Sinclair, Mary F.; Christenson, Sandra L.; Evelo, David L.; Hurley, Christine M. (1998). Exceptional Children, v65 n1 p7-21. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ573544
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
9th grade credits |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.13 |
6.63 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 59% |
The study was conducted in a northern Midwest urban school district in the United States.
Most students were African-American (59%); most were males (68%); and most participated in the free or reduced-price lunch program (71%). When they entered the 9th grade, the average age for students was 13. Three quarters had a learning disability and the remainder had an emotional or behavior disorder; a little over 40% had a severe disability.
Students in the Check & Connect program had their attendance, behavior, and academic performance monitored on a daily basis. Participants were assigned a "monitor"--a graduate student in a related field, a special education teacher or coordinator, or another community member--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 behavior problems arose and worked with them to address the underlying problems. The intervention lasted one school year (9th grade).
Comparison group students received Check & Connect services in 7th and 8th grade. In 9th grade, the year study data collection occurred, these students did not receive the intervention.
The study does not describe whether implementers (especially monitors) received any specific types of support for implementation.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total number of credits accrued |
Check & Connect vs. business as usual |
9th grade |
Grade 9;
|
12.13 |
6.63 |
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 first year after random assignment |
Grade 9;
|
9.00 |
30.00 |
Yes |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 59% |
The study was conducted in Minneapolis public high schools.
Participating students were enrolled in ninth grade during the 1994–95 school year and were classified with a learning, emotional, or behavioral disability. Learning disabilities were the most common classification, with 75% of participants having this classification. A little more than 40% of participants were classified as having a severe disability. Most participants were African American (59%), most were males (68%), and most participated in the free or reduced-price lunch program (71%). Students were 15-years-old, on average, when they entered ninth grade.
The intervention group received Check & Connect services in the seventh and eighth grades and, after being assigned to the intervention group, continued to receive the program in ninth grade. Students had their level of engagement with school (including attendance, academic performance, and disciplinary actions) recorded on a daily basis by a monitor. This person worked with the same students across several years, following them to different schools as needed. Monitors had regular interactions with all students on at least a monthly basis to discuss their educational progress, the importance of staying in school, and problem solving strategies. If a monitor observed increased signs of risk, they delivered more intensive strategies tailored to the student’s needs. In this study, monitors worked 20 hours a week and maintained an average caseload of 25 students.
Comparison group students received Check & Connect in seventh and eighth grades but, after assignment to the comparison group, did not continue to receive these services when they entered high school. Comparison group students attended the same set of high schools attended by intervention group students.
The two outcomes from this study that are eligible under the WWC Dropout Prevention Protocol, version 3.0 are (a) the percentage of students who had dropped out at the end of ninth grade, and (b) the number of credits earned during ninth grade. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Information about implementation of Check & Connect is limited in this study and focuses primarily on characteristics of the monitors and resources used to deliver the program.
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., Lehr, C. A., & Anderson, A. R. (2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons learned from Check & Connect longitudinal studies. The California School Psychologist, 8(1), 29–42.
Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., Thurlow, M. L., & Evelo, D. (1999). Promoting student engagement with school using the Check & Connect model. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 9(1), 169–184.
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Credits |
Check & Connect vs. Another intervention |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
12.13 |
6.63 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrollment Stauts-In School |
Check & Connect vs. Another intervention |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
0.91 |
0.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Attendance-pattern-Persisted |
Check & Connect vs. Another intervention |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
0.85 |
0.64 |
Yes |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 59% |
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.
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.
Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., Thurlow, M. L., & Evelo, D. (1999). Promoting student engagement with school using the Check & Connect model. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 9(1), 169–184.
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