Screening Smarter, Not Harder: A Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Screening Algorithms and Heuristic Stopping Criteria for Systematic Reviews in Educational Research

Author:

Campos Diego G.ORCID,Fütterer TimORCID,Gfrörer ThomasORCID,Lavelle-Hill RosaORCID,Murayama KouORCID,König LarsORCID,Hecht MartinORCID,Zitzmann SteffenORCID,Scherer RonnyORCID

Abstract

AbstractSystematic reviews and meta-analyses are crucial for advancing research, yet they are time-consuming and resource-demanding. Although machine learning and natural language processing algorithms may reduce this time and these resources, their performance has not been tested in education and educational psychology, and there is a lack of clear information on when researchers should stop the reviewing process. In this study, we conducted a retrospective screening simulation using 27 systematic reviews in education and educational psychology. We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, and estimated time savings of several learning algorithms and heuristic stopping criteria. The results showed, on average, a 58% (SD = 19%) reduction in the screening workload of irrelevant records when using learning algorithms for abstract screening and an estimated time savings of 1.66 days (SD = 1.80). The learning algorithm random forests with sentence bidirectional encoder representations from transformers outperformed other algorithms. This finding emphasizes the importance of incorporating semantic and contextual information during feature extraction and modeling in the screening process. Furthermore, we found that 95% of all relevant abstracts within a given dataset can be retrieved using heuristic stopping rules. Specifically, an approach that stops the screening process after classifying 20% of records and consecutively classifying 5% of irrelevant papers yielded the most significant gains in terms of specificity (M = 42%, SD = 28%). However, the performance of the heuristic stopping criteria depended on the learning algorithm used and the length and proportion of relevant papers in an abstract collection. Our study provides empirical evidence on the performance of machine learning screening algorithms for abstract screening in systematic reviews in education and educational psychology.

Funder

University of Oslo

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference79 articles.

1. Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., Florit, E., & Mason, L. (2022). The role of individual differences in sourcing: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 749–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09640-7

2. ASReview LAB. (2023). ASReview LAB - A tool for AI-assisted systematic reviews [Computer software]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7672035

3. Backfisch, I., Schneider, J., Lachner, A., Scheiter, K., & Scherer, R. (2020). Another jingle-jangle fallacy?Examining the validity of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) self-report assessments. https://www.psycharchives.org/en/item/50b6f757-52d3-4902-863a-d833279f3ce2

4. Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning (Vol. 4, Issue 4). Springer.

5. Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. J. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 223(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000194

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3