Ramani, Geetha B.; Siegler, Robert S. (2008). Child Development, v79 n2 p375-394. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ789398
Reviewed: January 2022
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Count-10 |
Number board games vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample: Number board game vs. color board game;
|
94.00 |
71.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Number line Estimation-Percent Absolute Error |
Number board games vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample: Number board game vs. color board game;
|
0.39 |
0.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Numerical Magnitude Comparison |
Number board games vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample: Number board game vs. color board game;
|
85.00 |
70.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Rote Counting |
Number board games vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample: Number board game vs. color board game;
|
9.90 |
8.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Numerical Identification |
Number board games vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample: Number board game vs. color board game;
|
8.20 |
6.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Count-10 |
Number board games vs. Intervention |
9 Weeks |
Full sample: Number board game vs. color board game;
|
97.00 |
77.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Numerical Identification |
Number board games vs. Intervention |
9 Weeks |
Full sample: Number board game vs. color board game;
|
8.70 |
6.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Numerical Magnitude Comparison |
Number board games vs. Intervention |
9 Weeks |
Full sample: Number board game vs. color board game;
|
83.00 |
70.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Rote Counting |
Number board games vs. Intervention |
9 Weeks |
Full sample: Number board game vs. color board game;
|
9.90 |
8.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number line Estimation-Percent Absolute Error |
Number board games vs. Intervention |
9 Weeks |
Full sample: Number board game vs. color board game;
|
0.34 |
0.29 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 52% | |
| Other or unknown | 6% | |
| White | 41% |
The study sample includes children from 10 Head Start centers in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Of the 124 students in the analytic sample, approximately 54% were female, 52% were African American, 41% were White, and 6% were Asian, Hispanic, biracial or unknown. Ages ranged from 4.1 years to 5.4 years (M = 4.75 years, SD = 0.44 years). Information on financial position was omitted except to indicate that all participants met the income requirements for Head Start established by the Federal government for 2006 (e.g., for a family of three, annual income below $16,600).
The intervention consisted of children playing a number board game with the experimenters that involved spinning a spinner and moving spaces according to whether the player correctly identified the number that they spun. Children met with experimenters individually for four 15-20 minute sessions over a 2 week period. The immediate post-test was given at the end of the 2 week intervention, and a follow up test was given 9 weeks after the intervention was completed.
The comparison condition was identical to the intervention condition except that children played a color board game rather than a number board game.
No specific supports for implementation of the intervention were discussed.
Reviewed: November 2013
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 52% | |
| Other or unknown | 6% | |
| White | 42% |
Reviewed: September 2010
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 52% | |
| Other or unknown | 6% | |
| White | 42% |
Reviewed: August 2008
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number Line Estimation: Linearity |
Playing Number Board Games vs. Other board game |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
0.46 |
0.16 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Number Line Estimation: Slope |
Playing Number Board Games vs. Other board game |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
0.65 |
0.17 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Magnitude Comparison |
Playing Number Board Games vs. Other board game |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
0.85 |
0.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Numerical Identification |
Playing Number Board Games vs. Other board game |
9 week followup |
Overall;
|
8.70 |
6.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Magnitude Comparison |
Playing Number Board Games vs. Other board game |
9 week followup |
Overall;
|
0.83 |
0.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Counting |
Playing Number Board Games vs. Other board game |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
9.90 |
8.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Numerical Identification |
Playing Number Board Games vs. Other board game |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
8.20 |
6.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Counting |
Playing Number Board Games vs. Other board game |
9 week followup |
Overall;
|
9.90 |
8.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Number Line Estimation: Slope |
Playing Number Board Games vs. Other board game |
9 week followup |
Overall;
|
0.48 |
0.19 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Number Line Estimation: Linearity |
Playing Number Board Games vs. Other board game |
9 week followup |
Overall;
|
0.34 |
0.18 |
Yes |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 53% | |
| White | 41% |
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Teaching Math to Young Children Practice Guide