Check & Connect
Study: Strand & Lovrich (2014)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

The students in the experimental school went to the same high school who had a history of truancy and received truancy petition from the school. The students in the control group were selected from three high schools who match the students in experimental group in attendance, discipline, and credits.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):

These students were identified by the exceedingly high number of absences recorded by the schools. In addition, the interventionist also conducted a comprehensive assessment using the Washington Assessment and Needs of Students which measured aggression defiance, depression anxiety, substance abuse, peer deviance, family environment, and school engagement.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:

• below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
• identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?

%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:

• emotional disability label,
• placed in an alternative school/classroom,
• non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
• designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?

%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:

In this study, a probation counselor from a court was contracted to serve as the “mentor” delivering the Check & Connect model. The counselor worked with the students on a one-to-one level, conducted risks and needs assessment with each youth, and met with students and families on a periodic basis discussing how to improve the students’ school attendance. The type and frequency of mentor meeting was decided based on the need level of students. For youth at low risk, the counselor checked in with students 1 hour monthly and informal contacts at lunch time.

Specify which condition is the control condition:

Students in the comparison condition did not receive any mentoring sessions provided by the probation counselor.

If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Race–Ethnicity

Socioeconomic Status

Disability Status

ELL Status

Gender

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?

Systematic

Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.

This is a quasi-experimental study with a comparison groups that are matched with the experimental group on grade, gender, race/ethnicity, attendance, suspensions, and earned credits. The two groups of students are from schools that are matched on dropout rate, free or reduced-price meals, and on-time graduation rate.

What was the unit of assignment?

If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?

Schools
Teachers
Students
Classes
Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

How was the program delivered?

Individually
Small Group
Classroom

What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?

The mentor was a probation counselor from the county juvenile court.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.

The frequency and nature of all contacts with youths were documented by the mentor and was reviewed bi-weekly in supervision meetings with a supervisor. In addition, the researchers also used a fidelity checklist (10 items), which were scored dichotomously (present or absent). Items on this checklist include: a) philosophical commitment to restorative justice b) school administration leadership participation c) community member participation d) respectful nonpunitive goal-directed communication with families (3 items) e) observance of nondiscrimination and the privacy rights of students f) student support and follow-up contact (2 items)

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?

8 out of 10 items were rated to be practiced 100% of the time. The remaining two items were rated to be practiced 93% and 86%, respectively.

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?

The researchers gathered information from relevant administrative personnel at the comparison high school about interventions implemented at the control classroom. The responses revealed that no Check & Connect intervention was implemented at the control sites.

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.

If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:

Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:

Chi square tests were used to compare group differences. Also, the outcome measure-students’ educational status-is nominal. It has four categories (graduated, dropped out, transferred out of the district, and continuing the school). Due to the level of measurement of type of data obtained in this study, the authors did not compute the means or unadjusted means were not reported for students in the control and experimental groups.