Student outcomes did not differ significantly between two-student and five-student ROOTS groups on any measure¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 Fully nested Time × Condition models found no statistically significant differences in gains between group sizes (p > .15 for all measures), with negligible effect sizes (e.g., g = −0.14 for ASPENS, g = 0.03 for RAENS). → Clarke 2017

Evidence¶

Clarke 2017¶

Clarke, B., Doabler, C. T., Kosty, D., Kurtz Nelson, E., Smolkowski, K., Fien, H., & Turtura, J. (2017). Testing the efficacy of a kindergarten mathematics intervention by small group size. AERA Open, 3(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417706899

q3 · i0 · causal · r2

Fully nested multilevel Time × Condition analysis comparing the 120 two-student and 295 five-student ROOTS condition students. Estimated gain differences were negligible: −4.8 for ASPENS (g = −0.14), 0.15 for RAENS (g = 0.03), 1.0 for SESAT (g = 0.03), and 0.5 for SAT-10 (g = 0.02).

"We found no statistically significant differences by ROOTS group size in gains from fall to spring (p > .15 for all measures)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The ROOTS intervention produced greater fall-to-spring kindergarten gains than control instruction on four of five outcome measures for at-risk students — related
• No statistically significant differences between ROOTS and control conditions on oral counting gains or covariate-adjusted SAT-10 scores — related
• Kindergartners with mathematics difficulties randomly assigned to the ROOTS intervention made significantly greater fall-to-spring gains than control students on the NSB, ASPENS, TEMA-3, and RAENS — related
• At-risk kindergarten students receiving the ROOTS Tier 2 intervention made significantly greater mathematics gains than at-risk control peers on the TEMA standard score — related
• The ROOTS kindergarten mathematics intervention significantly improved fall-to-spring gains on three of six outcome measures compared with control, with positive effect sizes on all measures — related
• ROOTS and control students were statistically equivalent at pretest on all measures — related
• ROOTS effects on mathematics achievement were not detected on first-grade follow-up measures — related
• ROOTS students also had higher covariate-adjusted SESAT posttest scores than control students — related