Educational outcomes of I-BEST, Washington State Community and Technical College System's Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training program: Findings from a multivariate analysis (CCRC Working Paper No. 16) [Difference-in-difference analyses]
Jenkins, D., Zeidenberg, M., & Kienzl, G. (2009). Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2023
- Publication (findings for Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- The study does not meet WWC group design standards because the equivalence of the clusters in the analytic intervention and comparison groups is necessary but the requirement was not satisfied.
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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.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.
-
Zeidenberg, Matthew; Cho, Sung-Woo; Jenkins, Davis. (2010). Washington State's Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training Program (I-BEST): New Evidence of Effectiveness. CCRC Working Paper No. 20. Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) Intervention Report - Postsecondary Career and Technical Education (CTE) Interventions
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2020
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- The study does not meet WWC group design standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups do not satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST).
Findings
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.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.
-
Jenkins, Davis; Zeidenberg, Matthew; Kienzl, Gregory. (2009). Educational Outcomes of I-BEST, Washington State Community and Technical College System's Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training Program: Findings from a Multivariate Analysis. CCRC Working Paper No. 16. Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
-
Wachen, John; Jenkins, Davis; Van Noy, Michelle. (2010). How I-BEST Works: Findings from a Field Study of Washington State's Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training Program. Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
-
Jenkins, Davis; Zeidenberg, Matthew; Kienzl, Gregory. (2009). Building Bridges to Postsecondary Training for Low-Skill Adults: Outcomes of Washington State's I-BEST Program. CCRC Brief. Number 42. Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
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).