Preliminary Evaluation of a Tier 2 Mathematics Intervention for First-Grade Students: Using a Theory of Change to Guide Formative Evaluation Activities [Whole number understanding intervention vs. control]
Clarke, Ben; Doabler, Christian T.; Strand Cary, Mari; Kosty, Derek; Baker, Scott; Fien, Hank; Smolkowski, Keith (2014). School Psychology Review, v43 n2 p160-177. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1142175
-
examining89Students, grade1
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2020
- Practice Guide (findings for Targeted Math Intervention)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Early Numeracy Curriculum-Based Measures (EN-CBM): Total Score |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10): Math Problem Solving & Math Procedures Raw Score |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ProFusion |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
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.
-
18% English language learners -
Female: 44%
Male: 56% -
Suburban
-
Race Other or unknown 15% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 20% Not Hispanic or Latino 80%
Study Details
Setting
Pacific Northwest, nine schools in two suburban school districts, standard classrooms.
Study sample
For treatment and control respectively, Male 47.7% and 64.4%; Nonwhite 9.1% and 20%; Hispanic 13.6% and 26.7%; FRPL 70.5% and 68.9%; ELL 13.6% and 22.2%; and eligible for special education services 29.5% and 24.4%.
Intervention Group
60 lessons each lasting 30 minutes delivered over a period of 20 weeks. On average intervention lasted 18.6 weeks and teachers delivered 50.7 sessions.
Comparison Group
Control students did not receive the introduction, but may have received the school or district provided intervention. All students received core classroom instruction.
Support for implementation
Interventionists received 2 3-hour PD workshops. The first occurred 1 month before the fusion intervention. The second occurred after one quarter of the fusion intervention was completed.
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).