A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Teacher-Implemented Interventions for Disruptive Behaviour in the Inclusive Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disruptive classroom behaviour (DCB) is highly prevalent and is associated with poor outcomes. Although effective, in-class interventions exist for disruptive behaviour, several barriers prevent teachers from using them. The current systematic review and meta-analysis take a unique approach to the literature by focusing on teacher-implemented in-class interventions. The aims of the systematic review and meta-analysis are to (a) to identify studies that evaluated teacher-implemented in-class interventions for DCB in the extant literature, (b) extract characteristics of the interventions related to implementation (e.g., time commitment, training required), and (c) estimate an overall effect size of the interventions on DCB. A systematic review, conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, identified 45 articles included in the final review, of which 27 were included in the meta-analysis. Intervention characteristics were summarized for the 28 identified interventions. The combined effect size of the studies was positive and large when estimated using a random-effects model. The results suggest that while there is evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions, the poor methodological quality of the included studies may inflate the effectiveness. These results also suggest future directions for research regarding teacher-implemented in-class interventions for DCB.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".