Efficacy of advising outreach on student retention, academic progress and achievement, and frequency of advising contacts: A longitudinal randomized trial
Schwebel, D. C., Walburn, N. C., Klyce, K., & Jerrolds, K. L. (2012). NACADA Journal, 32(2), 36-43.
-
examining501Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Advising outreach)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative GPA |
Advising outreach vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.53 |
2.53 |
No |
-- | |
|
Cumulative GPA |
Advising outreach vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.53 |
2.53 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Graduation in four years |
Advising outreach vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
28.00 |
28.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College credits earned |
Advising outreach vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
79.33 |
78.71 |
No |
-- | |
|
College credits earned |
Advising outreach vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
79.33 |
78.71 |
No |
-- | |
|
Enrolled/graduated after 4 years |
Advising outreach vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
60.00 |
55.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Enrolled/graduated after 4 years |
Advising outreach vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
60.00 |
55.00 |
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: 64%
Male: 35% -
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
Alabama
-
Race Asian 4% Black 28% Other or unknown 6% White 62% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 6% Not Hispanic or Latino 94%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), which is a large, urban, public 4-year university.
Study sample
The study sought to include a representative sample of first-year non-transfer students. Students were not targeted based on risk. The study included 64% women with an average age of 19 years old. Students were 62% White, 32% Black, and 4% Asian, and 6% of students were Hispanic. Over 90% were from the state of Alabama and 75% received financial aid.
Intervention Group
Students were strongly encouraged but not required to schedule and attend advising sessions over a 4-year period of enrollment. The intervention group of students received additional advising outreach each semester of enrollment: (1) During Week 3 of a 15-week semester, students received an e-mail inviting them to make an advising appointment if they had not done so yet; (2) During Week 4 of a 15-week semester, students received a phone call from administrative staff if they had not scheduled an advising appointment yet; and (3) During Week 5 of a 15-week semester, students received a phone call from their professional advisor if they had not scheduled an advising appointment yet.
Comparison Group
Students enrolled in the no-outreach comparison group did not receive additional outreach via email or phone encouraging them to make advising appointments had they not done so yet. Rather, the no-outreach group was exposed to university and Department-led initiatives that promoted and encouraged participation in advising appointments.
Support for implementation
There is no indication that implementation support was provided.
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).