WWC review of this study

The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty.

Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 493–513. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ734286

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    127
     Students
    , grade
    1

Reviewed: February 2020

At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations
General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Calculation

Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
127 students

8.34

6.71

--

 
 
24
More Outcomes

First-Grade Concepts/Applications

Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
127 students

19.12

17.00

Yes

 
 
18

Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Applied Problems subtest

Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
127 students

22.16

22.08

No

--
Whole Numbers Computation outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

CBM Computation- Grade 1

Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
127 students

14.40

12.07

No

--
More Outcomes

Addition fact fluency

Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
127 students

6.50

5.22

No

--

Subtraction Fact Fluency

Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
127 students

3.14

2.84

No

--
Whole Numbers Word Problems/Problem Solving outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Jordan's Story Problems

Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
127 students

4.84

3.33

Yes

 
 
20

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Female: 50%
    Male: 50%

  • Suburban, 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    South
  • Race
    Black
    50%
    Not specified
    5%
    White
    45%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    6%
    Not Hispanic    
    94%

Setting

The study occurred in 41 first-grade classrooms in 10 schools (6 Title I and 4 non-Title I) of a large, southeastern metropolitan school district of the United States. The math tutoring intervention was administered in small groups outside of regular math instruction to students at-risk (AR) for the development of mathematics difficulty that were randomly assigned to receiving the intervention.

Study sample

The analytic sample is 50 percent male, 50 percent African American, 45 percent White, and 5 percent Hispanic. Roughly 70 percent of the student in the analytic sample qualified for subsidized lunch.

Intervention Group

The intervention condition involved the implementation of small-group math tutoring to AR math students outside of regular math instruction. Tutors worked with groups of two or three AR students that had been randomly assigned to the intervention group. Tutoring sessions occurred three times a week for 16 weeks. Each session lasted approximately 40 minutes. The first 30 minutes were used for small-group tutoring. The tutoring lessons followed the curriculum of regular math instruction. During the final 10 minutes, students individually used math software called Math Flash.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition was "business as usual". Specifically, the AR math students randomly assigned to the comparison condition received regular math instruction alongside the AR math students randomly assigned to the intervention group. However, the AR math students in the comparison group did not participated in the small-group math tutoring intervention as a supplement to each participating classroom's regular math instruction.

Support for implementation

Tutors participated in three training sessions. The first was a day training session providing an overview of the tutoring program during which tutoring goals, topics, and activities were presented. Tutors then practiced the activities with a partner. In a second session a week later, tutors learned how to use Math Flash after which a review session was held. Tutoring began one week after the review session.

Reviewed: April 2009

Meets WWC standards without reservations

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Female: 50%
    Male: 50%

  • Urban
  • Race
    Black
    50%
    White
    45%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    6%
    Not Hispanic    
    94%
 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top