Researchers and practitioners alike often look to meta-analyses to identify effective practices to use with students with disabilities. The number of meta-analyses in special education has also expanded in recent years. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of reporting in meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with or at risk of disabilities. We applied 53 quality indicators (QIs) across eight categories based on recommendations from Talbott et al. to 22 mathematics intervention meta-analyses published between 2000 and 2020. Overall, the meta-analyses met 61% of QIs and results indicated that meta-analyses most frequently met QIs related to providing a clear purpose (95%) and data analysis plan (77%), whereas meta-analyses typically met fewer QIs related to describing participants (39%) and explaining the abstract screening process (48%). We discuss the variation in quality indicator scores within and across the quality categories and provide recommendations for future researchers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlegreF.MolinerL.MarotoA.Lorenzo-ValentinG. (2019). Peer tutoring in mathematics in primary education: A systematic review. Educational Review, 71(6), 767–791. https://doi.org/gfv9tj
2.
AppelbaumM.CooperH.KlineR. B.Mayo-WilsonE.NezuA. M.RaoS. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board Task Force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/gkp7
3.
BakerS.GerstenR.LeeD. S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 51–73. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1002308
4.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley.
5.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.HarrisA. A.WakemanxyaS. (2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74(4), 407–432. https://doi.org/gkkjvx
6.
ChitiyoA.KingS. A.KrizonM. D.AblakwaC. N.MarkelzA. M. (2020). A methodological review of research syntheses involving reading interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders. Advance online publication.https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742920919095
7.
ChoduraS.KuhnJ. T.HollingH. (2015). Interventions for children with mathematical difficulties: A meta-analysis. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/gkp8
8.
CookB. G.CollinsL. W.CookS. C.CookL. (2020). Evidence-based reviews: How evidence-based practices are systematically identified. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/gkp9
9.
CookB. G.CookL. (2017). Do research findings apply to my students? Examining study samples and sampling. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(2), 78–84. https://doi.org/f952q4
10.
CookB. G.CookS. C. (2011). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/bhqsfb
11.
CooperH. (2020). Reporting quantitative research in psychology: How to meet APA style journal article reporting standards (2nd ed., rev). American Psychological Association.
12.
CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation.
13.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). Standards for evidence-based practices in special education. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46, 206–212. https://doi.org/fp5c
14.
DennisM. S.SharpE.ChovanesJ.ThomasA.BurnsR. M.CusterB.ParkJ. (2016). A meta-analysis of empirical research on teaching students with mathematics learning difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(3), 156–168. https://doi.org/f8w57t
15.
EnnisR. P.LosinskiM. (2019). Interventions to improve fraction skills for students with disabilities: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 367–386. https://doi.org/gf86pd
16.
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015).
17.
GageN. A.CookB. G.ReichowB. (2017). Publication bias in special education meta-analyses. Exceptional Children, 83(4), 428–445. https://doi.org/gbsj79
18.
GerstenR.ChardD. J.JayanthiM.BakerS. K.MorphyP.FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242. https://doi.org/cvb84r
19.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComptonD.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/fqzj
20.
GoertzM. E.BarnesC.MassellD.FinkR.FrancisA. T. (2013). State education agencies’ acquisition and use of research knowledge in school improvement strategies: A research report. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED547655.pdf
21.
HigginsJ. P. T.ThomasJ.ChandlerJ.CumpstonM.LiT.PageM. J.WelchV. A. (2019)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 6.0). https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
22.
HughesE. M.WitzelB. S.RiccominiP. J.FriesK. M.KanyongoG. Y. (2014). A meta-analysis of algebra interventions for learners with disabilities and struggling learners. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15(1), 36–47.
23.
HwangJ.RiccominiP. J.HwangS. Y.MoranoS. (2019). A systematic analysis of experimental studies targeting fractions for students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/gkqb
24.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
25.
JitendraA. K.LeinA. E.ImS. H.AlghamdiA. A.HefteS. B.MouanoutouaJ. (2018). Mathematical interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities and mathematics difficulties: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 84(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/gcp8xf
26.
KavaleK. A.FornessS. R. (2000). Policy decisions in special education: The role of meta-analysis. In GerstenR.SchillerE. P.VaughnS. R. (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. XX–XX). Routledge.
27.
KingS.DavidsonK.ChitiyoA.AppleD. (2020). Evaluating article search and selection procedures in special education literature reviews. Remedial and Special Education, 41(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/gg94cm
28.
KratochwillT. R.StoiberK. C. (2002). Evidence-based interventions in school psychology: Conceptual foundations of the procedural and coding manual of Division 16 and the Society for the Study of School Psychology Task Force. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(4), 341–389. https://doi.org/b3cnnf
29.
KroesbergenE. H.Van LuitJ. E. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 97–114. https://doi.org/d9qd6z
30.
KüçükalkanK.BeyazsaçlıM.ÖzAŞ (2019). Examination of the effects of computer-based mathematics instruction methods in children with mathematical learning difficulties: A meta-analysis. Behaviour & Information Technology, 38(9), 913–923. https://doi.org/gkqc
31.
KunschC. A.JitendraA. K.SoodS. (2007). The effects of peer-mediated instruction in mathematics for students with learning problems: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/drdb5p
32.
LeeJ. (2012). College for all gaps between desirable and actual P–12 math achievement trajectories for college readiness. Educational Researcher, 41, 43–55. https://doi.org/gkqf
33.
LeinA. E.JitendraA. K.HarwellM. R. (2020). Effectiveness of mathematical word problem solving interventions for students with learning disabilities and/or mathematics difficulties: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(7), 1388–1408. https://doi.org/gkqg
34.
LiT.HigginsJ. P. T.DeeksJ. J. (2020). Collecting data. In HigginsJ. P. T.ThomasJ.ChandlerJ.CumpstonM.LiT.PageM. J.WelchV. A. (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
35.
LosinskiM. L.EnnisR. P.SandersS. A.NelsonJ. A. (2019). A meta-analysis examining the evidence-base of mathematical interventions for students with emotional disturbances. The Journal of Special Education, 52(4), 228–241. https://doi.org/gkqh
36.
MagginD. M.TalbottE.Van AckerE. Y.KummS. (2017). Quality indicators for systematic reviews in behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 42(2), 52–64. https://doi.org/gkqj
37.
MostertM. P. (2004). Face validity of meta-analyses in emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 89–118. https://doi.org/gh2w3w
38.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2019). The nation's report card. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov
NelsonG.McMasterK. L. (2019). The effects of early numeracy interventions for students in preschool and early elementary: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(6), 1001. https://doi.org/ggskx9
41.
NelsonG.PowellS. R. (2018). A systematic review of longitudinal studies of mathematics difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51, 523–539. https://doi.org/gbhg7q
42.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
43.
OdomS. L.BrantlingerE.GerstenR.HornerR. H.ThompsonB.HarrisK. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/gf8rqw
44.
PageM. J.MoherD.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.McKenzieJ. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 Explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, https://doi.org/gjkrwz
45.
ParkS.CrawfordA.LeeY.NelsonG. (2021). Review of trends from mathematics interventions for students with Disabilities: A synthesis of 20 years of meta-analysis studies [Manuscript in preparation].
46.
PeltierC.MorinK. L.BouckE. C.LingoM. E.PulosJ. M.SchefflerF. A.SukA.MathewsL. A.SinclairT. E.DeardorffM. E. (2020). A meta-analysis of single-case research using mathematics manipulatives with students at risk or identified with a disability. The Journal of Special Education, 54(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/ggqmrz
47.
PeltierC.VannestK. J. (2017). A meta-analysis of schema instruction on the problem-solving performance of elementary school students. Review of Educational Research, 87(5), 899–920. https://doi.org/gjk24k
48.
PeltierC. J.VannestK. J.MarbachJ. J. (2018). A meta-analysis of schema instruction implemented in single-case experimental designs. The Journal of Special Education, 52(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/gdzmw4
49.
PigottT. D.PolaninJ. R. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/ggdcjm
50.
PolaninJ. R.PigottT. D.EspelageD. L.GrotpeterJ. K. (2019). Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large-evidence systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(3), 330–342. https://doi.org/gf4s2v
51.
PowellS. R.BerryK. A.TranL. M. (2020). Performance differences on a measure of mathematics vocabulary for English learners and Non-English learners with and without mathematics difficulty. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/gkqn
52.
RoitschJ.GumpertM.SpringleA.RaymerA. M. (2021). Writing instruction for students with learning disabilities: Quality appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 37(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/gkqp
53.
RoseH.BettsJ. R. (2004). The effect of high school courses on earnings. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 497–513. https://doi.org/bgdjbb
54.
SiddawayA. P.WoodA. M.HedgesL. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747–770. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
55.
StevensE. A.RodgersM. A.PowellS. R. (2018). Mathematics interventions for upper elementary and secondary students: A meta-analysis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 39(6), 327–340. https://doi.org/ggx69c
56.
SwansonL. H.Sachse-LeeC. (2000). A meta-analysis of single-subject-design intervention research for students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 114–136. https://doi.org/dr876z
57.
TalbottE.MagginD.Van AckerE. Y.KummS. (2018). Quality indicators for reviews of research in special education. Exceptionality, 26, 245–265. https://doi.org/gftjmr
58.
TempletonT. N.NeelR. S.BloodE. (2008). Meta-analysis of math interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16(4), 226–239. https://doi.org/b8tpvc
59.
TherrienW. J.CookB. G.CookL. (2020). Utilizing meta-analyses to guide practice: A primer. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35(3), 111–117. https://doi.org/gkqr
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). What Works Clearinghouse. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc
62.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What Works Clearinghouse standards handbook, Version 4.1. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/handbooks
63.
ZhangD.XinY. P. (2012). A follow-up meta-analysis for word-problem-solving interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(5), 303–318. https://doi.org/gjp9pp
64.
ZhengX.FlynnL. J.SwansonH. L. (2013). Experimental intervention studies on word problem solving and math disabilities: A selective analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/f45vv5
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
