Claims

Inclusion in general is very unlikely to increase or decrease learning and psychosocial adjustment of children with special needs

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · 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? Based on the meta-analyses and consistency with pre-2000 reviews, the authors conclude inclusion in general neither increases nor decreases learning and psychosocial adjustment in children with special needs. → 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

The review's authors' conclusion drawn from three non-significant random effects meta-analyses of 15 low-quality non-randomised studies, noting similarity to previous meta-analyses including studies published before 2000.

"it can be concluded that it is very unlikely that inclusion in general increases or decreases learning and psychosocial adjustment in children with special needs."

Studies bearing on this claim

Does placing children with special educational needs in inclusive rather than segregated settings change their learning and psychosocial adjustment? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 7 narrower claims that bear on it: 2 distinct studies (1 quant-synthesis, 1 associational), q1–q2, 1 of 2 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.

Study Design Effect as recorded Bears on this claim through
Dalgaard 2022 q1 / q2 · quant-synthesis · r3 i?; i0; i1 this claim; Inclusion shows a negligible, non-significant pooled difference for math learning outcomes (supports); Inclusion shows a negligible, non-significant pooled difference for language and literacy (supports); Inclusion shows a small, non-significant pooled advantage over segregated placement for ov (qualifies); Prior reviews of inclusion published before 2000 reported equivocal effects, including a p (qualifies); Effects of inclusion are heterogeneous and single-factor subgroup moderator analyses were (qualifies); The evidence base on inclusion effects is methodologically weak: no randomised studies and (qualifies)
Doutre 2021 q2 · associational · r2 i? A state funding report's research review, citing earlier studies, states that inclusive pr (qualifies)

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id inclusion-general-no-increase-or-decrease-learning-psychosocial
title Inclusion in general is very unlikely to increase or decrease learning and psychosocial adjustment of children with special needs
description Inclusion in general is very unlikely to increase or decrease learning and psychosocial adjustment of children with special needs
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.