Does Taking a Few Courses at a Community College Improve the Baccalaureate, STEM, and Labor Market Outcomes of Four-Year College Students? CCRC Working Paper No. 122
Liu, Vivian Yuen Ting; Fay, Maggie P. (2020). Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED607017
-
examining3,950Students, gradePS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2021
- Single Study Review (findings for Supplemental enrollment)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Received a bachelor's degree or higher |
Supplemental enrollment vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earned Graduate Degree |
Supplemental enrollment vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Annual Earnings |
Supplemental enrollment vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Full-time Employment |
Supplemental enrollment vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Work Hours, 2011-2012 |
Supplemental enrollment vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Four-year GPA |
Supplemental enrollment vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total credits earned |
Supplemental enrollment vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Two-year credits |
Supplemental enrollment vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Four-year credits |
Supplemental enrollment vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
-- |
-- | ||
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: 63%
Male: 37% -
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
Midwest, Northeast, South, West
-
Race Asian 14% Black 9% Other or unknown 77% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 8% Not Hispanic or Latino 92%
Study Details
Setting
The study estimated the effect of supplemental enrollment on academic and economic outcomes. Data for this study was drawn from the Education Longitudinal Study (ELS) of 2002, which is a nationally representative dataset of students who were in 10th grade in 2002. Many of these students were enrolled in college in the mid-2000s.
Study sample
Of the overall analytic sample, 63% of students were female. Fifteen percent (15%) of the sample were Asian and 9% were Black. Eight percent (8%) were Hispanic.
Intervention Group
The intervention examined in this study is described as supplemental enrollment. Students who engaged in supplemental enrollment are defined as those begin their first term of college at a four-year college, then at some point over the next three years, earn between one and 10 credits at two-year colleges.
Comparison Group
The comparison group is comprised of students who began at a four-year college, but did not earn any credits at a two-year college.
Support for implementation
No additional information 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).