Castleman, Benjamin L.; Page, Lindsay C. (2013). Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED562791
Reviewed: September 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrollment - Fall, Sophomore Year |
Financial aid nudges vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
81.20 |
80.60 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Enrollment - Spring, Sophomore Year |
Financial aid nudges vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
83.90 |
79.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrollment - Continuous, Sophomore Year |
Financial aid nudges vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
76.90 |
73.60 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 36% | |
| Other or unknown | 55% | |
| White | 9% |
| Hispanic | 25% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 75% |
Students who participated in the study had worked with uAspire, a national nonprofit focused on issues of college affordability and financial literacy, in either their Springfield, Massachusetts or Boston location while still enrolled in high school. Participants were drawn from the set of students who had a cell phone number on file with uAspire and who enrolled in college for the first time in the fall 2012 semester. Among students in the sample, 88% were enrolled in a Massachusetts-based college or university.
The study had 808 participants, with 413 in the intervention condition and 395 in the comparison condition. The study participants were all first-year college students, with females comprising 62% of the sample. 36% were Black and 25% were Latino. 83% were eligible for Pell grants. Just over one-fourth of students (28%) were enrolled in a two-year community college and 72% were enrolled as freshmen in a four-year institution.
The intervention consisted of a set of automated text messages sent to students during the spring semester of their first year of college, reminding them about important information related to re-filing for financial aid. These text messages were sent systematically and included information on important upcoming timelines for financial aid and FAFSA renewal. The text messages also contained information on a range of related topics, including the importance of remaining in good academic standing in order to qualify for financial aid. Students in the intervention condition began receiving messages in late January 2013, receiving the messages approximately once every two weeks until August 2013.
Students in the comparison condition did not receive text messages, but could receive support from uAspire if they requested it.
Reviewed: December 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