The equivalent-time one-to-one group outperformed control (+0.27) with no significant difference from the Catch Up group, suggesting gains came from one-to-one teaching rather than Catch Up Numeracy itself¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 The time-equivalent group, receiving the same amount of one-to-one TA teaching without Catch Up Numeracy, showed a significant gain over control (effect size 0.27, CI 0.49 – 0.06). → National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) 2014 (2) q3 i? There was no significant difference between the time-equivalent group and the Catch Up group on post-test maths scores. → National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) 2014

Evidence¶

National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) 2014¶

National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), evaluation team led by Simon Rutt. (2014). Catch Up® Numeracy: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://www.educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evaluation

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Main ITT multilevel analysis of the trial: control pupils averaged post-test scores 3.54 points below the time-equivalent group, while the Catch Up group averaged 0.79 points below the time-equivalent group, a difference that was not significant; no effect size is printed for this contrast.

"Table 6 shows that there is a significant difference in the post-test maths standardised score, between the pupils in the control group and those in the time equivalent group, but there is no significant difference between the time equivalent group and the Catch Up group."

National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) 2014 (2)¶

National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), evaluation team led by Simon Rutt. (2014). Catch Up® Numeracy: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://www.educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evaluation

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

The same ITT analysis reports the time-equivalent versus control effect with a printed effect size of "0.27 (CI 0.49 – 0.06)" using Hedges' g, a small effect, roughly four months of estimated progress.

"The effect size for the significant effect identified above is 0.27 (CI 0.49 – 0.06), based on Cohen’s d adjusted for small sample sizes using Hedges’ g."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• An earlier 2010 non-randomised trial of Catch Up Numeracy reported medium to large effects (0.3 SD versus matched-time controls, 0.4 SD versus pure controls) — related
• Catch Up Numeracy produced a significant improvement in numeracy outcomes versus business-as-usual control (effect size 0.21) in a three-arm randomised trial — related
• Implementation fell short of the intended dosage: very few learners received two 15-minute sessions weekly for 30 weeks, mainly due to timetabling and absence — related
• No significant differences between control and either intervention group on secondary outcomes (reading and general ability) — related