Building Assets and Reducing Risks (BARR) Validation Study. Final Report
Bos, Johannes M.; Dhillon, Sonica; Borman, Trisha (2019). American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED602462
-
examining3,383Students, grade9
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2022
- Department-funded evaluation (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 |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
219.86 |
219.73 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Mathematics Assessment |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
227.94 |
227.78 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Credits earned toward high school graduation |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
87.40 |
82.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GPA: 9th grade |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.58 |
2.48 |
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.
-
32% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
Rural, 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
California, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Texas
-
Race Black 10% Other or unknown 64% White 26% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 57% Not Hispanic or Latino 43% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 79% No FRPL 22%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 11 high schools, of which three were rural (two in Maine, one in Kentucky), seven were suburban (six in California, one in Minnesota), and one was urban (in Texas).
Study sample
In the analytic sample for the percentage of core course credits earned, 49% of students were female, 10% were Black, 26% were White, and race was not specified for the remaining 64%. Fifty-seven percent were Hispanic, 32% were English learners, 8% were identified as "special education" by the authors, and 79% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
Building Assets, Reducing Risks (BARR) is a comprehensive, strength-based approach that uses eight interlocking strategies to build intentional staff-to-staff, staff-to-student, and student-to-student relationships in secondary schools. The BARR team works with participating schools to provide professional development, coaching, the I-Time curriculum (a social and emotional curriculum), and administrative supports. On the basis of prior evidence of model effectiveness, the program developers expect that schools that implement the program with fidelity will see improvements in school climate, teacher experiences, student engagement, and, over time, academic outcomes.
Comparison Group
Control group teachers worked together as a fixed group of core subject teachers, similar to the BARR treatment group teachers. However, they did not receive special support or guidance for whether or how to collaborate within their blocks, and they did not have access to a designated BARR coordinator, BARR training and coaching, or the I-Time curriculum.
Support for implementation
The BARR team works with schools to improve the quality of these meetings and to help them implement other BARR activities, including the I-Time curriculum. Schools that have adopted the BARR model are part of an ongoing learning community beyond their 3-year commitment and participate in annual BARR conferences at which they share their BARR experiences and lessons learned.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Borman, Trisha H.; Bos, Hans; Park, So Jung; Auchstetter, Amelia. (2021). Impacting 9th Grade Educational Outcomes: Results from a Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial of the BARR Model. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v14 n4 p812-834.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- 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 |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - 10 schools ;
|
219.86 |
219.73 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - 10 schools;
|
227.94 |
227.78 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Failing One or More Core Courses (9th Grade High School) |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - all 11 schools;
|
29.20 |
40.60 |
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.
-
32% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
Rural, 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
California, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Texas
-
Race Black 10% Other or unknown 64% White 26% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 57% Not Hispanic or Latino 43%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 11 high schools in urban, suburban, and rural areas of Maine, California, Minnesota, Kentucky, and Texas. The intervention took place in 9th grade classrooms. The schools participated in the study for a single school year.
Study sample
The students in the study represented a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic backgrounds. They attended schools located in the Northeast, West, Midwest, and South. Approximately half of the students were female (49%). Students' race was reported as 26 percent White and 10 percent Black, and over half (57%) reported their ethnicity as Hispanic. Almost one-third (32%) were English language learners, eight percent were receiving special education services, and the majority (79%) were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
Building Assets, Reducing Risks (BARR) is a comprehensive model designed to enable schools and teachers to better support students by providing teachers with intensive professional development to help them build relationships between and among staff and students during the critical transition point from 8th to 9th grade. In the BARR model, ninth grade is restructured such that students attend at least three of their core classes together, and the teachers of these classes share a common planning time which increases collaboration among teachers. Strategies, or components of the intervention, include focusing on the whole student; providing professional development for teachers, counselors, and administrators; using BARR's i-time curriculum to foster a climate of learning; creating groups of students with common teachers; holding regular team meetings; conducting risk-review meetings; engaging families in student learning; and engaging administrators.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition were taught by teachers operating in business-as-usual conditions in the same schools as the intervention group students. Participating schools agreed to limit specific BARR activities to the intervention group within their school to reduce the risk of contamination with the comparison group.
Support for implementation
School staff and leaders receive training and continuing professional development provided by the BARR developers, including annual training, coaching, phone-based support, quarterly mentoring visits, and technology-enabled learning opportunities. BARR staff directly observe team meetings and provide feedback. Teachers are offered BARR’s i-Time professional development curriculum, which includes a weekly i-Time lesson. The BARR developers also maintain an ongoing learning community of BARR schools, with annual meetings to share their 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).