An earlier 2010 non-randomised trial of Catch Up Numeracy reported medium to large effects (0.3 SD versus matched-time controls, 0.4 SD versus pure controls)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 The 2010 Dowker and Sigley trial found post-test effects of 0.3 standard deviations versus matched-time controls and 0.4 standard deviations versus pure controls, reported as highly statistically significant. → National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) 2014

Evidence¶

National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) 2014¶

National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), evaluation team led by Simon Rutt. (2014). Catch Up® Numeracy: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://www.educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evaluation

q2 · i2 · causal · r2

The report describes a 2010 trial with 246 pupils across eleven local authorities (Dowker and Sigley, 2010), tested before and after with the Basic Number Screening Test. It prints effect sizes of 0.3 and 0.4 standard deviations, medium to large, but schools rather than randomisation assigned pupils to groups, which the report notes may have introduced bias of unknown direction.

"Post-test results suggest the intervention had medium to large effects: 0.3 standard deviations versus matched-time controls, and 0.4 standard d eviations versus pure controls. These results were found to be highly statistically significant."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Catch Up Numeracy produced a significant improvement in numeracy outcomes versus business-as-usual control (effect size 0.21) in a three-arm randomised trial — related
• The equivalent-time one-to-one group outperformed control (+0.27) with no significant difference from the Catch Up group, suggesting gains came from one-to-one teaching rather than Catch Up Numeracy itself — related