Bridging the Gap: An Impact Study of Eight Developmental Summer Bridge Programs in Texas. NCPR Brief
Barnett, Elisabeth A.; Bork, Rachel Hare; Mayer, Alexander K.; Pretlow, Joshua; Wathington, Heather D.; Weiss, Madeline Joy (2012). National Center for Postsecondary Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED539188
-
examining1,318Students, gradePS
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Summer bridge programs)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Student had passed first college-level math course |
Summer bridge programs vs. Business as usual |
Two years post random assignment |
Full sample;
|
0.47 |
0.43 |
No |
-- | |
|
Student had passed first college-level writing course |
Summer bridge programs vs. Business as usual |
Two years post random assignment |
Full sample;
|
0.72 |
0.68 |
No |
-- | |
|
Student had passed first college-level reading course |
Summer bridge programs vs. Business as usual |
Two years post random assignment |
Full sample;
|
0.73 |
0.72 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College level credits attempted |
Summer bridge programs vs. Business as usual |
Two years post random assignment |
Full sample;
|
24.20 |
23.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Ratio of college level credits earned to attempted |
Summer bridge programs vs. Business as usual |
Two years post random assignment |
Full sample;
|
0.66 |
0.68 |
No |
-- | |
|
Semesters registered |
Summer bridge programs vs. Business as usual |
Two years post random assignment |
Full sample;
|
3.30 |
3.40 |
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.
-
- 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 7% White 9% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 84% Not Hispanic or Latino 16%
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs Intervention Report - Developmental Education
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2015
- 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Developmental Summer Bridge Programs.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed college-level math |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed college-level writing |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed college-level reading |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Passed college-level math |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed college-level math |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed college-level reading |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed college-level writing |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed college-level writing |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passed college-level reading |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
First-semester registration at any college |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College-level credits earned |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
College students;
|
15.90 |
15.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Registered at any college |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
College students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Semesters registered at any college |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
College students;
|
3.30 |
3.40 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College-level credits earned |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Female;
|
15.70 |
15.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Semesters registered at any college |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Women;
|
3.30 |
3.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College-level credits earned |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Male;
|
16.60 |
16.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Semesters registered at any college |
Developmental Summer Bridge Programs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Male;
|
3.30 |
3.50 |
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.
-
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
Texas
-
Race Black 7% White 9% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 84% Not Hispanic or Latino 16%
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.
-
Pretlow, J., III. (2011). The impact of a Texas summer bridge program on developmental students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3484625)
-
Wathington, Heather D.; Barnett, Elisabeth A.; Weissman, Evan; Teres, Jedediah; Pretlow, Joshua; Nakanishi, Aki. (2011). Getting Ready for College: An Implementation and Early Impacts Study of Eight Texas Developmental Summer Bridge Programs. NCPR Brief. National Center for Postsecondary Research.
-
Wathington, Heather; Pretlow, Joshua; Mitchell, Claire. (2011). The Impact of Developmental Summer Bridge Programs on Students' Success. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
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).