Claims

Fraction intervention students significantly outperform control students on fraction calculations across five RCTs, with a mean ES of 1.72, despite control allocating more time to computation

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Intervention students significantly outperformed control students on addition and subtraction of proper fractions and mixed numbers each year, with a mean ES of 1.72 across RCTs. → Lynn S. Fuchs 2017 q3 i? Aggregated over the five RCTs, the intervention group's achievement gap on calculations narrowed by 0.99 SD while the control group's gap grew by 0.11 SD. → Lynn S. Fuchs 2017 (2)

Evidence

Lynn S. Fuchs 2017

Lynn S. Fuchs, Amelia S. Malone, Robin F. Schumacher, Jessica Namkung, and Amber Wang. (2017). Fraction Intervention for Students With Mathematics Difficulties: Lessons Learned From Five Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416677249

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Aggregate across the five RCTs on the calculation measure of the Vanderbilt Fraction Battery. The article notes the control condition allocated more attention to this topic, yet "the mean ES was 1.72" favoring intervention.

"Yet, intervention students again significantly outperformed control students each year (see Figure 1 for ES by study year; i.e., by RCT). Across RCTs, the mean ES was 1.72."

Lynn S. Fuchs 2017 (2)

Lynn S. Fuchs, Amelia S. Malone, Robin F. Schumacher, Jessica Namkung, and Amber Wang. (2017). Fraction Intervention for Students With Mathematics Difficulties: Lessons Learned From Five Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416677249

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Aggregated pre-to-post gap analysis against normative data on not-AR classmates: intervention gap narrowed 0.99 SD, control gap increased 0.11 SD, an advantage of 1.10 SD in gap narrowing.

"the achievement gap of intervention students narrowed by 0.99 SD from pre- to postintervention on the calculation measure"

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.