First-Year Effects of Early Indicator and Intervention Systems in Oregon. REL 2021-097
Sepanik, Susan; Zhu, Pei; Shih, Miki Bairstow; Commins, Nicholas (2021). Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED614630
-
examining88,868Students, grades9-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that satisfies the baseline equivalence requirement for the clusters in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proficient on Smarter Balanced English language arts assessment |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 11;
|
68.90 |
69.10 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proficient on Smarter Balanced math assessment |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 11;
|
31.20 |
26.40 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
On track for high school graduation |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 9;
|
81.70 |
79.30 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
On track for high school graduation |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 9; students with disciplinary infractions in the previous year;
|
59.10 |
53.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
On track for high school graduation |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 9; students who were severely chronically absent in the previous year;
|
48.30 |
49.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Severe chronic absenteeism |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.70 |
20.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Chronic absenteeism |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
29.70 |
33.60 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Severe chronic absenteeism |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 10;
|
15.00 |
20.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Chronic absenteeism |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 11;
|
29.90 |
36.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Chronic absenteeism |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 10;
|
27.50 |
32.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Severe chronic absenteeism |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students who are not on track to graduate from high school;
|
42.30 |
47.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Chronic absenteeism |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students who were severely chronically absent in the previous year;
|
82.00 |
84.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Chronic absenteeism |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 12;
|
37.90 |
42.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Severe chronic absenteeism |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 9;
|
12.40 |
12.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Severe chronic absenteeism |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students with disciplinary infractions in the previous year;
|
34.10 |
34.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Chronic absenteeism |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students who are not on track to graduate from high school;
|
60.20 |
58.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Disciplinary infraction |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.50 |
5.20 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Disciplinary infraction |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 11;
|
4.60 |
5.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Disciplinary infraction |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students who are not on track to graduate from high school;
|
13.50 |
14.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Disciplinary infraction |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students who were severely chronically absent in the previous year;
|
9.50 |
8.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Disciplinary infraction |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 12;
|
3.00 |
3.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Disciplinary infraction |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 9;
|
7.70 |
4.90 |
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.
-
2% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 52% -
Rural, Suburban, Town, 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
Oregon
-
Race Other or unknown 30% White 70% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in high schools in 94 school districts across Oregon.
Study sample
Sixty-five districts in the study adopted an early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) intended to identify and support high school students who were at risk of not graduating on time. The remaining 29 districts did not adopt this system. Across these districts, the study included all students in grades 9 through 12, with 88,868 students included in the full sample (65,902 in schools using an EIIS and 22,966 in schools not using an EIIS).
Intervention Group
Districts in the intervention condition implemented an early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) that used data on students’ attendance, behavior, and course performance to identify students at risk of not graduating on time. The EIIS centered on a data system developed by a consortium of Oregon school districts and educational service districts. The system allowed district or school staff to monitor indicators of attendance, behavior, and course performance and identify students whose outcomes fell below district-defined thresholds. Staff also developed menus of interventions for students identified for support, such as afterschool tutoring for students with low course performance. Districts had flexibility in how they designed and implemented their EIIS. The study did not collect implementation data and therefore could not document how frequently staff used the system, what thresholds they set, or which interventions students received.
Comparison Group
Districts in the comparison condition also received funding from the state initiative to improve high school success but used the funding for activities other than EIIS. These activities included starting or expanding career and technical education programs, Advanced Placement programs, dual credit programs, and dropout prevention programs that did not use a data system to identify and track specific students. The study did not document districts’ implementation of these activities.
Support for implementation
The study did not provide information on support for implementation of the EIIS.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of students proficient in English language arts |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 11;
|
68.48 |
70.20 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of students proficient in math |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade: 11;
|
31.89 |
29.10 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Course progression |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 9;
|
81.23 |
82.50 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Severe chronic absenteeism |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
19.30 |
17.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Chronic absenteeism |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
32.94 |
31.10 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Disciplinary infraction |
Oregon early indicator and intervention system (EIIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.39 |
5.20 |
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.
-
3% English language learners -
Other or unknown: 100% -
- 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
Oregon
-
Race Other or unknown 31% White 69% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study included high school districts from four regions in Oregon.
Study sample
Approximately 69 percent of students in EIIS schools were White and 31 percent were racial/ethnic minorities. Just under 3 percent were English language learners, and 14 percent had IEPs.
Intervention Group
The districts in the intervention group adopted a data system to monitor students' attendance, disciplinary infractions, and course performance. The system was designed to identify students who were not on track for high school graduation.
Comparison Group
The districts in the comparison condition did not use the EIIS and conducted business as usual.
Support for implementation
No support for implementation was noted.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).