Fairlie, R. W., & Bahr, P. R. (2018). Economics of Education Review, 63, 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.01.004.
Reviewed: November 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College enrollment in any college |
Computers for entering college students vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
43.70 |
47.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Average quarterly earnings |
Computers for entering college students vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
3165.60 |
2808.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Average quarterly earnings |
Computers for entering college students vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
3012.80 |
3560.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Average quarterly earnings |
Computers for entering college students vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
3383.80 |
3963.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Average quarterly earnings |
Computers for entering college students vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
3248.60 |
3131.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Average quarterly earnings |
Computers for entering college students vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
3181.50 |
3999.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Average quarterly earnings |
Computers for entering college students vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
3982.80 |
4096.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Average quarterly earnings |
Computers for entering college students vs. Business as usual |
7 Years |
Full sample;
|
4320.90 |
4512.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Employed |
Computers for entering college students vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
56.00 |
54.20 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 36% | |
| White | 64% |
The study was conducted in Butte College, a community college near Chico in rural Northern California.
The study reported that students in the sample were 25 years old on average. Nearly two-thirds were women (63%) and White (64%). Just over one-third (35%) of participants lived with their parents. Household incomes tended to be lower, with just under one-third (32%) of students reporting a household income between $10,000-$19,900, a little over one-quarter (26%) reporting a household income between $20,000-$39,900, and less than one-fifth (17%) reporting a household income over $40,000.
Participants in the intervention group received free, refurbished computers.
The comparison group students did not receive free computers through this experiment, but they may have had access to their own personal computers.
No additional information was 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