Does Working Memory Moderate the Effects of Fraction Intervention? An Aptitude-Treatment Interaction
Fuchs, Lynn S.; Schumacher, Robin F.; Sterba, Sonya K.; Long, Jessica; Namkung, Jessica; Malone, Amelia; Hamlett, Carol L.; Jordan, Nancy C.; Gersten, Russell; Siegler, Robert S.; Changas, Paul (2014). Journal of Educational Psychology, v106 n2 p499-514. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1054465
-
examining164Students, grade4
Does Working Memory Moderate the Effects of Fraction Intervention? An Aptitude-Treatment Interaction
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2014
- Single Study Review (114 KB) (findings for Fraction Face-Off!)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fraction Battery-Revised |
Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH |
Posttest |
Fluency vs. comparsion;
|
17.53 |
8.16 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Fraction Battery-Revised |
Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH |
Posttest |
Conceptual vs. comparison;
|
17.36 |
8.16 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Fraction Number Line |
Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH |
Posttest |
Conceptual vs. comparison;
|
-0.19 |
-0.27 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Fraction Number Line |
Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH |
Posttest |
Fluency vs. comparsion;
|
-0.20 |
-0.27 |
Yes |
|
|
|
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) selected items |
Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH |
Posttest |
Fluency vs. comparsion;
|
14.45 |
12.07 |
Yes |
|
|
|
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) selected items |
Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH |
Posttest |
Conceptual vs. comparison;
|
14.40 |
12.07 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Fraction Battery-Revised |
Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH |
Posttest |
Fluency vs. conceptual;
|
18.01 |
17.84 |
No |
-- | |
|
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) selected items |
Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH |
Posttest |
Fluency vs. conceptual;
|
14.69 |
14.64 |
No |
-- | |
|
Fraction Number Line |
Fraction Face-Off! vs. enVisionMATH |
Posttest |
Fluency vs. conceptual;
|
-0.21 |
-0.21 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
11% English language learners -
Female: 61%
Male: 39% -
Race Black 59% Other or unknown 3% White 16% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 23% Not Hispanic or Latino 77%
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).