Martinson, Karin; Copson, Elizabeth; Gardiner, Karen; Kitrosser, Daniel (2018). Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED618166
Reviewed: March 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hours of occupational training |
Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education (PACE) vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
209.00 |
170.76 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Working in a job requiring at least mid-level skills |
Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education (PACE) vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
19.40 |
22.80 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned Credential - Any Source |
Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education (PACE) vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
37.80 |
18.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Received credentials from any source |
Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education (PACE) vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
37.79 |
18.35 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Working in a job paying $12/hour or more |
Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education (PACE) vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
30.56 |
31.83 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| White | 1% |
| Hispanic | 99% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 1% |
Instituto staff implemented the multi-step program and associated supports largely as planned. The lower bridge courses were offered at Instituto using Carreras instructors and specially-designed curricula that sought to infuse basic skills education with healthcare content. Case managers, academic advisors, and employment specialists worked with students to arrange support services, address personal issues that could interfere with program completion, and provide academic guidance and tutoring. The upper bridge courses were provided at City College of Chicago campuses using their standard curricula, but Carreras participants enrolled in these courses could still access its academic advising and employment assistance. The basic skills courses at Instituto were provided at no cost to participants, whereas Carreras staff assisted its participants in the college-level courses in accessing tuition support. The program also emphasized employment assistance, with staff dedicated to both improving participants’ job search skills and finding appropriate employment opportunities for participants completing Carreras courses. The dual academic and employment advising roles reflect the key feature of the Carreras program, namely that it is designed to facilitate entry to training and exit to employment at multiple steps along its career pathway. Participants can opt to progress directly to the next bridge on the pathway or to seek employment, potentially returning to complete additional training at a later time. Once in Carreras, participants can re-enroll in the program even after a significant period of time.
Almost all study participants were Latino (99.6 percent). About 90 percent had at least a high school diploma, and about 40 percent had some college. The majority, however, were nontraditional students: More than 55 percent were age 25 or older when they entered the study, although 18 percent were age 20 or younger. Most participants were of low income. Approximately three-quarters reported annual household incomes of less than $30,000. Slightly more than one-third reported incomes of less than $15,000. The average yearly salary was $21,051. Many participants (42 percent) reported receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps) benefits or Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) benefits in the past year. More than one-third (37 percent) reported that they experienced financial hardship in the past year.
Students who were randomly assigned to the Patient Care Pathway program enrolled in one or more one-semester academies. The academies provided students with academic preparation and an accelerated path through remediation in occupational courses--such as Medical Terminology and Chemistry. The academies also supported students through basic skills courses, and a variety of adult learning instructional approaches such as contextualization. The program's essential support activity was one-on-one advising. Students could also access an emergency fund for small, short-term financial needs. Instructional supports, such as test workshops and group tutoring, were added later on during the study in response to student needs.
Control group members had access to education and other services in the community that was not exclusive to the Patient Care Pathway of interest. For example, control group members could access non–Patient Care Pathway courses, tutoring, disability services, general advising, counseling, and other services available at Madison College, if they were eligible. Control group members could also enroll in the college’s healthcare diploma and degree programs, but would likely follow different paths to qualify for them (the Patient Care Pathway academies versus traditional developmental education).
None Provided.
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