Castleman, Benjamin L.; Page, Lindsay C. (2016). Perspectives in Peer Programs, v27 n1 p11-15. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1124459
Reviewed: February 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College enrollment |
Automated text messaging vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
68.50 |
70.10 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 37% | |
| Other or unknown | 56% | |
| White | 7% |
| Hispanic | 25% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 75% |
In Boston, Lawrence, and Springfield, the authors collaborated with the nonprofit organization, uAspire, which has an advising program that provides financial aid advisors for participating high schools.
Sixty percent of the overall Boston analytic sample (which includes those randomized to the automated text messaging, peer mentoring, and comparison groups) were female, 37 percent were Black, 25 percent were Hispanic, 7 percent were White, and 30 percent were identified as other race/ethnicity. Seventy-eight percent of the analytic sample qualified for free/reduced priced lunch.
The automated text messaging intervention was comprised of a series of ten automated text messages sent to students and their parents (when phone numbers were available) to remind them about tasks required for college enrollment and to prompt them to request additional help when needed. The texts included reminders to access important paperwork online, register for orientation, register for placement tests, complete housing forms, sign up for/waive health insurance, and offers to help students complete the FAFSA and interpret financial aid award letters and tuition bills. A text message was sent approximately every five days during July and August.
The students in the comparison condition did not receive the automated text messaging intervention or peer mentoring and continued their usual activities.
"Signal Vine automated the actual message distribution, but its role was not visible to recipients. When recipients responded to a message, they connected with their assigned counselor who followed up to provide additional, one-on-one assistance" (p. 150).
Reviewed: February 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College enrollment |
Peer mentoring vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
73.60 |
70.10 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 37% | |
| Other or unknown | 56% | |
| White | 7% |
| Hispanic | 25% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 75% |
The study involved peer mentoring for students who had recently graduated from high schools in Boston, Massachusetts. The study was conducted in collaboration with a Boston-based non-profit called uAspire.
Sixty percent of the overall Boston analytic sample (which includes those randomized to the peer mentoring, automated text messaging, and comparison groups) were female, 37 percent were Black, 25 percent were Hispanic, 7 percent were White, and 30 percent were identified as other race/ethnicity. Seventy-eight percent of the analytic sample qualified for free/reduced priced lunch.
The peer mentoring intervention involved peer mentors (students already attending college) making contact with students and assessing their readiness to matriculate in college in the fall semester. Peer mentors discussed with their mentees various topics, including "whether students (1) were still planning to enroll in college; (2) were planning to follow through on their previously articulated plan; (3) had completed the FAFSA; (4) had received and reviewed a financial aid award letter; and (5) had registered for orientation and placement tests" (p. 150). Subsequent meetings and phone conversations served to address any other issues the students may have encountered.
The students in the comparison condition did not receive peer mentoring or the automated text messaging intervention and continued their usual activities.
"uAspire and Mastery were responsible for peer mentor selection, training, ongoing support and supervision of the mentors throughout the summer" (p. 150). The study report did not discuss any other 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