We replicated a study of a kindergarten mathematics intervention, ROOTS, delivered in the context of a research-based core program. We randomly assigned 62 classrooms to treatment (ROOTS) or a business-as-usual control. All classrooms implemented the research-based core program (Early Learning in Mathematics). Participants included 163 treatment students and 145 control students nested within classrooms. Key differences between the current replication study and the original study included geographical region, instructional context, and student initial skill. In contrast to the significant positive effects (Hedges’s g values of .30 to .38) found in the original study, no significant differences were found between the treatment and control conditions in this study (Hedges’s g values of –.09 to .12) Pretest skills did not moderate treatment effects. We discuss these results’ implications for replication research and evaluating intervention efficacy.

我们复制了一项关于幼儿园数学干预的研究，ROOTS，该研究是在基于研究的核心计划的背景下进行的。我们将 62 间教室随机分配到治疗组 (ROOTS) 或照常控制组。所有教室都实施了基于研究的核心课程（数学早期学习）。参与者包括嵌套在教室中的 163 名治疗学生和 145 名对照学生。当前复制研究与原始研究之间的主要区别包括地理区域、教学环境和学生初始技能。与原始研究中发现的显着积极影响（Hedges g值为 0.30 至 0.38）相比，本研究中的治疗和对照条件之间没有发现显着差异（Hedges g–.09 到 .12 的值）预测试技能没有缓和治疗效果。我们讨论了这些结果对复制研究和评估干预效果的影响。