In this meta-analysis of single-case designs, the researchers investigated the effects of word-problem instruction for students with learning disabilities in Grades 1 through 12, as reported in 20 peer-reviewed articles published between 1975 and 2020. A two-level multilevel model with a robust variance estimation method was implemented to calculate the effect sizes. A significant overall effect of word-problem instruction for students with learning disabilities was found, and the results indicate that studies meeting all three quality indicators of implementation fidelity (i.e., adherence, dosage, and regularity) showed greater effects. The average weighted effect sizes of word-problem instruction varied depending on the content and practice standards of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Limitations and future research directions are also discussed.
AltmanD. G. (1999). Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
2.
AnderssonU. (2008). Mathematical competencies in children with different types of learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.48
3.
AppelbaumM.CooperH.KlineR. B.Mayo-WilsonE.NezuA. M.RaoS. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191
4.
AraujoJ.BornD. G. (1985). Calculating percentage agreement correctly but writing its formula incorrectly. The Behavior Analyst, 8(2), 207–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03393152
5.
BaekE. K.Petit-BoisM.Van den NoortgateW.BeretvasS. N.FerronJ. M. (2016). Using visual analysis to evaluate and refine multilevel models of single-case studies. The Journal of Special Education, 50(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466914565367
6.
BoonenA. J.de KoningB. B.JollesJ.van der SchootM. (2016). Word problem solving in contemporary math education: A plea for reading comprehension skills training. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 191. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00191
7.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Meta-regression. In BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (Eds.), Introduction to meta-analysis (pp. 187–203). Wiley.
8.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.HammillD. D. (2000). Characteristic behaviors of students with learning disabilities who have teacher-identified math weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300205
9.
CoddingR. S.BurnsM. K.LukitoG. (2011). Meta-analysis of mathematic basic-fact fluency interventions: A component analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00323.x
10.
CookB. G.CookS. C. (2013). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911420877
11.
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.org/10.1177/0731948718823080
12.
CortiellaC.HorowitzS. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and emerging issues. National Center for Learning Disabilities.
13.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). CEC standards for evidence-based practices in special education.
14.
DennisM. S.KnightJ.JermanO. (2016). Teaching high school students with learning disabilities to use model drawing strategy to solve fraction and percentage word problems. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.954514
15.
EggerM.SmithG. D.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2002). Mathematical problem-solving profiles of students with mathematics disabilities with and without comorbid reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(6), 564–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350060701
18.
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(3), 1202–1242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309334431
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(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202
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
22.
HigginsJ. P.ThompsonS. G.DeeksJ. J.AltmanD. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
23.
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/10.1177/001440290507100203
24.
HwangJ.RiccominiP. J. (2016). Enhancing mathematical problem solving for secondary students with or at risk of learning disabilities: A literature review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(3), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12105
25.
JitendraA. K.LeinA. E.ImS.-H.AlghamdiA. A.HefteS. B.MouanoutouaJ. (2018). Mathematical interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities and mathematics difficulties: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 84(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917737467
26.
JitendraA. K.NelsonG.PullesS. M.KissA. J.HouseworthJ. (2016). Is mathematical representation of problems an evidence-based strategy for students with mathematics difficulties?Exceptional Children, 83(1), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915625062
27.
JitendraA. K.Petersen-BrownS.LeinA. E.ZaslofskyA. F.KunkelA. K.JungP.EganA. M. (2015). Teaching mathematical word problem solving: The quality of evidence for strategy instruction priming the problem structure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413487408
28.
JitendraA. K.XinY. P. (1997). Mathematical word-problem-solving instruction for students with mild disabilities and students at risk for math failure: A research synthesis. The Journal of Special Education, 30(4), 412–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699703000404
29.
JordanN. C.HanichL. B. (2000). Mathematical thinking in second-grade children with different forms of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(6), 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300605
30.
KeithT. Z. (2019). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Routledge.
31.
KimS. A.BryantP. D.BryantR. B.ShinM.OkM. W.NozariM. (2020). A synthesis of number combinations and whole number computation interventions for students with mathematics disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
32.
KingsdorfS.KrawecJ. (2014). Error analysis of mathematical word problem solving across students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(2), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12029
33.
KoestlerC.Felton-KoestlerM. D.BiedaK.OttenS. (2013). Connecting the NCTM process standards and the CCSSM practices. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
34.
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
35.
MayerR. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003088013286
36.
MoeyaertM.ManolovR.RodabaughE. (2020). Meta-analysis of single-case research via multilevel models: Fundamental concepts and methodological considerations. Behavior Modification, 44(2), 265–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445518806867
37.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
38.
MontagueM.DietzS. (2009). Evaluating the evidence base for cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem solving. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500302
39.
MontagueM.EndersC.DietzS. (2011). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(4), 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711421762
40.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all.
41.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics.
OdomS. L.BartonE. E.ReichowB.SwaminathanH.PustejovskyJ. E. (2018). Between-case standardized effect size analysis of single case designs: Examination of the two methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 79, 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.05.009
44.
PeakeC.JiménezJ. E.RodríguezC.BisschopE.VillarroelR. (2015). Syntactic awareness and arithmetic word problem solving in children with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(6), 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413520183
45.
PeltierC. J.VannestK. J.MarbachJ. J. (2018). A meta-analysis of schema instruction implemented in single-case experimental designs. The Journal of Special Education, 52(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918763173
46.
PfannenstielK. H.BryantD. P.BryantB. R.PorterfieldJ. A. (2015). Cognitive strategy instruction for teaching word problems to primary-level struggling students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(5), 291–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451214560890
47.
PinheiroJ. C.BatesD. M.DebRoyS.SarkarD. (2020). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models (R package version 3.1-145) [Computer software]. https://svn.r-project.org/R-packages/trunk/nlme
PustejovskyJ. E. (2016). scdhlm: Estimating hierarchical linear models for single-case designs (R package version 0.3.1) [Computer software]. https://github.com/jepusto/scdhlm
50.
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(5), 368–393. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998614547577
51.
RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Wiley.
52.
SatsangiR.HammerR.BouckE. C. (2020). Using video modeling to teach geometry word problems: A strategy for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 41(5), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518824974
53.
SatsangiR.HammerR.HoganC. D. (2019). Video modeling and explicit instruction: A comparison of strategies for teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12189
54.
ShadishW. R.HedgesL. V.HornerR. H.OdomS. L. (2015). The role of between-case effect size in conducting, interpreting, and summarizing single-case research (NCER 2015-002). National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
55.
ShinM.BryantD. P. (2015a). Fraction interventions for students struggling to learn mathematics: A research synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 36(6), 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932515572910
56.
ShinM.BryantD. P. (2015b). A synthesis of mathematical and cognitive performances of students with mathematics learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(1), 96–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413508324
57.
ShinM.BryantD. P.PowellS. R.JungP.-G.OkM. W.HouF. (2020). A meta-analysis of single-case research on word-problem instruction for students with learning disabilities [Data files and scripts]. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XR58S
58.
ShinM.JungP. (2018). Reliability, validity, and usability of a graph extraction computer program for the meta-analysis of single-case studies. Special Education Research, 17(3), 185–20. https://doi.org/10.18541/ser.2018.08.17.3.185
59.
SoaresN.EvansT.PatelD. R. (2018). Specific learning disability in mathematics: A comprehensive review. Translational Pediatrics, 7(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.21037/tp.2017.08.03
60.
SpoonerF.SaundersA.RootJ.BroshC. (2017). Promoting access to Common Core Mathematics for students with severe disabilities through mathematical problem solving. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(3), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796917697119
61.
TiptonE. (2015). Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000011
62.
TiptonE.PustejovskyJ. E. (2015). Small-sample adjustments for tests of moderators and model fit using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40(6), 604–634. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998615606099
63.
TolarT. D.FuchsL.FletcherJ. M.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (2016). Cognitive profiles of mathematical problem solving learning disability for different definitions of disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(3), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414538520
64.
van GarderenD.ScheuermannA.PochA. (2014). Challenges students identified with a learning disability and as high-achieving experience when using diagrams as a visualization tool to solve mathematics word problems. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46, 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0519-1
65.
ViswanathanM.PatnodeC. D.BerkmanN. D.BassE. B.ChangS.HartlingL.MuradM. H.TreadwellJ. R.KaneR. L. (2018). Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 97, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.004
66.
VukovicR. K.LesauxN. K.SiegelL. S. (2010). The mathematics skills of children with reading difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 639–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.08.004
67.
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(3), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512448253
WoleryM.BusickM.ReichowB.BartonE. E. (2010). Comparison of overlap methods for quantitatively synthesizing single-subject data. The Journal of Special Education, 44(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466908328009
71.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving mathematical word problems for students with learning problems: A meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699903200402
72.
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.
