Evaluación de la calidad metodológica de los meta análisis sobre intervenciones para reducir la reincidencia juvenil.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Resumo
La calidad metodológica utilizada en la investigación impacta sus resultados y puede producir sesgos. Así, se realizó una revisión sistemática de otras revisiones sistemáticas y metanálisis sobre la efectividad de los programas de intervención psicosocial para reducir la reincidencia en jóvenes infractores, con el objetivo de describir sus características y evaluar su rigor metodológico. Entre los 25 artículos incluidos, se constató que la mayoría (n= 15) provenía de Estados Unidos, así como la mayoría de los estudios (n= 20) realizaron cálculos metaanalíticos en detrimento de las síntesis narrativas. Además, los artículos incluidos mostraron una producción creciente desde la década de 2000, con publicaciones entre 1985 y 2023. La calidad metodológica de la mayoría de los artículos (n= 18) fue clasificada por la herramienta AMSTAR-2 como críticamente baja. Las características de los artículos incluidos pueden entenderse a través de datos históricos sobre el desarrollo sociopolítico del sistema de justicia juvenil y el desarrollo científico del propio método metaanalítico. A su vez, la baja calidad metodológica verificada apunta a la falta de transparencia en la producción de informes de metanálisis en el campo de estudio centrado en la efectividad de las intervenciones psicosociales. De esta manera, se discuten algunas posibles vías para superar las brechas existentes.
Downloads
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Este trabalho encontra-se publicado com a Licença Internacional Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-CompartilhaIgual 4.0.
Obra disponible bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es).
Referências
Blackburn, S. (2019). Juvenile Justice in Pennsylvania: Mission‐Driven; Performance‐ Based; Outcome‐Focused. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 70(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12127 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12127
Cathey, D. (2019). Relatório Mundial 2020: Rights Trends in Estados Unidos. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/pt/world-report/country-chapters/united-states
Cheng, S.-Y., Davis, M., Jonson-Reid, M., y Yaeger, L. (2021). Compared to What? A Meta-Analysis of Batterer Intervention Studies Using Nontreated Controls or Comparisons. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 22(3), 496-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019865927 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019865927
Cullen, F. T. (2013). Rehabilitation: Beyond Nothing Works. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 299–376. https://doi.org/10.1086/670395 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/670395
Elliott, D. S., Buckley, P. R., Gottfredson, D. C., Hawkins, J. D., y Tolan, P. H. (2020). Evidence‐based juvenile justice programs and practices: A critical review. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12520 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12520
Glass, G. V. (2015). Meta-analysis at middle age: a personal history. Research Synthesis Methods, 6(3), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1133 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1133
Goshe, S. (2019). How Contemporary Rehabilitation Fails Youth and Sabotages the American Juvenile Justice System: A Critique and Call for Change. Crit Crim, 27, 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09473-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09473-5
Moosavi, L. (2019). A Friendly Critique of 'Asian Criminology' and 'Southern Criminology'. The British Journal of Criminology, 59(2), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azy045 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azy045
Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The Primary Factors that Characterize Effective Interventions with Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Overview. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 124–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612573 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612573
Lipsey, M. W. (2020). Revisited: Effective use of the large body of research on the effectiveness of programs for juvenile offenders and the failure of the model programs approach. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(4), 1329–1345. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12530 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12530
Lipsey, M. W., Howell, J. C., y Tidd, S. T. (2007). The standardized program evaluation protocol (SPEP): A practical approach to evaluating and improving juvenile justice programs in North Carolina. Final evaluation report. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Available from author, Retrieved from http://mark.lipsey@vanderbilt.edu
López-Nicolás, R., López-López, J.A., Rubio-Aparicio, M. et al (2022). A meta-review of transparency and reproducibility-related reporting practices in published meta-analyses on clinical psychological interventions (2000–2020). Behavior Research Method, 54, 334–349. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01644-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01644-z
Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., Jones, B., y Hawes, S. (2020). A validation of SPEP™ in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. Retrieved from https://www.pccd.pa.gov/Juvenile-Justice/Documents/A%20Validation%20of%20SPEP%20in%20PA%20Report.pdf
Pigott, T. D., y Polanin, J. R. (2020). Methodological Guidance Paper: High-Quality Meta-Analysis in a Systematic Review. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 24-46. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319877153 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319877153
Polanin, J. R., Hennessy, E. A., y Tsuji, S. (2020). Transparency and Reproducibility of Meta-Analyses in Psychology: A Meta-Review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 1026-1041. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620906416 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620906416
Redpath, D. P., y Brandner, J. K. (2010). The Arizona standardized program evaluation protocol (SPEP) for assessing the effectiveness of programs for juvenile probationers: SPEP rating and relative recidivism reduction: An update to the January 2008 Retrieved from https://my.vanderbilt.edu/spep/files/2013/04/AZ-SPEP-Recidivism-Analysis_Update_-2010.pdf
Schwarzer, G., Chemaitelly, H., Abu‐Raddad, L. J., y Rücker, G. (2019). Seriously misleading results using inverse of freeman‐tukey double arcsine transformation in meta‐analysis of single proportions. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(3), 476-483. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1348 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1348
Sera, F., Armstrong, B., Blangiardo, M., y Gasparrini, A. (2019). An extended mixed-effects framework for meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 38(29), 5429-5444. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8362 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8362
Shadish, W. R., y Lecy, J. D. (2015). The meta-analytic big bang. Research Synthesis Methods, 6(3), 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1132 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1132
Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., et al. (2017). AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ [Internet]. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
Tanner-Smith, E.E., Lipsey, M.W. y Wilson, D.B. Juvenile drug court effects on recidivism and drug use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Exp Criminol, 12, 477–513 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9274-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9274-y
Wong, J. S., y Bouchard, J. (2023). Do Meta-Analyses of Intervention/Prevention Programs in the Field of Criminology Meet the Tests of Transparency and Reproducibility? Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(3), 1522-1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211073839 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211073839