More guidance, better results?: Three-year effects of an enhanced student services program at two community colleges.
Scrivener, S., & Weiss, M. J. (2009). New York: MDRC.
-
examining2,139Students, gradePS
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education–A Practice Guide for College and University Administrators, Advisors, and Faculty
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2024
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education–A Practice Guide for College and University Administrators, Advisors, and Faculty Practice Guide- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative GPA (2.0 and higher) |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
47.80 |
48.30 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Registered at any institution |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
90.50 |
89.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Registered for any courses first semester |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
90.00 |
89.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a degree/certificate |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
1.60 |
2.50 |
Yes |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Registered at any institution |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
95.00 |
94.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Registered for any courses |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
94.00 |
93.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Number of semesters registered |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
3.30 |
3.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
14.30 |
13.90 |
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.
-
Female: 76% -
- 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
Ohio
-
Race Black 30% White 54% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 11%
Study Details
Setting
Two community colleges in Ohio served as the setting for the study: Lorain County Community College and Owens Community College. The program was delivered via advisors at each college.
Study sample
Students were mostly female (75.7%) and ranged in age from 18-34. White students comprised 54.1% of the sample, with 29.9% black students, 10.9% Hispanic students, and 5.1% other ethnicities. Participants were of low socioeconomic status and were required to be below the poverty line to participate. 65% of the students took some developmental education within the first year of enrollment.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition were assigned to an Opening Doors Counselor with a small caseload with whom they were expected to meet frequently; students had access to designated contact in financial aid office; students were eligible for $150 stipend for each of two semesters. The advising was more personalized than what students typically receive. Counseling sessions involved a range of issues, including course scheduling, registration, financial aid and other financial issues, tutoring, juggling school and work, career-related issues, and personal issues.
Comparison Group
The comparison group students were eligible to receive the usual counseling services offered at the colleges. The caseload for regular counselors was about 1000 students to 1 counselor.
Support for implementation
Each program had a full-time coordinator, who also served as a counselor, and two to three part-time counselors. The colleges also provided administrative staff to help support the implementation of the program.
Additional Sources
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.
-
Scrivener, Susan; Au, Jenny. (2007). Enhancing Student Services at Lorain County Community College: Early Results from the Opening Doors Demonstration in Ohio. MDRC.
-
Scrivener, Susan; Au, Jenny. (2007). Enhancing Student Services at Lorain County Community College: Early Results from the Opening Doors Demonstration in Ohio. MDRC.
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of students who passed all courses during the program semester |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
24.20 |
22.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative - Registered at any institution |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
95.20 |
93.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Number of semesters registered |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
3.30 |
3.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Registered for any course |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
93.90 |
93.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Number of regular credits earned |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
14.30 |
13.90 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Cumulative - Number of semesters registered |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Female;
|
3.50 |
3.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Registered in any course |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Male;
|
92.90 |
91.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for any course |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
28.90 |
25.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered in any course |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Female;
|
94.30 |
93.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered at any institution |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
34.70 |
31.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for any course |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
34.50 |
32.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for any course |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
24.40 |
23.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered at any institution |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
30.50 |
29.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Number of regular credits earned |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Female;
|
15.00 |
14.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Number of semesters registered |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Male;
|
2.60 |
2.60 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative - Number of regular credits earned |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Male;
|
12.00 |
12.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.00 |
2.00 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
2.00 |
2.00 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Number of regular credits earned |
Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
1.80 |
1.60 |
-- |
-- | ||
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: 76%
Male: 24% -
Suburban, Urban
-
- 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
Ohio
-
Race Asian 1% Black 30% Other or unknown 15% White 54% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 11% Not Hispanic or Latino 89%
Study Details
Setting
This demonstration and evaluation of Opening Doors was set in two community colleges in Ohio: Lorain County Community College and Owens Community College. The program was delivered via advisors available at both colleges.
Study sample
Students were mostly female (75.7 percent) and ranged in age from 18-34. Sixty-five percent of the students in the sample took some developmental education within the first year of enrollment. White students comprised 54.1% of the sample and Black students comprised 29.9% of the sample. The sample was also made up of 10.9% Hispanic students. Participants were required to have a family income of below 250 percent of the federal poverty level to participate in the program.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition were assigned to an Opening Doors Counselor. These counselors each had a small caseload of students, with whom they were expected to meet at least two times per semester. Opening Doors students had access to designated contact in financial aid office and they were eligible for $150 stipend for each of two semesters (a total of $300). Opening Doors advising was designed to be more personalized than what students typically received. Counseling sessions covered a range of topics, including course scheduling, registration, financial aid and other financial issues, tutoring, juggling school and work, career-related issues, and addressing any personal issues pertaining to academic pursuits.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received no additional financial aid or services but had access to the colleges' regular array of services and facilities. The ratio of students to counselors for comparison group students was 1,000:1.
Support for implementation
The counselors for the program were all full-time counseling staff at their respective college, which provided institutional support. However, counselors worked part-time for the Opening Doors program while managing other responsibilities. Counselors were supported by administrative staff who assisted in making appointments and maintaining program records.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Opening Doors)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative GPA (2.0 and higher) |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Full sample;
|
0.48 |
0.48 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Cumulative GPA (2.0 and higher) |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Female;
|
0.51 |
0.51 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative GPA (2.0 and higher) |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Male;
|
0.38 |
0.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Registered for any courses |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
1st semester |
Full sample;
|
0.90 |
0.89 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Registered at any institution |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
1st semester |
Full sample;
|
0.91 |
0.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Registered for any courses |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
1st semester |
Female;
|
0.90 |
0.89 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Registered for any courses |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
1st semester |
Male;
|
0.88 |
0.89 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a degree/certificate |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Full sample;
|
0.02 |
0.03 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earned a degree/certificate |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Female;
|
0.02 |
0.03 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned a degree/certificate |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Male;
|
0.01 |
0.03 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Registered at any institution |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Full sample;
|
0.95 |
0.94 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Registered for any courses |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Full sample;
|
0.94 |
0.93 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Number of semesters registered |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Full sample;
|
3.30 |
3.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Regular credits earned |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Full sample;
|
14.30 |
13.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Number of semesters registered |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Female;
|
3.50 |
3.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Registered for any courses |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Male;
|
0.93 |
0.91 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered for any courses |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Female;
|
0.94 |
0.94 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of semesters registered |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Male;
|
2.60 |
2.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Regular credits earned |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Female;
|
15.00 |
14.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Regular credits earned |
Opening Doors vs. Business as usual |
Cumulative |
Male;
|
12.00 |
12.50 |
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.
-
Female: 76%
Male: 24% -
Urban
-
- 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
Ohio
-
Race Black 30% Other or unknown 5% White 54% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 11% Not Hispanic or Latino 89%
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).