Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Accelerated Math evaluation report (Middle school sample).
Lambert, R., & Algozzine, B. (2009). Charlotte: Center for Educational Measurement and Evaluation, University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
-
examining633Students, grades7-9
Accelerated Math® Intervention Report - Primary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2017
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Accelerated Math® .
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Terra Nova normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
51.37 |
50.19 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Terra Nova normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grade: 7;
|
51.91 |
49.62 |
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: 49%
Male: 51% -
- 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
Oklahoma
-
Race White 70%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 46 middle school classrooms (grades 7–9) in two schools in Oklahoma. The authors do not indicate in which year the study occurred.
Study sample
Among all students at the time of random assignment, approximately 76% qualified for free or reduced-price meals, approximately 51% were female, 39% were minorities, and 18% were classified as special education students.
Intervention Group
The intervention students used Accelerated Math® as a supplemental software-based program in addition to their existing math curriculum, McDougal Littell Math, for the entire school year. The authors reported that there was “considerable variability” in the quality of implementation across study teachers; however, no additional details were provided. The study did not specify which version of Accelerated Math® was used.
Comparison Group
The comparison students used McDougal Littell Math, a traditional math curriculum already implemented in the district.
Support for implementation
The study does not specify how much training or support intervention teachers received.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Lambert, R., Algozzine, B., & McGee, J. (2014). Effects of progress monitoring on math performance of at-risk students (middle school sample). British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 4(4), 527–540.
Accelerated Math® Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2017
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Does not meet WWC standards because equivalence of the analytic intervention and comparison groups is necessary and not demonstrated.
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Accelerated Math® .
Findings
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Lambert, R., Algozzine, B., & McGee, J. (2014). Effects of progress monitoring on math performance of at-risk students (middle school sample). British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 4(4), 527–540.
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).