Page, Lindsay; Castleman, Benjamin L. (2016). Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED567212
Reviewed: March 2024
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.
Reviewed: September 2019
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Four-year college enrollment |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Full sample;
|
32.00 |
26.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Full time enrollment |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Full sample;
|
33.00 |
29.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Enrolled in a two-year institution |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Full sample;
|
21.00 |
23.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College enrollment |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Full sample;
|
53.00 |
50.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
FAFSA Completion |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
47.00 |
43.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
FAFSA submission |
Nudging intervention vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
52.00 |
49.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 19% | |
| Other or unknown | 7% | |
| White | 26% |
| Hispanic | 58% |
The study was conducted in eight public school districts and 66 schools located in Austin and Houston Texas.
The student sample has the following demographic characteristics: 58 percent Hispanic, 19 percent Black, 26 percent White, 7 percent Other. Forty one percent of students are economically disadvantaged. At the school level, on average, 46 percent of the students enrolled in college in 2013.
Students in the intervention group received weekly text messages related to FAFSA and college financial aid. Messages were customized based on students’ FAFSA application status (i.e., FAFSA not started, submitted not complete, complete, complete but selected for income verification). The messages reminded students of upcoming financial aid deadlines, indicated students’ FAFSA application progress, and encouraged students to communicate with their school counselors as needed. The implementation of the text messaging system was carried out by OneLogos, a communications system that could send text messages to students. Students received messages between January and April 2015.
At the same time the intervention was delivered to high seniors in the treatment schools, high school seniors in control schools had access to the OneLogos platform and the texting capabilities therein. Compared to intervention schools, control schools used the platform less frequently, delivered messages to a smaller number of students, and focused less on FAFSA and college financial aid.
The intervention used an existing contract with a data management and communications platform (OneLogos Education Solutions). OneLogos can push out personalized text messages to students, receive student responses for particular counselors, and can promote individualized, text-based communication between students and their counselors.
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