Group size and treatment intensity are understudied topics in mathematics intervention research. This study examined whether the treatment intensity and overall intervention effects of an empirically validated Tier 2 mathematics intervention varied between intervention groups with 2:1 and 5:1 student-teacher ratios. Student practice opportunities and the quality of explicit instruction served as treatment intensity metrics. A total of 465 kindergarten students with mathematics difficulties from 136 intervention groups participated. Results suggested comparable performances between the 2:1 and 5:1 intervention groups on six outcome measures. Observation data indicated that student practice differed by group size. Students in the 5:1 groups received more opportunities to practice with their peers, while students in the 2:1 groups participated in more frequent and higher quality individualized practice opportunities. Implications in terms of delivering Tier 2 interventions in small-group formats and engaging at-risk learners in meaningful practice opportunities are discussed.
ArcherA. L.HughesC. A. (2011). Exploring the foundations of explicit instruction. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
2.
BryantD. P.BryantB.RobertsG.VaughnS.PfannenstielK. H.PorterfieldJ.GerstenR. M. (2011). Early numeracy intervention program for first-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Exceptional Children, 78, 7–23. doi:10.1177/001440291107800101
3.
ClarkeB.DoablerC. T.KostyD.Kurtz NelsonE.SmolkowskiK.FienH.BakerS. K. (2017). Testing the efficacy of a kindergarten mathematics intervention by small group size. AERA Open, 3(2), 1–16. doi:10.1177/2332858417706899
4.
ClarkeB.DoablerC. T.SmolkowskiK.BakerS. K.FienH.Strand CaryM. (2016). Examining the efficacy of a tier 2 kindergarten intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 152–165. doi:10.1177/0022219414538514
5.
ClarkeB.GerstenR. M.DiminoJ.RolfhusE. (2011). Assessing student proficiency of number sense (ASPENS). Longmont, CO: Cambium Learning Group, Sopris Learning.
6.
ClarkeB.ShinnM. R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234–248.
7.
ClementsD. H.AgodiniR.HarrisB. (2013). Instructional practices and student math achievement: Correlations from a study of math curricula (NCEE Evaluation Brief ED-04-CO-0112/0003). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
8.
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
9.
CoddingR. S.VanDerHeydenA. M.MartinR. J.DesaiS.AllardN.PerraultL. (2016). Maniuplating treatment dose: Evaluating the frequency of small group intervention targeting whole number operations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31, 208–220. doi:10.1111.drp.12120
CoyneM. D.CookB. G.TherrienW. J. (2016). Recommendations for replication research in special education: A framework of systematic, conceptual replications. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 244–253. doi:10.1177/0741932516648463
12.
DoablerC. T.BakerS. K.KostyD.SmolkowskiK.ClarkeB.MillerS. J.FienH. (2015). Examining the association between explicit mathematics instruction and student mathematics achievement. Elementary School Journal, 115, 303–333.
13.
DoablerC. T.ClarkeB. (2012). Quality of explicit mathematics instruction. Unpublished observation instrument, Center on Teaching and Learning, University of Oregon, Eugene.
14.
DoablerC. T.ClarkeB.FienH. (2012). ROOTS Assessment of Early Numeracy Skills. Unpublished measure, Center on Teaching and Learning, University of Oregon, Eugene.
15.
DoablerC.T.ClarkeB.KostyD.Kurtz-NelsonE.FienF.SmolkowskiK.BakerS. K. (2016). Testing the efficacy of a tier-2 mathematics intervention: A conceptual replication study. Exceptional Children, 83, 92–110. doi:10.1177/0014402916660084
16.
DoablerC. T.StoolmillerM.KennedyP.NelsonN. J.ClarkeB.GearinB.FienH.SmolkowskiK.BakerS. K. (in press). Do components of explicit instruction explain the differential effectiveness of a core mathematics program for students with mathematics difficulties? A mediated moderation analysisAssessment for Effective Intervention.
17.
DunloskyJ.RawsonK. A.MarshE. J.NathanM. J.WillinghamD. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266
18.
ElbaumB.VaughnS.HughesM. T.MoodyS. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605–619. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.605
19.
EricssonK. A.RoringR.NandagopalK. (2007). Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance: An account based on the expert performance framework. High Ability Studies, 18, 3–56. doi:10.1080/13598130701350593
20.
FeuerM.TowneL.ShavelsonR. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31, 4–14.
21.
FieldsR. D. (2005). Myelination: An overlooked mechanism of synaptic plasticity?The Neuroscientist, 11, 528–531.
22.
FuchsL.FuchsD. (1998). Researchers and teachers working together to adapt instruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 126–137.
23.
FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203.
24.
GerstenR. M.ChardD.JayanthiM.BakerS. K.MorphyP.FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242. doi:10.3102/0034654309334431
25.
GinsburgH. P.BaroodyA. J. (2003). Test of early mathematics ability–third edition (TEMA-3). Austin, TX: ProEd.
26.
GottfredsonD. C.CookT. D.GardnerF. E.Gorman-SmithD.HoweG. W.SandlerI. N.ZafftK. M. (2015). Standards of evidence for efficacy, effectiveness, and scale-up research in prevention science: Next generation. Prevention Science, 16, 893–926. doi:10.1007/s11121-015-0555-x
27.
GrahamJ. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576.
28.
HannanP. J.MurrayD. M. (1996). Gauss or Bernoulli? A Monte Carlo comparison of the performance of the linear mixed model and the logistic mixed model analyses in simulated community trials with a dichotomous outcome variable at the individual level. Evaluation Review, 20, 338–352.
29.
Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement. (2003). Stanford early school achievement test (10th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
30.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128. doi:10.3102/10769986006002107
31.
HoxJ. J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
JordanN. C.GluttingJ.RamineniC. (2010). The importance of number sense to mathematics achievement in first and third grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 82–88.
33.
LandisR. J.KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
34.
LeeS.SeoM.ShinY. (2011). Testing for threshold effects in regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106, 220–231.
35.
LittleR. J. A.RubinD. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
36.
MurrayD. M. (1998). Design and analysis of group-randomized trials. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
37.
SAS Institute. (2009). SAS/STAT® 9.2 user’s guide (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: Author.
38.
SoodS.JitendraA. (2013). An exploratory study of number sense program to develop kindergarten students number proficiency. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 328–346.
39.
ValentineJ. C.BiglanA.BoruchR. F.CastroF. G.CollinsL. M.FlayB. R.. . . SchinkeS. P. (2011). Replication in prevention science. Prevention Science, 12, 103–117. doi:10.1007/s11121-011-0217-6
40.
van BelleG. (2008). Statistical rules of thumb (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
41.
WarrenS. F.FeyM. E.YoderP. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 70–77.
42.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2017). Procedures and standards handbook (Version 4.0). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
