Remediating mathematics difficulty for older students appears more challenging than for younger students, with lower adjusted effects than prior elementary-focused reviews¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The adjusted PET estimate (0.49) is lower than mean effects reported in prior reviews targeting primarily elementary students (e.g., M = 0.83 in Chodura et al., 2015). → Stevens 2018

Evidence¶

Stevens 2018¶

Stevens, E. A., Rodgers, M. A., & Powell, S. R. (2018). Intensive interventions in mathematics for upper elementary and secondary students: A meta-analysis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 39(6), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517731887

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Cross-review comparison in the Discussion section. The authors state "This PET estimate (0.49) is lower than the mean effects found in prior reviews for interventions targeting primarily elementary students," citing Chodura et al. (2015) and Gersten et al. (2009).

"This PET estimate (0.49) is lower than the mean effects found in prior reviews for interventions targeting primarily elementary students. For example, Chodura et al. (2015) and Gersten et al. (2009) reported large mean effects for mathematics instruction targeting elementary students (M = 0.83 and M range 1.04 to 1.56, respectively)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• After adjusting for small-study effects and excluding small-sample studies, the underlying pooled effect of mathematics interventions for grades 4–12 is a moderate 0.49 — related
• Publication bias is present in the mathematics intervention literature for grades 4–12, with adjusted estimates lower than the unadjusted random-effects estimate — related
• Interventions providing more than 15 total hours significantly moderate mathematics outcomes for students with MD in grades 4–12 — related