The ROOTS intervention produced greater fall-to-spring kindergarten gains than control instruction on four of five outcome measures for at-risk students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2016 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 ROOTS students made significantly greater gains than randomly assigned at-risk control students on ASPENS, oral counting, TEMA, and RAENS, with effect sizes from g = .28 to g = .75. → Ben Clarke 2016 q3 i? No statistically significant difference between conditions was detected on the NSB measure. → Ben Clarke 2016

Evidence¶

Ben Clarke 2016¶

Ben Clarke, Christian Doabler, Keith Smolkowski, Evangeline Kurtz Nelson, Hank Fien, Scott K. Baker & Derek Kosty (2016). Testing the Immediate and Long-Term Efficacy of a Tier 2 Kindergarten Mathematics Intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1116034

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Randomized block trial with 290 at-risk kindergartners in 37 classrooms; students nested in 58 ROOTS groups were combined and compared to no-treatment controls using a partially nested time × condition mixed model. The article reports "greater gains than control students" on four measures; Hedges's g was .58 (ASPENS), .28 (oral counting), .32 (TEMA), and .75 (RAENS).

"Students in the ROOTS condition made greater gains than control students on the ASPENS ( t D 5.20, df D 136, p < .0001), oral counting ( t D 2.14, df D 132, p D .0333), TEMA standard scores ( t D 3.35, df D 142, p D .0010), and RAENS ( t D 6.84, df D 162, p < .0001)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• No statistically significant differences between ROOTS and control conditions on oral counting gains or covariate-adjusted SAT-10 scores — reports the opposite
• ROOTS students also had higher covariate-adjusted SESAT posttest scores than control students — related
• ROOTS and control students were statistically equivalent at pretest on all measures — related
• The Boston replication reproduced significant effects on the TEMA-3, ASPENS, and RAENS and newly found significant effects on the NSB and SESAT, with effect sizes within or exceeding the Oregon study's bounds — related
• Rates of treatment responsiveness on the TEMA-3 were similar across the Oregon and Boston ROOTS studies — related
• ROOTS students made greater gains than their not-at-risk peers, reducing the achievement gap — related
• ROOTS effects on mathematics achievement were not detected on first-grade follow-up measures — related
• An earlier preliminary investigation of ROOTS found small-to-medium positive effects on kindergarten mathematics achievement measures — related
• Year 1 of the ROOTS efficacy trial used a classroom-blocked RCT assigning at-risk kindergartners to ROOTS-large, ROOTS-small, or no-treatment control conditions — 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 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Transition out of the high-risk category (below the 10th TEMA percentile) did not differ significantly between ROOTS and control students — related
• Student outcomes did not differ significantly between two-student and five-student ROOTS groups on any measure — 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