Johnson, Valerie L.; Simon, Patricia; Mun, Eun-Young (2014). Journal of Educational Research, v107 n3 p186-196. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1031007
Reviewed: September 2017
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Graduated high school |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
77.00 |
68.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 2% | |
| Other or unknown | 6% |
| Hispanic | 92% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 8% |
The study was set in an urban high school in a mid-Atlantic state. The area from which the participants were drawn was "ranked by the Brookings Institute as one of the top 100 most economically depressed localities in the United States."
Participants were Hispanic/Latino (92%), Other (6%) and African American (2%).
Upon entering their ninth grade year, each student was assigned to a peer leader. Peer leaders were 12th grade students. Each Peer Leader was assigned to 12 freshmen. The Peer Leader met with their group of freshmen for 40-minute sessions weekly, during school hours, throughout the participant's freshmen year. During these weekly group sessions, participants practiced academic, social and emotional skills, critical thinking, goal setting, decision making, time management, teamwork, and communication via hands-on activities. Three 2.5-hr booster sessions were conducted during participants sophomore year. Booster sessions were designed to reinforce the skills practiced during the participants' freshmen year. A Family Night was held for Peer Leaders and participants during participants freshman and sophomore years.
The authors do not describe the comparison condition, but presumably whatever normally happened at school.
Faculty Advisors, who supervised and trained the Peer Leaders, participated in an initial 11-day training program before the start of the program. Over the course of the first 15 months of the program, faculty advisors also participated in a 3-day and three 1-day training conferences. Peer Leaders participated in an initial 3-day, 2-night leadership training retreat. Over the course of the first academic year, peer leaders participated in a daily leadership course where they practiced leading group discussions and the skills needed to be positive role models.
Reviewed: February 2016
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
4-year graduation rate |
Peer Group Connection (PGC) Program vs. Unknown |
End of study |
Full sample;
|
0.77 |
0.68 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
4-year graduation rate |
Peer Group Connection (PGC) Program vs. Unknown |
Posttest |
Male;
|
0.81 |
0.63 |
Yes |
|
||
|
4-year graduation rate |
Peer Group Connection (PGC) Program vs. Unknown |
Posttest |
Female;
|
0.72 |
0.72 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 2% | |
| Other or unknown | 6% |
| Hispanic | 92% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 8% |
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