A Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Research Using Mathematics Manipulatives With At-Risk/Disability Students (CRA evidence base)
Peltier, C., Morin, K. L., Bouck, E. C., et al. · 2020
grade Cmeta-analysisindependentunreplicated
Sample
53 single-case designs
Population
K-12 students at risk or with disabilities.
Design
Tau-U meta of single-case designs; a third of studies failed WWC standards and quality did NOT moderate effects. Companion: Bouck et al. 2018 rate CRA an evidence-based practice for LD computation.
Key findings
The special-ed CRA (concrete-representational-abstract) evidence: reliably produces acquisition of the trained computation skill in strugglers when delivered with explicit instruction. Magnitude on independent measures and durability undemonstrated.
Genetic confound
Within-child experimental control; ability-selected samples.
Replication notes
No group-design RCT of CRA on independent standardized outcomes exists — open gap.
DOI / URL
10.1177/0022466919844516
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math performance (acquisition of taught skill) | Tau-U | 0.91 (near ceiling on researcher-built probes) | researcher-designed | immediate | none | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
| Concrete vs virtual manipulatives | moderator | no difference | researcher-designed | immediate | active-alternative | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
Cited by
- Manipulatives and concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) sequencesmoderate supportconf: mediumgc: low