ROOTS students also had higher covariate-adjusted SESAT posttest scores than control students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Covariate-adjusted SESAT scores favored ROOTS over control (difference 8.95, g = 0.24). → 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 · i1 · causal · r2

Analysis-of-covariance model for the SESAT, available only at posttest, with ASPENS and TEMA-3 as pretest covariates, in the same 319-student partially nested RCT. The estimated covariate-adjusted difference was 8.95 (g = 0.24), described as "higher covariate-adjusted SESAT scores" for ROOTS students.

"Students in the ROOTS condition also had higher covariate-adjusted SESAT scores using ASPENS and TEMA-3 as pretest covariates (t = 2.45, df = 136, p = .0158)."

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
• No statistically significant differences between ROOTS and control conditions on oral counting gains or covariate-adjusted SAT-10 scores — reports the opposite
• 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 — a broader claim this one bears on
• ROOTS and control students were statistically equivalent at pretest on all measures
• The ROOTS intervention produced greater fall-to-spring kindergarten gains than control instruction on four of five outcome measures for at-risk students — related
• 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
• Student outcomes did not differ significantly between two-student and five-student ROOTS groups on any measure — related