Domingue, B., & Briggs, D. C. (2009). Boulder: University of Colorado.
Reviewed: October 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SAT Math |
ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
SAT Verbal |
ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 15% | |
| Black | 9% | |
| Native American | 3% |
| Hispanic | 8% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 2% |
Students in this study were high school students in the United States who participated in the Educational Longitudinal Survey of 2002 (ELS:02). Students who reported participating in a commercial SAT preparation course were selected for the intervention group. Information about the setting for each prep course included in the analysis was not available.
Sample characteristics were reported on the full sample (n=1552). In the intervention group, the average age at posttest (twelfth grade) was 17.8 years; 53% of the sample was female; 24% were Asian, 12% Black, 6% Hispanic, 3% Native American; 23% were taking English as a Second Language (ESL), 7% had enrolled in a remedial English course; 8% had enrolled in a remedial math course; and 58% had taken an Advanced Placement (AP) course. In the comparison group, the average age at posttest was 17.9 years; 56% of the sample was female; 12% were Asian, 8% Black, 9% Hispanic, 3% Native American; 13% were taking ESL, 6% had enrolled in a remedial English course; 7% had enrolled in a remedial math course; and 52% had taken an AP course. The authors also report mean SES indices for each group (0.68 intervention and 0.38 comparison), but additional information about the calculation of these indices was not provided.
The intervention group consisted of students who reported participating in any commercial test preparation course. The authors did not limit this to any one specific SAT preparation course; participation in any commercial SAT prep course was sufficient. In the ELS:02 survey, students were asked a number of questions regarding how (and whether) they prepared for the SAT. Students who reported participating in a commercial preparation course are considered to have been “coached” (note that students who only prepared using tutoring or self-prep materials are not considered “coached” under these criteria). Students who participated in a commercial preparation course were eligible for inclusion in the intervention group. Additional information about the content of the SAT preparation courses was not available.
The comparison group consisted of students who reported that they did not take a commercial SAT preparation course.
No information was provided regarding support for implementation.
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.
Domingue, B., & Briggs, D. C. (2009). Using linear regression and propensity score matching to estimate the effect of coaching on the SAT. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 35(1), 12–29.
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