The purpose of the study was to improve mathematical problem solving for middle school students with learning disabilities by implementing a research-based instructional program in inclusive general education math classes. A total of 40 middle schools in a large urban district were matched on state assessment performance level (low, medium, and high performing) and socioeconomic status. One school from each pair was randomly assigned to the intervention condition, and one eighth grade math teacher participated at each school ( n = 40). Because of attrition at the outset, 24 schools completed the study (8 intervention, 16 comparison). The intervention, Solve It!, a research-based cognitive strategy instructional program, was implemented for 7 months, and periodic progress monitoring was conducted. A cluster-randomized design was used, and the data were consistent with a three-level model in which repeated measures were nested within students and students were nested within schools. The results indicated that students who received the intervention ( n = 319) showed significantly greater growth in math problem solving over the school year than students in the comparison group ( n = 460) who received typical classroom instruction. Moreover, the intervention effects did not differ for students with learning disabilities, low-achieving students, and average-achieving students. Thus, the findings were positive and support the efficacy of the intervention when implemented by general education math teachers in inclusive classrooms.

This review considers both the content and methodologies of 5 single-subject and 2 group experimental design studies investigating the effects of cognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of students with disabilities, using quality indicators proposed by Horner et al. (2005) and Gersten et al. (2005). Findings indicated that the research base of both single-subject and group experimental studies did not meet the methodological criteria to support cognitive strategy instruction as an evidence-based practice for improving mathematical problem solving of students with disabilities. The shortcomings identified in the empirical literature supporting cognitive strategy instruction, however, can be addressed in future intervention studies bearing in mind the quality indicators and standards for determining evidence-based practices.

The effects of a mathematical problem-solving intervention on students' problem-solving performance and math achievement were measured in a randomized control trial with 1,059 7th-grade students. The intervention. Solve It!, is a research-based cognitive strategy instructional intervention that was shown to improve the problem-solving performance of 8th-grade students with and without leaming disabilities (LD). The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the effectiveness of the intervention could be replicated with younger students. Forty middle schools in a large urban school district were included in the study, with one 7th-grade math teacher participating at each school (after attrition, n = 34). Solve It! was implemented by the teachers in their inclusive math classrooms. Problem-solving performance was assessed using curriculumbased math problem-solving measures, which were administered as a pretest and then monthly over the course of the 8-month intervention. Students who received the intervention (n = 644) embedded in the district curriculum showed a significantly greater rate of growth on the curriculum-based measures than students in the comparison group (n = 415) who received the district curriculum only. Results of the Bayesian analyses indicated that the intervention effect was somewhat stronger for low-achieving students than for averageachieving students. Overall, findings from the present study as well as the previous study with 8th-grade students indicate that the intervention was effective across ability groups and is an appropriate program to use in inclusive classrooms with students of varying math ability.

No abstract

Subjective well-being refers to people's level of satisfaction with life as a whole and with multiple dimensions within it. Interventions that promote subjective well-being are important because there is evidence that physical health, mental health, substance use, and health care costs may be related to subjective well-being. Fun For Wellness (FFW) is a new online universal intervention designed to promote growth in multiple dimensions of subjective well-being. The purpose of this study was to provide an initial evaluation of the efficacy of FFW to increase subjective well-being in multiple dimensions in a universal sample. The study design was a prospective, double-blind, parallel group randomized controlled trial. Data were collected at baseline and 30 and 60 days-post baseline. A total of 479 adult employees at a major university in the southeast of the USA were enrolled. Recruitment, eligibility verification, and data collection were conducted online. Measures of interpersonal, community, occupational, physical, psychological, economic (i.e., I COPPE), and overall subjective well-being were constructed based on responses to the I COPPE Scale. A two-class linear regression model with complier average causal effect estimation was imposed for each dimension of subjective well-being. Participants who complied with the FFW intervention had significantly higher subjective well-being, as compared to potential compliers in the Usual Care group, in the following dimensions: interpersonal at 60 days, community at 30 and 60 days, psychological at 60 days, and economic at 30 and 60 days. Results from this study provide some initial evidence for both the efficacy of, and possible revisions to, the FFW intervention.