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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Pupils receiving Catch Up Numeracy scored significantly higher on the Basic Number Screening Test post-test than control pupils (p=0.0478, effect size 0.21). → 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

q3 · i1 · causal · r3

Intention-to-treat analysis of the three-arm pupil-randomised trial in 54 schools, using a two-level multilevel model controlling for pre-test scores. The post-hoc Catch Up versus control contrast was "found to be significant, p=0. 0478" with a printed effect size of 0.21 (CI 0.42 – 0.01), a small effect.

"While there is no significant difference between the two treatment groups a post-hoc test was carried out to determine any significant difference between the Catch Up group and the control group . This was found to be significant, p=0. 0478. Its effect size is 0.21 (CI 0.42 – 0.01)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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) — 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