Campbell Systematic Reviews最新文献

The Campbell collaboration is the preeminent source for high quality evidence synthesis in the social sectors. Over the past 5 years that I have been editor in chief, we have doubled our publishing of systematic reviews, evidence and gap maps and methods research papers. We have also doubled our team of editors, methods editors and information specialists. However, we need to grow the community of content reviewers who provide external feedback on the domain or content of our articles.

As part of our new strategy to make evidence synthesis faster and more useful (https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/news-and-events/news/stepping-up-evidence-synthesis.html), this month, we are delighted to launch a new Editorial Advisory Board of peer referees, who are committed to contributing three to four referee assessments per year. These referees are now named on our Editorial Advisory Board page at the following link (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/18911803/homepage/editorial-board). We have reached out to our networks to seek geographic and disciplinary diversity in this board. We see this peer referee board as a means to build the Campbell community, inviting new participants as well as those who are already members to continue their contributions beyond authorship. In future, we see the new Editorial Advisory Board as a pathway for people to join our other editorial activities as editors, methods editors or information specialists.

As a research-based organization, we will monitor the effectiveness of this new Editorial Advisory Board in reducing our editorial turnaround times. These turnaround times will be publicly available next year through our journal site at Wiley online library.

If you would like to get involved in Campbell in this way, we outline our expectations for the role of these referees, available here (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/18911803/homepage/referees). We invite you to get in touch by writing to [email protected]. Referees are expected to have substantive content expertise in one or more social science sectors relevant to Campbell, and to be willing to review three to four Campbell articles per year. We offer recognition through Publons for peer referee contributions. For funded reviews, we can compensate peer referees for their time. We plan to launch an early career researcher network in the next 3 months, to which peer referees will be invited.

Please join us!

Donolato, E., Toffalini, E., Rogde, K., Nordahl-Hansen, A., Lervåg, A., Norbury, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2023). Oral language interventions can improve language outcomes in children with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19(4), e1368.

Affiliations of three of the authors were incorrect and the correct affiliations should read:

Enrica Donolato¹ | Enrico Toffalini² | Kristin Rogde³ | Anders Nordahl-Hansen⁴ | Arne Lervåg^1,5 | Courtenay Norbury^3,6 | Monica Melby-Lervåg^3,5

¹Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

²Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

³Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

⁴Department of Education, ICT and Learning, Østfold University College, Halden, Norway

⁵Centre for Research on Equality in Education (CREATE), University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

⁶Division of Psychology & Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK

We apologize for this error.

This protocol serves as a guiding source for a Campbell registered systematic review aiming to assess the effectiveness of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in education in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). The primary question for this review is: What is known about the impact of PPPs on improving access (i.e., enrolment, attendance, drop-out, and completion) and quality (i.e., students’ learning outcomes and teachers’ teaching practices) of primary and secondary schooling in LMICs? Using a predefined search query, we will retrieve studies from various databases including Scopus, Campbell Library, EBSCO Education Research Complete, NBER, Dissertation and Theses Global (ProQuest), along with other sources of grey literature. Covidence will be used for screening and extraction. A bias assessment tool will be used for the included studies. A standardised mean difference (SMD) effect size of Hedges’ g will be calculated for the outcome variables using RevMan.

This review will provide updated evidence about the impact of PPP in school education across LMICs, which will be instrumental for policy and practice level decisions for education improvement.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. This review aims to investigate the effectiveness of all types of teacher-delivered classroom-based strategy instruction aimed at students in the general population (all students) including struggling students (with or at-risk of academic difficulties) in ages 12–19 for increasing writing performance. The majority of previous reviews scoped all outcomes presented in the primary studies. This review will solely focus on covering three most common outcomes: story quality, story elements and word count/length.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: This systematic review will synthesize the available evaluation research on the effectiveness of street outreach conflict mediation programs. The review seeks to answer the following primary question: Are street outreach worker strategies that use conflict mediation and/or violence interruption strategies effective at reducing violence? Assuming a sufficient number of eligible studies, this review will also address two additional questions: Are there certain program elements that render these strategies more or less effective? Are there certain conditions under which these strategies are more or less effective? As policymakers struggle to understand the policy options available to them for preventing and reducing violence, having clear answers to these three questions will help them make more informed decisions. The primary focus of this review is the effect of these strategies on violence. Nonetheless, when data are available we will collect information on secondary outcomes such as the cost-effectiveness of these strategies and their impacts on perceptual or attitudinal measures such as fear, perceived safety, and violence-related norms.