Inclusion shows a small, non-significant pooled advantage over segregated placement for overall psychosocial adjustment of children with SEN¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i1 Across pooled non-randomised studies, the random effects weighted standardised mean difference favouring inclusion for overall psychosocial adjustment was 0.20 and not statistically significant. → 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 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

Meta-analysis of non-randomised studies comparing inclusive versus segregated placement, using inverse variance weighted random effects models. The pooled effect size was SMD = 0.20, printed as "0.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.01 to 0.42)", a small effect favouring inclusion that was not statistically significant.

"The random effects weighted standardised mean difference was 0.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.01 to 0.42) for overall psychosocial adjustment"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Inclusion in general is very unlikely to increase or decrease learning and psychosocial adjustment of children with special needs — related
• Inclusion shows a negligible, non-significant pooled difference for language and literacy learning outcomes — related
• Inclusion shows a negligible, non-significant pooled difference for math learning outcomes — related
• Prior reviews of inclusion published before 2000 reported equivocal effects, including a pooled effect size of 0.33 favouring inclusion — related
• The review planned meta‐analytic synthesis but could not use it because only one study met the inclusion criteria — related
• The evidence base on inclusion effects is methodologically weak: no randomised studies and nearly all synthesised studies at serious risk of bias — related
• National Student Exchange participants showed higher pretest psychosocial development but no statistically significant pretest-to-posttest growth — related