Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2014). Psychological Science, 25(4), 943-953. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613518349.
Reviewed: December 2021
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
First year GPA |
Social Belonging vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
3.47 |
3.30 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 21% | |
| Black | 10% | |
| Native American | 1% | |
| Other or unknown | 19% | |
| White | 49% |
| Hispanic | 19% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 81% |
The study was conducted at a highly selective, midsized private university in the United States.
Of the 186 students who were randomly assigned to the intervention group or comparison group, 147 of them completed the end-of-year survey. Demographic information is available for these 147 students but not for the final analytic sample of 134 students. Among the 147 students, 66 students were first-generation and 81 were continuing-generation. Among the first-generation students, 45% were White, 24% were Latino, 17% were Asian, and 14% were Black. Fifty-nine percent were low income, which was defined as being eligible to receive Pell grants. Among the continuing-generation students, 52% were White, 25% were Asian, 15% were Latino, 7% were Black, and 1% were Native American. Nine percent of these students qualified as low income.
Students in the intervention group attended one of eight moderated panel discussions, all featuring the same panel of eight demographically diverse college seniors (three were first-generation, five were non-first-generation). Each panel discussion lasted one hour, during which panelists responded to questions posed by a moderator. Panelists talked about how their backgrounds affected their college experiences. Their responses illustrated how their social class backgrounds both positively and negatively shaped their college experiences and influenced the strategies they adopted for success in college. At the end of the session, attendees were invited to take a short survey and make a video testimonial on the lessons they learned from the panel. At the end of their freshman year, students completed another survey.
The comparison group participated in a parallel activity but panelists’ responses included general content and did not highlight the students’ different backgrounds. All other activities were the same.
The authors provided information on how the moderators introduced the study to the students assigned to the intervention and comparison groups and the questions that were used in each group.
Reviewed: October 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.
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