Bettinger, Eric P.; Baker, Rachel B. (2014). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v36 n1 p3-19. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1019184
Reviewed: May 2021
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
postsecondary degree attainment |
InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual |
24 Months |
Full sample: 3 lotteries, 24-month follow-up;
|
35.20 |
31.20 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Retention |
InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual |
12 Months |
Full sample: 7 lotteries, 12-month follow-up;
|
66.40 |
61.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Retention |
InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Three lotteries: 18-month follow-up;
|
43.60 |
36.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Retention |
InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample: 7 lotteries, 6-month follow-up;
|
80.60 |
76.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Retention |
InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual |
24 Months |
Three lotteries; 24-month follow-up;
|
37.70 |
35.00 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted with 17 different cohorts (lotteries) in 8 participating universities during the 2003-2004 and 2007-2008 school years.
Characteristics of the study sample were not presented separately by lottery. The analytic sample included 47% female and 53% male students.
Students in the intervention condition were paired to an InsideTrack© coach, who worked to help students prioritize their studies, plan for academic success, and identify and overcome barriers to academic success. Significant time was spent assessing students' lives outside of school in such areas as personal time commitments, primary caregiving responsibilities, and financial obligations. In addition to regular contacts, coaches sometimes had access to course information and student performance in their specific courses. This information was used in an algorithm which directs coaches to specific issues that need to be addressed. Coaches generally worked with students over two semesters. Each coach communicated with his or her students via phone, email, text messages, or social networking sites. Students’ engagement with InsideTrack© coaches was not mandatory. About 98% of the students in the InsideTrack© group received at least one brief contact from a coach that typically lasted less than five minutes. About 77% of the students in the InsideTrack© group received at least five contacts of less than five minutes each. InsideTrack© coaches also held longer meetings with students to address topics and identify next steps.
The comparison condition received no individualized coaching through InsideTrack©. All students had access to regular support services provided through the institution.
InsideTrack© provided coaches with a large library of tools and resources. Coaches were trained in using these proprietary methodologies and programs to help students navigate decisions. Coaches received feedback from InsideTrack© staff on the content and tone of their calls, and ongoing professional development was available.
Reviewed: November 2019
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 InsideTrack© Coaching.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Any college degree (%) |
InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual |
24 Months |
Full sample: 3 lotteries, 24-month follow-up;
|
35.20 |
31.20 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Retention |
InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual |
12 Months |
Full sample: 7 lotteries, 12-month follow-up;
|
66.40 |
61.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Retention |
InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Three lotteries: 18-month follow-up;
|
43.60 |
36.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Retention |
InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample: 7 Lotteries, 6-Month Follow-Up;
|
80.60 |
76.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Retention |
InsideTrack© Coaching vs. Business as usual |
24 Months |
Three lotteries; 24-month follow-up;
|
37.70 |
35.00 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted with 17 different cohorts in 8 participating universities during the 2003-2004 and 2007-2008 school years.
Characteristics of the study sample were not presented separately by lottery. The analytic sample included 47% female and 53% male students.
Students in the intervention condition were paired to an InsideTrack© coach, who worked to help students prioritize their studies, plan for academic success, and identify and overcome barriers to academic success. Significant time was spent assessing students' lives outside of school in such areas as personal time commitments, primary caregiving responsibilities, and financial obligations. In addition to regular contacts, coaches sometimes had access to course information and student performance in their specific courses. This information was used in an algorithm which directs coaches to specific issues that need to be addressed. Coaches generally worked with students over two semesters. Each coach communicated with his or her students via phone, email, text messages, or social networking sites. Students’ engagement with InsideTrack© coaches was not mandatory. About 98% of the students in the InsideTrack© group received at least one brief contact from a coach that typically lasted less than five minutes. About 77% of the students in the InsideTrack© group received at least five contacts of less than five minutes each. InsideTrack© coaches also held longer meetings with students to address topics and identify next steps.
The comparison condition received no individualized coaching through InsideTrack©. All students had access to regular support services provided through the institution.
InsideTrack© provided coaches with a large library of tools and resources. Coaches were trained in using these proprietary methodologies and programs to help students navigate decisions. Coaches received feedback from InsideTrack© staff on the content and tone of their calls, and ongoing professional development was available.
Reviewed: December 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.
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