Bifulco, Robert; Cobb, Casey D.; Bell, Courtney (2009). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v31 n4 p323-345. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ866926
Reviewed: February 2018
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Connecticut Mastery Test - 8th grade math |
Magnet schools vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Connecticut Mastery Test - 8th grade reading |
Magnet schools vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study takes place in and around Hartford, New Haven, and Waterbury, CT.
The analyses presented in the study examine students in both urban and suburban settings.
The intervention was magnet schools. The middle-school results imply effects based on 3 years of exposure to a magnet school (impacts from beginning of sixth to end of eighth grade). The high school results imply effects based on 2 years of exposure to a magnet school (impacts in tenth grade).
For the RCT, the comparison condition included students who applied to the magnet schools but were not admitted. These students attended other public schools and had test data available. For the QEDs, the comparison condition included students in a middle or high school in a district that sends at least 10 students each year to one of the interdistrict magnets in the intervention group. The comparison sample was limited to students for whom the state had a posttest scores in the relevant outcome year and for whom they were able to match two pretest scores.
The authors do not describe any support for implementation.
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