Barnett, Elisabeth A.; Kopko, Elizabeth; Cullinan, Dan; Belfield, Clive R. (2020). Center for the Analysis of Postsecondary Readiness. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED609173
Reviewed: August 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attainment of Associate's Degree after 3 terms |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
3.20 |
3.50 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Completed college-level English course |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample for students that received an English placement;
|
34.30 |
28.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Completed college-level math course |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample for students that received a math placement;
|
17.00 |
15.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Completed college-level English course |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample for students that received an English placement;
|
42.90 |
39.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed college-level English course |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample for students that received an English placement;
|
47.10 |
44.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed college-level math course |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample for students that received a math placement;
|
24.00 |
23.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Completed college-level math course |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample for students that received a math placement;
|
29.50 |
29.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College credits earned: Semester 1 |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
5.76 |
5.42 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Continuous enrollment for 1 term |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
80.40 |
81.10 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College Level Credits Earned: After 2 Semesters |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
10.76 |
10.45 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College Level Credits Earned: After 3 Semesters |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
15.26 |
15.02 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Continuous enrollment for 2 terms |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
61.20 |
61.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Continuous enrollment for 3 terms |
Multiple measures and assessment and placement vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
43.40 |
44.00 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 3% | |
| Black | 20% | |
| Native American | 1% | |
| Other or unknown | 33% | |
| White | 43% |
| Hispanic | 20% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 80% |
Seven SUNY (The State University of New York) community colleges in New York participated in the study: Cayuga Community College, Jefferson Community College, Niagara Community College, Onondaga Community College, Rockland Community College, Schenectady Community College, and Westchester Community College. SUNY campuses are located in urban, suburban, and rural areas and serve diverse populations. All colleges that participated in the study offered both developmental-level and college-level courses.
The sample included 12,971 prospective first-year students from seven community colleges: 6,589 in the intervention condition and 6,382 in the comparison condition. Of the students in the study sample: 48 percent were female, 20 percent were Black, 43 percent were White, 3 percent were Asian, and 1 percent American Indian/Native American. Twenty percent of students were Hispanic. About 43 percent of students were Pell Grant recipients.
The intervention is an alternative, multiple measures, data analytics placement system implemented with entering first-year college students in order to place them in either remedial or college-level math and English courses as needed. Predictive algorithms were developed separately at each college using historical data that weighted different factors such as placement test scores, high school GPAs, and time since high school graduation according to how well they predicted success in college-level math and English courses. The algorithms were varied across campuses in terms of the weighting of each factor as well as the threshold to determine placement in remedial or college-level courses. As part of the development of the algorithms, each college calculated misplacement rates and used them to establish the cut points to determine students’ placement into remedial or college-level math and English courses.
Students in the comparison condition were assessed for course placement (remedial or college-level) using the colleges' standard procedures, most often relying on the ACCUPLACER assessment and its' corresponding cut points.
No further details were 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