Digital messaging to improve college enrollment and success.
Avery, C., Castleman, B. L., Hurwitz, M., Long, B. T., & Page, L. C. (2021). Economics of Education Review, 84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2021.102170.
-
examining70,285Students, grades12-PS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2021
- Single Study Review (findings for Nudging intervention)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SAT score |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
-6 Months |
National sample;
|
905.93 |
906.38 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrolled in any college |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
National sample;
|
59.40 |
60.70 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Delayed enrollment in any college |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
National sample;
|
54.40 |
55.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
FAFSA submission |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
National sample;
|
63.10 |
63.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Took SAT |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
-6 Months |
National sample;
|
66.00 |
67.50 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
FAFSA submission |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
-6 Months |
National sample;
|
13.20 |
12.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
FAFSA submission |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
-1 Months |
National sample;
|
59.90 |
60.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
FAFSA submission |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
-2 Months |
National sample;
|
56.10 |
56.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
FAFSA submission |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
-3 Months |
National sample;
|
51.40 |
51.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
FAFSA submission |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
-4 Months |
National sample;
|
46.00 |
45.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
FAFSA submission |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
-5 Months |
National sample;
|
32.60 |
32.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
FAFSA Completion |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
-2 Months |
National sample;
|
50.10 |
50.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
FAFSA Completion |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
-3 Months |
National sample;
|
45.30 |
45.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
FAFSA Completion |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
-4 Months |
National sample;
|
40.30 |
40.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
FAFSA Completion |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
-5 Months |
National sample;
|
27.50 |
27.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
FAFSA Completion |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
-6 Months |
National sample;
|
10.70 |
10.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
FAFSA Completion |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
National sample;
|
57.30 |
57.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
FAFSA Completion |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
-1 Months |
National sample;
|
53.90 |
54.50 |
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% -
Race Asian 7% Black 20% Native American 1% Other or unknown 48% White 24% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 41% Not Hispanic or Latino 59%
Study Details
Setting
There were two studies conducted in this report: a national study and a Texas schools study. The Texas schools study had insufficient data to meet WWC group design standards; therefore, this WWC review only provides a description of the national study. The national study was conducted in 745 schools across 15 states that primarily served low-income students. The intervention was conducted with students in the high school graduating class of 2016 beginning in the spring of students’ junior year of high school through the summer after high school graduation. Students were followed for up to one year after high school graduation.
Study sample
The total sample size in the national study was 70,285 students. However, since the intervention was delivered via text message, it is important to note that only 60,742 students had a valid cell phone number. A total of 36,521 students in 386 schools were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 33,764 students in 359 schools were assigned to the comparison group. In the national study, approximately 24% of students were White, 20% were Black, 7% were Asian, and less than 1% were Native American. About forty percent (41%) of students were Hispanic and 55% were female.
Intervention Group
In the national study, treatment group students received scheduled monthly text messages. The scheduled text messages were designed to cover specific topics including college affordability, search, application, selection, and transition. The text messages were scripted to engage students to respond. The national study employed seven full-time advisors to send personalized replies to students' responses to the scripted text messages. Researchers partnered with uAspire and Signal Vine to deliver the text messages.
Comparison Group
In the national study, students in the comparison group received their usual high school counseling services, as well as scripted text messages once every two months. Comparison group students who responded to the text messages and sought more information received a scripted sequence of automated text responses, pre-programmed on the Signal Vine text messaging platform, rather than personalized replies from an advisor.
Support for implementation
In the national study, the uAspire company recruited and trained seven full-time advisors to work with students.
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).