The purpose of this review was to conduct a meta-analysis of 25 years of mathematics interventions for students with mathematics difficulty or disability in Grades 4 through 12. A search of the literature yielded 25 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Studies were coded to extract important study information (e.g., participant information, research design, description of treatment, and comparison groups) and data needed to calculate Hedge’s g. We used robust variance estimation (RVE) to address dependence resulting from multiple outcomes per study. The RVE random-effects model estimated a treatment effect of 0.85. After adjusting for small-study effects, the final model estimated an underlying, moderate effect of 0.49 with a large amount of unexplained heterogeneity between studies. Studies with more than 15 hr of treatment and those focused on fraction content significantly moderated mathematics outcomes. Findings are limited by extreme variability across study estimates, the lack of standardized mathematics measures, and a limited number of studies across 25 years of research.
BakerS.GerstenR.LeeD. S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73. doi:10.1086/499715
2.
BaumS.MaJ.PayeaK. (2010). Education pays 2010: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. New York, NY: The College Board.
3.
*BottgeB. A. (1999). Effects of contextualized math instruction on problem solving of average and below-average achieving students. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 81–92. doi:10.1177/002246699903300202
4.
*BottgeB. A.HasselbringT. S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59, 556–566. doi:10.1177/001440299305900608
5.
*BottgeB. A.RuedaE.LaRoqueP. T.SerlinR. C.KwonJ. (2007). Integrating reform-oriented math instruction in special education settings. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 96–109. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00234.x
6.
Bowman-PerrottL.DavisH.VannestK.WilliamsL.GreenwoordC.ParkerR. (2013). Academic benefits of peer tutoring: A meta-analytic review of single-case research. School Psychology Review, 42, 39–55.
7.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.GerstenR. M.ScammaccaN.FunkC.WinterA.. . . PoolC. (2008). The effects of tier 2 intervention on the mathematics performance of first-grade students who are at risk for mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 47–63. doi:10.2307/20528817
8.
BurnsM. K.CoddingR. S.BoiceC. H.LukitoG. (2010). Meta-analysis of acquisition and fluency math interventions with instructional and frustration level skills: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 39, 69–83. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00323.x
9.
*BurnsM. K.KaniveR.DeGrandeM. (2012). Effect of a computer-delivered math fact intervention as a supplemental intervention for math in third and fourth grades. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 184–191. doi:10.1177/0741932510381652
10.
*ButlerF. M.MillerS. P.CrehanK.BabbittB.PierceT. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 99–111. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00066
11.
ButterworthB. (2010). Foundational numerical capacities and the origin of dyscalculia. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 534–541. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.007
12.
CalhoonM. B.EmersonR. W.FloresM.HouchinsD. E. (2007). Computational fluency performance profile of high school students with mathematics disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 292–303. doi:10.1177/07419325070280050401
13.
CheungA.SlavinR. (2016). How methodological features affect effect sizes in education. Educational Researcher, 45, 283–292. doi:10.3102/0013189x16656615
14.
ChoduraS.KuhnJ. T.HollingH. (2015). Interventions for children with mathematical difficulties: A meta-analysis. Zeitschirft Für Psychologie, 223, 129–144. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000211
15.
*ChristensenC. A.GerberM. M. (1990). Effectiveness of computerized drill and practice games in teaching basic math facts. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 1, 149–165. doi:10.1080/09362839009524751
16.
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
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.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
19.
DemingD. J.CohodesS.JenningsJ.JencksC. (2013, September). School accountability, postsecondary attainment and earnings (Working Paper No. 19444). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
20.
De SmedtB.GilmoreC. K. (2011). Defective number module or impaired access? Numerical magnitude processing in first grades with mathematical difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 278–292. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.09.003
21.
DesoeteA.RoeyersH.De ClercqA. (2004). Children with mathematics learning disabilities in Belgium. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 50–61. doi:10.1177/00222194040370010601
22.
DoughertyC. (2003). Numeracy, literacy and earnings: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Economics of Education Review, 22, 511–521. doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00040-2
23.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). A nonparametric “Trim and Fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 89–98. doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905
24.
EggerM.SmithG. D.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
25.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.AppletonA. C. (2002). Explicitly teaching for transfer: Effects on the mathematical problem-solving performance of students with mathematics disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 90–106. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00036
FuchsL. S.PowellS. R.SeethalerP. M.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ. M.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (2010). The effects of strategic counting instruction, with and without deliberate practice, on number combination skill among students with mathematics difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 89–100. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.09.003
*FuchsL. S.SchumacherR. F.SterbaS. K.LongJ.NamkungJ.MaloneA.. . . ChangasP. (2014). Does working memory moderate the effects of fraction intervention? An aptitude–treatment interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 499–514. doi:10.1037/a0034341
30.
FuchsL. S.SeethalerP. M.PowellS. R.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.FletcherJ. M. (2008). Effects of preventative tutoring on the mathematical problem solving of third-grade students with math and reading difficulties. Exceptional Children, 74, 155–173. doi:10.1177/001440290807400202
31.
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, 1202–1242. doi:10.3102/0034654309334431
32.
HechtS. A.VagiK. J. (2010). Sources of group and individual differences in emerging fraction skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 843–859. doi:10.1037/a0019824
33.
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 39–65. doi:10.1002/jrsm.5
34.
HigginsJ. P.ThompsonS. G.DeeksJ. J.AltmanD. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
35.
HughesE. M.WitzelB. S.RiccominiP. J.FriesK. M.KanyongoG. Y. (2014). A meta-analysis of algebra interventions for learners with disabilities and struggling learners. The Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15, 36–47.
*JitendraA. K.GriffinC. C.McGoeyK.GardillM. C.BhatP.RileyT. (1998). Effects of mathematical word problem solving by students at risk or with mild disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 91, 345–355. doi:10.1080/00220679809597564
38.
JitendraA. K.RodriguezM.KaniveR.HuangJ.-P.ChurchC.CorroyK. A.ZaslofskyA. (2013). Impact of small-group tutoring interventions on the mathematical problem solving and achievement of third-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 21–35. doi:10.1177/0731948712457561
39.
JordanN. C.KaplanD.HanichL. B. (2002). Achievement growth in children with learning difficulties in mathematics: Findings of a two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 586–597. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.3.586
40.
JosephL. M.KonradM.CatesG.VajcnerT.EveleighE.FishleyK. M. (2012). A meta-analysis review of the cover-copy-compare and variations of this self-management procedure. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 122–136. doi:10.1002/pits.20622
41.
*KellyB.GerstenR.CarnineD. (1990). Student error patterns as a function of curriculum design teaching fractions to remedial high school students and high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 23–29. doi:10.1177/002221949002300108
42.
*Ketterlin-GellerL. R.ChardD. J.FienH. (2008). Making connections in mathematics conceptual mathematics intervention for low-performing students. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 33–45. doi:10.1177/0741932507309711
43.
KingsdorfS.KrawecJ. (2014). Error analysis of mathematics word problem solving across students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 66–74. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12029
44.
*KroesbergenE. H.van LuitJ. E. (2002). Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science, 30, 361–378. doi:10.1023/a:1019880913714
45.
KroesbergenE. H.Van LuitJ. E. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97–114. doi:10.1177/07419325030240020501
46.
*KroesbergenE. H.Van LuitJ. E. (2005). Constructivist mathematics education for students with mild mental retardation. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20, 107–116. doi:10.1080/0885625042000319115
47.
*KroesbergenE. H.Van LuitJ. E.MaasC. J. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit and constructivist mathematics instruction for low-achieving students in the Netherlands. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 233–251. doi:10.1086/499751
48.
LeeJ. (2012). College for all gaps between desirable and actual P–12 math achievement trajectories for college readiness. Educational Researcher, 41, 43–55. doi:10.3102/0013189X11432746
49.
MacciniP.MulcahyC. A.WilsonM. G. (2007). A follow-up of mathematics interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 58–74. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00231.x
50.
*ManaloE.BunnellJ. K.StillmanJ. A. (2000). The use of process mnemonics in teaching students with mathematics learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 137–156. doi:10.2307/1511142
51.
ManclD. B.MillerS. P.KennedyM. (2012). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence with integrated strategy instruction to teach subtraction with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 152–166. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00363.x
52.
Mann KoepkeK.MillerB. (2013). At the intersection of math and reading disabilities: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 483-489. doi:10.1177/0022219413498200
53.
MartinR. B.CirinoP. T.BarnesM. A.Ewing-CobbsL.FuchsL. S.StuebingK. K.FletcherJ. M. (2013). Prediction and stability of mathematics skill and difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 428–443. doi:10.1177/0022219411436214
54.
*MiloB. (2005). Math instruction for students with special educational needs: Effects of guiding versus directing instruction. Educational & Child Psychology, 22, 68–80.
55.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(6), e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
56.
MorenoS. G.SuttonA. J.AdesA.StanleyT. D.AbramsK. R.PetersJ. L.CooperN. J. (2009). Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(2), 1–17. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-2
57.
MyersJ. A.WangJ.BrownellM. T.GagnonJ. C. (2015). Mathematics interventions for students with learning disabilities (LD) in secondary school: A review of the literature. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 13, 207–235.
58.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
59.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.
60.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425. (2002).
61.
O’ConnorR. E.BocianK. M.BeachK. D.SanchezV.FlynnL. J. (2013). Special education in a 4-year response to intervention (RtI) environment: Characteristics of students with learning disability and grade of identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 98–112. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12013
62.
PetersJ. L.SuttonA. J.JonesD. R.AbramsK. R.RushtonL. (2007). Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 4544–4562. doi:10.1002/sim.2889
63.
PigottT. D. (2012). Advances in meta-analysis. New York, NY: Springer.
64.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from http://www.R-project.org/
65.
RohrbeckC. A.Ginsburg-BlockM. D.FantuzzoJ. W.MillerT. R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240–257. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.240
66.
RückerG.SchwarzerG.CarpenterJ. R.BinderH.SchumacherM. (2010). Treatment-effect estimates adjusted for small-study effects via a limit meta-analysis. Biostatistics, 112, 122–142. doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxq046
67.
*ScarlatoM. C.BurrW. A. (2002). Teaching fractions to middle school students. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2(1), 23–38.
68.
ShinM.BryantD. P. (2015). Fraction interventions for students struggling to learn mathematics: A research synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 374–387. doi:10.1177/0741932515572910
69.
SolisM.MiciakJ.VaughnS.FletcherJ. M. (2014). Why intensive interventions matter: Longitudinal studies of adolescents with reading disabilities and poor reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 218–229. doi:10.1177/0731948714528806
70.
StanleyT. D. (2008). Meta-regression methods for detecting and estimating empirical effect in the presence of publication selection. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70, 103–127. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00487.x
71.
StanleyT. D.DoucouliagosH. (2014). Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias. Research Synthesis Methods, 5, 60–78. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1095
72.
StockP.DesoeteA.RoeyersH. (2010). Detecting children with arithmetic disabilities from kindergarten: Evidence from a 3-year longitudinal study on the role of preparatory arithmetic abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 250–268. doi:10.1177/0022219409345011
73.
SwansonH. L.JermanO. (2006). Math disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 249–274. doi:10.3102/00346543076002249
74.
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, 339–358. doi:10.1177/0022219413498771
75.
SwansonH. L.MoranA.LussierC.FungW. (2014). The effect of explicit and direct generative strategy training and working memory on word problem-solving accuracy in children at risk for math difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 111–123. doi:10.1177/0731948713507264
76.
SzucsD.DevineA.SolteszF.NobesA.GabrielF. (2013). Developmental dyscalculia is related to visuo-spatial memory and inhibition impairment. Cortex, 49, 2674–2688. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2013.06.007
77.
TerrinN.SchmidC. H.LauJ.OlkinI. (2003). Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 2113–2126. doi:10.1002/sim.1461
78.
TiptonE. (2013). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with binary dependent effects. Research Synthesis Methods, 4, 169–187. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1070
79.
TolarT. D.FuchsL. S.FletcherJ. M.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (2016). Cognitive profiles of mathematical problem solving learning disability for different definitions of disability. Journal of Learning Disability, 49, 240–256. doi:10.1177/0022219414538520
80.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). The Nation’s Report Card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
81.
*Van LuitJ. E. (1994). The effectiveness of structural and realistic arithmetic curricula in children with special needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9(1), 16–26. doi:10.1080/0885625940090102
82.
*Van LuitJ. E.NaglieriJ. A. (1999). Effectiveness of the MASTER program for teaching special children multiplication and division. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 98–107. doi:10.1177/002221949903200201
83.
*WalkerD. W.PoteetJ. A. (1990). A comparison of two methods of teaching mathematics story problem-solving with learning disabled students. National Forum of Special Education Journal, 1, 44–51.
84.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.ScammaccaN. K.MetzK.MurrayC. S.RobertsG.DanielsonL. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83, 163–195. doi:10.3102/0034654313477212
85.
WeiX.LenzK. B.BlackorbyJ. (2013). Math growth trajectories of students with disabilities: Disability category, gender, racial, and socioeconomic status differences from ages 7 to 17. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 154–165. doi:10.1177/0741932512448253
86.
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, 207–225. doi:10.1177/002246699903200402
87.
*XinY. P.JitendraA. K.Deatline-BuchmanA. (2005). Effects of mathematical word problem-solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–192. doi:10.1177/00224669050390030501
88.
*XinY. P.ZhangD.ParkJ. Y.TomK.WhippleA.SiL. (2011). A comparison of two mathematics problem-solving strategies: Facilitate algebra-readiness. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 381–395. doi:10.1080/00220671.2010.487080
89.
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, 303–318. doi:10.1080/00220671.2011.627397
90.
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, 97–111. doi: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.
