ArticleChild development2020
Prevention: Necessary But Insufficient? A 2-Year Follow-Up of an Effective First-Grade Mathematics Intervention.
Article in Child development, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Triangulating on developmental models with a combination of experimental and nonexperimental estimates.Developmental psychology · 2023Article
- Predicting Risk for Comorbid Reading and Mathematics Disability Using Fluency-Based Screening Assessments.Learning disabilities research & practice : a publication of the Division for Learning Disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children · 2022Article
- Closing the Word-Problem Achievement Gap in First Grade: Schema-Based Word-Problem Intervention with Embedded Language Comprehension Instruction.Journal of educational psychology · 2021Article
- Persistence and Fade-Out of Educational-Intervention Effects: Mechanisms and Potential Solutions.Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We present first-grade, second-grade, and third-grade impacts for a first-grade intervention targeting the conceptual and procedural bases that support arithmetic. At-risk students (average age at pretest = 6.5) were randomly assigned to three conditions: a control group (n = 224) and two variants of the intervention (same conceptual instruction but different forms of practice: speeded [n = 211] vs. nonspeeded [n = 204]). Impacts on all first-grade content outcomes were significant and positive, but no follow-up impacts were significant. Many intervention children achieved average mathematics achievement at the end of third grade, and prior math and reading assessment performance predicted which students will require sustained intervention. Finally, projecting impacts 2 years later based on nonexperimental estimates of effects of first-grade math skills overestimates long-term intervention effects.
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.