Sample size: 133 third grade students across 18 schools. (924 students were screened; 42 Pirate Math, 44 NC Tutoring, 47 Control).
Risk Status: The study was conducted at two sites, both large urban school districts. Houston was distal and Nashville was proximal to the developers of the tutoring protocols. Thirdgrade students (n=924) were screened for inclusion in 63 classrooms in 18 schools. Seven schools and 23 classrooms were in Houston; 11 schools and 40 classrooms were in Nashville. Because tutoring focused on NCs or on WPs, we included students with low performance on a calculations screening measure or a WP screening measure. (Screening occurred in stepwise fashion; so students did not receive every measure.) The criterion applied for low performance on the calculations measure was < the 26th percentile. The criterion applied to the 5item wordproblem measure was a score of 0 or 1. (See measures for description of the screening measures.) All 924 students were administered the calculations measure; 302 (33%) scored < the 26th percentile. We administered the 5item WP screener to 598 students; 170 (28%) scored 0 or 1. Of the 598 students who took the calculations and the WP screening measures, 291 (49%) did not meet the inclusion criterion on either measure; 67 (11%) met only the WP criterion; 137 (23%) met only the calculations criterion; and 103 (17%) met both criteria.
The 307 students who met either or both criteria were eligible for further screening on a reading and an abbreviated IQ measure. We excluded students who scored between the 25th and 40th percentiles in reading and students with a Tscore below 30 on both IQ subtests. Students scoring < the 26th percentile on the reading measure were classified as having math and reading difficulty (MDRD). Those scoring > 39th percentile were classified as math difficulty alone (MD). Two hundred and two students took all measures. Of these students, 32 (16%) were excluded due to reading scores between the 25th and 40th percentiles; two students were excluded due to low IQ scores; and one student was excluded for both reasons. Thus, 165 students were eligible for tutoring. However, 162 students comprised the actual assignment sample because three students who met all criteria were accidentally not included in the assignment sample.
Blocking on site, type of screening difficulty (WPs, calculations, or both), and difficulty status (MD or MDRD), we randomly assigned students to one of three treatment conditions (NC tutoring, WP tutoring, or control). So, the composition of each treatment group was similar in terms of the three blocking variables. Of the 162 students, 13 (8%) moved after randomization, but prior to the onset of tutoring, 7 (4%) moved during the school year, 5 (3%) were excluded by parents or schools prior to the onset of tutoring, and 4 (2%) were withdrawn by parents or schools during the school year, leaving 133 who were evaluated at posttest.
Demographics:

Program 
Control 
p of chi square 

Number 
Percentage 
Number 
Percentage 

Grade level 

Kindergarten 





Grade 1 





Grade 2 





Grade 3 
42 
47 
47 
53 

Grade 4 





Grade 5 





Grade 6 





Grade 7 





Grade 8 





Grade 9 





Grade 10 





Grade 11 





Grade 12 





Raceethnicity 

AfricanAmerican 

57 

70 

American Indian 

0 

0 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

0 

0 

Hispanic 

26 

19 

White 

7 

9 

Other 

10 

2 

Socioeconomic status 

Subsidized lunch 

76 

77 

No subsidized lunch 

24 

23 

Disability status 

Speechlanguage impairments 





Learning disabilities 

17 

17 

Behavior disorders 





Intellectual disabilities 





Other 





Not identified with a disability 

83 

83 

ELL status 

English language learner 

19 

15 

Not English language learner 

81 

85 

Gender 

Female 

45 

34 

Male 

55 

66 

Training of Instructors: The tutors were parttime or fulltime employees of the research project. In Houston, tutors were not certified teachers, and they were drawn from the community. Each tutor had an undergraduate degree, but the degrees were not necessarily in educationrelated fields. In Nashville, tutors were graduate students across departments at Vanderbilt University (3 were certified teachers; 9 were not). The graduate students were not necessarily in education programs. Tutors were trained as follows: 1 session of instruction; practice implementing the procedures alone and with each other during the subsequent week; a practice session conducted with a supervisor who provides corrective feedback; tutors studying (not reading) scripts; and meeting among tutors and the supervisor every 23 weeks to address problems or questions as they arise.