# Dataset for The effects of a number line intervention on calculation skills

** Study information **

The sample included in this dataset represents five children who participated in a number line intervention study. Originally six children were included in the study, but one of them fulfilled the criterion for exclusion after missing several consecutive sessions. Thus, their data is not included in the dataset.

All participants were currently attending Year 1 of primary school at an independent school in New South Wales, Australia. For children to be able to eligible to participate they had to present with low mathematics achievement by performing at or below the 25th percentile in the Maths Problem Solving and/or Numerical Operations subtests from the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test III (WIAT III A & NZ, Wechsler, 2016). Participants were excluded from participating if, as reported by their parents, they have any other diagnosed disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, developmental language disorder, cerebral palsy or uncorrected sensory disorders.

The study followed a multiple baseline case series design, with a baseline phase, a treatment phase, and a post-treatment phase. The baseline phase varied between two and three measurement points, the treatment phase varied between four and seven measurement points, and all participants had 1 post-treatment measurement point.

The number of measurement points were distributed across participants as follows:

Participant 1 – 3 baseline, 6 treatment, 1 post-treatment

Participant 3 – 2 baseline, 7 treatment, 1 post-treatment

Participant 5 – 2 baseline, 5 treatment, 1 post-treatment

Participant 6 – 3 baseline, 4 treatment, 1 post-treatment

Participant 7 – 2 baseline, 5 treatment, 1 post-treatment

In each session across all three phases children were assessed in their performance on a number line estimation task, a single-digit computation task, a multi-digit computation task, a dot comparison task and a number comparison task. Furthermore, during the treatment phase, all children completed the intervention task after these assessments. The order of the assessment tasks varied randomly between sessions.

**Measures**

__Number Line Estimation.__ Children completed a computerised bounded number line task (0-100). The number line is presented in the middle of the screen, and the target number is presented above the start point of the number line to avoid signalling the midpoint (Dackermann et al., 2018). Target numbers included two non-overlapping sets (trained and untrained) of 30 items each. Untrained items were assessed on all phases of the study. Trained items were assessed independent of the intervention during baseline and post-treatment phases, and performance on the intervention is used to index performance on the trained set during the treatment phase. Within each set, numbers were equally distributed throughout the number range, with three items within each ten (0-10, 11-20, 21-30, etc.). Target numbers were presented in random order. Participants did not receive performance-based feedback. Accuracy is indexed by percent absolute error (PAE) [(number estimated - target number)/ scale of number line] x100.

__Single-Digit Computation.__ The task included ten additions with single-digit addends (1-9) and single-digit results (2-9). The order was counterbalanced so that half of the additions present the lowest addend first (e.g., 3 + 5) and half of the additions present the highest addend first (e.g., 6 + 3). This task also included ten subtractions with single-digit minuends (3-9), subtrahends (1-6) and differences (1-6). The items were presented horizontally on the screen accompanied by a sound and participants were required to give a verbal response. Participants did not receive performance-based feedback. Performance on this task was indexed by item-based accuracy.

__Multi-digit computational estimation. __The task included eight additions and eight subtractions presented with double-digit numbers and three response options. None of the response options represent the correct result. Participants were asked to select the option that was closest to the correct result. In half of the items the calculation involved two double-digit numbers, and in the other half one double and one single digit number. The distance between the correct response option and the exact result of the calculation was two for half of the trials and three for the other half. The calculation was presented vertically on the screen with the three options shown below. The calculations remained on the screen until participants responded by clicking on one of the options on the screen. Participants did not receive performance-based feedback. Performance on this task is measured by item-based accuracy.

__Dot Comparison and Number Comparison__. Both tasks included the same 20 items, which were presented twice, counterbalancing left and right presentation. Magnitudes to be compared were between 5 and 99, with four items for each of the following ratios: .91, .83, .77, .71, .67. Both quantities were presented horizontally side by side, and participants were instructed to press one of two keys (F or J), as quickly as possible, to indicate the largest one. Items were presented in random order and participants did not receive performance-based feedback. In the non-symbolic comparison task (dot comparison) the two sets of dots remained on the screen for a maximum of two seconds (to prevent counting). Overall area and convex hull for both sets of dots is kept constant following Guillaume et al. (2020). In the symbolic comparison task (Arabic numbers), the numbers remained on the screen until a response was given. Performance on both tasks was indexed by accuracy.

**The Number Line Intervention**

During the intervention sessions, participants estimated the position of 30 Arabic numbers in a 0-100 bounded number line. As a form of feedback, within each item, the participants’ estimate remained visible, and the correct position of the target number appeared on the number line. When the estimate’s PAE was lower than 2.5, a message appeared on the screen that read “Excellent job”, when PAE was between 2.5 and 5 the message read “Well done, so close! and when PAE was higher than 5 the message read “Good try!” Numbers were presented in random order.

**Variables in the dataset**

__Age__ =__ __age in ‘years, months’ at the start of the study

__Sex__ =** **female/male/non-binary or third gender/prefer not to say (as reported by parents)

__Math_Problem_Solving_raw__** **=** **Raw score on the Math Problem Solving subtest from the WIAT III (WIAT III A & NZ, Wechsler, 2016).

__Math_Problem_Solving_Percentile__ = Percentile equivalent on the Math Problem Solving subtest from the WIAT III (WIAT III A & NZ, Wechsler, 2016).

__Num_Ops_Raw__ = Raw score on the Numerical Operations subtest from the WIAT III (WIAT III A & NZ, Wechsler, 2016).

__Math_Problem_Solving_Percentile__ = Percentile equivalent on the Numerical Operations subtest from the WIAT III (WIAT III A & NZ, Wechsler, 2016).

The remaining variables refer to participants’ performance on the study tasks. Each variable name is composed by three sections. The first one refers to the phase and session. For example, Base1 refers to the first measurement point of the baseline phase, Treat1 to the first measurement point on the treatment phase, and post1 to the first measurement point on the post-treatment phase.

The second part of the variable name refers to the task, as follows:

DC = dot comparison

SDC = single-digit computation

NLE_UT = number line estimation (untrained set)

NLE_T= number line estimation (trained set)

CE = multidigit computational estimation

NC = number comparison

The final part of the variable name refers to the type of measure being used (i.e., acc = total correct responses and pae = percent absolute error).

Thus, variable Base2_NC_acc corresponds to accuracy on the number comparison task during the second measurement point of the baseline phase and Treat3_NLE_UT_pae refers to the percent absolute error on the untrained set of the number line task during the third session of the Treatment phase.

## Funding

### The study associated with this dataset was supported by an International Macquarie University Research Excellence Scholarship "iMQRES" Allocation No. 2020005 to Carola Ruiz.

## History

## Q/A Log

- FAIR assessment completed

## FAIR Self Assessment Summary

Findable Does the dataset have any identifiers assigned? Global Is the dataset identifier included in all metadata records/files describing the data? Yes How is the data described with metadata? Comprehensively (see suggestion) using a recognised formal machine-readable metadata schema What type of repository or registry is the metadata record in? Data is in one place but discoverable through several registries Accessible How accessible is the data? Publicly accessible Is the data available online without requiring specialised protocols or tools once access has been approved? File download from online location Will the metadata record be available even if the data is no longer available? Yes Interoperable What (file) format(s) is the data available in? In a structured, open standard, machine-readable format What best describes the types of vocabularies/ontologies/tagging schemas used to define the data elements? No standards have been applied in the description of data elements How is the metadata linked to other data and metadata (to enhance context and clearly indicate relationships)? There are no links to other metadata Reusable Which of the following best describes the license/usage rights attached to the data? Standard machine-readable license (e.g. Creative Commons) How much provenance information has been captured to facilitate data reuse? Fully recorded in a text format## FAIR Self Assessment Rating

- 4 Stars

## Data Sensitivity

- General