Bettinger, Eric P.; Evans, Brent J. (2019). Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, v38 n3 p579-599. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1218000
Reviewed: August 2023
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- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Pooled Cohorts 1, 2, and 3: 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14;
|
54.20 |
54.30 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Low-income (Cohort 2: 2012–2013);
|
53.20 |
50.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Low-income (Cohort 1: 2011–2012);
|
51.70 |
49.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Two-year college enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Cohort 1: 2011–2012;
|
40.40 |
38.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Two-year college enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Low-income (Cohort 1: 2011–2012);
|
38.50 |
36.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Cohort 1: 2011–2012 ;
|
56.90 |
55.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Four-year college enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Low-income (Cohort 1: 2011–2012);
|
18.10 |
17.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College Enrollment - Fall |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Low Income - Pooled Cohorts 1, 2, and 3: 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14;
|
50.20 |
48.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Cohort 2: 2012–2013;
|
56.70 |
56.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Low-income (Cohort 3: 2013–2014);
|
45.80 |
46.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Four-year college enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Cohort 1: 2011–2012;
|
23.00 |
23.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Cohort 3: 2013–2014;
|
49.40 |
51.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Binary indicator for whether the student applied to any college |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Cohort 1: 2011–2012 ;
|
61.40 |
60.10 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Binary indicator for whether the student applied to any college |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Low income (Cohort 1: 2011–2012);
|
56.80 |
53.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of college applications submitted |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Cohort 1: 2011–2012;
|
0.68 |
0.65 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of college applications submitted |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Low income (Cohort 1: 2011–2012 );
|
0.69 |
0.59 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College persistence - enrolled in a second year of higher education |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Cohort 1: 2011–2012;
|
40.40 |
39.80 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College persistence - enrolled in a second year of higher education |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Low-income (Cohort 1: 2011–2012);
|
35.10 |
33.40 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 18% | |
| Other or unknown | 59% | |
| White | 23% |
| Hispanic | 55% | |
| Other or unknown | 46% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 47% | |
| No FRPL | 53% |
The study took place in 111 high schools in Texas, distributed across 32 geographic regions in the state, and includes three cohorts of graduating students from three consecutive school years (2011–2012, 2012–2013, and 2013–2014). Schools were required to have at least 35% of students eligible for the national school lunch program, less than 70% of graduating students attending college within a year, and less than 55% of students experiencing a ‘distinguished’ college-prep curriculum.
A total of 122,276 students in grades 10 through 12 were included in the study. Approximately 50% of students in the sample were female and 47% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Fifty-nine percent were other/unknown race, 23% were White, and 18% were Black. Fifty-five percent were Hispanic.
Advise TX is a program that trains recent college graduates to serve as full-time college advisers at disadvantaged high schools. Advisers offer direct support to students in the form of individual advising sessions, group sessions with students, and group sessions with students and parents. Advisers assist seniors with the college search, college application, and financial aid processes. Advisers also work with students before their senior year to encourage them to consider and plan for higher education and focus on specific preparatory activities such as studying for and taking the SAT or ACT. Although advisers serve all students at the school, they typically prioritize meeting with students who are underrepresented in higher education (including underrepresented minorities, low-income students, and first-generation students) and seniors. Only one adviser is assigned to each school regardless of the school size, so the number and duration of intervention activities provided to individuals in the sample varies.
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual instruction without an additional college adviser supplied by Advise TX. These schools may have provided college advising services through their existing guidance counselor staff or via accessing other college access programming.
Advise TX partners with colleges and universities in the state to recruit and train recent college graduates from partner institutions to serve as advisers. Advisers participate in a six-week, residential summer training program prior to their placement in a high school.
Reviewed: April 2020
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- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample; pooled 2011/2012, 2012/2013, & 2013/2014 cohorts; ITT analysis;
|
0.54 |
0.54 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Two-year college enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Hispanic or Latino; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.41 |
0.37 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Hispanic or Latino; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.54 |
0.52 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Free or reduced price lunch; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.52 |
0.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Two-year college enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.40 |
0.38 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Two-year college enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Free or reduced price lunch; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.39 |
0.37 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Black; 2012/2013 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.61 |
0.59 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Free or reduced price lunch; 2012/2013 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.53 |
0.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.57 |
0.56 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Black; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.61 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Two-year college enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Black; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.39 |
0.38 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Four-year college enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Free or reduced price lunch; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.18 |
0.18 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Hispanic or Latino; 2012/2013 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.53 |
0.53 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Free or reduced price lunch; pooled 2011/2012, 2012/2013, & 2013/2014 cohorts; ITT analysis;
|
0.50 |
0.49 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Four-year college enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Black; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.28 |
0.28 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample; 2012/2013 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.57 |
0.56 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Free or reduced price lunch; 2013/2014 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.46 |
0.46 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Black; pooled 2011/2012, 2012/2013, & 2013/2014 cohorts; ITT analysis;
|
0.57 |
0.57 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Hispanic or Latino; pooled 2011/2012, 2012/2013, & 2013/2014 cohorts; ITT analysis;
|
0.51 |
0.51 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Four-year college enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.23 |
0.24 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Four-year college enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Hispanic or Latino; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.18 |
0.18 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample; 2013/2014 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.49 |
0.51 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Black; 2013/2014 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.50 |
0.52 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College enrollment- fall after high school graduation |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Hispanic or Latino; 2013/2014 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.47 |
0.48 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of college applications submitted |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
N/A |
0.65 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Binary indicator for whether the student applied to any college |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.61 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Number of college applications submitted |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Black; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
N/A |
0.81 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of college applications submitted |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Free or reduced price lunch; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
N/A |
0.59 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Binary indicator for whether the student applied to any college |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Black; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.68 |
0.65 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Binary indicator for whether the student applied to any college |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Hispanic or Latino; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.58 |
0.56 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Binary indicator for whether the student applied to any college |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Free or reduced price lunch; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.57 |
0.54 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of college applications submitted |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Hispanic or Latino; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
N/A |
0.59 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College persistence - enrolled in a second year of higher education |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
15 Months |
Full sample; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.40 |
0.40 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College persistence - enrolled in a second year of higher education |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
15 Months |
Black; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.39 |
0.38 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College persistence - enrolled in a second year of higher education |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
15 Months |
Hispanic or Latino; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.37 |
0.36 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College persistence - enrolled in a second year of higher education |
Advise TX vs. Business as usual |
15 Months |
Free or reduced price lunch; 2011/2012 cohort; ITT analysis;
|
0.35 |
0.33 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 18% | |
| Other or unknown | 82% |
| Hispanic | 58% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 42% |
The study was conducted in 111 high schools located in 32 geographic regions in Texas. (p. 585).
The analytic sample was 17.9 percent Black and 57.8 percent Hispanic. Over half of the analytic sample (52.9 percent) participated in the free/reduced-price lunch program. (p. 588).
The Advise Texas program (Advise TX) placed a full-time college advisor into high schools with the goal of increasing the rate of college enrollment and completion among disadvantaged students. The college advisors were all recent college graduates who often came from low-income households or were first-generation college students, backgrounds similar to the students targeted in the study. The college advisors provided students with information on college enrollment; provided assistance with the college search process, college applications, and financial aid; and assisted in college preparatory activities. The advisors met with the students individually and in groups, and with parents. Although the Advise TX program is a school-wide intervention in which the college advisors are available to all high school students, the programs efforts were focused on high school seniors and disadvantaged students. (pp. 580, 582, 583-584).
Schools in the comparison group were assigned to not receive the Advise TX program. There were no restrictions placed on comparison schools regarding the use of other pre-college advising programs. The study does not indicate how many comparison schools adopted other pre-college advising programs. (pp. 586-587, 593).
The college advisors assigned to each of the Advise TX high schools were recruited and trained at partner Texas colleges and universities. Each college advisor took a six-week summer training program prior to the start of the intervention. The authors estimated that the cost for each college advisor is $59,000 per school year. (pp. 584, 596).
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