SRDR+

1. Review ID

(surname of first author and year first full report of study was published e.g. Smith 2001)


	van Goethem 2014

2. Review title


	The Role of Reflection in the Effects of Community Service on Adolescent Development: A Meta-Analysis

3. Date form completed


	05/08/2022

4. Initials of person extracting


	BN

5. Review funding source


	None declared

6. Possible conflicts of interest


	None declared

7. Aim of review


	our meta-analysis examines the impact of community service and community service programs on adolescents in general and in the domains of academic, personal, social, and civic outcomes. Furthermore, we examine how reflection and, more specifically, various aspects of reflection (the quantity of reflection, the form of reflection, the context of reflection, the content of reflection, and the quality of reflection), affect the overall community service effect. In addition, we examine how other characteristics of community service (the kind of community service and the quantity of community service) and characteristics of the adolescents who perform the community service (sex, age, and ethnic background) moderate the overall community service effect.

8. Number of databases searched


	2

9. Names of databases searched; date ranges of databases searched


	PsycINFO and ERIC

10. Date of last search


	between 1980 and September 2012

11. Number of included studies


	49

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	adolescents between 12 and 20 years old who did not have a mental disability

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

(e.g type of volunteering, for a specific organistion/purpose)


	volunteering, community service, and service-learning

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	(d) featured a control group; (e) used a pre- and postmeasure or a postmeasure combined with randomization of the volunteering, community service, or service-learning (treatment); and (f) contained sufficient information to calculate or estimate effect sizes.

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures


	adolescent developmental benefits

16. Outcomes studied

(select all that apply)


	Psychological Physical Social General

17. Primary reported outcomes


	Academic content and competence, Personal and social competence Attitudes toward the self Attitudes toward others Civic competence Academic and career attitudes Civic attitudes

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	quantity of community service, and kind of community service

19. Number of participants included in the review


	No information

20. Review’s included study type (% of quant studies)


	100% quantitative

21. Included studies countries of publication


	No information

22. Range of included studies years of publication


	No information

23. Review’s population

(age, ethnicity, SES)


	No information

24. Social outcomes reported


	Community service yielded statistically significant, small to moderate effects in all outcome areas. (small but significant effect on personal and social competence, and attitudes towards others. Social competence: social efficacy, abilities, skills (23)

25. Social outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)

26. Physical outcomes reported

27. Physical outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)

28. Psychological outcomes reported


	Community service yielded statistically significant, small to moderate effects in all outcome areas. Small but significant effect on attitudes towards the self and persoanl competence: Personal and self(related): concept, attitudes, preferences, experiences, motivations, well-being, self-efficacy (15)

29. Psychological outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)

30. General outcomes reported

(i.e general health and wellbeing)

31. General outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant) 

32. Interactions reported

(i.e between each other or demographic variables)


	For studies in which participants did not use reflection, no overall (aggregated) effect of community service was found, mean ES = .05, 95% CI [.24, .35], p = .72. With regard to the quantity of reflection, we found a significant, positive relation between the frequency of reflection and the effect of community service. Furthermore, a stronger overall community service effect was found when studies included regular reflection (reflection before, during, and after community service) or included reflection only during or after community service. no moderation effect was found for the overall quality of reflection. a significant, positive correlation was found between the quantity of community service (community service hours) and the overall community service effect. Linearity represented the shape of the relation between the quantity of community service and community service effects most accurately, F(1, 24) = 3.75, p = .07. The kind of community service did not moderate the overall community service effect. The overall community service effect was neither moderated by whether the community service was required or not. adolescents’ age, but not adolescents’ sex or their ethnic background (whether adolescents came from a majority or from a minority or mixed population) moderated the service (positive relationship with age and effect). None of the moderators correlated with each other, indicating they all have independent contributions. When all entered into one regression, we found the strongest effect for the quantity of reflection (bs = .50–.70), the second strongest effect for age (bs = .36–.50), and the least strong effect for the quantity of community service (bs = .23–.35).

For studies in which participants did not use reflection, no overall (aggregated) effect of community service was found, mean ES = .05, 95% CI [.24, .35], p = .72. With regard to the quantity of reflection, we found a significant, positive relation between the frequency of reflection and the effect of community service. Furthermore, a stronger overall community service effect was found when studies included regular reflection (reflection before, during, and after community service) or included reflection only during or after community service. no moderation effect was found for the overall quality of reflection.
a significant, positive
correlation was found between the quantity of community service (community service hours) and the overall community service effect. Linearity represented the shape of the relation between the quantity of community service and community service effects most accurately, F(1, 24) = 3.75, p = .07. 
The kind of community service did not moderate
the overall community service effect. The overall community service effect was neither moderated by whether the community service was required or not.
adolescents’ age, but not
adolescents’ sex or their ethnic background (whether adolescents came from a majority or from a minority or mixed population) moderated the service (positive relationship with age and effect).
None of the moderators correlated with each other, indicating they all have independent contributions. 
When all entered into one regression, we found the strongest effect for the quantity of reflection (bs = .50–.70), the second strongest effect for age (bs = .36–.50), and the least strong effect for the quantity of community service (bs = .23–.35).

33. Was a meta-analysis performed?

34. Number of included studies in the meta-analysis


	Personal and social competence: 23 Attitudes toward the self: 15

35. Heterogeneity

(e.g I squared)


	Personal and social competence: Fail safe number (number of non-significant studies that would have to exist to change results): 76 Attitudes toward the self: 11

36. Pooled estimates


	Personal and social competence: (mean effect size) .25 Attitudes toward the self: .36

37. Confidence intervals (95%)


	Personal and social competence: .11, .39 Attitudes toward the self: .04, .69

38. Key conclusions from study authors


	Community service with reflection had robust, positive effects on adolescent developmental benefits. The overall effect of community service was only found when service included reflection. The overall effect was also stronger when reflection was performed more frequently, service was performed more often, and adolescents were older. Furthermore, our findings suggest that these effects cannot be explained by methodological artifacts or by study characteristics, such as time interval between measurements, outliers, or publication bias (the relatively high fail-safe numbers, especially for the overall effect size, suggest that these results are robust against the possibility of missing studies).

39. Review limitations


	we were not able to assess in more detail which adolescents profitmost from which kind of community service (e.g., serving a vulnerable service group). Neither were we able to assess whether randomization of the community service may have affected specific outcomes. Second, even though we can make causal inferences on the main effect of community service, it does not allow making causal inferences on the moderation effects of (specific) community service or reflection characteristics because these characteristics were not experimentally manipulated. In our meta-analysis, 80% of the studies solely used self-report measures (more objective measures needed). Third, we were not able to control or consider all relevant contextual effects that may have influenced our findings. These contexts involve the influence of the environment on a microlevel such as the community service expectations or values of significant adults (parents, teachers, supervisors)d

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	-4

41. Quality appraisal tool used by review (if applicable)


	None

42. Quality of included studies (if applicable)


	N/A

43. Publication bias reported (if applicable)


	no moderation was found when comparing: published to unpublished studies

44. Was correspondence required for further study information?

45. What further correspondence was required, and from whom?

46. What further study information was requested (from whom, what and when)?

47. What correspondence was received (from whom, what and when)?

Extraction form for project: The effect of volunteering on the health and wellbeing of volunteers: an umbrella review

Design Details