Scholarlink

<p>We examined the effect of intervention dosage on mathematics outcomes for students with or at risk for mathematics learning disability in kindergarten through third grade. Using linear and nonlinear models, we meta-analyzed 164 effect sizes from 24 published experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Results supported a linear model and an overall pooled mean effect size of <i>β</i> = .61 (95% CI [.29, .92]). Mixed-effects meta-regression analyses revealed that dosage (i.e., total hours spent in intervention) significantly predicted intervention effects such that for every 1-h increase in dosage, there was an increase of .03 effect size units (95% CI = .01, .06). However, the dosage main effect was no longer significant after controlling for moderators. Outcome proximity did significantly predict the dose–response relationship, such that effect sizes of proximal outcomes increased at a higher rate as a function of dose than did distal outcomes. Intervention effects were also moderated by group size such that 1:1 interventions had higher effect sizes than small-group interventions. Recommendations for future research and implications for mathematics intervention are discussed.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Dosage Response in Intensive Mathematics Interventions for Early Elementary Students With or At-Risk for Mathematics Learning Disability

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月16日

查看全文
  • Anna H. Miller,
  • Daniel R. Espinas,
  • Daniel McNeish,
  • Marcia A. Barnes

摘要

We examined the effect of intervention dosage on mathematics outcomes for students with or at risk for mathematics learning disability in kindergarten through third grade. Using linear and nonlinear models, we meta-analyzed 164 effect sizes from 24 published experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Results supported a linear model and an overall pooled mean effect size of β = .61 (95% CI [.29, .92]). Mixed-effects meta-regression analyses revealed that dosage (i.e., total hours spent in intervention) significantly predicted intervention effects such that for every 1-h increase in dosage, there was an increase of .03 effect size units (95% CI = .01, .06). However, the dosage main effect was no longer significant after controlling for moderators. Outcome proximity did significantly predict the dose–response relationship, such that effect sizes of proximal outcomes increased at a higher rate as a function of dose than did distal outcomes. Intervention effects were also moderated by group size such that 1:1 interventions had higher effect sizes than small-group interventions. Recommendations for future research and implications for mathematics intervention are discussed.