Conklin, J. F. (2009). Walden University.
Reviewed: May 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
First-semester GPA |
intrusive advising vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.55 |
2.86 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Retention |
intrusive advising vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
65.00 |
70.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 3% | |
| Native American | 3% | |
| Other or unknown | 5% | |
| White | 90% |
| Hispanic | 3% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 98% |
The study took place at the State University of New York (SUNY) - Canton, a rural two-year college in upstate New York.
All students were enrolled in the school’s nursing program prior to the onset of the study; 95% were female and they were on average 36 years of age. The majority (90%) of students were described as being White, non-Hispanic. Of the remaining students, 2.5% were described as being either African American, Native American, Hispanic, or in an “other” category.
Three nursing faculty volunteers served as advisors in this study. These advisors sent reminders to study participants prior to each advising session, and at least four sessions occurred during the first semester. In these meetings the advisors discussed advisees' academic histories, identified potential obstacles to meeting educational and professional goals, and presented strategies aimed at supporting students' success (including study skills, habits, and use of tutoring services). In the first meeting, meant to occur during the first week of the semester, the advisor queried about the advisee's interests and goals, oriented the advisee to campus services, and described general academic success strategies. Advisors then made an appointment for the second meeting, due to take place in the fourth week of the semester. At this meeting the advisee's progress was reviewed and any academic problems were discussed along with possible solutions. A third meeting took place in the 8th week when, once again, academic challenges and solutions were discussed. In the final meeting, due to occur in the 10th week of the semester, expectations for the following semester were reviewed. At each meeting, the advisor reminded the advisee that they could schedule another meeting at any time if needed.
Comparison group students received academic advising as it had conventionally been offered on campus. The only required meeting between comparison group participants and their advisor occurred during week ten of the first semester, when a course schedule for the second semester was developed. New and transfer students in the comparison group met with nursing faculty members at a mandatory curriculum meeting to make any needed course scheduling adjustments. Like participants in the intervention group, comparison group participants were able to meet with their academic advisor at any time during the semester.
The study author provided an orientation/training session for advisors prior to the program semester and provided a script for each of the four advising sessions.
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