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