Clements, Peggy; Auchstetter, Amelia; Lin, Shuqiong; Savage, Corey (2022). American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED623914
Reviewed: July 2023
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GPA |
CompuPower vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.12 |
3.03 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Critical Thinking Skills for Everyday Life |
CompuPower vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.21 |
1.01 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Self-Regulation (researcher-created) |
CompuPower vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.11 |
0.94 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 4% | |
| Native American | 1% | |
| Other or unknown | 17% | |
| Two or more races | 1% | |
| White | 76% |
| Hispanic | 20% | |
| Other or unknown | 80% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 48% | |
| No FRPL | 52% |
The study took place in 12 high schools in Arizona.
Of the total sample, 51 percent of students were female and 48 percent were eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch. Twenty percent were Hispanic, 76 percent were White, 4 percent were Black, 1 percent were Asian, 1 percent were American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 1 percent were two or more races. Two percent were English language learners.
The CompuPower intervention was predominantly delivered as a high school course for students. The curriculum was implemented over the entire academic year and consisted of 120 hours of materials, with five or six units per academic quarter. The CompuPower program consisted of: 1) a teacher professional development component designed to be implemented as a 2-day summer workshop, 2) a parent workshop component designed for delivery over seven 2-hour sessions, and 3) a student summer residential program offered over 3 days at Arizona State University. However, the implementation of the CompuPower program in this study did not meet these guidelines, largely due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The comparison condition received business as usual. Comparison students were students in the same grades, schools, and years as their matched intervention peers, but they had not enrolled in the CompuPower course.
The program developers and researchers at the American Institutes for Research supported the implementation of the program.
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