Effects of inclusion are heterogeneous and single-factor subgroup moderator analyses were inconclusive¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Primary studies showed a wide range of both large positive and large negative effect sizes, and planned moderator analyses (gender, age, type and severity of special need, part- or full-time inclusion, co-teaching) yielded inconclusive results. → Dalgaard 2022
Evidence¶
Dalgaard 2022¶
Dalgaard, N. T., Bondebjerg, A., Viinholt, B. C. A., & Filges, T. (2022). The effects of inclusion on academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special educational needs. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18, e1291. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1291
q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
Across the review's random effects meta-analyses, the authors report "a moderate amount of heterogeneity" and that single factor sub-group analyses of moderators were inconclusive; no moderator effect sizes are printed.
"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."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Too few studies exist to draw robust conclusions on moderating factors (age, gender, screen size, dosage, SAMR-based activities) or on whether benefits persist beyond the post-test — related
- For assessments taken less than 24 months since exposure, the evidence on deployment effects on mental health is inconclusive — related
- Individually analyzed method and approach studies show widely varying effects, with analogy-enhanced teaching rated most effective and two studies insignificant — related
- Inclusion in general is very unlikely to increase or decrease learning and psychosocial adjustment of children with special needs — related
- The review planned meta‐analytic synthesis but could not use it because only one study met the inclusion criteria — related
- Meta-analysis offers additional strengths of increased statistical power, moderator analyses, and model testing — a broader claim this one bears on
- Planned moderator subgroup analyses could not be conducted because fewer than 10 studies per subgroup were available
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
inclusion-effects-heterogeneous-moderator-analyses-inconclusive |
title |
Effects of inclusion are heterogeneous and single-factor subgroup moderator analyses were inconclusive |
description |
Effects of inclusion are heterogeneous and single-factor subgroup moderator analyses were inconclusive |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2022 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — dalgaard-2022 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.