Examining Interactions Across Instructional Tiers: Do Features of Tier 1 Predict Student Responsiveness to Tier 2 Mathematics Intervention?

High-quality Tier 1 instruction is frequently conceptualized as the "foundation" for other tiers of intervention within multitiered systems of support (MTSS) models. However, the vast majority of Tier 2 intervention studies do not account for Tier 1 variables when examining intervention effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to examine Tier 1 predictors, or "quality indicators," of differential responsiveness to Tier 2 mathematics intervention. Data were drawn from a large-scale data set where all teachers taught the Early Learning in Mathematics (Tier 1) core program across the academic year, and a subset of students were selected for the ROOTS (Tier 2) mathematics intervention. We examined the following Tier 1 variables: (a) classroom-level mathematics gains, (b) Tier 1 fidelity of implementation, (c) Tier 1 classroom management and instructional support, and (d) class size. Response to Tier 2 intervention was not significantly predicted by any of the Tier 1 variables examined; however, the pattern of Hedges' g effect sizes suggested that students with higher quality of Tier 1 instruction tended to benefit less from the Tier 2 ROOTS intervention. Results are discussed in the context of implications for research and practice.

Proficiency With Number Concepts and Operations: Replicating the Efficacy of a First-Grade Mathematics Intervention.

Conceptual replications are part and parcel of education science. Methodologically rigorous conceptual replication studies permit researchers to test and strengthen the generalizability of a study's initial findings. The current conceptual replication sought to replicate the efficacy of a small-group, first-grade mathematics intervention with 240 first-grade students with mathematics difficulties in a new geographical region. Participating students were randomized into one of three conditions: (a) 2:1 mathematics intervention group, (b) 5:1 mathematics intervention group, or (c) business-as-usual instruction. Relative to the original study, findings from the replication varied. When comparing the treatment groups to the control, results suggested positive effects on all outcome measures, including a follow-up assessment administered one year later. However, differences between the two treatment groups based on group size were not found in the mathematics outcome measures. Both groups also received commensurate levels of observed instructional interactions. Implications for unpacking contextual differences between original research and their replications as well as using future research to explore the quantity and quality of instructional interactions as ways to explain variation in findings of group size are discussed.

Is what I think I think really what I think? Implicit and explicit attitudes toward stuttering among practicing speech-language pathologists.

PURPOSE: Two studies assessed implicit (Study 1) and explicit (Study 2) attitudes toward stuttering and those who stutter among speech-language pathologists (SLPs). METHOD: In Study 1, 15 SLPs completed the Stuttering Implicit Association Test, a measure of implicit attitudes toward stuttered speech. In Study 2, 40 SLPs provided explicit attitudes about individuals who stutter, assessed via self-report ratings of an adult who stutters and one who does not. Participants also completed measures of experience with stuttering. RESULTS: As a group, clinicians displayed negative implicit attitudes toward stuttering. Explicit attitudes toward a person who stutters were positive, albeit less positive than attitudes toward a person who does not stutter. Amount of prior exposure to stuttering among these experienced SLPs was not significantly associated with either implicit or explicit attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of evaluating both implicit and explicit attitudes toward stuttering. The finding of positive explicit attitudes but negative implicit attitudes among similar samples of SLPs underscores the need to study implicit attitudes toward stuttering. Considering only explicit attitudes could lead to incomplete conclusions about the complex nature of attitudes toward stuttering.

Examining implicit and explicit attitudes toward stuttering.

PURPOSE: This study assessed implicit and explicit attitudes toward people who stutter among typically-fluent young adults. METHOD: Participants completed an Implicit Association Test, a measure of implicit attitudes, to assess the strength of association between stuttered vs. fluent speech and positive vs. negative evaluative words. Participants also completed self-report ratings of their attitudes toward people who do and do not stutter (explicit attitude scales). In addition, participants completed measures of social desirability and a survey that assessed lifetime experience with people who stutter. RESULTS: Results supported the existence of a negative stuttering stereotype. Participants demonstrated negative implicit and explicit attitudes toward people who stutter. Explicit attitudes toward those who stutter, but not implicit attitudes, were significantly predicted by social desirability scores. Familiarity with stuttering was significantly associated with implicit but not explicit attitudes toward stuttering. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate the importance of examining both implicit and explicit attitudes toward stuttering to fully understand the challenges faced by those who stutter.