Prior reviews of inclusion published before 2000 reported equivocal effects, including a pooled effect size of 0.33 favouring inclusion¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q1 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i1 The review reports, citing Wang and Baker (1985), a meta-analysis of 11 studies finding small-to-moderate beneficial effects of inclusion with an overall mean weighted effect size of 0.33, while other earlier reviews reported mixed or contrasting findings. → 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

q1 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

The review attributes this to Wang and Baker (1985), a meta-analysis of 11 studies published 1975–1984; the narrated effect size was ES = 0.33, described as an "overall mean weighted effect size across all studies and all three categories of outcomes of 0.33". The review narrates it second-hand and also reports contrasting conclusions from Carlberg and Kavale (1980) and others.

"The study found small‐to‐moderate beneficial effects of inclusion on all outcomes with an overall mean weighted effect size across all studies and all three categories of outcomes of 0.33."

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 small, non-significant pooled advantage over segregated placement for overall psychosocial adjustment of children with SEN — related