Instructional focus (number and operations vs. word-problem solving) and intervention implementer (researcher vs. school personnel) did not significantly predict effect sizes or moderate the dose–response relation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2–r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The main effect of instructional focus was not significant (β = −0.01; 95% CI [−0.44, 0.43]), and its interaction with dosage was not significant (β = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.04, 0.06]). → Anna H. Miller 2025 q3 i? The main effect of implementer was insignificant (β = 0.02, 95% CI [−3.5, 3.5]), and the implementer × dosage interaction was insignificant (β = −0.03, 95% CI [−0.31, 0.26]). → Anna H. Miller 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Anna H. Miller 2025¶

Anna H. Miller, Daniel R. Espinas, Daniel McNeish, & Marcia A. Barnes. (2025). Dosage Response in Intensive Mathematics Interventions for Early Elementary Students With or At-Risk for Mathematics Learning Disability. Educational Psychology Review, 37, 91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10070-y

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Null moderator result from Model 3 of the meta-regression across 164 effect sizes (15 number and operations, 11 word-problem solving interventions). The authors report no differences at the median dosage and no variation with hours of intervention.

"The main effect of instructional focus (word-problem solving as the reference group) on effect sizes was not significant (β = − 0.01; 95% CI [− 0.44, 0.43]), indicating that there were no differences in effect size estimates between the number and operations interventions and the word-problem solving interventions"

Anna H. Miller 2025 (2)¶

Anna H. Miller, Daniel R. Espinas, Daniel McNeish, & Marcia A. Barnes. (2025). Dosage Response in Intensive Mathematics Interventions for Early Elementary Students With or At-Risk for Mathematics Learning Disability. Educational Psychology Review, 37, 91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10070-y

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Null moderator result from Model 3; 19 treatments (k = 146) were researcher-implemented and five (k = 18) school-staff implemented. The authors report no differences as a function of implementer, and the interaction with dosage was also insignificant.

"The main effect of intervention implementer (school personnel as the reference group) on effect sizes was insignificant (β = 0.02, 95% CI [− 3.5, 3.5]), indicating that there were no differences in effect size estimates as a function of who implemented the intervention"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Time and Continuity — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• Dosage significantly predicts intervention effects in a linear model (β = 0.03 per hour), but the dosage main effect is no longer significant after controlling for moderators — related
• No dose-response effect: video benefits do not systematically increase with intervention length — related
• Targeted instruction in number and operations improves young children's early math achievement, with a moderate level of supporting evidence — related
• The dose–response relation for K-3 intensive mathematics interventions is linear, with no support for a nonlinear (quadratic) curve — related