Cullinan, Dan; Barnett, Elisabeth; Kopko, Elizabeth; Lopez, Andrea; Morton, Tiffany (2019). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED602455
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrolled in any course |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
"Bumped up" sample - English;
|
83.00 |
75.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Enrolled in any course |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
"Bumped up" sample - Math;
|
86.10 |
82.80 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Enrolled in any course |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
81.10 |
78.60 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 9% | |
| Black | 20% | |
| Other or unknown | 23% | |
| White | 49% |
| Hispanic | 11% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 89% |
MDRC partnered with the Community College Research Center to evaluate the efficacy of a multiple measures assessment (MMA) system compared to a standard practice of using a single test to identify students who require developmental education. Developmental education in community colleges is meant to help students acquire the literacy and numeracy skills necessary for college-level coursework but this form of support costs time and money. Multiple Measures Assessment (MMA) is an alternative to the practice of administering a single test to assess if colleges should place students in developmental education. MMA systems might help college administrators identify students who need developmental education versus students who can begin with standard coursework. This study began prior to the fall 2018 semester and was conducted in four community colleges: Anoka Ramsey Community College (Coon Rapids, MN), Century College (White Bear Lake, MN), Minneapolis Community and Technical College (Minneapolis, MN), and Normandale Community College (Bloomington, MN). A fifth institution, Madison College, was also initially involved in the study but outcomes from this school are not included because of MMA implementation challenges; findings from this school should however be included in future reports. The multiple measures used in the study included high school grade point averages (GPA), SAT and ACT scores, and assessments of noncognitive skills such as students’ attitudes toward college and motivation. Study outcomes focused on college enrollment and progress. The group of students assigned to be assessed via MMA leads to the main purpose of this study; some of these students had test scores that, if they were in the business-as-usual condition, would have led to their placement in developmental education. However, some of these students had high school GPA or other scores that allowed for them to be placed in college-level courses given they were in the MMA condition. These students were described as being in a “bump up” zone. The students in this zone were subsequently assigned to either standard college courses or developmental education courses. The study therefore evaluated both (1) the impact of MMA use on college enrollment and progress as well as (2) “bumping up” students who normally would be assigned to developmental education in standard courses to see if this had an impact on college enrollment and progress.
There were 5,282 students in the study sample. More than half the students (59.6 percent) in the study were 20 years old or under (26.4 percent of the students were between the ages of 21 and 30), and approximately half were females (52.1 percent). Almost half of the sample was white (48.5 percent), 20.2 percent of the sample was black, and 41.6 percent of the sample was eligible to receive a Pell grant. The follow-up study examined outcomes for 624 bump up students, taken from the MMA group, who were randomly assigned to either take college courses or developmental education courses in English. There were 703 students assigned to take college courses or developmental education courses in Mathematics. Bump up students were described by the authors as representing the main analytic sample for the study.
Colleges participating in this project used their respective MMA system to determine if students in the intervention should be placed in college-level or developmental education courses. Each college had a different variant of MMA, but all systems included two or more of the following measures: placement test scores, high school GPA, the results of noncognitive assessments, or scores from the ACT and SAT. In some colleges, a system of “decision bands,” applicable to students within a particular score range, was used. In these colleges, students who earned test scores within a specific range would be evaluated using other measures. Students received only information on the course or courses in which they were placed; students did not receive their placement scores.
Students in the business-as-usual condition were assessed for the need to participate in developmental education using a single placement test, which was typically the ACCUPLACER. The ACCUPLACER was developed by the College Board to assess skills in reading, math, and writing.
Participating colleges established their own MMA system and when doing so received technical assistance from MDRC and the Community College Research Center (CCRC). College staff reported that they faithfully followed placement rules and adhered to placement procedures for both groups of students, although there were a few notable exceptions. Colleges included post-placement advising and registration session for students who were bumped up as a result of the MMA system.
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