Claims

Effects of the Math Supplement on the standardized REMA assessment were marginally significant against both comparison conditions

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i1 Children in the Math Supplement condition exhibited higher REMA scores than children in the Technology & Media condition (1.09 points, effect size .15, p<.06) and than the Business as Usual condition (1.09 points, effect size .15, p<.07), both marginally significant. → Llorente 2015

Evidence

Llorente 2015

Llorente, C., Pasnik, S., Moorthy, S., Hupert, N., Rosenfeld, D., & Gerard, S. (2015). Preschool Teachers Can Use a PBS KIDS Transmedia Curriculum Supplement to Support Young Children's Mathematics Learning: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. SREE Spring 2015 Conference Abstract. https://sree.org/conferences/2015-conference/

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Standardized pre/post individual assessments with the REMA short form in the RCT; the article reports the Supplement vs Technology & Media REMA contrast as "1.09 points, effect size of .15 and p < .06", and the Business as Usual contrast as marginally significant at p < .07.

"A marginally significant effect also was detected in REMA data. Children in the Math Supplement condition exhibited higher REMA scores than children in the Technology & Media condition (1.09 points, effect size of .15 and p < .06)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.