Providing Incentives for Timely Progress toward Earning a College Degree: Results from a Performance-Based Scholarship Experiment
Binder, Melissa; Krause, Kate; Miller, Cynthia; Cerna, Oscar (2015). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED618301
-
examining1,081Students, 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
(findings for Performance-based monetary incentives – Miller et al. (2011))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Additional source not reviewed (View primary source).
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.Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Performance-based scholarship)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
postsecondary degree attainment |
Performance-based scholarship vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
37.70 |
33.20 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned 30+ Credits |
Performance-based scholarship vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
48.40 |
35.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earned 27+ Credits |
Performance-based scholarship vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
67.50 |
58.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrolled in College During the Year |
Performance-based scholarship vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
63.30 |
65.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in College During the Year |
Performance-based scholarship vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
49.60 |
52.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in College During the Year |
Performance-based scholarship vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
80.40 |
82.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College credits earned |
Performance-based scholarship vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
91.60 |
91.20 |
-- |
-- | ||
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: 60%
Male: 41% -
- 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
New Mexico
-
Race Asian 5% Black 4% Native American 7% Other or unknown 56% White 28% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 52% Not Hispanic or Latino 48%
Study Details
Setting
The program, Vision Inspired Scholarship through Academic Achievement (VISTA), provided cash payments to students for four semesters at the University of New Mexico (UNM).
Study sample
Authors don't report characteristics of the analytic sample, but they do report characteristics of Pell-eligible freshmen entering UNM in 2006 and 2007, which provides a close approximation of the analytic sample. Per eligibility requirements, all students were Pell eligible, 60% of students were female, 28% were White, 4% were Black, 5% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 7% of students were Native American. Over half (52%) were Hispanic. Students' average cumulative high school GPA was 3.3 and 56% were placed in remedial English, reading, or math.
Intervention Group
The VISTA scholarship program provided students with up to $1,000 in additional financial aid in each of the four consecutive semesters, in increments tied to academic milestones and with payments made directly to students. Students received $250 for registering for 12 or more credit hours in the first semester and for 15 or more credit hours in the second through fourth semesters; $250 for earning a 2.0 or higher GPA at mid-term; and $500 for successfully completing the required hours with a 2.0 or higher GPA. A student received the registration and mid-term payments only after meeting with an adviser who confirmed that the student met the milestones.
Comparison Group
Students randomly assigned to the comparison group did not receive the VISTA scholarship, but both comparison and intervention students were also eligible to receive the state’s scholarship, which paid tuition at any public college in the state, as long as students maintained a 2.5 cumulative GPA and earned at least 12 credit hours in all previous semesters. The majority of students in the study sample received the lottery scholarship during the same time that VISTA was offered.
Support for implementation
No additional details 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).