Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40367197›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Effective remediation programs for vulnerable students to overcome learning loss.

Madelon Jacobs, Carla Haelermans, Martijn Meeter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Madelon JacobsResearch Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA), School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6245-8485
Carla HaelermansResearch Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA), School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, the Netherlands.
Martijn MeeterVrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In March 2020, the world was forced to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, and as a result, schools in many countries closed to minimize the spread of the coronavirus. Students were required to shift to online learning from home. Not long after that, research showed that students in the first half-year of the COVID-19 pandemic experienced extensive learning losses compared to peers from previous cohorts. An important question is whether these losses can be remediated or lead to permanently lower attainment for a generation of students. Here, we study the effectiveness of a nationwide attempt at remediation in the Netherlands, where the government provided funds for schools to proactively minimize the detrimental effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Unique standardized test score data of over 66,000 Dutch primary school students were combined with information about the various remediation programs employed uniquely in each school to investigate to what extent remediation occurred. Applying a Difference-in-Differences design, we find an overall statistically significant and meaningful increase in the achievement of vulnerable students after participation in remediation programs (+ 0.05 SD). Participating students had a higher increase in test scores compared to non-participants within the same school, and the inequality between the latter and former has slightly been reduced (~10%). Remediation programs offering individual support to students or in small groups, and with a sole emphasis on cognitive skill development, were most successful.

Indexed as

COVID-19Remedial TeachingStudentsChildFemaleHumansLearningMaleNetherlandsPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Schools

Identifiers

PMID40367197
PMCPMC12077795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.