Revisión sistemática de la producción española sobre rendimiento académico entre 1980 y 2011

  1. Dolores Lidia Cabrera Pérez 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Laguna

    Universidad de La Laguna

    San Cristobal de La Laguna, España


Revista complutense de educación

ISSN: 1130-2496

Year of publication: 2016

Volume: 27

Issue: 1

Pages: 119-139

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5209/REV_RCED.2016.V27.N1.45293 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor


Low Academic performance is a research problem of great social impact. However, scientific findings are not having an impact in terms of improvements or on educational policies. In this paper, our goals were to identify, organize, analyze and draw conclusions regarding Spanish academic performance in order to visualize the problems and identify areas for future research. This was carried out as a six-step procedure, in which methodological procedures using synthesis and bibliometric research were combined. Publications were identified in four Spanish databases; the data was then analyzed and coded under nine indicators: title, year, type of paper, publisher, author, number of authors, institution, region and topic. The results show steadily increasing production (1595 references), but disperse in terms of the huge number of published authors, most with a single paper, and of the places where they were published. The topics most widely addressed were explanatory models, diagnosis and treatment, followed by the factors and variables that determined the high or low academic achievement and, thirdly, studies of legislation and other performance-related psychological and educational variables. This study is a synthesis of production about academic performance in Spain and is a first step towards further synthesis research, to identify best practices for the exercise of “evidence-based practices”, and other research problems

Bibliographic References

  • CAMPS, D. (2008). Limitaciones de los indicadores bibliométricos en la evaluación de la actividad científica biomédica. Redalyc, 39 (1), 74-79.
  • COOPER, H. (2007). Evaluation and interpreting research synthesis in adult learning and literacy. Boston: National College Transition Network, New England Literacy, Resorce Center/World Education.
  • COOPER, H. (2009). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach. Los Angeles, Sage.
  • FERNÁNDEZ Cano, A. (1995). Métodos para evaluar la investigación en psicopedagogía. Madrid: Síntesis.
  • GARVEY, W.D. AND GRIFFITH, B.C. (1971). Scientific communication: Its role in the conduct of research and creation of knowledge. American Psychologist, 26, 349-361.
  • KOENING, M. E. D. (1983). Bibliometric indicators versus expert opinion in assessing research performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34 (2), 136-145.
  • LÓPEZ PIÑEIRO, J.M. y TERRADA, M. L. (1993). Veinte años de investigación bibliométrica en el Instituto de Estudios Documentales e Históricos sobre la Ciencia. Cuadernos de Documentación e Informática Biomédica. Valencia.
  • LÓPEZ-LÓPEZ P. (1996). Introducción a la Bibliometría. Valencia: Promolibro.
  • LÓPEZ-LÓPEZ P. y TORTOSA Gil, F (2002). Los métodos Bibliométricos en Psicología. En Tortosa, F.M y Civera, C. (coords). Nuevas Tecnologías de la Información y Documentación en Psicología, 199-226. Editorial Ariel, Barcelona.
  • MALTRÁS BARBA, B., QUINTANILLA MIGUEL, A., y VIDAL, J. (1998). Indicadores bibliométricos en la evaluación de la investigación. Revista de Educación, 315, 141-151.
  • NEDERHOF, A. J. y VAN RAAN, A. F. J. (1987). Peer review and bibliometric indicators of scientific performance: a comparison of cum laude doctorates with ordinary doctorates in physics. Scientometrics, 11 (5-6), 333-350.
  • PEÑA OCANDO, D.; PORTILLO, L. y CALDERA, E. (2011). Indicadores de productividad, colaboración y circulación de la investigación. Caso: Escuela Bibliotecología y Archivología de Luz. Revista de Documentación de las Ciencias de la Información, 34, 291-306.
  • PERSSON, O., GLÄNZEL, W. & DANELL, R (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60 (3), 421-432.
  • QUEVEDO-BLASCO, R. y LÓPEZ-LÓPEZ, W. (2010). Análisis Bibliométrico de las Revistas Multidisciplinares de Psicología Recientemente Incorporadas en la Web of Science (2008-2009). Psicología: Reflexão e Crítica, 23, 384-408.
  • SÁNCHEZ MECA, J. y BOTELLA, J. (2010). Revisiones Sistémicas y Meta-análisis: Herramientas para la práctica Profesional. Papeles del Psicólogo, 31, 7-17.
  • TAVEGGIA, T.C. (1974). Resolving research controversy through empirical cumulation. Sociological Methods and Research, 2, 395-407.
  • WARNER, J. (2000). A critical review of the application of citation studies to the Research Assessment Exercises. Journal of Information Science, 26 (6), 453-460.