Manipulatives are widely considered an effective practice and have been recommended as an evidence-based practice for students identified with a learning disability when used within the concrete–representational–abstract instructional framework. The aim of the current study was to evaluate single-case experimental designs that implemented a mathematics intervention using manipulatives on the mathematical outcomes of students at risk or identified with a disability. A total of 53 studies were included in the review. The Tau-U effect size (ES) across studies ranged from 0.34 to 1.00, with an omnibus ES of 0.91 (CI95 = [0.87, 0.95]). The between-case standardized mean difference for individual studies ranged from 0.03 to 18.58. Moderator analyses revealed that out of nine variables analyzed (i.e., study quality, design, age, interventionist, manipulative type, perceptual richness, math concept, dependent variable, and disability category), only disability category served as a moderator. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
BaronA.DerenneA. (2000). Quantitative summaries of single-subject studies: What do group comparisons tell us about individual performances?The Behavior Analyst, 23, 101–106. doi:10.1007/BF03392004
3.
BeckerB. J. (2005). Failsafe N or file-drawer number. In RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 111–125). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
4.
BeggC. B.MazumdarM. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50, 1088–1101.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
7.
BouckE. C.ParkJ. (2018). A systematic review of the literature on mathematics manipulatives to support students with disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 41, 65–106. doi:10.1353/etc.2018.0003
8.
BouckE. C.SatsangiR.ParkJ. (2018). The concrete–representational–abstract approach for students with learning disabilities: An evidence-based practice synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 211–228. doi:10.1177/0741932517721712
9.
BouckE. C.WorkingC.BoneE. (2018). Manipulative apps to support students with disabilities in mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53, 177–182. doi:10.117/1053451217702115
10.
BoyleM. A.SamahaA. L.RodewaldA. M.HoffmannA. N. (2013). Evaluation of the reliability and validity of GraphClick as a data extraction program. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1023–1027. doi:10.1016.j.chb.2012.07.031
11.
BrossartD. F.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.PatienceM. A. (2014). Incorporating nonoverlap indices with visual analysis for quantifying intervention effectiveness in single-case experimental designs. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24, 464–491. doi:10.1080/09602011.2013.868361
12.
BrunerJ. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19, 1–15. doi:10.1037/h0044160
13.
BurnsM. K. (2012). Meta-analysis of single-case design research: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21, 175–184. doi:10.1007/s10864-012-9158-9
14.
BuskP. L.SerlinR. C. (1992). Meta-analysis for single-case research. In KratochwillT.LevinJ. (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 187–212). New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
CarbonneauK. J.MarleyS. C.SeligJ. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 380–400. doi:10.1037/a0031084
16.
CochranW. G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics, 10, 101–129.
17.
CookB. G.BuysseV.KlingnerJ.LandrumT. J.McWilliamR. A.TankersleyM.TestD. W. (2015). CEC’s standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 220–234. doi:10.1177/0741932514557271
18.
CooperH. (2016). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
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, 149–164. doi:10.1177/001440230507100202
20.
HedgesL. V.PustejovskyJ. E.ShadishW. R. (2012). A standardized mean difference effect size for single case designs. Research Synthesis Methods, 3, 224–239. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1052
21.
HedgesL. V.PustejovskyJ. E.ShadishW. R. (2013). A standardized mean difference effect size for multiple baseline designs across individuals. Research Synthesis Methods, 4, 324–341. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1086
22.
HigginsJ. P. T.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539–1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186
23.
HopewellS.LoudonK.ClarkeM. J.OxmanA. D.DickersinK. (2009). Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 90, 1631–1640.
24.
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, 165–179. doi:10.1177/001440290507100203
25.
KaminskiJ. A.SloutskyV. M.HecklerA. F. (2009). Concrete instantiations of mathematics: A double-edged sword. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 90–93.
26.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2010). What Works Clearinghouse: Single-case design technical documentation. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510743.pdf
27.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ. H.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 26–38. doi:10.1177/0741932512452794
28.
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, 228–241. doi:10.1177/0022466918796200
29.
MagginD. M.PustejovskyJ. E.JohnsonA. H. (2017). A meta-analysis of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior: An update. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 353–370. doi:10.1177/0741932517716900
30.
ManolovR.GuileraG.SolanasA. (2017). Issues and advances in the systematic review of single-case research: A commentary on the exemplars. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 387–393. doi:10.1177/0741932517726143
31.
McNeilN. M.UttalD. H.JarvinL.SternbergR. J. (2009). Should you show me the money? Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems. Learning and Instruction, 19, 171–184. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.005
32.
MorinK. L.GanzJ. B.GregoriE. V.FosterM. J.GerowS. L.Genc-TosunD.HongE. R. (2018). A systematic quality review of high-tech AAC interventions as an evidence-based practice. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34, 104–117. doi:10.1080/07434618.2018.1458900
33.
MoyerP. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 175–197.
34.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2017). The nation’s report card 2017: Mathematics and reading assessments. Available from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L. (2011). Effect size in single-case research: A review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behavior Modification, 35, 303–322. doi:10.1177/0145445511399147
37.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.SauberS. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006
38.
PiagetJ. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
PustejovskyJ. E. (2018). Procedural sensitivities of effect sizes for single-case designs with directly observed behavioral outcome measures. Psychological Methods, 24(2), 217-235. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/met0000179
41.
PustejovskyJ. E.HedgesL. V.ShadishW. R. (2014). Design-comparable effect sizes in multiple baseline designs: A general modeling framework. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 39, 368–393. doi:10.3102/1076998614547577
42.
Riley-TillmanT. C.BurnsM. K. (2009). Single case design for measuring response to educational intervention. New York, NY: Guilford.
43.
RosenthalR. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
44.
RosnowR. L.RosenthalR. (1989). Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. American Psychologist, 44, 1276–1284.
45.
SalzbergC. L.StrainP. S.BaerD. M. (1987). Meta-analysis for single-subject research: When does it clarify, when does it obscure?Remedial and Special Education, 8, 43–48. doi:10.1177/074193258700800209
46.
SaramaJ.ClementsD. H. (2016). Physical and virtual manipulatives: What is “concrete?” In Moyer-PackenhamP. S. (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives (pp. 71–93). Basel, Switzerland: Springer International.
47.
SatsangiR.MillerB. (2017). The case for adopting virtual manipulatives in mathematics education for students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 61, 303–310. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2016.1275505
48.
ScheuermannA. M.DeshletD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (2009). The effects of explicit inquiry routines on the performance of students with learning disabilities on one-variable equations. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 32(2), 103-120.
49.
ShadishW. R.HedgesL. V.PustejovskyJ. E. (2014). Analysis and meta-analysis of single-case designs with a standardized mean difference statistic: A primer and applications. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 123–147. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2013.11.005
50.
TestD. W.MazzottiV. L.FowlerC. H.KorteringL.KohlerP. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(3), 160-181.
VannestK. J.ParkerR. I.GonenO.AdiguzelT. (2016). Single case research: Web based calculators for SCR analysis. Available from http://www.singlecaseresearch.org/
53.
VannestK. J.PeltierC.HaasA. (2018). Results reporting in single case experiments and single case meta-analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 79, 10–18. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2018.04.029
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.
