Calidad metodológica de las investigaciones de evaluación de programas de educación parental
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The methodological quality of research on parental education programs has received little attention, despite its boom in recent decades. In the present investigation the methodological quality of such studies is assessed and they are classified into clusters according to their methodological characteristics. For this, a systematic review (SR) has been carried out, following the recommendations of PRISMA, Campbell and Cochrane. The search was limited to documents in Spanish / English, published between 2006 -2019, included in the ERIC, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, WOS, SCIELO, KCI, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO databases. The selected studies (n = 245) were descriptively analyzed based on Methodological Quality Indicators (MQI). To this end, a multivariate analysis of clusters has been carried out, the characteristics of the clusters are described, comparisons between groups are made, and possible associations have been explored. Three clusters (outstanding, remarkable, acceptable-improvement quality) have been obtained, which present significant relationships with the types of research designs followed. It is highlighted that a quarter of the research articles could improve their methodological quality through the clear exposition of the objectives, limitations and sampling characteristics and of the measurement instruments. It is urgent to specify precisely the types and techniques of sampling, an indicator that is absent or vaguely justified in more than 90% of the articles reviewed. These conclusions illustrate some of the challenges and areas of improvement in methodological quality that researchers evaluating positive parenting programs could take into account.
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.
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 | 0.023 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 it