The educational psychologist’s role in child protection and safeguarding: an exploration of research over time

The role that schools hold in supporting young people with selective mutism: a systematic literature review

“…The CIS adopted in this review occupies the latter space and is concerned with generating a conceptual understanding of a topic, following a review of the literature currently available (Dixon‐Woods et al., 2006). As this review seeks to generate a conceptual understanding of the role which schools hold in terms of supporting those with SM, CIS is a sensible and appropriate method; moreover, it has recently been applied successfully within the domain of social and educational research (e.g., Allen and Bond, 2020).…”

“…The remaining studies were then appraised using a Weight of Evidence (WoE) framework (Gough, 2007), where quality (WoE A) and relevance of fit to the research question (WoE C) were evaluated. Following Allen and Bond (2020), research quality (WoE A) was evaluated using an established framework for methodological quality (Bond et al., 2013), whilst relevance of fit to the research question (WoE C) was evaluated in accordance with the extent to which the paper might inform school practice: low papers included limited/ no discussion, whilst high‐ranking papers included school‐based practice as their primary focus. Furthermore, all papers were also evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Quality and Rigour of Text and Opinion (2017); it was hoped that this would offer a further level of appraisal not captured by the aforementioned framework.…”

“…From here, 20% of the papers ( n = 7) were read and scored by both authors using these evaluative frameworks, with a high level of inter‐rater agreement both before (93%) and after discussion (100%). Following recent systematic reviews within the domain of educational research (e.g., Allen and Bond, 2020; Law and Woods, 2018), scores were converted into percentages to allow for fair and accurate comparison between frameworks: total scores of less than 33% were given a ‘low’ rating; scores between 34 and 66% were given a ‘medium’ rating; and scores of 67% or above were given a ‘high’ rating. Dixon‐Woods et al.…”

“…Following recent systematic reviews within the domain of educational research (e.g., Allen and Bond, 2020;Law and Woods, 2018), scores were converted into percentages to allow for fair and accurate comparison between frameworks: total scores of less than 33% were given a 'low' rating; scores between 34 and 66% were given a 'medium' rating; and scores of 67% or above were given a 'high' rating. Dixon-Woods et al (2006) indeed note that to achieve its aim, CIS typically prioritise papers of relevance (or 'signal') over those of higher methodological quality (or 'noise') (Edwards et al, 2000).…”