Customized Nudging to Improve FAFSA Completion and Income Verification
Page, Lindsay C.; Castleman, Benjamin L.; Meyer, Katharine (2020). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v42 n1 p3-21 Mar 2020. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1244835
-
examining17,731Schools, grade12
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Text messages about the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) application process – Page et. al, 2020))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition that provides evidence of effects on clusters by demonstrating that the analytic sample of individuals is representative of the clusters.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrolled in any college on time |
Text messages about the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) application process – Page et. al, 2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
52.90 |
49.80 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Enrolled in a 4-year college |
Text messages about the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) application process – Page et. al, 2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
31.60 |
26.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College enrollment, full time (%) |
Text messages about the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) application process – Page et. al, 2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
33.30 |
28.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrolled in a 2-year institution |
Text messages about the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) application process – Page et. al, 2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
21.40 |
23.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Completed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form |
Text messages about the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) application process – Page et. al, 2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
41.50 |
35.60 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Submitted a partially completed Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form |
Text messages about the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) application process – Page et. al, 2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
45.80 |
39.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Completed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form |
Text messages about the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) application process – Page et. al, 2020) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
47.30 |
42.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Submitted a partially completed Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form |
Text messages about the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) application process – Page et. al, 2020) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
51.80 |
48.50 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
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
Texas
-
Race Black 19% Other or unknown 56% White 26% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 58% Not Hispanic or Latino 42% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 41% No FRPL 59%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in 66 high schools located in eight school districts in Austin, Texas.
Study sample
The researchers randomly assigned 39 schools to the intervention condition and 27 schools to the comparison condition. A total of 17,731 students in grade 12 were included in the study. About 50% of students in this study were female and 41% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. About 26% of students were White, 19% were Black, and about 56% did not report race. Fifty-eight percent of students were Hispanic.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group schools received a text messaging intervention, also referred to as customized nudging to share personalized information and resources about the Free Application For Student Aid (FAFSA) application process. The aim of this practice was to improve FAFSA completion rates for high school seniors as they prepare to enter college. OneLogos Education Solutions, a third-party vendor hired by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating School Board (THECB) sent students in participating schools weekly, personalized text messages that alerted students to their Free Application For Student Aid (FAFSA) filing and completion status and directed them to available resources and support such as short informative videos developed by Federal Student Aid. The text messages encouraged students to use filing resources available at their high school and offered one-on-one assistance via text message that would be provided by student school counselors. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board used OneLogos, a text messaging application, to deliver text messages during the first four months of the spring semester.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group schools had access to the same OneLogos texting software and capabilities as the treatment schools, though intervention schools used the functionality of OneLogos less frequently and sent messages in a less systematic way than intervention schools. Specifically, comparison group schools did not text their students as frequently about Free Application For Student Aid (FAFSA) submissions as intervention schools. Relative to intervention schools, comparison schools sent text messages less often, delivered messages to a smaller number of students, and focused less on FAFSA and college financial aid.
Support for implementation
The study used an existing text messaging service available to schools, OneLogos Education Solutions. The program provided by the school district included a set weekly schedule of reminders and strategies to facilitate the use of existing Free Application For Student Aid (FAFSA) resources within the school and district. In short, comparison schools merely had access to the OneLogos platform, but intervention schools were given a schedule and structure with which to implement the reminder texts.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Page, Lindsay; Castleman, Benjamin L. (2016). Customized Nudging to Improve FAFSA Completion and Income Verification. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
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).