Doabler, Christian T.; Clarke, Ben; Kosty, Derek B.; Kurtz-Nelson, Evageline; Fien, Hank; Smolkowski, Keith; Baker, Scott K. (2016). Exceptional Children, v83 n1 p92-110. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1116305
Reviewed: February 2020
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.
|
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 Months |
Full sample;
|
26.48 |
23.27 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| More Outcomes | |||||||||
|
Stanford Early School Achievement Test (SESAT) |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Full sample;
|
410.03 |
401.08 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Stanford Achievement Test- Tenth Edition (SAT-10): Math |
Targeted Math Intervention vs. Business as usual |
11 Months |
Full sample;
|
463.10 |
465.11 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 6% | |
| Native American | 0% | |
| Other or unknown | 3% | |
| White | 89% |
| Hispanic | 50% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 51% |
The study took place in urban and suburban schools in 2 school districts in the Boston, Massachusetts metropolitan area.
Kindergarten students were screened for eligibility for the ROOTS intervention and then the 10 students with the lowest scores on the screening assessment were randomly assigned to one of three conditions within classroom: (1) a ROOTS small group with 2 students to 1 teacher; (2) a ROOTS large group with 5 students to 1 teacher; or (3) the comparison (business as usual) condition. In some instances, classrooms did not have 10 ROOTS-eligible students so classrooms were combined to create “virtual ROOTS classrooms”. The study was conducted in 36 kindergarten classrooms in 9 schools across 2 school districts. A total of 319 students were randomly assigned to one of the conditions in the study (162 to the ROOTS large group intervention, 67 to the ROOTS small group intervention, and 90 to the control condition). The average age in the baseline sample was 5.2 years. Approximately half of the students were male, 10 percent were eligible for special education, and 24 percent were limited English proficient. The racial and ethnic background of students was 89 percent white, 6 percent black, 1 percent Asian, 3 percent multi-racial, and 50 percent Hispanic. The analytic sample size varied depending on the outcome measure.
Students assigned to the ROOTS intervention received 50 lessons focused on whole numbers concepts and skills. ROOTS is a Tier 2 supplemental intervention that uses explicit and systematic instruction, including modeling, practice, visual representations, and academic feedback. Students are also encouraged to discuss their mathematical thinking and methods for problem solving. The intervention took place 5 times per week for 10 weeks, and each session lasted for 20 minutes. The intervention was delivered in small groups of 2 or 5 students. The intervention began in November and ended in March of the 2013–2014 school year. Similar to the comparison condition, intervention students also received daily core (Tier 1) mathematics instruction. The authors combined the two intervention groups for analysis, so the focus of this review is on the contrast between ROOTS large and small groups versus the comparison group.
Students assigned to the comparison group received core (Tier 1) mathematics instruction from their kindergarten classroom teacher which was primarily Scott Foresman mathematics curriculum in one district and enVisionMath curriculum in the other. Based on teacher-reported data, the average math lesson in comparison classrooms was 46 minutes long.
Interventionists received 2 professional workshops each lasting 5 hours long that covered content, instructional practice, and small group management techniques. Interventionists practiced the curriculum and received feedback from coaches during the workshop. They were also visited one to four times depending on need while implementing the intervention by coaches who observed their lessons and provided feedback. Across all observations, observers recorded an average of 4.26 out of 5 activities were delivered during lessons. On average, interventionists also met lesson objectives (scoring 3.46 of out 4 on a Likert scale), followed teacher scripting (3.37 out of 4), and used prescribed math models (3.58 out of 4).
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.
Doabler, C. T., Clarke, B., Kosty, D., Kurtz-Nelson, E., Fien, H., Smolkowski, K., & Baker, S. K. (2019). Examining the impact of group size on the treatment intensity of a tier 2 mathematics intervention within a systematic framework of replication. Journal of learning disabilities, 52(2), 168-180.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube