The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) has received considerable attention in the literature. The present study is a quantitative integration and review of that research. From a database of 185 independent studies published up to the end of 1997, the TPB accounted for 27% and 39% of the variance in behaviour and intention, respectively. The perceived behavioural control (PBC) construct accounted for significant amounts of variance in intention and behaviour, independent of theory of reasoned action variables. When behaviour measures were self-reports, the TPB accounted for 11% more of the variance in behaviour than when behaviour measures were objective or observed (R2s = .31 and .21, respectively). Attitude, subjective norm and PBC account for significantly more of the variance in individuals' desires than intentions or self-predictions, but intentions and self-predictions were better predictors of behaviour. The subjective norm construct is generally found to be a weak predictor of intentions. This is partly attributable to a combination of poor measurement and the need for expansion of the normative component. The discussion focuses on ways in which current TPB research can be taken forward in the light of the present review.

/pdf/efficacy-of-the-theory-of-planned-behaviour-a-meta-analytic-32gm69pazu.pdf

Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: a meta-analytic review.

Preface Chapter 1 The challenge Chapter 2 The nature of the evidence: A synthesis of meta-analyses Chapter 3 The argument: Visible teaching and visible learning Chapter 4: The contributions from the student Chapter 5 The contributions from the home Chapter 6 The contributions from the school Chapter 7 The contributions from the teacher Chapter 8 The contributions from the curricula Chapter 9 The contributions from teaching approaches - I Chapter 10 The contributions from teaching approaches - II Chapter 11: Bringing it all together Appendix A: The 800 meta-analyses Appendix B: The meta-analyses by rank order References

Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement

▪ Abstract Socioeconomic status (SES) is one of the most widely studied constructs in the social sciences. Several ways of measuring SES have been proposed, but most include some quantification of family income, parental education, and occupational status. Research shows that SES is associated with a wide array of health, cognitive, and socioemotional outcomes in children, with effects beginning prior to birth and continuing into adulthood. A variety of mechanisms linking SES to child well-being have been proposed, with most involving differences in access to material and social resources or reactions to stress-inducing conditions by both the children themselves and their parents. For children, SES impacts well-being at multiple levels, including both family and neighborhood. Its effects are moderated by children's own characteristics, family characteristics, and external support systems.

Socioeconomic status and child development.

Recent research consistently reports that persistent poverty has more detrimental effects on IQ, school achievement, and socioemotional functioning than transitory poverty, with children experiencing both types of poverty generally doing less well than never-poor children. Higher rates of perinatal complications, reduced access to resources that buffer the negative effects of perinatal complications, increased exposure to lead, and less home-based cognitive stimulation partly account for diminished cognitive functioning in poor children. These factors, along with lower teacher expectancies and poorer academic-readiness skills, also appear to contribute to lower levels of school achievement among poor children. The link between socioeconomic disadvantage and children's socioemotional functioning appears to be mediated partly by harsh, inconsistent parenting and elevated exposure to acute and chronic stressors. The implications of research findings for practice and policy are considered.

Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development

This meta-analysis reviewed the literature on socioeconomic status (SES) and academic achievement in journal articles published between 1990 and 2000. The sample included 101,157 students, 6,871 schools, and 128 school districts gathered from 74 independent samples. The results showed a medium to strong SES–achievement relation. This relation, however, is moderated by the unit, the source, the range of SES variable, and the type of SES–achievement measure. The relation is also contingent upon school level, minority status, and school location. The author conducted a replica of White’s (1982) meta-analysis to see whether the SES–achievement correlation had changed since White’s initial review was published. The results showed a slight decrease in the average correlation. Practical implications for future research and policy are discussed.

Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research

Although it is widely believed that socioeconomic status (SES) is strongly correlated with measures of academic achievement, weak and moderate correlations are frequently reported. Using meta-analysis techniques, almost 200 studies that considered the relation between SES and academic achievement were examined. Results indicated that as SES is typically defined (income, education, and/or occupation of household heads) and typically used (individuals as the unit of analysis), SES is only weakly correlated (r = .22) with academic achievement, With aggregated units of analysis, typically obtained correlations between SES and academic achievement jump to .73. Family characteristics, such as home atmosphere, sometimes incorrectly referred to as SES, are substantially correlated with academic achievement when individuals are the unit of analysis (r = .55). Factors such as grade level at which the measurement was taken, type of academic achievement measure, type of SES measure, and the year in which the data were collected are significantly correlated statistically with the magnitude of the correlation between academic achievement and SES. Variables considered in the meta-analysis accounted for 75% of the variance in observed correlation coefficients in the studies examined.

The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement.

http://infanthearing.org/ncham/publications/lancet.pdf

Sensorineural hearing loss in children

It is widely believed that early intervention programs that involve parents are more effective than those that do not. After discussing the types of parent involvement programs that have been implemented in previous early intervention research and defining the benefits which are allegedly associated with the involvement of parents in early intervention programs, this article presents an analysis of the evidence from previous research regarding the alleged benefits. This analysis shows that there is no convincing evidence that the ways in which parents have been involved in previous early intervention research studies result in more effective outcomes. Possible reasons for the lack of observed benefits are offered, and suggestions are made for future research and practice.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1170719.pdf

Does Research Support Claims About the Benefits of Involving Parents in Early Intervention Programs

Objective. Ninety percent of all newborns in the United States are now screened for hearing loss before they leave the hospital. Many hospitals use a 2-stage protocol for newborn hearing screening in which all infants are screened first with otoacoustic emissions (OAE). No additional testing is done with infants who pass the OAE, but infants who fail the OAE next are screened with automated auditory brainstem response (A-ABR). Infants who fail the A-ABR screening are referred for diagnostic testing to determine whether they have permanent hearing loss (PHL). Those who pass the A-ABR are considered at low risk for hearing loss and are not tested further. The objective of this multicenter study was to determine whether a substantial number of infants who fail the initial OAE and pass the A-ABR have PHL at ∼9 months of age. Methods. Seven birthing centers with successful newborn hearing screening programs using a 2-stage OAE/A-ABR screening protocol participated. During the study period, 86634 infants were screened for hearing loss at these sites. Of those infants who failed the OAE but passed the A-ABR in at least 1 ear, 1524 were enrolled in the study. Data about prenatal, neonatal, and socioeconomic factors, plus hearing loss risk indicators, were collected for all enrolled infants. When the infants were an average of 9.7 months of age, diagnostic audiologic evaluations were done for 64% of the enrolled infants (1432 ears from 973 infants). Results. Twenty-one infants (30 ears) who had failed the OAE but passed the A-ABR during the newborn hearing screening were identified with permanent bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. Twenty-three (77%) of the ears had mild hearing loss (average of 1 kHz, 2 kHz, and 4 kHz ≤40-decibel hearing level). Nine (43%) infants had bilateral as opposed to unilateral loss, and 18 (86%) infants had sensorineural as opposed to permanent conductive hearing loss. Conclusions. If all infants were screened for hearing loss using the 2-stage OAE/A-ABR newborn hearing screening protocol currently used in many hospitals, then ∼23% of those with PHL at ∼9 months of age would have passed the A-ABR. This happens in part because much of the A-ABR screening equipment in current use was designed to identify infants with moderate or greater hearing loss. Thus, program administrators should be certain that the screening program, equipment, and protocols are designed to identify the type of hearing loss targeted by their program. The results also show the need for continued surveillance of hearing status during childhood.

A multicenter evaluation of how many infants with permanent hearing loss pass a two-stage otoacoustic emissions/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol

Based on an analysis of over 300 previous studies of early intervention efficacy, this article explains how the steps in the scientific method can be used to organize and draw conclusions from existing research. Although it is concluded that early intervention has positive benefits for most children, it is pointed out that there is little, if any, empirical support for the types of intervention that are most effective. Suggestions for future research are given.

Karl R. White

Papers

The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement.

Sensorineural hearing loss in children

Does Research Support Claims About the Benefits of Involving Parents in Early Intervention Programs

A multicenter evaluation of how many infants with permanent hearing loss pass a two-stage otoacoustic emissions/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol

Efficacy of Early Intervention