Students with LD in the intervention group showed mean performance growth about 20% better than comparison LD students on the final CBM but did not, on average, meet the 70% mastery criterion¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Mean performance showed intervention-group students with LD performed 20% better than comparison-group students with LD on the final CBM, yet still did not meet mastery set at 70%. → Krawec 2017

Evidence¶

Krawec 2017¶

Krawec, J., & Huang, J. (2017). Modifying a Research-Based Problem-Solving Intervention to Improve the Problem-Solving Performance of Fifth and Sixth Graders With and Without Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(4), 468–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416645565

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive comparison of LD subgroup means (n too low for reliable statistical analyses, as the article states); the 20% difference and 70% mastery criterion are descriptive, not tested statistics.

"mean performance growth showed that students with LD in the intervention group performed 20% better than students in the comparison group on the final CBM. Despite this difference, students with LD in the intervention group still did not, on average, meet mastery criterion (set at 70%)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Spelling Mastery has potentially positive effects on writing for students with learning disabilities, based on two RCTs with a small extent of evidence — related
• Mastery learning is feasible for USG-PVC training without extra time, and overtraining beyond mastery criteria does not improve performance — related
• The modified problem-solving intervention group improved at a significantly higher rate than the comparison group during the first phase of the school year (d = .43) — related