lnu.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Nordström, Thomas, Filosofie doktor i psykologiORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-3829-4169
Publications (10 of 35) Show all publications
Tyni, K., Wurm, M., Nordström, T. & Bratt, A. S. (2024). A systematic review and qualitative research synthesis of the lived experiences and coping of transgender and gender diverse youth 18 years or younger. International Journal of Transgender Health
Open this publication in new window or tab >>A systematic review and qualitative research synthesis of the lived experiences and coping of transgender and gender diverse youth 18 years or younger
2024 (English)In: International Journal of Transgender Health, ISSN 2689-5269Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

Background

Research on the daily experiences of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) youth 18 years or younger is limited, making it essential to gain a comprehensive understanding of their internal and external experiences related to gender identity.

Aim

This systematic review and qualitative research synthesis fills this research gap by examining the lived experiences and coping of TGD youth, including prepubertal children.

Methods

The review was pre-registered according to PROSPERO on the Open Science Framework and followed the ENTREQ reporting guidelines. A Qualitative research synthesis, according to Howell Major and Savin-Baden, was conducted.

Results

Seventeen peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2023 fulfilled inclusion criteria and quality assessment. Synthesized themes were: (1) “Navigating gender identity”, with two sub-themes, Meaning-making and Considering visibility (2) “Navigating relations”, with four sub-themes: Longing for belonging, Supportive actions, Lack of safety and Coping inside out (3) “Navigating society with two sub-themes Inclusion and exclusion and Beyond control. Our findings demonstrate that TGD youth view gender identity as fluid and benefit from a supportive environment that facilitates genuine exploration. Coping strategies develop intricately, influenced by multifaceted factors.

Discussion

Unlike previous research on the negative effects of minority stress, our review underscores the cumulative impact of subtle daily stressors on TGD youth’s well-being, highlighting the significance of an environment where gender is not a constant concern. By shedding light on these dynamics, this synthesis contributes to a comprehensive understanding of TGD youth’s perspectives for professionals and a broader audience.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis Group, 2024
Keywords
Children and youth, gender identity, gender diverse, qualitative, systematic review, transgender
National Category
Social Work
Research subject
Social Sciences, Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-126821 (URN)10.1080/26895269.2023.2295379 (DOI)001141964800001 ()2-s2.0-85182251280 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2024-01-17 Created: 2024-01-17 Last updated: 2024-02-01
Nordström, T., Danielsson, H. & Fälth, L. (2023). Evaluating the Simple View of Reading Model: Longitudinal Testing and Applicability to the Swedish Language. In: Presented at the Quantitative research methods in education conference, QRM, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 12-13: . Paper presented at Quantitative research methods in education conference, QRM, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 12-13.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Evaluating the Simple View of Reading Model: Longitudinal Testing and Applicability to the Swedish Language
2023 (English)In: Presented at the Quantitative research methods in education conference, QRM, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 12-13, 2023Conference paper, Oral presentation only (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This study investigates the challenges associated with statistically evaluating the Simple View of Reading model (SVR) and its applicability to the Swedish language. The SVR model, a widely-accepted and popular framework, posits that reading comprehension (RC) is a product of two independent factors: decoding (D) and language comprehension (LC), expressed as RC = D x LC. While various statistical approaches have been employed to validate the model in English, a deep and non-transparent orthography, a consensus on a formal testing method has not been reached. Additionally, the model's functionality in other languages, such as Swedish, which has a semi-transparent orthography, remains unclear.

 This study has two primary objectives: 1) to longitudinally test the SVR model's validity from year 1 to 3, examining the relative contributions of decoding and language comprehension factors to reading comprehension over time using a latent variable approach, and 2) to assess the model's applicability to the Swedish language. To achieve these goals, we utilize an extensive dataset from the LegiLexi foundation, comprising data from 43,127 students across 2,666 schools and 18,006 classes.

 The presentation will discuss methodological and statistical considerations necessary for evaluating the SVR model, as well as the contributions of decoding and language comprehension factors to reading comprehension during primary school's learning-to-read process.

 

National Category
Psychology Educational Sciences
Research subject
Social Sciences, Psychology; Statistics/Econometrics; Pedagogics and Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-121818 (URN)
Conference
Quantitative research methods in education conference, QRM, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 12-13
Available from: 2023-06-14 Created: 2023-06-14 Last updated: 2023-09-06Bibliographically approved
van den Akker, O. R., Ygram Peters, G., Bakker, C. B., Carlsson, R., Coles, N. A., Corker, K. S., . . . Pfeiffer, N. (2023). Increasing the transparency of systematic reviews: presenting a generalized registration form. Systematic Reviews, 12, Article ID 170.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Increasing the transparency of systematic reviews: presenting a generalized registration form
Show others...
2023 (English)In: Systematic Reviews, E-ISSN 2046-4053, Vol. 12, article id 170Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper presents a generalized registration form for systematic reviews that can be used when currently available forms are not adequate. The form is designed to be applicable across disciplines (i.e., psychology, economics, law, physics, or any other field) and across review types (i.e., scoping review, review of qualitative studies, meta-analysis, or any other type of review). That means that the reviewed records may include research reports as well as archive documents, case law, books, poems, etc. Items were selected and formulated to optimize broad applicability instead of specificity, forgoing some benefits afforded by a tighter focus. This PRISMA 2020 compliant form is a fallback for more specialized forms and can be used if no specialized form or registration platform is available. When accessing this form on the Open Science Framework website, users will therefore first be guided to specialized forms when they exist. In addition to this use case, the form can also serve as a starting point for creating registration forms that cater to specific fields or review types.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BioMed Central (BMC), 2023
Keywords
Systematic review, Preregistration, Registration, Transparency
National Category
Psychology
Research subject
Social Sciences, Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-124954 (URN)10.1186/s13643-023-02281-7 (DOI)001073332200001 ()2-s2.0-85171892668 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2023-09-29 Created: 2023-09-29 Last updated: 2023-10-18Bibliographically approved
Nordström, T., Kalmendal, A. & Batinovic, L. (2023). Risk of bias and open science practices in systematic reviews of educational effectiveness: A meta-review. Review of Education, 11(3), Article ID e3443.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Risk of bias and open science practices in systematic reviews of educational effectiveness: A meta-review
2023 (English)In: Review of Education, E-ISSN 2049-6613, Vol. 11, no 3, article id e3443Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In order to produce the most reliable syntheses of the effectiveness of educational interventions, systematic reviews need to adhere to rigorous methodological standards. This meta-review investigated risk of bias occurring while conducting a systematic review and the presence of open science practices like data sharing and reproducibility of the review procedure, in recently published reviews in education. We included all systematic reviews of educational interventions, instructions and methods for all K-12 student populations in any school form with experimental or quasi-experimental designs (an active manipulation of the intervention) with comparisons and where the outcome variables were academic performance of any kind. We searched the database Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) through the years 2019–2021. In parallel we hand-searched four major educational review journals for systematic reviews: Educational Research Review (Elsevier), Educational Review (Taylor & Francis), Review of Education (Wiley), and Review of Educational Research (AERA). Systematic reviews were assessed with the risk of bias tool ROBIS and whether the studies had pre-registered protocols, shared primary research data, and whether a third party could reproduce search strings and details of where exactly primary research data were extracted. A total of 88 studies that matched our PICOS were included in this review; of these, 10 educational systematic reviews were judged as low risk of bias (approximately 11%) . The rest were classified as high risk of bias during a shortened ROBIS assessment or assessed as high risk or unclear risk of bias following a full ROBIS assessment. Of the 10 low risk of bias reviews, 6 had detailed their search sufficiently enough for a third party to reproduce, 3 reviews shared the data from primary studies, however none had specified how and from where exactly data from primary studies were extracted. The study shows that at least a small part of systematic reviews in education has a low risk of bias, but most systematic reviews in our set of studies have high risk of bias in their methodological procedure. There are still improvements in this field to be expected as even the low risk of bias reviews are not consistent regarding pre-registered protocols, data sharing, reproducibility of primary research data and reproducible search strings.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2023
Keywords
education, meta-review, open science, reproducibility, risk of bias, systematic review
National Category
Educational Sciences
Research subject
Pedagogics and Educational Sciences; Pedagogics and Educational Sciences, Education
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-125850 (URN)10.1002/rev3.3443 (DOI)001135375900005 ()2-s2.0-85178214449 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Swedish Research Council, 2020-03430
Available from: 2023-12-01 Created: 2023-12-01 Last updated: 2024-01-18Bibliographically approved
Nilsonne, G., Dahlgren, P. M., Eklund, A., Danielsson, H., Carlsson, R., Innes-Ker, Å., . . . Willén, R. M. (2023). ”Sluta betala för att få publicera forskning”. Svenska Dagbladet (2023-03-28)
Open this publication in new window or tab >>”Sluta betala för att få publicera forskning”
Show others...
2023 (Swedish)In: Svenska Dagbladet, ISSN 1101-2412, no 2023-03-28Article in journal, News item (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.)) Published
Abstract [sv]

Vetenskapliga tidskrifter som gömmer sina forskningsresultat bakom betalväggar har spelat ut sin roll. Nu har vi chansen att få 500 miljoner mer till forskning – bara genom att säga nej till tidskrifterna, skriver debattörer.

Keywords
öppen tillgång, öppen vetenskap
National Category
Other Social Sciences not elsewhere specified
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-123435 (URN)
Available from: 2023-08-04 Created: 2023-08-04 Last updated: 2023-08-04Bibliographically approved
Kalmendal, A., Carlsson, R. & Nordström, T. (2023). Visible learning, best practice or boondoggle?: Challenges in assessing a meta-meta-analysis. In: Presented at Unconference on Open Scholarship Practices in Education Research, Centre for Open Science, Charlottesville, United States of America: . Paper presented at 2023 Unconference on Open Scholarship Practices in Education Research, Centre for Open Science, Charlottesville, United States of America.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Visible learning, best practice or boondoggle?: Challenges in assessing a meta-meta-analysis
2023 (English)In: Presented at Unconference on Open Scholarship Practices in Education Research, Centre for Open Science, Charlottesville, United States of America, 2023Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

In 2009, John Hattie released the meta-meta-review Visible Learning which summarized 800 meta-analyses into 138 possible influences on student achievement. The influences were all re-coded to a standard metric (Cohen’s d) and ranked based on their effect sizes, ranging from negative (e.g. retention), little effect (e.g., student personality), to strong influences on student achievement (e.g., Response to intervention). To this day, the general criticism has focused on discovering examples of flaws in Hattie’s approach which has been referred to as cherry-picking by proponents of Visible Learning. The purpose of this project is to conduct a rigorous systematic assessment of the presented material. This talk will go through the syntheses made in Visible Learning and also how the quality assessment of the material is done. For example, previous research indicates that several influences have combined meta-analyses despite not having similar population, intervention, comparison groups, outcomes, and study types (PICOS). The talk will also contain a practical demonstration of the codesheet and coding of the influences. The approach taken includes resources when conducting or assessing any type of meta-review. 

Keywords
Meta-science, open science, educational research
National Category
Educational Sciences Psychology
Research subject
Social Sciences, Psychology; Pedagogics and Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-119738 (URN)
Conference
2023 Unconference on Open Scholarship Practices in Education Research, Centre for Open Science, Charlottesville, United States of America
Available from: 2023-03-14 Created: 2023-03-14 Last updated: 2023-03-16Bibliographically approved
Nordström, T., Carlsson, R., Batinović, L., Kalmendal, A. & Henriksson, I. (2022). Meta-Review of Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Risk of Bias and Open Practices. In: 2022 Unconference on Open Scholarship Practices in Education Research, Centre for Open Science, Charlottesville, United States of America: . Paper presented at 2022 Unconference on Open Scholarship Practices in Education Research, Centre for Open Science, Charlottesville, United States of America.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Meta-Review of Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Risk of Bias and Open Practices
Show others...
2022 (English)In: 2022 Unconference on Open Scholarship Practices in Education Research, Centre for Open Science, Charlottesville, United States of America, 2022Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

As part of a larger meta-review project that aims to assess the quality of systematic reviews of educational intervention, this study provides a snapshot of reviews published between 2019 and 2021. Main goal was to assess the current state of literature and have the best studies published as CAMAs. We looked for reviews that investigated educational interventions’ effectiveness for the k-12 population using experimental designs (RCT, QED, SCD). We searched for systematic reviews in the ERIC database and four journals which publish educational reviews. Studies that were included in the full-text screening were assessed using the ROBIS (risk of bias in systematic reviews) tool, first by assessing if the PICOS fit ours, then moved on to first stage ROBIS screening, which was conducted for all articles included in the full-text reading phase. Preliminary results of the first stage ROBIS screening indicate the lack of preregistration and data sharing practice, no standardized approach in conducting searches and reporting results, and often absent quality check of studies included in the reviews.

Keywords
Meta-science, open science, educational research
National Category
Educational Sciences
Research subject
Social Sciences, Psychology; Pedagogics and Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-110640 (URN)
Conference
2022 Unconference on Open Scholarship Practices in Education Research, Centre for Open Science, Charlottesville, United States of America
Available from: 2022-02-27 Created: 2022-02-27 Last updated: 2023-08-25Bibliographically approved
Hallin, A. E., Danielsson, H., Nordström, T. & Fälth, L. (2022). No learning loss in Sweden during the pandemic: Evidence from primary school reading assessments. International Journal of Educational Research, 114, Article ID 102011.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>No learning loss in Sweden during the pandemic: Evidence from primary school reading assessments
2022 (English)In: International Journal of Educational Research, ISSN 0883-0355, E-ISSN 1873-538X, Vol. 114, article id 102011Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to worldwide school closures, with a risk of learning loss. Sweden kept primary schools open, but it is unknown whether student and teacher absence and pandemic-related stress factors affected teaching and student progress negatively. In this study, reading assessment data from 97,073 Swedish primary school students (grades 1-3) were analysed to investigate potential learning loss. Results showed that word decoding and reading comprehension scores were not lower during the pandemic compared to before the pandemic, that students from low socio-economic backgrounds were not especially affected, and that the proportion of students with weak decoding skills did not increase during the pandemic. Study limitations are discussed. We conclude that open schools benefitted Swedish primary school students.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2022
Keywords
COVID-19, Decoding, Reading comprehension, School closure, Reading development
National Category
Educational Sciences
Research subject
Pedagogics and Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-115258 (URN)10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102011 (DOI)000815701700001 ()2-s2.0-85131396925 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2022-07-08 Created: 2022-07-08 Last updated: 2023-03-23Bibliographically approved
Hallin, A. E., Danielsson, H., Nordström, T. & Fälth, L. (2022). No learning loss in Sweden during the pandemic: Evidence from primary school reading assessments. In: What Works Global Summit 2022: Recovery and resilience in crisis, conference theme Equity and inclusion, October 18-20: . Paper presented at What Works Global Summit 2022: Recovery and resilience in crisis, Oct 18 – 20, 2022, Online.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>No learning loss in Sweden during the pandemic: Evidence from primary school reading assessments
2022 (English)In: What Works Global Summit 2022: Recovery and resilience in crisis, conference theme Equity and inclusion, October 18-20, 2022Conference paper, Poster (with or without abstract) (Refereed)
National Category
Educational Sciences
Research subject
Pedagogics and Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-117714 (URN)
Conference
What Works Global Summit 2022: Recovery and resilience in crisis, Oct 18 – 20, 2022, Online
Available from: 2022-11-29 Created: 2022-11-29 Last updated: 2023-03-23Bibliographically approved
Nordström, T. (2022). Supporting Teachers and Struggling Readers with Assistive Technology and Assessment-Based Instruction. In: Presented at Diversity and inclusivity in English language education, Monash University, University of York, Thammasat University, Language Institute: Bangkok, Thailand, 9-10 December 2022. Paper presented at Diversity and inclusivity in English language education, Monash University, University of York, Thammasat University, Language Institute, Bangkok, Thailand, 9-10 December 2022.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Supporting Teachers and Struggling Readers with Assistive Technology and Assessment-Based Instruction
2022 (English)In: Presented at Diversity and inclusivity in English language education, Monash University, University of York, Thammasat University, Language Institute: Bangkok, Thailand, 9-10 December 2022, 2022Conference paper, Oral presentation only (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Research has provided the global educational community with best practices for teaching students how to read, including interventions for students with mild to severe learning difficulties. Further, recent technological advancements have also made it possible to use text-to-speech and speech-to-text technologies in reading skills development. This talk is divided into two parts. Firstly, it presents a large-scale Swedish initiative called LegiLexi. LegiLexi aims to improve 1-3 grade students’ reading skills. It also enables teachers to assess student reading skills using a digital test-program on a tablet. Secondly, the talk focuses on using assistive reading technology in teaching secondary school students with learning difficulties. The talk provides examples of classroom-based interventions, discusses their design and explores the integration of assistive technologies into reading instruction.

Keywords
Reading instruction, assessment, digital support, struggling readers, assistive technology
National Category
Educational Sciences Applied Psychology
Research subject
Pedagogics and Educational Sciences; Social Sciences, Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-117847 (URN)
Conference
Diversity and inclusivity in English language education, Monash University, University of York, Thammasat University, Language Institute, Bangkok, Thailand, 9-10 December 2022
Note

Keynote speach

Available from: 2022-12-09 Created: 2022-12-09 Last updated: 2022-12-13Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-3829-4169

Search in DiVA

Show all publications