Sanne Appels , Sietske van Viersen , Sara van Erp , Lisette Hornstra , Elise de Bree
{"title":"关于识字中单词阅读复原力的范围审查:评估保护性因素的经验证据","authors":"Sanne Appels , Sietske van Viersen , Sara van Erp , Lisette Hornstra , Elise de Bree","doi":"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>To date little is known about factors that might contribute to positive literacy outcomes in children with (a risk of) reading difficulties (RD). Research into resilience in literacy is needed to understand why some children with (a risk of) RD can overcome their difficulties in the face of adversity.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>This scoping review aims to 1) provide a framework and operationalize study designs and statistical approaches for studying academic resilience; and 2) systematically review empirical evidence for promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors involved in resilience in atypical literacy development of children with (a risk of) word-level RD.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>The systematic literature search included empirical studies with a focus on compensation in literacy development, including samples of 6- to 16-year-old children with a detectable (risk of) word-level RD. Outcome measures had to include at least one relevant literacy measure.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Analysis of the 22 included studies revealed two main findings: 1) most studies had (very) small sample sizes and thus low statistical power to find relevant effects; 2) study designs and/or statistical analyses used were often insufficient to distinguish between promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors. Furthermore, findings point towards underrecognition of evidence for promotive and skill-enhancing factors as well as overinterpretation of the same evidence towards protective effects.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Overall, empirical evidence for protective factors is sparse and at present based on only a few studies. Based on the current findings, we state implications for the field of educational psychology in planning and conducting research into resilience in literacy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48357,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Instruction","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 101969"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224000963/pdfft?md5=67b2dd7770b415da46eeda1c9009866b&pid=1-s2.0-S0959475224000963-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review on word-reading resilience in literacy: Evaluating empirical evidence for protective factors\",\"authors\":\"Sanne Appels , Sietske van Viersen , Sara van Erp , Lisette Hornstra , Elise de Bree\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101969\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>To date little is known about factors that might contribute to positive literacy outcomes in children with (a risk of) reading difficulties (RD). Research into resilience in literacy is needed to understand why some children with (a risk of) RD can overcome their difficulties in the face of adversity.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>This scoping review aims to 1) provide a framework and operationalize study designs and statistical approaches for studying academic resilience; and 2) systematically review empirical evidence for promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors involved in resilience in atypical literacy development of children with (a risk of) word-level RD.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>The systematic literature search included empirical studies with a focus on compensation in literacy development, including samples of 6- to 16-year-old children with a detectable (risk of) word-level RD. Outcome measures had to include at least one relevant literacy measure.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Analysis of the 22 included studies revealed two main findings: 1) most studies had (very) small sample sizes and thus low statistical power to find relevant effects; 2) study designs and/or statistical analyses used were often insufficient to distinguish between promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors. Furthermore, findings point towards underrecognition of evidence for promotive and skill-enhancing factors as well as overinterpretation of the same evidence towards protective effects.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Overall, empirical evidence for protective factors is sparse and at present based on only a few studies. Based on the current findings, we state implications for the field of educational psychology in planning and conducting research into resilience in literacy.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learning and Instruction\",\"volume\":\"93 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101969\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224000963/pdfft?md5=67b2dd7770b415da46eeda1c9009866b&pid=1-s2.0-S0959475224000963-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learning and Instruction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224000963\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Instruction","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224000963","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
A scoping review on word-reading resilience in literacy: Evaluating empirical evidence for protective factors
Background
To date little is known about factors that might contribute to positive literacy outcomes in children with (a risk of) reading difficulties (RD). Research into resilience in literacy is needed to understand why some children with (a risk of) RD can overcome their difficulties in the face of adversity.
Aim
This scoping review aims to 1) provide a framework and operationalize study designs and statistical approaches for studying academic resilience; and 2) systematically review empirical evidence for promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors involved in resilience in atypical literacy development of children with (a risk of) word-level RD.
Method
The systematic literature search included empirical studies with a focus on compensation in literacy development, including samples of 6- to 16-year-old children with a detectable (risk of) word-level RD. Outcome measures had to include at least one relevant literacy measure.
Results
Analysis of the 22 included studies revealed two main findings: 1) most studies had (very) small sample sizes and thus low statistical power to find relevant effects; 2) study designs and/or statistical analyses used were often insufficient to distinguish between promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors. Furthermore, findings point towards underrecognition of evidence for promotive and skill-enhancing factors as well as overinterpretation of the same evidence towards protective effects.
Conclusion
Overall, empirical evidence for protective factors is sparse and at present based on only a few studies. Based on the current findings, we state implications for the field of educational psychology in planning and conducting research into resilience in literacy.
期刊介绍:
As an international, multi-disciplinary, peer-refereed journal, Learning and Instruction provides a platform for the publication of the most advanced scientific research in the areas of learning, development, instruction and teaching. The journal welcomes original empirical investigations. The papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. They may refer to any age level, from infants to adults and to a diversity of learning and instructional settings, from laboratory experiments to field studies. The major criteria in the review and the selection process concern the significance of the contribution to the area of learning and instruction, and the rigor of the study.