At least one finding shows strong evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations
For:
-
Practice Guide (findings for Targeted Math Intervention)
Rating:
-
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.
Counting and Cardinality outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure
|
Comparison
|
Period
|
Sample
|
Intervention mean
|
Comparison mean
|
Significant?
|
Improvement index
|
Evidence tier
|
ROOTS Assessment of Early Numeracy Skills (RAENS)
|
Targeted Math Intervention vs.
Business as usual
|
0 Days
|
ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison;
526 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Yes
|
|
|
Assessing Student Proficiency in Early Number Sense (ASPENS)
|
Targeted Math Intervention vs.
Business as usual
|
0 Days
|
ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison;
527 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Yes
|
|
|
Early Numeracy Curriculum-Based Measures (EN-CBM): Oral Counting (OC)
|
Targeted Math Intervention vs.
Business as usual
|
0 Days
|
ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison;
527 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
No
|
--
|
|
Number Sense Brief (NSB)
|
Targeted Math Intervention vs.
Business as usual
|
0 Days
|
ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison;
527 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
No
|
--
|
|
General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure
|
Comparison
|
Period
|
Sample
|
Intervention mean
|
Comparison mean
|
Significant?
|
Improvement index
|
Evidence tier
|
Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA-3)
|
Targeted Math Intervention vs.
Business as usual
|
0 Days
|
ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison;
526 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Yes
|
|
|
Stanford Early School Achievement Test (SESAT)
|
Targeted Math Intervention vs.
Business as usual
|
0 Days
|
ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison;
529 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
No
|
--
|
|
Stanford Achievement Test- Tenth Edition (SAT-10): Math
|
Targeted Math Intervention vs.
Business as usual
|
10 Months
|
ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison;
398 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
No
|
--
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
25%
English language learners
-
Female: 49%
Male: 51%
-
Rural, 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
- v
- x
- w
- y
Oregon
-
Race
Asian |
|
3% |
Black |
|
4% |
Native American |
|
3% |
Other or unknown |
|
35% |
Pacific Islander |
|
1% |
White |
|
54% |
-
Ethnicity
Hispanic |
|
26% |
Not Hispanic or Latino |
|
74% |
Setting
The study comprises kindergarten students at risk for mathematical difficulties (MD) from 69 classrooms of 14 elementary schools in four Oregon school districts, located in rural and suburban western Oregon as well as the Portland metropolitan area. Participating students screened and identified as eligible for the ROOTS intervention (and thus at risk for mathematics difficulties) were randomly assigned to three groups: (i) a two-student ROOTS intervention group (2:1); (ii) a five-student ROOTS intervention group (5:1); or (iii) a no-treatment comparison condition. Students assigned to the ROOTS groups received the ROOTS curriculum instruction in small groups outside of their core whole-class mathematics instruction. The study occurred over two academic years. Though each year represented a separate sample, in the study the samples from each year were combined. (pp. 1, 4, 5)
Study sample
The average age in the sample 5.2 years. Approximately 51 percent were male, 10 percent were eligible for special education, and 25 percent were limited English proficient. The racial and ethnic background of students was 54 percent white, 26 percent Hispanic, and roughly evenly split amongst American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Black, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and students with multiple races.
Intervention Group
For the contrast covered in this SRG (Contrast 2: ROOTS two- and five-student groups vs. no-treatment comparison, review ID 1904996), the two small-group ROOTS intervention groups are collectively considered the intervention condition and the no-treatment comparison group is the comparison condition. The ROOTS curriculum is a Tier 2 kindergarten program consisting of 50 lessons designed to build students’ whole number proficiency. ROOTS instruction emphasizes concepts from the Counting & Cardinality and Operations & Algebraic Thinking domains of the CCSS for mathematics (CCSS Initiative, 2010) to promote robust whole number sense for students struggling in math. In the study, ROOTS instruction began in late fall and ended in the spring of each study year. The ROOTS program instruction occurred at times outside core whole-class instruction. Participating students in both ROOTS conditions received the ROOTS curriculum in 20-minutes small group sessions five days per week for approximately 10 weeks. Two and five students comprised each small group in the ROOTS two-student group condition and ROOTS five-student group condition, respectively. (pp. 4, 5)
Comparison Group
Students assigned to the comparison group received no intervention. They received core mathematics instruction from their kindergarten classroom teacher which included a variety of programs such as Everyday Math.
Support for implementation
Interventionists participated in two five-hour professional development workshops conducted by project staff. The first workshop covered ROOTS lessons 1-15, and the second workshop covered lessons 26-50. Interventionists also received between two and four coaching visits from ROOTS coaches during intervention implementation. The coaching visits consisted of direct observations of lesson delivery, and feedback on instructional quality and fidelity of intervention implementation. (p. 5)
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.
-
Shanley, Lina; Clarke, Ben; Doabler, Christian T.; Kurtz-Nelson, Evangeline; Fien, Hank. (2017). Early Number Skills Gains and Mathematics Achievement: Intervening to Establish Successful Early Mathematics Trajectories. Journal of Special Education v51 n3 p177-188.
-
Clarke, Ben; Doabler, Christian T.; Smolkowski, Keith; Kurtz-Nelson, Evangeline; Fien, Hank; Baker, Scott K.; Kosty, Derek. (2016). Testing the Immediate and Long-Term Efficacy of a Tier 2 Kindergarten Mathematics Intervention.
-
Clarke, Ben; Doabler, Christian T.; Smolkowski, Keith; Turtura, Jessica; Kosty, Derek; Kurtz-Nelson, Evangeline; Fien, Hank; Baker, Scott K. (2019). Exploring the Relationship between Initial Mathematics Skill and a Kindergarten Mathematics Intervention. Exceptional Children, v85 n2 p129-146.