Word problem-solving (WPS) poses a significant challenge for many students, particularly those with mathematics difficulties (MD), hindering their overall mathematical development. To improve WPS proficiency, providing individualized and intensive interventions is critical. This umbrella review examined 11 medium- to high-quality meta-analyses to identify intervention and participant characteristics, informed by the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity (TII) framework, that consistently moderate WPS outcomes for students with MD. Our analysis identified four characteristics with consistent moderating effects: intervention model, number of treatment sessions, group size, and academic risk area. This result suggests that these variables are potential considerations when customizing and intensifying WPS interventions to maximize their effectiveness for students with MD. We discuss the implications of these findings for practice and research and acknowledge the limitations of our review.
AbramsL.VarierD.JacksonL. (2016). Unpacking instructional alignment: The influence of teachers’ use of assessment data on instruction. Perspectives in Education, 34(4), 15–28. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1130896.pdf
2.
AllenM. (2020). Understanding the practice, application, and limitations of meta-analysis. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(1), 74–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219859619
3.
AromatarisE.FernandezR.GodfreyC. M.HollyC.KhalilH.TungpunkomP. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare13(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055
4.
ArsenaultT. L.PowellS. R. (2022a). Word–problem performance differences by schema: A comparison of students with and without mathematics difficulty. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 37(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12273
5.
ArsenaultT. L.PowellS. R. (2022b). Intensifying language supports in word-problem schema instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599144069555
6.
AunioP.HeiskariP.Van LuitJ. E. H.VuorioJ.-M. (2015). The development of early numeracy skills in kindergarten in low-, average-, and high-performance groups. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 13(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X14538722
7.
BjörnP. M.AunolaK.NurmiJ.-E. (2016). Primary school text comprehension predicts mathematical word problem-solving skills in secondary school. Educational Psychology, 36(2), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.992392
8.
BloomH. S.HillC. J.BlackA. R.LipseyM. W. (2008). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. Journal of Educational Effectiveness, 1(4) 289–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802400072
9.
BoonenA. J. H.van der SchootM.van WeselF.de VriesM. H.JollesJ. (2013). What underlies successful word problem solving? A path analysis in sixth grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.05.001
10.
BoothA. (2016). Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org10.1186?s13643-016-0249-x
11.
BorkowskiJ. G.EstradaM. T.MilsteadM.HaleC. A. (1989). General problem-solving skills: Relations between metacognition and strategic processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.10.2307/1510252
12.
BouckE. C.MyersJ. A.WitzelB. S. (2022). Teaching math online to secondary students with learning disabilities: Moving beyond the pandemic. TEACHING Exceptional Children. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221092136
13.
BushmanB. J.WangM. C. (2009). Vote-counting procedures in meta-analysis. In CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 207–220). Russell Sage Foundation.
14.
ByiersB. J.ReichleJ.SymonsF. J. (2012). Single-subject experimental design for evidence-based practice. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(4), 397–414. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0036)
15.
ChoiG. J.KangH. (2022). The umbrella review: A useful strategy in the rain of evidence. The Korean Journal of Pain, 35(2), 127–128. https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2022.35.2.127
16.
ClarkeB.DoablerC. T.Strand CaryM.KostyD.BakerS.FienH.SmolkowskiK. (2014). Preliminary evaluation of a tier 2 mathematics intervention for first-grade students: Using a theory of change to guide formative evaluation activities. School Psychology Review, 43(2), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2014.12087442
17.
CoddingR. S.VanDerHeydenA. M.MartinR. J.DesaiS.AllardN.PerraultL. (2016). Manipulating treatment dose: Evaluating the frequency of a small group intervention targeting whole number operations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(4), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12120
18.
ComptonD. L.GilbertJ. K.JenkinsJ. R.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ChoE.BarqueroL. A.BoutonB. (2012). Accelerating chronically unresponsive children to Tier 3 instruction: What level of data is necessary to ensure selection accuracy?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442151
19.
CookS. C.CollinsL. W.MorinL. L.RiccominiP. J. (2020). Schema-based instruction for mathematical word problem solving: An evidence-based review for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(2), 75–87. https://doi.org10.1177/0731948718823080
20.
DaroczyG.WolskaM.MeurersW. D.NuerkH.- C. (2015). Word problems: A review of linguistic and numerical factors contributing to their difficulty. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 348. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00348
21.
DeckerS. L.RobertsA. M. (2015). Specific cognitive predictors of early math problem solving. Psychology in the Schools, 52(5), 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21837
22.
DoablerC. T.ClarkeB.KostyD.TurturaJ. E.SutherlandM.MaddoxS. A.SmolkowskiK. (2021). Using direct observation to document “Practice-Based Evidence” of evidence-based mathematics Instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(1), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420911375
23.
FaulknerG.FaganM. J.LeeJ. (2022). Umbrella reviews (systematic review of reviews). International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2021.1934888
24.
FeeneyD. M. (2022). Self-talk monitoring: A how-to guide for special educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, 57(5), 298–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512211032575
FilizT. (2023). The effect of mathematics difficulty intervention programs on mathematics performance: A second-order meta-analysis. Research on Education and Psychology, 7(Special Issue 2), 454–477. https://doi.org/10.54535/rep.1360558
27.
FitzpatrickM.KnowltonE. (2009). Bringing evidence-based self-directed intervention practices to the trenches for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(4), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.4.253-266
28.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.MathesP. G.LipseyM. W.RobertsP. H. (2002). Is “learning disabilities” just a fancy term for low achievement? A meta-analysis of reading differences between low achievers with and without the label. Paper written for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, and presented at the OSEP’s LD Summit conference, Washington, DC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED459544.
29.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (2014). What is intensive instruction and why is it important?TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46(4), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914522966
30.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2002). Principles for the prevention and intervention of mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(2), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00010
31.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.PowellS. R.SeethalerP. M.CapizziA. M.SchatschneiderC.FletcherJ. M. (2006). The cognitive correlatives of third-grade skill in arithmetic, algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.29
32.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.MaloneA. S. (2017). The taxonomy of intervention intensity. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 50(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918758166
33.
FuchsL. S.SeethalerP. M.SterbaS. K.CraddockC.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.GearyD. C.ChangasP. (2021). Closing the word-problem achievement gap in first grade: Schema-based word-problem intervention with embedded language comprehension instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000467
GatesM.GatesA.GuitardS.PollockM.HartlingL. (2020). Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: A scoping review. Systematic Reviews, 9(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01509-0
36.
GerstenR.ChardD.JayanthiM.BakerS.MorphyP.FlojoJ. (2008). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities or difficulty learning mathematics: A synthesis of the intervention research. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction
37.
GrecoT.ZangrilloA.Biondi-ZoccaiG.LandoniG. (2013). Meta-analysis: Pitfalls and hints. Heart, Lung, and Vessels, 5(4), 219–225.
38.
GriffinC. C.GagnonJ. C.JossiM. H.UlrichT. G.MytersJ. A. (2018). Priming mathematics word problem structures in a rural elementary classroom. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37(3), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870518772164
39.
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5
40.
HennessyE. A.JohnsonB. T. (2020). Examining overlap of included studies in meta-reviews: Guidance for using the corrected covered area index. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(1), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1390
41.
HennessyE. A.JohnsonB. T.KeenanC. (2019). Best practice guidelines and essential methodological steps to conduct rigorous and systematic meta-reviews. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 11(3), 353–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12169
42.
HigginsJ. P.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
43.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029050710020
44.
JitendraA. K.AlghamdiA.EdmundsR.McKevettN. M.MouanoutouaJ.RoessleinR. (2021). The effects of tier 2 mathematics interventions for students with mathematics difficulties: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 87(3), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402920969187
45.
JordanR. L. P.FernandezE. P.CostaL.-J. C.HooperS. R. (2020). Internalizing and externalizing behaviors of children with writing disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35(2), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12216
46.
KingS. G.PowellS. R. (2023). Language proficiency and the relation to word-problem performance in emergent bilingual students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 38(4), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12325
KongJ. E.ArizmendiG. D.DoablerC. T. (2023). Implementing the science of math in a culturally sustainable framework for students with and at risk for math learning disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 56(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221127385
49.
*KongJ. E.YanC.SercekiA.SwansonH. L. (2021). Word-problem-solving interventions for elementary students with learning disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 44(4), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948721994843
50.
KungJ.ChiappelliF.CajulisO. O.AvezovaR.KossanG.ChewL.MaidaC. A. (2010). From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: Validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. The Open Dentistry Journal, 4, 84–91. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601004020084
51.
*LeiQ.MasonR. A.XinY. P.DavisJ. L.DavidM.LoryC. (2020). A meta-analysis of single-case research on mathematics word problem-solving interventions for English learners with learning disabilities and mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35(4), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12233
52.
*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/10.1037/edu0000453
53.
LeissD.PlathJ.SchwippertK. (2019). Language and mathematics—Key factors influencing the comprehension process in reality-based tasks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 21(2), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2019.1570835
54.
LombardiA. R.KowittJ. S.StaplesF. E. (2015). Correlates of critical thinking and college and career readiness for students with and without disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38(3), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143414534888
55.
MasonE. N.BenzS. A.LembkeE. S.BurnsM. K.PowellS. R. (2019). From professional development to implementation: A district’s experience implementing mathematics tiered systems of support. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 34(4), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12206
56.
McKenzieJ. E.BrennanS. E. (2022). Chapter 12: Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In HigginsJ. P. T.ThomasJ.ChandlerJ.CumpstonM.LiT.PageM. J.WelchV. A. (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.3). www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
57.
MyersJ. A.BrownellM. T.GriffinC. C.HughesE. M.WitzelB. S.GageN. A.PeytonD.AcostaK.WangJ. (2021). Mathematics interventions for adolescents with mathematics difficulties: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 36(2), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12244
58.
MyersJ. A.HughesE. M.WitzelB. S.AndersonR. D.OwensJ. (2023). A meta-analysis of mathematical interventions for increasing the word problem solving performance of upper elementary and secondary students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 16(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2022.2080131
59.
*MyersJ. A.WitzelB. S.PowellS. R.LiH.PigottT. D.XinY. P.HughesE. M. (2022). A meta-analysis of mathematics word-problem solving interventions for elementary students who evidence mathematics difficulties. Review of Educational Research, 92(5), 695–742. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211070049
60.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). NAEP report card: The 2022 NAEP mathematics assessment highlighted results at grades 4 and 8 for the nation, states, and districts. U.S. Department of Education.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics.
63.
NelsonG.PowellS. R. (2018). Computation error analysis: Students with mathematics difficulty compared to typically achieving students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 43(3), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508417745627
64.
NgJ.LeeK.KhngK. H. (2017). Irrelevant information in math problems need not be inhibited: Students might just need to spot them. Learning and Individual Differences, 60, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.217.09.008
65.
OuzzaniM.HammadyH.FedorowiczZ.ElmagarmidA. (2016). Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
66.
PageM. J.McKenzieJ.BossuytP.BoutronI.HoffmannT.MulrowC. D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372, 71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
67.
PaiH. H.SearsD. A.MaedaY. (2015). Effects of small-group learning on transfer: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9260-8
68.
PapatheodorouS. I.EvangelouE. (2022). Umbrella reviews: What they are and why we need them. Methods in Molecular Biology, 2345, 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1566-9_8
69.
ParkS.SteckerP. M.PowellS. R. (2023). A teacher’s toolkit for assessment when implementing data-based individualization in mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 59(4), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512231182042
70.
PeltierC.SinclairT. E.PulosJ. M.SukA. (2020). Effects of schema-based instruction on immediate, generalized, and combined structured word problems. The Journal of Special Education, 54(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919883397
71.
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/10.3102/0034654317720163
72.
PieperD.AntoineS. L.MathesT.NeugebauerE. A.EikermannM. (2014). Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(4), 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.007
73.
PongsakdiN.KajamiesA.VeermansK.LertolaK.VaurasM.LehtinenE. (2020). What makes mathematical word problem solving challenging? Exploring the roles of word problem characteristics, text comprehension, and arithmetic skills. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01118-9
74.
PowellS. R.BenzS. A.MasonE. N.LembkeE. S. (2022). How to structure and intensify mathematics intervention. Beyond Behavior, 31(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/10742956211072267
75.
PowellS. R.BerryK. A.AcuntoA. N.FallA.-M.RobertsG. (2022). Applying an individual word-problem intervention to a small-group setting: A pilot study’s evidence of improved word-problem performance for students experiencing mathematics difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(5), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211047635
76.
PowellS. R.BerryK. A.BarnesM. A. (2020). The role of pre-algebraic reasoning within a word-problem intervention for third-grade students with mathematics difficulty. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52, 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01093-1
77.
PowellS. R.BosS. E.KingS. G.Ketterlin-GellerL.LembkeE. S. (2022). Using the data-based individualization framework within math intervention. TEACHING Exceptional Children. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221111114
78.
PowellS. R.DoablerC. T.AkinolaO. A.TherrienW. J.MaddoxS. A.HessK. E. (2019). A synthesis of elementary mathematics interventions: Comparisons of students with mathematics difficulty with and without comorbid reading difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(4), 244–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419881646
79.
PowellS. R.FuchsL. S. (2015). Intensive intervention in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 30(4), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.120
80.
PowellS. R.FuchsL. S. (2018). Effective word-problem instruction: Using schemas to facilitate mathematical reasoning. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 51(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918777250
81.
RitchieS. J.BatesT. C. (2013). Enduring links from childhood mathematics and reading achievement to adult socioeconomic status. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1301–1308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612466268
82.
SaranA.WhiteH. (2018). Evidence and gap maps: A comparison of different approaches. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2018.2
83.
ScammaccaN.RobertsG.VaughnS.EdmondsM.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC. K.TorgesenJ. K. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
84.
SchumacherR. F.Zumeta EdmondsR.ArdenS. V. (2017). Examining implementation of intensive intervention in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 32(3), 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12141
85.
ShinM.BryantD. P. (2017). Improving the fraction word problem solving of students with mathematics learning disabilities: Interactive computer application. Remedial and Special Education, 38(2), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516669052
86.
*ShinM.BryantD. P.PowellS. R.JungP. G.OkM. W.HouF. (2021). A meta-analysis of single-case research on word-problem instruction for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 42(6), 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520964918
87.
SwansonH. L.LussierC. M.OroscoM. J. (2015). Cognitive strategies, working memory, and growth in word problem solving in children with math difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413498771
88.
TiptonE.BryanC.MurrayJ.McDanielM. A.SchneiderB.YeagerD. S. (2023). Why meta-analyses of growth mindset and other interventions should follow best practices for examining heterogeneity: Commentary on Macnamara and Burgoyne (2023) and Burnette et al. (2023). Psychological Bulletin, 149(3–4), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000384
89.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.MurrayC. S.RobertsG. (2012). Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED531907.pdf
90.
VerschaffelL.SchukajlowS.StarJ.Van DoorenW. (2020). Word problems in mathematics education: A survey. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01130-4
91.
WilliamsR.CitkowiczM.MillerD. I.LindsayJ.WaltersK. (2022). Heterogeneity in mathematics intervention effects: Evidence from a meta-analysis of 191 randomized experiments. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 15(3), 584–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2021.2009072
92.
WitzelB.MyersJ. A.XinY. P. (2022). Intensive word problem solving for students with learning disabilities in mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 58(1), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512211047580
93.
WitzelB.MyersJ.RootJ.Freeman-GreenS.RiccominiP.MimsP. (2024). Research should focus on improving mathematics proficiency for students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 57(4), 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669231168373
94.
*XinY. P.JitendraA. K. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving mathematical word problems for students with learning problems: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699903200402
95.
YoungJ. (2017). Technology-enhanced mathematics instruction: A second-order meta-analysis of 30 years of research. Educational Research Review, 22, 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.07.001
96.
*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://www.jstor.org/stable/26586944
97.
*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/10.1177/0731948712444277
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.
