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 learning disabilities (LD), mathematics LD (MLD), and mathematics difficulty (MD). Using rigorous inclusion criteria, we evaluated 36 syntheses that included 836 studies with 32,495 participants. Although each synthesis stated a focus on LD, MLD, or MD, few students with LD or MLD were included, and the authors' operational definitions of disability and risk varied. Syntheses predominantly focused on word-problem solving, fractions, computer-assisted learning, and schema-based instruction. Wide variation in effectiveness, content areas, and instructional strategies was reported. Finally, our results indicate the majority of syntheses included achievement outcomes, but very few reported on other outcomes (e.g., social validity, strategy use). We discuss how the results of this comprehensive review can guide researchers in expanding the knowledgebase on mathematics interventions.

This article presents a checklist of 10 evidence-based practices for educators to apply in mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities. The checklist is “actionable,” meaning the items on the checklist can be put into action immediately. It provides practical strategies teachers can adopt to fit their lessons regardless of their specific mathematical domain areas or student grade level. The focus of this article is translating research of evidence-based strategies into practice for mathematics instruction.

There is an increased demand for useful measures that capture students' math learning during intervention. Similarly, there is an awareness of the importance of researchers observing guidelines for study quality in publishing intervention results, including information related to outcome measures. We investigated the characteristics of outcome measures to assist researchers and practitioners in selecting appropriate outcome measures for early numeracy interventions. We also explored the level of quality regarding how studies reported outcome measure information. To do this, we analyzed 94 outcome measures of math achievement across 25 kindergarten early numeracy intervention studies. Overall, studies met 84% of the quality indicators related to outcome measures. Fewer studies met the recommendation to include multiple measures (i.e., proximal and distal measures; 60%) or provide validity information about measures (39%). Ultimately, the results of this study provide researchers with valuable information for developing and selecting outcome measures to determine the effectiveness of early numeracy interventions.

Meta-analysis methodology has evolved with the development of more robust statistical techniques; however, few reviews in special education have focused specifically on methodological rigor in meta-analyses. In this study, we examined 29 meta-analyses of mathematics interventions published from 2000 to 2022 to determine the extent to which researchers have applied four best practices in meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with disabilities. Our findings were (a) studies used three primary moderator techniques: meta-regression ( k = 10), subgroup analysis ( k = 8), analysis of variance ( k = 3), and both subgroup analysis and meta-regression ( k = 1); (b) only one study considered small sample corrections for hypothesis tests; (c) few researchers handled the dependence between multiple effect sizes ( k = 3); and (d) the funnel plot was commonly used to detect publication bias ( k = 8). Based on our findings, we make recommendations for methodological considerations for future meta-analyses.

This article provides teachers with a toolkit for assessing students in the context of data-based individualization (DBI) in mathematics. Assessing students is a critical component of DBI because it provides teachers with information about what they may need to modify in their instructional programs. In this article, we provide teachers with step-by-step procedures for assessing students within the DBI process, including selecting an appropriate progress-monitoring tool, collecting baseline data, and analyzing graphed data to determine whether a student is making adequate progress. In addition, diagnostic assessment is discussed to help teachers target instructional priorities based on student needs. Providing a toolkit for assessment and supplementary resources should enable teachers to use DBI procedures more effectively and, ultimately, to boost students’ mathematics achievement.