Treatment dose is an understudied aspect of treatment effectiveness. This study compared the frequency with which a small–group mathematics intervention was delivered weekly (i.e., four times, twice, once) with a control condition while controlling for total duration. 101 at–risk students in grades 2–4 were randomly assigned to a condition following universal screening and skill–based assessments. Multilevel modeling was used to evaluate final score and growth on three measures. Results suggested that for the most proximal computation measure, treatment sessions occurring four times weekly produced clear benefits. On the application measure, students in all treatment groups outperformed students in the control condition. For the most complex computation measure, frequency was not a useful predictor. Grade was a moderating variable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnettD. W., DalyE. J.III, JonesK. M., & LentzF.Jr., (2004). Response to intervention: empirically based special service decisions from single–case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. Journal of Special Education, 38, 66–79.
2.
BatscheG., ElliottJ., GradenJ. L., GrimesJ., KovaleskiJ. F., PrasseD., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: NASDSE.
3.
BryantD. P., BryantB. R., RobertsG., VaughnS., PfannenstielK. H., PorterfieldJ., et al. (2011). Early numeracy intervention programs for first–grade students with mathematics difficulties. Exceptional Children, 78, 7–23.
4.
BurnsM. K., CoddingR. S., BoiceC., & LukitoG. (2010). Meta–analysis of acquisition and fluency math interventions with instruction and frustration level skills: Evidence for a skill–by–treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 39, 69–83.
5.
BurnsM. K., VanDerHeydenA. M., & JibanC. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401–418.
6.
CampbellP. F., & MalkusN. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 111, 430–454. doi: 10.1086/657654
7.
Castro–VillarealF., RodriguezB. J., & MooreS. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions and attitudes about response to intervention (RTI) in their schools: A qualitative analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 104–112. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2014.02.004
8.
CepedaN. J., PashlerH., VulE., & WixtedJ. T. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380. doi: 10.1037/00333-2909.132.354
9.
ChristT. J., ScullinS., TolbizeA., & JibanC. L. (2008). Implications of recent research: Curriculum based measurement of math computation. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 198–205. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010).
10.
CoddingR. S., BurnsM. K., & LukitoG. (2011). Meta–analysis of mathematic basic–fact fluency interventions: A component analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 36–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00323.x
11.
CoddingR. S., Chan–IannettaL., PalmerM., & LukitoG. (2009). Examining a class–wide application of cover–copy–compare with and without goal setting to enhance mathematics fluency. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 173–185. doi: 10.1037/a0017192
12.
CoddingR. S., & LaneK. L. (2015). A spotlight on treatment intensity: An important and often overlooked component of intervention inquiry. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s10864-014-9210-z
DalyE. J.III, MartensB. K., BarnettD., WittJ. C., & OlsonS. C. (2007). Varying intervention delivery in response to intervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement, instruction, and intensity. School Psychology Review, 36, 562–581.
15.
DenoS. L., & MirkinP. K. (1977). Data–based program modification: A manual. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
16.
DesimoneL., SmithT. M., & PhillipsK. R. (2013). Linking student achievement growth to professional development participation and changes in instruction: A longitudinal study of elementary students and teachers in Title I schools. Teachers College Record, 115, 1–14.
17.
DonovanJ. J. & RadosevichD. J. (1999). A meta–analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don't. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 795–805.
18.
DuhonG. J., MesmerE. M., AtkinsM. E., GregusonL. A., & OlingerE. S. (2009). Quantifying intervention intensity: A systematic approach to evaluating student response to increasing intervention frequency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 101–118. doi: 10.1007/s10864-009-9086-5
19.
FoegenA., JibanC., & DenoS. (2007). Progress monitoring in mathematics: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139. doi: 10.1177/00224669070410020101
20.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., CraddockC., HollenbeckK. N., HamlettC. L., & SchatschneiderC. (2008). Effects of small–group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction on at–risk students’ math problem solving: Are two tiers of prevention better than one? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 491–509. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.491
21.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., & ComptonD. L. (2012). The early prevention of mathematics difficulty: Its power and limitations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 257–269. doi: 10.1177/0022219412442167
22.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., HamlettC. L., & SteckerP. M. (1991). Math computation test. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
23.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., PowellS. R., SeethalerP. M., CirinoP. T., & FletcherJ. M. (2008). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles for effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 79–92.
24.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., & SpeeceD. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 25, 33–45.
GerstenR., BeckmannS., ClarkeB., FogenA., MarshL., StarJ. R., et al. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009–4060). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
28.
GerstenR., & ChardD. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33, 18–28.
29.
GicklingE. E., & HavertapeS. (1981). Curriculum–based assessment (CBA). Minneapolis, MN: School Psychology Inservice Training Network.
30.
GinsburgH. P. (2009). The challenge of formative assessment in mathematics education: Children's minds, teachers’ minds. Human Development, 52, 109–128.
31.
Harcourt. (1997). Stanford Achievement Test Series. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace & Co.
32.
HarnissM. K., SteinM., & CarnineD. (2002). Promoting mathematics achievement. In ShinnM. R., WalkerH. M. & StonerG. (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 571–587). Washington, D.C.: National Association of School Psychologists.
33.
HasselbringT. S., GoinL. I., & BransfordJ. D. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20, 1–7.
34.
HospJ. L. & ArdoinS. P. (2008). Assessment for instructional planning. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 69–77. doi: 10.1177/1534508407311428
35.
HospM., HospJ., & HowellK. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum–based measurement. New York: Guilford Press.
36.
HowellK. W., & NoletV. (2000). Curriculum–based evaluation: Teaching and decision making (3rd Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
37.
JohnsonE. S., CarterD. R., & PoolJ. L. (2012). Introduction to the special issue: The critical role of a strong tier 2 system. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48, 195–197. doi: 10.1177/1053451212462877
38.
LongA. C. J., Hagermoser SanettiL. M., Collier–MeekM., GallucciJ., AltschaeflM., & KratochwillT. R. (2016). An exploratory investigation of teachers’ intervention planning and perceived implementation barriers. Journal of School Psychology, 55, 1–26.
39.
MartensB., & EckertT. (2007). The Instructional Hierarchy as a Model of Stimulus Control over Student and Teacher Behavior: We're Close but are We Close Enough? Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(1), 82–90. doi: 10.1007/s10864-006-9026-6
40.
MartensB. K., EckertT. L., BegenyJ. C., LewandowskiL. J., DiGennaroF. D., MontarelloS. A., et al. (2007). Effects of a fluency–building program on the reading performance of low–achieving second and third grade students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 39–54. doi: 10.1007/s10864-006-9022-x
41.
MayfieldK. H., & ChaseP. N. (2002). The effects of cumulative practice on mathematics problem solving. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 105–123. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-105
42.
McGraw Hill Education. (2012). Everyday Mathematics (3rd Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
MellardD. F., & JohnsonE. S. (2008). RTI: A practitioner's guide to implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
45.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
Newman–GoncharR., ClarkeB., & GerstenR. (2009). A summary of nine key studies: Multi–tier intervention and response to interventions for students’ struggling in mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
48.
PeughJ. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 85–112. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.002
49.
RohrerD., & TaylorK. (2006). The effects of overlearning and distributed practice on the retention of mathematics knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1209–1224. doi: 10.1002/acp.1266
50.
RohrerD., & TaylorK. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35, 481–498. doi: 10.1007/s11251-007-9015-8
51.
SchutteG. M., DuhonG. J., SolomonB. G., PoncyB. C., MooreK., & StoryB. (2015). A comparative analysis of massed vs. distributed practice on basic math fact fluency growth rates. Journal of School Psychology, 53, 149–159. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2014.12.003
52.
ShapiroE. S. (2004). Academic skills problems: Third edition workbook. New York: Guilford.
53.
ShapiroE. S. (2010). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (4th Edition). New York: Guilford.
54.
SingerJ. D., & WillettJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.
55.
StickneyE. M., SharpL. B., & KenyonA. S. (2012). Technology–enhanced assessment of math fact automaticity: Patterns of performance for low– and typically achieving students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37, 84–94. doi: 10.1177/1534508411430321
56.
SwansonE., SolisM., CiulloS., & McKennaJ. W. (2012). Special education teachers’ perceptions and instructional practices in response to intervention implementation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 115–126.
57.
ToppingK. J., MillerD., MurrayP., HendersonS., FortunaC., & ConlinN. (2011). Outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of mathematics tutoring. Educational Research, 53, 51–63. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2011.552239
VanDerHeydenA. M., & BurnsM. K. (2008). Examination of the utility of various measures of mathematics proficiency. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 215–224
60.
VanDerHeydenA. M., & BurnsM. K. (2009). Performance indicators in math: Implications for brief experimental analysis of academic performance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 71–91. doi: 10.1007/s10864-009-9081-x
61.
VanDerHeydenA. M. & HarveyM. (2012). Using data to advance learning outcomes in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15, 205–213.
62.
VanDerHeydenA. M., McLaughlinT., AlginaJ., & SnyderP. (2012). Randomized evaluation of a supplemental grade–wide mathematics intervention. American Education Research Journal, 49, 1251–1284.
63.
WoodwardJ., BeckmannS., DriscollM., FrankeM., HerzigP., JitendraA., et al. (2012). Improving mathematical problem solving in grades 4 through 8: A practice guide (NCEE 2012–4055). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch
