Effect sizes based on mathematics tests are significantly larger than effect sizes based on reading tests in targeted secondary interventions¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q3·i1small
Currency · newest study 2020 · 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 i1 Meta-regressions revealed that effect sizes based on mathematics tests were significantly larger than effect sizes based on reading tests, and QES showed significantly larger effect sizes than RCTs. → Dietrichson J 2020
Evidence¶
Dietrichson J 2020¶
Dietrichson J, Filges T, Klokker RH, Viinholt BCA, Bøg M, Jensen UH. (2020). Targeted school‐based interventions for improving reading and mathematics for students with, or at risk of, academic difficulties in Grades 7–12: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1081
q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r3
Meta-regression across instructional methods and moderators. Maths-test effect sizes averaged ES = 0.34 [0.169, 0.502] versus reading-domain effects of 0.14–0.22; QES effects exceeded RCT effects, a design-related moderator the review flags.
"Including all instructional methods and moderators without missing observations in meta‐regressions revealed that effect sizes based on mathematics tests were significantly larger than effect sizes based on reading tests, and QES showed significantly larger effect sizes than RCTs."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Interventions in higher Grades tend to have somewhat lower effect sizes; other study characteristics show few significant moderator effects — reports the opposite
- Content domain shows little association with effect sizes, except fractions in mathematics — related
- In adjusted meta-regressions, peer-assisted and small-group instruction outperform computer-assisted instruction, coaching, incentives, and progress monitoring — related
- Targeted school-based interventions have positive short-term effects on standardised reading and mathematics tests for K-6 students with or at risk of academic difficulties — related
- Targeted school-based interventions for Grades 7–12 students with or at risk of academic difficulties have positive, statistically significant short-run effects on standardised reading and maths tests (ES = 0.22) — related
- Early reading interventions (Grades K–1) show larger effects than interventions provided in Grades 2–5 — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
math-test-effects-larger-than-reading |
title |
Effect sizes based on mathematics tests are significantly larger than effect sizes based on reading tests in targeted secondary interventions |
description |
Effect sizes based on mathematics tests are significantly larger than effect sizes based on reading tests in targeted secondary interventions |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2020 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — dietrichson-j-2020 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.