ArticleExceptional children2017
Child-Level Predictors of Responsiveness to Evidence-Based Mathematics Intervention.
Article in Exceptional children, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We identified child-level predictors of responsiveness to 2 types of mathematics (calculation and word-problem) intervention among 2nd-grade children with mathematics difficulty. Participants were 250 children in 107 classrooms in 23 schools pretested on mathematics and general cognitive measures and posttested on mathematics measures. We assigned classrooms randomly assigned to calculation intervention, word-problem intervention, or business-as-usual control. Intervention lasted 17 weeks. Path analyses indicated that scores on working memory and language comprehension assessments moderated responsiveness to calculation intervention. No moderators were identified for responsiveness to word-problem intervention. Across both intervention groups and the control group, attentive behavior predicted both outcomes. Initial calculation skill predicted the calculation outcome, and initial language comprehension predicted word-problem outcomes. These results indicate that screening for calculation intervention should include a focus on working memory, language comprehension, attentive behavior, and calculations. Screening for word-problem intervention should focus on attentive behavior and word problems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.