Parent skills and information asymmetries: Experimental evidence from home visits and text messages in middle and high schools
Bergman, P., Edmond-Verley, C., & Notario-Risk, N. (2018). Economics of Education Review, 66, 92-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.06.008.
-
examining746Students, grades6-11
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Informational text messages - Bergman et al. (2018))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
District standardized reading test |
Informational text messages - Bergman et al. (2018) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.06 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
District standardized mathematics test |
Informational text messages - Bergman et al. (2018) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.01 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Chronically absent |
Informational text messages - Bergman et al. (2018) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
61.00 |
60.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Number of days attended |
Informational text messages - Bergman et al. (2018) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
139.31 |
138.10 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ever suspended |
Informational text messages - Bergman et al. (2018) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
44.00 |
43.00 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
18% English language learners -
Other or unknown: 100% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Midwest
-
Race Black 56% Other or unknown 36% White 8% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 28% Other or unknown 72% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 81% Other or unknown 19%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted in a low-income, urban school district in the Midwest during the 2014–2015 school year. The study was conducted in one middle school and two high schools, and these three schools were chosen for the study because of their low levels of academic performance.
Study sample
The study assigned 746 students across three schools to the group receiving informational text messages or to the control group. Between 80% and 90% of students at each participating school received free or reduced-price lunch, and the three schools were in the bottom 5% of Title I schools in the state according to test scores and graduation rates. The student sample was 53% Black and 8% White. Hispanic students made up 28% of the sample. About 17% of the sample consisted of English learner students. The report provides no information about students' gender or grade/age.
Intervention Group
The intervention aims to improve student attendance and academic outcomes by providing information to parents about their children, including whether they have completed their assignments, their grades, and their attendance. This information is shared via messages every-other-week containing a summary of the completion of their student's assignments, as well as the student's grades and their attendance. The authors used a web-based text messaging platform to deliver information to parents.
Comparison Group
The control group received information through business-as-usual services provided by the schools. Parents were able to access their child’s grades online. They received robocalls for absences, and report cards mailed home four times per semester. Parent-teacher conferences were made available as usual.
Support for implementation
Members of five local community-based organizations received training on how to prepare messages to parents. These individuals interpreted student information and sent it to parents.
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).