A Systematic Review of Research Syntheses for Students with Mathematics Learning Disabilities and Difficulties

The purpose of this document is to provide readers with the coding protocol that authors used to code 36 research syntheses (including meta-analyses, evidence-based reviews, and quantitative systematic reviews) focused on mathematics interventions for students with learning disabilities (LD), mathematics learning disabilities (MLD), and mathematics difficulties (MD). The purpose of the systematic review of mathematics intervention syntheses was to identify patterns and gaps in content areas, instructional strategies, effect sizes, and definitions of LD, MLD, and MD. We searched the literature for research syntheses published between 2000 and 2020 and used rigorous inclusion criteria in our literature review process. We evaluated 36 syntheses that included 836 studies with 32,495 participants. We coded each synthesis for variables across seven categories including: publication codes (authors, year, journal), inclusion and exclusion criteria, content area focus, instructional strategy focus, sample size, methodological information, and results. The mean interrater reliability across all codes using this coding protocol was 90.3%. Although each synthesis stated a focus on LD, MLD, or MD, very few students with LD or MLD were included, and authors’ operational definitions of disability and risk varied. Syntheses predominantly focused on word problem solving, fractions, computer- assisted learning, and schema-based instruction. Syntheses reported wide variation in effectiveness, content areas, and instructional strategies. Finally, our results indicate the majority of syntheses report achievement outcomes, but very few syntheses report on other outcomes (e.g., social validity, strategy use). We discuss how the results of this comprehensive review can guide researchers in expanding the knowledge base on mathematics interventions. The systematic review that results from this coding process is accepted for publication and in press at Learning Disabilities Research and Practice.

Reporting Quality in Math Meta-Analyses for Students with or at Risk of Disabilities

Researchers and practitioners alike often look to meta-analyses to identify effective practices to use with students with disabilities. The number of meta-analyses in special education has also expanded in recent years. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of reporting in meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with or at risk of disabilities. We applied 53 quality indicators (QIs) across eight categories based on recommendations from Talbott et al. to 22 mathematics intervention meta-analyses published between 2000 and 2020. Overall, the meta-analyses met 61% of QIs and results indicated that meta-analyses most frequently met QIs related to providing a clear purpose (95%) and data analysis plan (77%), whereas meta-analyses typically met fewer QIs related to describing participants (39%) and explaining the abstract screening process (48%). We discuss the variation in quality indicator scores within and across the quality categories and provide recommendations for future researchers.

A Systematic Review of the Quality of Reporting in Mathematics Meta-Analyses for Students with or at Risk of Disabilities Coding Protocol

The purpose of this document is to provide readers with the coding protocol that authors used to code 22 meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with or at-risk of disabilities. The purpose of the systematic review was to evaluate reporting quality in meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with or at risk of disabilities. To identify meta-analyses for inclusion, we considered peer-reviewed literature published between 2000 and 2020; we searched five education-focused electronic databases, scanned the table of contents of six special education journals, reviewed the curriculum vitae of researchers who frequently publish meta-analyses in mathematics and special education, and scanned the reference lists of meta-analyses that met inclusion criteria. To be included in this systematic review, meta-analyses must have reported on the effectiveness of mathematics-focused interventions, provided a summary effect for a mathematics outcome variable, and included school-aged participants with or at risk of having a disability. We identified 22 meta-analyses for inclusion. We coded each meta-analysis for 53 quality indicators (QIs) across eight categories based on recommendations from Talbott et al. (2018). Overall, the meta-analyses met 61% of QIs and results indicated that meta-analyses most frequently met QIs related to providing a clear purpose (95%) and data analysis plan (77%), whereas meta-analyses typically met fewer QIs related to describing participants (39%) and explaining the abstract screening process (48%). We discuss the variation in QI scores within and across the quality categories and provide recommendations for future researchers so that reporting in meta-analyses may be enhanced. Limitations of the current study are that grey literature was not considered for inclusion and that only meta-analyses were included; this limits the generalizability of the results to other research syntheses (e.g., narrative reviews, systematic reviews) and publication types (e.g., dissertations).

Ecological and Population Validity of Mathematics Interventions for Diverse Students With Low Mathematics Achievement: A Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis examined the ecological and population validity of intervention research for students with low mathematics achievement (SWLMA). Forty-four studies published between 2005 and 2019 that met the inclusionary criterion were included in this analysis. Our findings suggest, to improve the external validity and generalizability of research, more detailed descriptions of participants and the socio-cultural contexts of the intervention studies are warranted.