Cook, Rachel; Hamadyk, Jill; Zeidenberg, Matthew; Rolston, Howard; Gardiner, Karen (2018). Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED618156
Reviewed: January 2021
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Received an occupational or educational credential from any source |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Complete case sample;
|
32.82 |
35.87 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Received a credential from a licensing/certification body |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Complete case sample;
|
21.55 |
21.39 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Received an occupational credential at a place other than college |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Complete case sample;
|
1.10 |
4.05 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hours of college occuptional training |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Complete case sample;
|
248.42 |
227.44 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Hours of college occupational training at a place other than college |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Complete case sample;
|
11.27 |
5.22 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 21% | |
| Other or unknown | 6% | |
| White | 67% |
| Hispanic | 9% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 91% |
The study took place in a two-year college in the Midwest.
The initial sample consisted of 500 learners. These learners had scores on the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System test that fell within a range consistent with low skills, but not very poor skills. The eligible range of scores varied by program and college. Eighty-four percent of learners were female. Sixty-seven percent were White, non-Hispanic; 21 percent were Black, non-Hispanic; and 9 percent were Hispanic. Twenty-three percent of learners were age 20 or younger, 21 percent were ages 21 to 24, 30 percent were ages 25 to 34, and 25 percent were age 35 or older. Forty-seven percent had a high school diploma, a diploma equivalent, or less. Learners reported an average income at baseline of $33,165. On measures of socioeconomic status, 36 percent reported receiving benefits from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); 4 percent reported receiving public assistance or welfare, and 34 percent reported experiencing financial hardship.
The Patient Care Pathway program is a course of study designed to accelerate entry into a degree-granting program in a health field. The content of the courses is contextualized to health careers, and the program also includes wraparound supports, including advising services to help learners enroll in courses.
The comparison group continued to receive existing courses and supports at the college. This included non-contextualized remediation courses and access to advisors who were unaffiliated with the PCP academies.
The study does not provide specific information about 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.
Cook, Rachel; Hamadyk, Jill; Zeidenberg, Matthew; Rolston, Howard; Gardiner, Karen. (2018). Madison Area Technical College Patient Care Pathway Program: Implementation and Early Impact Report. Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education (PACE). OPRE Report 2018-48. Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
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