The evidence base on inclusion effects is methodologically weak: no randomised studies and nearly all synthesised studies at serious risk of bias¶
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? Of 94 included studies, 79 were excluded from meta-analysis for critical risk of bias; the 15 synthesised studies were all non-randomised and all but one judged at serious risk of bias. → 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
Risk of bias assessment using ROBINS-I across the 15 studies in the synthesis; the review also reports no experimental studies with random assignment were found and 79 of 94 studies had critical risk of bias.
"The 15 studies, which could be used in the data synthesis, were all, except for one, judged to be in serious risk of bias."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Most non-STAR studies could not be used in the synthesis because of high risk of bias, chiefly confounding — related
- Comprehensive searches identified only seven eligible studies, and quantitative synthesis was blocked by critical risk of bias and unreportable effect sizes — related
- Methodological quality varied by design: randomised studies showed lower risk of bias than quasi-experimental studies — related
- Inclusion in general is very unlikely to increase or decrease learning and psychosocial adjustment of children with special needs — related
- The SBLE evidence base contains no randomized experiments and carries high risk of bias — related
- The evidence base on COVID-19 learning is geographically skewed toward high-income countries and about half of studies carry serious or critical risk of bias, with no evidence of publication bias — related
- Inclusion shows a small, non-significant pooled advantage over segregated placement for overall psychosocial adjustment of children with SEN — related
- Reporting quality of comparative TGA studies was mostly low, with moderate to serious risk of bias — related
- A meta-synthesis of 90 qualitative studies across 26 countries identifies adolescents' positive online experiences with digital flourishing — related
- All included studies were coded high risk for selection bias and nearly half high risk for information bias — related
- 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 — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
inclusion-evidence-low-quality-serious-risk-of-bias |
title |
The evidence base on inclusion effects is methodologically weak: no randomised studies and nearly all synthesised studies at serious risk of bias |
description |
The evidence base on inclusion effects is methodologically weak: no randomised studies and nearly all synthesised studies at serious risk of bias |
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.