Report to College Bound St. Louis on the Implementation and Impact of the 2014 Summer Melt Intervention Utilizing Bridgit
Castleman, B.L., Owen, L., & Page, L.C. (2015b). St Louis, MO: College Bound.
-
examining3,281Students, grades12-PS
Summer Counseling Intervention Report - Transition to College
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2018
- 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Summer Counseling.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrollment in any college in fall semester after graduating |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
56.00 |
52.50 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Enrollment in any 2-year college (%) |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
22.90 |
15.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrollment in any 4-year college (%) |
Summer Counseling vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
34.10 |
36.70 |
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: 53%
Male: 47% -
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
Missouri, Tennessee
-
Race Black 86% White 5% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 6% Not Hispanic or Latino 94%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in spring/summer 2014 in schools in Shelby County Schools (TN) and the Ferguson-Florissant School District (MO). A total of twelve schools were included in the study, ten from Shelby County and two from Ferguson-Florissant.
Study sample
Across both conditions, 59% of students were eligible for free or reduced price meals, 86% were Black, 5% were White, 6% were Hispanic, 10% had an IEP, 53% were female, and students had an average ACT score of 16.67 and an average GPA of 2.50. 62.5% of the treatment group sample were eligible for free or reduced price meals, 83.2% were Black, 5.1% were White, 8.6% were Hispanic, 8.2% had an IEP, 52.9% were female, and students in this group had an average ACT score of 16.78 and an average GPA of 2.53. 53.8% of the comparison group sample were eligible for free or reduced price meals, 88.8% were Black, 5.8% were White, 3.1% were Hispanic, 12.2% had an IEP, 52.1% were female, and the students in this group had an average ACT score of 16.54 and an average GPA of 2.46.
Intervention Group
The Bridgit platform is a school-wide intervention used by school counselors in the treatment schools to track students' progress on summer tasks, and target and communicate with students at greater risk of failing to matriculate in college. The Bridgit platform was implemented in treatment schools during the Summer of 2014 for the study.
Comparison Group
Students in comparison schools participated in the 'business as usual' procedures for graduating seniors with regard to support for transitioning to college.
Support for implementation
A two-day training was conducted for counselors using the Bridgit system. School counselors implementing Bridgit in treatment schools provided feedback to the study authors on the challenges and advantages of the tool during the course of the study.
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).