Study of the Effect of the Talent Search Program on Secondary and Postsecondary Outcomes in Florida, Indiana and Texas. Final Report from Phase II of the National Evaluation
Constantine, Jill M.; Seftor, Neil S.; Martin, Emily Sama; Silva, Tim; Myers, David (2006). US Department of Education. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED493358
-
examining8,054Students, grades11-12
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Talent Search)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Does not meet WWC standards
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.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Talent Search Intervention Report - Dropout Prevention
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2006
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Talent Search.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a high school diploma or GED |
Talent Search vs. None |
Posttest |
High school students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Earned a high school diploma or GED |
Talent Search vs. None |
Posttest |
High school students;
|
84.00 |
70.00 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
8% English language learners -
Female: 54%
Male: 46% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Texas
-
Race Black 20% White 36% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 43% Not Hispanic or Latino 57%
Study Details
Setting
The Texas study was conducted in 10 Talent Search projects (each including 10–20 high schools) and included participants who entered ninth grade in 1995–96.
Study sample
The Texas study used a quasi-experimental research design. The sample included 4,027 students in the intervention group and 30,842 students in the comparison group. Propensity score modeling was used to match Talent Search students to comparison students who attended the same high schools and who were in the ninth grade in the 1995–96 school year. Matching was based on 18 demographic and academic characteristics, including students’ eighth-grade test scores, race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, English proficiency, special education status, and enrollment in vocational education programs. There were no statistically significant differences between the intervention group and the matched comparison group on the baseline characteristics used in the matching procedures. A Talent Search student could be matched to multiple comparison students. Weights were used to account for the closeness of the match—with closer matches receiving larger weights. In addition, the comparison sample was weighted to equal the size of the treatment group so as not to overstate statistical significance. So, the intervention and comparison groups each had an effective sample size of about 4,000. Compared with all Texas high school students, Talent Search participants were more likely to be female (62% compared with 47%), economically disadvantaged (51% compared with 38%), and black or Hispanic (73% compared with 53%). Talent Search students were less likely than other high school students in the state to be behind grade level (16% compared with 29%), to be receiving special education services (5% compared with 12%), or to score in the bottom quartile on standardized tests (22% compared with 27% for math and 20% compared with 27% for reading).
Intervention Group
Most participants received services in their junior and senior years of high school. Participants were either recruited to participate or volunteered to be in the program.
Comparison Group
Comparison group students did not participate in Talent Search and attended the same high schools as students in the intervention group.
Outcome descriptions
One relevant outcome from the Texas study—high school completion rates—is included in this summary. This measure represents whether students earned a high school diploma or received a GED certificate. (See Appendix A2 for a more detailed description of this outcome measure.) The study also examined the program’s effects on financial aid receipt and college enrollment. However, these outcomes do not fall within the three domains (staying in school, progressing in school, and completing school) examined by the WWC’s review of dropout prevention interventions. Therefore, these additional outcomes are not included in this report.
Support for implementation
No specific information concerning staff training was provided.
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).