Check and Connect

Study: Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, & Hurley (1998)

Study Type: Group-Design

Participants: Partially Convincing Evidence

Sample size: 94 students (47 program, 47 control)

Risk Status: Students were classified as having motional or behavioral disability by school district personnel according to state special education guidelines and definitions.

Demographics:

 

Program

Control

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

  Kindergarten

       

  Grade 1

       

  Grade 2

 

 

 

 

  Grade 3

 

 

 

 

  Grade 4

 

 

 

 

  Grade 5

 

 

 

 

  Grade 6

 

 

 

 

  Grade 7

 

 

 

 

  Grade 8

 

 

 

 

  Grade 9

47

100%

47

100%

  Grade 10

 

 

 

 

  Grade 11

 

 

 

 

  Grade 12

 

 

 

 

Mean Age

 

 

 

 

Race-ethnicity

  African-American

 

 

 

 

  American Indian

 

 

 

 

  Asian/Pacific Islander

 

 

 

 

  Hispanic

 

 

 

 

  White

 

 

 

 

  Other

 

 

 

 

Socioeconomic status

  Subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

  No subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

Disability status

  Speech-language impairments

       

  Learning disabilities

       

 Emotional disturbance

       

 Intellectual disability

       

  Other

 

 

 

 

  Not identified with a disability

 

 

 

 

ELL status

  English language learner

 

 

 

 

  Not English language learner

 

 

 

 

Gender

  Female

 

 

 

 

  Male

 

 

 

 

Training of Instructors: Mentors, in this study, were graduate students in school psychology and special education, a district special education coordinator, community members, and special education resource teachers. These staff were recruited based on familiarity with the school and community resources, willingness to work cooperatively with families, and strong belief in the students’ ability to success, and strong communication skills, such as the ability to negotiate, compromise, and confront conflict constructively.

Design: Partially Convincing Evidence

Did the study use random assignment?: Yes

If not, was it a tenable quasi-experiment?: Not applicable

If the study used random assignment, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures used as covariates or on pretest measures also used as outcomes? No

If not, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures central to the study (i.e., pretest measures also used as outcomes), and outcomes were analyzed to adjust for pretreatment differences? N/A

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable?: Yes

Was there differential attrition for the program and the control groups?: No

Did the unit of analysis match the unit for random assignment (for randomized studies) or the assignment strategy (for quasi-experiments)?: No

Implemented with Fidelity: Unconvincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: The authors did not describe any information on fidelity of treatment.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: No results on treatment implementation measures were reported.

Measures Targeted: Partially Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Year-end enrollment status

N/A

This outcome is directly related to the research question

 

Students in the control group were not exposed to the Check & Connect intervention

Patterns of attendance

N/A

This outcome is directly related to the research question

 

Students in the control group were not exposed to the Check & Connect intervention

Assignment completion

N/A

This outcome is directly related to the research question

Students in the control group were not exposed to the Check & Connect intervention

Total number of credits earned

N/A

This outcome is directly related to the research question

Students in the control group were not exposed to the Check & Connect intervention

Social skills rating system (academic competence)-special education teacher

.95, Cronbach’s alpha

This outcome is directly related to the research question

Students in the control group were not exposed to the Check & Connect intervention

Social skills rating system (academic competence)-general education teacher

.96, Cronbach’s alpha

This outcome is directly related to the research question

Students in the control group were not exposed to the Check & Connect intervention

Social skills rating system (problem behavior)-special education teacher

.84, Cronbach’s alpha

This outcome is directly related to the research question

Students in the control group were not exposed to the Check & Connect intervention

Social skills rating system (problem behavior)-general education teacher

.82, Cronbach’s alpha

This outcome is directly related to the research question

Students in the control group were not exposed to the Check & Connect intervention

Secondary student opinion survey (problem behavior)-Relevance of school

.84, Cronbach’s alpha

This outcome is directly related to the research question

Students in the control group were not exposed to the Check & Connect intervention

Secondary student opinion survey-Expectation to graduate

N/A

This outcome is directly related to the research question

Students in the control group were not exposed to the Check & Connect intervention

 

Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

N/A

 

 

 

 

Mean ES Targeted Outcomes: Data Unavailable

Mean ES Administrative Outcomes: N/A

Effect Size:

Targeted Measures

Measure

Effect Size

Assignment completion

Credits

Academic competence rated by special education teacher

Academic competence rated by general education teacher

Problem behavior rated by special education teacher

Problem behavior rated by general education teacher

Relevance of school

Expectation to graduate

 

Broader Measures

Measure

Effect Size

None

 

 

Key

*        p ≤ .05

**      p ≤ .01

***    p ≤ .001

–      Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes

u      Effect size is based on unadjusted means

†      Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Visual Analysis (Single-Subject Designs): N/A

Disaggregated Outcome Data Available for Demographic Subgroups: No

Target Behavior(s): Externalizing, Internalizing

Delivery: Individual

Fidelity of Implementation Check List Available: No

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Paraprofessional, 1-2 days in-depth training required

Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse: Yes – Intervention

What Works Clearinghouse Review

Dropout Prevention Protocol

Effectiveness: Check & Connect was found to have positive effects on staying in school, potentially positive effects on progressing in school, and no discernible effects on completing school for high school students with learning, behavioral, or emotional disabilities.

Studies Reviewed: 2 studies meet standards out of 3 studies total

Full Report

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 4 studies

Maynard, B. R., Kjellstrand, E. K., & Thompson, A. M. (2013). Effects of Check and Connect on Attendance, Behavior, and Academics: A Randomized Effectiveness Trial. Research on Social Work Practice, 00(0)1-14.

Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Evelo, D. L., & Hurley, C.M. (1998). Dropout Prevention for Youth with Disabilities: Efficacy of a Sustained School Engagement Procedure. Exceptional Children, 65(1), 7-21.

Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2005). Promoting School Completion of Urban Secondary Youth with Emotional or Behavioral Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 465-482.

Strand, P. S., & Lovrich, N. P. (2014). Graduation Outcomes for Truant Students: An Evaluation of a School-Based, Court-Engaged Community Truancy Board with Case Management. Children and Youth Services Review, 43, 138-144.