To prevent academic failure and promote long-term success, response-to-intervention (RtI) is designed to systematically increase the intensity of delivering research-based interventions. Interventions within an RtI framework must not only be effective but also be implemented with treatment fidelity and delivered with the appropriate level of treatment intensity to improve student mathematics achievement. The purpose of this systematic review was to explore the mathematics intervention research for students at risk of mathematics failure by examining intervention characteristics related to treatment fidelity and intensity. Results from 66 math intervention studies conducted from 2004 to 2015 were summarized. The majority of studies monitored treatment fidelity and provided details of some aspects of treatment intensity (i.e., dose, group size). However, interventionists’ characteristics, implementation characteristics, and treatment design were less frequently reviewed. Implications for future research and educational practices are discussed.
BakerS. K.FienH.BakerD. K. (2010). Robust reading instruction in the early grades: Conceptual and practical issues in the integration and evaluation of tier 1 and Tier 2 instructional supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42, 1–20.
2.
BarbaresiW. J.KatusicS. K.ColliganR.WeaverA. L.JacobsenS. J. (2005). Math learning disorder: Incidence in a population-based birth cohort, 1976-82, Rochester, Minn. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 5, 281–289.
3.
BarnettD. W.DalyE. J.JonesJ. M.LentzF.Jr. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 66–79.
4.
BatscheG. M.KavaleK. A.KovaleskiJ. F. (2006). Competing views: A dialogue on response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 6–19.
5.
BerkelC.MauricioA. M.SchoenfelderE.SandlerI. N. (2011). Putting the pieces together: An integrated model of program implementation. Prevention Science, 12, 23–33.
6.
BerkeleyS.BenderW. N.Gregg PeasterL.SaundersL. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85–95.
7.
BradleyR.DanielsonL.DoolittleJ. (2005). Response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 485–486.
8.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.GerstenR. M.ScammaccaN. N.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.
9.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.RobertsG.VaughnS.PfannenstielK. H.PoterfieldJ.GerstenR. (2011). Early numeracy intervention program for first-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Expectational Children, 78, 7–23.
10.
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.
11.
BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M.JibanC. L. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401–418.
12.
ChardD. J.Ketterlin-GellerL. R.BakerS. K.DoablerC.ApichatabutraC. (2009). Repeated reading interventions for students with learning disabilities: Status of the evidence. Exceptional Children, 75, 263–281.
13.
ChorpitaB. F. (2003). The frontier of evidence-based practice. In KazdinA. E.WeiszJ. R. (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (pp. 42–59). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
14.
CirinoP. T.FuchsL. S.EliasJ. T.PowellS. R.SchumacherR. F. (2013). Cognitive and mathematical profiles for different forms of learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 156–175.
15.
ClarkeB.DoablerC. T.CaryM. S.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, 160–178.
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.
17.
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.
18.
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, 208–220.
19.
Collier-MeekM. A.FallonL. M.SanettiL. M. H.MagginD. M. (2013). Focus on implementation: Assessing and promoting treatment fidelity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 52–59.
20.
DalyE. J.MartensB. K.BarnettD.WittJ. C.OlsonS. C. (2007). Varying intervention delivery in response to intervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement, instruction, and intensity. School Psychology Review, 36, 562–581.
21.
DamschroderL. J.HagedornH. J. (2011). A guiding framework and approach for implementation research in substance use disorders treatment. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25, 194–205.
22.
DiGennaro ReedF. DCoddingR. S. (2014). Advancements in procedural fidelity assessment and intervention: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23, 1–18.
23.
DiGennaro ReedF. D.ReedD. D.BaezC. N.MaguireH. (2011). A parametric analysis of errors of commission during discrete-trial training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 611–615.
24.
DirksE.SpyerG.van LieshoutE. C.de SonnevilleL. (2008). Prevalence of combined reading and arithmetic disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 460–473.
25.
DoablerC. T.ClarkeB.KostyD. B.BakerS. K.SmolkowskiK.FienH. (2016). Effects of a core kindergarten mathematics curriculum on the mathematics achievement of Spanish-speaking English learners. School Psychology Review, 45, 343–361.
26.
DoablerC. T.FienH.Nelson-WalkerN. J.BakerS. K. (2012). Evaluating three elementary mathematics programs for presence of eight research-based instructional design principles. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 200–211.
27.
DuhonG. J.HouseS. H.StinnettT. A. (2012). Evaluating the generalization of math fact fluency gains across paper and computer performance modalities. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 335–345.
28.
FixsenD. L.BlaseK. A.DudaM. A.NaoomS. F.Van DykeM. (2010). Implementation of evidence-based treatments for children and adolescents: Research findings and their implications for the future. In WeiszJ. R.KazdinA. E. (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (pp. 435–450). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
29.
FixsenD. L.NaoomS. F.BlaseK. A.FriedmanR. M.WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication #231). Tampa: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network. Retrieved from http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-MonographFull-01-2005.pdf
30.
FormanS. G.ShapiroE. S.CoddingR. S.GonzalesJ. E.ReddyL. A.RosenfieldS. A.. . . StoiberK. C. (2013). Implementation science and school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 77–100.
31.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–98.
32.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP. L.YoungC. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171.
33.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2013). Intervention effects for students with comorbid forms of learning disability: Understanding the needs of nonresponders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 534–548.
34.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.CraddockC.HollenbeckK. N.HamlettC. L.SchatschneiderC. (2008). Effects of small-group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction on at-risk students’ math problem solving: Are two tiers of prevention better than one?Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 491–509.
35.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HollenbeckK. N. (2007). Extending responsiveness to intervention to mathematics at first and third grades. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 13–24.
36.
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.
37.
FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203.
38.
GerstenR.BeckmannS.ClarkeB.FoegenA.MarshL.StarJ. R.WitzelB. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
39.
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.
40.
GreshamF. M.DartE. H.CollinsT. A. (2017). Generalizability of multiple measures of treatment integrity: Comparisons among direct observation, permanent products, and self-report. School Psychology Review, 46, 108–121.
41.
GreshamF. M.MacMillanD. L.Beebe-FrankenbergerM. E.BocianK. M. (2000). Treatment integrity in learning disabilities intervention research: Do we really know how treatments are implemented?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 198–205. doi:10.1207/SLDRP1504_4
42.
GrossT. J.DuhonG. (2013). Evaluation of computer-assisted instruction for math accuracy intervention. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 29, 246–261.
43.
Hassinger-DasB.JordanN. C.DysonN. (2015). Reading stories to learn math: Mathematics vocabulary instruction for children with early numeracy difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 116, 242–264.
44.
HillD. R.KingS. A.LemonsC. J.PartanenJ. N. (2012). Fidelity of implementation and instructional alignment in response to intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 116–124.
45.
HuntJ. H. (2014). Effects of a supplemental intervention focused in equivalency concepts for students with varying abilities. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 135–144.
46.
KratochwillT. R.VolpianskyP.ClementsM.BallC. (2007). Professional development in implementing and sustaining multitier prevention models: Implications for response to intervention. School Psychology Review, 36, 618–631.
47.
LembkeE. S.HamptonD.BeyersS. J. (2012). Response to intervention in mathematics: Critical elements. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 257–272.
48.
LilienfeldS. O.AmmiratiR.DavidM. (2012). Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 7–36.
49.
LongA. C. J.SanettiL. M. H.Collier-MeekM. A.GallucciJ. J.AltschaeflM.KratochwillT. R. (2016). An exploratory investigation of teachers’ intervention planning and perceived implementation barriers. Journal of School Psychology, 55, 1–26.
50.
MazzoccoM. M. M.MyersG. F. (2003). Complexities in identifying and defining mathematics learning disability in the primary school-age years. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 218–253.
51.
MellardD.McKnightM.JordanJ. (2010). RTI Tier structures and instructional intensity. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 217–225.
52.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The nation’s report card: Mathematics and reading assessments (NCES 2016-XX). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
53.
O’DonnellC. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33–84.
54.
PoncyB. C.SolomonB.DuhonG.SkinnerC.MooreK.SimonsS. (2015). An analysis of learning rate and curricular scope: Caution when choosing academic interventions based on aggregated outcomes. School Psychology Review, 44, 289–305.
55.
RoachA. T.ElliottS. N. (2008). Best practices in facilitating and evaluating intervention integrity. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 195–208). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
56.
SanettiL. M. H.Collier-MeekM. A. (2014). Increasing the rigor of treatment integrity assessment: A comparison of direct observation and permanent product methods. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23, 60–88.
57.
SanettiL. M. H.Collier-MeekM. A. (2015). Data-driven delivery of implementation supports in a multi-tiered framework: A pilot study. Psychology in the Schools, 52, 815–828.
58.
SanettiL. M. H.Collier-MeekM. A. (2018). A guide to getting interventions implemented. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
59.
SanettiL. M. H.Collier-MeekM. A.LongA. C. J.ByronJ. R.KratochwillT. R. (2015). Increasing teacher treatment integrity of behavior support plans through consultation and implementation planning. Journal of School Psychology, 53, 209–229.
60.
SanettiL. M. H.GritterK. L.DobeyL. M. (2011). Treatment integrity of interventions with children in the school psychology literature from 1995 to 2008. School Psychology Review, 40, 72–84.
61.
SanettiL. M. H.KratochwillT. R. (2009). Toward developing a science of treatment integrity: Introduction to the special series. School Psychology Review, 38, 445–459.
62.
SkinnerC. H. (2008). Theoretical and applied implications of precisely measuring learning rates. School Psychology Review, 37, 309–314.
StoiberK. C. (2014). A comprehensive framework for multitiered systems of support in school psychology. In HarrisonP. L.ThomasA. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Data-based and collaborative decision making (pp. 41–70). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychology.
65.
SwansonE.WanzekJ.HaringC.CiulloS.McCulleyL. (2013). Intervention fidelity in special and general education research journals. The Journal of Special Education, 47, 3–13.
66.
SwansonH. L. (2009). Science-supported math instruction for children with math difficulties: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. In RosenfieldS.BerningerV.RosenfieldS.BerningerV. (Eds.), Implementing evidence-based academic interventions in school settings (pp. 85–106). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
VanDerHeydenA. M.WittJ. C.NaquinG. (2003). Development and validation of a process for screening referrals to special education. School Psychology Review, 32, 204–227.
69.
Warmbold-BrannK.BurnsM. K.PreastJ. L.TaylorC. N.AguilarL. N. (2017). Meta-analysis of the effects of academic interventions and modifications on student behavior outcomes. School Psychology Quarterly, 32, 291–305.
70.
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.
71.
WuS. S.WillcuttE. G.EscovarE.MenonV. (2011). Mathematics achievement and anxiety and their relation to internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 503–514.
72.
YeatonW. H.SechrestL. (1981). Critical dimensions in the choice and maintenance of successful treatments: Strength, integrity, and effectiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 156–167.
73.
YoderP. J.WoynaroskiT. (2015). How to study the influence of intensity of treatment on generalized skill and knowledge acquisition in students with disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 152–166.
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.
