I3 BARR Validation Study
Borman, T., Bos, J., O'Brien, B., Park, S., Liu, F., & Jerabek, A. (2017). American Institutes for Research.
-
examining1,828Students, grade9
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2019
- Grant Competition (findings for Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading, percent meeting target growth |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
73.30 |
67.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
222.81 |
221.69 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Math, percent meeting target growth |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
78.60 |
71.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
231.21 |
229.74 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed all core courses (%) |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
70.30 |
57.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Credits earned in core courses |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
84.30 |
79.00 |
Yes |
|
|
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.
-
10% English language learners -
Rural, Suburban
-
- 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
California, Maine, Minnesota
Study Details
Setting
The study took place across six public schools located in Maine, California, and Minnesota. Two schools were rural and the other four were suburban. Three schools were included in cohort 1 and three schools were included in cohort 2.
Study sample
Of the total sample, 44.7 percent were students of color, 10 percent were English language learners, 12.8 percent were students in special education, and 72 percent were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
The Building Assets, Reducing Risks (BARR) model addresses course failure, achievement gaps, and nonacademic barriers to learning, by developing and fostering better student-teacher and teacher-teacher relationships. BARR involves restructuring the ninth grade such that teachers teach in three- or four-person teams, engaging in collaborative assessment, problem solving, and planning block meetings. Students within a block share the same teachers for at least three of their core subjects (English language arts, mathematics, science, and/or social studies). BARR includes eight strategies: (1) a focus on the whole student; (2) provision of professional development for teachers, counselors, and administrators; (3) the I-Time Curriculum to foster a climate of learning; (4) structuring cohorts of students; (5) regular teacher team meetings; (6) risk review meetings for students who are failing, or are exhibiting attendance or behavioral problems; (7) family engagement; and (8) administrator engagement.
Comparison Group
Students in the "business-as-usual" comparison condition did nottake their core courses with BARR teachers, attend risk review meetings, or participate in I-Time lessons. These students were eligible to participate in all other school activities and received all usual supports at the school.
Support for implementation
To support the implementation of the BARR program, program developers provided coaching, phone-based support, mentoring visits on a quarterly basis, and technology-based learning opportunities. Program developers also maintain an ongoing learning community of BARR schools, which meet semi-annually to share implementation experiences and challenges.
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).