American Printing House for the Blind in Louisville, Kentucky, and Conducted in 2008-09
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A META-ANALYSIS OF EDUCATIONAL APPLICATIONS OF LOW VISION RESEARCH TECHNICAL REPORT Kay Alicyn Ferrell, Ph.D. Cherylann Dozier, Ph.D. Martin Monson, Ed.D. The authors wish to acknowledge the collaborative contributions of Silvia M. Correa-Torres, Ed.D., Christopher Cobb, Linda Rittner, and Zabedah Saad, Ph.D., all at the University of Northern Colorado; Varunee Faii Sangganjanavanich, Ph.D., Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi; Laurie MacDonald, Ph.D., Poudre Valley Health Systems; and Nathan Lowell, Ph.D., and Lorae Blum, NCSSD. Special thanks is extended to Gregory L. Goodrich, Ph.D., Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, for his generosity in sharing his Endnote database, which jump-started this analysis. September 30, 2011 This report was commissioned by the American Printing House for the Blind in Louisville, Kentucky, and conducted in 2008-09. National Center on Severe and Sensory Disabilities 1 CONTENTS A Meta-Analysis of Educational Applications of ....................................................................... 1 Low Vision Research ..................................................................................................................... 1 Technical Report ........................................................................................................................... 1 A Meta-Analysis of Educational Applications of ....................................................................... 1 Low Vision Research ..................................................................................................................... 1 Technical Report ........................................................................................................................... 1 Method ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Table 1. Search Terms Utilized ............................................................................................... 4 Inclusion Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 5 Table 2. Final Classification Of Literature Included In Review ............................................... 6 Data Analysis Strategy ................................................................................................................ 7 Table 3. Relative size of Cohen’s d .......................................................................................... 8 Evaluation of the Evidence ......................................................................................................... 9 Table 4. Summary of Study Quality...................................................................................... 11 Visual Development Programs ............................................................................................. 14 Table 7. Mean effect sizes for outcome measures in visual development studies ............. 16 Low Vision Devices ................................................................................................................ 17 Table 10. Mean effect sizes for outcome measures in low vision device studies ............... 18 Print Size ............................................................................................................................... 20 Table 13. Mean effect sizes for outcome measures in print size studies ............................ 21 Black Light ............................................................................................................................. 21 Table 16. Mean effect sizes for outcome measures in black light studies .......................... 22 Accommodations .................................................................................................................. 22 Table 19. Mean effect sizes for outcome measures in print color studies .......................... 23 Miscellaneous Interventions ................................................................................................. 23 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 24 Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 28 Table 5. Characteristics of Participants in Intervention Studies Investigating Visual Development Training Programs .......................................................................................... 29 National Center on Severe and Sensory Disabilities ii Table 6. Characteristics of Studies Investigating Visual Development Programs ................ 31 Table 8. Characteristics of Participants in Studies Investigating Use of Low Vision Devices (LVD) ...................................................................................................................................... 39 Table 9. Characteristics of Studies Investigating Use of Low Vision Devices ....................... 42 Table 11. Characteristics of Participants in Intervention Studies Investigating Print Size .. 55 Table12. Characteristics of Studies Investigating Print Size ................................................. 56 Table 14. Characteristics of Participants in Intervention Studies Investigating Use of Black Light ....................................................................................................................................... 59 Table 15. Characteristics of Studies Investigating Use of Black Light ................................... 60 Table 17. Characteristics of Participants in Intervention Studies Investigating Accommodations .................................................................................................................. 63 Table18. Characteristics of Studies Investigating Accommodations .................................... 64 Table 20. Characteristics of Participants in Uncategorized Intervention Studies ............... 73 Table21. Characteristics of Uncategorized Studies .............................................................. 74 References ................................................................................................................................ 77 Appendix A. Articles Reviewed ................................................................................................ 85 Appendix B. Study Design and Implementation Device ........................................................ 291 Appendix C. Reviewers’ Comments ....................................................................................... 297 National Center on Severe and Sensory Disabilities iii A META-ANALYSIS OF EDUCATIONAL APPLICATIONS OF LOW VISION RESEARCH TECHNICAL REPORT The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), now more than eight years old, is notable for many things,not the least of which was its mandate to focus on educational research to confirm and substantiate the teaching methodologies used in schools. NCLB uses the term scientifically-based research 110 times in the statute (Slavin, 2002) and specifically defines the term at 20 U.S.C. 7801, Section 9101(37)): (37) . The term “scientifically based research”— (A) means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs; and (B) includes research that— (i) employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn; (ii) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn; (iii) relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators; (iv) is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-assignment experiments, or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls; (v) ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings; and (vi) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review. National Center on Severe and Sensory Disabilities 1 In the education of students with visual impairments, it is not always possible to meet these strict criteria when conducting research. The low-prevalence of visual impairments within the school-age population often hampers efforts to recruit homogeneous subjects and consequently makes randomization both costly and difficult. When strong scientifically-based research does not exist, Valentine and Cooper (2004) suggest that researchers produce syntheses of research summarizing the evidence pertaining to the effectiveness of educational interventions and approaches. The What Works Clearinghouse was established in 2002 by the U.S. Department of Education to identify and disseminate the effectiveness of various educational interventions, primarily by conducting