Evaluation of Peer Group Connection-Middle School. Final Impact Evaluation Report
Katherine Lass; Sarah Walsh; Hilary Demby; Rebekah Snider; Kelly Burgess; Eric Jenner (2023). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED635860
-
examining1,617Students, grade6
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Peer Group Connection-Middle School (PGC-MS))
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of Classes Passed |
Peer Group Connection-Middle School (PGC-MS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.41 |
7.49 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Number of Classes Passed |
Peer Group Connection-Middle School (PGC-MS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English Language Learners;
|
7.55 |
7.77 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of Classes Passed |
Peer Group Connection-Middle School (PGC-MS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
White;
|
7.07 |
7.14 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of Classes Passed |
Peer Group Connection-Middle School (PGC-MS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Hispanic or Latino;
|
8.02 |
8.15 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of Classes Passed |
Peer Group Connection-Middle School (PGC-MS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Individualized Education Program students;
|
6.72 |
6.65 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of days attended |
Peer Group Connection-Middle School (PGC-MS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
161.21 |
161.58 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Number of days attended |
Peer Group Connection-Middle School (PGC-MS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English Language Learners;
|
167.64 |
168.78 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of days attended |
Peer Group Connection-Middle School (PGC-MS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
White;
|
165.59 |
164.53 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of days attended |
Peer Group Connection-Middle School (PGC-MS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Individualized Education Program students;
|
149.60 |
150.15 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of days attended |
Peer Group Connection-Middle School (PGC-MS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Hispanic or Latino;
|
168.94 |
170.75 |
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.
-
12% English language learners -
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
Rural, 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
Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey
-
Race Black 28% Other or unknown 34% Two or more races 6% White 33% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 33% Not Hispanic or Latino 68% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in nine public middle schools located in rural areas of North Carolina and urban communities in New Jersey and Maryland.
Study sample
The study randomly assigned 938 students to the intervention condition and 964 students to the comparison condition across the participating public schools. Of the randomized students, 50% are male and 50% are female, 29% are White, 27% are Black or African American, 34% are Hispanic, 2% are Other race, and 7% are multiracial. Additionally, 10% are English Language Learners and 8% have an Individualized Education Plan. The average age of the students is 11.5 years.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group participated in the Peer Group Connection-Middle School (PGC-MS) program, a school-based initiative designed to support 6th grade students’ transition to middle school while promoting cross-age peer mentoring. The program aims to enhance student engagement and develop social and emotional learning skills through structured activities led by trained 8th grade peer mentors. The PGC-MS curriculum includes 24 outreach sessions: 20 traditional outreaches, 3 ritual outreaches, and one Family Night. The program was implemented in study schools during the 2018-2019, 2019-2020, or 2021-2022 school years. However, on average, schools conducted only 9 outreach sessions in the 2019–2020 and 2021–2022 school years, and no school met the minimum fidelity threshold of 18 sessions. The program duration varied across the nine study schools, lasting between 3 to 9 months, with half of the schools implementing it for 6 months.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group continued with a business-as-usual classroom condition. During this time, students attended their regularly scheduled classes or enrichment programs without participating in any peer mentoring sessions.
Support for implementation
The Center for Supportive Schools (CSS) implemented the intervention, providing professional development and training to two faculty advisors at each school. Additionally, 8th-grade peer leaders participated in a daily leadership development class as part of their training. CSS also supported schools where the implementation of the mentoring program was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, including advising on adjustments to group activity schedules.
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).