DevTech Systems, Inc. (DevTech) is an international consulting firm dedicated to development, with 40 years of experience providing advisory services and technical assistance to government, private sector, and civil society stakeholders in more than 100 countries. DevTech core practice areas include: Monitoring Evaluation, Research and Learning; Data Solutions; Public Financial Management and Fiscal Sustainability; and Education, Gender, and Youth.
At DevTech, we care deeply about doing work that leads to positive change in the world. We value diverse perspectives and are committed to an inclusive work environment. We encourage each person to learn, develop, and meet their professional potential. We rethink and evolve how we do things to grow and improve our company.
Under the Education Technical Support Services contract (ETSS), DevTech is seeking for a Meta Analysis Research Assistant to retrieve information to conduct two systematic reviews of questions #2 and #12 of the USAID Latin America and the Caribbean Education Learning Agenda.
Q2. How education influences irregular migration. Build on existing systematic review ensuring all databases or gray literature is synthesized.
Q12. What workforce development models after secondary education or higher result in youth employability. Full systematic review required.
USAID would like to expand on the rapid-evidence stock-taking that the University of Notre Dame did to conduct a full systematic review and meta-analysis of findings related to each of the learning agenda questions, following the guidance from the Cochrane Collaboration on rigorous systematic reviews. This SOW is focused on Q2 and Q12 as the most pressing to get answers to through consultations with USAID’s LAC Missions and the LAC Education Learning Hub.
The USAID LAC Education Team, USAID Missions, USAID IPI/EDU, LAC Ministries of Education, USAID implementing partners, and other donors will use the systematic review findings to inform the design and implementation of future education interventions in the LAC region. These actors, and especially USAID, will also use the study to inform decisions about priority research questions, topics, contexts moving forward to round out the evidence base. As such, the systematic review should include both findings related to the questions as well as details about what major gaps exist in the research with regards to findings, methods, contexts/locations, etc.
The Meta Analysis Research Assistant - will support the local research team conducting research through their US college library search engine. This will ensure full access to academic and scientific articles in both the US and LAC.
USAID seeks two separate rigorous systematic reviews and meta-analyses (to the extent that sufficient studies exist with similar outcomes to inform such meta-analyses; please note that more than one meta-analysis may be needed per systematic review, depending on the number of outcomes identified; DevTech should prioritize the top three or fewer from each systematic review) – one to answer each of the learning agenda questions. The reviews should follow the guidance from the Cochrane Collaborative, as linked above. For the migration question, please note that this systematic review is already advanced and just needs a few researchers to check if there are any untapped databases or gray literature that can be included and then to synthesize the results of the study. Please find, here, a set a documents to help get this review finalized:
For the second question, on workforce development, USAID is requesting a full systematic review from start to finish, noting that some documents are available in the implementation plan and rapid evidence stock-taking documents referenced above. All studies included should be checked against a rigorous set of quality criteria to ensure their inclusion is warranted.
The task order is divided into two phases. Phase 1 will focus on conducting a systematic review of the literature, assessing the risk of bias, and determining if a full meta analysis is possible. If Phase 2 is possible, it would focus on completing the meta analysis and developing a full report for each RQ as follows:
| Activity | Deliverable | |
Phase 1 | 1 | Review background documents. Gain familiarity with USAID Learning Agenda and available information on RQ 2 and 12 on Migration and Workforce Development. Review of the preliminary report that Notre Dame developed on RQ2- Migration. | n/a |
2 | Approve Study Protocol. Review study methodology and provide guidelines on the use of Cochrane checklist. PICOS - population, intervention, contrafactual, observation, study design. | Study Design/protocols for RQ2 | |
3 | Conduct post screening of titles and abstracts review, check in, y/n study. For each title that you retain, you move to the second screening with the full text. At that stage you will see if your inclusion/exclusion criteria is met or not. Studies that you keep are the ones that become part of the risk of bias group . [regional advisor will scan the list and will use a random sample to verify] | List of titles and abstracts RQ2 | |
4 | Risk of bias scoring and validation. Assess if the quality of evidence will allow for any confidence statement about the size of effect using experiments and quasi-experiments. Make high, low, unclear dimension on the bias assessment. | Individual studies risk of bias and aggregate risk of bias report. RQ2 | |
5 | Recommendations for or against Meta Analysis. If for, and revised Study Protocol with eligibility criteria, specific outcomes to analyze, plan to address issues of bias, and minimum standards required for the meta-analysis. | Two preliminary reports with final list of studies that qualify based on the bias rating, risk of bias tool explanation and assessment, and recommendations to either move forward or not. | |
Phase 2 | 6 | Data extraction and effect size validation. Review effect size definitions, if ES not available, determine if proxies can be created with available data. | Codes for effect size validation |
7 | Conduct Cochrane rating method - GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) for assessing certainty (or quality) of a body of evidence. Effect size, variability and quality of evidence. | GRADE review | |
8 | Approve final report’s Table of Content (TOC) with heathers and sub heathers | TOC | |
9 | Review report draft and validate findings |
| |
10 | Approve final report | Final Report | |
DevTech Team:
Consultants international:
Local researchers:
Minimum Qualifications:
Preferred Qualifications:
This SOW will only focus on Phase 1- Systematic Review. The IRS will contribute to develop the following deliverables distributing her level of effort and time as follows:
| Activity | Deliverable | Estimated Days | Due Date | |
Phase 1 | 1 | Review background documents. Gain familiarity with USAID Learning Agenda and available information on RQ 2 and 12 on Migration and Workforce Development. Review of the preliminary report that Notre Dame developed on RQ2- Migration. | n/a | 0 |
|
2 | Approve Study Protocol. Review study methodology and provide guidelines on the use of Cochrane checklist. PICOS - population, intervention, contrafactual, observation, study design. | Study Design/protocols for RQ2 Study Design/protocols for RQ12 | 0 | ||
3 | Conduct post screening of titles and abstracts review, check in, y/n study. For each title that you retain, you move to the second screening with the full text. At that stage you will see if your inclusion/exclusion criteria is met or not. Studies that you keep are the ones that become part of the risk of bias group . [regional advisor will scan the list and will use a random sample to verify] | List of titles and abstracts RQ2
List of titles and abstracts RQ12 | 10 | Two weeks after the approval of the study design | |
4 | Risk of bias scoring and validation. Assess if the quality of evidence will allow for any confidence statement about the size of effect using experiments and quasi-experiments. Make high, low, unclear dimension on the bias assessment. | Individual studies risk of bias and aggregate risk of bias report. RQ2
Individual studies risk of bias and aggregate risk of bias report. RQ12 | 0 | 2/15/2025 | |
5 | Recommendations for or against Meta Analysis. If for, and revised Study Protocol with eligibility criteria, specific outcomes to analyze, plan to address issues of bias, and minimum standards required for the meta-analysis. | Two preliminary reports with final list of studies that qualify based on the bias rating, risk of bias tool explanation and assessment, and recommendations to either move forward or not. | 0 | 4/15/2025 | |
Inputs
NOTE: This job posting should not be construed to imply that the requirements are the exclusive standards of the position nor will it be the sole basis for any subsequent employee evaluations. Incumbents will follow any other instructions and perform any other related duties as may be required by their supervisor.
All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment and will not be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions), age (40 and older), physical and mental disability, genetic information (including family medical history) or characteristics, military status, protected veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, citizenship or alienage, or any other protected status as established by applicable federal, state, or local law.
Software Powered by iCIMS
www.icims.com