The effects of whole number computation interventions among school students with learning disabilities in Grades K to 5 were examined using a multilevel meta-analysis. Applying a correlated and hierarchical effect model of robust variance estimation, we examined the intervention effects among 15 peer-reviewed articles and dissertations (two group-design and 13 single-case design studies) published between 1989 and 2021. Whole number computation interventions demonstrated a statistically significant and large effect on whole number computation outcomes ( = 3.74). The type of mathematical operations, type of whole number computation measures, and the number of instructional components did not significantly affect the magnitude of the effect size estimate. However, the results showed slightly larger average effect sizes for the addition problem, the accuracy measure, and the additional number of instructional components by one. The limitations and implications for the practice of the meta-analysis are discussed, and future research directions are proposed.
BaekE.LuoW.HenriM. (2020). Issues and solutions in meta-analysis of single-case design with multiple dependent variables using multilevel modeling. The Journal of Experimental Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2020.1821342
2.
BaileyD. H.SieglerR. S.GearyD. C. (2014). Early predictors of middle school fraction knowledge. Developmental Science, 17(5), 775–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12155
3.
BeggC. B.MazumdarM. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088–1101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533446
4.
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(4), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517721712
5.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.HammillD. D. (2000). Characteristic behaviors of students with LD who have teacher-identified math weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300205
6.
BryantD. P.HartmanP.KimS. A. (2003). Using explicit and strategic instruction to teach division skills to students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 11(3), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327035EX1103_03
7.
*BurnsM. K. (2005). Using incremental rehearsal to increase fluency of single-digit multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation. Education and Treatment of Children, 28(3), 237–249. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42899847
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(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2010.12087791
9.
BurnsM. K.YsseldykeJ.NelsonP. M.KaniveR. (2015). Number of repetitions required to retain single-digit multiplication math facts for elementary students. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000097
10.
CalhoonM. B.EmersonR. W.FloresM.HouchinsD. E. (2007). Computational fluency performance profile of high school students with mathematics disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 28(5), 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325070280050401
11.
*CarmackC. M. (2011). Investigating the effects of addition with regrouping strategy instruction among elementary students with learning disabilities (Publication No. 3475404) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
12.
ChoduraS.KuhnJ.-T.HollingH. (2015). Interventions for children with mathematical difficulties: A meta-analysis. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000211
13.
CirinoP. T.FuchsL. S.EliasJ. T.PowellS. R.SchumacherR. F. (2015). Cognitive and mathematical profiles for different forms of learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413494239
14.
ClarkF. B.KamiiC. (1996). Identification of multiplicative thinking in children in grades 1–5. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.27.1.0041
15.
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
16.
CoddingR. S.Hilt-PanahonA.PanahonC. J.BensonJ. L. (2009). Addressing mathematics computation problems: A review of simple and moderate intensity interventions. Education and treatment of Children, 32(2), 279–312.
17.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
CooperH. (2015). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (5th ed.). SAGE.
*DennisM. S.SorrellsA. M.FalcomataT. S. (2016). Effects of two interventions on solving basic fact problems by second graders with mathematics learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948715595943
21.
*FerreiraD. (2009). Effects of explicit subtraction instruction on fifth grade students with learning disabilities (Publication No. 3391472) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
22.
*FloresM. M. (2009). Teaching subtraction with regrouping to students experiencing difficulty in mathematics. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(3), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.3.145-152
23.
*FloresM. M.HintonV. M.SchweckK. B. (2014). Teaching multiplication with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(4), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12043
24.
*FriesK. M. (2013). Effectiveness of mastering math facts on second- and third-grade students with specific learning disabilities in mathematics (Publication No. 3576454) [Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
25.
FuchsD.FuchsL.VaughnS. (2014). What is intensive instruction and why is it important?Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 13–18.
26.
FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.PowellS. R.SchumacherR. F.HamlettC. L.VernierE.NamkungJ. M.VukovicR. K. (2012). Contributions of domain-general cognitive resources and different forms of arithmetic development to pre-algebraic knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 48(5), 1315–1326. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027475
27.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PowellS. R.SeethalerP. M.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ. M. (2008). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(2), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/20528819
28.
GarwoodJ. D.McKennaJ. W.RobertsG. J.CiulloS.ShinM. (2021). Social studies content knowledge interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification, 45(1), 147–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519834622
GearyD. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: A five-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1539–1552. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025510
31.
GearyD. C.BerchD. B.OchsendorfR.KoepkeK. M. (Eds.). (2017). Acquisition of complex arithmetic skills and higher-order mathematics concepts. Academic Press.
32.
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
*HarrisC. A.MillerS. P.MercerC. D. (1995). Teaching initial multiplication skills to students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10(3), 180–195.
35.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164588
36.
HedgesL. V.PustejovskyJ. E.ShadishW. R. (2012). A standardized mean difference effect size for single case designs. Research Synthesis Methods, 3(3), 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1052
37.
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
HintonV.FloresM.M.ShippenM. (2013). Response to intervention and math instruction. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 190-201. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED548038.pdf
40.
*IrishC. (2002). Using peg-and keyword mnemonics and computer-assisted instruction to enhance basic multiplication performance in elementary students with learning and cognitive disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(4), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340201700403
41.
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
42.
JordanN. C.HansenN.FuchsL. S.SieglerR. S.GerstenR.MicklosD. (2013). Developmental predictors of fraction concepts and procedures. Journal of experimental child psychology, 116(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.001
43.
JordanN. C.KaplanD.Ola’hL. N.LocuniakM. N. (2006). Number sense growth in kindergarten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics difficulties. Child Development, 77(1), 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00862.x
44.
KimS. A.BryantD.BryantB.ShinM.OkM. W. (2022). A multilevel meta-analysis of whole number computation interventions for students with learning disabilities. [Data files and scripts]. Center for Open Science. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WUK5P
45.
MagginD. M.BartonE.ReichowB.LaneK.ShogrenK. A. (2021). Commentary on the What Works Clearinghouse standards and procedures handbook (v. 4.1) for the review of single-case research. Remedial and Special Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211051317
46.
*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(4), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00363.x
47.
MiltonJ. H.FloresM. M.MooreA. J.TaylorJ. L. J.BurtonM. E. (2019). Using the concrete–representational–abstract sequence to teach conceptual understanding of basic multiplication and division. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718790089
48.
MononenR.AunioP.KoponenT.AroM. (2014). A review of early numeracy interventions for children at risk in mathematics. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 6(1), 25–54. https://www.int-ecse.net/index.php/ijecse/article/view/79
49.
MoranoS.RandolphK.MarkelzA.ChurchN. (2020). Combining explicit strategy instruction and mastery practice to build arithmetic fact fluency. Teaching Exceptional Children, 53(1), 60–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920906455
MorrisS. B. (2008). Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059
52.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). NAEP report card: 2019 NAEP mathematics assessment. National Center for Education Statistics.
53.
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2016). Principles for designing intervention in mathematics. Office of Special Education, U.S. Department of Education.
54.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. http://www.corestandards.org/Math
55.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education.
56.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. In KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB. (Eds.), Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Academy Press.
57.
NiY.ZhouY. (2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_3
58.
NunesT.DornelesB. V.LinP. J.Rathgeb-SchniererE. (2016). Teaching and learning about whole numbers in primary school. Springer Nature.
59.
*OkM. W.BryantD. P. (2016). Effects of a strategic intervention with iPad practice on the multiplication fact performance of fifth-grade students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(3), 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948715598285
60.
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.. . . & MoherD. (2021). Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: Development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
61.
PinheiroJ.BatesD.DebRoySSarkarD. & R Core Team. (2022). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models (R package version 3.1-152) [Computer Software].
62.
PustejovskyJ. E. (2022). clubSandwich: Cluster-robust (Sandwich) variance estimators with small-sample corrections (R package version 0.5.3) [Computer Software].
63.
PustejovskyJ. E.ChenM.HamiltonB. J. (2021). scdhlm: Estimating hierarchical linear models for single-case designs (R package version 0.5.2) [Computer Software].
64.
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
65.
PustejovskyJ. E.TiptonE. (2022). Meta-analysis with Robust Variance Estimation: Expanding the range of working models. Prevention Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01246-3
66.
*SealanderK. A.JohnsonG. R.LockwoodA. B.MedinaC. M. (2012). Concrete–semiconcrete–abstract (CSA) instruction: A decision rule for improving instructional efficacy. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508412453164
67.
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(2), 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.11.005
68.
ShinM.BryantD. P. (2015). 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
69.
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
70.
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
71.
SieglerR. S.DuncanG. J.Davis-KeanP. E.DuckworthK.ClaessensA.EngelM.SusperreguyM. I.ChenM. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23(7), 691–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612440101
72.
*SimonR.HanrahanJ. (2004). An evaluation of the Touch Math method for teaching addition to students with learning disabilities in mathematics. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19(2), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250410001678487
73.
SolomonB. G.PoncyB. C.BattistaC.CampañaK. V. (2020) A review of common rates of improvement when implementing whole-number operation math interventions. School Psychology, 35(5), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000360
74.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 277–321. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003277
75.
*TournakiN. (2003). The differential effects of teaching addition through strategy instruction versus drill and practice to students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(5), 449–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194030360050601
76.
ViechtbauerW (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
77.
*WoodwardJ. (2006). Developing automaticity in multiplication facts: Integrating strategy instruction with timed practice drills. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(4), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035554
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.
