what is the purpose of review of related literature in research

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

4-minute read

• 23rd October 2023

If you’re writing a research paper or dissertation , then you’ll most likely need to include a comprehensive literature review . In this post, we’ll review the purpose of literature reviews, why they are so significant, and the specific elements to include in one. Literature reviews can:

1. Provide a foundation for current research.

2. Define key concepts and theories.

3. Demonstrate critical evaluation.

4. Show how research and methodologies have evolved.

5. Identify gaps in existing research.

6. Support your argument.

Keep reading to enter the exciting world of literature reviews!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical summary and evaluation of the existing research (e.g., academic journal articles and books) on a specific topic. It is typically included as a separate section or chapter of a research paper or dissertation, serving as a contextual framework for a study. Literature reviews can vary in length depending on the subject and nature of the study, with most being about equal length to other sections or chapters included in the paper. Essentially, the literature review highlights previous studies in the context of your research and summarizes your insights in a structured, organized format. Next, let’s look at the overall purpose of a literature review.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Literature reviews are considered an integral part of research across most academic subjects and fields. The primary purpose of a literature review in your study is to:

Provide a Foundation for Current Research

Since the literature review provides a comprehensive evaluation of the existing research, it serves as a solid foundation for your current study. It’s a way to contextualize your work and show how your research fits into the broader landscape of your specific area of study.  

Define Key Concepts and Theories

The literature review highlights the central theories and concepts that have arisen from previous research on your chosen topic. It gives your readers a more thorough understanding of the background of your study and why your research is particularly significant .

Demonstrate Critical Evaluation 

A comprehensive literature review shows your ability to critically analyze and evaluate a broad range of source material. And since you’re considering and acknowledging the contribution of key scholars alongside your own, it establishes your own credibility and knowledge.

Show How Research and Methodologies Have Evolved

Another purpose of literature reviews is to provide a historical perspective and demonstrate how research and methodologies have changed over time, especially as data collection methods and technology have advanced. And studying past methodologies allows you, as the researcher, to understand what did and did not work and apply that knowledge to your own research.  

Identify Gaps in Existing Research

Besides discussing current research and methodologies, the literature review should also address areas that are lacking in the existing literature. This helps further demonstrate the relevance of your own research by explaining why your study is necessary to fill the gaps.

Support Your Argument

A good literature review should provide evidence that supports your research questions and hypothesis. For example, your study may show that your research supports existing theories or builds on them in some way. Referencing previous related studies shows your work is grounded in established research and will ultimately be a contribution to the field.  

Literature Review Editing Services 

Ensure your literature review is polished and ready for submission by having it professionally proofread and edited by our expert team. Our literature review editing services will help your research stand out and make an impact. Not convinced yet? Send in your free sample today and see for yourself! 

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field.

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example 

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!

How to write a good literature review 

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review 

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:  

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:  

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 

• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Librarian Assistance

For help, please contact the librarian for your subject area.  We have a guide to library specialists by subject .

• Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 5:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

The purpose of a literature review, how to write a literature review, the format of a literature review, general formatting rules, the length of a literature review, literature review examples, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, related articles.

A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.

In a literature review, you’re expected to report on the existing scholarly conversation, without adding new contributions.

If you are currently writing one, you've come to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we will explain:

• the objective of a literature review
• how to write a literature review
• the basic format of a literature review

Tip: It’s not always mandatory to add a literature review in a paper. Theses and dissertations often include them, whereas research papers may not. Make sure to consult with your instructor for exact requirements.

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

• Studying the references of your research area
• Summarizing the main arguments
• Identifying current gaps, stances, and issues
• Presenting all of the above in a text

Ultimately, the main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

The format of a literature review is fairly standard. It includes an:

• introduction that briefly introduces the main topic
• body that includes the main discussion of the key arguments
• conclusion that highlights the gaps and issues of the literature

➡️ Take a look at our guide on how to write a literature review to learn more about how to structure a literature review.

First of all, a literature review should have its own labeled section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature can be found, and you should label this section as “Literature Review.”

➡️ For more information on writing a thesis, visit our guide on how to structure a thesis .

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, it will be short.

Take a look at these three theses featuring great literature reviews:

• School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist's Perceptions of Sensory Food Aversions in Children [ PDF , see page 20]
• Who's Writing What We Read: Authorship in Criminological Research [ PDF , see page 4]
• A Phenomenological Study of the Lived Experience of Online Instructors of Theological Reflection at Christian Institutions Accredited by the Association of Theological Schools [ PDF , see page 56]

Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.

No. A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature review can be found, and label this section as “Literature Review.”

The main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

Literature Review - what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done

What are literature reviews, goals of literature reviews, types of literature reviews, about this guide/licence.

• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Literature Reviews and Sources
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings
• Useful Resources

Help is Just a Click Away

Search our FAQ Knowledge base, ask a question, chat, send comments...

Go to LibAnswers

 What is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries. " - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d) "The literature review: A few tips on conducting it"

Source NC State University Libraries. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license.

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

- Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1997). "Writing narrative literature reviews," Review of General Psychology , 1(3), 311-320.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what have been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed a new light into these body of scholarship.

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature reviews look at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic have change through time.

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

• Narrative Review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : This is a type of review that focus on a small set of research books on a particular topic " to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches" in the field. - LARR
• Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L.K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
• Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M.C. & Ilardi, S.S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
• Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). "Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts," Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53(3), 311-318.

Guide adapted from "Literature Review" , a guide developed by Marisol Ramos used under CC BY 4.0 /modified from original.

• Next: Strategies to Find Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:56 AM
• URL: https://lit.libguides.com/Literature-Review

The Library, Technological University of the Shannon: Midwest

Literature Reviews

What is a literature review.

• Literature Review Process

Purpose of a Literature Review

• Choosing a Type of Review
• Developing a Research Question
• Searching the Literature
• Searching Tips
• ChatGPT [beta]
• Documenting your Search
• Using Citation Managers
• Concept Mapping
• Writing the Review
• Further Resources

The Library's Subject Specialists are happy to help with your literature reviews!  Find your Subject Specialist here . 

If you have questions about this guide, contact Librarian  Jamie Niehof ([email protected]).

A literature review is an overview of the available research for a specific scientific topic. Literature reviews summarize existing research to answer a review question, provide context for new research, or identify important gaps in the existing body of literature.

An incredible amount of academic literature is published each year, by estimates over two million articles .

Sorting through and reviewing that literature can be complicated, so this Research Guide provides a structured approach to make the process more manageable.

THIS GUIDE IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW PROCESS:

• Getting Started (asking a research question | defining scope)
• Organizing the Literature
• Writing the Literature Review (analyzing | synthesizing)

A  literature search  is a systematic search of the scholarly sources in a particular discipline. A  literature review   is the analysis, critical evaluation and synthesis of the results of that search. During this process you will move from a review  of  the literature to a review  for   your research.   Your synthesis of the literature is your unique contribution to research.

WHO IS THIS RESEARCH GUIDE FOR?

— those new to reviewing the literature

— those that need a refresher or a deeper understanding of writing literature reviews

You may need to do a literature review as a part of a course assignment, a capstone project, a master's thesis, a dissertation, or as part of a journal article. No matter the context, a literature review is an essential part of the research process. 

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A LITERATURE REVIEW?

A literature review is typically performed for a specific reason. Even when assigned as an assignment, the goal of the literature review will be one or more of the following:

• To communicate a project's novelty by identifying a research gap

• An overview of research issues , methodologies or results relevant to field
• To explore the  volume and types of available studies
• To establish familiarity with current research before carrying out a new project
• To resolve conflicts amongst contradictory previous studies

Reviewing the literature helps you understand a research topic and develop your own perspective.

A LITERATURE REVIEW IS NOT :

• An annotated bibliography – which is a list of annotated citations to books, articles and documents that includes a brief description and evaluation for each entry
• A literary review – which is a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a literary work
• A book review – which is a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a particular book
• Next: Choosing a Type of Review >>
• Last Updated: May 9, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/litreview

Literature Review: Purpose of a Literature Review

• Literature Review
• Purpose of a Literature Review
• Work in Progress
• Compiling & Writing
• Books, Articles, & Web Pages
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Departmental Differences
• Citation Styles & Plagiarism
• Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• Provide a foundation of knowledge on a topic
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication and give credit to other researchers
• Identify inconstancies: gaps in research, conflicts in previous studies, open questions left from other research
• Identify the need for additional research (justifying your research)
• Identify the relationship of works in the context of their contribution to the topic and other works
• Place your own research within the context of existing literature, making a case for why further study is needed.

Videos & Tutorials

VIDEO: What is the role of a literature review in research? What's it mean to "review" the literature? Get the big picture of what to expect as part of the process. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license. License, credits, and contact information can be found here: https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/tutorials/litreview/

Elements in a Literature Review

• Elements in a Literature Review txt of infographic
• << Previous: Literature Review
• Next: Searching >>
• Last Updated: Sep 10, 2024 11:32 AM
• URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/Literature_Review

• Library Homepage

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide: Literature Reviews?

• Literature Reviews?
• Strategies to Finding Sources
• Keeping up with Research!
• Evaluating Sources & Literature Reviews
• Organizing for Writing
• Writing Literature Review
• Other Academic Writings

What is a Literature Review?

So, what is a literature review .

"A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available or a set of summaries." - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d)."The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it".

• Citation: "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it"

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Each field has a particular way to do reviews for academic research literature. In the social sciences and humanities the most common are:

• Narrative Reviews: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific research topic and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weaknesses, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section that summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : A type of literature review typical in History and related fields, e.g., Latin American studies. For example, the Latin American Research Review explains that the purpose of this type of review is to “(1) to familiarize readers with the subject, approach, arguments, and conclusions found in a group of books whose common focus is a historical period; a country or region within Latin America; or a practice, development, or issue of interest to specialists and others; (2) to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches; and (3) to probe the relation of these new books to previous work on the subject, especially canonical texts. Unlike individual book reviews, the cluster reviews found in LARR seek to address the state of the field or discipline and not solely the works at issue.” - LARR

What are the Goals of Creating a Literature Review?

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 
• Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1997). "Writing narrative literature reviews," Review of General Psychology , 1(3), 311-320.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what has been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed new light into a body of scholarship.

Where I can find examples of Literature Reviews?

Note:  In the humanities, even if they don't use the term "literature review", they may have a dedicated  chapter that reviewed the "critical bibliography" or they incorporated that review in the introduction or first chapter of the dissertation, book, or article.

• UCSB electronic theses and dissertations In partnership with the Graduate Division, the UC Santa Barbara Library is making available theses and dissertations produced by UCSB students. Currently included in ADRL are theses and dissertations that were originally filed electronically, starting in 2011. In future phases of ADRL, all theses and dissertations created by UCSB students may be digitized and made available.

Where to Find Standalone Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature review looks at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic has changed over time. 

• Find e-Journals for Standalone Literature Reviews The best way to get familiar with and to learn how to write literature reviews is by reading them. You can use our Journal Search option to find journals that specialize in publishing literature reviews from major disciplines like anthropology, sociology, etc. Usually these titles are called, "Annual Review of [discipline name] OR [Discipline name] Review. This option works best if you know the title of the publication you are looking for. Below are some examples of these journals! more... less... Journal Search can be found by hovering over the link for Research on the library website.

Social Sciences

• Annual Review of Anthropology
• Annual Review of Political Science
• Annual Review of Sociology
• Ethnic Studies Review

Hard science and health sciences:

• Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science
• Annual Review of Materials Science
• Systematic Review From journal site: "The journal Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews" in the health sciences.
• << Previous: Overview
• Next: Strategies to Finding Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucsb.edu/litreview

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE: Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 9:40 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review      This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

Integrative Review      Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review      Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review      A review does not always focus on what someone said [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection and data analysis, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our study.

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Research Process :: Step by Step

• Introduction
• Select Topic
• Identify Keywords
• Background Information
• Develop Research Questions
• Refine Topic
• Search Strategy
• Popular Databases
• Evaluate Sources
• Types of Periodicals
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Organize / Take Notes
• Writing & Grammar Resources
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Citation Styles
• Paraphrasing
• Privacy / Confidentiality

Organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question.  

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment, but more often it is part of the introduction to an essay, research report, or thesis. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries

A literature review must do these things:

• be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing
• synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
• identify areas of controversy in the literature
• formulate questions that need further research

Ask yourself questions like these:

• What is the specific thesis, problem, or research question that my literature review helps to define?
• What type of literature review am I conducting? Am I looking at issues of theory? methodology? policy? quantitative research (e.g. on the effectiveness of a new procedure)? qualitative research (e.g., studies of loneliness among migrant workers)?
• What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents, popular media)? What discipline am I working in (e.g., nursing psychology, sociology, medicine)?
• How good was my information seeking? Has my search been wide enough to ensure I've found all the relevant material? Has it been narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material? Is the number of sources I've used appropriate for the length of my paper?
• Have I critically analyzed the literature I use? Do I follow through a set of concepts and questions, comparing items to each other in the ways they deal with them? Instead of just listing and summarizing items, do I assess them, discussing strengths and weaknesses?
• Have I cited and discussed studies contrary to my perspective?
• Will the reader find my literature review relevant, appropriate, and useful?

Ask yourself questions like these about each book or article you include:

• Has the author formulated a problem/issue?
• Is it clearly defined? Is its significance (scope, severity, relevance) clearly established?
• Could the problem have been approached more effectively from another perspective?
• What is the author's research orientation (e.g., interpretive, critical science, combination)?
• What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g., psychological, developmental, feminist)?
• What is the relationship between the theoretical and research perspectives?
• Has the author evaluated the literature relevant to the problem/issue? Does the author include literature taking positions she or he does not agree with?
• In a research study, how good are the basic components of the study design (e.g., population, intervention, outcome)? How accurate and valid are the measurements? Is the analysis of the data accurate and relevant to the research question? Are the conclusions validly based upon the data and analysis?
• In material written for a popular readership, does the author use appeals to emotion, one-sided examples, or rhetorically-charged language and tone? Is there an objective basis to the reasoning, or is the author merely "proving" what he or she already believes?
• How does the author structure the argument? Can you "deconstruct" the flow of the argument to see whether or where it breaks down logically (e.g., in establishing cause-effect relationships)?
• In what ways does this book or article contribute to our understanding of the problem under study, and in what ways is it useful for practice? What are the strengths and limitations?
• How does this book or article relate to the specific thesis or question I am developing?

Text written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Step 5: Cite Sources >>
• Last Updated: Sep 5, 2024 1:38 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/researchprocess

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

• Internet Privacy
• Accessibility
• Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Write Review of Related Literature (RRL) in Research

A review of related literature (a.k.a RRL in research) is a comprehensive review of the existing literature pertaining to a specific topic or research question. An effective review provides the reader with an organized analysis and synthesis of the existing knowledge about a subject. With the increasing amount of new information being disseminated every day, conducting a review of related literature is becoming more difficult and the purpose of review of related literature is clearer than ever.  

All new knowledge is necessarily based on previously known information, and every new scientific study must be conducted and reported in the context of previous studies. This makes a review of related literature essential for research, and although it may be tedious work at times , most researchers will complete many such reviews of varying depths during their career. So, why exactly is a review of related literature important?    

Table of Contents

Why a review of related literature in research is important  

Before thinking how to do reviews of related literature , it is necessary to understand its importance. Although the purpose of a review of related literature varies depending on the discipline and how it will be used, its importance is never in question. Here are some ways in which a review can be crucial.  

• Identify gaps in the knowledge – This is the primary purpose of a review of related literature (often called RRL in research ). To create new knowledge, you must first determine what knowledge may be missing. This also helps to identify the scope of your study.  
• Avoid duplication of research efforts – Not only will a review of related literature indicate gaps in the existing research, but it will also lead you away from duplicating research that has already been done and thus save precious resources.  
• Provide an overview of disparate and interdisciplinary research areas – Researchers cannot possibly know everything related to their disciplines. Therefore, it is very helpful to have access to a review of related literature already written and published.  
• Highlight researcher’s familiarity with their topic 1  – A strong review of related literature in a study strengthens readers’ confidence in that study and that researcher.

Tips on how to write a review of related literature in research

Given that you will probably need to produce a number of these at some point, here are a few general tips on how to write an effective review of related literature 2 .

• Define your topic, audience, and purpose: You will be spending a lot of time with this review, so choose a topic that is interesting to you. While deciding what to write in a review of related literature , think about who you expect to read the review – researchers in your discipline, other scientists, the general public – and tailor the language to the audience. Also, think about the purpose of your review of related literature .  
• Conduct a comprehensive literature search: While writing your review of related literature , emphasize more recent works but don’t forget to include some older publications as well. Cast a wide net, as you may find some interesting and relevant literature in unexpected databases or library corners. Don’t forget to search for recent conference papers.
• Review the identified articles and take notes: It is a good idea to take notes in a way such that individual items in your notes can be moved around when you organize them. For example, index cards are great tools for this. Write each individual idea on a separate card along with the source. The cards can then be easily grouped and organized.  
• Determine how to organize your review: A review of related literature should not be merely a listing of descriptions. It should be organized by some criterion, such as chronologically or thematically.  
• Be critical and objective: Don’t just report the findings of other studies in your review of related literature . Challenge the methodology, find errors in the analysis, question the conclusions. Use what you find to improve your research. However, do not insert your opinions into the review of related literature. Remain objective and open-minded.  
• Structure your review logically: Guide the reader through the information. The structure will depend on the function of the review of related literature. Creating an outline prior to writing the RRL in research is a good way to ensure the presented information flows well.  

As you read more extensively in your discipline, you will notice that the review of related literature appears in various forms in different places. For example, when you read an article about an experimental study, you will typically see a literature review or a RRL in research , in the introduction that includes brief descriptions of similar studies. In longer research studies and dissertations, especially in the social sciences, the review of related literature will typically be a separate chapter and include more information on methodologies and theory building. In addition, stand-alone review articles will be published that are extremely useful to researchers.  

The review of relevant literature or often abbreviated as, RRL in research , is an important communication tool that can be used in many forms for many purposes. It is a tool that all researchers should befriend.  

• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Writing Center. Literature Reviews.  https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/literature-reviews/  [Accessed September 8, 2022]
• Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013, 9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149.

Q:  Is research complete without a review of related literature?

A research project is usually considered incomplete without a proper review of related literature. The review of related literature is a crucial component of any research project as it provides context for the research question, identifies gaps in existing literature, and ensures novelty by avoiding duplication. It also helps inform research design and supports arguments, highlights the significance of a study, and demonstrates your knowledge an expertise.

Q: What is difference between RRL and RRS?

The key difference between an RRL and an RRS lies in their focus and scope. An RRL or review of related literature examines a broad range of literature, including theoretical frameworks, concepts, and empirical studies, to establish the context and significance of the research topic. On the other hand, an RRS or review of research studies specifically focuses on analyzing and summarizing previous research studies within a specific research domain to gain insights into methodologies, findings, and gaps in the existing body of knowledge. While there may be some overlap between the two, they serve distinct purposes and cover different aspects of the research process.

Q: Does review of related literature improve accuracy and validity of research?

Yes, a comprehensive review of related literature (RRL) plays a vital role in improving the accuracy and validity of research. It helps authors gain a deeper understanding and offers different perspectives on the research topic. RRL can help you identify research gaps, dictate the selection of appropriate research methodologies, enhance theoretical frameworks, avoid biases and errors, and even provide support for research design and interpretation. By building upon and critically engaging with existing related literature, researchers can ensure their work is rigorous, reliable, and contributes meaningfully to their field of study.

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

What is Research Impact: Types and Tips for Academics

Research in Shorts: R Discovery’s New Feature Helps Academics Assess Relevant Papers in 2mins 

Public Health Research Guide

• Web Resources
• Conduct a Literature Review
• Citation Style Guides and Management Tools

Literature Review Overview

A literature review involves both the literature searching and the writing. The purpose of the literature search is to:

• reveal existing knowledge
• identify areas of consensus and debate
• identify gaps in knowledge
• identify approaches to research design and methodology
• identify other researchers with similar interests
• clarify your future directions for research

List above from Conducting A Literature Search , Information Research Methods and Systems, Penn State University Libraries

A literature review provides an evaluative review and documentation of what has been published by scholars and researchers on a given topic. In reviewing the published literature, the aim is to explain what ideas and knowledge have been gained and shared to date (i.e., hypotheses tested, scientific methods used, results and conclusions), the weakness and strengths of these previous works, and to identify remaining research questions: A literature review provides the context for your research, making clear why your topic deserves further investigation.

Before You Search

• Select and understand your research topic and question.
• Identify the major concepts in your topic and question.
• Brainstorm potential keywords/terms that correspond to those concepts.
• Identify alternative keywords/terms (narrower, broader, or related) to use if your first set of keywords do not work.
• Determine (Boolean*) relationships between terms.
• Begin your search.
• Review your search results.
• Revise & refine your search based on the initial findings.

*Boolean logic provides three ways search terms/phrases can be combined, using the following three operators: AND, OR, and NOT.

Search Process

The type of information you want to find and the practices of your discipline(s) drive the types of sources you seek and where you search. For most research you will use multiple source types such as: annotated bibliographies; articles from journals, magazines, and newspapers; books; blogs; conference papers; data sets; dissertations; organization, company, or government reports; reference materials; systematic reviews; archival materials; and more. It can be helpful to develop a comprehensive approach to review different sources and where you will search for each. Below is an example approach.

• Annual Reviews and Bibliographies – e.g., Annual Review of Public Health review articles (Annual Reviews database)
• Internet – e.g., Listservs, Blogs, Social Networking Sites, etc. related to your topic
• Grant Databases – e.g., National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research (OEH) and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT), Grants to Individuals
• Conference Proceedings and Professional Association websites – e.g., American Public Health Association, National Environmental Health Association, World Council for Health
• Research or Resource Centers – e.g., Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC)
• Citation Indexes – e.g., PubMed, Dissertations & Theses Global ProQuest, Web of Science Core Collection
• Journal Indexes/Databases and EJournal Packages – e.g., CINAHL Complete, Journals@Ovid
• Specialized Data – e.g., Disability & Health Data System (DHDS), Montana Public Health Information System
• Book Catalogs – e.g., local library catalog (OneSearch at UM), WorldCat, Google Books
• Institutional Repositories – e.g., ScholarWorks at the University of Montana (includes UM Conference on Undergraduate Research as UM Graduate Research Conference abstracts)
• Library Web Scale Discovery Service – e.g., OneSearch (main search from library homepage)
• Web Search Engines – e.g., Google
• Government websites – e.g., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health), Missoula City-County Health Department

Additional information gathering strategies:

• Identify and browse current issues of the most relevant journals for your topic
• Identify and search for the publications of experts and new scholars
• Setup alerts, e.g., Journal Table of Contents, Saved Searches
• Contact researchers, librarians, etc. at institutions, organizations, and agencies for resources or support
• << Previous: Web Resources
• Next: Citation Style Guides and Management Tools >>
• Last Updated: Sep 9, 2024 5:31 PM
• URL: https://libguides.lib.umt.edu/publichealth

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Grad Med Educ
• v.8(3); 2016 Jul

The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education Research

a  These are subscription resources. Researchers should check with their librarian to determine their access rights.

Despite a surge in published scholarship in medical education 1 and rapid growth in journals that publish educational research, manuscript acceptance rates continue to fall. 2 Failure to conduct a thorough, accurate, and up-to-date literature review identifying an important problem and placing the study in context is consistently identified as one of the top reasons for rejection. 3 , 4 The purpose of this editorial is to provide a road map and practical recommendations for planning a literature review. By understanding the goals of a literature review and following a few basic processes, authors can enhance both the quality of their educational research and the likelihood of publication in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education ( JGME ) and in other journals.

The Literature Review Defined

In medical education, no organization has articulated a formal definition of a literature review for a research paper; thus, a literature review can take a number of forms. Depending on the type of article, target journal, and specific topic, these forms will vary in methodology, rigor, and depth. Several organizations have published guidelines for conducting an intensive literature search intended for formal systematic reviews, both broadly (eg, PRISMA) 5 and within medical education, 6 and there are excellent commentaries to guide authors of systematic reviews. 7 , 8

• A literature review forms the basis for high-quality medical education research and helps maximize relevance, originality, generalizability, and impact.
• A literature review provides context, informs methodology, maximizes innovation, avoids duplicative research, and ensures that professional standards are met.
• Literature reviews take time, are iterative, and should continue throughout the research process.
• Researchers should maximize the use of human resources (librarians, colleagues), search tools (databases/search engines), and existing literature (related articles).
• Keeping organized is critical.

Such work is outside the scope of this article, which focuses on literature reviews to inform reports of original medical education research. We define such a literature review as a synthetic review and summary of what is known and unknown regarding the topic of a scholarly body of work, including the current work's place within the existing knowledge . While this type of literature review may not require the intensive search processes mandated by systematic reviews, it merits a thoughtful and rigorous approach.

Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review

An understanding of the current literature is critical for all phases of a research study. Lingard 9 recently invoked the “journal-as-conversation” metaphor as a way of understanding how one's research fits into the larger medical education conversation. As she described it: “Imagine yourself joining a conversation at a social event. After you hang about eavesdropping to get the drift of what's being said (the conversational equivalent of the literature review), you join the conversation with a contribution that signals your shared interest in the topic, your knowledge of what's already been said, and your intention.” 9

The literature review helps any researcher “join the conversation” by providing context, informing methodology, identifying innovation, minimizing duplicative research, and ensuring that professional standards are met. Understanding the current literature also promotes scholarship, as proposed by Boyer, 10 by contributing to 5 of the 6 standards by which scholarly work should be evaluated. 11 Specifically, the review helps the researcher (1) articulate clear goals, (2) show evidence of adequate preparation, (3) select appropriate methods, (4) communicate relevant results, and (5) engage in reflective critique.

Failure to conduct a high-quality literature review is associated with several problems identified in the medical education literature, including studies that are repetitive, not grounded in theory, methodologically weak, and fail to expand knowledge beyond a single setting. 12 Indeed, medical education scholars complain that many studies repeat work already published and contribute little new knowledge—a likely cause of which is failure to conduct a proper literature review. 3 , 4

Likewise, studies that lack theoretical grounding or a conceptual framework make study design and interpretation difficult. 13 When theory is used in medical education studies, it is often invoked at a superficial level. As Norman 14 noted, when theory is used appropriately, it helps articulate variables that might be linked together and why, and it allows the researcher to make hypotheses and define a study's context and scope. Ultimately, a proper literature review is a first critical step toward identifying relevant conceptual frameworks.

Another problem is that many medical education studies are methodologically weak. 12 Good research requires trained investigators who can articulate relevant research questions, operationally define variables of interest, and choose the best method for specific research questions. Conducting a proper literature review helps both novice and experienced researchers select rigorous research methodologies.

Finally, many studies in medical education are “one-offs,” that is, single studies undertaken because the opportunity presented itself locally. Such studies frequently are not oriented toward progressive knowledge building and generalization to other settings. A firm grasp of the literature can encourage a programmatic approach to research.

Approaching the Literature Review

Considering these issues, journals have a responsibility to demand from authors a thoughtful synthesis of their study's position within the field, and it is the authors' responsibility to provide such a synthesis, based on a literature review. The aforementioned purposes of the literature review mandate that the review occurs throughout all phases of a study, from conception and design, to implementation and analysis, to manuscript preparation and submission.

Planning the literature review requires understanding of journal requirements, which vary greatly by journal ( table 1 ). Authors are advised to take note of common problems with reporting results of the literature review. Table 2 lists the most common problems that we have encountered as authors, reviewers, and editors.

Sample of Journals' Author Instructions for Literature Reviews Conducted as Part of Original Research Article a

Common Problem Areas for Reporting Literature Reviews in the Context of Scholarly Articles

Locating and Organizing the Literature

Three resources may facilitate identifying relevant literature: human resources, search tools, and related literature. As the process requires time, it is important to begin searching for literature early in the process (ie, the study design phase). Identifying and understanding relevant studies will increase the likelihood of designing a relevant, adaptable, generalizable, and novel study that is based on educational or learning theory and can maximize impact.

Human Resources

A medical librarian can help translate research interests into an effective search strategy, familiarize researchers with available information resources, provide information on organizing information, and introduce strategies for keeping current with emerging research. Often, librarians are also aware of research across their institutions and may be able to connect researchers with similar interests. Reaching out to colleagues for suggestions may help researchers quickly locate resources that would not otherwise be on their radar.

During this process, researchers will likely identify other researchers writing on aspects of their topic. Researchers should consider searching for the publications of these relevant researchers (see table 3 for search strategies). Additionally, institutional websites may include curriculum vitae of such relevant faculty with access to their entire publication record, including difficult to locate publications, such as book chapters, dissertations, and technical reports.

Strategies for Finding Related Researcher Publications in Databases and Search Engines

Search Tools and Related Literature

Researchers will locate the majority of needed information using databases and search engines. Excellent resources are available to guide researchers in the mechanics of literature searches. 15 , 16

Because medical education research draws on a variety of disciplines, researchers should include search tools with coverage beyond medicine (eg, psychology, nursing, education, and anthropology) and that cover several publication types, such as reports, standards, conference abstracts, and book chapters (see the box for several information resources). Many search tools include options for viewing citations of selected articles. Examining cited references provides additional articles for review and a sense of the influence of the selected article on its field.

Box Information Resources

• Web of Science a
• Education Resource Information Center (ERIC)
• Cumulative Index of Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL) a
• Google Scholar

Once relevant articles are located, it is useful to mine those articles for additional citations. One strategy is to examine references of key articles, especially review articles, for relevant citations.

Getting Organized

As the aforementioned resources will likely provide a tremendous amount of information, organization is crucial. Researchers should determine which details are most important to their study (eg, participants, setting, methods, and outcomes) and generate a strategy for keeping those details organized and accessible. Increasingly, researchers utilize digital tools, such as Evernote, to capture such information, which enables accessibility across digital workspaces and search capabilities. Use of citation managers can also be helpful as they store citations and, in some cases, can generate bibliographies ( table 4 ).

Citation Managers

Knowing When to Say When

Researchers often ask how to know when they have located enough citations. Unfortunately, there is no magic or ideal number of citations to collect. One strategy for checking coverage of the literature is to inspect references of relevant articles. As researchers review references they will start noticing a repetition of the same articles with few new articles appearing. This can indicate that the researcher has covered the literature base on a particular topic.

Putting It All Together

In preparing to write a research paper, it is important to consider which citations to include and how they will inform the introduction and discussion sections. The “Instructions to Authors” for the targeted journal will often provide guidance on structuring the literature review (or introduction) and the number of total citations permitted for each article category. Reviewing articles of similar type published in the targeted journal can also provide guidance regarding structure and average lengths of the introduction and discussion sections.

When selecting references for the introduction consider those that illustrate core background theoretical and methodological concepts, as well as recent relevant studies. The introduction should be brief and present references not as a laundry list or narrative of available literature, but rather as a synthesized summary to provide context for the current study and to identify the gap in the literature that the study intends to fill. For the discussion, citations should be thoughtfully selected to compare and contrast the present study's findings with the current literature and to indicate how the present study moves the field forward.

To facilitate writing a literature review, journals are increasingly providing helpful features to guide authors. For example, the resources available through JGME include several articles on writing. 17 The journal Perspectives on Medical Education recently launched “The Writer's Craft,” which is intended to help medical educators improve their writing. Additionally, many institutions have writing centers that provide web-based materials on writing a literature review, and some even have writing coaches.

The literature review is a vital part of medical education research and should occur throughout the research process to help researchers design a strong study and effectively communicate study results and importance. To achieve these goals, researchers are advised to plan and execute the literature review carefully. The guidance in this editorial provides considerations and recommendations that may improve the quality of literature reviews.

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

What is a literature review, what is a literature review: a tutorial, literature reviews: an overview for graduate students.

• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window
• Sample Literature Reviews

A Literature Review Is Not:

• just a summary of sources
• a grouping of broad, unrelated sources
• a compilation of everything that has been written on a particular topic
• literature criticism (think English) or a book review

So, what is it then?

A literature review is an integrated analysis-- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings that are related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents the literature that provides background information on your topic and shows a correspondence between those writings and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students (by North Caroline State University Libraries)

• Next: Steps for Conducting a Lit Review >>
• Last Updated: Sep 11, 2024 1:37 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

• StudySkills@Sheffield
• Academic writing skills
• Critical writing

How to write a literature review

Are you writing a literature review as part of a final year project, dissertation, or thesis, or as a standalone piece of work? This page will work through a process of organising and synthesising your sources and then writing a clear and critical final review.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an account of the current thinking in a specific area of study. Its purpose is to introduce the reader to what has gone before and often to provide you with a foundation that you can build on with your own research. This traditional form of review is sometimes also referred to as a narrative review.

A literature review will often form a section or chapter of a larger piece of research work, such as a dissertation, thesis, or final year project.  It can also be a standalone piece of work.  

A literature review will usually do some or all of the following:

• Introduce the reader to a specific area of interest.
• Organise relevant sources thematically, starting with the more general, broader themes and narrowing towards the most specific themes.
• Introduce key theories relevant to the area of study.
• Define your understanding of important terms or language used in the research.
• Include only the most relevant, important or influential sources, carefully selected. It is about quality not quantity!
• Identify gaps or limitations in existing research.

Considering a body of scholarship as a whole (or in relation to each of your themes) will allow you to 'synthesise' multiple sources and produce an overall summary.

Developing a literature review will help you to develop a level of expertise in your chosen area. By consulting and including a unique combination of sources, you will be able to formulate an informed and original perspective.  Where relevant, this can drive forward your ongoing research.

Writing a Literature Review workshop: book here

A systematic review is a research methodology, often following a standardised and replicable search method and reporting structure that is specific to your discipline. Visit our guidance on systematic reviews for more information.

Organising your sources

As you encounter more and more relevant sources, you will face an ever-expanding amount of reading for yourself. It would take years to read through all of the literature in a specific field from start to finish.

Academic reading, and particularly the process of 'reading around' a topic, is about selective, or targeted reading. Visit our Reading and understanding information Hub to explore approaches to reading for different purposes.

Creating a Literature Matrix can help you to identify the key things that you want to take away from each source. A literature matrix is a simple spreadsheet where you select column titles to suit the aims of your literature review. Are you interested in the research methodology, the scale of the research, the main conclusions, or something else entirely?

Once you have scanned through a source and pulled out the points you are interested in, you can move onto the next source. Organising your reading in this way will also allow you to identify key themes that are emerging in your reading, which you will be able to use later on to plan your review.

You may want to use a reference management tool to help organise and produce your bibliography. Visit the University of Sheffield Library Reference Management pages here .

Make a copy of our Literature matrix template (Google Sheet) and add/delete columns based on the information you want to collect during your search.  Using a spreadsheet means that you can filter and sort your sources, for example, into chronological order, or alphabetically by author.

This downloadable example literature matrix shows how you can lay out your columns.

Synthesising your sources

Once you have a number of sources to work with, you will start to identify key themes emerging. At this point you can start to organise your sources systematically to develop and explore those themes. Can you organise your themes from the broadest to the narrowest and most specific?

A synthesis matrix will help you to identify a thematic structure for your literature review and to understand how the sources that you have found relate to one another. A synthesis matrix is a further spreadsheet that organises your sources by theme and includes a synthesis column, where you can begin to draw out comparisons between the sources. 

Once you have identified a number of sources for each theme in your matrix, you should be able to identify the following:

• Do the sources build on or develop one another? This may be a chronological process.
• Do the sources challenge or contradict one another? Do they reveal a debate within the field?
• Do the sources identify an area of particular interest or a gap in the field?
• Do the sources help to fill in gaps or complete a bigger picture?

Your synthesis column provides an opportunity for you to comment on multiple sources considered as a whole. It is a space for your critical voice and interpretation, which is a key part of writing a successful literature review.

Make a copy of our synthesis matrix (Google Sheet) to organise your themes and plan how the relevant sources can be synthesised.

Download a completed example synthesis matrix from NC State University (PDF, 34Kb)

Visit our Producing a literature review interactive tutorial - for further guidance.

Writing your review

Once you have done the background reading and organised your sources using a synthesis matrix, the job of writing your review is simply about adding flesh to the bones. You will need to write your review as a narrative account, but you can use your matrix as a framework to help you do so.

A literature review will usually follow a simple structure:

• Introduction: what is the overall topic area and how have you broken your review down into themes?
• Theme 1: the broadest, most top-level area (perhaps including some background theory that may have influenced your thinking).
• Theme 2, theme 3, theme 4, etc. Your themes should get progressively more specific and closer to the focus of your research.
• Conclusion: how has this informed your thinking and (if the review is part of a bigger project) what are your research aims and objectives? 

Your review may be broken down by section headings or be a continuous flow with themes clearly separated in a paragraph structure. Each section or paragraph will describe that theme and finish by summarising your overview of a theme (the synthesis part of the matrix above, which includes your critical analysis). 

Our web page How to structure a paragrap h has further guidance to ensure your paragraphs are clear and contain your synthesis and critical analysis.

For advice and feedback on your own review, including referencing, synthesis and academic arguments, please book a writing advisory service appointment.

Make an appointment (student login required)

• How to plan an effective information search
• How to plan a dissertation or final year project
• How to write critically

Use your mySkills portfolio to discover your skillset, reflect on your development, and record your progress.

Service update: Some parts of the Library’s website will be down for maintenance on August 11.

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Psychology 194: honors seminar: the literature review.

• Finding Articles
• The Literature Review
• Citations & Bibliographic Software (Zotero)
• Doing Original Research

Quick Links

• Google Scholar This link opens in a new window Search across many disciplines and sources including articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other web sites. more... less... Lists journal articles, books, preprints, and technical reports in many subject areas (though more specialized article databases may cover any given field more completely). Can be used with "Get it at UC" to access the full text of many articles.

• UC Library Search Start here to search for articles, books and more, in the collections of the University of California

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a survey of research on a given topic. It allows you see what has already been written on a topic so that you can draw on that research in your own study. By seeing what has already been written on a topic you will also know how to distinguish your research and engage in an original area of inquiry.

Why do a Literature Review?

A literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You will identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

Elements of a Successful Literature Review

According to Byrne's  What makes a successful literature review? you should follow these steps:

• Identify appropriate search terms.
• Search appropriate databases to identify articles on your topic.
• Identify key publications in your area.
• Search the web to identify relevant grey literature. (Grey literature is often found in the public sector and is not traditionally published like academic literature. It is often produced by research organizations.)
• Scan article abstracts and summaries before reading the piece in full.
• Read the relevant articles and take notes.
• Organize by theme.
• Write your review .

from Byrne, D. (2017). What makes a successful literature review?. Project Planner . 10.4135/9781526408518. (via SAGE Research Methods )

Research help

Email : Email your research questions to the Library.

Appointments : Schedule a 30-minute research meeting with a librarian. 

Find a subject librarian : Find a library expert in your specific field of study.

Research guides on your topic : Learn more about resources for your topic or subject.

• << Previous: Finding Articles
• Next: Citations & Bibliographic Software (Zotero) >>
• Last Updated: Sep 13, 2024 7:17 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/Psych194-HonorsSeminar

What Does Research Say About the Science of Reading for K-5 Multilingual Learners? A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

• Open access
• Published: 12 September 2024
• Volume 36 , article number  108 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Jonathan M. Kittle   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0005-7567-8654 1 ,
• Steven J. Amendum   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7883-9090 1 &
• Christina M. Budde   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3041-1332 1  

The science of reading (SOR) refers to the sum of what we know about how people learn to read based on empirical studies across multiple disciplines. The purpose of this review was to identify research evidence to inform the SOR for multilingual learners (MLs). We reviewed 30 systematic reviews related to reading and reading instruction for MLs conducted primarily in K-5 U.S. classrooms. Results identified four broad clusters of components related to English reading comprehension as well as instructional practices and programs effective in addressing each component. Clusters included oral language, phonological awareness, decoding and oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Notably, oral language and reading skills in both MLs’ first language and in English were essential components of the SOR for MLs. Implications for theory and research as well as policy, curriculum, and instruction are provided.

Similar content being viewed by others

The State of Current Reading Intervention Research for English Learners in Grades K–2: a Best-Evidence Synthesis

Reading intervention research with emergent bilingual students: a meta-analysis

Supporting multilingual children at-risk of reading failure: impacts of a multilingual structured pedagogy literacy intervention in Kenya

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The science of reading (SOR) refers to the broad sum of what we know about how people learn to read based on empirical studies across multiple disciplines (Hurford, 2020 ; Seidenberg et al., 2020 ). However, researchers have noted that the SOR is often framed in public discourse and the popular media as a crisis with a “narrow and settled solution” (MacPhee et al., 2021 , p. S146). This settled solution is that “explicit, systematic, and direct instruction of phonemic awareness and phonics skills” (Rand & Morrow, 2021 , p. S246) is key to the development of literacy skills (Goodwin & Jiménez, 2020 ; Shanahan, 2020 ). To promote this solution, the media and public discourse often draw upon particular key findings from basic reading research and theory: (a) the alphabetic principle (Liberman et al., 1989 ), (b) the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986 ), (c) the four-part processing model (Moats & Tolman, 2009 ), (d) functional magnetic resonance images (fMRI) of the brain during reading (Fletcher et al., 2018 ), (e) the Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001 ), and (f) reading and spelling development (Ehri, 2005 ) to strongly advocate for reform.

Through this solution-based framing, reformers seek to create legislation, teacher training programs, and curriculum that centers on providing systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics to students (Seidenberg et al., 2020 ). While this effort clearly seeks to teach students how to read with a necessary set of skills, researchers note that it draws upon a limited scope of the comprehensive SOR about how people read and that the narrow focus on phonemic awareness and phonics skills minimizes the complexity of the SOR and overlooks essential reading and cognitive skills (Cabell & Hwang, 2020 ; Rand & Morrow, 2021 ). In addition, the popular media and public discourse focuses mainly on basic reading research and theory about how students read rather than drawing upon applied research on how to teach students to read (Goldenberg, 2020 ; Shanahan, 2020 ). Specifically, there are clearly established basic reading research findings from cognitive science about proficient reading, but knowledge of how to effectively transfer this research widely to educational practice (i.e., the science of reading instruction) is not as clear (Hindman et al., 2020 ; Seidenberg et al., 2020 ).

Furthermore, although present in the research literature (e.g., Goldenberg, 2020 ), the popular media and public discourse de-emphasizes vital aspects of language and literacy research and instruction needed to support multilingual learners (MLs; often referred to as English learners , English language learners , limited English proficient [LEP] , or emergent bilinguals ) (Goldenberg, 2020 ). For example, although most researchers acknowledge the influence of students’ first language (L1) on English literacy development, the narrow framing by the popular media and public discourse largely omits the substantial body of research on cross-linguistic transfer (e.g., Prevoo et al., 2016 ; Proctor et al., 2010a , 2010b ; Relyea & Amendum, 2020 ) and how MLs’ L1 and literacy skills facilitate learning in their new language. One recent study (Relyea & Amendum, 2020 ) demonstrated that L1 literacy skills at kindergarten entry more strongly predicted English reading growth through grade four than English proficiency. Because there is substantial research evidence about the benefit of transfer (Cummins, 1979 ; Proctor et al., 2010a , 2010b ; Relyea & Amendum, 2020 ) and most outcomes for MLs are focused on English development, inclusion of students’ home language to support their English development is vital.

In the current study, we address some of the limitations of the SOR framing by the popular media and public discourse, particularly for MLs. Specifically, our goal is to identify the areas of broad empirical evidence related to reading and reading instruction to inform the SOR for MLs through a systematic review of reviews (Newman & Gough, 2020 ).

Theoretical Framework

Within the current review, we conceptualize reading using the Simple View of Reading (SVR; Gough & Tunmer, 1986 ) and the Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001 ). SVR asserts that reading comprehension is the product of decoding and linguistic comprehension (RC = D × LC). In the SVR, both decoding and linguistic comprehension are each viewed as necessary, but alone either is not sufficient for proficient reading. Proficient reading is thus characterized as both accurate and automatic decoding along with linguistic comprehension; that is how, “…lexical (i.e., word) information, sentences and discourses are interpreted” (Gough & Tunmer, 1986 , p. 7). The Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001 ) further expands the SVR by theorizing components of both decoding and linguistic comprehension (called word recognition and language comprehension, respectively in the Reading Rope). Word recognition is disaggregated into a set of skills that interact over time, specifically phonological awareness (PA), decoding, and sight word recognition. Language comprehension is disaggregated into a different set of skills that also interact over time, specifically background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge. According to the model, across time multiple skills weave together to result in skilled and proficient reading (see Scarborough, 2001 for a full description).

Researchers have also theorized the reading process specific to multilingual learners through multilingual/multiliteracy theories of reading such as the compensatory model (Bernhardt, 2005 ). Such a model suggests that processing is compensatory—some sources of knowledge aid or supplant other knowledge sources that are not yet developed to competency. At the same time, these knowledge sources such as L1 literacy level (e.g., alphabetics, vocabulary, text structure) and L2 proficiency (e.g., grammatical form, vocabulary knowledge, linguistic distance) are hypothesized to interact synergistically, not additively, to support L2 reading.

However, the influence of both the SVR and the Reading Rope (Gough & Tunmer, 1986 ; Scarborough, 2001 ) is substantial within the dialogue surrounding the SOR, and both frameworks are widely used to inform research, curriculum, and instruction broadly within the field, including for MLs (Goldenberg, 2020 ). Given this influence, we also began with these same theoretical frameworks in the current review of reviews. Furthermore, prior research has demonstrated the importance of both decoding and linguistic comprehension for MLs (August et al., 2005 ; Gottardo & Mueller, 2009 ; Huang et al., 2022 ) which suggests that SVR and the Reading Rope can provide a foundation for conceptualizing the SOR for MLs, especially when reading instruction also includes extensive English-language support (Goldenberg, 2020 ).

Context of the Present Review

Previously, researchers have conducted reviews of reviews related to MLs’ language and literacy outcomes. For example, Francis and colleagues ( 2006 ) reviewed two major reports and studies published from 2002 to provide evidence-based recommendations for instruction and interventions in reading and math for MLs. Li ( 2012 ) identified effective principles of ML instruction by synthesizing existing research reviews conducted primarily in middle schools and high schools. Calderón and colleagues ( 2011 ) reviewed purposefully selected research reviews to identify elements of effective instruction and synthesize successful program models for MLs. Hall and colleagues ( 2019 ) reviewed four major research synthesis conducted within 15 years of their publication to synthesize interventions focused on academic language or reading for MLs with learning disabilities, or who were at risk for learning disabilities. Each of these reviews provided important insight to the field of ML education. However, missing from the review literature is a contemporary, comprehensive, and systematic review of reviews focused on the science of reading for all elementary-aged MLs, both with and without disabilities.

In the present review, we seek to fill this gap in the review literature. We examine systematic reviews conducted over the past 23 years, since the release of the hugely influential report of the National Reading Panel ( 2000 ) which prompted the conceptualization of scientifically based reading research and the contemporary science of reading. In addition, Goldenberg’s ( 2020 ) call for research on how to accelerate MLs’ English language and literacy development prompted us to consider the empirical evidence related to the science of reading and reading instruction for MLs. Therefore, through our systematic review of reviews (Newman & Gough, 2020 ), we address the following research questions—one related to the science of reading and one related to the science of reading instruction:

(RQ1) Based on systematic reviews, what are the essential evidence-based components that make up the SOR for K-5 MLs?

(RQ2) Based on those same systematic reviews, what instructional practices and programs are effective for addressing the essential evidence-based components of the SOR for K-5 MLs?

The current study was a systematic review of systematic reviews (Newman & Gough, 2020 ). This type of review includes systematic reviews instead of individual primary studies, synthesizing findings from multiple systematic reviews (Hartling et al., 2012 ; Newman & Gough, 2020 ). A systematic review of systematic reviews allows researchers to summarize evidence from multiple empirical research syntheses to provide an overall summary of a body of knowledge on a particular topic (Hartling et al., 2012 ). The resulting synthesis of evidence can be useful for policy decision-making and for providing a central location of information so that researchers do not have to assimilate data from separate systematic reviews on a given topic (Hartling et al., 2012 ). Given the purpose of this study was to provide a broad overall summary of findings related to the evidence-based components that comprise the SOR for MLs and to identify effective instructional practices that address these components, conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews was an appropriate method of evidence synthesis.

Data Collection

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021 ), we employed several methods to complete a thorough and comprehensive review of systematic reviews on the SOR and the SOR instruction for MLs. First, a list of inclusion and exclusion criteria was developed to identify documents to be included in the review. Second, a list of key search terms was developed to search for relevant documents. Third, based on related disciplines, appropriate databases were identified for the search. Finally, a database search was conducted to identify included documents, and a forward and backward search was conducted with each included document to identify additional documents. Outlined below are the specific processes used to identify the systematic review documents included in this review.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Documents included in this review were restricted to evidence-based systematic reviews found in (a) journal articles, commissioned reports, and updates to those reports by the authors; (b) published between 2000 and 2023; (c) published in English; (d) that reviewed reading and reading instruction studies where at least 50% or more of the studies were conducted in the U.S. and in K-5 classrooms; (e) focused on MLs or disaggregated results for MLs; and (f) in accordance with the SVR, included English reading comprehension as an outcome measure. Documents were excluded if (a) they were not reviews of research; (b) the authors did not explicitly state how documents were identified and retrieved; (c) they were reviews of reviews; (d) 50% or more of the studies reviewed were conducted outside of the U.S. or outside of grades K-5; (e) they did not focus on MLs or disaggregate results specifically for MLs; (f) they did not include reading comprehension as a specific outcome measure; and (g) they were documents, excluding journal articles and commissioned reports, that were not updates to commissioned reports.

Databases and Search Terms

Three databases (i.e., ERIC, APA PsycINFO, and Education Source) from two disciplines (i.e., education and psychology) were searched. Key search terms were constructed based on three concepts: (1) focus (reading AND words related to systematic reviews), (2) population (a comprehensive list of key terms that have historically been used in the literature to describe MLs), and (3) setting (elementary grade levels listed individually along with…OR “elementary” OR “primary”; see Table S1 , online only, for detailed search query).

Document Search Procedure

The database searches yielded 1,140 documents (see Figure S1 , online only). After excluding 165 duplicate documents, the remaining 975 documents were screened and assessed to determine eligibility, and 958 documents were excluded. This yielded 17 eligible systematic review documents. Two of the 17 documents were books containing chapters with individual systematic reviews. Six of these chapters met inclusion criteria and were treated as independent documents, resulting in 21 total systematic review documents. Finally, citation and references searches were conducted with the 21 documents, yielding an additional 9 documents, for a total of 30 systematic review documents to be included in the review of reviews.

Data Analysis

To begin data analysis, we identified and extracted characteristics of each review including the type of systematic review, the purpose of the review, and the overall participant demographics. Next, we extracted relevant findings related to the essential components of the SOR for MLs by identifying findings where components were directly related to English reading comprehension (RQ1). In addition, we also extracted relevant findings related to any instructional practices and programs that were found to be effective related to these components (RQ2). To establish inter-rater reliability, eight of the studies were double-coded and the overall percent agreement across the major extracted categories was 0.88; all discrepancies in coding were discussed and resolved. Finally, two of the authors each independently coded four of the remaining documents and one author coded the remaining documents.

Characteristics of the Reviews

We coded for types of systematic reviews, purposes of the reviews, and participant demographics. First, we determined if the systematic review was a meta-analysis, a descriptive review, or a combination of a meta-analysis and a descriptive review. Second, we identified particular focus areas of each review (e.g., literacy interventions) and purposes of each review. Third, we coded for grade levels, L1s, and subpopulations of MLs. Finally, we synthesized our findings to identify similarities and differences among these characteristics.

Components Related to English Reading Comprehension

To address RQ1, identifying the essential evidence-based components that make up the SOR for MLs, we focused on identifying components related to English reading comprehension as both SVR and Scarborough’s Reading Rope conceptualize the ultimate goal of reading as reading comprehension. First, we identified positive English comprehension outcomes in each systematic review. Second, we coded for components that were related to these outcomes, noting particulars about the relationship between each component and the outcome measure. Finally, we synthesized our findings to identify the essential evidence-based components that make up the SOR for MLs according to the reviews.

Instructional Practices and Programs

To address RQ2, identifying instructional practices and programs that are effective for addressing the essential evidence-based components that make up the SOR for MLs, we focused on coding for instructional practices and programs directly related to positive outcomes in the components identified in RQ1. We also coded for instructional practices and programs directly related to positive English reading comprehension outcomes, defined as a positive and significant effect on a measure of reading comprehension as a study outcome.

Although we report effect sizes, we do not interpret them because assessing the practical or substantive magnitude of a program or intervention requires comparison with a benchmark that considers relevant or substantive considerations (Bloom et al., 2008 ). Current guidelines suggest effect sizes should be interpreted using empirical benchmarks relevant to the context of each intervention, its target population, and the outcome measures used rather than Cohen’s suggestion of 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 standard deviations (Bloom et al., 2008 ; Lipsey et al., 2012 ). We suggest that readers consult individual studies when considering the magnitude of effects.

Of the 30 reviews identified, eight were meta-analyses and three included meta-analyses as well as detailed descriptions for each study. The remaining 19 reviews were descriptive. The purposes of the systematic reviews were varied. Twelve of the reviews sought to provide a review and/or synthesis of current research in a particular focus area, most commonly literacy or reading. Eighteen reviews focused on instruction or interventions and four on identifying, examining, and evaluating strategies. Nine of the reviews’ purposes focused on a specific subpopulation of MLs. Five focused on MLs at risk for or with learning disabilities (LDs) and one focused on immigrant MLs. Three focused on particular languages with two focused on Spanish-speaking MLs and one focused on East/Southeast Asian MLs. Four reviews focused on examining and comparing research related to language of instruction and bilingual education.

The reviews included studies with students ranging from preschool to grade 12 or their equivalent (see Figure S2 , online only). The majority of reviews (i.e., 26 out of 30) included only studies with participants who were classified using labels historically used by schools and researchers to identify MLs (e.g., English learners). One review (Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2011 ) included studies with participants who were second language (L2) learners. Several reviews included studies if 50–90% of participants were MLs (e.g., Fitton et al., 2018 ) or if data were disaggregated to allow for conclusions regarding the participating MLs (e.g., Pyle et al., 2017 ). One review (Silverman et al., 2020 ) did not include MLs as an inclusion criterion; however, the review disaggregated in a way that allowed for an examination of the effects on MLs.

In addition, the reviews identified included studies with students from different L1 backgrounds. Twenty-nine reviews included Spanish-speaking students, and 22 included studies conducted with students with mixed L1 backgrounds (e.g., Chinese, French, Portuguese). Furthermore, 12 reviews identified included studies conducted both in and out of the U.S.

RQ1: What are the essential evidence-based components that make up the SOR for K-5 MLs?

To address RQ1, we identified evidence-based components that the systematic reviews found to be significantly related to English reading comprehension. Six reviews (D. Baker et al., 2016 ; Dressler & Kamil, 2006 ; Klingner et al., 2006 ; Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2011 ; Riches & Genesee, 2006 ; Saunders & O’Brien, 2006 ) identified specific evidence-based components that comprise the SOR for MLs. We group these components into four broad clusters: oral language, phonological awareness (PA), decoding and oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension.

The oral language cluster is comprised of components related to both expressive and receptive language (Language & Reading Research Consortium, 2017 ), including language and vocabulary outcomes in L1 and L2. The phonological awareness cluster includes components related to phonological or phonemic awareness in L1 or L2. The cluster for decoding and oral reading fluency is comprised of components related to decoding, word recognition, or reading fluency in L1 or L2. Finally, the cluster related to comprehension is composed of components related to reading comprehension and comprehension strategies in L1 or L2. Notably, it is important to acknowledge that reading comprehension is widely considered multidimensional rather than a unitary construct (e.g., Catts & Kamhi, 2017 ; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002 ) and as such, is likely less componential. For readability, we refer to reading comprehension as a component where applicable but recognize its multidimensionality. Table 1 provides an overview of the components within each cluster along with the associated reviews and key findings.

Oral Language

One broad cluster that makes up essential components of the SOR for MLs is oral language. The components that constitute this broad cluster include (a) English oral language, (b) English oral proficiency, (c) English vocabulary, and (d) L1 (Spanish) vocabulary. Key findings discussed below are summarized in Table  1 under the Oral Language Cluster heading.

A meta-analysis by Melby-Lervåg and Lervåg ( 2011 ) found a moderate to strong positive linear relationship between L2 oral language and L2 reading comprehension ( r  = 0.46, p  < 0.001). Only one of the eight studies had an L2 other than English. The overall correlation was calculated using eight independent correlations from eight studies that examined the relationship between L2 oral language and L2 reading comprehension for 1,039 children. In addition to this positive relationship, the authors found that age had a significant impact on the correlation magnitude with the correlation between L2 oral language and L2 reading comprehension increasing as children become older. Therefore, given that the overall mean correlation represented an overwhelming majority of studies with English as an L2, the review results strongly suggest that English oral language is an essential component of the SOR for MLs.

Two reviews (Riches & Genesee, 2006 ; Saunders & O’Brien, 2006 ) found evidence that English oral proficiency, including English vocabulary knowledge, is an essential component of the SOR for MLs. In their systematic review, for example, Riches and Genesee ( 2006 ) specifically noted study findings that demonstrated a general correspondence between levels of English oral proficiency and English reading comprehension for upper elementary grades Spanish-speaking MLs, and evidence that a lack of English vocabulary knowledge resulted in reading miscomprehension in MLs with low, intermediate, and high English oral proficiency. The lack of English vocabulary knowledge was particularly detrimental for MLs with low proficiency because syntactic knowledge also impeded English reading comprehension.

In their review, Saunders and O’Brien ( 2006 ) identified several studies that reported correlations between English oral proficiency and English reading achievement, including significant relationships between vocabulary, formal definitions, and story-retell. Specifically, the authors noted findings that demonstrated a significant moderate and positive correlation between elementary MLs’ English vocabulary and English reading achievement; significant positive correlations between English oral proficiency and English reading achievement that increased from second- to fifth-grade from small to moderate; and a significant moderate and positive correlation between the quality of story retells (i.e., details about the plot, setting, and characters’ intentions) as a measure of English oral proficiency and English reading achievement. Relatedly, Riches and Genesee ( 2006 ) also identified findings that showed evidence that deep structure analyses (e.g., informativeness of responses) were more highly related to English reading comprehension than surface structure features (e.g., grammatical complexity). Both reviews provide evidence that English oral proficiency is an essential component of the SOR for MLs.

Finally, a review by Klingner and colleagues ( 2006 ) identified study results that found that in addition to the extensiveness of Spanish-speaking MLs’ English vocabularies, the extensiveness of their Spanish vocabularies also explained a significant portion of variance in their English reading comprehension. These findings provide preliminary evidence that Spanish vocabulary may be an essential component of the SOR for Spanish-speaking MLs.

Phonological Awareness

Phonological awareness (PA) is another broad cluster that forms an essential component of the SOR for MLs. Key findings are summarized in Table  1 under the Phonological Awareness Cluster heading. Two systematic reviews (Klingner et al., 2006 ; Riches & Genesee, 2006 ) identified study results that indicated English PA contributed to English reading comprehension for MLs. Both reviews discussed how a single study found that a significant portion of variance in MLs’ English reading comprehension was explained by English PA. This provides preliminary evidence that English PA is an essential component of the SOR for MLs.

Decoding and Oral Reading Fluency

Decoding and oral reading fluency constitute another broad cluster that makes up the essential components of the SOR for MLs. The components that form this broad cluster include: (a) L1 (Spanish) decoding, (b) English decoding, and (c) English oral reading fluency. Key findings discussed below are summarized in Table  1 under the Decoding and Oral Language Fluency Cluster heading.

A meta-analysis by Melby-Lervåg and Lervåg ( 2011 ) found a positive linear relationship between L1 decoding and English reading comprehension ( r  = 0.24, p  = 0.01). This overall correlation was calculated using six studies with independent correlations consisting of 1067 children. Five of the six studies included MLs’ whose L1 was Spanish while one study included MLs’ whose L1 was Chinese. In addition to the positive relationship, age had a significant impact on the magnitude of the correlation; specifically, the magnitude of the relationship decreased as children got older. These results provide evidence that L1 decoding is likely an essential component of the SOR for Spanish-speaking and Chinese-speaking MLs.

In addition to examining the relationship between L1 decoding and English reading comprehension, Melby-Lervåg and Lervåg ( 2011 ) examined the relationship between L2 decoding and L2 reading comprehension using correlations from six studies, one of which included Norwegian as the L2. Again, they found a strong linear relationship between L2 decoding and L2 reading comprehension ( r  = 0.54, p  < 0.001) and that age had a significant impact on the magnitude of the correlation in that it decreased as children got older. Therefore, given that only one out of the six studies used to calculate the overall correlation included an L2 other than English, the review results strongly suggest that English (as an L2) decoding is an essential component of the SOR for MLs. Another review by D. Baker and colleagues ( 2016 ) also found evidence that in the early grades, initial levels of English decoding and growth in English decoding are significant predictors of English reading comprehension. Both reviews provide evidence that English decoding is an essential component of the SOR for MLs.

Finally, the review by D. Baker and colleagues ( 2016 ) also determined that in the early grades, initial levels of English oral reading fluency and growth in English oral reading fluency skills were significant predictors of English reading comprehension. This provides preliminary evidence that in addition to L1 decoding and English decoding, English oral reading fluency is an essential component of the SOR for MLs.

Reading Comprehension

Reading comprehension is the final broad cluster that makes up an essential component of the SOR for MLs. The components that comprise this broad cluster include (a) L1 (Spanish) reading comprehension, (b) L1 (Spanish) reading comprehension strategies, and (c) English reading comprehension strategies. Key findings discussed below are summarized in Table  1 under the Reading Comprehension Cluster heading.

Two reviews (Dressler & Kamil, 2006 ; Riches & Genesee, 2006 ) identified L1 reading comprehension as an essential component of the SOR for MLs. Dressler and Kamil ( 2006 ) found that L1 (Spanish) reading comprehension was positively correlated with English reading comprehension. They noted that this relationship was weaker for students with lower levels of English language proficiency, highlighting the significance of English oral language as an essential component of the SOR for MLs. Riches and Genesee ( 2006 ) noted findings in their review which showed that MLs’ L1 (Spanish) reading abilities, measured by Spanish reading comprehension, were the best predictor of their English reading comprehension one year later. Both of these reviews provide evidence that L1 reading comprehension is an essential component of the SOR for Spanish-speaking MLs. Given the multidimensionality of reading comprehension, in this case, it is probable that reading comprehension is less of a “component” that relates to L2 (English) reading comprehension and is more likely a product of strong L1 oral language and decoding skills that contribute to L2 (English) reading comprehension.

Two reviews (Dressler & Kamil, 2006 ; Klingner et al., 2006 ) found evidence that reading comprehension strategies, including L1 (Spanish) and English comprehension strategies, are essential components of the SOR for MLs. Dressler and Kamil ( 2006 ) found that L1 (Spanish) strategic reading was positively correlated with English reading comprehension. Klingner and colleagues ( 2006 ) noted findings from their review that provided evidence that MLs’ English comprehension depended on their ability to use comprehension strategies. Notably, the use of strategies distinguished better readers more accurately than their English fluency. In addition, the authors highlighted findings that showed MLs’ perceptions of cognitive reading strategies were predictive of their English reading comprehension and that negative or counterproductive cognitive reading strategies were negatively related to gains in reading comprehension. Together, these reviews provide evidence that L1 and English comprehension strategies are essential components of the SOR for MLs.

RQ2: What instructional practices and programs are effective for addressing the essential evidence-based components that make up the SOR for K-5 MLs?

To address RQ2, we identified instructional practices and programs that the systematic reviews found to be effective in addressing essential components that make up each broad cluster of the SOR for MLs. Table 2 shows an overview of the key evidence-based instructional practices and programs for each cluster that were identified by the reviews.

The broad oral language cluster included four components: English oral language, English oral proficiency, English vocabulary, and L1 (Spanish) vocabulary. Reviews found instructional practices that supported two of the components: English oral language and English vocabulary. Key findings related to instructional practices discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Oral Language Cluster heading.

To provide effective English oral language instruction, the reviews identified cooperative and interactive learning and English reading with adult support as effective instructional practices. Specifically, MLs’ academic English oral language improved when cooperative learning and interactive activities were used in the classroom (Cheung & Slavin, 2012 ; Saunders & O’Brien, 2006 ). Likewise, immersing students in language-rich environments including opportunities for interactive reading (August & Shanahan, 2010 ) and providing MLs with additional English reading time with adult support improved English oral language (August et al., 2010 ).

To provide effective English vocabulary instruction, the reviews identified (a) explicit instruction in individual words; (b) rich and in-depth vocabulary instruction; (c) incorporating visuals, realia, and gesture; (d) careful selection of words and texts; (e) using MLs’ L1; and (f) teaching word learning strategies as effective instructional practices. Explicit instruction of English word meanings increased MLs’ English vocabulary. A single study within the reviews (Carlo et al., 2004 ) found direct instruction in key vocabulary words improved MLs’ English knowledge of target words, depth of meaning vocabulary knowledge, and understanding of multiple word meanings (Cheung & Slavin, 2012 ; Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ). Relatedly, instruction focused on developing MLs’ phonics knowledge through systematic and explicit phonologically based interventions had significant effects on their English vocabulary (August & Shanahan, 2010 ).

Additionally, providing rich and in-depth vocabulary instruction increased MLs’ English academic vocabulary knowledge. Instructional activities included (a) teaching a small set of target academic words over several days using a variety of instructional methods (S. Baker et al., 2014 ) such as instructional conversations (August & Siegel, 2006 ), (b) using a vocabulary-enriched curriculum with direct instruction (Genesee & Riches, 2006 ), and (c) teaching elaborated meanings through narratives, dictation, and visuals (Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ).

Effective vocabulary instruction also used visuals, realia, and gestures, and intentionally selected words and texts. Practices included using visuals, realia, and gestures to improve MLs’ knowledge of English word meanings (August et al., 2010 ) including video clips to clarify target academic word meanings (Baker et al., 2014 ). Grade level informational texts that were interesting and engaging provided opportunities for teaching general academic terms and content-specific words as well as target vocabulary words that were central to understanding the informational text, occurred frequently, appeared in multiple contexts, included affixes, and had the potential for cognate relationships (Baker et al., 2014 ).

MLs’ L1 has been used as an effective instructional resource for improving English vocabulary. Specific approaches have included (a) previewing and reviewing texts in the L1 (August et al., 2010 ; Genesee & Riches, 2006 ; Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ), (b) introducing vocabulary words in Spanish before introducing them in English (Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ), (c) using a Spanish keyword method (Genesee & Riches, 2006 ), (d) using cognates (Baker et al., 2014 ), (e) hearing dual-language books paired with instruction related to retelling (Beneville & Li, 2018 ), and (f) peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping conducted in Spanish (Pyle et al., 2017 ).

Teaching word learning strategies also improved MLs’ English vocabulary. Strategies included (a) teaching cognates and word parts (Baker et al., 2014 ), (b) teaching students to use context clues (Baker et al., 2014 ; Genesee & Riches, 2006 ), and (c) teaching morphological analysis as a word-learning strategy in combination with context analysis (Brandes & McMaster, 2017 ). The most common characteristic of morphological awareness instruction was explicit instruction in common suffixes and root words and in how to apply this knowledge to new words.

In addition to instructional practices, reviews also found several instructional programs that supported L1 (Spanish) vocabulary and English oral language. Key findings related to instructional programs discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Oral Language Cluster heading. Two programs, Descubriendo La Lectura (a Spanish version of Reading Recovery ) and Vocabulary Enhanced Systematic and Explicit Teaching Routines ( VE-SETR ) within a transitional bilingual program had significant and positive effects on L1 Spanish vocabulary measures. Descubriendo La Lectura provided daily, one-on-one, instruction in multiple components, while VE-SETR provided explicit and systematic Spanish vocabulary instruction using scripted lessons. Five programs were identified that had significant positive relationships with English oral language: Corrective Reading , Direct Instruction (DI) , Project English Language and Literacy Acquisition ( ELLA ), Reading Mastery , and Wilson Reading . Across the programs, direct and/or systematic instruction was provided in multiple components. Program effect sizes ranged from 0.11 to 0.93. Tables S2 and S3 (online only) provide information about significant effect sizes related to the components by program and study and information about participants.

The broad PA cluster included English PA, and reviews found several instructional practices that supported this component. Specifically, direct instruction and peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping were identified as effective instructional practices. Key findings related to these instructional practices discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Phonological Awareness Cluster heading.

Direct instruction in PA was effective in improving MLs’ English PA. This was found to be the case independent of English oral proficiency (Riches & Genesee, 2006 ), when receiving direct instruction in how to segment Spanish and/or English CVC words followed by instruction in letter-sound relationships for selected letters, and through an English auditory discrimination training program that focused on sound pairs difficult for Spanish speakers (Genesee & Riches, 2006 ; Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ).

Peer pairing, peer tutoring, and small collaborative/cooperative groupings were effective in improving MLs’ English PA across grade levels. These types of pairings and groupings were effective when they include instructional activities such as previewing, predicting, paired read aloud, repeated reading, reciprocal reading, questioning, retelling, and error correction (Pyle et al., 2017 ). They were also found to be effective regardless of language of instruction (Pyle et al., 2017 ) and across grade levels (Tang et al., 2021 ).

In addition to instructional practices, reviews also identified ten effective programs or interventions related to English PA. Key findings related to instructional programs discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Phonological Awareness Cluster heading. Significant and positive effects were found for seven programs: ELLA , Ladders to Literacy , Lectura Proactiva (a Spanish version of Proactive Reading ), Peer Assisted Learning Strategies in Reading for Kindergarten (K-PALS) , Proactive Reading , Read Well , and Sound Partners with effect sizes ranging from 0.38 to 1.24. Across the programs, explicit, direct, and/or systematic instruction was provided in PA and additional components. Table S4 (online only) provides information about significant effect sizes related to English PA by program and study as well as information about study participants.

The broad decoding and oral reading fluency cluster included L1 (i.e., Spanish and Chinese) decoding, English decoding, and English oral reading fluency. Reviews found several instructional practices that supported two of the components: English decoding and English oral reading fluency. Key findings related to instructional practices discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Decoding and Oral Reading Fluency Cluster heading.

To provide effective English decoding instruction, the reviews identified (a) explicit and/or systematic instruction in English PA and decoding, (b) strategic use of MLs’ L1 during instruction, and (c) peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping as effective instructional practices. Explicit and/or systematic instruction has been shown to improve MLs’ English decoding. Specifically, systematic and explicit phonologically based interventions in English PA and phonics were related to improved English word reading and word attack skills for MLs (August et al., 2010 ; August & Shanahan, 2010 ). MLs who received explicit instruction in how to segment Spanish and/or English CVC words followed by instruction in letter-sound relationships for selected letters outperformed a no-treatment control group on English decoding (Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ).

MLs’ L1 has been used effectively during instruction to improve their English decoding as well. Specifically, some English letter-sound correspondences did not have to be retaught when students’ L1 shared the same correspondences (August & Shanahan, 2010 ). Explicit instruction in how to segment Spanish CVC words followed by letter-sound relationship instruction increased MLs’ English decoding (Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ).

Peer pairing, peer tutoring, and small collaborative/cooperative groupings were also effective in supporting MLs’ English decoding. Specifically, cooperative, collaborative, and peer-tutoring strategies significantly and positively impacted MLs’ letter-word identification across grade levels (Tang et al., 2021 ). These types of pairings and groupings were often associated with improved English decoding for MLs compared to teacher-mediated comparison conditions (Pyle et al., 2017 ).

To provide effective English oral reading fluency instruction, the reviews identified explicit instruction in English PA and phonics and peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping as effective instructional practices. Specifically, explicit instruction in English PA and phonics benefited MLs’ English reading fluency (August et al., 2010 ). Additionally, peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative groupings demonstrated gains on MLs’ fluency (Pyle et al., 2017 ). These types of pairings and groupings were often associated with improved English reading fluency compared to teacher-mediated comparison conditions. This was true for peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping implemented using English-only instruction or a combination of English and Spanish instruction and that included previewing, predicting, reading aloud, error correction, repeated reading, reciprocal reading, and retelling.

In addition to instructional practices, reviews also found several instructional programs that supported L1 (Spanish) decoding, English decoding, and English oral reading fluency. Key findings related to instructional programs discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Decoding and Oral Reading Fluency Cluster heading. Three programs were identified that had significant positive relationships with L1 (Spanish) decoding: Descubriendo La Lectura , Lectura Proactiva , and Proactive Reading . Descubriendo La Lectura was described as a supplemental, comprehensive, and tailored intervention while the other two provided explicit, direct, and/or systematic instruction in multiple components. Program effect sizes ranged from 0.60 to 0.91. Nine programs were found to have a significant positive impact on English decoding: Corrective Reading , PALS , Proactive Reading , Read Naturally , Read Well , Reading Mastery , Success for All ( SFA ), Sound Partners , and Wilson Reading with program effect sizes ranging from 0.25 to 1.09. Across the programs, all were described as explicit, direct, or systematic instruction, all provided instruction in multiple components, and one emphasized peer collaboration.

Six programs were identified that were effective for improving MLs’ English oral reading fluency. Program effect sizes ranged from 0.17 to 0.90 for Corrective Reading , ELLA , PALS , Reading Mastery , Read Well , and Sound Partners . All six programs were described as explicit, direct, and/or systematic instruction, all provided instruction in multiple components, and one emphasized peer collaboration. Tables S5, S6, and S7 (online only) provide information about significant effect sizes related to these components by program and study as well as information about study participants.

The broad comprehension cluster included L1 (Spanish) reading comprehension, L1 (Spanish) comprehension strategies, and English reading comprehension strategies. Reviews found several instructional practices that supported one of the components: English reading comprehension. Key findings related to instructional practices discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Reading Comprehension Cluster heading.

To provide effective English comprehension instruction, the reviews identified (a) direct and multi-faceted vocabulary instruction, (b) explicit instruction in decoding and/or comprehension, (c) meaningful supports or scaffolds such as book-rich classrooms and video clips, (d) structured writing activities, (e) a combination of literature logs and instructional conversations, (f) peer pairing/tutoring and collaborative/cooperative groupings, (g) enhancements to instructional approaches, and (h) use of MLs’ L1 as effective instructional practices.

Direct and multi-faceted meaning vocabulary instruction was effective for improving MLs’ reading comprehension. For example, improvement in English reading comprehension was related to instruction in a single study within the reviews (Carlo et al., 2004 ) that (a) focused on a set of target words taught over a course of a week using integrated books (Brandes & McMaster, 2017 ; Cheung & Slavin, 2012 ; Genesee & Riches, 2006 ; Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ); (b) included explicit instruction (August et al., 2010 ); (c) used examples and visual aids in multiple contexts as well as opportunities for pronunciation, acting and gestures, discussion of spelling and cognates, and comparisons of words (Cheung & Slavin, 2012 ; Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ); and (d) introduced words in students’ L1 first before introducing them in English (Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ).

In addition, effective vocabulary instruction (a) emphasized both code-based and meaning-based skills instead of emphasizing one set of skills in isolation (Solari et al., 2022 ), (b) taught content-specific words and general academic words (S. Baker et al., 2014 ), (c) taught key vocabulary words paired with a listening preview (August & Siegel, 2006 ), (d) used a vocabulary-enriched curriculum, and (e) provided 20-min oral instruction in word meanings focused on compound words, synonyms, antonyms, and multiple word meanings (Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ).

Explicit instruction in decoding and/or comprehension improved MLs’ reading comprehension. The instruction included the following: (a) systematic and explicit phonologically based instruction (August & Shanahan, 2010 ; August et al., 2010 ); (b) explicit instruction in and modeling of comprehension strategies (e.g., predicting, summarizing, clarifying, and questioning the text; August et al., 2010 ; Genesee & Riches, 2006 ); (c) emphasized both code-related and meaning-related skills for MLs with word-level difficulties (Solari et al., 2022 ); and (d) high intensity direct skills instruction personalized to meet individual student needs, provide immediate feedback, and ongoing adjustment (Genesee & Riches, 2006 ).

MLs’ comprehension benefited from meaningful supports or scaffolds. Book-rich classrooms and home reading with audiotapes (August et al., 2010 ) were effective. Small group shared reading allowed teachers to address MLs’ particular needs (August et al., 2010 ). Short, engaging video clips anchored content to a common shared experience and provided background knowledge to facilitate content understanding (S. Baker et al., 2014 ).

Structured writing activities were effective in improving MLs’ content understanding. Specifically, graphic organizers and brief writing activities provided opportunities to make connections among concepts and strengthened MLs’ content understanding (Baker et al., 2014 ). Interactive learning approaches using semantic mapping, semantic feature analysis, and semantic/syntactic feature analysis were found more effective than providing definitions for MLs with an LD (Boon & Barbetta, 2017 ).

Combining literature logs with instructional conversations was effective in improving MLs’ story comprehension (Genesee & Riches, 2006 ; Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ). Literature logs lessons included (a) providing students with a prompt after reading a story and asking them to write about personal experiences related to the story and (b) participating in a classroom discussion about the similarities and differences in their experiences and that of the story characters. Instructional conversations included (a) clarifying factual content of the story and (b) developing students’ understanding through discussion.

Peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping were effective in improving MLs’ English reading comprehension (Genesee & Riches, 2006 ; Pyle et al., 2017 ; Tang et al., 2021 ) regardless of language of instruction, type of grouping, and instructional activity (Pyle et al., 2017 ). Structured pairings and groupings that included elements of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) and classwide peer tutoring (e.g., paired reading) and that used cooperative, collaborative, and peer-tutoring strategies demonstrated large effects (Pyle et al., 2017 ; Tang et al., 2021 ).

Multiple enhancements to instructional approaches helped facilitate MLs’ English reading comprehension. Enhancements included (a) identifying and clarifying difficult words and passages within texts; (b) consolidating text knowledge through summarization and extra practice with reading (August & Shanahan, 2010 ; Genesee & Riches, 2006 ); (c) vocabulary and comprehension checks; (d) presenting ideas verbally and in writing; (e) paraphrasing and encouraging expansions of MLs’ remarks; (f) redundancy; (g) interactive reading with attention to decoding and story comprehension; and (h) physical gestures and visual clues to clarify meaning (August et al., 2010 ).

Finally, MLs’ L1 was successfully leveraged to improve English reading comprehension in the following ways: (a) to clarify meaning (August & Siegel, 2006 ), (b) to provide definitions of difficult target vocabulary as a part of previewing a text (Beneville & Li, 2018 ), (c) pairing L1 and L2 together in dual-language books (Beneville & Li, 2018 ), (d) using peer-mediated instruction in both English and Spanish together (Pyle et al., 2017 ), and (e) including a discussion of Spanish cognates as a part of instruction (Shanahan & Beck, 2006 ).

In addition to instructional practices, reviews also found several instructional programs that supported L1 (Spanish) reading comprehension and English reading comprehension. Key findings related to instructional programs discussed below are summarized in Table  2 under the Reading Comprehension Cluster heading. Three programs were identified that had significant positive relationships with L1 (Spanish) reading comprehension: Lectura Proactiva , Proactive Reading , and Read Naturally , and program effect sizes ranged from 0.55 to 0.88. All three programs were described as explicit, direct, or systematic instruction and provided instruction in multiple components. Seven programs had significant positive effects on English reading comprehension: Corrective Reading , HELPS Fluency Program ( HELPS ), PALS , Proactive Reading , Reading Mastery , SFA , and Sound Partners , and program effect sizes ranged from 0.21 to 2.67. Across the programs, all seven were described as explicit, direct, or systematic instruction, all provided instruction in multiple components, and one emphasized peer collaboration. Tables S8 and S9 (online only) provide information about significant effect sizes related to these components by program and study as well as information about study participants.

Using a systematic review of reviews, the goal of this project was to investigate the science of reading (SOR) for multilingual learners (MLs) by examining 30 systematic reviews conducted since the release of the report of the National Reading Panel ( 2000 ). Specifically, we first sought to determine the evidence-based components that comprise the SOR for MLs. Then we investigated which instructional practices and programs have evidence for addressing the essential components identified.

From this review of reviews, there were two main conclusions. First, there are a number of evidence-based components significantly related to English reading comprehension that create the SOR for MLs. These components can be grouped into four broad clusters: (a) an oral language cluster which includes English oral language, English oral proficiency, English vocabulary, and L1 (Spanish) vocabulary; (b) a PA cluster which includes English PA; (c) a broad decoding and oral reading fluency cluster which includes L1 (Spanish and Chinese) decoding, English decoding, and English oral reading fluency; and (d) a broad comprehension cluster which includes L1 (Spanish) reading comprehension and L1 (Spanish) and English reading comprehension strategies.

Second, this review of reviews identified a number of instructional practices and programs demonstrated effective for addressing the identified components that provide a foundation for the science of reading instruction for MLs. Specifically, effective practices related to the evidence-based components include practices such as use of students’ home language, direct and explicit instruction in English reading skills and strategies, peer-mediated instruction, enhanced instruction with scaffolds such as videos or structured writing, and use of multicomponent reading instruction. Effective programs had a range in the types of instruction provided by each program, the reading components targeted through instruction, and program characteristics relevant to delivery. Many effective programs were described as providing explicit and/or systematic instruction, targeted a range of reading components, varied with respect to dosage and duration, and delivered in a range of formats and by different educators.

Evidence-Based Components for Multilingual Learners

Four broad clusters of evidence-based components identified in the review of reviews create the SOR for MLs—oral language, PA, decoding and oral reading fluency, and comprehension. Specific evidence-based components within each of the four broad clusters were identified, and overall, these components were consistent with and are included in the Simple View of Reading (SVR; Gough & Tunmer, 1986 ) and the Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001 ) as shown in Figure S3 (online only; identified SOR components for MLs are listed on the right). However, the current review of reviews provides unique and important insight related to the importance of L1 for Spanish-speaking and Chinese-speaking MLs’ reading; that is, while the SVR and the Reading Rope represent the key components in proficient reading, there is not explicit mention or description of how MLs’ L1 impacts reading in L2 in these two influential theoretical models.

Our review of reviews found that there were several L1 components related to MLs’ English reading comprehension (i.e., Spanish vocabulary, Spanish and Chinese decoding, Spanish reading comprehension, and Spanish reading strategies). Here our results diverge from the SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986 ) and Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001 ). Although we identified the same key components included in the SVR and Reading Rope, in many cases, the evidence-based components were L1 components rather than English components. Given that in some cases MLs’ L1 reading skills may exert greater influence on L2 reading than L2 oral language proficiency (e.g., Relyea & Amendum, 2020 ), it is important that the SOR for MLs explicitly represents this influence which likely occurs through cross-linguistic transfer. Cross-linguistic transfer demonstrates how students’ L1 language and literacy skills facilitate the development of parallel abilities in the new language (i.e., English; Cummins, 1979 ; Prevoo et al., 2016 ; Proctor et al., 2010a , 2010b ). Importantly, cross-linguistic effects occur simultaneously with within-language effects (L1 or L2) as the interaction of L1 and L2 language and literacy skills affects MLs’ English reading growth (Relyea & Amendum, 2020 ). Findings from the current review, along with research findings related to cross-linguistic transfer, highlight the additional complexity of reading in a new language, and how the SOR for MLs could enhance the SVR and Reading Rope with the addition of key L1 components to support English language development and reading (Goldenberg, 2020 ; Gottardo & Mueller, 2009 ; Huang et al., 2022 ).

Although the components identified in this review of reviews are in many ways consistent with the SVR and the Reading Rope but require the addition of L1 components, some aspects of the SVR and Reading Rope were not explicitly identified in the reviews. For example, within decoding/word recognition, sight word recognition is listed in the models but was not explicitly identified in the reviews as an evidence-based component of the SOR for MLs. While it may be possible that sight word recognition is not important for MLs’ proficient reading, it is more likely that sight word recognition was implicit within word recognition or decoding in many of the studies reviewed since it results from orthographic mapping in increasingly sophisticated phases of letter, sound, and word knowledge (Ehri, 2014 ). Thus, although not identified in any of the systematic reviews we examined, we hypothesize that as a key part of word recognition more broadly, sight word recognition is similarly important for MLs as it is for monolingual English-speaking students. Correspondingly, within linguistic or language comprehension, background knowledge and literacy knowledge were not explicitly identified in the reviews. However, again we hypothesize the importance of these aspects of reading for MLs, particularly given the importance of developing these types of knowledge in the new language or drawing upon these funds of knowledge from students’ L1 to support their English reading comprehension (e.g., González et al., 2005 ).

Instructional Practices and Programs for Multilingual Learners

Consistent with the perspectives that emphasize discriminating between the SOR and the science of reading instruction (e.g., Goldenberg, 2020 ; Shanahan, 2020 ), we also examined instructional practices and programs aligned with the SOR components for MLs identified in our first research question. The effective instructional practices identified within the review of reviews include, but are not limited to, the use of peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping, explicit instruction, and strategic use of MLs’ L1. Peer pairing/peer tutoring and collaborative/cooperative grouping supported MLs’ English vocabulary, English phonological awareness, English decoding and oral reading fluency, and English comprehension. Explicit instruction was effective in supporting MLs’ English vocabulary, English phonological awareness and decoding, and English comprehension. Notably, strategic use of MLs’ L1 supported MLs’ English vocabulary, English decoding, and English comprehension. The effective programs and interventions identified within the review of reviews include, but are not limited to, K-PALS , Ladders to Literacy , Proactive Reading , ELLA , PALS , Lectura Proactiva , Read Well , Success for All , Sound Partners , Corrective Reading , Reading Mastery , and Read Naturally . Across these effective programs, there was a range in the types of instruction provided by each program, the reading components targeted through instruction, and program characteristics relevant to delivery. Many effective programs were described as providing explicit and/or systematic instruction and programs ranged from supplemental instruction to whole-school reform models. Across the programs, a wide range of reading components was targeted with some programs focusing on a single component, such as vocabulary, while other programs focused on a range of components often through multicomponent instructional programs, which included components such as PA, alphabet knowledge, oral language, vocabulary, decoding, spelling, oral reading fluency, and comprehension. Across the effective programs identified, characteristics relevant to program delivery varied as well. Formats included a range of groupings, including one-on-one, various types of small groups, and whole class instruction. Dosage and duration varied, ranging from a small number of weeks to multiple years. Effective programs were delivered by a variety of personnel.

Limitations

While the review of reviews methodology used in the current study has the advantage of providing a broad look at the field, one potential limitation is that findings from individual studies could become subsumed through synthesis across studies and reviews. Given that the level of analysis was systematic reviews rather than individual studies, the data drawn from the systematic reviews were syntheses made by researchers based on multiple studies. Furthermore, through the synthesis process, specific findings from individual studies may have been subsumed and are therefore not present in the current review of reviews. For example, authors of one of the systematic reviews could have reviewed a study that showed a positive relationship between sight word knowledge and English reading comprehension. But, when the authors synthesized across the studies they reviewed, this finding could have become part of a conclusion related to the positive relationship between word recognition and reading comprehension more broadly. Moreover, our review of reviews integrates multiple synthesized conclusions across reviews. Future research should address similar research questions using individual studies and include contextual information such as the grade/age of students, the number of participants, and their levels of English proficiency to help answer questions relative to whom, how, and under what circumstances instructional practices have been found to be effective. Finally, it is important to note that the identified reviews included a mix of research designs and findings synthesized from correlational, quasi-experimental, and experimental studies. As such, it is possible that causality cannot be assumed for some conclusions.

In addition, through the systematic review process, we were not able to account for the ways particular theories, especially those related to the SVR and Reading Rope, have influenced the content and topics that have already been reviewed, included, or excluded in existing systematic reviews (and their studies). Future research may need to explicitly seek out and review theories related to multilingual reading and education that are relevant to potentially identify additional constructs important for MLs.

Finally, while findings from the current review of reviews related to the importance of L1 components and instruction mostly focused on Spanish (or Chinese in one case) as an L1, this is not unexpected given the high percentage of Spanish-speaking MLs in U.S. public schools, 76.4%, or 4 million students (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]  2024 ), and the structural similarities between Spanish and English. Aspects of cross-linguistic transfer may be script-dependent as structural similarities more readily facilitate cross-linguistic transfer (Proctor et al., 2010a , 2010b ). Future research should consider a broad range of L1s and evidence of their cross-linguistic relationships with English reading.

Implications

The current review of reviews about the SOR for MLs has implications for theory and research as well as policy, curriculum, and instruction. Implications are described below.

Implications for Theory and Research

Findings from this review of reviews provide mixed evidence related to theory. On one hand, the findings related to evidence-based components provide support for the SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986 ) and Scarborough’s ( 2001 ) Reading Rope as many of the components identified for MLs align with those from those two models. On the other hand, questions remain about whether the SVR and the Reading Rope adequately capture the complexity of reading in an additional language without explicit reference to L1 components related to L2 reading. Given the importance of both L1 and L2 oral language and reading skill components identified in the current review as well as cross-linguistic transfer to support English reading, enhancements to the SVR and Reading Rope would benefit MLs. Research has considered both the L1 and L2 in the SVR for MLs (e.g., Gottardo & Mueller, 2009 ; Huang et al., 2022 ), providing unique insights into the importance of L1 components, in addition to English components, in supporting English reading comprehension. In addition, multilingual/multiliteracy theories of reading such as the compensatory model (Bernhardt, 2005 ) should be examined as an alternative way to frame the SOR for MLs.

Future research should focus on two complementary areas of inquiry. First, researchers should continue to conduct studies that identify and replicate (Plucker & Makel, 2021 ) findings related to key components of the SOR for MLs and effective instructional practices, programs, and interventions that relate to proficient L2 English reading for MLs. Studies such as these will build and inform the research base, and replications can provide confirmation and confidence in key findings. In addition, research that identifies consistent patterns of moderators that could potentially influence the relationship between evidence-based instruction and reading outcomes for MLs would benefit the field. Second, fellow researchers must conduct studies that systematically examine and test multilingual reading theories (e.g., Bernhardt, 2005 ). Empirical data that can be modeled to provide support or contradictory information related to multilingual reading theory could provide additional enhancements to the SOR for MLs.

Implications for Policy, Curriculum, and Instruction

There are implications for policy, curriculum, and instruction based on the findings of the current review of reviews. Since 2013, at least 29 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation and policy related to the science of reading (Neuman et al., 2023 ). In states’ legislation, many mention MLs, but only 13 actually describe specific strategies or interventions for MLs, and only three require those interventions be evidence-based (Neuman et al., 2023 ). Given that MLs comprise 10.6% of the public school population (NCES, 2024 ), this lack of policy-driven equitable support is cause for concern.

While the intent of states’ reading policies is to support students and develop proficient reading, future and revised policies should address the heterogeneity of the student population and students’ unique literacy needs based on the research evidence (i.e., science) that details the most effective reading instruction to support attaining proficient English reading.

Additionally, with respect to curriculum and instruction for MLs, there is a clear need for emphasis on both L1 and L2 oral language development and linguistic comprehension as well as proficient decoding. As demonstrated by findings from the current review, aspects of language beyond background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge (i.e., those specified in the Reading Rope; Scarborough, 2001 ) are necessary for MLs. Including direct instruction in and curricular materials that use aspects of the L1 such as decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension strategy instruction are likely effective strategies for developing proficient English reading comprehension for MLs. In addition, an intentional and systematic focus on English oral language development and proficiency as key components of curriculum and instruction will support MLs’ English reading development.

*Systematic reviews included in this systematic review of reviews †Systematic reviews included but not cited in text

†Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2011). Pedagogical strategies for teaching literacy to ESL immigrant students: A meta‐analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 81 (4), 629–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.02015.x

*August, D., & Siegel, L. S. (2006). Literacy instruction for language-minority children in special education settings. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 523–553). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

*August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2010). Response to a review and update on “developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language minority children and youth.” Journal of Literacy Research , 42 (3), 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/1086296X.2010.503745

*August, D., Goldenberg, C., Saunders, W. M., & Dressler, C. (2010). Recent research on English language and literacy instruction. In M. Shatz & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), The education of English language learners (pp. 272–297). The Guilford Press.

August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20 (1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00120.x

Article   Google Scholar  

*Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Kieffer, M. J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014–4012). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/19

*Baker, D. L., Basaraba, D. L., & Polanco, P. (2016). Connecting the present to the past: Furthering the research on bilingual education and bilingualism. Review of Research in Education , 40 (1), 821–883. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16660691

*Beneville, M. A., & Li, C. (2018). Evidence-based literacy interventions for East/Southeast Asian English language learners: A review of the research and recommendations for practice. Journal for Multicultural Education , 12 (1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-12-2016-0061

Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25 , 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000073

Bloom, H. S., Hill, C. J., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1 (4), 289–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802400072

*Boon, R. T., & Barbetta, P. M. (2017). Reading interventions for elementary English language learners with learning disabilities: A review. Insights into Learning Disabilities , 14 (1), 27–52.

*Brandes, D. R., & McMaster, K. L. (2017). A review of morphological analysis strategies on vocabulary outcomes with ELLs. Insights into Learning Disabilities , 14 (1), 53–72.

Cabell, S. Q., & Hwang, H. (2020). Building content knowledge to boost comprehension in the primary grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S99–S107. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.338

Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The Future of Children, 21 (1), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2011.0007

Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., ... & White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly , 39 (2), 188–215. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.3

Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (2017). Prologue: Reading comprehension is not a single ability. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 48 (3), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS-16-0033

*Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant English language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research , 82 (4), 351–395. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312465472

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49 (2), 222–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002222

*Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. (2006). First- and second-language literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 197–238). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Ehri, L. C. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135–154). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch8

Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18 (1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356

*Fitton, L., McIlraith, A. L., & Wood, C. L. (2018). Shared book reading interventions with English learners: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research , 88 (5), 712–751. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318790909

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2018). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention . Guilford Publications.

Google Scholar  

Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions . (Under cooperative agreement grant S283B050034 for U.S. Department of Education). RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/ELL1-Interventions.pdf

*Genesee, F., & Riches, C. (2006). Literacy: Instructional issues. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. M. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners (pp. 109–175). Cambridge University Press.

*Ginns, D. S., Joseph, L. M., Tanaka, M. L., & Xia, Q. (2019). Supplemental phonological awareness and phonics instruction for Spanish-speaking English learners: Implications for school psychologists. Contemporary School Psychology , 23 (1), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-018-00216-x

Goldenberg, C. (2020). Reading wars, reading science, and English learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S131–S144. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.340

González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms . Routledge.

Goodwin, A. P., & Jiménez, R. T. (2020). The science of reading: Supports, critiques, and questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S7–S16. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.360

Gottardo, A., & Mueller, J. (2009). Are first- and second-language factors related in predicting second-language reading comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a second language from first to second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (2), 330–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014320

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7 (1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104

†Graham, S., Silva, M., & Restrepo, M. A. (2022). Reading intervention research with emergent bilingual students: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing , 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10399-8

Hall, C., Steinle, P. K., & Vaughn, S. (2019). Reading instruction for English learners with learning disabilities: What do we already know, and what do we still need to learn? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 166 , 145–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20302

Hartling, L., Chisholm, A., Thomson, D., & Dryden, D. M. (2012). A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS ONE, 7 (11), e49667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049667

Hindman, A. H., Morrison, F. J., Connor, C. M., & Connor, J. A. (2020). Bringing the science to preservice elementary teachers: Tools that bridge research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S197–S206. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.345

Huang, B. H., Bedore, L. M., Ramírez, R., & Wicha, N. (2022). Contributions of oral narrative skills to English reading in Spanish-English Latino/a dual language learners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 65 (2), 653–671. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00105

Hurford, D. P. (2020, February). The science of reading (a response to the New York Times). IDA Examiner , 9 (1). https://dyslexiaida.org/the-science-of-reading-a-response-to-the-new-york-times/

*Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities , 39 (2), 108–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390020101

Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2017). Oral language and listening comprehension: Same or different constructs? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60 (5), 1273–1284. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-16-0039

Li, J. (2012). Principles of effective English language learner pedagogy . College Board.

Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, A. M. (1989). The alphabetic principle and learning to read. In D. Shankweiler & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle (pp. 1–33). University of Michigan Press.

Lipsey, M. W., Puzio, K., Yun, C., Hebert, M. A., Steinka-Fry, K., Cole, M. W., Roberts, M., Anthony, K. S., Busick, M. D. (2012). Translating the statistical representation of the effects of education interventions into more readily interpretable forms . (NCSER 2013–3000). National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537446.pdf

†Ludwig, C., Guo, K., & Georgiou, G. K. (2019). Are reading interventions for English language learners effective? A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 52 (3), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419825855

MacPhee, D., Handsfield, L. J., & Paugh, P. (2021). Conflict or conversation? Media portrayals of the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (S1), S145–S155. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.384

*Melby-Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A. (2011). Cross-linguistic transfer of oral language, decoding, phonological awareness and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of Research in Reading , 34 (1), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01477.x

Moats, L. C., & Tolman, C. (2009). Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling . Sopris West.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups . National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). English learners in public schools . Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf/english-learners

Neuman, S. B., Quintero, E., & Reist, K. (2023). Reading reform across America: A survey of state legislation . Albert Shanker Institute. https://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/ReadingReform%20ShankerInstitute%20FullReport.pdf

Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. In O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, & K. Buntins (Eds.), Systematic reviews in educational research (pp. 3–22). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ , n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2021). Replication is important for educational psychology: Recent developments and key issues. Educational Psychologist, 56 (2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1895796

*Polanco, P., & Baker, D. L. (2018). Transitional bilingual education and two-way immersion programs: Comparison of reading outcomes for English learners in the United States. Athens Journal of Education , 5 (4), 423–444. https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.5-4-5

Prevoo, M. J. L., Malda, M., Mesman, J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2016). Within- and cross-language relations between oral language proficiency and school outcomes in bilingual children with an immigrant background: A meta-analytical study. Review of Educational Research, 86 (1), 237–276. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315584685

Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M., & Barr, C. (2010a). Language maintenance versus language of instruction: Spanish reading development among Latino and Latina bilingual learners. Journal of Social Issues, 66 (1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01634.x

Proctor, C. P., August, D., Snow, C., & Barr, C. D. (2010b). The interdependence continuum: A perspective on the nature of Spanish-English bilingual reading comprehension. Bilingual Research Journal, 33 (1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235881003733209

*Pyle, D., Pyle, N., Lignugaris/Kraft, B., Duran, L., & Akers, J. (2017). Academic effects of peer-mediated interventions with English language learners: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research , 87 (1), 103–133. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316653663

Rand, M. K., & Morrow, L. M. (2021). The contribution of play experiences in early literacy: Expanding the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (S1), S239–S248. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.383

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a R&D program in reading comprehension . RAND Publications.

Relyea, J. E., & Amendum, S. J. (2020). English reading growth in Spanish-speaking bilingual students: Moderating effect of English proficiency on cross-linguistic influence. Child Development, 91 (4), 1150–1165. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13288

*Richards-Tutor, C., Baker, D. L., Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., & Smith, J. M. (2016). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children , 82 (2), 144–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585483

*Riches, C., & Genesee, F. (2006). Literacy: Crosslinguistic and crossmodal issues. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. M. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners (pp. 64–108). Cambridge University Press.

†Roberts, G. J., Hall, C., Cho, E., Coté, B., Lee, J., Qi, B., & Van Ooyik, J. (2021). The state of current reading intervention research for English learners in grades K–2: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Psychology Review , 34 , 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09629-2

*Saunders, W. M., & O'Brien, G. (2006). Oral language. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. M. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners (pp. 14–63). Cambridge University Press.

Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (pp. 97–110). Guilford Press.

Seidenberg, M. S., Cooper Borkenhagen, M., & Kearns, D. M. (2020). Lost in translation? Challenges in connecting reading science and educational practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S119–S130. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.341

*Shanahan, T., & Beck, I. (2006). Effective literacy teaching for English-language learners. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 415–488). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes the science of reading instruction? Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S235–S247. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.349

*Silverman, R. D., Johnson, E., Keane, K., & Khanna, S. (2020). Beyond decoding: A meta-analysis of the effects of language comprehension interventions on K–5 students’ language and literacy outcomes. Reading Research Quarterly , 55 (S1), S207–S233. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.346

†Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research , 75 (2), 247–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002247

*Snyder, E., Witmer, S. E., & Schmitt, H. (2017). English language learners and reading instruction: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth , 61 (2), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1219301

*Solari, E. J., Kehoe, K. F., Cho, E., Hall, C., Vargas, I., Dahl-Leonard, K., Richmond, C. L., Henry, A. R., Cook, L., Hayes, L., & Conner, C. (2022). Effectiveness of interventions for English learners with word reading difficulties: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 37 (3), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12286

*Tang, S., Irby, B. J., Tong, F., & Lara-Alecio, R. (2021). The effects of cooperative, collaborative, and peer-tutoring strategies on English learners’ reading and speaking proficiencies in an English-medium context: A research synthesis. SAGE Open , 11 (4), 21582440211060823. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211060823

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Delaware School of Education, 16 W. Main Street, Newark, DE, 19716, USA

Jonathan M. Kittle, Steven J. Amendum & Christina M. Budde

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan M. Kittle .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 228 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kittle, J.M., Amendum, S.J. & Budde, C.M. What Does Research Say About the Science of Reading for K-5 Multilingual Learners? A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews. Educ Psychol Rev 36 , 108 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09942-6

Download citation

Accepted : 22 August 2024

Published : 12 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09942-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Science of reading
• Multilingual learners
• Systematic review
• Oral language
• Cross-linguistic transfer
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Sign in to save searches and organize your favorite content.
• Not registered? Sign up

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search
• Previous Article
• Next Article

Perceptions of Parents of Children With Disabilities Toward Physical Education: A Systematic Review

Click name to view affiliation

• Get Citation Alerts

Purchase article

Student 1 year online subscription, 1 year online subscription, student 2 year online subscription, 2 year online subscription.

By purchasing this content you agree and accept the terms and conditions

Physical education (PE) has a unique opportunity in not only supporting children with disabilities but also their parents’ physical-activity knowledge and support behaviors. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic literature review was to synthesize published studies regarding parent perspectives toward physical education (PE) for their children with disabilities. A total of 19 articles met inclusion criteria. Three themes emerged: (a) parents’ understanding of adapted PE (A/PE), (b) parents’ expectations of A/PE teachers, and (c) parents’ undeveloped relationships with A/PE teachers. There exists a disconnection between parent expectations and PE teachers’ abilities to accommodate their children and develop lines of communication. Additionally, parental value toward PE was often lower compared with other areas of need for their children. Future research suggests exploring teacher perspectives in understanding the relationships with parents. Furthermore, exploring the origins of parental values for PE and its impact on their perspectives warrants further investigation.

Arroyo-Rojas https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3972-6234

* Forbes ( [email protected] ), who is now with the Department of Health, Physical Education and Exercise Science, Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA, USA, is corresponding author, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5022-6679

Arroyo-Rojas is now with the Department of Specialized Programs in Education, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA.

Kinesiology Review

Related Articles

Article sections.

• Scope of Study and Search Strategy
• Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
• Study Selection
• Data Extraction and Analysis
• Study Characteristics
• Quantitative Analysis
• Thematic Synthesis
• Theme 1: Parents’ Understanding of A/PE
• Theme 2: Parents’ Expectations of A/PE Teachers
• Theme 3: Parents’ Undeveloped Relationships With A/PE Teachers
• Future Research

An , J. , & Goodwin , D.L. ( 2007 ). Physical education for students with spina bifida: Mothers’ perspectives . Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24 ( 1 ), 38 – 58 .

• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

An , J. , & Hodge , S.R. ( 2013 ). Exploring the meaning of parental involvement in physical education for students with developmental disabilities . Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 30 ( 2 ), 147 – 163 .

Bailey , R. ( 2006 ). Physical education and sport in schools: A review of benefits and outcomes . Journal of School Health, 76 ( 8 ), 397 – 401 .

Carlson , R.G. , Hock , R. , George , M. , Kumpiene , G. , Yell , M. , McCartney , E.D. , Riddle , D. , & Weist , M.D. ( 2020 ). Relational factors influencing parents’ engagement in special education for high school youth with emotional/behavioral problems . Behavioral Disorders, 45 ( 2 ), 103 – 116 .

Chaapel , H. , Columna , L. , Lytle , R. , & Bailey , J. ( 2012 ). Parental expectations about adapted physical education services . The Journal of Special Education, 47 ( 3 ), 186 – 196 .

Columna , L. , Dillon , S.R. , Norris , M.L. , Dolphin , M. , & McCabe , L. ( 2017 ). Parents’ perceptions of physical activity experiences for their families and children with visual impairments . British Journal of Visual Impairment, 35 ( 2 ), 88 – 102 .

Columna , L. , Prieto , L. , Elias-Revolledo , G. , & Haegele , J.A. ( 2020 ). The perspectives of parents of youth with disabilities toward physical activity: A systematic review . Disability and Health Journal, 13 ( 2 ), Article 100851 .

Columna , L. , Pyfer , J. , Senne , T. , Velez , L. , Bridenthrall , N. , & Canabal , M.Y. ( 2008 ). Parental expectations of adapted physical educators: A Hispanic perspective . Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 25 ( 3 ), 228 – 246 .

Columna , L. , Senne , T.A. , Lytle , R. ( 2009 ). Communicating with Hispanic parents of children with and without disabilities . Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 80 ( 4 ), 48 – 54 .

Coulter , M. , McGrane , B. , & Woods , C. ( 2020 ).  “PE should be an integral part of each school day”: Parents’ and their children’s attitudes towards primary physical education . Education 3-13, 48 ( 4 ), 429 – 445 .

Downing , J.H. , & Rebollo , J. ( 1999 ). Parents’ perceptions of the factors essential for integrated physical education programs . Remedial and Special Education, 20 ( 3 ), 152 – 159 .

Early , L. , & Fleet , M. ( 2021 ). Parents’ perceptions of secondary physical education . International Journal of Contemporary Education, 4 ( 2 ), 43 – 57 .

Forbes , A.S. , & Block , M.E. ( 2024 ). Strategies for adapted physical education teachers in connecting BRIDGES with parents of children with disabilities . The Physical Educator, 81 ( 3 ), 291 – 313 .

Graham , G. ( 2008 ). Children’s and adults’ perceptions of elementary school physical education . The Elementary School Journal, 108 ( 3 ), 241 – 249 .

Healy , S. , & Marchand , G. ( 2020 ). The feasibility of project Chase: A facebook-delivered, parent-mediated physical activity intervention for children with autism . International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 67 ( 2 ), 225 – 242 .

Hindin , A. , & Mueller , M. ( 2016 ). Assessing and understanding teacher candidates’ dispositions towards and knowledge of parent involvement . The Teacher Educator, 51 ( 1 ), 9 – 32 .

IDEA , 20 U.S.C. § 1400 ( 2004 ).

Jeong , M. , Kim , S. , & Lee , E. ( 2015 ). Parents’ beliefs and intentions toward supporting physical activity participation for their children with disabilities . Adapted Physical Activity, 32 ( 2 ), 93 – 105 .

Ku , B. ( 2020 ). The effect of physical activity enjoyment on physical activity in parents of young children with disabilities . International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 70 ( 2 ), 201 – 212 .

Ku , B. , & Rhodes , R.E. ( 2020 ). Physical activity behaviors in parents of children with disabilities: A systematic review . Research in Developmental Disabilities, 107 , Article 103787 .

Kwon , E.H. , Block , M. , Healy , S. , & Kim , T. ( 2021 ). Adapted physical education: The perspective of Asian parents . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 ( 1 ), Article 91 .

Lago-Ballesteros , J. , Martins , J. , Gonzalez-Valeiro , M.A. , & Fernandez-Villarino , M.A. ( 2019 ). Parental assessment of physical education in the school curriculum: A brief report on the influence of past experiences as students . PLoS One, 14 ( 7 ), Article e0219544 .

Lane , K. , Lieberman , L.J. , Haibach-Beach , P. , Perreault , M. , & Columna , L. ( 2021 ). Parental perspectives on physical education services for children with charge syndrome . The Journal of Special Education, 55 ( 2 ), 90 – 100 .

Lee , J. , Haegele , J.A. , & Ho Chang , S. ( 2017 ). Satisfaction of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder toward physical education teachers . The Physical Educator, 74 ( 4 ), 715 – 729 .

Lee , S.H. , Hodge , S.R. , Dillon , S.R. , Stewart , M. , & Picariello , M. ( 2020 ). Korean immigrant parents of children with autism and physical education . International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 69 ( 3 ), 751 – 769 .

Lieberman , L.J. , Haibach , P. , & Schedlin , H. ( 2012 ). Physical education and children with CHARGE syndrome: Research to practice . Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106 ( 2 ), 106 – 119 .

Malambo , C. , & Dad’ová , K. ( 2021 ). Satisfaction of parents of children with a disability with inclusion physical education . APA v Teori a Praxi, 12 ( 2 ), 30 – 39 .

McGarty , A.M. , Westrop , S.C. , & Melville , C.A. ( 2021 ). Exploring parents’ experiences of promoting physical activity for their child with intellectual disabilities . Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 34 ( 1 ), 140 – 148 .

McNamara , S. , Richards , K.A. , Trad , A.M. , Abdallah , S. , & Hill , L. ( 2022 ). Adapted physical educators’ experiences with school administrators and marginalization . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 42 ( 2 ), 283 – 292 .

McNamara , S.W. , Lieberman , L. , Weiner , B. , & McMullen , B. ( 2021 ). Discussing adapted physical education during IEP meetings: First‐hand parent experiences and a supporting tool . Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 21 ( 4 ), 302 – 311 .

Na , J. ( 2015 ). Parents’ perceptions of their children’s experiences in physical education and youth sport . The Physical Educator, 72 , 139 – 167 .

Neshteruk , C.D. , Jones , D.J. , Skinner , A. , Ammerman , A. , Tate , D.F. , & Ward , D.S. ( 2020 ). Understanding the role of fathers in children’s physical activity: A qualitative study . Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 17 ( 5 ), 540 – 547 .

Obrusnikova , I. , & Miccinello , D.L. ( 2012 ). Parent perceptions of factors influencing after-school physical activity of children with autism spectrum disorders . Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 29 ( 1 ), 63 – 80 .

Perkins , K. , Columna , L. , Lieberman , L. , & Bailey , J. ( 2013 ). Parents’ perceptions of physical activity for their children with visual impairments . Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 107 ( 2 ), 131 – 142 .

Pitchford , E.A. , Siebert , E. , Hamm , J. , & Yun , J. ( 2016 ). Parental perceptions of physical activity benefits for youth with developmental disabilities . American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 121 ( 1 ), 25 – 32 .

Prieto , L.A. , Meera , B. , Barry , A. , Swarup , G. , Asmus , J. , Ku , B. , Roth , K. , Foley , J.T. , & Columna , L. ( 2023 ). A randomized parent-mediated physical activity intervention for autistic children . Autism Research, 16 ( 7 ), 1450 – 1461 .

Samalot-Rivera , A. , & Lieberman , L.J. ( 2017 ). Adapted physical educators’ current involvement in the IEP process . Palaestra, 31 , 22 – 27 .

Santiago , R.T. , Garbacz , S.A. , Beattie , T. , & Moore , C.L. ( 2016 ). Parent-teacher relationships in elementary school: A examination of parent-teacher trust . Psychology in the Schools, 53 ( 10 ), 1003 – 1017 .

Schultz , E.E. , Sergi , K. , Twietmeyer , G. , Oreskovic , N.M. , & Agiovlasitis , S. ( 2023 ). Factors that influence physical activity in individuals with down syndrome: Perspectives of guardians and health professionals . Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 40 ( 4 ), 587 – 606 .

Sheehy , D.A. ( 2006 ). Parents’ perceptions of their child’s 5th grade physical education program . The Physical Educator, 63 ( 1 ), 30 – 37 .

Sheehy , D.A. ( 2011 ). Addressing parents’ perceptions in the marginalization of physical education . Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 82 ( 7 ), 42 – 56 .

Siebert , E.A. , Hamm , J. , & Yun , J. ( 2017 ). Parental influence on physical activity of children with disabilities . International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 64 ( 4 ), 378 – 390 .

Stoner , J.B. , Bock , S.J. , Thompson , J.R. , Angell , M.E. , Heyl , B.S. , & Crowley , E.P. ( 2005 ). Welcome to our world: Parent perceptions of interactions between parents of young children with ASD and education professionals . Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20 ( 1 ), 39 – 51 .

Strean , W.B. ( 2009 ). Remembering instructors: Play, pain and pedagogy . Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 1 ( 3 ), 210 – 220 .

Stuart , M.E. , Lieberman , L. , & Hand , K.E. ( 2006 ). Beliefs about physical activity among children who are visually impaired and their parents . Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100 ( 4 ), 223 – 234 .

Thomas , J. , & Harden , A. ( 2008 ). Methods for thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews . BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8 ( 45 ),

Widyawan , D. , Ma’mun , A. , Rahely , B. , & Hendrayana Y. ( 2020 ). Parents of students with disabilities in learning physical education in special needs school . Qualitative Report, 25 ( 4 ), 924 – 936 .

Wilhelmsen , T. , & Sørensen , M. ( 2019 ). Physical education-related home–school collaboration: The experiences of parents of children with disabilities . European Physical Education Review, 25 ( 3 ), 830 – 846 .

Wilhelmsen , T. , Sørensen , M.S. , Seippel , Ø. , & Block , M.E. ( 2021 ). Parental satisfaction with inclusion in physical education . International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25 ( 9 ), 1061 – 1078 .

Yamirkaya , E. , Esenturk , O.K. , Ilhan , E.L. , & Karasu , N. ( 2022 ). A WhatsApp-delivered intervention to promote physical activity in young children with autism spectrum disorder . International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 68 ( 5 ), 732 – 743 .

Young , A. , Healy , S. , Silliman-French , L. , & Brian , A. ( 2021 ). A pilot study of a parent-mediated, web-based motor skill intervention for children with down syndrome: Project skip . Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 38 ( 3 ), 452 – 473 .

Article Metrics

• Adam S. Forbes
• Fabián Arroyo-Rojas
• Martin E. Block

Google Scholar

© 2024 Human Kinetics

Powered by:

• [195.158.225.244]
• 195.158.225.244

Character limit 500 /500

• Open access
• Published: 11 September 2024

Adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of the co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review protocol

• Lauren McCaffrey   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2524-977X 1 ,
• Bryan McCann 1 ,
• Maria Giné-Garriga 2 ,
• Qingfan An 3 ,
• Greet Cardon 4 ,
• Sebastien François Martin Chastin 1 , 4 ,
• Rabab Chrifou 4 ,
• Sonia Lippke 5 ,
• Quentin Loisel 1 ,
• Giuliana Raffaella Longworth 2 ,
• Katrina Messiha 6 ,
• Mira Vogelsang 1 ,
• Emily Whyte 1 &
• Philippa Margaret Dall 1  

Systematic Reviews volume  13 , Article number:  231 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

63 Accesses

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

There is a growing investment in the use of co-creation, reflected by an increase in co-created products, services, and interventions. At the same time, a growing recognition of the significance of co-creators’ experience can be detected but there is a gap in the aggregation of the literature with regard to experience. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review is to uncover the breadth of existing empirical research on co-creation experience, how it has been defined and assessed, and its key emotional and psychological characteristics in the context of co-created products, services, or interventions among adults.

The development of the search strategy was guided by the research question, Arksey, and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology guidelines, and through collaboration with members of the Health CASCADE consortium. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full and presented both narratively and by use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram. Comprehensive searches of relevant electronic databases (e.g. Scopus) will be conducted to identify relevant papers. Snowball searches to identify additional papers through included full-text papers will be done using the artificial intelligence tool, namely, Connected Papers. All review steps will involve at least two reviewers. Studies in English, Dutch, Chinese, Spanish, and French, published from the year 1970 onwards, will be considered. Microsoft Excel software will be used to record and chart extracted data.

The resulting scoping review could provide useful insights into adult co-creators’ experience of participating in the co-creation process. An increased understanding of the role of emotional and psychological experiences of participating in co-creation processes may help to inform the co-creation process and lead to potential benefits for the co-creators and co-created outcome.

Systematic review registration

10.5281/zenodo.7665851.

Peer Review reports

Co-creation can be defined as “any act of collective creativity that involves a broad range of relevant and affected actors in creative problem-solving that aims to produce a desired outcome” [ 1 ]. Co-creation is increasingly acknowledged as a promising approach to address complex ‘wicked’ societal problems and develop more contextually relevant interventions to improve outcomes in a variety of settings [ 2 ]. By facilitating communication across sectors, integrating diverse forms of knowledge and expertise, and enabling local ownership, co-creation can be useful in a broad range of fields including, healthcare, community, and education [ 3 ].

The co-creation process is guided by participatory methodologies [ 4 ]. The goal of participatory research is to engage all those who are the subject of the research in all stages of the research [ 5 ]. Participatory research acknowledges the value of their contribution in a practical and collaborative way [ 5 ]. Co-creation builds on these participatory methodologies, to address the power imbalances stemming from social inequities and uses empowerment approaches to address and meet the needs of citizens [ 3 ]. Co-creation is more specific than the broad concept of participation, which also refers to passive involvement [ 6 ]. The ultimate goal of co-creation is to actively involve all relevant and affected stakeholders in all aspects of the co-creation process, such as planning or conducting [ 7 ].

Whilst the co-creation behaviour of participants in a co-creation process is mostly documented in the co-creation literature, the emotional and psychological experience of participating in the co-creation process has been given less attention [ 8 , 9 ]. Co-creation behaviour is argued to comprise multiple behavioural dimensions that fall under two higher-order factors, namely, participation behaviour and citizenship behaviour [ 10 ]. The behavioural dimensions of participation behaviour include information seeking and sharing, responsible behaviour, and personal interaction. The dimensions of citizenship behaviour include feedback, advocacy, helping, and tolerance [ 10 ]. On the other hand, the co-creators’ experiences of participating in the co-creation process, hereby shortened to co-creation experience, capture co-creators’ emotional and psychological states; highlight the interactive component; and involve a continuous process as opposed to a single fixed-time event [ 9 ]. In brief, the co-creation experience, as defined for the purposes of this review, is the co-creators’ emotional and psychological states during active participation and interaction when engaging in the co-creation process [ 9 ]. Co-creation experience differs from co-creation behaviour due to its focus on the feelings and cognitions derived from the act of undertaking the co-creation behaviour [ 9 ].

Research indicates that active involvement in the co-creation process can have profound positive effects on increased health and performance outcomes, satisfaction, and well-being [ 11 , 12 ]. For example, Leask et al. [ 13 ] reported older adults having positive experiences engaging with the co-creation of a health intervention, describing that participants’ role as co-researchers made it enjoyable, interesting, and rewarding. Similar findings from Rooijen et al. [ 14 ] indicated that participants felt empowered, liked the interactive characteristic of meetings, and felt they were valued contributors with a shared responsibility for the project. Positive emotional states like happiness or gratitude can foster trust, which is important for building relationships, whereas negative emotional states, like anger, uncertainty, and frustration, can decrease trust [ 15 ]. Building relationships is an important aspect of the co-creation process, in which experiencing positive emotions helps to create new relationships [ 16 ]. Therefore, positive emotions could also contribute to the functioning of the co-creation group(s) and the successful development of products like intervention components, tools, and further actions.

There are instances when co-creators can experience the co-creation process negatively. There exists some research to indicate how failed co-created services recovered can impact co-creators in terms of future intention to co-create, role clarity, and motivation [ 17 ]. However, there might be a lack of, or a lack of visibility of, literature documenting the negative emotional and psychological experiences associated with the co-creation process because of publication bias. Individual and interpersonal experience including group dynamics are central to the creation of value and innovation and this justifies the need to study the role of human experience in the context of co-creation [ 18 , 19 ]. Figure  1 provides a visual depiction of the proposed connection between co-creation experience and the other elements of co-creation.

Suggested model of the relationship between co-creation experience, processes, behaviour, outcomes, impact, and future co-creation

However, so far, there is a gap regarding the aggregation of the literature pertaining to co-creation experience. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review is to uncover the breadth of existing empirical research on co-creation experience, how it has been defined, and assessed and its key characteristics in the context of co-created products, services, or interventions among adults. As the focus is on the participant’s experience of the process and not the outcome, no limits have been applied to the co-creation context. Scoping reviews are exploratory in nature and systematically map available literature on a broad topic to identify key concepts, theories, sources of evidence, and research gaps [ 20 ]. A scoping review has been identified as an appropriate means to address this broad research question given that, to the authors’ knowledge, there has been no systematic review of co-creation experience literature, the phenomenon is not well understood or utilised, and studies span a wide variety of fields. The aim of the current scoping review is to deliver an evidence-based review of co-creators’ experiences of co-creating. This review will guide future research to advance evidence-based co-creation methods and inform guidance aimed at enhancing positive experiences for those participating in co-creation.

Research question

What is the current state of the science regarding adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of participating in co-creation?

The objectives of this review are to:

Determine the extent of research on co-creation experience.

Uncover the range of and key characteristics of emotional and psychological experiences documented in the literature to date.

Identify any explicit or implicit underlying psychological theories drawn upon to explain the potential mechanism of the experience of co-creation.

Document any tools or technology used during the co-creation process that impacted the experience during co-creation or to make co-creation more successful .

Methodology

This scoping review protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist (see Additional file 1).

Search strategy

The search strategy comprises three main stages (see Fig.  2 ). The first stage involved searching the newly created Health CASCADE Co-creation Database. This database was created by members of the Health CASCADE network and was aimed at collecting in one place the entire corpus of literature pertaining to participatory research and co-creation (1). This database was created using CINAHL, PubMed and all databases accessible via ProQuest through Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU) institutional licence (17 databases in total, APA PsycArticles®, APA PsycInfo®, Art, Design & Architecture Collection, British Periodicals, Coronavirus Research Database, Early Modern Books, Ebook Central, Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive, Humanities Index, Periodicals Archive Online, ProQuest One AcademicTrial-Limited time only, PTSDpubs, SciTech Premium Collection, Social Science Premium Collection, Sports Medicine & Education Index, The Vogue Archive, and The Women's Wear Daily Archive). The key search terms used in this search strategy are found in Table  1 . ASReview, an artificial intelligence (AI) aided platform that helps find relevant records was used for screening the records to be included in this database. The AI performs a textual analysis of the provided records, based on active learning and prioritization. Given the large volume of records retrieved from PubMed, CINAHL, and all databases available through ProQuest with GCU access, AI was necessary to speed up the screening process. There are over 13,000 records contained in this database, with all titles and abstracts containing at least one of the search terms.

Stages of search strategy

The Health CASCADE Co-creation Database was searched using free-text terms relating to co-creation experience (see Table  2 ). Search terms have been developed in reference to the research question and through consultation with members of the Health CASCADE consortium. The search will be piloted to check the appropriateness of keywords and to ensure known studies are identified.

The second stage of the search strategy is to use both sets of search terms (see Tables  1 and 2 ) in Scopus using the Boolean operator AND to combine the two sets. This is to provide additional robustness to the search. Due to the large volume of records retrieved (> 35,000) when combining the two sets of search terms, it is necessary to omit some search terms used to create the Health CASCADE Co-creation Database. Four search terms will be retained “co-creat*”, “co-production”, “co-design” and “experience-based design”. These search terms are specifically chosen because co-production and co-design are commonly used interchangeably with the term co-creation [ 21 ]. In addition, “experience-based design” is retained due to the obvious focus on the experience. We will include articles that meet our inclusion criteria for co-creation, regardless of the terminology used to describe the methodology. For pragmatic reasons, sources of unpublished empirical studies (including grey literature, theses, and dissertations) will not be searched for. The draft search strategy for Scopus is available in Additional file 2.

The final stage of the search is to employ snowballing to capture any additional articles that may be potentially missed. An artificial intelligence tool called Connected Papers [ 22 ] will be used to identify papers that (1) the included paper has cited (backward reference searching), and (2) papers that have since cited the included paper (forward reference searching).

The article selection process is considered an iterative process, whereby the search strategy will be initially broad and then refined based on abstracts retrieved and as reviewer familiarity with the literature increases. The concept of co-creation is defined differently depending on the setting and context and is often used interchangeably with similar, yet distinct concepts, but equally lacking a clear universal understanding [ 21 ]. Therefore, to account for the overlaps in terminology a broad scope will be initially implemented.

As recommended by Arksey and O’Malley [ 23 ], decisions on how to set search parameters will be made after a general scope of the field has been gained. Hence, this stage will require the reviewer(s) to engage in a reflexive way and repeat steps to ensure a comprehensive literature search with more sensitive searches [ 23 , 24 ].

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

All study participants in the included papers must be adults, described as people aged 18 years and over with no upper limit. Children/adolescents are not included in this study as research indicates that there are differences between their emotional experiences in terms of emotional intensity and stability [ 25 ].

Empirical articles (i.e. primary research studies) include any qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method research designs that include a description of the co-created product, service, or intervention and an evaluation of the co-creators’ co-creation experience. Although scoping reviews can draw on evidence from non-empirical sources, this review imposes limits to include empirical sources only as empirical sources would be most useful and appropriate for contributing to an evidence-based understanding of co-creation methods.

Any context that involves the co-creation of a product, service, or intervention will be considered.

The Health CASCADE Co-creation Database is limited to searching records between 1st January 1970 and 1st December 2021. The search in Scopus will include records from 1st January 1970 until the date of the search.

The Health CASCADE Co-creation Database is limited to only include materials that are written in English. However, for the search conducted in Scopus, publications in English, Spanish, Dutch, French, and Chinese languages will also be considered, as the research team has proficient fluency in these languages.

Data extraction

Following the database search, articles will be exported as a CSV file for removal of duplicates in Excel. The articles will be imported and screened in Rayyan. The title and abstract of all studies will be screened independently by several reviewers (LMcC, QA, QL, EW, GRL, RC, and MV) and irrelevant studies will be removed. All titles and abstracts will be double-screened. Full-text articles of studies identified as potentially relevant for inclusion will subsequently be sought and screened by several reviewers (LMcC, QA, QL, EW, GRL, RC, MV, and KM) against the agreed set of criteria. Differences of opinion regarding inclusion or exclusion will be resolved by discussion and reaching a consensus or by a third reviewer. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full in the final scoping review and presented both narratively and by use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram.

To determine the extent of research on co-creation experience (objective 1), details about co-creation more generally will first be extracted. This includes:

Study’s definition of co-creation and co-creation experience (if available).

The context or setting.

Data about the participants (number, type, and characteristics of co-creators’ involved).

Description of the co-creation process undertaken (including number of sessions, level of participation).

Purpose of co-creation.

Outcome of the co-created intervention, service, or product.

The key characteristics of psychological and emotional experience including positive and negative components (objective 2) will be extracted.

The psychological theory underpinning the co-creation experience identified by the authors of the studies (objective 3) will be recorded.

Information about the technology or tools that had an impact on the co-creation experience (objective 4) will be extracted.

Additional descriptive information such as discipline and date of publication will also be extracted.

The above-extracted information will be entered into an Excel spreadsheet developed by the authors. This data extraction Excel spreadsheet may be modified and revised as necessary during the process of extracting data from the included evidence sources to ensure that key findings relevant to the review question are addressed.

Quality assessment

There exists debate as to whether a scoping review should contain an assessment of study quality [ 26 ]. A quality assessment component will be included in this review in relation to the sufficiency of reporting the process of co-creating an intervention, service, or product. This tool (see Table  3 ) has been adapted from Leask et al.’s [ 4 ] ‘checklist for reporting intervention co-creation’ and Eyles et al.’s [ 27 ] amended version of a checklist for reporting non-pharmacological interventions. The reason for including this checklist is two-fold. Firstly, the scoping review may contain a variety of study designs and the focus is not solely on the outcomes, but rather on the process [ 27 ]. Secondly, as explained above, the concept of co-creation is used interchangeably with other similar overlapping concepts, such that some processes may be described as co-creation when they are in fact not (according to the definition used in this review) or vice versa. Therefore, by incorporating this checklist, it will become clearer as to the type or extent of co-creation processes that were implemented and whether they were clearly reported within each individual source of empirical evidence. However, given that a scoping review aims to present an overview of the extant literature on a particular topic without synthesis from individual studies, no study will be excluded on the basis of the quality of reporting co-created interventions.

Strategy for data analysis

The PRISMA-ScR will be used to guide the reporting of the scoping review [ 28 ]. Whilst, the synthesis of the results from included sources of evidence is more appropriately done with a systematic review, the analysis of data in scoping reviews is generally descriptive in nature [ 29 ]. A narrative summary of extracted data will be produced along with the tabulated and/or charted results described in relation to the review question and objectives. Descriptive techniques, such as basic coding of data to particular categories, are recommended as a useful approach when the purpose is to identify concepts or key characteristics related to the concept [ 20 ]. Data will be analysed using the well-established method of thematic analysis [ 30 ]. This method is characterised by identifying and reporting recurring themes within the data and is a suitable analytic method because it allows for patterns of experience to be recorded, such as understanding adults’ experiences of participating in co-creation. We intend to extract relevant co-creation experience data from the result sections of articles, including verbatim participant quotations. For quantitative data, such as questionnaires, we will attempt to extract the item statements and code them alongside the qualitative data.

The purpose of this scoping review is to uncover the breadth of existing empirical research on co-creation experience with a focus on emotional aspects and from a psychological perspective. An increased understanding of the role of experiences of participating in co-creation processes may help to inform the development and use of co-creation processes and lead to potential benefits for the co-creators’ and co-created outcome.

This scoping review has some limitations, which reflect the balance between conducting a wide search to discover the breadth of existing literature and the pragmatic constraints of conducting the review. This scoping review searches for published peer-reviewed work from SCOPUS and the Health CASCADE Co-creation Database. Other databases could be searched but for pragmatic reasons, these two databases were selected for their breadth and relevancy. Another limitation is that it was necessary to restrict the search terms for capturing ‘co-creation’ for the search in Scopus to maintain a manageable number of records retrieved to screen by the research team. However, authors may use different terms or descriptions. For instance, variations of terms like co-creation, co-design, and co-production, whether written with a dash or space can affect the number of articles retrieved. Boundaries on the search terms relating to experience were also formed, for example, specific emotions were not included in the search string, due to the large range of possible emotions that can be experienced, which would make the search unwieldy. We also have not used any of the advanced search features of the databases, such as proximity searching, which could potentially improve the specificity.

A strength of this review is the comprehensive snowballing search strategy to capture additional relevant papers. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and to scientific conferences. The plan for dissemination includes digital science communication platforms and presentations.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Artificial intelligence

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis–extension for scoping reviews

Agnello DM, Loisel QEA, An Q, et al. Establishing a health CASCADE–curated open-access database to consolidate knowledge about co-creation: novel artificial intelligence–assisted methodology based on systematic reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25(1): e45059. https://doi.org/10.2196/45059 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

von Heimburg D, Cluley V. Advancing complexity-informed health promotion: a scoping review to link health promotion and co-creation. Health Promot Int. 2020;36(2):581–600.

Article   Google Scholar  

Sherriff S, Miller H, Tong A, Williamson A, Muthayya S, Sally R, et al. Building trust and sharing power for co-creation in Aboriginal health research: a stakeholder interview study. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2019.

Leask CF, Sandlund M, Skelton DA, Altenburg TM, Cardon G, Chinapaw MJM, et al. Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions. Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5(1):2.

Wright MT, Springett J, Kongats K. What is participatory health research? In: Wright MT, Kongats K, editors. Participatory Health Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018.

Voorberg WH, Bekkers VJJM, Tummers LG. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manag Rev. 2015;17(9):1333–57.

Torfing J, Sørensen E, Røiseland A. Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward. Adm Soc. 2016;51(5):795–825.

Leclercq T, Hammedi W, Poncin I. Ten years of value cocreation: an integrative review. Rech Appl En Mark Engl Ed. 2016;31(3):26–60.

Google Scholar  

Zhang P, Meng F, So KKF. Cocreation experience in peer-to-peer accommodations: Conceptualization and scale development. J Travel Res. 2021;60(6):1333–51.

Yi Y, Gong T. Customer value co-creation behavior: scale development and validation. J Bus Res. 2012;66(9):1279–84.

Partouche-Sebban J, Rezaee Vessal S, Bernhard F. When co-creation pays off: the effect of co-creation on well-being, work performance and team resilience. J Bus Ind Mark. 2021;37(8).

Sharma S, Conduit J, Rao HS. Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being outcomes from co-creation roles: a study of vulnerable customers. J Serv Mark. 2017;31(4/5):397–411.

Leask CF, Sandlund M, Skelton DA, Chastin SF. Co-creating a tailored public health intervention to reduce older adults’ sedentary behaviour. Health Educ J. 2017;76(5):595–608.

van Rooijen M, Lenzen S, Dalemans R, Beurskens A, Moser A. Stakeholder engagement from problem analysis to implementation strategies for a patient-reported experience measure in disability care: a qualitative study on the process and experiences. Health Expect. 2021;24(1):53–65.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dunn JR, Schweitzer ME. Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. J Personal Soc Psychol Manag Proc. 2005;88(5):736–48.

Waugh CE, Fredrickson BL. Nice to know you: positive emotions, self–other overlap, and complex understanding in the formation of a new relationship. J Posit Psychol. 2006;1(2):93–106.

Dong B, Evans KR, Zou S. The effects of customer participation in co-created service recovery. J Acad Mark Sci. 2008;36(1):123–37.

Ramaswamy V. It’s about human experiences… and beyond, to co-creation. Ind Mark Manag. 2011;40(2):195–6.

Ramaswamy V. Co-creation of value — towards an expanded paradigm of value creation. Mark Rev St Gallen. 2009;26(6):11–7.

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020Oct;18(10):2119–26.

Halvorsrud K, Kucharska J, Adlington K, Rüdell K, Brown Hajdukova E, Nazroo J, et al. Identifying evidence of effectiveness in the co-creation of research: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the international healthcare literature. J Public Health. 2021;43(1):197–208.

Tarnavsky-Eitan, A, Smolyansky E, Knaan-Harpaz I, Perets S. Connected Papers. 2020. https://www.connectedpapers.com/about . Accessed 26 May 2022.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69.

Bailen NH, Green LM, Thompson RJ. Understanding emotion in adolescents: a review of emotional frequency, intensity, instability, and clarity. Emot Rev. 2019;11(1):63–73.

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85.

Eyles H, Jull A, Dobson R, Firestone R, Whittaker R, Te Morenga L, et al. Co-design of mHealth delivered interventions: a systematic review to assess key methods and processes. Curr Nutr Rep. 2016;5(3):160–7.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Aromataris E, Munn Z. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020.

Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2021.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Health CASCADE consortium.

The PhD studies of Lauren McCaffrey are funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement n° 956501.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK

Lauren McCaffrey, Bryan McCann, Sebastien François Martin Chastin, Quentin Loisel, Mira Vogelsang, Emily Whyte & Philippa Margaret Dall

Faculty of Psychology, Education and Sport Sciences Blanquerna, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain

Maria Giné-Garriga & Giuliana Raffaella Longworth

Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Greet Cardon, Sebastien François Martin Chastin & Rabab Chrifou

Department of Psychology and Methods, Jacobs University Bremen, Bremen, Germany

Sonia Lippke

Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Katrina Messiha

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LMcC coordinated and conceived the study. LMcC, PMD, BMcC, and MGG have made substantive contributions to developing this protocol and the review question. LMcC, PMD, BMcC, MGG, QA, QL, EW, GRL, MV, RC, and KM jointly developed the search strategy. LMcC drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren McCaffrey .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: prisma-p 2015 checklist., additional file 2: search strategy–scopus., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

McCaffrey, L., McCann, B., Giné-Garriga, M. et al. Adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of the co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review protocol. Syst Rev 13 , 231 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02643-9

Download citation

Received : 10 August 2022

Accepted : 22 August 2024

Published : 11 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02643-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Co-creation experience
• Psychological response
• Scoping review

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]