Effects of Tutorial Interventions in Mathematics and Attention for Low-Performing Preschool Children
Barnes, Marcia A.; Klein, Alice; Swank, Paul; Starkey, Prentice; McCandliss, Bruce; Flynn, Kylie; Zucker, Tricia; Huang, Chun-Wei; Fall, Anna-Mária; Roberts, Greg (2016). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v9 n4 p577-606. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1115262
-
examining518Students, gradePK
IES Performance Measure
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2017
- IES Performance Measure (findings for Pre-K Mathematics)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Child Math Assessment (CMA) |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M Only vs. BaU;
|
0.61 |
0.52 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Child Math Assessment (CMA) |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M+ATT vs. BaU;
|
0.58 |
0.52 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA-3) |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M Only vs. BaU;
|
14.34 |
12.82 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA-3) |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M+ATT and M Only vs. BaU;
|
14.93 |
13.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA-3) |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M+ATT vs. BaU;
|
12.51 |
12.82 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Cued Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M+ATT vs. BaU and M Only;
|
0.87 |
0.83 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Un-cued Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M+ATT vs. BaU and M Only;
|
0.85 |
0.82 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Incongruent Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M+ATT vs. BaU and M Only;
|
0.77 |
0.72 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Congruent Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M+ATT vs. BaU and M Only;
|
0.96 |
0.94 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Congruent Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M+ATT vs. BaU (supplemental);
|
0.96 |
0.93 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Cued Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M+ATT vs. BaU (supplemental);
|
0.87 |
0.83 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Cued Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample: M+ATT vs. M Only (supplemental);
|
0.87 |
0.83 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Congruent Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample: M+ATT vs. M Only (supplemental);
|
0.96 |
0.94 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Un-cued Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M+ATT vs. BaU (supplemental);
|
0.85 |
0.82 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Un-cued Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample: M+ATT vs. M Only (supplemental);
|
0.85 |
0.82 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Incongruent Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample: M+ATT vs. M Only (supplemental);
|
0.77 |
0.71 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Incongruent Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M+ATT vs. BaU (supplemental) ;
|
0.77 |
0.72 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Congruent Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M Only vs. BaU (supplemental) ;
|
0.94 |
0.93 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Cued Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M Only vs. BaU (supplemental);
|
0.83 |
0.83 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Un-cued Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M Only vs. BaU (supplemental);
|
0.82 |
0.82 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Child Attention Networks Test (Child-ANT) Incongruent Trial Accuracy |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: M Only vs. BaU (supplemental);
|
0.71 |
0.72 |
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.
-
Female: 47%
Male: 53% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California, Texas
-
Race Black 18% White 2% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 72% Not Hispanic or Latino 28%
Study Details
Setting
The study was implemented in pre-kindergarten classrooms in Houston, Texas, and San Jose, Santa Clara, and Contra Costa, California.
Study sample
The initial randomized sample was 46.7% female, 71.7% Hispanic, 17.9% African American, 2.2% Caucasian, and was an average 4.5 years old.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effects of the Pre-Kindergarten Mathematics Tutorial (PKMT) intervention. The intervention was implemented in two different ways, either in combination with an attention training intervention (M+ATT group) or in combination with an unnamed placebo activity (listening to books-on-tape) (M only group). The PKMT intervention was implemented over a 24-week period, with 15- to 20-minute daily sessions four times a week (with one day a week for review or make-up sessions). The intervention consisted of 20 activities to support students’ learning of numbers, arithmetic, space, geometry, and measurement. Trained tutors delivered the intervention to pairs of students within each classroom (one student from the M+ATT condition and one student from the M only condition). The tutors introduced one new activity a week for 20 of the 24 weeks. The remaining four weeks were dedicated to review. Tutors monitored progress and adjusted instruction to each child’s knowledge. Students in the M+ATT condition also received an attention intervention, which was composed of vigilance and conflict attention training video games. The vigilance games required students to sustain attention and the conflict games required students to choose between two stimuli. Tutors delivered the intervention over a 16-week period to each student individually, with one eight-minute session per week (eight vigilance game sessions and eight conflict games sessions). Students received reward stamps based on their time spent on task. Students in the M only condition also received a books-on-tape intervention, which involved listening to a recorded audio book while looking at the text of the book. The intervention occurred in eight-minute sessions once per week for 16 weeks. Students received reward stamps based on their time spent on task.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition (referred to as the business-as-usual or BaU group) participated in unspecified math instruction without tutoring. All Texas classrooms were full day, while a majority of California classrooms were half day.
Support for implementation
The tutors received four days of training on the PKMT intervention and an additional full day on the attention intervention. All tutors had to be certified based on lab and field demonstrations. During the intervention, weekly calls were held to provide support to tutors.
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).