Check and Connect

Study: Sinclair, Christenson, & Thurlow (2005)

Study Type: Group-Design

Participants: Partially Convincing Evidence

Sample size: 98 students (46 program, 52 control)

Risk Status: Students were identified following district identification procedures for identifying students with an emotional or behavioral disability.

Demographics:

 

Program

Control

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

  Kindergarten

       

  Grade 1

       

  Grade 2

 

 

 

 

  Grade 3

 

 

 

 

  Grade 4

 

 

 

 

  Grade 5

 

 

 

 

  Grade 6

17

19%

20

20%

  Grade 7

13

15%

15

15%

  Grade 8

21

24%

19

19%

  Grade 9

19

21%

24

24%

  Grade 10

5

6%

8

8%

  Grade 11

7

8%

5

5%

  Grade 12

7

8%

9

9%

Mean Age

 

 

 

 

Race-ethnicity

  African-American

13

15%

7

7%

  American Indian

76

85%

93

93%

  Asian/Pacific Islander

 

 

 

 

  Hispanic

 

 

 

 

  White

 

 

 

 

  Other

 

 

 

 

Socioeconomic status

  Subsidized lunch

64

72%

76

76%

  No subsidized lunch

25

28%

24

24%

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

62

55%

50

50%

  Male

38

34%

50

50%

Training of Instructors: The coordinator of the monitors/mentors (interventionists) was a former Check & Connect mentor for 4 years and a school psychologist in the district high schools. The coordinator was available to the interventionists on a daily basis to provide case consultation and modeling interactions with students, teachers, and parents.

The background and experiences of the interventionists were not provided.

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? Not applicable

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable?: No

Was there differential attrition for the program and the control groups?: Yes

Did the unit of analysis match the unit for random assignment (for randomized studies) or the assignment strategy (for quasi-experiments)?: Yes

Implemented with Fidelity: Unconvincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Although measures of treatment fidelity were not quantified, mentors submitted the attendance records of the students to the coordinator to review to verify the accuracy of the form.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Not reported

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

A cohort dropout rate (cumulative percentage of students who had dropped out)

N/A

This outcome is directly related to the research question

Students in the control were not exposed to Check and Connect intervention.

Student attendance (four types of attendance were coded: persisters, forced persisters, interrupters, and those out all year)

N/A

This outcome is directly related to the research question

 

Students in the control were not exposed to Check and Connect intervention.

Mobility (number of educational settings a student attended within a year)

N/A

This outcome is directly related to the research question

Students in the control were not exposed to Check and Connect intervention.

Completion rate (graduated with a standard diploma or a GED certificate)

N/A

This outcome is directly related to the research question

Students in the control were not exposed to Check and 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

Dropout rate (percentage)

Attendance

Mobility

Completion rate (percentage)

 

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

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.

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.