The Impact of the Student Support Services Program on the Retention of Students at Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College.
Sundy, C. M. (2017). Mississippi State University.
-
examining250Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for TRIO Student Support Services Program (TRiO SSS))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative GPA |
TRIO Student Support Services Program (TRiO SSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
2.61 |
2.89 |
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.
-
Rural
-
- 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
Kentucky
-
Race Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted at the Southeast Kentucky Community & Technical College which is located in rural Appalachia and is a two-year institution. The college is the only public, open-door college in its region and has an annual enrollment of about 5,000. Since the rural Appalachia counties it serves has some of the highest poverty levels and lowest educational attainment levels, many of those enrolled are high-risk students, minorities, low-income and/or people with disabilities. Over 80% of those enrolled at the college are eligible to participate in the Academic Achievement Program.
Study sample
Race, ethnicity, and gender characteristics were not reported in the study. 85% and 70% of the intervention group and comparison group, respectively, were low-income. 90% and 83% of the intervention group and comparison group, respectively, were first-generation students.
Intervention Group
The Academic Advantage Program first began in 1972 and serves 140 students who are low-income, first-generation or who have a disability every year. It offers services to engage students and help them stay enrolled. The program aims to increase college retention and graduation rates, transfer to four-year institutions, and foster a supportive institutional climate. Students in the study had access to services as long as they were enrolled. The program provided comprehensive academic and personal support through developmental classes and supplemental instruction, tutoring, mathematics and writing skills specialists, academic progress monitoring, career and educational planning, major and course selection through degree audits during individual advising sessions, transfer planning, campus visits to four-year colleges, workshops for academic and personal growth, informative newsletters, social events, and cultural enrichment activities.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition had access to business as usual services, including the college's Academic Support Center.
Support for implementation
The program was funded through a Student Support Services grant.
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).