Scalise, N. R., Daubert, E. N., & Ramani, G. B. (2018). Journal of Numerical Cognition.
Reviewed: February 2022
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Non-symbolic ordinality |
Numerical magnitude comparison vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.75 |
0.61 |
No |
-- | |
|
Non-symbolic magnitude comparison |
Numerical magnitude comparison vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.72 |
0.66 |
No |
-- | |
|
Symbolic magnitude comparison |
Numerical magnitude comparison vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.90 |
0.83 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rote Counting |
Numerical magnitude comparison vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.00 |
0.98 |
No |
-- | |
|
Numeral Identification |
Numerical magnitude comparison vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.90 |
0.91 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 7% | |
| Black | 35% | |
| Other or unknown | 4% | |
| White | 54% |
| Hispanic | 54% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 46% |
The participants were low-income preschool children from four Head Start centers in a mid-Atlantic state.
The low-income preschoolers had a mean age of 4 years, 9 months. Of the sample, 48% were female. Race/ethnicity demographics are: 54% Caucasian, 35% African American, 7% Asian, 4% Multiracial, and 54% Hispanic/Latino.
Low-income participants met individually with an experimenter in a quiet area of the hallway or room nearby their classroom for 6 sessions, each 15-20 minutes occurring over a 3-week period on average. During Sessions 1 and 6, the children completed 5 pretest and posttest assessments of their numerical knowledge, including multiple measures assessing non-symbolic and symbolic representations. Following Session 1, children were randomly assigned and stratified by gender to either the intervention condition that played a numerical magnitude comparison card game condition (War) or to the comparison condition that used a numerical matching card game condition (Memory) during Sessions 2-5. The War card game used 40 cards which included 4 subsets of cards representing quantities 1 through 10. Each card had both Arabic numerals and red dots representing the quantity. Students played the game with an experimenter. The cards were divided equally between the experimenter and the student to start. To play, each person turned over his/her top card, said the number on the card, and then the child was asked to say which number was greater. If a child struggled to identify the number the experimenter had the child count the dots. If the student was ever wrong the experimenter corrected the number. The player with the greater magnitude card took the card and whoever had the most cards at the end of the game won. Each session consisted of 15 minutes and as many rounds as could be played during that time were played.
The same deck of cards used for the intervention was used in the Memory card game comparison condition. These cards were organized into two sets of 10 cards each. Each set of 10 contained 5 pairs of matching number cards. For each game, the 10 cards were placed face down in 2 rows of 5 columns. Each player took turns flipping over 2 cards and saying the number on each card, trying to find cards with the same number. If a child struggled the experimenter encouraged them to count the dots and if the child ever said the incorrect number the experimenter corrected them. Sessions lasted a total of 15 minutes and as many rounds as could be played in that time were played.
No support for implementation was described.
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