IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v88y2021ics0160289621000507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A valid evaluation of the theory of multiple intelligences is not yet possible: Problems of methodological quality for intervention studies

Author

Listed:
  • Ferrero, Marta
  • Vadillo, Miguel A.
  • León, Samuel P.

Abstract

Since Gardner suggested that human beings hold multiple intelligences, numerous teachers have adapted and incorporated the multiple intelligence theory (MIT) into their daily routine in the classroom. However, to date, the efficacy of MIT–inspired methodologies remains unclear. The focus of the present study was to perform a systematic review and a meta–analysis to assess the impact of these interventions on academic achievement through reading, maths, or science tests. The inclusion criteria for the review required that studies should estimate quantitatively the impact of an MIT–based intervention on the academic performance and that they followed a pre–post design with a control group. The final sample included 39 articles comprising data from 3009 pre-school to high school students, with diverse levels of achievement, from 14 different countries. The results showed that the studies had important methodological flaws, like small sample sizes or lack of active control groups; they also reported insufficient information about key elements, such as the tools employed to measure the outcomes or the specific activities performed during training, and revealed signs of publication or reporting biases that impeded a valid evaluation of the efficacy of MIT applied in the classroom. The educational implications of these results are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ferrero, Marta & Vadillo, Miguel A. & León, Samuel P., 2021. "A valid evaluation of the theory of multiple intelligences is not yet possible: Problems of methodological quality for intervention studies," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:88:y:2021:i:c:s0160289621000507
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2021.101566
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289621000507
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2021.101566?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jack Vevea & Larry Hedges, 1995. "A general linear model for estimating effect size in the presence of publication bias," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 60(3), pages 419-435, September.
    2. Sue Duval & Richard Tweedie, 2000. "Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel-Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 56(2), pages 455-463, June.
    3. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Viktoria Maria Baumeister & Leonie Petra Kuen & Maike Bruckes & Gerhard Schewe, 2021. "The Relationship of Work-Related ICT Use With Well-being, Incorporating the Role of Resources and Demands: A Meta-Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    2. Lianjie Liu & Zhuo Shao & Hang Yu & Wei Zhang & Hao Wang & Zubing Mei, 2020. "Is the platelet to lymphocyte ratio a promising biomarker to distinguish acute appendicitis? Evidence from a systematic review with meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, May.
    3. Ioana A Cristea & Robin N Kok & Pim Cuijpers, 2016. "The Effectiveness of Cognitive Bias Modification Interventions for Substance Addictions: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Je-Young Lee & Minkyung Baek, 2023. "Effects of Gamification on Students’ English Language Proficiency: A Meta-Analysis on Research in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.
    5. Martin Polak & Norbert Tanzer & Per Carlbring, 2022. "PROTOCOL: Effects of virtual reality exposure therapy versus in vivo exposure in treating social anxiety disorder in adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), September.
    6. Muthanna Samara & Bruna Da Silva Nascimento & Aiman El-Asam & Sara Hammuda & Nabil Khattab, 2021. "How Can Bullying Victimisation Lead to Lower Academic Achievement? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Mediating Role of Cognitive-Motivational Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-21, February.
    7. Zhao-Feng Chen & Lufei Young & Chong Ho Yu & S. Pamela K. Shiao, 2018. "A Meta-Prediction of Methylenetetrahydrofolate-Reductase Polymorphisms and Air Pollution Increased the Risk of Ischemic Heart Diseases Worldwide," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-16, July.
    8. Chun-Yu Chang & Po-Chen Lin & Yung-Jiun Chien & Chien-Sheng Chen & Meng-Yu Wu, 2020. "Analysis of Chest-Compression Depth and Full Recoil in Two Infant Chest-Compression Techniques Performed by a Single Rescuer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, June.
    9. Woodley of Menie, Michael A. & Peñaherrera-Aguirre, Mateo & Sarraf, Matthew A., 2022. "Signs of a Flynn effect in rodents? Secular differentiation of the manifold of general cognitive ability in laboratory mice (Mus musculus) and Norwegian rats (Rattus norvegicus) over a century—Results," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    10. Teresa Del Giudice & Carla Cavallo & Francesco Caracciolo & Gianni Cicia, 2015. "What attributes of extra virgin olive oil are really important for consumers: a meta-analysis of consumers’ stated preferences," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-15, December.
    11. Beaulieu, Myriam & Tremblay, Joël & Baudry, Claire & Pearson, Jessica & Bertrand, Karine, 2021. "A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of the long-term treatment and support of substance use disorders," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    12. van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2018. "P-uniform," MetaArXiv zqjr9, Center for Open Science.
    13. Se Young Kim & Mi-Kyoung Cho, 2022. "The Effect of Nurse Support Programs on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behaviors among Hospital Nurses: A Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-23, December.
    14. Trood, Michael D. & Spivak, Benjamin L. & Ogloff, James R.P., 2021. "A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of judicial supervision on recidivism and well-being factors of criminal offenders," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    15. Sergio Nolazco & Kaspar Delhey & Shinichi Nakagawa & Anne Peters, 2022. "Ornaments are equally informative in male and female birds," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    16. Xin Zhang & Bai Gao & Bing Xu, 2020. "No association between the vitamin D-binding protein (DBP) gene polymorphisms (rs7041 and rs4588) and multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-10, November.
    17. Zuzana Irsova & Hristos Doucouliagos & Tomas Havranek & T. D. Stanley, 2023. "Meta-Analysis of Social Science Research: A Practitioner´s Guide," Working Papers IES 2023/25, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised Sep 2023.
    18. Yucheon Kim & Songyi Lee, 2023. "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Non-Face-to-Face Coaching," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, June.
    19. Ivan Ropovik & Matus Adamkovic & David Greger, 2021. "Neglect of publication bias compromises meta-analyses of educational research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-14, June.
    20. Diana Barros & Aurora A. C. Teixeira, 2021. "Unlocking the black box: A comprehensive meta-analysis of the main determinants of within-region income inequality," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 41(1), pages 55-93, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:88:y:2021:i:c:s0160289621000507. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.