Effects of cross-age peer mentoring program within a randomized controlled trial
Jenner, E., Lass, K., Walsh, S., Demby, H., Leger, R., & Falk, G. (2021). POLICY, 1. https://policyandresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/i3_CSS_Evaluation_Manuscript_forWebsite_21Mar19.pdf.
-
examining1,286Students, grade9
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2022
- Grant Competition (findings for Peer Group Connection-High School (PGC-HS))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Weighted GPA |
Peer Group Connection-High School (PGC-HS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.71 |
2.63 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grit |
Peer Group Connection-High School (PGC-HS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.25 |
5.26 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total number of credits earned |
Peer Group Connection-High School (PGC-HS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.28 |
7.27 |
No |
-- | |
|
Promoted to 10th grade |
Peer Group Connection-High School (PGC-HS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
88.00 |
89.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of days attended |
Peer Group Connection-High School (PGC-HS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
166.33 |
165.73 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Was suspended |
Peer Group Connection-High School (PGC-HS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.00 |
20.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Received disciplinary referral |
Peer Group Connection-High School (PGC-HS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
34.00 |
40.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Received detention |
Peer Group Connection-High School (PGC-HS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
18.00 |
20.00 |
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.
-
2% English language learners -
Female: 47%
Male: 53% -
Rural
-
- 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
North Carolina
-
Race Black 36% Other or unknown 21% White 43% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12% Not Hispanic or Latino 88%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted in multiple public rural schools in North Carolina. Students from six schools were initially randomized, and students from five schools were included in the analytic sample. Of these five schools, three participated for 2 years. All schools were eligible for the Rural and Low-Income Schools program, such that at least 20 percent of children ages 5 to 17 served were from families with incomes below the poverty line. One school was dropped owing to problems resulting from a hurricane.
Study sample
The average age of the ninth graders in both the intervention and comparison conditions was 15 years. Proportionally fewer students were female (intervention = 48%; comparison = 46%). Most students were White (43% for both study groups), followed by Black (36% for both study groups), or "other" (21% for both study groups). Hispanic students constituted slightly more than 10 percent in each condition (intervention = 13%; comparison = 12%). Fewer than 2 percent of students were English language learners. About 12 percent of students had an individualized education plan (intervention = 13%; comparison = 11%).
Intervention Group
Peer Group Connection–High School (PGC–HS) is a school-based cross-age, peer mentor program designed to prevent school dropout during the transition from middle to high school. PGC–HS aims to increase ninth-grade students' engagement in school, decrease absenteeism and disciplinary events, and improve educational outcomes. Peer leaders work in pairs to co-lead groups of 10 to 12 ninth-grade students in weekly 45-minute sessions. The program is meant to be implemented throughout the fall semester or across the full school year, depending on school scheduling capacity.
Comparison Group
Students who were assigned to the comparison condition remained in their usual classes and received instruction as usual during the time when intervention students were pulled from class to meet with their peer groups.
Support for implementation
Two faculty advisors run the program and teach a daily leadership course to the peer mentors. Administrators, faculty, parents/caregivers, and community members support program implementation and advise the faculty advisors.
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).