Sommo, C. & Ratledge, A. (2016). Retrieved from MDRC website: http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ASAP_Ohio_final.pdf.
Reviewed: September 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Full time enrollment |
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
First two cohorts (Spring 2015 and Fall 2015);
|
0.85 |
0.67 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Enrolled - first semester |
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
First two cohorts (Spring 2015 and Fall 2015);
|
0.94 |
0.91 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Full time enrollment status (2nd semester) |
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
First two cohorts (Spring 2015 and Fall 2015);
|
0.73 |
0.48 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Enrolled (2nd semester) |
Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
First two cohorts (Spring 2015 and Fall 2015);
|
0.82 |
0.70 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 35% | |
| Other or unknown | 10% | |
| White | 46% |
| Hispanic | 10% |
The study was conducted at three community colleges in Ohio. Little additional information is provided about the study setting.
The study reports sample characteristics for the full sample (all three cohorts) combined, but analytic sample is was only based on the first two cohorts (Spring 2015 and Fall 2015). Requirements for participation in the study were being low income (as defined by eligibility for Pell grants) and in need of developmental education courses. Within the full sample of participating students, 45.9% identified as White, 34.8% identified as Black, 63.9% identified as Female, and 33.9% were the first person in their family to attend college.
This is a study of the effectiveness of the Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) model. The ASAP model has been implemented in New York community colleges and this study aims to expand those findings by bringing the program to other states. The ASAP program is a program for students in community colleges who are required to take developmental coursework. The program provides comprehensive services and support such as high-touch advisement, career development, and tutoring.
The comparison condition was business-as-usual. Participants were able to access their college’s usual services, but were not provided with any additional resources developed specifically for the ASAP program.
The program was supported by education grants from a variety of sources, which will gradually be replaced by funding from the college. The study reports the annual incremental costs of the program to be estimated at “less than $3,000 per student” (p. 4). City University of New York provided technical assistance in the first year of operation, the Ohio Department of Higher Education coordinated knowledge sharing between the three colleges participating in the program.
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