Number Rockets shows no differential impact by baseline mathematics proficiency¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · 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? There was no statistically significant interaction between baseline mathematics proficiency and intervention impact on TEMA-3 scores (effect size = 0.08, p = .564). → Rolfhus 2013
Evidence¶
Rolfhus 2013¶
Rolfhus, E., Gersten, R., Clarke, B., Decker, L., Wilkins, C., & Dimino, J. (2013). From Efficacy Trial to Large Scale Effectiveness Trial: A Tier 2 Mathematics Intervention for First Graders with Difficulties in Mathematics. SREE Spring 2013 Conference Abstract. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124007/
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Exploratory moderation analysis within the matched-pair RCT testing whether intervention effects on TEMA-3 differed by screener-measured baseline proficiency. No effect size beyond the reported interaction (0.08) was printed; equivalence was not tested.
"Results indicate that there was no statistically significant interaction between baseline mathematics proficiency (from the screener) and the impact of Number Rockets (effect size = 0.08, p = .564)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Number of intervention sessions delivered is not associated with school-pair level impacts on TEMA-3 — related
- Number Rockets participation significantly improves grade 1 at-risk students' TEMA-3 mathematics scores in a large-scale effectiveness trial — related
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.