Sinclair, Mary F.; Christenson, Sandra L.; Thurlow, Martha L. (2005). Exceptional Children, v71 n4 p465. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ697215
Reviewed: September 2017
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Completed high school or GED |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
34.00 |
30.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Completed high school or GED on time |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
30.00 |
29.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Did not drop out (%) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
61.00 |
42.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Still enrolled after four years |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
31.00 |
14.00 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 64% |
The study was conducted in 7 urban schools in Minnesota. High school students were served beginning in 9th grade.
Participants had to be in special education and had to be receiving services associated with emotional or behavioral issues. Most students were African-American (64%), males (84%), and most participated in the free or reduced-price lunch program (70%). Students were 14.5 years old, on average, when they entered the 9th grade (see p. 468). The authors report that there were no significant differences between treatment and control groups on key subgroup measures.
Students in the Check and Connect program had their attendance, behavior, and academic performance monitored on a regular basis. Participants were also assigned a "monitor", who functioned as a mentor and case worker and stayed with the student even if he/she transferred to another school within the district. Monitors intervened with the student as soon as an attendance, performance, or a behavior problem arose and worked with them to address the underlying problem. Participating students kept the same monitor throughout their high school career.
The comparison condition was business as usual. Comparison group students did not receive Check and Connect services.
Monitors participated in an initial orientation workshop. They also attended weekly or biweekly staff meetings and periodic staff development sessions. Each monitor received instructions on how to complete the monitoring sheet to ensure consistency across monitors and settings. Monitors submitted printouts of attendance records with their monitoring sheets for verification purposes.
Reviewed: May 2015
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 Check & Connect.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Completed high school or GED on time |
Check & Connect vs. business as usual |
Grade 12 in year 4 |
Grade 12;
|
30.00 |
29.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage dropped out |
Check & Connect vs. business as usual |
End of the fourth year after random assignment |
Grade 12;
|
39.00 |
58.00 |
Yes |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 64% |
The study was conducted with eligible students in seven Minneapolis public high schools.
This replication of the Check & Connect intervention included special education students who entered ninth grade in 1996 (cohort 1) and 1997 (cohort 2). To be eligible for the intervention, participants had to be classified as having an emotional or behavioral disorder. Of the 206 eligible students across the two cohorts, 164 (80%) received permission to participate in the study. Most students were African American (64%), most were males (84%), and most participated in the free or reduced-price lunch program (70%). Students were 14.5-years-old, on average, when they entered ninth grade. Within each cohort, students who were eligible and who had permission to participate in the study were randomly assigned to receive Check & Connect or to serve as a comparison group.
The intervention group participated in Check & Connect for 4 years, starting in ninth grade. Of the 85 students who were assigned to the Check & Connect condition and had parental consent to participate, 71 students participated in the intervention and completed the study. Students had their attendance, behavior, and academic performance observed on a daily basis by their monitor, who also functioned as a mentor and case worker. The monitor stayed with the student even if the student transferred to another school within the district. Monitors met with students at least twice a month and more often when acute attendance, performance, or behavior problems arose.
Comparison group students attended the same schools as intervention students but did not receive Check & Connect.
The outcomes from this study that are eligible under the WWC Dropout Prevention Protocol, version 3.0 are the percentage of students who had dropped out of school at the end of the fourth year following random assignment and the percentage of students who either completed high school or their GED by the end of the fourth year.8 For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Information about implementation of Check & Connect focuses primarily on the training and support provided to monitors. Monitors were overseen by a project coordinator, who was a school psychologist and former Check & Connect monitor. Monitors participated in an initial orientation workshop. They also attended weekly or biweekly staff meetings and periodic staff development sessions. Each monitor received instructions on how to complete the monitoring sheet to ensure consistency across monitors and settings. Monitors submitted printouts of attendance records with their monitoring sheets for verification purposes.
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.
Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Evelo, D. L., Hurley, C. M., Kau, M. Y., Logan, D. T., …Westberry, D. (2001). Persistence Plus: Using Check & Connect procedures to improve service delivery and positive post-school outcomes for secondary students with serious emotional disturbance (CDFA No. 84.237H). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.
Reviewed: February 2014
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: October 2011
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 Check & Connect.
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