NumberShire Level 1
Study: Fien et al. (2015); Smith et al. (2016)

Summary

NumberShire Level 1 (NS1) is a browser-based, Tier 2 mathematics intervention designed to support first grade students with or at risk for mathematics difficulties (MD) in developing proficiency with whole numbers concepts and skills. Three mathematics domains represented in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M, 2010) are targeted in NS1: (a) Counting and Cardinality, (b) Number and Operations in Base Ten, and (c) Operations and Algebraic Thinking. NS1 consists of 48 sessions, themed into 12 weeks of instruction (4 sessions per week). Each session is designed to provide 15 minutes of instruction. In total, the intervention offers students 12 hours of individualized instructional game play. In addition, student mastery data reports are generated that depict student game performance in independent practice activities according to the CCSS-M, and are available to teachers for use in data based decision-making. NS1 sessions are set in a Renaissance-style, fairytale-inspired village called NumberShire. In the game, players assume the role of a young member of the village and engage in brief math activities focused on building proficiency with whole numbers. Gameplay allows players to interact with key NS1 characters and receive effort- and performance-based rewards as they succeed in solving math problems, such as individualizing the attributes and attire of their game play character (i.e., avatar). NS1 sessions utilize an explicit instructional format and contain three instructional phases: explicit modeling, supported practice, and independent practice. Embedded within each session are four mathematics mini-games, including a Teaching Event (i.e., a mini-lesson targeting a new instructional objective), Assessment Event (i.e., review of a previously mastered objective), Warm-up, and Wrap-up. Mini-games include clear explanations to introduce new material and high quality feedback, and a differentiated learning pathway is used to direct students to additional instruction and practice activities when game performance indicates a need for support. A variety of virtual mathematical representations (e.g., number lines, base-10 blocks) and frequent practice opportunities are employed to facilitate procedural fluency and build a robust and enduring conceptual understanding of whole number concepts. NS1 primarily addresses first grade topics identified in the CCSS-M; however, the intervention may be used with kindergarten and second grade students, depending on the student’s skill level. See the attached implementation manual for the alignment between NS1 and CCSS-M.

Target Grades:
K, 1, 2
Target Populations:
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • English language learners
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
  • Other: Students at risk in mathematics
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Concepts and/or word problems
  • Whole number arithmetic
  • Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
Where to Obtain:
University of Oregon, Center on Teaching and Learning
5292 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5292
888-497-4290
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market/numbershire
Initial Cost:
$4.00 per student
Replacement Cost:
$4.00 per student per year

NumberShire is available through three different avenues. 1. A class version is available through the CTL Marketplace and includes a teacher dashboard. This version integrates with the DIBELS Data System to facilitate rostering students, and subscribing them to the game. The cost of NumberShire through the CTL Marketplace is $4 per student per year. 2. An app-based class version is available for iPad at iTunes.com. The app is free. This version integrates with the DIBELS Data System for $4 per student per year. 3. A home-based version is available for iPad at iTunes.com for $6.99. This version does not integrate with the DDS and is available for home use. With all three options, additional costs include the purchase price of the device on which the game will be played, and headphones. One student can play on a device at a time. Therefore, the instructional structure will influence the number of devices needed.

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
  • Reading Specialist
  • Math Specialist
  • EL Specialist
  • Interventionist
  • Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
  • Paraprofessional
  • Other: These facilitators should become familiar with the implementation manual.
Training Requirements:
Training not required


NS1 facilitators received the training manual at a professional development (PD) session, which took place prior to the start of the study. The focus and structure of the PD session was largely based on the training manual. For example, facilitators received PD on the conceptual framework of the NS1 intervention and preparation requirements necessary for NS1 gameplay.

Access to Technical Support:
Technical support is available from support@dibels.uoregon.edu, 888-497-4290. In addition, information about NumberShire is available on-line (https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market/numbershire, https://dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/help/guides/qsg_numbershire_set-up.pdf )
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Individual students
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
15
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
4
Minimum Number of Weeks:
12
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
No
Is Technology Required?

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

NumberShire Level 1 (NS1) is a browser-based, Tier 2 mathematics intervention designed to support first grade students with or at risk for mathematics difficulties (MD) in developing proficiency with whole numbers concepts and skills. Three mathematics domains represented in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M, 2010) are targeted in NS1: (a) Counting and Cardinality, (b) Number and Operations in Base Ten, and (c) Operations and Algebraic Thinking. NS1 consists of 48 sessions, themed into 12 weeks of instruction (4 sessions per week). Each session is designed to provide 15 minutes of instruction. In total, the intervention offers students 12 hours of individualized instructional game play. In addition, student mastery data reports are generated that depict student game performance in independent practice activities according to the CCSS-M, and are available to teachers for use in data based decision-making. NS1 sessions are set in a Renaissance-style, fairytale-inspired village called NumberShire. In the game, players assume the role of a young member of the village and engage in brief math activities focused on building proficiency with whole numbers. Gameplay allows players to interact with key NS1 characters and receive effort- and performance-based rewards as they succeed in solving math problems, such as individualizing the attributes and attire of their game play character (i.e., avatar). NS1 sessions utilize an explicit instructional format and contain three instructional phases: explicit modeling, supported practice, and independent practice. Embedded within each session are four mathematics mini-games, including a Teaching Event (i.e., a mini-lesson targeting a new instructional objective), Assessment Event (i.e., review of a previously mastered objective), Warm-up, and Wrap-up. Mini-games include clear explanations to introduce new material and high quality feedback, and a differentiated learning pathway is used to direct students to additional instruction and practice activities when game performance indicates a need for support. A variety of virtual mathematical representations (e.g., number lines, base-10 blocks) and frequent practice opportunities are employed to facilitate procedural fluency and build a robust and enduring conceptual understanding of whole number concepts. NS1 primarily addresses first grade topics identified in the CCSS-M; however, the intervention may be used with kindergarten and second grade students, depending on the student’s skill level. See the attached implementation manual for the alignment between NS1 and CCSS-M.

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
not selected Fourth grade
not selected Fifth grade
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

not selected Students with disabilities only
selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
not selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
selected English language learners
selected Any student at risk for academic failure
not selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
selected Other
If other, please describe:
Students at risk in mathematics

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonics/word study
not selected Comprehension
not selected Fluency
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

not selected Computation
selected Concepts and/or word problems
selected Whole number arithmetic
selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
not selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

not selected Physical Aggression
not selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
not selected Noncompliance
not selected High Levels of Disengagement
not selected Disruptive Behavior
not selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
not selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
5292 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5292
Phone Number
888-497-4290
Website
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market/numbershire

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$4.00
Unit of cost
student

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
$4.00
Unit of cost
student
Duration of license
year

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

NumberShire is available through three different avenues. 1. A class version is available through the CTL Marketplace and includes a teacher dashboard. This version integrates with the DIBELS Data System to facilitate rostering students, and subscribing them to the game. The cost of NumberShire through the CTL Marketplace is $4 per student per year. 2. An app-based class version is available for iPad at iTunes.com. The app is free. This version integrates with the DIBELS Data System for $4 per student per year. 3. A home-based version is available for iPad at iTunes.com for $6.99. This version does not integrate with the DDS and is available for home use. With all three options, additional costs include the purchase price of the device on which the game will be played, and headphones. One student can play on a device at a time. Therefore, the instructional structure will influence the number of devices needed.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

selected Individual students
selected Small group of students
not selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

  

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
15
Minimum number of sessions per week
4
Minimum number of weeks
12
not selected N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:

Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?
No

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?

If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:

Does the program require technology?
Yes

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program?
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:
The web-based version requires a computer and internet connection (see attachment regarding technical specifications). The app-based version requires an iPhone or iPad. Students play independently. Although no teacher-led instruction is required, teachers can utilize data reports to assist in determining a students’ needs and intervene with appropriate instruction as needed. The home-based version can be played on an iPhone/iPad.

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
No
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
Training not required

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
not selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
selected Paraprofessional
selected Other

If other, please describe:

These facilitators should become familiar with the implementation manual.
Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
No   

If yes, please describe: 


Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
NS1 facilitators received the training manual at a professional development (PD) session, which took place prior to the start of the study. The focus and structure of the PD session was largely based on the training manual. For example, facilitators received PD on the conceptual framework of the NS1 intervention and preparation requirements necessary for NS1 gameplay.

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?
Yes

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

Technical support is available from support@dibels.uoregon.edu, 888-497-4290. In addition, information about NumberShire is available on-line (https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market/numbershire, https://dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/help/guides/qsg_numbershire_set-up.pdf )

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.

Fien, H., Doabler, C. T., Nelson, N., Kosty, D., & Clarke, B. (submitted for publication). An examination of the promise of the NumberShire Level 1 gaming intervention for improving student mathematics outcomes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness.

Study Information

Study Citations

Fien, H., Doabler, C. T., Nelson, N., Kosty, D. & Clarke, B. An examination of the promise of the NumberShire Level 1 gaming intervention for improving student mathematics outcomes.. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. To obtain: This manuscript was recently submitted for publication to the Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. Until it is published, users can obtain the manuscript by contacting Chris Doabler, cdoabler@uoregon.edu.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
After obtaining parent consent and student assent, first-grade students in 26 classrooms* were screened using the math screening measure easyCBM-CCSS. After screening, the 10 lowest students in each class were rank ordered according to their easyCBM-CCSS scores then matched in pairs. Each member of the pair was then randomly assigned to either the intervention or the control group. *One classroom dropped out of the study.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
Prior to randomization, all participating first grade students completed a math screening assessment, the EasyCBM-CCSS fall benchmark. Based on performance on this assessment, the 10 lowest students in each class were identified as “NumberShire eligible.” On average, students in the intervention and control groups performed at the 20th percentile on the EasyCBM-CCSS fall benchmark relative to all students screened.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
  • identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?
%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • emotional disability label,
  • placed in an alternative school/classroom,
  • non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
  • designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?
%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:
The NumberShire group utilized the submitted program, NumberShire Level 1.

Specify which condition is the control condition:
The wait-list control group continued with their typical instruction: “Business as usual”.

If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Age less than 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Kindergarten
Grade 1 125 125 0.00
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12

Race–Ethnicity

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
African American 6 10 0.30
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander 5 5 0.00
Hispanic 26 29 0.07
White 77 76 0.03
Other 10 5 0.45

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch
No Subsidized Lunch

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments
Learning Disabilities
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disabilities
Other 11 12 0.07
Not Identified With a Disability 114 113 0.07

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner 31 28 0.10
Not English Language Learner 94 97 0.10

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 64 61 0.05
Male 61 64 0.05

Mean Effect Size

0.11

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

The expectation of baseline equivalency due to random assignment of groups was examined. The treatment and control groups were compared on demographic characteristics and outcome measures collected at pretest. Contingency table analyses and t-tests were conducted on categorical and continuous measures, respectively. The groups did not significantly differ on any demographic characteristics. Compared to control students, treatment students performed significantly better on pretest Group-administered quantity discrimination (M = 21.1, SD = 7.5 vs. M = 19.0, SD = 7.6; t[235] = 2.18, p = .030) and the proximal NumberShire assessment (M = 39.2, SD = 17.0 vs. M = 34.6, SD = 16.7; t[246] = 2.15, p = .032). To control for baseline non-equivalencies, these measures were included as additional covariates in all outcome analyses

Design Full Bobble

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?
Random
Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.
Students. Eligibility for the NS1 intervention used a three-stage process. First, 632 consented first grade students enrolled in the 26 participating classrooms were screened in fall 2013. Students were screened using the fall benchmark of the EasyCBM – Common Core State Standards (EasyCBM-CCSS; Alonzo et al., 2006) assessment. In each classroom, the 10 students with the lowest scores on the EasyCBM-CCSS were identified as NS1-eligible and then matched in pairs according to their scores. Each participating classroom had five pairs of NS1-eligible students. For example, the two lowest performers on the EasyCBM-CCSS formed the first pair, while the students who were rank ordered in the ninth and tenth positions formed the fifth pair. A total of 250 students were determined eligible for the intervention.

What was the unit of assignment?
Students
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?
not selected Schools
not selected Teachers
selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

Fidelity of Implementation Full Bobble

How was the program delivered?
not selected Individually
selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
10
Minimum group size
5
Maximum group size
25

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
8.00
Sessions per week
5.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
15.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
Interventionists were 9 district-employed instructional assistants and one parent volunteer. The interventionists were predominantly female, and just over half were White, while the remaining were Hispanic or Latino. They had an average of 6.9 years of experience working in schools, and 3.3 years providing interventions for students at risk for mathematics difficulties. The majority did not have formal training in mathematics or education. They had varying levels of experience with technology. One-third of interventionists reported using technology-based math interventions prior to participating in the study.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Project staff observed one NumberShire session in each classroom in the final two weeks of implementation. In addition, research staff tracked student progress through game sessions on a weekly basis. Metrics gathered during NS1 gameplay served as an additional measure of fidelity of implementation, including number of sessions completed, number of items completed, and latency and accuracy in responding.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Project staff directly observed each NS1 intervention group once during the eight-week study using the Technology Observation Tool (TOT: Nelson & Doabler, 2013). The TOT is a researcher-developed, standardized protocol designed to assess fidelity of implementation of the NS1 intervention. Project staff observed and rated each of the intervention session sites (e.g., computer labs) on six items of implementation fidelity: (a) use of effective procedures at start of gameplay, (b) students use of headphones during gameplay, (c) student engagement, (d) active monitoring and classroom management, (e) troubleshooting of technological issues, (f) use of effective procedures at end of gameplay. All items were rated on a 4-point scale (1 = not present, 4 = highly present) and were averaged to compute an overall implementation fidelity score. The average fidelity ratings for interventionists’ use of effective procedures at the start of the session, active monitoring during student gameplay, and use of effective procedures at the conclusion of the session were 3.5 (SD = 1.1), 3.6 (SD = 0.7), and 3.2 (SD = 1.2), respectively. Interventionists also received an average rating of 2.6 (SD = 1.1) for troubleshooting technology issues during sessions. Observers rated students’ engagement during gameplay and use of headphones, a critical component of NS1, as 3.7 (SD = 0.7) and 3.2 (SD = 0.8), respectively. The average overall fidelity score was 3.3 (SD = 0.8), indicating moderate overall fidelity with substantial variability between NS1 groups. Metrics gathered during NS1 gameplay served as an additional measure of fidelity of implementation, including number of sessions completed, number of items completed, and latency and accuracy in responding. Between pretest and posttest treatment students, on average, completed 18.6 game sessions or 4.7 weeks of game play (SD = 8.1 sessions, range = 2 to 33 sessions) and repeated 12.8 game sessions (SD = 5.9, range = 2 to 24). During game play treatment students completed an average of 499.8 practice opportunities (SD = 269, range = 41 to 1,156) and completed 69% of the practice opportunities correctly (SD = 12%, range = 37% to 90%). Project staff used gameplay metrics to track student progress through game sessions on a weekly basis, and corresponded regularly with interventionists to provide support when needed (e.g., when a student’s gameplay progression deviated from the standard schedule of four sessions per week)

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
No. Because NumberShire was a specific technology-based intervention that was not used in the control classrooms, the fidelity of measure was not applicable.

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Full Bobble

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be academic performance in that setting or on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

Click here for more information on effect size.


What populations are you submitting outcome data for?
not selected Full sample
not selected Students at or below the 20th percentile
not selected English language learners
not selected Racial/ethnic subgroups
not selected Economically disadvantaged students (low socioeconomic status)
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Posttest Data

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P
For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
Two-week mastery tests were not administered pre-post.
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
Univariate effects of intervention condition on posttest outcome measures were examined using between subjects analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for pretest scores. Intervention effects on the two-, four-, and six-week interim mastery tests were also evaluated using ANCOVAs adjusting for pretest proximal NumberShire (PN) total score as a covariate. Pearson’s r correlation coefficients were used to explore associations between number of sessions completed and change in outcomes from pretest to posttest among students assigned to the treatment condition. Non-nested analyses were appropriate for this study given that students were both the unit of randomization and the unit of analysis. All analyses were conducted with SPSS 21 and alpha was set to p < .05, two-tailed, for all tests. Hedges’ g was reported as a metric of intervention effect size (What Works Clearinghouse, 2008; .2, .5, and .8 are considered small, medium, and large effects). Hedges’ g was computed as the difference between the covariate adjusted means of the two groups at posttest divided by the posttest pooled standard deviation of the outcome.

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
E-ESSA
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

 

Evidence for ESSA

No studies considered met Evidence for ESSA's inclusion requirements.

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
0
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.