Rodriguez-Planas, N. (2010). (Barcelona Economics Working Paper Series). Bellaterra, Spain: Autonomous University of Barcelona.
Reviewed: September 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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a degree/certificate |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
9 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.06 |
0.07 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a diploma or GED certificate |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
7 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.78 |
0.75 |
No |
-- | |
|
Earned a high school diploma |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
7 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.60 |
0.60 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Completed at least 2 years at a 2- or 4-year college |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
9 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.19 |
0.16 |
No |
-- | |
|
Ever attended or currently attending a 2- or 4-year college |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
9 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.38 |
0.34 |
No |
-- | |
|
Currently in a 2- or 4-year college |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
9 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.13 |
0.17 |
Yes |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total earnings in the past 12 months |
Quantum Opportunity Program vs. Business as usual |
9 Years |
Full sample;
|
12676.00 |
13198.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 68% |
| Hispanic | 26% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 74% |
This study took place across several schools in different U.S. cities. Specifically, the following schools participated in the study: Paschal (Fort Worth, TX), Collinwood (Cleveland, OH), Eastern (Washington, D.C.), Anacostia (Washington, D.C.), Yates (Houston, TX), Austin (Houston, TX), Hillcrest (Memphis, TN), Hamilton (Memphis, TN), Carver (Memphis, TN), Franklin (Philadelphia, PA), and Davis (Yakima, WA).
52% of the intervention group and 56% of the comparison group were male students. 26% of the intervention group and 26% of the comparison group were Hispanic. 68% of the intervention group and 68% of the comparison group were Black.
The Quantum Opportunity Program (QOP) is a program that offers intensive and comprehensive services to help at-risk youth (students with low grades who entered high schools with high dropout rates) graduate from high school and enroll in postsecondary education or training. The QOP model consisted of four main components: case management and mentoring, education, developmental activities, and community service. Secondary components included financial incentives (stipends, accrual accounts, enrollee bonuses, and staff bonuses) and supportive services (snacks, transportation assistance, and other services as needed such as child care, health and mental health services, and substance abuse treatment). The QOP program began for students in 9th grade and students received services for 5 years. QOP participants were to have 250 hours per year dedicated for activities in three service components - education, developmental activities, and community service (for a total of 750 hours per year until an enrollee graduated from high school).
Students in the comparison condition received no QOP services, but could have participated in the usual services offered to high school students in their area.
Although all sites were encouraged to implement the QOP model, neither the Department of Labor nor the Ford Foundation required sites to implement fully all of the elements of the QOP model.
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.
Torgesen, Joseph; Myers, David; Schirm, Allen; Stuart, Elizabeth; Vartivarian, Sonya; Mansfield, Wendy; Stancavage, Fran; Durno, Donna; Javorsky, Rosanne; Haan, Cinthia. (2006). National Assessment of Title I: Interim Report. Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap: First Year Findings from a Randomized Trial of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers. NCEE 2006-4002. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
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