The methodological quality of forest-school studies is poor: most are at high or moderate risk of bias, with no follow-ups and inadequate statistical procedures¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Nine of 16 reviewed studies (53%) were judged at high risk of bias and 7 (47%) at moderate risk, with JBI scores ranging 0 to 9 (mean 4). → Enrico Sella · Monica Bolognesi · Emma Bergamini · Lucia Mason · Francesca Pazzaglia 2023 q3 i? No study included a follow-up beyond posttest, and in 87.5% of studies the statistical procedure was inadequate. → Enrico Sella · Monica Bolognesi · Emma Bergamini · Lucia Mason · Francesca Pazzaglia 2023 (2)

Evidence¶

Enrico Sella · Monica Bolognesi · Emma Bergamini · Lucia Mason · Francesca Pazzaglia 2023¶

Enrico Sella · Monica Bolognesi · Emma Bergamini · Lucia Mason · Francesca Pazzaglia. (2023). Psychological Benefits of Attending Forest School for Preschool Children: a Systematic Review. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09750-4

q3 · i? · review · r3

The review's own risk-of-bias assessment of all 16 included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for quasi-experimental designs, rated by two authors with a third resolving disagreements.

"Scores obtained with the JBI Critical Appraisal checklist ranged from 0 to 9 (mean 4). The overall quality of the studies was poor. Nine stud -ies (53%; mean 3.22) were judged to be at high risk of bias, and the other 7 (47%; mean 5) were judged to be at moderate risk."

Enrico Sella · Monica Bolognesi · Emma Bergamini · Lucia Mason · Francesca Pazzaglia 2023 (2)¶

Enrico Sella · Monica Bolognesi · Emma Bergamini · Lucia Mason · Francesca Pazzaglia. (2023). Psychological Benefits of Attending Forest School for Preschool Children: a Systematic Review. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09750-4

q3 · i? · review · r3

The review's bias synthesis: only 37.5% of studies had both pre- and posttest assessment, none had follow-up, and in 87.5% the statistical procedure was inadequate (no power analysis, effect sizes, or post hoc adjustments).

"Only 37.5% paid attention to both pre- and posttest assessment, and no studies included a follow-up beyond the posttest assessment to evaluate how long the effects of forest exposure persisted."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Forest preschool attendance is associated with improvements in creative thinking in preschool children, with only forest-school groups improving on all creative dimensions — related
• The evidence base on inclusion effects is methodologically weak: no randomised studies and nearly all synthesised studies at serious risk of bias — related
• All included studies were coded high risk for selection bias and nearly half high risk for information bias — related
• The SBLE evidence base contains no randomized experiments and carries high risk of bias — related