Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordEducationGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

Effectiveness of intervention using artificial intelligence for students with disabilities: systematic review and meta-analysis

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2714raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
dda057ee8aa2…check it

Background Algorithmic systems do not sufficiently capture the contextual nuances of disability, thereby risking model bias and reducing ecological validity. Hence, this review aims to investigate the various pedagogical and ethical concerns that have resulted from the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into special education. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of intervention using AI on students with disabilities. For this purpose, 16 papers were sele…

The gain

A meta-analysis of 16 studies of students with disabilities found AI-based interventions linked to large improvements (Hedges' g = 1.263, 95% CI 0.950–1.576), with 14 of 16 studies showing significant effects, though only one study was randomized.

What this doesn’t fix

Only one of the 16 included studies was a randomized trial and most used non-randomized pre-post designs, so the results do not establish a causal effect; the interventions and populations varied widely, and subgroup findings are exploratory.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Frontiers in Public Healthdoi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1936957
    Peer-reviewed2026-11-06

What the review found when it combined the studies

These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.

  • Outcomes for students with disabilities after AI-based interventions (pre-post change)

    Hedges' g 1.263 (95% CI 0.950 to 1.576)

    16 studies

    The review’s own words
    The overall ES for AI-based interventions was large (Hedges’ g = 1.263, 95% CI = 0.950–1.576).

Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results

Cite this record

v1

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2714, v1: “Effectiveness of intervention using artificial intelligence for students with disabilities: systematic review and meta-analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2714 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 dda057ee8aa20f8d…

Change history

1 version

Every change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.

  1. Publishedv1dda057ee8aa2…

    Certified into the record

Check this record hasn’t been altered

Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page

Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2714 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.