Berg, Tricia Ann-Rees (2018). ProQuest LLC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED587830
Reviewed: November 2021
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Chronic or Severe Absenteeism |
Attendance and truancy intervention and universal procedures (ATI-UP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
19.45 |
18.81 |
No |
-- | |
|
Average Daily Attendance (Berg et al 2018) |
Attendance and truancy intervention and universal procedures (ATI-UP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
93.61 |
93.43 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 3% | |
| Black | 2% | |
| Native American | 3% | |
| Other or unknown | 30% | |
| White | 63% |
| Hispanic | 25% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 75% |
The study took place in 27 public elementary schools in 17 districts in Oregon. All of the schools were already implementing School Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) with varying levels of fidelity.
The schools were mostly White (63 percent) with less than 5 percent in any other racial group (American Indian, 3 percent; Asian, 2.5 percent; Black, 1.5 percent; two or more races, 4.5 percent) and a substantial Hispanic (25 percent) population. Gender was fairly well balanced (49 percent female and 50 percent male), and over half (60 percent) of students were eligible for free or reduced lunch. Less than one-fifth (16.5 percent) of participating students were English language learners. Note that 57 percent of the intervention schools were Title I schools compared to 85 percent of the comparisons schools.
The intervention, School-wide Attendance and Truancy Intervention (ATI-UP) has five components: 1) publicize the importance of attendance; 2) establish attendance goals and acknowledge improvements; 3) provide an informal and formal focus on attendance; 4) communicate with parents and provide ways for parents to engage with the school; and 5) use motivation systems to generate enthusiasm.
Schools in the control group continued business as usual during the intervention period. Schools were not required to stop existing practices for reducing absenteeism. Rather, these practices were captured via the ATI-UP fidelity measure.
Schools sent teams to two-days (12 hours) of training. Ongoing technical support and coaching were also provided through email communication with the researcher. Finally, the researcher held a webinar in early November that served as a refresher and also provided the opportunity for schools to ask questions and share successful strategies.
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