Constantine, Jill M.; Seftor, Neil S.; Martin, Emily Sama; Silva, Tim; Myers, David (2006). US Department of Education. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED493358
Reviewed: November 2016
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.
Reviewed: December 2006
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 Talent Search.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a high school diploma or GED |
Talent Search vs. None |
Posttest |
High school students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 46% | |
| White | 44% |
| Hispanic | 5% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 95% |
The Florida study was conducted in five Talent Search projects throughout the state, each including 10–20 high schools. Participants included students who entered ninth grade in 1995–96.
The Florida study used a quasi-experimental research design. The matched sample included 900 students in the intervention group and 42,514 students in the comparison group. Propensity score modeling was used to match Talent Search participants to similar students who attended the same high schools and who were in the ninth grade in 1995–96. Matching was based on 13 demographic and academic characteristics, including whether students were economically disadvantaged, learning disabled, overage for grade, emotionally or physically disabled, or enrolled in a gifted or talented program. Students were also matched on gender, race or ethnicity, primary language spoken at home, and citizenship status. Intervention and comparison students were not statistically different from each other at the 0.05 level on any measures used in the matching procedures. However, there were statistically significant differences at the 0.10 level on two measures—language spoken at home and whether participated in a dropout prevention program. These differences were controlled for in regression models used to estimate program impacts. Weights were used to account for the closeness of the match, with closer matches receiving larger weights. In addition, the comparison sample was weighted to equal the size of the treatment group so as not to overstate statistical significance. So, the intervention and comparison groups each had an effective sample size of 900. Compared with all Florida high school students, participants in Talent Search were more likely to be black (46% compared with 25%) and economically disadvantaged (63% compared with 37%). They were less likely to be learning disabled (4% compared with 8%), overage for grade (10% compared with 26%), or male (34% compared with 53%). They were also less likely to be Hispanic (5% compared with 16%) or to speak a language other than English at home (3% compared with 14%).
Most participants received services in their junior and senior years of high school. School and Talent Search staff recruited participants to participate.
Comparison group students did not participate in Talent Search and attended the same high schools as students in the intervention group.
One relevant outcome from the Florida study—high school completion—is included in this summary. This measure represents whether sample members earned a high school diploma or received a GED certificate. (See Appendix A2 for a more detailed description of this outcome measure.) The study also examined the program’s effects on financial aid receipt and college enrollment. However, these outcomes do not fall within the three domains (staying in school, progressing in school, and completing school) examined by the WWC’s review of dropout prevention interventions. Therefore, these results are not included in this report.
No specific information concerning staff training was provided.
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