MetaSDTCenter for Self-Determination Theory logo
← Back to intervention studies
Intervention database

SDT-based interventions in education

Intervention studies from a systematic review and meta-analysis of self-determination-theory-based interventions in education. Outcomes are students' intrinsic motivation and perceived autonomy support, competence, and relatedness, assessed as intervention-vs-control group differences and as pre-post changes in intervention groups.

Source

Wang, Y., Wang, H., Wang, S., Wind, S. A., & Gill, C. (2024). A systematic review and meta-analysis of self-determination-theory-based interventions in the education context. Learning and Motivation, 87, 102015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2024.102015

Studies
31
Effects
137
Total N
9,433

Pooled effects

Hedges g estimates and 95% prediction intervals as published in the article's Results (random-effects models; k here = number of effect sizes; subgroup Ns are not reported). Several estimates were sensitive to outliers and publication bias — e.g., the intrinsic-motivation group difference fell to g = 0.47 [0.28, 0.67] with outliers excluded, and g = 0.58 [0.26, 0.89] after trim-and-fill. The prediction interval printed for the relatedness group difference duplicates the competence pre-post interval and excludes its own estimate (an apparent typo), so it is omitted here. Not recomputed.

Intrinsic motivation — intervention vs control
g = 0.9195% CI [0.16, 1.67]95% PI [-1.57, 3.08] · 26 effects
SubgroupEffectsg95% CI95% PI
Intervention vs control (group differences)
Intrinsic motivation260.91[0.16, 1.67][-1.57, 3.08]
Perceived autonomy support221.65[0.28, 3.01][-3.57, 6.33]
Competence170.80[-0.49, 1.65][-1.83, 3.12]
Relatedness121.66[-0.51, 3.83]—
Pre-post change (intervention groups)
Intrinsic motivation230.12[-0.17, 0.41][-0.64, 0.89]
Perceived autonomy support140.63[0.06, 1.21][-11.23, 2.22]
Competence90.58[0.01, 1.15][-0.74, 1.59]
Relatedness101.43[-0.23, 3.09][-3.39, 5.65]

Study effects — intrinsic motivation

Reconstructs the source article's forest plots: study-level Hedges g values with 95% confidence intervals, computed from the supplementary data (Table S2); squares are sized by precision and diamonds are the published pooled estimates.

-1.00.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0Hedges' gINTERVENTION VS CONTROLBortoli et al., 2017 — ES 10.46 [−0.04, 0.95]Bortoli et al., 2017 — ES 2−0.03 [−0.52, 0.46]Brandenberger et al., 2017 — ES 10.20 [−0.07, 0.47]Brandenberger et al., 2017 — ES 20.01 [−0.26, 0.28]Chiu et al., 20210.87 [0.65, 1.09]Cole, 2018 — ES 1−0.10 [−0.41, 0.21]Cole, 2018 — ES 2−0.01 [−0.32, 0.30]Cole, 2018 — ES 30.45 [0.14, 0.76]Froiland, 20100.24 [−0.48, 0.95]Grolnick et al., 2021−0.12 [−0.64, 0.40]Guay et al., 2016 — ES 10.28 [0.04, 0.51]Guay et al., 2016 — ES 20.44 [0.20, 0.68]Ivanov, 2015 — ES 10.18 [−0.33, 0.70]Ivanov, 2015 — ES 20.25 [−0.25, 0.76]Joachim Waterschoot et al., 20191.02 [0.76, 1.28]Kadir et al., 20200.29 [0.10, 0.48]Kaur et al., 2014 — ES 12.57 [2.04, 3.09]Kaur et al., 2014 — ES 22.48 [1.97, 3.00]Montero-Carretero et al., 20216.21 [5.15, 7.28]Toshie & Osamu, 20170.83 [0.23, 1.42]Van Loon et al., 2012 — ES 11.81 [1.44, 2.18]Van Loon et al., 2012 — ES 21.25 [0.91, 1.59]Van Loon et al., 2012 — ES 31.31 [0.96, 1.65]Villiger et al., 2011 — ES 10.18 [0.00, 0.36]Villiger et al., 2011 — ES 2−0.09 [−0.27, 0.09]Villiger et al., 2011 — ES 30.22 [0.03, 0.40]Villiger et al., 2011 — ES 40.04 [−0.14, 0.22]Pooled (published)0.91 [0.16, 1.67]PRE-POST CHANGEBortoli et al., 2017 — ES 10.25 [−0.11, 0.61]Bortoli et al., 2017 — ES 2−0.19 [−0.55, 0.18]Bortoli et al., 2017 — ES 3−0.23 [−0.56, 0.11]Bortoli et al., 2017 — ES 4−0.16 [−0.50, 0.17]Brandenberger et al., 2017 — ES 10.23 [0.06, 0.40]Brandenberger et al., 2017 — ES 2−0.28 [−0.46, −0.10]Grolnick et al., 2021 — ES 10.19 [−0.16, 0.55]Grolnick et al., 2021 — ES 2−0.20 [−0.55, 0.16]Guay et al., 20160.06 [−0.11, 0.23]Guay et al., 20170.21 [0.04, 0.38]Ivanov, 2015 — ES 10.90 [0.45, 1.34]Ivanov, 2015 — ES 20.92 [0.47, 1.37]Ivanov, 2015 — ES 31.05 [0.60, 1.51]Ivanov, 2015 — ES 40.86 [0.43, 1.29]Kadir et al., 2020−0.37 [−0.51, −0.24]Kaur et al., 2014 — ES 1−0.37 [−0.65, −0.08]Kaur et al., 2014 — ES 2−0.53 [−0.83, −0.24]Moll-Khosrawi et al., 20210.01 [−0.17, 0.20]Moll-Khosrawi et al., 20220.11 [−0.07, 0.30]Toshie & Osamu, 20171.12 [0.60, 1.64]Villiger et al., 2011 — ES 10.01 [−0.12, 0.14]Villiger et al., 2011 — ES 2−0.11 [−0.24, 0.02]Villiger et al., 2011 — ES 30.11 [−0.01, 0.24]Villiger et al., 2011 — ES 40.00 [−0.13, 0.13]Pooled (published)0.12 [−0.17, 0.41]

Study effects — autonomy support

Reconstructs the source article's forest plots: study-level Hedges g values with 95% confidence intervals, computed from the supplementary data (Table S2); squares are sized by precision and diamonds are the published pooled estimates.

-2.0-1.00.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.011.012.013.0Hedges' gINTERVENTION VS CONTROLAssor et al., 20184.60 [4.35, 4.84]Baten et al., 20200.50 [0.32, 0.68]Cole, 20180.18 [−0.13, 0.48]Froiland, 20100.49 [−0.24, 1.21]Gorissena et al., 2015 — ES 10.12 [−0.46, 0.71]Gorissena et al., 2015 — ES 20.63 [0.04, 1.22]Grolnick et al., 20210.20 [−0.32, 0.72]Joachim Waterschoot et al., 20193.38 [3.00, 3.77]Kaur et al., 20143.10 [2.53, 3.68]Law & Liu, 2021 — ES 10.31 [−0.22, 0.84]Law & Liu, 2021 — ES 2−0.92 [−1.48, −0.37]Lozano-Jiménez et al., 20211.16 [0.88, 1.45]Montero-Carretero et al., 202111.44 [9.61, 13.28]Patall et al., 2022 — ES 10.09 [−0.29, 0.46]Patall et al., 2022 — ES 2−0.02 [−0.41, 0.36]Simões & Alarcão, 20140.07 [−0.15, 0.29]Toshie & Osamu, 20170.98 [0.37, 1.58]Van Loon et al., 2012 — ES 12.94 [2.50, 3.39]Van Loon et al., 2012 — ES 20.19 [−0.12, 0.50]Van Loon et al., 2012 — ES 33.04 [2.58, 3.49]Zhang et al., 2020−0.58 [−0.97, −0.18]Zhang et al., 2021−0.41 [−0.80, −0.01]Pooled (published)1.65 [0.28, 3.01]PRE-POST CHANGEAssor et al., 20180.00 [−0.08, 0.08]Froiland, 20100.75 [0.18, 1.32]Grolnick et al., 20210.28 [−0.08, 0.64]Joussemet et al.， 20140.44 [0.13, 0.75]Kaplan & Assor, 2012 — ES 1−0.04 [−0.14, 0.05]Kaplan & Assor, 2012 — ES 20.03 [−0.06, 0.13]Kiemer et al., 2016 — ES 10.26 [0.09, 0.43]Kiemer et al., 2016 — ES 2−0.04 [−0.21, 0.12]Kiemer et al., 2016 — ES 3−0.04 [−0.21, 0.12]Law & Liu, 20210.47 [0.07, 0.86]Simões & Alarcão, 20140.04 [−0.11, 0.20]Toshie & Osamu, 20171.40 [0.82, 1.97]Zhang et al., 20200.35 [0.07, 0.63]Zheng et al., 20203.42 [2.64, 4.20]Pooled (published)0.63 [0.06, 1.21]

Study effects — competence support

Reconstructs the source article's forest plots: study-level Hedges g values with 95% confidence intervals, computed from the supplementary data (Table S2); squares are sized by precision and diamonds are the published pooled estimates.

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0Hedges' gINTERVENTION VS CONTROLBaten et al., 20200.17 [−0.01, 0.35]Chiu et al., 20211.16 [0.94, 1.38]Gorissena et al., 2015 — ES 1−0.09 [−0.68, 0.49]Gorissena et al., 2015 — ES 2−0.13 [−0.71, 0.45]Guay et al., 2016 — ES 1−0.04 [−0.28, 0.19]Guay et al., 2016 — ES 20.09 [−0.15, 0.33]Guay et al., 2016 — ES 3−0.31 [−0.54, −0.07]Joachim Waterschoot et al., 20190.51 [0.26, 0.76]Kadir et al., 20200.35 [0.16, 0.55]Lozano-Jiménez et al., 20210.22 [−0.04, 0.49]Montero-Carretero et al., 20215.29 [4.35, 6.22]Patall et al., 2022 — ES 1−0.14 [−0.53, 0.25]Patall et al., 2022 — ES 2−0.14 [−0.53, 0.25]Toshie & Osamu, 20170.72 [0.13, 1.31]van Loon et al.，2012 — ES 11.70 [1.34, 2.06]van Loon et al.，2012 — ES 21.84 [1.47, 2.21]van Loon et al.，2012 — ES 30.27 [−0.05, 0.58]Pooled (published)0.80 [−0.49, 1.65]PRE-POST CHANGEBaten et al., 20200.16 [0.03, 0.28]Guay et al., 2016 — ES 10.17 [0.00, 0.34]Guay et al., 2016 — ES 20.25 [0.08, 0.42]Kiemer et al., 2016 — ES 10.07 [−0.09, 0.24]Kiemer et al., 2016 — ES 20.31 [0.14, 0.48]Kiemer et al., 2016 — ES 3−0.02 [−0.19, 0.15]Lozano-Jiménez et al., 20210.47 [0.28, 0.66]Toshie & Osamu, 20170.62 [0.17, 1.06]Zheng et al., 20202.07 [1.54, 2.60]Pooled (published)0.58 [0.01, 1.15]

Study effects — relatedness support

Reconstructs the source article's forest plots: study-level Hedges g values with 95% confidence intervals, computed from the supplementary data (Table S2); squares are sized by precision and diamonds are the published pooled estimates.

-1.00.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.0Hedges' gINTERVENTION VS CONTROLAssor et al., 201810.03 [9.56, 10.49]Butz & Stupnisky, 20170.09 [−0.34, 0.52]Gorissena et al., 2015 — ES 10.02 [−0.56, 0.61]Gorissena et al., 2015 — ES 20.20 [−0.38, 0.78]Guay et al., 2016 — ES 10.05 [−0.19, 0.29]Guay et al., 2016 — ES 20.17 [−0.06, 0.41]Kaur et al., 20143.31 [2.71, 3.90]Lozano-Jiménez et al., 20210.20 [−0.07, 0.46]Patall et al., 2022 — ES 1−0.09 [−0.47, 0.28]Patall et al., 2022 — ES 2−0.19 [−0.58, 0.20]Simões & Alarcão, 20140.03 [−0.19, 0.25]Toshie & Osamu, 20171.21 [0.59, 1.84]Pooled (published)1.66 [−0.51, 3.83]PRE-POST CHANGEAssor et al., 20186.99 [6.60, 7.38]Butz & Stupnisky, 2017−0.01 [−0.32, 0.30]Guay et al., 2016 — ES 10.02 [−0.15, 0.18]Guay et al., 2016 — ES 2−0.05 [−0.22, 0.12]Guay et al., 2016 — ES 3−0.17 [−0.34, 0.00]Kaplan & Assor, 20120.27 [0.17, 0.36]Lozano-Jiménez et al., 20210.39 [0.20, 0.58]Simões & Alarcão, 20140.12 [−0.04, 0.27]Toshie & Osamu, 20171.58 [0.96, 2.19]Zheng et al., 20202.14 [1.60, 2.68]Pooled (published)1.43 [−0.23, 3.09]

Data

Standardized CSV of Table S2 of the article's supplementary materials — the raw data the authors used to compute effect sizes (138 rows: group ns, means, SDs, and reported t/F/r/d statistics), passed through as extracted.

Download CSV