2020-2021 Scaffolding Meta-analysis

What is in this document?

This document outlines the important background information about the 2020-2021 scaffolding
& EF meta-analysis project.

Use the document outline view to quickly navigate this document (View -> Show document
outline) or use the table of contents below to quickly navigate to sections of interest.

For questions about this document, contact Jade Yonehiro at (Jnyonehiro@ucdavis.edu OR

Jnyonehiro@gmail.com)

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 1

Abbreviations and Commonly used Terminology 2

Intro to Systematic Reviews 3

How do systematic reviews differ from general literature reviews? 3
What’s so special about a meta-analysis? 4

The Scaffolding Meta-Analysis 6

Theoretical Background 6
Previous Meta-analysis on parenting an EF development 6
 Abbreviations and Commonly used Terminology

Synonyms & Related References/Learn

Word/Abbreviation Definition terms more
• Synonyms: Cognitive
Executive Function(s): A set of higher order control, executive control
• Miyake & Friedman,
EF(s) cognitive processes that allow us to organize, • Related: Inhibitory control,
2012
control, and execute goal-directed behaviors working memory, updating,
shifting, cognitive flexibility
• Synonyms: parenting
behaviors (kinda)
The process by which a tutor (often focused on
• Related: Cognitive • Wood, Burner, &
parents in this lab) provides a novice learner with
Scaffolding support, emotional Ross, 1976
assistance in performing a task, tailoring their level
support, autonomy • Mermelshitne, 2018
of assistance to the needs of the learner
support, transfer of
responsibility (ToR)
Intro to Systematic Reviews
Watch this video for a brief primer on meta-analyses and their role in science:
https://youtu.be/i675gZNe3MY

What is a systematic review?

A systematic review is a comprehensive literature search and appraisal of a large body of

individual research studies. A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review where the results
from studies included in the review are combined and statistically analyzed. By combining
evidence from multiple research studies, systematic reviews allow us to summarize and make
sense of large bodies of research and propose new scientific theories and ideas.
Importantly, a basic literature review covers papers selected by a researcher at their own
discretion, this can introduce bias into the review (e.g., maybe the results of one paper don’t line
up with my goals so I leave it out of my review). A systematic review reduces bias through the
methodological development of research questions, paper search “protocol” or a list of search
terms (rather than random google searches for papers related to your topic) and more. Below
are the key characteristics of a systematic review.

From Cochrane Handbook, I.

How do systematic reviews differ from general literature reviews?

Systematic reviews differ in many ways, but the primary details are outlined in this figure:
 Lynn, K 2013, Difference between a systematic review and a literature review

What’s so special about a meta-analysis?

A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review that combines the results of all the papers in the
review and uses statistical methods to extract information about the ‘true’ effect in question.

What do we mean by true effect? Well, anytime a researcher looks for an effect (i.e., a
relationship between 2 variables, or testing a manipulation) they can estimate how big of an
effect they found (called an effect size). Some studies find big effects (the manipulation had a
BIG impact on how people acted) and some studies find small effects (the manipulation had little
impact on how people acted). Meta-analyses allow us to, more or less, figure out how big that
effect size actually is by averaging across lots of studies.

Meta-analyses also evaluate if the there is bias in the papers that are published on a topic (e.g.,
only significant results are getting published while null results are not: see the file drawer
problem and issues with publication bias).

By synthesizing the results of many studies we can get a deeper understanding of our field and
the phenomenon we study.

References & Additional Resources:

● The Cochrane Review Handbook
● UCDavis Libraries’ guide for systematic reviews
● University of Tasmania’s guide for systematic reviews
● A review of the meta-analysis process create by Hilary Traut (Part 1, Part 2)
The Scaffolding Meta-Analysis

Theoretical Background
Scaffolding is the process by which a tutor provides a novice learner with assistance in
performing a task, tailoring their level of assistance to the learner’s needs (Wood et al., 1976).
Though scaffolding has been operationalized in many ways over the years, it can be broken
down into three primary behavioral categories: cognitive support, emotional support, and
autonomy support (a.k.a. transfer of responsibility; Leerkes et al., 2011; Mermelshtine, 2017;
Mermelshtine & Barnes, 2016; Stright et al., 2009). Briefly, (1) cognitive support includes
behaviors focused on increasing children’s task understanding, (2) emotional support included
behaviors focused on facilitating children’s metacognitive monitoring and emotion management,
and (3) autonomy support includes behaviors focus on pushing the child towards independent
problem-solving and task completion (Mermelshtine, 2017). Research indicates that early
scaffolding experiences are key to children’s development of executive functions (EFs) - a set of
higher-level cognitive processes that organize, regulate, and control one’s goal-related thoughts
and behaviors. Indeed, a plethora of longitudinal and correlational research has found that
scaffolding behaviors are highly related to the development of EFs (Bernier et al., 2012; Conway
& Stifter, 2012; Matte-Gagné & Bernier, 2011; Meuwissen & Carlson, 2015; Rhoades et al.,
2011). These studies have identified a variety of correlates and mechanisms by which parental
scaffolding can influence the development of EFs. Some have found really strong correlations,
some medium, some weak and the exact parenting behaviors that are correlated to EF
outcomes vary from study to study. This meta-analysis will focus on systematically reviewing the
large body of literature on the relationship between parental behaviors and executive function
development focusing on scaffolding behaviors as defined above.

Previous Meta-analysis on parenting an EF development

In 2018, Valcan and colleagues published a meta-analysis looking at the relationship
between parenting behaviors (broadly defined) and executive function development. The current
meta-analysis differs from this work in two main ways: First, the papers reviewed in Valcan's
work only extend to 2016. So we've got a few more years of research to add to this review
(2016-2020). Secondly, this study will conceptualize parenting behaviors differently and focus on
three categories of scaffolding (cognitive, emotional, and autonomy support). This new
approach to categorizing behaviors will be more clear and allow us to better understand which
types of parenting behaviors are important to EF outcomes.Third, there are lots of different
behaviors which fall under the umbrella terms of “scaffolding” and “executive functions” across
the many fields that study them (e.g., psychology, human development, education). This lack of
definitional consistency makes it incredibly difficult to get a good grasp on what parental
scaffolding behaviors show the strongest correlations to what cognitive development outcomes.
The prior meta-analysis was limited by this definitional inconsistency and was left with a small
set of terms to find papers in databases, resulting in a very small sample of papers for the
review. We will implement a unique approach to generate our search terms to try to address this
issue and find other terms used to describe scaffolding in other fields (e.g., scaffolding can be
called tutoring or parent-child relations; executive functions can be called self-management or
managing behavior). By broadening our search terms we will be able to identify a greater
number of relevant papers than the previous work did which should allow us to gain greater
insights into issues Valcan and colleagues could not (e.g., difference in scaffolding outcomes for
various SES, ethnicities, and education level)