventions of interest were parenting interventions aimed at helping the foster/adopted children and their parents to form or sustain a secure attachment relationship. The interventions had to be at least partly informed by attachment theory. Data Collection and Analysis The total number of potentially relevant studies constituted 17.822 hits after duplicates were removed. A total of 44 studies (27 different populations) met the inclusion criteria and were critically appraised by the review authors. Due to critical study quality, missing numeric data and re‐use of the same data, only 24 studies analysing 16 different populations could be used in the data synthesis (children, N = 1302; parents, N = 1344). Meta‐analysis using both child and parent outcomes were conducted on each metric separately. All analyses were inverse variance weighted using random effects statistical models. Random effects weighted mean effect sizes were calculated using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When possible, we conducted moderator analysis using meta‐regression and single factor sub group moderator analysis. Sensitivity analysis were conducted across study design and domains of the risk of bias assessment. Main Results Ten studies analysed the effect of attachment‐based interventions on the overall psychosocial adjustment of foster or adopted children as reported by their caregivers post intervention. Measures used include the Child Behaviour Checklist, The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, Brief Infant–Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA) and Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory. The random effects weighted standardised mean difference (SMD) favouring the intervention group was 0.37 (95% CI, 0.10–0.65) and statistically significant. Three studies analysed the effects of attachment‐based interventions on the observed attachment security of foster and adopted children as measured by independent observation. Measures include the Strange Situation Procedure, Attachment Q‐Set, and The Emotional Availability Clinical Screener. The random effects weighted SMD was 0.59 (95% CI, −0.40–1.57) and not statistically significant. Four studies analysed the effect of attachment‐based interventions on positive child behaviour post intervention as measured by independent observation of video‐taped interaction between the child and caregivers. Measures include Disruptive Behaviour Diagnostic Observation Schedule (DB‐DOS) and Emotional Availability Scales). The random effects weighted SMD was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.14–0.64) and statistically significant. Ten studies analysed the effect of attachment‐based interventions on positive parenting behaviour post intervention as measured by independent observation of video‐taped interaction between the child and caregivers or coding of audio‐taped recordings of parental speech. Measures include Adapted Ainsworth Scales for sensitivity and noninterference, Measurement of Empathy in Adult–Child Interaction, The Dyadic Parent–Child Interaction Coding System, Reflective functioning scale, and Emotional Availability Scales. The random effects weighted SMD was 1.56 (95% CI, 0.81–2.31) and statistically significant. Nine studies analysed the effect of attachment‐based interventions on self‐reported post intervention parenting stress (Parenting Stress Index). The random effects weighted SMD was 0.24 (95% CI, 0.03–0.46.) and statistically significant. Three studies analysed the effect of attachment‐based interventions on parental post intervention self‐reported depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory). The random effects weighted SMD was 0.59 (95% CI, −0.08–1.25.) and not statistically significant. Follow‐up analyses were carried out for the outcomes externalising behaviour, positive parenting, and parenting stress, but due to the low number of studies, results should be viewed with caution. Results of the single factor sub group moderator analysis suggest that it cannot be ruled out the effects differ depending on whether the interventions take place in the family home or in a clinical setting. However, it is unclear which location is associated with more positive effects as our findings differ between child and parent outcomes. Results of the sensitivity analysis showed no appreciable changes in the results following the removal of any of the studies in any of the analyses. Authors' Conclusions Parenting interventions based on attachment theory increase positive parent/child interactional behaviours, decrease parenting stress, and increase the overall psychosocial adjustment of children in foster and adoptive families postintervention. Due to the low number of studies evidence regarding the effects of attachment‐based parenting interventions on attachment security and disorganised attachment in foster and adopted children was inconclusive. Theoretically, it is possible that child attachment security and/or attachment disorganisation cannot change within the relatively short period of time that parenting interventions typically last. It is possible that if postintervention improvements in parenting behaviours are sustained over time, it may lead to possible improvement in child attachment security and a decrease in child disorganised attachment. Thus, more longitudinal research is needed. Furthermore, evidence regarding the long‐term effects of attachment‐based parenting interventions on any outcomes was inconclusive due to too few studies, but findings suggest that attachment‐based interventions increase positive parenting behaviour at follow‐up points 3–6 months after the intervention. No study included in the present review provided a measure of placement stability or breakdown as an outcome, which could be used in the meta‐analysis. This further emphasises the need for future longitudinal research in prevention of placement breakdown.

Abstract This is the protocol for a Campbell review. Our primary research question is: What are the effects of different testing frequencies on student achievement? Our secondary research question is: What are the effects of different testing frequencies on measures of students' testing anxiety? Our third research question is: How are the effects of different testing frequencies on student achievement and testing anxiety moderated by subject, grade, type of test, duration of the intervention, and gender?

Abstract This is the protocol for a Campbell review. The aim of this study is to comprehensively assess the quality and nature of the search methods and reporting across Campbell systematic reviews. The search methods used in systematic reviews provide the foundation for establishing the body of literature from which conclusions are drawn and recommendations made. Searches should be comprehensive and reporting of search methods should be transparent and reproducible. Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews strive to adhere to the best methodological guidance available for this type of searching. The current work aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the quality of the search methods and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews. Our specific objectives include the following: To examine how searches are currently conducted in Campbell systematic reviews. To identify any machine learning or automation methods used, or emerging and less commonly used approaches to web searching. To examine how search strategies, search methods and search reporting adhere to the Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR) and PRISMA guidelines. The findings will be used to identify opportunities for advancing current practices in Campbell reviews through updated guidance, peer review processes and author training and support.

Abstract Background Low levels of numeracy and literacy skills are associated with a range of negative outcomes later in life, such as reduced earnings and health. Obtaining information about effective interventions for children with or at risk of academic difficulties is therefore important. Objectives The main objective was to assess the effectiveness of interventions targeting students with or at risk of academic difficulties in kindergarten to Grade 6. Search Methods We searched electronic databases from 1980 to July 2018. We searched multiple international electronic databases (in total 15), seven national repositories, and performed a search of the grey literature using governmental sites, academic clearinghouses and repositories for reports and working papers, and trial registries (10 sources). We hand searched recent volumes of six journals and contacted international experts. Lastly, we used included studies and 23 previously published reviews for citation tracking. Selection Criteria Studies had to meet the following criteria to be included: Population: The population eligible for the review included students attending regular schools in kindergarten to Grade 6, who were having academic difficulties, or were at risk of such difficulties. Intervention: We included interventions that sought to improve academic skills, were conducted in schools during the regular school year, and were targeted (selected or indicated). Comparison: Included studies used an intervention‐control group design or a comparison group design. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT); quasi‐randomised controlled trials (QRCT); and quasi‐experimental studies (QES). Outcomes: Included studies used standardised tests in reading or mathematics. Setting: Studies carried out in regular schools in an OECD country were included. Data Collection and Analysis Descriptive and numerical characteristics of included studies were coded by members of the review team. A review author independently checked coding. We used an extended version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess risk of bias. We used random‐effects meta‐analysis and robust‐variance estimation procedures to synthesise effect sizes. We conducted separate meta‐analyses for tests performed within three months of the end of interventions (short‐term effects) and longer follow‐up periods. For short‐term effects, we performed subgroup and moderator analyses focused on instructional methods and content domains. We assessed sensitivity of the results to effect size measurement, outliers, clustered assignment of treatment, risk of bias, missing moderator information, control group progression, and publication bias. Results We found in total 24,414 potentially relevant records, screened 4247 of them in full text, and included 607 studies that met the inclusion criteria. We included 205 studies of a wide range of intervention types in at least one meta‐analysis (202 intervention‐control studies and 3 comparison designs). The reasons for excluding studies from the analysis were that they had too high risk of bias (257), compared two alternative interventions (104 studies), lacked necessary information (24 studies), or used overlapping samples (17 studies). The total number of student observations in the analysed studies was 226,745. There were 93% RCTs among the 327 interventions we included in the meta‐analysis of intervention‐control contrasts and 86% were from the United States. The target group consisted of, on average, 45% girls, 65% minority students, and 69% low‐income students. The mean Grade was 2.4. Most studies included in the meta‐analysis had a moderate to high risk of bias. The overall average effect sizes (ES) for short‐term and follow‐up outcomes were positive and statistically significant (ES = 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.25, 0.34] and ES = 0.27, 95% CI = [0.17, 0.36]), respectively). The effect sizes correspond to around one third to one half of the achievement gap between fourth Grade students with high and low socioeconomic status in the United States and to a 58% chance that a randomly selected score of an intervention group student is greater than the score of a randomly selected control group student. All measures indicated substantial heterogeneity across short‐term effect sizes. Follow‐up outcomes pertain almost exclusively to studies examining small‐group instruction by adults and effects on reading measures. The follow‐up effect sizes were considerably less heterogeneous than the short‐term effect sizes, although there was still statistically significant heterogeneity. Two instructional methods, peer‐assisted instruction and small‐group instruction by adults, had large and statistically significant average effect sizes that were robust across specifications in the subgroup analysis of short‐term effects (ES around 0.35–0.45). In meta‐regressions that adjusted for methods, content domains, and other study characteristics, they had significantly larger effect sizes than computer‐assisted instruction, coaching of personnel, incentives, and progress monitoring. Peer‐assisted instruction also had significantly larger effect sizes than medium‐group instruction. Besides peer‐assisted instruction and small‐group instruction, no other methods were consistently significant across the analyses that tried to isolate the association between a specific method and effect sizes. However, most analyses showed statistically significant heterogeneity also within categories of instructional methods. We found little evidence that effect sizes were larger in some content domains than others. Fractions had significantly higher associations with effect sizes than all other math domains, but there were only six studies of interventions targeting fractions. We found no evidence of adverse effects in the sense that no method or domain had robustly negative associations with effect sizes. The meta‐regressions revealed few other significant moderators. Interventions in higher Grades tend to have somewhat lower effect sizes, whereas there were no significant differences between QES and RCTs, general tests and tests of subdomains, and math tests and reading tests. Authors’ Conclusions Our results indicate that interventions targeting students with or at risk of academic difficulties from kindergarten to Grade 6 have on average positive and statistically significant short‐term and follow‐up effects on standardised tests in reading and mathematics. Peer‐assisted instruction and small‐group instruction are likely to be effective components of such interventions. We believe the relatively large effect sizes together with the substantial unexplained heterogeneity imply that schools can reduce the achievement gap between students with or at risk of academic difficulties and not‐at‐risk students by implementing targeted interventions, and that more research into the design of effective interventions is needed.

Abstract This is the protocol for a Campbell review. The objective of this systematic review is to uncover and synthesise data from studies to assess the impact of small class sizes on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well‐being of students with special educational needs. Where possible, we will also investigate the extent to which the effects differ among subgroups of students. Furthermore, we will perform a qualitative exploration of the experiences of children, teachers, and parents with special education class sizes.

Abstract Background This is a protocol for a Campbell Review. The objectives are as follows: Objectives This review systematically collects and synthesizes evidence from evaluations of causal effects of interventions designed to improve employment outcomes for non‐Western immigrants. The review aims to answer the following questions: 1) Do interventions designed to improve the economic self‐sufficiency for non‐Western immigrants affect participants employment, use of cash assistance, income, or job retention? 2) Do effects differ depending on programme content or populations served?

Abstract This is the protocol for a Campbell review. The objectives are as follows: To synthesize data from studies to assess the impact of adult/child ratio and group size in ECEC on measures of process characteristics of quality of care and on child outcome measures.