Mindset, Mentor, and Money: How Each Influences College Success
Nichols, Malachi A. (2018). ProQuest LLC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED597030
-
examining772Students, gradePS
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2021
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Mentoring)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Spring GPA |
Mentoring vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
2.78 |
2.74 |
No |
-- | |
|
In good academic standing |
Mentoring vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
0.88 |
0.87 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College enrollment Full time spring semester |
Mentoring vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.91 |
0.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
College enrollment Full time - Fall Semester |
Mentoring vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
0.77 |
0.79 |
No |
-- | |
|
College Credits Completed - Spring |
Mentoring vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
13.09 |
13.50 |
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: 55%
Male: 45% -
- 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
Arkansas
-
Race Black 9% Other or unknown 26% White 65%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted on the campus of the University of Arkansas. First-year, first-time students at the university served as subjects for this study.
Study sample
The random assignment sample was composed of 55 percent women and 45 percent men. Nine percent of the sample was African American, 65 percent were White, and the other 26 percent were of unknown race/ethnicity. The random assignment sample also consisted of 47 percent first-generation college-goers.
Intervention Group
Students originally assigned to the STEP grant intervention group were supposed to receive a STEP grant. However, only 151 of the 386 students in that condition ended up receiving a STEP grant, and these recipients were selected based on program administrators' best-guess probability of students' return for their second year at the University of Arkansas. Grants for individual students ranged from $2,500 to $10,000. Students in neither condition were aware of their eligibility for the STEP grant or the study.
Comparison Group
Students randomly assigned to the comparison condition (n = 387) did not receive the STEP grant.
Support for implementation
The University of Arkansas allocated a total of $650,000 for Student Talent Enrichment Program grants.
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).