Hoxby, Caroline; Turner, Sarah (2013). Education Next, v13 n4 p66-73 Fall 2013. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1027211
Reviewed: October 2023
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of college applications submitted by the student |
Expanding College Opportunities-Comprehensive (ECO-C) Intervention vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
4.67 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Number of colleges that admitted the student |
Expanding College Opportunities-Comprehensive (ECO-C) Intervention vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
2.06 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Completed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) form |
Expanding College Opportunities-Comprehensive (ECO-C) Intervention vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
0.91 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Highest amount of instructional spending among colleges student applied |
Expanding College Opportunities-Comprehensive (ECO-C) Intervention vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
35012.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Highest amount of student-related spending among the colleges to which the student applied |
Expanding College Opportunities-Comprehensive (ECO-C) Intervention vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
58713.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Highest median SAT score among the colleges to which the student was admitted |
Expanding College Opportunities-Comprehensive (ECO-C) Intervention vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
1222.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Highest amount of student-related spending among colleges to which the student was admitted |
Expanding College Opportunities-Comprehensive (ECO-C) Intervention vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
29563.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Highest amount of instructional spending among the colleges the student was admitted |
Expanding College Opportunities-Comprehensive (ECO-C) Intervention vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
16597.00 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place across the United States in the homes of high school students.
A total of 4,000 high school seniors were included in the study. The researchers randomly assigned 2,000 students to the intervention group and 2,000 to the comparison group. To be included in the study, the students had to score in the top 10 percent of test-takers on the SAT or ACT and have an estimated family income in the bottom third of families with a student in grade 12. Students also had to be enrolled in schools in which fewer than 30 grade 12 students typically scored in the top 10 percent on the SAT or ACT. The study did not report on other characteristics of the students.
The Expanding College Opportunities-Comprehensive (ECO-C) Intervention is a product that provides information and application fee waivers intended to support high school seniors to learn about and apply to multiple colleges. Students access the information via mail delivered to their home. The ECO-C Intervention tailored the information to each student’s location and included information about their flagship state university, at least one other in-state public college, nearby colleges, a selective in-state private college, one out-of-state private liberal arts college, and one out-of-state selective university. Students received graduation rates of each school and the schools’ instructional spending amounts. Net cost information, including list prices and the potential amount students would pay for their tuition, fees, and living expenses, is shown for each of these schools for hypothetical families with incomes of $20,000, $40,000, and $60,000. Students also received no-paperwork application fee waivers for each of 171 selective colleges.
Students in the comparison group did not receive the Expanding College Opportunities-Comprehensive (ECO-C) Intervention but may have received other business-as-usual information or support with college applications, such as from their high school or other sources.
No support for implementation was reported.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Hoxby, C., & Turner, S. (2013). Expanding college opportunities for high-achieving, low income students. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper, 12(014), 7.
Reviewed: March 2014
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Applied to a peer/selective institution |
Providing Information About College Application Process and College Costs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
2011-2012 cohort;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Number of applications submitted |
Providing Information About College Application Process and College Costs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
2011-2012 cohort;
|
5.56 |
4.67 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Admitted to a peer/selective institution |
Providing Information About College Application Process and College Costs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
2011-2012 cohort;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Number of colleges to which admitted |
Providing Information About College Application Process and College Costs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
2011-2012 cohort;
|
2.31 |
2.06 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Enrolled in a peer/selective institution |
Providing Information About College Application Process and College Costs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
2011-2012 cohort;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube