Person: Sánchez Martín, Micaela
Loading...
Name
Sánchez Martín, Micaela
publication.page.department
Universidad de Murcia. Departamento de Métodos de Investigación y Diagnósticoen Educación
- Publications
- item.page.relationships.isSecondaryAuthorOfPublication
- item.page.relationships.isDirectorOfPublication
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- PublicationOpen AccessCuestionario sobre determinantes para la elección de estudios de Grado en Educación. Diseño y validación(Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Asociación Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía, 2025-04-15) Sánchez Martín, Micaela; Rodríguez Entrena, María Jesús; González Barea, Eva María; Gutiérrez Sánchez, Marta; Teoría e Historia de la Educación; Facultad de EducaciónResearch on the motivations that lead students to decide on which studies to pursue is an interesting challenge at the university stage. The main objective of this article is to present the design and validation process of an instrument aimed at identifying the determinants involved in the choice of education careers. The design of the Questionnaire on Determinants for the Choice of University Degree (CDEGU, in Spanish) was developed in three phases: i) preparation of the questionnaire after reviewing the literature, pilot test and validation; ii) content evaluation using the Delphi method by expert judges based on the criteria of relevance, coherence, clarity and sufficiency. In addition, carrying out a qualitative assessment in order to improve the instrument, and carrying out a pilot test; iii) finally, it was administered to 723 students of the Faculty of Education of the University of Murcia and the responses were computerized using the statistical program SPSS Statistics 27, to carry out content validity analyses (inter-judge agreement), construct (confirmatory factor analysis) and reliability (Cronbach's alpha). The results show that the instrument meets the technical requirements of validity and reliability. In conclusion, the designed questionnaire is useful and reliable to identify the determinants that influence students’ choice of university degrees in education, therefore, it can be recommended to be used in conditions similar to those in which it has been administered.
- PublicationOpen AccessA systematic review to evaluate the risk of bias of meta-analyses reporting experimental educational interventions focused on academic performance(Taylor and Francis Group, Taylor and Francis, 2024-08-05) Sánchez Martín, Micaela; Gutiérrez Sánchez, Marta; Olmedo-Moreno, Eva María; Navarro Mateu, Fernando; Teoría e Historia de la Educación; Facultad de EducaciónIntroduction: Concerns about the risk of bias (RoB) of Meta-analysis (MAs) have grown in parallel with the exponential increase in the number of publications in science. However, this has not been properly assessed in Education. The aims were to evaluate the RoB of MAs in Education and to identify potential predictors of a lower RoB. Methods: Systematic review. Selection criteria were all MAs of experimental design evaluating the effectiveness of educational interventions on any academic outcome published from 1 January 2009 (year of publication of the first PRISMA guideline) published in English or Spanish, with the exclusion of those with other designs, evaluating other outcomes or not accessible to full text. A systematic search was performed in four databases (ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed) until March 2022. A preregistered protocol was used to extract data on study characteristics, PRISMA compliance, and RoB, based on the AMSTAR 2 instrument, and dichotomized as low vs. high RoB. The study selection and data extraction process were independently conducted by two researchers and disagreements were solved by consensus or by a third researcher. Statistical analysis: A flow-diagram and descriptive tables were tabulated. As a measure of association, odds ratios (OR) and its 95% confidence intervals were calculated by logistic regression analysis with dichotomized RoB as the dependent variable. Results: A total of 69 meta-analyses of studies were identified. Almost 90% (n = 62) of them were rated with a critically low overall confidence level, and almost 70% (n = 49) had a high RoB. Factors related to a low RoB were adherence to PRISMA guideline (OR = 5.5; 95%CI: 1.8–16.6), the most recent studies (OR = 7.4; 95%CI: 1.5–35.3), a higher number of authors (OR = 1.4; 95%CI: 1.1–1.9), a corresponding author from a European country (OR = 3.7; 95%CI: 1.1–12.8), and publishing in the health educational area (OR = 13.4; 95%CI: 3.6–49.6). Conclusions: Our study raises concerns regarding the methodological quality of published MA in Education. The use of instruments, such as AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA 2020, may improve the quality of future MA in Education.
- PublicationOpen AccessQuality of flowcharts in meta-analyses in Education: a systematic review(Universidad de Almería, 2025-02-13) Sánchez Martín, Micaela; Gutiérrez Sánchez, Marta; Olmedo-Moreno, Eva María; Navarro Mateu, Fernando; Teoría e Historia de la Educación; Facultad de EducaciónObjetivo: evaluar la calidad de los diagramas de flujo de los meta-análisis publicados en educación. Métodos: Revisión sistemática. Criterios inclusión: metaanálisis de estudios experimentales sobre intervenciones educativas centradas en rendimiento académico, en inglés o español entre 1/enero/2009 y 30/abril/2022. Criterios exclusión: otros diseños, otros resultados o artículos no accesibles. Búsqueda bibliográfica: ERIC, WoS, Scopus y PubMed y búsqueda manual. Selección de artículo y extracción de datos con un protocolo previamente elaborado y registrado por dos evaluadores independientes. Datos: características de los estudios, riesgo de sesgo y adherencia a la PRISMA. Los diagramas de flujo se evaluaron con una 16 criterios de calidad según la PRISMA. Análisis estadísticos: estadísticos descriptivos, Chi-cuadrado o prueba exacta de Fisher y análisis de regresión logística y lineal obteniendo la OR y el coeficiente ß, respectivamente, con sus IC95% y p-valores. Resultados: De 2076 estudios inicialmente identificados, se incluyeron 69 (41 (59.4%) con un diagrama de flujo. Seis de los 16 criterios tuvieron un cumplimiento inferior al 50%. El diagrama de flujo se asoció con menor riesgo de sesgos y mayor adherencia a la PRISMA, entre otros factores descritos. Conclusiones: la utilización y calidad del diagrama de flujo en los metaanálisis publicados en educación es insatisfactoria.
- PublicationOpen AccessAdherencia a la declaración PRISMA en los meta-análisis de intervenciones experimentales publicados en Educación: una meta-revisión sistemática(Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional, 2026-04-01) Sánchez Martín, Micaela; Gutiérrez Sánchez, Marta; Olmedo-Moreno, Eva María; Navarro Mateu, Fernando; Teoría e Historia de la Educación; Facultad de EducaciónObjective: To assess adherence to the PRISMA statement in meta-analyses of educational interventions aimed at improving academic performance between 2009 and 2022. Method: Systematic review. Eligibility criteria: Meta-analyses of experimental studies evaluating educational interventions designed to improve academic performance, published in English or Spanish between January 1, 2009, and April 30, 2022. Exclusion criteria: Other designs or outcomes, and inaccessible publications. Bibliographic search: Conducted in four databases (ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed). Data extraction: Based on a previously developed and registered protocol. Data: Adherence to PRISMA recommendations, risk of bias according to AMSTAR 2, and various characteristics of published studies.Statistical analyses: Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. As measures of association, odds ratios and ß were calculated, with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) and p-values through logistic and linear regression analyses. Results: Out of 2,076 identified studies, 69 were included. The mean PRISMA score was 19.7 (SD = 4.4) out of 27. A total of 51.8% (n = 14) of the recommendations had adherence rates above 75%. Significant differences were found in adherence to the recommendations depending on whether the authors declared compliance with PRISMA in 14 of the 27 items (51.8%). Compliance with 13 of the 27 recommendations (48.1%) was associated with a lower risk of bias. PRISMA adherence was associated with lower risk of bias, more recent publication, health-related education, and interventions involving physical activities in higher education. Conclusions: Adherence to PRISMA in published educational meta-analyses of experimental interventions to improve academic performance is clearly improvable.
Ir a Estadísticas
Sin licencia Creative Commons.