WWC review of this study

Can Texting Parents Improve Attendance in Elementary School? A Test of an Adaptive Messaging Strategy. Evaluation Report. NCEE 2020-006

Heppen, Jessica B.; Kurki, Anja; Brown, Seth (2020). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED607613

examining

7,761

Students

, grades

K-5

Single Study Review

Review Details

Reviewed: August 2024

At least one statistically significant positive finding

Meets WWC standards with reservations

For:

Single Study Review (findings for Intensified text messaging strategy - Heppen et al. (2020))

Using:

Research Design:

Regression Discontinuity Design

Rating:

Meets WWC standards with reservations because is a regression discontinuity design that partially satisfies the integrity of forcing variable and continuity standards and completely satisfies all other required standards.

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

School Attendance outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Chronic absenteeism	Intensified text messaging strategy - Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020)	1 Semester	Full sample; 7,761 students	25.30	23.90	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Chronic absenteeism	Intensified text messaging strategy - Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020)	1 Semester	Students with high rates of absenteeism in the prior semester; 2,621 students	34.50	40.10	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.

14% English language learners
Female: 48%
Male: 52%
Suburban, Urban

Race
Asian		2%
Black		44%
Other or unknown		33%
Two or more races		4%
White		17%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		32%
Not Hispanic or Latino		68%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL)		83%
Other or unknown		17%

Study Details

Setting

This study took place in 108 schools in 4 large, urban school districts in unspecified states.

Study sample

A total of 7,761 students in kindergarten to grade 5 were included in the study. Students eligible to be included in the analysis were those missing 2-14% of school days during the fall semester. Forty-eight percent of the students were female, 83% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 16% were in special education programs, and 14% were English language learners. Forty-four percent of the students were Black, 17% were White, 4% were multi-racial, 2% were Asian, and 33% did not report race. Thirty-two percent were Hispanic or Latino and 68% were neither Hispanic nor Latino.

Intervention Group

Parents in the intervention condition received one of two intensive text messaging strategies with information about their children’s absences. In the first strategy, a trained staff member in a student’s school provided the information, identifying themselves in the message and requesting a response. The staff member was trained to reach out weekly for four weeks and then monthly thereafter until they received a response from the parent. Upon receiving a response, school staff were trained to continue engaging with the parent using text messages or other means. In the second strategy, parents received automated weekly messages asking them to commit to a goal of perfect attendance for the upcoming week. Then, those who responded affirmatively received a feedback message at the end of the week indicating whether the goal was met. The intervention was implemented during the spring semester of the school year.

Comparison Group

Parents in the comparison condition received a basic text messaging strategy with information about their children’s absences. Parents received automated weekly messages that emphasized either the benefits of attending school regularly or the consequences of missing school. They also received automated, personalized notifications on days when their child was absent from school that included the total number of days absent so far during the school year.

Support for implementation

The study team delivered automated text messages using a text-messaging platform. School staff delivering individualized text messages participated in two training sessions provided by the study team prior to implementing the intervention. The text messaging platform had templates school staff could use, and it could be accessed from a desktop, laptop, or iPad.

Single Study Review

Review Details

Reviewed: July 2024

No statistically significant positive
findings

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Single Study Review (findings for Adaptive text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020))

Using:

Research Design:

Randomized Controlled Trial

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

Findings

School Attendance outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 4,173 students	46.80	43.70	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 2,185 students	62.30	57.50	Yes	-5
Days absent	Adaptive text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 4,173 students	10.90	10.70	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 2,185 students	13.90	13.30	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.

14% English language learners
Female: 48%
Male: 52%
Suburban, Urban

Race
Asian		2%
Black		44%
Other or unknown		33%
Two or more races		4%
White		17%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		32%
Not Hispanic or Latino		68%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL)		83%
No FRPL		17%

Study Details

Setting

This study took place in 108 schools in 4 large, urban school districts in unspecified states.

Study sample

A total of 4,173 students from 108 schools in grades kindergarten through 5 were included in the study. Forty-eight percent of the students were female, 83% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 16% were in special education programs, and 14% were English language learners. Forty-four percent of the students were Black, 17% were White, 4% were multi-racial, 2% were Asian, and 33% did not report race. Thirty-two percent were Hispanic or Latino and 68% were neither Hispanic nor Latino.

Intervention Group

In the spring semester, parents of students who were frequently absent in the fall and assigned to the intervention condition received automated text messages offering the opportunity to commit to an attendance goal. They also received automated text messages that highlighted the benefits of attending school or the consequences of being absent. The automated goal commitment messages were sent at the beginning of each week, and at the end of the week, parents received a summary of their child’s attendance and whether the goal was met or not. The goal of the goal commitment text messages was to encourage parents to commit to an attendance goal and ultimately improve student attendance.

Comparison Group

In spring semester, parents of students who were frequently absent in the fall and assigned to the comparison condition received individualized text messages from school staff about their children’s absences from school. They also received automated text messages that highlighted the benefits of attending school or the consequences of being absent. The individualized messages from school staff offered personalized help, and school staff could follow up via other modes of communication about the types of supports the school and district could provide. If parents did not respond, school staff were instructed to contact parents weekly for one month and monthly thereafter. The goal of the text messages and subsequent communication was to increase parent motivation and ultimately improve student attendance.

Support for implementation

Single Study Review

Review Details

Reviewed: July 2024

At least one statistically significant positive finding

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Single Study Review (findings for Adaptive text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020))

Using:

Research Design:

Randomized Controlled Trial

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

Findings

School Attendance outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 4,173 students	43.70	46.80	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 2,185 students	57.50	62.30	Yes	5
Days absent	Adaptive text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 4,173 students	10.70	10.90	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 2,185 students	13.30	13.90	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.

14% English language learners
Female: 48%
Male: 52%
Suburban, Urban

Race
Asian		2%
Black		44%
Other or unknown		33%
Two or more races		4%
White		17%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		32%
Not Hispanic or Latino		68%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL)		83%
No FRPL		17%

Study Details

Setting

This study took place in 108 schools in 4 large, urban school districts in unspecified states.

Study sample

Intervention Group

In spring semester, parents of students who were frequently absent in the fall and assigned to the intervention condition received individualized text messages from school staff about their children’s absences from school. They also received automated text messages that highlighted the benefits of attending school or the consequences of being absent. The individualized messages from school staff offered personalized help, and school staff could follow up via other modes of communication about the types of supports the school and district could provide. If parents did not respond, school staff were instructed to contact parents weekly for one month and monthly thereafter. The goal of the text messages and subsequent communication was to increase parent motivation and ultimately improve student attendance.

Comparison Group

In the spring semester, parents of students who were frequently absent in the fall and assigned to the comparison condition received automated text messages offering the opportunity to commit to an attendance goal. They also received automated text messages that highlighted the benefits of attending school or the consequences of being absent. The automated goal commitment messages were sent at the beginning of each week, and at the end of the week, parents received a summary of their child’s attendance and whether the goal was met or not. The goal of the goal commitment text messages was to encourage parents to commit to an attendance goal and ultimately improve student attendance.

Support for implementation

Single Study Review

Review Details

Reviewed: July 2024

At least one finding shows strong evidence of effectiveness

At least one statistically significant positive finding

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Single Study Review (findings for Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020))

Using:

Research Design:

Randomized Controlled Trial

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

Findings

General Literacy Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Reading achievement	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 5,226 students	-0.07	-0.04	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Reading achievement	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,282 students	-0.32	-0.32	No	--
Reading achievement	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,833 students	-0.71	-0.07	No	--
Reading achievement	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,804 students	-0.07	-0.07	No	--
Reading achievement	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,077 students	-0.32	-0.31	No	--
Reading achievement	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,064 students	-0.32	-0.28	No	--

General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Math achievement	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 5,217 students	-0.08	-0.06	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Math achievement	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,276 students	-0.35	-0.39	No	--
Math achievement	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,826 students	-0.08	-0.06	No	--
Math achievement	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,795 students	-0.08	-0.07	No	--
Math achievement	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,074 students	-0.35	-0.35	No	--
Math achievement	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,060 students	-0.35	-0.32	No	--

School Attendance outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 14,426 students	17.60	20.50	Yes	5
Show Supplemental Findings
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,607 students	43.60	47.10	No	--
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,155 students	17.60	18.10	No	--
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,195 students	17.60	16.90	No	--
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,021 students	43.60	42.20	No	--
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,028 students	43.60	39.90	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 14,426 students	9.20	9.80	Yes	--
Days absent	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,607 students	15.70	16.60	Yes	--
Days absent	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,195 students	9.20	9.20	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,028 students	15.70	15.20	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,155 students	9.20	9.20	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,021 students	15.70	15.40	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.

14% English language learners
Female: 48%
Male: 52%
Suburban, Urban

Race
Asian		2%
Black		44%
Other or unknown		33%
Two or more races		4%
White		17%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		32%
Not Hispanic or Latino		68%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL)		83%
No FRPL		17%

Study Details

Setting

This study took place in 108 schools in 4 large, urban school districts in unspecified states.

Study sample

A total of 14,426 students from 108 schools in grades kindergarten through 5 were included in the study. Forty-eight percent of the students were female, 83% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 16% were in special education programs, and 14% were English language learners. Forty-four percent of the students were Black, 17% were White, 4% were multi-racial, 2% were Asian, and 33% did not report race. Thirty-two percent were Hispanic or Latino and 68% were neither Hispanic nor Latino.

Intervention Group

Parents in the intervention condition received consequences-framed basic text messages with information about their children’s absences from school in the fall semester, and then in the spring semester, they either continued to receive the same messages if their child was absent for less than 8 percent of days in the fall semester or received automated text messages offering the opportunity to commit to an attendance goal in addition to the basic text messages if their child was absent for more than 8 percent of days in the fall semester. The consequences-framed messages talked about the consequences of missing school and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources. Parents also received personalized notifications on days when their child was absent from school that included the total number of days absent so far during the school year. The goal of the messages was to increase parent motivation and ultimately improve student attendance.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition was business-as-usual; parents did not receive any text messages about their children’s attendance. However, many districts and schools may have used other interventions to reduce student absences, including in-person supports and resources for parents with chronically absent children. Because students were randomly assigned within schools at the individual level, these interventions would be expected to be the same for students in the intervention group and those in the comparison group. The intervention group was compared to other versions of the intervention as well: in the adaptive benefits-framed messaging strategy with goal commitment condition, parents received the same types of messages as parents in the intervention condition except that the messages talked about the importance and positive benefits of consistent attendance and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources. In the adaptive benefits-framed messaging strategy with school staff outreach condition, parents received the same types of messages as parents in the intervention condition except that the messages talked about the importance and positive benefits of consistent attendance and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources; and, in the spring semester, parents of children who missed more than 8 percent of days in the fall semester received individualized messages from school staff offering personalized help in addition to the basic text messages.

Support for implementation

Single Study Review

Review Details

Reviewed: July 2024

At least one finding shows strong evidence of effectiveness

At least one statistically significant positive finding

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Single Study Review (findings for Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020))

Using:

Research Design:

Randomized Controlled Trial

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

Findings

General Literacy Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
State reading assessment	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 5,225 students	-0.05	-0.04	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
State reading assessment	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,275 students	-0.28	-0.32	No	--
State reading assessment	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,832 students	-0.05	-0.07	No	--
State reading assessment	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,803 students	-0.07	-0.05	No	--
State reading assessment	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,070 students	-0.28	-0.31	No	--
State reading assessment	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,057 students	-0.28	-0.30	No	--

General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
State math assessment	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 5,216 students	-0.07	-0.06	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
State math assessment	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,270 students	-0.37	-0.39	No	--
State math assessment	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,825 students	-0.07	-0.06	No	--
State math assessment	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,794 students	-0.07	-0.07	No	--
State math assessment	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,068 students	-0.37	-0.35	No	--
State math assessment	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,054 students	-0.37	-0.32	No	--

School Attendance outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 14,445 students	17.60	20.50	Yes	5
Show Supplemental Findings
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,585 students	39.80	47.10	Yes	7
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,174 students	17.60	18.10	No	--
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,006 students	39.80	39.90	No	--
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,214 students	17.60	16.90	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 14,445 students	9.20	9.80	Yes	--
Days absent	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,585 students	15.30	16.60	Yes	--
Days absent	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,214 students	9.20	9.20	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,006 students	15.30	15.20	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,174 students	9.20	9.20	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 2,999 students	15.30	15.40	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.

14% English language learners
Female: 48%
Male: 52%
Suburban, Urban

Race
Asian		2%
Black		44%
Other or unknown		33%
Two or more races		4%
White		17%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		32%
Not Hispanic or Latino		68%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL)		83%
No FRPL		17%

Study Details

Setting

This study took place in 108 schools in 4 large, urban school districts in unspecified states.

Study sample

A total of 14,445 students from 108 schools in grades kindergarten through 5 were included in the study. Forty-eight percent of the students were female, 83% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 16% were in special education programs, and 14% were English language learners. Forty-four percent of the students were Black, 17% were White, 4% were multi-racial, 2% were Asian, and 33% did not report race. Thirty-two percent were Hispanic or Latino and 68% were neither Hispanic nor Latino.

Intervention Group

Parents in the intervention condition received consequences-framed basic text messages with information about their children’s absences from school in the fall semester, and then in the spring semester, they either continued to receive the same messages if their child was absent for less than 8 percent of days in the fall semester or received individualized text messages from school staff in addition to the basic text messages if their child was absent for more than 8 percent of days in the fall semester. The consequences-framed messages talked about the consequences of missing school and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources. Parents also received personalized notifications on days when their child was absent from school that included the total number of days absent so far during the school year. The messages from school staff offered personalized help, and school staff could follow up via other modes of communication about the types of supports the school and district could provide. The goal of the messages was to increase parent motivation and ultimately improve student attendance.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition was business-as-usual; parents did not receive any text messages about their children’s attendance. However, many districts and schools may have used other interventions to reduce student absences, including in-person supports and resources for parents with chronically absent children. Because students were randomly assigned within schools at the individual level, these interventions would be expected to be the same for students in the intervention group and those in the comparison group. The intervention group was compared to other versions of the intervention as well: in the adaptive benefits-framed messaging strategy with school staff outreach condition, parents received the same types of messages as parents in the intervention condition except that the messages talked about the importance and positive benefits of consistent attendance and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources. In the adaptive benefits-framed messaging strategy with goal commitment condition, parents received the same types of messages as parents in the intervention condition except that the messages talked about the importance and positive benefits of consistent attendance and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources; and, in the spring semester, parents of children who missed more than 8 percent of days in the fall semester received automated text messages offering the opportunity to commit to an attendance goal in addition to the basic text messages.

Support for implementation

Single Study Review

Review Details

Reviewed: July 2024

At least one finding shows strong evidence of effectiveness

At least one statistically significant positive finding

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Single Study Review (findings for Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020))

Using:

Research Design:

Randomized Controlled Trial

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

Findings

General Literacy Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
State reading assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 5,152 students	-0.07	-0.04	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
State reading assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,194 students	-0.30	-0.32	No	--
State reading assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,803 students	-0.07	-0.05	No	--
State reading assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,804 students	-0.07	-0.07	No	--
State reading assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,057 students	-0.30	-0.28	No	--
State reading assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,064 students	-0.30	-0.32	No	--

General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
State math assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 5,142 students	-0.07	-0.06	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
State math assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,188 students	-0.32	-0.39	No	--
State math assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,794 students	-0.07	-0.07	No	--
State math assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,795 students	-0.07	-0.08	No	--
State math assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,054 students	-0.32	-0.37	No	--
State math assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,060 students	-0.32	-0.35	No	--

School Attendance outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 14,453 students	18.10	20.50	Yes	4
Show Supplemental Findings
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,590 students	42.20	47.10	Yes	5
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,021 students	42.20	43.60	No	--
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,174 students	18.10	17.60	No	--
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,155 students	18.10	17.60	No	--
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 2,999 students	42.20	39.80	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 14,453 students	9.20	9.80	Yes	--
Days absent	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,590 students	15.40	16.60	Yes	--
Days absent	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,174 students	9.20	9.20	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,155 students	9.20	9.20	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 2,999 students	15.40	15.30	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,021 students	15.40	15.70	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.

14% English language learners
Female: 48%
Male: 52%
Suburban, Urban

Race
Asian		2%
Black		44%
Other or unknown		33%
Two or more races		4%
White		17%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		32%
Not Hispanic or Latino		68%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL)		83%
No FRPL		17%

Study Details

Setting

This study took place in 108 schools in 4 large, urban school districts in unspecified states.

Study sample

A total of 14,453 students from 108 schools in grades kindergarten through 5 were included in the study. Forty-eight percent of the students were female, 83% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 16% were in special education programs, and 14% were English language learners. Forty-four percent of the students were Black, 17% were White, 4% were multi-racial, 2% were Asian, and 33% did not report race. Thirty-two percent were Hispanic or Latino and 68% were neither Hispanic nor Latino.

Intervention Group

Parents in the intervention condition received benefits-framed basic text messages with information about their children’s absences from school in the fall semester, and then in the spring semester, they either continued to receive the same messages if their child was absent for less than 8 percent of days in the fall semester or received automated text messages offering the opportunity to commit to an attendance goal in addition to the basic text messages if their child was absent for more than 8 percent of days in the fall semester. The benefits-framed messages were automated weekly messages that talked about the importance and positive benefits of consistent attendance and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources. Parents also received personalized notifications on days when their child was absent from school that included the total number of days absent so far during the school year. The goal of the messages was to increase parent motivation and ultimately improve student attendance.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition was business-as-usual; parents did not receive any text messages about their children’s attendance. However, many districts and schools may have used other interventions to reduce student absences, including in-person supports and resources for parents with chronically absent children. Because students were randomly assigned within schools at the individual level, these interventions would be expected to be the same for students in the intervention group and those in the comparison group. The intervention group was compared to other versions of the intervention as well: in the adaptive consequences-framed messaging strategy with goal commitment condition, parents received the same types of messages as parents in the intervention condition except that the messages talked about the consequences of missing school and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources. In the adaptive consequences-framed messaging strategy with school staff outreach condition, parents received the same types of messages as parents in the intervention condition except that the messages talked about the consequences of missing school and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources; and, in the spring semester, parents of children who missed more than 8 percent of days in the fall semester received individualized messages from school staff offering personalized help in addition to the basic text messages.

Support for implementation

Single Study Review

Review Details

Reviewed: July 2024

At least one finding shows strong evidence of effectiveness

At least one statistically significant positive finding

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Single Study Review (findings for Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020))

Using:

Research Design:

Randomized Controlled Trial

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

Findings

General Literacy Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
State reading assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 5,181 students	-0.07	-0.04	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
State reading assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,832 students	-0.07	-0.05	No	--
State reading assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,833 students	-0.07	-0.07	No	--
State reading assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,070 students	-0.31	-0.28	No	--
State reading assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,077 students	-0.31	-0.32	No	--
State reading assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,207 students	-0.31	-0.32	No	--

General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
State math assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 5,173 students	-0.06	-0.06	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
State math assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,825 students	-0.06	-0.07	No	--
State math assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Grades 3-5; 4,826 students	-0.06	-0.08	No	--
State math assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,068 students	-0.35	-0.37	No	--
State math assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,074 students	-0.35	-0.35	No	--
State math assessment	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence (grades 3-5); 1,202 students	-0.35	-0.39	No	--

School Attendance outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 14,493 students	16.90	20.50	Yes	6
Show Supplemental Findings
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,597 students	39.90	47.10	Yes	7
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,028 students	39.90	43.60	No	--
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,214 students	16.90	17.60	No	--
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,195 students	16.90	17.60	No	--
Chronic absence rate	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,006 students	39.90	39.80	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 14,493 students	9.20	9.80	Yes	--
Days absent	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,214 students	9.20	9.20	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 13,195 students	9.20	9.20	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,597 students	15.20	16.60	Yes	--
Days absent	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,006 students	15.20	15.30	No	--
Days absent	Adaptive benefits-framed text messaging strategy with school staff outreach – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Adaptive consequences-framed text messaging strategy with goal commitment – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 3,028 students	15.20	15.70	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.

14% English language learners
Female: 48%
Male: 52%
Suburban, Urban

Race
Asian		2%
Black		44%
Other or unknown		33%
Two or more races		4%
White		17%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		32%
Not Hispanic or Latino		68%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL)		83%
No FRPL		17%

Study Details

Setting

This study took place in 108 schools in 4 large, urban school districts in unspecified states.

Study sample

A total of 14,493 students from 108 schools in grades kindergarten through 5 were included in the study. Forty-eight percent of the students were female, 83% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 16% were in special education programs, and 14% were English language learners. Forty-four percent of the students were Black, 17% were White, 4% were multi-racial, 2% were Asian, and 33% did not report race. Thirty-two percent were Hispanic or Latino and 68% were neither Hispanic nor Latino.

Intervention Group

Parents in the intervention condition received benefits-framed basic text messages with information about their children’s absences from school in the fall semester, and then in the spring semester, they either continued to receive the same messages if their child was absent for less than 8 percent of days in the fall semester or received individualized text messages from school staff in addition to the basic text messages if their child was absent for more than 8 percent of days in the fall semester. The benefits-framed messages were automated weekly messages that talked about the importance and positive benefits of consistent attendance and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources. Parents also received personalized notifications on days when their child was absent from school that included the total number of days absent so far during the school year. The messages from school staff offered personalized help, and school staff could follow up via other modes of communication about the types of supports the school and district could provide. The goal of the messages was to increase parent motivation and ultimately improve student attendance.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition was business-as-usual; parents did not receive any text messages about their children’s attendance. However, many districts and schools may have used other interventions to reduce student absences, including in-person supports and resources for parents with chronically absent children. Because students were randomly assigned within schools at the individual level, these interventions would be expected to be the same for students in the intervention group and those in the comparison group. The intervention group was compared to other versions of the intervention as well: in the adaptive consequences-framed messaging strategy with school staff outreach condition, parents received the same types of messages as parents in the intervention condition except that the messages talked about the consequences of missing school and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources. In the adaptive consequences-framed messaging strategy with goal commitment condition, parents received the same types of messages as parents in the intervention condition except that the messages talked about the consequences of missing school and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources; and, in the spring semester, parents of children who missed more than 8 percent of days in the fall semester received automated text messages offering the opportunity to commit to an attendance goal in addition to the basic text messages.

Support for implementation

Single Study Review

Review Details

Reviewed: July 2024

At least one finding shows strong evidence of effectiveness

At least one statistically significant positive finding

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Single Study Review (findings for Consequences-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020))

Using:

Research Design:

Randomized Controlled Trial

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

Findings

School Attendance outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Chronic absence rate	Consequences-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 15,468 students	17.30	19.40	Yes	3
Show Supplemental Findings
Chronic absence rate	Consequences-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence; 4,130 students	36.00	40.70	Yes	5
Chronic absence rate	Consequences-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Benefits-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 15,271 students	17.30	17.20	No	--
Chronic absence rate	Consequences-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Benefits-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 4,106 students	36.00	36.30	No	--
Days absent	Consequences-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 15,468 students	2.70	2.90	Yes	--
Days absent	Consequences-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence; 4,130 students	4.60	5.00	Yes	--
Days absent	Consequences-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Benefits-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 15,271 students	2.70	2.70	No	--
Days absent	Consequences-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Benefits-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 4,106 students	4.60	4.60	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.

14% English language learners
Female: 48%
Male: 52%
Suburban, Urban

Race
Asian		2%
Black		44%
Other or unknown		33%
Two or more races		4%
White		17%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		32%
Not Hispanic or Latino		68%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL)		83%
No FRPL		17%

Study Details

Setting

This study took place in 108 schools in 4 large, urban school districts in unspecified states.

Study sample

A total of 15,468 students from 108 schools in grades kindergarten through 5 were included in the study. Forty-eight percent of the students were female, 83% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 16% were in special education programs, and 14% were English language learners. Forty-four percent of the students were Black, 17% were White, 4% were multi-racial, 2% were Asian, and 33% did not report race. Thirty-two percent were Hispanic or Latino and 68% were neither Hispanic nor Latino.

Intervention Group

Parents in the intervention condition received consequences-framed basic text messages with information about their children’s absences. Parents received automated weekly messages that talked about the consequences of missing school and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources. They also received personalized notifications on days when their child was absent from school that included the total number of days absent so far during the school year. The goal of the text messages was to improve student attendance.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition was business-as-usual; parents did not receive any automated text messages about their children’s attendance. However, many districts and schools may have used other interventions to reduce student absences, including in-person supports and resources for parents with chronically absent children. Because students were randomly assigned within schools at the individual level, these interventions would be expected to be the same for students in the intervention group and those in the comparison group. The intervention group was compared to another version of the intervention as well: In the benefits-framed text messaging group, parents received benefits-framed basic text messages with information about their children’s absences. Parents received automated weekly messages that talked about the importance and positive benefits of consistent attendance, and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources. They also received personalized notifications on days when their child was absent from school that included the total number of days absent so far during the school year.

Support for implementation

The study team delivered automated text messages using a text-messaging platform.

Single Study Review

Review Details

Reviewed: July 2024

At least one finding shows strong evidence of effectiveness

At least one statistically significant positive finding

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Single Study Review (findings for Benefits-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020))

Using:

Research Design:

Randomized Controlled Trial

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

Findings

School Attendance outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Chronic absence rate	Benefits-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 15,527 students	17.20	19.40	Yes	4
Show Supplemental Findings
Chronic absence rate	Benefits-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence; 4,152 students	36.30	40.70	Yes	4
Chronic absence rate	Benefits-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Consequences-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 15,271 students	17.20	17.30	No	--
Chronic absence rate	Benefits-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Consequences-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 4,106 students	36.30	36.00	No	--
Days absent	Benefits-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 15,527 students	2.70	2.90	Yes	--
Days absent	Benefits-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Consequences-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	Full sample; 15,271 students	2.70	2.70	No	--
Days absent	Benefits-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence; 4,152 students	4.60	5.00	Yes	--
Days absent	Benefits-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Consequences-framed basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020)	0 Days	History of high absence; 4,106 students	4.60	4.60	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.

14% English language learners
Female: 48%
Male: 52%
Suburban, Urban

Race
Asian		2%
Black		44%
Other or unknown		33%
Two or more races		4%
White		17%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		32%
Not Hispanic or Latino		68%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL)		83%
No FRPL		17%

Study Details

Setting

This study took place in 108 schools in 4 large, urban school districts in unspecified states.

Study sample

A total of 15,527 students from 108 schools in grades kindergarten through 5 were included in the study. Forty-eight percent of the students were female, 83% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 16% were in special education programs, and 14% were English language learners. Forty-four percent of the students were Black, 17% were White, 4% were multi-racial, 2% were Asian, and 33% did not report race. Thirty-two percent were Hispanic or Latino and 68% were neither Hispanic nor Latino.

Intervention Group

Parents in the intervention condition received benefits-framed basic text messages with information about their children’s absences. Parents received automated weekly messages that talked about the importance and positive benefits of consistent attendance, and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources. They also received personalized notifications on days when their child was absent from school that included the total number of days absent so far during the school year. The goal of the text messages was to improve student attendance.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition was business-as-usual; parents did not receive any automated text messages about their children’s attendance. However, many districts and schools may have used other interventions to reduce student absences, including in-person supports and resources for parents with chronically absent children. Because students were randomly assigned within schools at the individual level, these interventions would be expected to be the same for students in the intervention group and those in the comparison group. The intervention group was compared to another version of the intervention as well: in the consequences-framed messaging group, parents received consequences-framed basic text messages with information about their children’s absences. Parents received automated weekly messages that talked about the consequences of missing school and provided tips about avoiding common reasons for absences and links to additional resources. They also received personalized notifications on days when their child was absent from school that included the total number of days absent so far during the school year.

Support for implementation

The study team delivered automated text messages using a text-messaging platform.

Single Study Review

Review Details

Reviewed: July 2024

At least one finding shows strong evidence of effectiveness

At least one statistically significant positive finding

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Single Study Review (findings for Basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020))

Using:

Research Design:

Randomized Controlled Trial

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

Findings

School Attendance outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Chronic absence rate	Basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 23,133 students	17.20	19.40	Yes	4
Show Supplemental Findings
Chronic absence rate	Basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence; 6,194 students	36.20	40.70	Yes	5
Days absent	Basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 23,133 students	2.70	2.90	Yes	--
Days absent	Basic text messaging strategy – Heppen et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	History of high absence; 6,194 students	4.60	5.00	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.

14% English language learners
Female: 48%
Male: 52%
Suburban, Urban

Race
Asian		2%
Black		44%
Other or unknown		33%
Two or more races		4%
White		17%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		32%
Not Hispanic or Latino		68%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL)		83%
No FRPL		17%

Study Details

Setting

This study took place in 108 schools in 4 large, urban schools districts in unspecified states.

Study sample

A total of 23,133 students from 108 schools in grades kindergarten through 5 were included in the study. Forty-eight percent of the students were female, 83% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 16% were in special education programs, and 14% were English language learners. Forty-four percent of the students were Black, 17% were White, 4% were multi-racial, 2% were Asian, and 33% did not report race. Thirty-two percent were Hispanic or Latino and 68% were neither Hispanic nor Latino.

Intervention Group

Parents in the intervention condition received basic text messages with information about their children’s absences. Parents received automated weekly messages that emphasized either the benefits of attending school regularly or the consequences of missing school. They also received personalized notifications on days when their child was absent from school that included the total number of days absent so far during the school year. The goal of the text messages was to improve student attendance.

Comparison Group

Support for implementation

The study team delivered automated text messages using a text-messaging platform.

Connect With the WWC