Análisis de resultados

A systematic search of the following databases was conducted via EBSCOhost, allowing an exploration of a range of disciplines relevant to the research in question (carried out in January 2020 and repeated in April 2020): PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycArticles, Education Source and Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC). A manual search of the most recent editions of reputable journal articles was also completed (carried out in January 2020 and repeated in April 2020): Educational and Child Psychology, Educational Psychology in Practice and Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. Additional techniques were employed to ensure a comprehensive search of the literature, including: 1) the screening of reference lists of each identified study and 2) the use of internet search engines (such as Google Scholar).

2.2.1 Search terms

In order to ensure that the most appropriate terms were used, pilot searches were conducted with the above databases. The thesaurus function was also used to identify appropriate terms. To locate the most relevant papers, the following approaches were also employed during the searches:

• Boolean operators ‘AND’ and ‘OR’ were used with search terms

• Quotation marks around key phrases were employed to ensure that the exact terminology was used during each search

• Asterisks to truncate words allowing associated terms to be included • Application of limiters and expanders in accordance with the inclusion and

exclusion criteria

The search terms used within the current review are included in Table 1. Systematic searches used a combination of these terms to allow generation of the most appropriate studies (see Appendix A for full details).

Table 1. Expanded search terms for the literature review question. Search

term

Type Collective

search name Search terms

1 Context AP - “Pupil Referral Unit”

- PRU

- “Alternative provision”

- “Education other than at school” - “Special education provision” - BESD school

- SEMH school 2 Population School staff - “School staff”

- Teacher*

Whilst the researcher included terms synonymous with ‘exclusion’ during iterative searches, these were not included in final searches as papers: 1) focused on the wider meaning of exclusion (e.g. relating to social inclusion in schools and isolation from the community), and 2) did not include the views of school staff (e.g. with a focus on the experience of excluded CYP/parents).

2.2.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined by the author prior to beginning the searches, ensuring that the selected literature was appropriate and relevant to the current study (as shown in Table 2).

Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for literature on the experience of school staff supporting excluded CYP within APs.

- “Support staff”

3 Outcome Experience - Voice*

- Experience* - Perspective* - Perception* - View* Inclusion Exclusion Scope

1) Includes the experiences and views of school staff supporting CYP excluded from school and educated in APs

1) Does not include the views and experiences of school staff 2) Focuses on mainstream

settings

Time and space

1) Conducted in the years between 1996 to 2020

2) Based within the United Kingdom

1) Published prior to 1996

As definitions of APs have included settings for CYP identified with SEMH needs (Tate & Greatbatch, 2017), the search strategy was widened to include these provisions. This was also deemed suitable as challenging behaviour and SEMH difficulties are the leading cause of exclusion and the most prevalent need within APs (as discussed in section 1.2.3 and 1.3.4). Papers published before 1996 were also excluded to reflect the publication of guidance ensuring that LAs make provision for students not attending school (Education Act, 1996). Research conducted outside of the UK context or published in languages other than English were also excluded, certifying that literature was relevant to the socio-cultural context in which EPs train and practice. Peer-reviewed papers were also selected, aiming to ensure that the most rigorous research relevant to the current study was examined.

Using the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the titles and abstracts of selected papers were screened to determine suitability. In articles where the abstract was unclear, the paper itself was examined. Tables of search results (comprising of included and excluded papers) are included in Appendix B.

2.2.3 Search returns

The systematic literature search generated a total of 70 unique title references, of which 53 were rejected following a review of the title and abstract (in line with the inclusion and exclusion criteria stipulated in section 2.2.2). Additionally, four papers were identified 3) Written in English 3) Written in a language other

than English

Study type

1) Quantitative, qualitative or mixed-method papers

2) Full text journal articles 3) Peer-reviewed

1) Position papers, periodicals, book editorials

2) Limited access journals 3) Non-peer reviewed

through 1) the hand-searches of journals and the inspection of reference lists and 2) the use of internet search engines. After full text analysis and critical examination, 15 papers were deemed suitable for inclusion. Tables of papers included within this review are detailed in Appendix C. Reviewing the body of research excluded from this review, it was evident that papers focused on: exclusion statistics, intervention programmes, the perspectives of professionals in mainstream settings and the views of CYP in APs and their parents.

Demonstrating the process of article inclusion and exclusion, Appendix D displays the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) framework (Moher et al., 2009) utilised by the researcher. Key information such as the author, year of publication, methodological approach and main findings from each paper are detailed in Appendix E.

2.2.4 Critical appraisal

To review the quality and relevance of the selected literature, the Support Unit for Research Evidence (SURE, 2015) tool was employed (see Appendix F); a checklist allowing a thorough and replicable approach to appraisal. As all of the articles included within this review were qualitative papers, this tool was deemed appropriate due to its suitability for evaluating this research methodology. Summarised information about the critical appraisal of studies included within the review can be found in Appendix G.