Dynarski, M., Gleason, P., Rangarajan, A., & Wood, R. (1998). Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Reviewed: September 2017
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Did not drop out (%) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample (Cohort 1);
|
92.00 |
92.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
This study took place in an embedded supplemental dropout prevention program in 6 Long Beach, California middle schools. These embedded programs took place at regular middle schools where students who qualified for School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program (SDDAP) interacted with their middle school peers on a regular basis.
The study reports demographics for the baseline sample (not the same as the analytic sample because of attrition). The average age of students in both conditions was 13. For intervention group: 50% of students were male; 19% of students were African-American, 6% of students were White, 55% of students were Latino, and 21% of students were other; 53% of students lived in households receiving public assistance; and 39% of students lived in households where English was not the primary language spoken at home. For comparison group: 57% of students were male; 19% of students were African-American, 5% of students were White, 58% of students were Latino, and 18% of students were other; 49% of students lived in households receiving public assistance, and 45% of students lived in households where English was not the primary language spoken at home.
Students participated in the Up with Literacy dropout prevention program that provided in-class and after-school tutoring and homework help along with enrichment activities. Service elements of the program included counseling, attendance monitoring, outreach to families, and accelerated learning. These supplemental programs generally were designed to build student self-esteem, academic skills, and/or leadership skills.
Students in the comparison condition attended the regular middle school without the leadership program once a week, or they could attend other programs available in the local area.
Not reported.
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