| Evaluation | Effect | Average Age | Observations | Experimental Evaluation | Country | Intervention |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kemple 2005 | 8 | Grade 11 | N/A | Yes | United States | Alternative model of school organization and resource allocations |
| Schochet 2008 | -2 | 19 | 11,313 | Yes | United States | Vocational training, academic education, counseling and social skills training |
| Bloom 2009 | 12 | 17 | 1,018 | Yes | United States | Program provided orientation, residence, post-residential placement |
| Rodriguez-Planas 2012 | 5 | Grade 9 | 1,014 | Yes | United States | Students received awards, mentoring and tutoring |
Graph of Effects
This graph shows the effects of [Number of Evaluations] evaluations of [Program Type] programs. The first evaluation, [Evaluation name 1], estimated an effect of [Estimated effect Eval. 1] points (graphed with the top grey circle). Because this is an estimate, there is uncertainty about what the true effect is. But we know that the true effect will probably lie between a low value of [True effect lie between – Low value, Eval. 1] and a high value of [True effect lie between – High value, Eval. 1] (graphed with the top horizontal line). We can combine the estimates from all the evaluations and compute an average effect of [Estimated effect, Average] (graphed with the black circle). There is also uncertainty about where the true average effect is. But we know that the true average effect probably lies between [True effect lie between – Low value, Average] and [True effect lie between – High value, Average] points (graphed with the bottom horizontal line).
| Evaluation | Effects | Low Value | High Value | Weight in Average Effect (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bloom 2009 | 12 | 6 | 18 | 24 |
| Kemple 2005 | 8 | 0 | 16 | 21 |
| Rodriguez-Planas 2012 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 26 |
| Schochet 2008 | -2 | -3 | -1 | 30 |
| Overall |