Rorie, L. B. (2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(11A), 168–4657.
Reviewed: September 2010
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 Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP): Reading subtest |
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) vs. Business as usual |
Average impact over 2 years of intervention (9th & 10th grade) |
High school sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 4% | |
| Black | 29% | |
| White | 60% |
| Hispanic | 6% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 94% |
Participating students attended four high schools in the Pine View School District in suburban Colorado. These schools had been implementing the AVID program for seven or more years. The school district had experienced a 40% increase in enrollment in the past decade, 31% of the district students were minority, 16% spoke a primary language other than English, and 16% of students were eligible to receive free or reduced-priced lunch.
The researcher used retrospective archival data to construct the AVID and comparison groups from the graduating classes of 2005 and 2006 that had complete data from 8th through 12th grades and attended the four high schools in the study. Students in the AVID group attended one of the four participating high schools from one school district and had participated in the AVID program for four years (grades 9–12) in high school (but not in 8th grade). The study author did not describe how students chose or were chosen to participate in the program. Non-AVID comparison group students attended the same schools and were matched on ethnicity, gender, and age. This WWC review focuses on the matched comparison sample that equated students on their 8th-grade Colorado State Assessment Program Reading subtest scores. The final sample includes 48 students in the AVID group and 48 students in the comparison group, all of whom graduated from the class of either 2005 or 2006.
AVID students participated in the AVID elective class, and a majority of their content classes were taught by AVID-trained teachers. The study reported 9th- and 10th-grade student reading test score outcomes, thus measuring program effects after one to two years of participation in the intervention.
Non-AVID students attended the same schools as the AVID students for all four years of high school, graduated from that high school during the same time period, and did not participate in any AVID electives. However, these students may or may not have been enrolled in classes taught by AVID-trained teachers. Since the AVID program seeks to promote whole school improvement through professional development of school and district personnel, the comparison group in this study may have been exposed to elements of the AVID program even if they did not participate in AVID electives (for example, if they were enrolled in a class taught by an AVID-trained teacher).
Reading comprehension was measured using the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) Reading subtest. Pre-intervention scores were from 8th grade, and outcomes were from 9th and 10th grades. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix A2.
Teachers were trained to implement AVID, but no details are available concerning this training.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube