No statistically significant differences between ROOTS and control conditions on oral counting gains or covariate-adjusted SAT-10 scores¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The study did not detect statistically significant differences between conditions in gains on oral counting or on covariate-adjusted SAT-10 scores; equivalence was not tested. → Doabler 2016

Evidence¶

Doabler 2016¶

Doabler, C. T., Clarke, B., Kosty, D. B., Kurtz-Nelson, E., Fien, H., Smolkowski, K., & Baker, S. K. (2016). Testing the efficacy of a tier 2 mathematics intervention: A conceptual replication study. Exceptional Children, 83, 92–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916660084

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Null findings from the same partially nested RCT: the Time × Condition model for oral counting (Time × Condition g = 0.159, p = .2276) and the analysis-of-covariance model for the SAT-10 administered in first grade showed no statistically significant condition differences. No effect size beyond the printed g values was reported for a detected effect.

"We did not detect statistically significant differences between conditions in gains on oral counting or differences between conditions on covariate adjusted SAT-10 scores with ASPENS and TEMA-3 as pretest covariates."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• ROOTS students also had higher covariate-adjusted SESAT posttest scores than control students — reports the opposite
• ROOTS and control students were statistically equivalent at pretest on all measures — 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
• The ROOTS intervention produced greater fall-to-spring kindergarten gains than control instruction on four of five outcome measures for at-risk students — reports the opposite
• ROOTS effects on mathematics achievement were not detected on first-grade follow-up measures — related
• ROOTS students made greater gains than their not-at-risk peers, reducing the achievement gap — 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 — related
• 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