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)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-11-02 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the first phase, the intervention group improved at a significantly higher rate than the comparison group on CBM problem-solving scores, with a printed effect size of d = .43. → 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 · r2

Two-level piecewise growth model analysis of five IRT-equated CBM administrations for 307 fifth and sixth graders (191 intervention, 116 comparison) in inclusive classrooms. The article reports "The effect size comparing intervention and comparison groups using Cohen's (1988) d was .43" for the Condition slope in phase 1 (p = .012).

"In the first phase, the intervention group improved at a significantly higher rate than the comparison group (see Table 4). The effect size comparing intervention and comparison groups using Cohen's (1988) d was .43."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In the second phase of the year, there was no significant difference in growth rate between the intervention and comparison groups — related
• 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 — related
• In Experiment 1, I-PS students solved the initial problem better but PS-I students learned more from the subsequent instructional video — related