Label effects are non-significant for attitudes toward the child, attributions of problem causes, and treatment-strategy evaluations¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q4 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q4 i1 Label effects did not differ significantly from zero for attitudes toward the child (g = 0.21), evaluations of the cause of the student's problems (g = −0.23), and evaluations of treatment strategies (g = −0.20). → Franz 2023

Evidence¶

Franz 2023¶

Franz, D. J., Richter, T., Lenhard, W., Marx, P., Stein, R., & Ratz, C. (2023). The Influence of Diagnostic Labels on the Evaluation of Students: a Multilevel Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09716-6

q4 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r?

Subgroup estimates from the evaluation-type moderator analysis in the multilevel meta-analysis of 284 effects. Three evaluation categories showed small, non-significant label effects; equivalence was not tested.

"Non-significant effects were found for attitudes toward the child (g = 0.21), evaluations of the cause of the student's problems (g = −0.23), and evaluations of treatment strategies (g = −0.20, Table 1 and Fig. 2)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Label effects do not differ significantly across superordinate diagnostic categories, but subcategories differ, with combined intellectual-and-learning-disability labels most negative — related
• Diagnostic labels cause a moderately negative overall effect on how adults evaluate children (g = −0.42) — related
• The type of label used (person-first, 'sex offender', diagnostic, or offence-specific) does not significantly affect public perceptions of individuals who sexually offend — related
• Prior evidence on whether labels change public perceptions of people with sexual offences is mixed, with some studies finding label effects and others finding none — a broader claim this one bears on