Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Jul 14;19(3):e1345.
doi: 10.1002/cl2.1345. eCollection 2023 Sep.

The effects of small class sizes on students' academic achievement, socioemotional development and well-being in special education: A systematic review

Anja Bondebjerg  1 , Nina Thorup Dalgaard  1 , Trine Filges  1 , Bjørn Christian Arleth Viinholt  1
Affiliations
Review

The effects of small class sizes on students' academic achievement, socioemotional development and well-being in special education: A systematic review

Anja Bondebjerg et al. Campbell Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Class size reductions in general education are some of the most researched educational interventions in social science, yet researchers have not reached any final conclusions regarding their effects. While research on the relationship between general education class size and student achievement is plentiful, research on class size in special education is scarce, even though class size issues must be considered particularly important to students with special educational needs. These students compose a highly diverse group in terms of diagnoses, functional levels, and support needs, but they share a common need for special educational accommodations, which often entails additional instructional support in smaller units than what is normally provided in general education. At this point, there is however a lack of clarity as to the effects of special education class sizes on student academic achievement and socioemotional development. Inevitably, such lack of clarity is an obstacle for special educators and policymakers trying to make informed decisions. This highlights the policy relevance of the current systematic review, in which we sought to examine the effects of small class sizes in special education on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well-being of children with special educational needs.

Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to uncover and synthesise data from studies to assess the impact of small class sizes on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well-being of students with special educational needs. We also aimed to investigate the extent to which the effects differed among subgroups of students. Finally, we planned to perform a qualitative exploration of the experiences of children, teachers, and parents with class size issues in special education.

Search methods: Relevant studies were identified through electronic searches in bibliographic databases, searches in grey literature resources, searches using Internet search engines, hand-searches of specific targeted journals, and citation-tracking. The following bibliographic databases were searched in April 2021: ERIC (EBSCO-host), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO-host), EconLit (EBSCO-host), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO-host), SocINDEX (EBSCO-host), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), and Web of Science (Clarivate, Science Citation Index Expanded & Social Sciences Citation Index). EBSCO OPEN Dissertations was also searched in April 2021, while the remaining searches for grey literature, hand-searches in key journals, and citation-tracking took place between January and May 2022.

Selection criteria: The intervention in this review was a small special education class size. Eligible quantitative study designs were studies that used a well-defined control or comparison group, that is, studies where there was a comparison between students in smaller classes and students in larger classes. Children with special educational needs in grades K-12 (or the equivalent in European countries) in special education were eligible. In addition to exploring the effects of small class sizes in special education from a quantitative perspective, we aimed to gain insight into the lived experiences of children, teachers, and parents with class size issues in special education contexts, as they are presented in the qualitative research literature. The review therefore also included all types of empirical qualitative studies that collected primary data and provided descriptions of main methodological issues such as selection of informants, data collection procedures, and type of data analysis. Eligible qualitative study designs included but were not limited to studies using ethnographic observation or field work formats, or qualitative interview techniques applied to individual or focus group conversations.

Data collection and analysis: The literature search yielded a total of 26,141 records which were screened for eligibility based on title and abstract. From these, 262 potentially relevant records were retrieved and screened in full text, resulting in seven studies being included: three quantitative and five qualitative studies (one study contained both eligible quantitative and qualitative data). Two of the quantitative studies could not be used in the data synthesis as they were judged to have a critical risk of bias and, in accordance with the protocol, were excluded from the meta-analysis on the basis that they would be more likely to mislead than inform. The third quantitative study did not provide enough information enabling us to calculate an effect size and standard error. Meta-analysis was therefore not possible. Following quality appraisal of the qualitative studies, three qualitative studies were judged to be of sufficient methodological quality. It was not possible to perform a qualitative thematic synthesis since in two of these studies, findings particular to special education class size were scarce. Therefore, only descriptive data extraction could be performed.

Main results: Despite the comprehensive searches, the present review only included seven studies published between 1926 and 2020. Two studies were purely quantitative (Forness, 1985; Metzner, 1926) and from the U.S. Four studies used qualitative methodology (Gottlieb, 1997; Huang, 2020; Keith, 1993; Prunty, 2012) and were from the US (2), China (1), and Ireland (1). One study, MAGI Educational Services (1995), contained both eligible quantitative and qualitative data and was from the U.S.

Authors' conclusions: The major finding of the present review was that there were virtually no contemporary quantitative studies exploring the effects of small class sizes in special education, thus making it impossible to perform a meta-analysis. More research is therefore thoroughly needed. Findings from the summary of included qualitative studies reflected that to the special education students and staff members participating in these studies, smaller class sizes were the preferred option because they allowed for more individualised instruction time and increased teacher attention to students' diverse needs. It should be noted that these studies were few in number and took place in very diverse contexts and across a large time span. There is a need for more qualitative research into the views and experiences of teachers, parents, and school administrators with special education class sizes in different local contexts and across various provision models. But most importantly, future research should strive to represent the voices of children and young people with special needs since they are the experts when it comes to matters concerning their own lives.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Please note that one study (MAGI Educational Services, year) was included as both a quantitative and qualitative study and is therefore counted in both categories.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

Forness, 1985

    1. * Forness, S. R. , & Kavale, K. A. (1985). Effects of class size on attention, communication, and disruption of mildly mentally retarded children. American Educational Research Journal, 22(3), 403–412.

Gottlieb, 1997

    1. Gottlieb, J. , & Alter, M. (1997). An evaluation study of the impact of modifying instructional group sizes in resource rooms and related service groups in New York City. Final report. Revised. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED414373&s...

Huang, 2020

    1. * Huang, S. (2020). Special education teachers' perceptions of and practices in individualizing instruction for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in China [Dissertation, Boston University]. - PubMed

Keith, 1993a

    1. * Keith, T. Z. (1993). Special education program standards study. Commonwealth of Virginia. Final technical report. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia State Department of Education.

MAGI Educational Services, Inc., 1995

    1. *MAGI Educational Services, Inc . (1995). Results of a statewide reasearch study on the effects of class size in special education. Class Size Research Bulletin, 1(1), 1–12.

Metzner, 1926

    1. * Metzner, A. B. , & Berry, C. S. (1926). Size of class for mentally retarded children. Training School Bulletin, 23, 241–251.

Prunty, 2012

    1. * Prunty, A. , Dupont, M. , & McDaid, R. (2012). Voices of students with special educational needs (SEN): Views on schooling. Support for Learning, 27, 29–36.
    1. EXCLUDED STUDIES

Bloom, 1992

    1. * Bloom, J. A. (1992). Effect of student‐teacher ratio on student achievement and teacher reported burnout in special education [Dissertation, Hofstra University].

Dykstra, 2013

    1. * Dykstra, J. R. (2013). Student engagement in self‐contained classrooms serving students with autism spectrum disorders [Dissertation, ProQuest LLC].

Furno, 1967

    1. * Furno, O. F. , & Collins, G. J. (1967). Class size and pupil learning. Baltimore City Public Schools. U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare, Office of Education.

Hart, 2011

    1. * Hart, K. C. , Massetti, G. M. , Fabiano, G. A. , Pariseau, M. E. , & Pelham, Jr., W. E. (2011). Impact of group size on classroom on‐task behavior and work productivity in children with ADHD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 19(1), 55–64.

Keith, 1993b

    1. Keith, P. B. (1993, February 18). Others. investigating the influences of class size and class mix on special education student outcomes: Phase one results. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Clearwater, FL.

Patterson, 2016

    1. * Patterson, D. (2016). A comparative study on academic performance of students with Asperger's syndrome in different classroom formats. ProQuest LLC.

Snart, 1985

    1. * Snart, F. , & Hillyard, A. (1985). Staff ratios and allocated instructional time for multihandicapped students. Exceptional Children, 51(4), 289–296. - PubMed

Steinbrenner, 2015

    1. * Steinbrenner, J. R. D. , & Watson, L. R. (2015). Student engagement in the classroom: The impact of classroom, teacher, and student factors. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(8), 2392–2410. - PubMed

Thurlow, 1988

    1. * Thurlow, M. L. , Ysseldyke, J. E. , & Wotruba, J. W. (1988). Student and instructional outcomes under varying student‐teacher ratios in special education (Research Report No. 12). Instructional Alternatives Project.

Thurlow, 1993

    1. * Thurlow, M. L. , Ysseldyke, J. E. , Wotruba, J. W. , & Algozzine, B. (1993). Instruction in special education classrooms under varying Student‐Teacher ratios. Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 305–320.
    1. OTHER REFERENCES
    1. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

Achenbach, 2000

    1. Achenbach, T. M. , & Ruffle, T. M. (2000). The Child Behavior Checklist and related forms for assessing behavioral/emotional problems and competencies. Pediatrics in Review, 21(8), 265–271. - PubMed

Ahearn, 1995

    1. Ahearn, E. M. (1995). Caseload/class size in special education: A brief analysis of state regulations. Final report. National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Angrist, 1999

    1. Angrist, J. D. , & Lavy, V. (1999). Using Maimonides' rule to estimate the effect of class size on scholastic achievement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(2), 533–575.

Angrist, 2009

    1. Angrist, J. D. , & Pischke, J. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion. Princeton University Press.

Asher, 1984

    1. Asher, S. R. , Hymel, S. , & Renshaw, P. D. (1984). Loneliness in children. Child Development, 55, 1456–1464.

Bell, 2002

    1. Bell, R. M. , & McCaffrey, D. F. (2002). Bias reduction in standard errors for linear regression with multi‐stage samples. Survey Methodology, 28(2), 169–181.

Biddle, 2002

    1. Biddle, B. J. , & Berliner, D. C. (2002). Small class size and its effects. Educational Leadership, 59(5), 12–23.

Bondebjerg, 2021

    1. Bondebjerg, A. , Dalgaard, N. T. , Filges, T. , Thomsen, M. K. , & Viinholt, B. C. A. (2021). PROTOCOL: The effects of small class sizes on students' academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well‐being in special education. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(2), e1159. 10.1002/cl2.1159 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Borenstein, 2009

    1. Borenstein, M. , Hedges, L. V. , Higgins, J. P. T. , & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta‐analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Borland, 2005

    1. Borland, M. V. , Howsen, R. M. , & Trawick, M. W. (2005). An investigation of the effect of class size on student academic achievement. Education Economics, 13(1), 73–83.

Brown, 1991

    1. Brown, L. , & Alexander, J. (1991). Self‐esteem index examiner's manual. PRO‐ED.

Cooke, 2012

    1. Cooke, A. , Smith, D. , & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1435–1443. - PubMed

Donner, 2001

    1. Donner, A. , Piaggio, G. , & Villar, J. (2001). Statistical methods for the meta‐analysis of cluster randomized trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 10(5), 325–338. - PubMed

Ehrenberg, 2001

    1. Ehrenberg, R. G. , Brewer, D. J. , Gamoran, A. , & Willms, J. D. (2001). Class size and student achievement. Psychological Science and the Public Interest, 2(1), 1–30. - PubMed

Europe, 2006

    1. Europe, T. K. G. (2006). The Kidscreen questionnaires: Quality of life questionnaires for children and adolescents. Pabst Science Publishers.

Filges, 2018

    1. Filges, T. , Sonne‐Schmidt, C. S. , & Nielsen, B. C. V. (2018). Small class sizes for improving student achievement in primary and secondary schools. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2018(10), 107. - PMC - PubMed

Finn, 2002

    1. Finn, J. D. (2002). Small classes in American schools: Research, practice and politics. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(7), 551–560.

Fisher, 1983

    1. Fisher, D. L. , & Fraser, B. J. (1983). Validity and use of Classroom Environment Scale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 5, 261–271.

Frandsen, 2016

    1. Frandsen, T. F. , Christensen, J. B. , & Ølholm, A. M. (2016). Systematisk søgning efter kvalitativ litteratur kan styrkes. Ugeskrift for Læger, 178(V06160384), 60–63.

Fraser, 1998

    1. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–34.

Fredriksson, 2013

    1. Fredriksson, P. , Öckert, B. , & Oosterbeek, H. (2013). Long‐term effects of class size. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 249–285.

Goodman, 2000

    1. Goodman, R. , Ford, T. , Richards, H. , Gatward, R. , & Meltzer, H. (2000). The development and well‐being assessment: Description and initial validation of an integrated assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(5), 645–665. - PubMed

Goodman, 2001

    1. Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(11), 1337–1345. - PubMed

Gough, 2012

    1. Gough, D. , Thomas, J. , & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 1, 28. - PMC - PubMed

Greenwood, 1978

    1. Greenwood, C. R. , Delquadri, J. , & Hall, R. V. (1978). Code for instructional structure and student academic response: CISSAR. University of Kansas, Bureau of Child Research, Juniper Gardens Childrens Project.

Hannes, 2011

    1. Hannes, K. (2011). Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In Noyes J., Booth A., Hannes K., Harden A., Harris J., Lewin S., & Lockwood C. (Eds.), Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions (p. 2011). Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group.

Harden, 2005

    1. Harden, A. , & Thomas, J. (2005). Methodological issues in combining diverse study types in systematic reviews. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3), 257–271.

Harter, 1982

    1. Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for children. Child Development, 53(1), 87–97. - PubMed

Heckman, 2006

    1. Heckman, J. J. , Urzua, S. , & Vytlacil, E. (2006). Understanding instrumental variables in models with essential heterogeneity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(3), 389–432.

Heckman, 2010

    1. Heckman, J. J. , & Urzua, S. (2010). Comparing IV with structural models: What simple IV can and cannot identify. Journal of Econometrics, 156, 27–37. - PMC - PubMed

Hedges, 2004

    1. Hedges, L. W. , & Pigott, T. D. (2004). The power of statistical tests for moderators in meta‐analysis. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 426–445. - PubMed

Hedges, 2007a

    1. Hedges, L. V. , & Hedberg, E. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group randomized trials in education. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 60–87.

Hedges, 2007b

    1. Hedges, L. V. (2007). Effect sizes in cluster‐randomized designs. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32(4), 341–370.

Hedges, 2007c

    1. Hedges, L. V. (2007). Meta‐analysis. In Rao C. R. (Ed.), The handbook of statistics (pp. 919–953). Elsevier.

Hedges, 2010

    1. Hedges, L. V. , Tipton, E. , & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta‐regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 39–65. - PubMed

Higgins, 2003

    1. Higgins, J. P. , Thompson, S. G. , Deeks, J. J. , & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557–560. - PMC - PubMed

Higgins, 2011a

    1. Higgins, J. P. T. , Altman, D. G. , Goetzsche, P. C. , Juni, P. , Moher, D. , Oxman, A. D. , Savovic, J. , Schulz, K. F. , Weeks, L. , Sterne, J. A. C. , & Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group . (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343, d5928. - PMC - PubMed

Higgins, 2011b

    1. Higgins, J. P. T. , & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Wiley‐Blackwell, The Cochrane Collaboration.

Higgins, 2016

    1. Higgins, J. P. T. , Sterne, J. A. C. , Savovic, J. , Page, M. J. , Hrobjartsson, A. , Boutron, I. , Reeves, B. , & Eldridge, S . (2016). A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. In Chandler J., McKenzie J., Boutron I., & Welch V. (Eds.), Cochrane methods (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2016. Issue 10. (Suppl. 1) 10.1002/14651858.CD201601 - DOI

Higgins, 2019

    1. Higgins, J. P. T. , Savovic, J. , Page, M. J. , & Sterne, J. A. C. (editors on behalf of the ROB2 Development Group Revised). (2019). Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2): Detailed guidance, updated 15 March. Retrieved May 2, 2019, from http://www.riskofbias.info

Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017

    1. Joanna Briggs Institute . (2017). JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Retrieved April 21, 2020, from https://joannabriggs.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI_Critical_Apprai...

Kavale, 2000

    1. Kavale, K. A. , & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality: Analysis of the inclusion debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 279–296.

Konstantopoulos, 2006

    1. Konstantopoulos, S. (2006). Fixed and mixed effects models in meta‐analysis (IZADP No. 2198).

Lipsey, 2001

    1. Lipsey, M. W. , & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta‐analysis. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 49, 247.

Lockwood, 2015

    1. Lockwood, C. , Munn, Z. , & Porritt, K. (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta‐aggregation. International Journal of Evidence‐Based Healthcare, 13(3), 179–187. - PubMed

Mather, 2001

    1. Mather, N. , Wendling, B. J. , & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Essentials of WJ III [TM] tests of achievement assessment. Essentials of psychological assessment series. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Mathur, 2020

    1. Mathur, M. B. , & VanderWeele, T. J. (2020). Sensitivity analysis for publication bias in meta‐analyses. Applied Statistics, 69(5), 1091–1119. - PMC - PubMed

McCaffrey, 2001

    1. McCaffrey, D. F. , Bell, R. M. , & Botts, C. H. (2001, August 5–9). Generalizations of biased reduced linearization. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association.

McCrea, 1996

    1. McCrea, L. (1996). A review of literature: SpecialSpecial education and class size (Michigan State Board of Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED, 407 387).

Minnesota Department, 2000

    1. Minnesota Department, Children, Families & Learning . (2000). Issues in special education caseload/class size policy. Report summary. https://mn.gov/mnddc/past/pdf/00s/00/00-ISE-MDE.pdf

Moos, 1979

    1. Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, findings and policy implications. Jossey‐Bass.

Moos, 1987

    1. Moos, R. H. , & Trickett, E. J. (1987). Classroom Environment Scale manual. Consulting Psychologists Press.

Noyes, 2011a

    1. Noyes, J. , & Lewin, S. (2011). Chapter 6: Supplemental Guidance on Selecting a Method of Qualitative Evidence Synthesis, and Integrating Qualitative Evidence with Cochrane Intervention Reviews. In Noyes J., Booth A., Hannes K., Harden A., Harris J., Lewin S., & Lockwood C. (Eds.), Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions (p. 22). Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group.

Noyes, 2011b

    1. Noyes, J. , & Lewin, S. (2011). Chapter 5: Extracting qualitative evidence. In Noyes J., Booth A., Hannes K., Harden A., Harris J., Lewin S., & Lockwood C. (Eds.), Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane Systematic reviews of interventions (p. 24). Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group.

Noyes, 2019

    1. Noyes, J. , Booth, A. , Cargo, M. , Flemming, K. , Harden, A. , Harris, J. , Garside, R. , Hannes, K. , Pantoja, T. , & Thomas, J. (2019). Chapter 21: Qualitative evidence. In Higgins J. P. T., Thomas J., Chandler J., Cumpston M., Li T., Page M. J., & Welch V. A. (Eds.). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019) (p. 18). Cochrane.

Oxman, 1992

    1. Oxman, A. D. , & Guyatt, G. H. (1992). A consumers guide to subgroup analyses. Annals of Internal Medicine, 116(1), 78–84. - PubMed

Project FORUM, 2000

    1. Project FORUM . (2000). Special education issues in caseload/class size. National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE).

Project FORUM, 2003

    1. Project FORUM . (2003). Caseload/class size in special education. National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE).

Renninger, 2006

    1. Renninger, A. , Sigel, I. E. , Damon, W. , & Lerner, R. M. (2006). Handbook of child psychology, child psychology in practice. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Russ, 2001

    1. Russ, S. , Chiang, B. , Rylance, B. J. , & Bongers, J. (2001). Caseload in special education: An integration of research findings. Exceptional Children, 67(2), 161–172.

Sanchez‐Meca, 2003

    1. Sanchez‐Meca, J. , Marin‐Martinez, F. , & Chacon‐Moscoso, S. (2003). Effect‐size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta‐analysis. Psychological Methods, 8(4), 448–467. - PubMed

Satterthwaite, 1946

    1. Satterthwaite, F. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics, 2, 110–114. - PubMed

Schanzenbach, 2007

    1. Schanzenbach, D. W. (2007). What have researchers learned from Project STAR? Brookings Papers on Education Policy. Brookings Institution.

Snilstveit, 2018

    1. Snilstveit, B. , Stevenson, J. , Langer, L. , Polanin, J. , Shemilt, I. , Eyers, J. , & Ferraro, P. J. (2018). Protocol: Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector: A mixed‐methods systematic review of the effectiveness of payment for environment services (PES) on environmental and socio‐economic outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries. The Campbell Collaboration. - PMC - PubMed

Snilstveit, 2019

    1. Snilstveit, B. , Stevenson, J. , Langer, L. , Tannous, N. , Ravat, Z. , Nduku, P. , Polanin, J. , Shemilt, I. , Eyers, J. , & Ferraro, P. J. (2019). Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector ‐ the effects of payment for environmental services on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2019, 15, e1045. - PMC - PubMed

Sterne, 2005

    1. Sterne, J. A. , Becker, B. J. , & Egger, M. (2005). The funnel plot. In: Rothstein H. R., Sutton A. J., & Borenstein M. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta‐analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 75–98). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Sterne, 2016a

    1. Sterne, J. A. C. , Hernan, M. A. , Reeves, B. C. , Savovic, J. , Berkman, N. D. , Viswanathan, M. , Henry, D. , Altman, D. G. , Ansari, T. G. , Boutron, I. , Carpenter, J. R. , Chan, A.‐W. , Churchill, R. , Deeks, J. J. , Hróbjartsson, A. , Kirkham, J. , Jüni, P. , Loke, Y. K. , Pigott, T. D. , … Higgins, J. P. T. (2016). ROBINS‐I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non‐randomized studies of interventions. BMJ, 355(i4919), i4919. - PMC - PubMed

Sterne, 2016b

    1. Sterne, J. A. C. , Higgins, J. P. T. , Elbers, R. G. , & Reeves, B. C. (2016). The development group for ROBINS‐I. Risk Of Bias In Non‐randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS‐I): Detailed guidance, updated 12 October. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from http://www.riskofbias.info

Tanner‐Smith, 2014

    1. Tanner‐Smith, E. E. , & Tipton, E. (2014). Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: Practical considerations including a software tutorial in Stata and SPSS. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(1), 13–30. - PubMed

The Psychological Corporation, 1990

    1. The Psychological Corporation . (1990). Stanford Achievement Test Series: Technical data report. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Thomas, 2008

    1. Thomas, J. , & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45. - PMC - PubMed

Thomas, 2022

    1. Thomas, J. , Graziosi, S. , Brunton, J. , Ghouze, Z. , O'Driscoll, P. , Bond, M. , & Koryakina, A. (2022). EPPI‐Reviewer: Advanced software for systematic reviews, maps and evidence synthesis. EPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.

Tipton, 2015

    1. Tipton, E. (2015). Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta‐regression. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 375. - PubMed

Vehmas, 2010

    1. Vehmas, S. (2010). Special needs: A philosophical analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(1), 87–96.

Whittemore, 2014

    1. Whittemore, R. , Chao, A. , Jang, M. , Minges, K. E. , & Park, C. (2014). Methods for knowledge synthesis: An overview. Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care, 43(5), 453–461. - PubMed

Wilson, 2002

    1. Wilson, J. (2002). Defining “special needs”. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(1), 61–66.

Ysseldyke, 1986

    1. Ysseldyke, J. E. , Christenson, S. L. , McVicar, R. , Bakewell, D. , & Thurlow, M. L. (1986). Instructional environment scale: Scale development and training procedures. University of Minnesota, Instructional Alternatives Project.

Ysseldyke, 1988

    1. Ysseldyke, J. E. (1988). Student‐teacher ratios and their relationship to instruction and achievement for mildly handicapped students. Final Project Report. University of Minnesota.

Zarghami, 2004

    1. Zarghami, F. , & Schnellert, G. (2004). Class size reduction: No silver bullet for special education students' achievement. International Journal of Special Education, 19(1), 89–96.

LinkOut - more resources