The purposes of this study included conducting a meta-analysis and reviewing the study reporting quality of math interventions implemented in informal learning environments (e.g., the home) by children’s caregivers. This meta-analysis included 25 preschool to third-grade math interventions with 83 effect sizes that yielded a statistically significant summary effect (g = 0.26, 95% CI [0.07, 0.45) on children’s math achievement. Significant moderators of the treatment effect included the intensity of caregiver training and type of outcome measure. There were larger average effects for interventions with caregiver training that included follow-up support and for outcomes that were comprehensive early numeracy measures. Studies met 58.0% of reporting quality indicators, and analyses revealed that quality of reporting has improved in recent years. The results of this study offer several recommendations for researchers and practitioners, particularly given the growing evidence base of math interventions conducted in informal learning environments.

It is crucial that special education teachers are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Despite federal legislation and efforts of the field to identify and disseminate evidence-based practices for students with disabilities, it is uncertain whether all special education teachers provide instruction based on the best available research. To better prepare special education teachers, McLeskey et al. proposed 22 high-leverage practices (HLPs). We conducted this systematic review of meta-analyses to provide an initial investigation of the experimental evidence reporting on the effectiveness of the HLPs for students with, or at risk for, a disability. Results indicated the largest amount of evidence from meta-analyses related to intensive instruction, explicit instruction, and social skills, with few meta-analyses reporting on collaboration and assessment. The results highlighted disproportional evidence according to disability categories. Implications for future research, practice, and teacher education are discussed.

Researchers and practitioners alike often look to meta-analyses to identify effective practices to use with students with disabilities. The number of meta-analyses in special education has also expanded in recent years. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of reporting in meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with or at risk of disabilities. We applied 53 quality indicators (QIs) across eight categories based on recommendations from Talbott et al. to 22 mathematics intervention meta-analyses published between 2000 and 2020. Overall, the meta-analyses met 61% of QIs and results indicated that meta-analyses most frequently met QIs related to providing a clear purpose (95%) and data analysis plan (77%), whereas meta-analyses typically met fewer QIs related to describing participants (39%) and explaining the abstract screening process (48%). We discuss the variation in quality indicator scores within and across the quality categories and provide recommendations for future researchers.