Thomas III, E. N. (2005). Michigan State University.
Reviewed: July 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative GPA |
Ethnic-based mentoring model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.50 |
2.41 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Retention |
Ethnic-based mentoring model vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
0.96 |
1.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 100% |
The study was conducted at Michigan State University.
All 80 study participants were freshmen at Michigan State University in 2003. All participants identified as Black. There were 34 men and 46 women in the sample. Eighteen participants came from households whose total annual income was $80,000 or more. Seventeen participants came from households whose annual income was between $45,000 and $79,999.
The mentoring program occurred during the 2003-2004 academic year. Random assignment of participants occurred in October 2003 and the mentoring intervention began after participants were assigned to the intervention group. The intervention was an ethnic-based mentoring model, wherein juniors and seniors who identified as Black mentored incoming freshmen who also identified as Black. Mentors were expected to meet with their mentees once a week for an hour during the fall and spring semesters, and to take their mentees to an event once a month.
Members of the comparison group were contacted once every three weeks by phone or email. Comparison group members were asked how they were doing in college but were not actively mentored. After comparison group members completed their follow-up survey, in March and April 2004, they were offered a mentor for the final month of their freshman year.
Mentors received bi-weekly training and participated in a training retreat.
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