Research Scanner
OMNIA monitors key sources weekly and monthly — MetaSENse, EEF, DfE, Ofsted, NASEN, peer-reviewed journals. New publications are quality-assessed before affecting any recommendations.
0 named sources
How OMNIA uses evidence.
0 named independent evidence sources. All structured, all AI-citable. This page explains which sources we use, how we apply them, and where they don't apply.
0 evidence sources467 SEND-specific studies (MetaSENse, 2024)d = 0.40 hinge pointNICE-alignedUpdated monthly
MetaSENse (UCL)EEF ToolkitEEF SEND GuidanceVisible LearningNICE GuidelinesDfE Evidence ReviewsIDAWWCNASENAnna FreudAETSpeech & Language UKBDACAMHS EBPUWhat Works CSCNELICRAECBFIEERCSLTDfE SEN StatisticsOfsted ResearchAmbitious About AutismNDTiUDL/CASTYoung MindsAfasicBPSEuropean AgencyAITSLOISESWIFTOECD TALISPegram et al
0%
Pegram et al, Review of Education, 2022
Two thirds of what schools do every day with SEND pupils has never been properly tested.
Research examining 242 interventions used across a school cluster found that only 30% had any evidence of positive impact on pupil outcomes, 67% had no published evidence of effectiveness, and 3% had causal evidence suggesting they were actively ineffective.
This isn't a criticism of SENDCos. It's a reflection of how little systematic evidence reaches the classroom, and how few tools exist to bridge that gap.
OMNIA was built to be that bridge.
—
Independent evidence sources
10+
Assessment tools supported
0
Diagnoses made
0%
Pegram et al, Review of Education, 2022
Two thirds of what schools do every day with SEND pupils has never been properly tested.
Research examining 242 interventions used across a school cluster found that only 30% had any evidence of positive impact on pupil outcomes, 67% had no published evidence of effectiveness, and 3% had causal evidence suggesting they were actively ineffective.
OMNIA was built to be the bridge between research and the classroom.
—
Independent evidence sources
10+
Assessment tools supported
0
Diagnoses made
What OMNIA draws on.
The core Tier 1 sources are profiled in depth below. The full tiered catalogue of all 0 sources appears further down the page.
—
Named evidence sources
3
Evidence tiers
467
SEND-specific studies reviewed
MetaSENse, UCL Centre for Educational Neuroscience, 2024
Browse the full evidence library.
Every named source OMNIA draws on, organised by tier and jurisdiction. Expand a tier to browse, or search for a specific source.
0
Named evidence sources
3
Evidence tiers
467
SEND-specific studies reviewed
MetaSENse, UCL Centre for Educational Neuroscience, 2024
Loading evidence library…
Evidence for a specific group is not evidence for all groups.
The most important principle running through all of OMNIA's evidence base is need-specificity: an intervention supported by evidence for pupils with ASD is not automatically supported for pupils without ASD. The same strategy can be clinically appropriate for one pupil and potentially harmful for another.
For pupils with ASD ✓
Ear defenders reduce auditory overwhelm and sensory distress. Strong evidence. Recommended where sensory processing differences are identified.
Without identified sensory need ⚠
The same ear defenders, applied generically, may cause social isolation, missed classroom cues, and limited auditory processing development. Not evidence-based as a general classroom strategy.
This is why OMNIA always specifies which need types an intervention is supported for — and which need types it is contraindicated for. A plan for a pupil with ASD draws on different evidence from a plan for a pupil with SpLD, even when the same classroom is involved.
Some approaches are supported by all three major evidence sources simultaneously.
When MetaSENse, the EEF, and Hattie's Visible Learning all independently rate an approach as strong or very strong, OMNIA marks it as ✦ Triple-verified. These are the highest-confidence recommendations in the platform.
✦Metacognition and self-regulation✦Structured systematic phonics (SpLD)✦Spaced practice✦Targeted specific feedback✦Explicit instruction
Evidence doesn't stand still.
Neither does OMNIA.
Superadmin Review
Every new finding is reviewed by a qualified SENDCo (MA SEND, NASENCo) before changing any evidence rating. Automated tools do the reading. Humans make the decisions.
Practitioner Network
SENDCos using OMNIA can flag strategies where observed outcomes differ from the evidence rating. Anonymised, volume-thresholded, and reviewed alongside academic evidence. Practice informs research. Research informs practice.
When evidence changes, existing plans are flagged. A plan created in 2026 that references a strategy whose evidence was updated in 2027 will display a notice: "Evidence updated since this plan was created. Review before the next cycle."
No other SEND platform does this.
What OMNIA does not claim.
OMNIA is a professional decision-support tool. It does not replace professional clinical judgement. The following limitations apply:
OMNIA's suggestions are starting points for a SENDCo's professional decision — not instructions to follow without review. A qualified SENDCo reviewing AI-generated content is always the clinical safeguard, not the platform itself.
Evidence ratings reflect the best available research, which is sometimes limited, sometimes conflicted, and always evolving. Some SEND need types have stronger evidence bases than others. OMNIA reflects this honestly in its ratings.
Individual pupils may respond differently to interventions than group-level evidence predicts. Monitoring individual impact is always necessary. Evidence tells you what to try first — not what will definitely work for this child.
Hattie's Visible Learning has attracted legitimate methodological criticism. OMNIA uses it as one source among several, weighted alongside MetaSENse and EEF rather than as the sole authority.
OMNIA does not provide medical advice, psychological assessment, or therapeutic recommendations requiring qualified clinical registration.
Where evidence is weak, OMNIA says so. Where evidence is mixed, OMNIA presents both sides. Where an intervention has potential for harm in specific circumstances, OMNIA states this prominently.
Honest evidence comparisons
Zones of Regulation vs RULER — an honest evidence comparison
Zones of Regulation is used in thousands of UK schools and may already be embedded in your provision. OMNIA rates it as Emerging evidence — not because it does not work, but because a systematic review of the published research found no peer-reviewed studies meeting inclusion criteria. Available evidence comes mainly from unpublished theses with moderate-to-high risk of bias and inconsistent results.
RULER — developed at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence — has multiple randomised controlled trials, CASEL approval, and published evidence of impact on academic outcomes, school climate and behaviour. OMNIA rates it as Strong evidence.
This distinction matters when building an evidence trail for Ofsted or for a pupil's provision review. Both approaches can have value in your school. Where Zones is already embedded and working for your pupils, continuing its use is reasonable — limited evidence is not the same as ineffective. Where you are choosing fresh, the peer-reviewed evidence currently favours RULER for SEMH outcomes.
Both strategies appear in OMNIA's library with their evidence rating shown openly on the strategy card, so SENDCos can make an informed choice rather than a default one.
Who reviews the evidence
OMNIA's evidence base is reviewed and maintained by the platform's founder — a qualified, practising SENDCo.
MA SEND, Disability and Inclusion (Sunderland, 2025)NASENCo qualificationJCQ Access Arrangements (Communicate-ed)QTS, 2013UK primary, specialist autism, international
Evidence reviews are conducted against published quality assessment frameworks. All decisions to change evidence ratings are documented. The evidence review log is available to schools on request.
Questions about our evidence base? hello@omnia-inclusion.com
For the frameworks underpinning our screener suite, see our Frameworks and Acknowledgements page.