focusMATH Intensive Intervention
Study: Styers & Baird-Wilkerson (2011)

Summary

focusMATH Intensive Intervention is an intensive, K–6 math intervention program designed to fit any Response to Intervention (RtI) framework and work with any math program. focusMATH identifies at-risk students early and accelerates their learning with instruction that is intensive, balanced, and individualized. All grade levels consist of three units, each built around a specific NCTM Focal Point. All three units (one unit in kindergarten) are covered in a single Teacher Edition at that grade level. Lessons are organized by topic and can be covered in a single session, making the program ideal for pull-out, summer, or after-school district models. focusMATH provides concise lessons built on the Focal points to provide explicit and systematic instruction on foundational skills. This intensive intervention program utilizes stepped-out instructional models along with strategic questions that let students verbalize their understanding. focusMATH offers targeted placement and ongoing progress monitoring to help teachers individualize lessons. focusMATH Intensive Intervention provides instruction that is intensive, balanced, and individualized.

Target Grades:
K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Target Populations:
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Computation
  • Concepts and/or word problems
  • Fractions, decimals (rational number)
Where to Obtain:
Savvas Learning Company
Pearson K12 Customer Service P.O. Box 2500 Lebanon, IN 46
800-848-9500
www.savvas.com/focusmath
Initial Cost:
$197.35 per kindergarten class
Replacement Cost:
$34.47 per 6-pack of workbooks per year

focusMATH Intensive Intervention consists of three units for at the student level (one unit in kindergarten) The Teacher’s Edition contains support for all three student books, Teaching Tool Masters, Assessment Masters, and Answer Keys. There are three consumable student books, one for each Focal Point. Students may be recommended for one or more of the books depending on the results of their Program Placement Test. Each student book can be completed in 4–6 weeks. There are manipulative kits for each grade level. No other materials are required for implementation of the focusMATH Intensive Intervention program. Pricing: Grade K Teacher's Edition , $84.97 Student Workbook, $6.97 Student Workbook (6 Pack), $34.47 Grade K Student Manipulative Kit, $8.97 Grades 1-6 Teacher's Editions, $127.97 Student Workbooks, $4.60 Student Workbook, (6 pack), $23.47 Grade Level Student Workbook Pack (3 units), $11.97 Grades 1-6 Student Manipulative Kits, $21.97

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: The focusMATH Intensive Intervention program was designed to facilitate the teaching of these intensive lessons by anyone no matter their response to intervention background. Due to the teacher support supplied in the focusMATH Teacher Edition, even parent aids can be confident in teaching the lessons.
Training Requirements:
Training not required

The instructor can teach straight from the focusMATH Intensive Intervention Teacher Edition because the program provides sufficient support and scripting to teach the program without prior training on response to intervention.


Online tutorials concerning the implementation of the program are available online at mysavvastraining.com

Access to Technical Support:
Savvas Learning Company offers a variety of professional development options, both online and on-site. Options available here: savvas.com/pd.
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Individual students
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
45
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
3
Minimum Number of Weeks:
4
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
Yes
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

focusMATH Intensive Intervention is an intensive, K–6 math intervention program designed to fit any Response to Intervention (RtI) framework and work with any math program. focusMATH identifies at-risk students early and accelerates their learning with instruction that is intensive, balanced, and individualized. All grade levels consist of three units, each built around a specific NCTM Focal Point. All three units (one unit in kindergarten) are covered in a single Teacher Edition at that grade level. Lessons are organized by topic and can be covered in a single session, making the program ideal for pull-out, summer, or after-school district models. focusMATH provides concise lessons built on the Focal points to provide explicit and systematic instruction on foundational skills. This intensive intervention program utilizes stepped-out instructional models along with strategic questions that let students verbalize their understanding. focusMATH offers targeted placement and ongoing progress monitoring to help teachers individualize lessons. focusMATH Intensive Intervention provides instruction that is intensive, balanced, and individualized.

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

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

selected Computation
selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
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
Pearson K12 Customer Service P.O. Box 2500 Lebanon, IN 46
Phone Number
800-848-9500
Website
www.savvas.com/focusmath

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$197.35
Unit of cost
kindergarten class

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
$34.47
Unit of cost
6-pack of workbooks
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)

focusMATH Intensive Intervention consists of three units for at the student level (one unit in kindergarten) The Teacher’s Edition contains support for all three student books, Teaching Tool Masters, Assessment Masters, and Answer Keys. There are three consumable student books, one for each Focal Point. Students may be recommended for one or more of the books depending on the results of their Program Placement Test. Each student book can be completed in 4–6 weeks. There are manipulative kits for each grade level. No other materials are required for implementation of the focusMATH Intensive Intervention program. Pricing: Grade K Teacher's Edition , $84.97 Student Workbook, $6.97 Student Workbook (6 Pack), $34.47 Grade K Student Manipulative Kit, $8.97 Grades 1-6 Teacher's Editions, $127.97 Student Workbooks, $4.60 Student Workbook, (6 pack), $23.47 Grade Level Student Workbook Pack (3 units), $11.97 Grades 1-6 Student Manipulative Kits, $21.97

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?

   6-8

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
45
Minimum number of sessions per week
3
Minimum number of weeks
4
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?
Yes

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?
No

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:

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:
The instructor can teach straight from the focusMATH Intensive Intervention Teacher Edition because the program provides sufficient support and scripting to teach the program without prior training on response to intervention.

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:

The focusMATH Intensive Intervention program was designed to facilitate the teaching of these intensive lessons by anyone no matter their response to intervention background. Due to the teacher support supplied in the focusMATH Teacher Edition, even parent aids can be confident in teaching the lessons.
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:
Online tutorials concerning the implementation of the program are available online at mysavvastraining.com

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

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

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

Savvas Learning Company offers a variety of professional development options, both online and on-site. Options available here: savvas.com/pd.

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.

Study Information

Study Citations

Styers, M. & Baird-Wilkerson, S. (2011). A Final Report for the Evaluation of Pearson’s focusMath Program.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Magnolia Consulting recruited eleven schools to participate in the study. The schools responded to a posting on the Pearson website and to an email blast from MDR. Once the schools agreed to participate in the study, students were assessed using the KeyMath3 assessment. Students who scored below the 30th percentile on the KeyMath3 assessment were invited to participate in the study.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
The norm-referenced KeyMath3 assessment was administered at the beginning of the year to students at each study site. Magnolia Consulting selected only those students who scored below the 30th percentile on the KeyMath3 to participate in the study.

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 treatment is the Savvas Learning Company (formerly Pearson) focusMath intervention program.

Specify which condition is the control condition:
The control is a combination of “business as usual” methods (9 schools) and “homegrown math intervention” (2 schools).

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
Grade 2
Grade 3 85 89 0.05
Grade 4
Grade 5 89 94 0.07
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 39 41 0.07
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander 4 3 0.00
Hispanic 57 61 0.06
White 57 59 0.03
Other 17 19 0.07

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch 122 131 0.14
No Subsidized Lunch 51 52 0.03

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 24 20 0.12
Not Identified With a Disability 149 163 0.33

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner 45 41 0.07
Not English Language Learner 128 142 0.24

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 89 90 0.02
Male 85 93 0.10

Mean Effect Size

0.09

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.

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.
This study used a randomized control trial (RCT) design, wherein evaluators randomly assigned students who qualified for math intervention to treatment and control groups. Therefore, within the same school, some students participated in the focusMATH program (treatment group), while other students did not receive a published math intervention program (control group). This design allowed evaluators to estimate the difference in math achievement between treatment and control groups and to determine if the difference was significant.

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
6
Minimum group size
3
Maximum group size
8

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

Weeks
25.00
Sessions per week
2.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
35.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
The majority of facilitators held a master’s degree (59%), a bachelor’s degree (18%), or a high school degree (18%). Facilitators had been teaching for an average of 12 years and had taught at their current school for an average of seven years. Each facilitator received 1.5 days of training. The first day occurred prior to the start of implementation, and was 7 hours. The second day occurred after 4 – 6 weeks of implementation, and was 3 – 4 hours. During the seven-hour program training, curriculum specialists reviewed the theory behind focusMATH, completed a program walk-through, discussed successful environments for implementing the program with fidelity, completed a model lesson, reviewed focusMATH lesson planning, and had a Questions and Answer session. The follow-up half-day training focused on specific needs and requests by each school. Trainings allowed curriculum specialists to ascertain the level of treatment fidelity and to work with teachers in reaching higher levels of program implementation. These procedures, with the exception of the research implementation guidelines, reflect Savvas Learning’s standard training protocol for the focusMATH program. Curriculum specialists shared their contact information with facilitators, and facilitators were encouraged to contact them if they had questions or required assistance after the training was complete.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Evaluators assessed program fidelity through two observations over the course of the school year and weekly self-report logs. Implementation fidelity scores were equally weighted to include ratings from observations and weekly log data. Throughout the school year, focusMATH facilitators completed 10 to 15-minute weekly implementation logs gauging the breadth and depth of their use of the focusMATH program. On the logs, facilitators indicated: 1. the frequency and extent to which they implement specific focusMath components and materials, 2. how often they use the program’s additional resources, including assessments, and 3. their perceptions about the focusMath program. Facilitators also reported interruptions in their intervention instruction periods (e.g., fire drill, testing, field trips, etc.), as well as student attrition. The logs allowed evaluators to assess implementation fidelity through adherence to required program components and weekly exposure to the program. Evaluators aggregated weekly log data at the end of the study period to aid in determining each teacher’s level of program implementation. Evaluators used this score to compare teachers’ implementation relative to the implementation guidelines established at the beginning of the study. The benchmarks reflect student exposure to the focusMATH program and teacher adherence to the required daily program components (e.g., Concept Development, Guided Practice, Independent Practice). Evaluators averaged the teachers’ overall log implementation ratings with overall observation fidelity ratings in order to create a fidelity measure that included teacher and observer ratings. Evaluators used the overall implementation fidelity score in analyses examining treatment student performance on outcomes and to describe teachers’ fidelity. To measure lesson implementation, evaluators observed student and teacher actions during 40- minute intervention periods in the fall and spring. During the observation, evaluators completed a checklist of materials facilitators and students used during the observation (e.g., student workbooks, practice pages, manipulatives, etc.) and rated quality, adherence, and exposure across 22 indicators (e.g., teacher–student interactions, use of instructional strategies, lesson implementation, and student engagement). The protocol allowed evaluators to indicate the extent of observed occurrences and to record notes for validity and reliability purposes. Evaluators qualitatively and quantitatively used the data to triangulate other data sources and to provide observer ratings of implementation fidelity. Evaluators established inter-rater reliability on the observation protocol through a facilitator video of a focusMATH lesson with students. Following observation of the video and individual determination of ratings on the 22 indicators, evaluators conducted an in-depth debriefing of the video and ratings, coming to a consensus on the meaning of high versus low ratings on each of the indicators. The five evaluators and researchers involved in observations and ratings established a high degree of inter-rater reliability (average measures intraclass correlation = 0.91, Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.91). Evaluators observed all small groups instructed by treatment teachers and control teachers (if applicable) twice at all sites and twice in 10 out of 11 schools. One exception was at School A in Site 2. In the spring of 2012, the school had a last-minute weather-related closing and evaluators were not able to observe focusMATH and control groups (if applicable). Also in School A, one control teacher was not available for observation in the fall. Another exception was in Site 6, due to time limitations and scheduling constraints, evaluators observed 8 out of 11 groups instructed by the same study treatment teacher across two schools (School I and J) in the fall and spring (total of 16 observations). In the fall, evaluators observed a total of 21 out of 22 study teachers, 143 treatment and 12 control students. In the spring, evaluators observed a total of 18 out of 22 study teachers, 152 treatment and 11 control students. The number of control students observed was less than the number of observed treatment students because the majority of control students in the study (92%) did not receive pull-out math intervention.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
The implementation fidelity grand mean for 14 third grade and 16 fifth grade focusMATH teachers was 87%, indicating that the facilitators implemented the program with high fidelity. Overall, 93% (n = 28) of facilitators implemented the program with high fidelity. One facilitator with a third and fifth grade classroom implemented the program with moderate fidelity.

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Dash

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?
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:
The KeyMath3 assessment also includes subtests of Algebra and Data Analysis & Probability (under Basic Concepts) and Applied Problem Solving (under Applications). These 3 subtests were not included in the study because focusMath does not address them. The test publisher provided an algorithm to derive an adjusted Total GV score with the exclusion of these three subtests.
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
Evaluators conducted a multilevel model with students nested in teachers/classrooms in order to examine the impact of focusMATH on posttest achievement scores. Because random assignment occurred at the student level and the intervention was received at the student level, the student level of the model included an indicator variable for study condition, control or focusMATH. The model included the following student covariates: pretest KeyMATH3 Total GSV score, pretest self-efficacy score, gender, ethnicity, free or reduced lunch status, special education status, and grade level. The model also contained several teacher/classroom covariates, including, core math teacher’s years of teaching experience, core math classroom size, time spent in core math instruction and school. For full results, see Appendix F, Table F4.

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

Program Outcomes: Students in focusMATH were compared to similar students who did not receive any structured remedial assistance. On Key Math 3, the average effect size was +0.24. This qualified focusMATH for the ESSA “Strong” category.

Number of Studies: 1

Average Effect Size: 0.24

Full Report

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.