IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v7y2011i1p1-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dropout Prevention and Intervention Programs: Effects on School Completion and Dropout among School‐aged Children and Youth

Author

Listed:
  • Sandra Jo Wilson
  • Emily E. Tanner‐Smith
  • Mark W. Lipsey
  • Katarzyna Steinka‐Fry
  • Jan Morrison

Abstract

The objectives of this systematic review were to summarize the available evidence on the effects of prevention and intervention programs aimed at primary and secondary students for increasing school completion or reducing school dropout. The primary focus of the meta‐analysis was to examine the comparative effectiveness of different programs and program approaches in an effort to identify those with the largest and most reliable effects on school completion and dropout outcomes. We also sought to summarize the effects of programs designed for pregnant and parenting teens. A comprehensive and diverse international search strategy was used to locate qualifying studies reported between 1985 and 2010. The literature search yielded a total of 23,677 reports, 2,794 which were deemed potentially relevant and retrieved for eligibility determination. Of those, 548 reports describing 167 different studies were included in the final review. Overall, results indicated that most school‐ and community‐based programs were effective in decreasing school dropout. Given the minimal variation in effects across program types, the main conclusion from this review is that dropout prevention and intervention programs, regardless of type, will likely be effective if they are implemented well and are appropriate for the local environment. We recommend that policy makers and practitioners choosing dropout prevention programs consider the cost‐effectiveness of programs, and choose those that fit best with local needs as well as implementer abilities and resources. Executive Summary/Abstract BACKGROUND Dropping out of high school is associated with numerous detrimental consequences, including low wages, unemployment, incarceration, and poverty. There are a large number of school and community‐based prevention and intervention programs for general population and at‐risk students, and there are a number of programs designed specifically to encourage school completion among pregnant and parenting teens. No comprehensive systematic reviews have examined these programs' overall effectiveness. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this systematic review were to summarize the available evidence on the effects of prevention and intervention programs aimed at primary and secondary students for increasing school completion or reducing school dropout. The primary focus of the meta‐analysis was to examine the comparative effectiveness of different programs and program approaches in an effort to identify those with the largest and most reliable effects on school completion and dropout outcomes. We also sought to summarize the effects of programs designed for pregnant and parenting teens. SEARCH STRATEGY A comprehensive and diverse international search strategy was used to locate qualifying studies reported between 1985 and 2010. A wide range of electronic bibliographic databases were searched, along with research registers, other grey literature databases, reference lists of all previous meta‐analyses and reviews on the topic, as well as citations in research reports. We also maintained correspondence with researchers in the field of school dropout prevention. SELECTION CRITERIA Studies eligible for inclusion in the review were required to meet several eligibility criteria. First, studies must have involved a school‐based or affiliated psychological, educational, or behavioral prevention or intervention program intended to have beneficial effects on students recipients; or, evaluated a community‐based program explicitly presented as a dropout prevention or intervention program. Second, studies must have investigated outcomes for interventions directed toward school‐aged youth, or those expected to attend pre‐k to 12th grade primary and secondary schools or the equivalent. Third, studies must have used experimental or quasi‐experimental research designs, including random assignment, non‐random assignment with matching, or non‐random assignment with statistical controls or sufficient information to permit calculation of pre‐treatment effect size group equivalence. Fourth, studies must have reported at least one eligible outcome variable measuring school completion, school dropout, high school graduation, or school attendance. Finally, the date of publication or reporting of the study must have been in 1985 or later. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The literature search yielded a total of 23,677 reports, 2,794 which were deemed potentially relevant and retrieved for eligibility determination. Of those, 548 reports describing 167 different studies were included in the final review. Random‐effects inverse variance weighted meta‐analytic methods were used to synthesize odds ratios for the school dropout outcomes. Meta‐regression models were used to examine the effects of program characteristics, methodological characteristics, and participant characteristics on the dropout odds ratios. Funnel plots, regression tests for small sample bias, and trim and fill analyses were used to assess the possibility of publication bias. RESULTS General dropout programs (152 studies; 317 independent samples) and dropout programs for teen parents (15 studies; 51 independent samples) were analyzed in separate meta‐analyses. Overall, both general dropout programs and programs specialized for teen parents were effective in reducing school dropout (or increasing school completion). The random effects weighted mean odds ratio for the general programs was 1.72. Using the average dropout rate for control groups of 21.1%, the odds ratio for the general programs translates to a dropout rate of 13%. For the teen parent programs, the mean odds ratio for graduation and dropout outcomes was 1.83 and was 1.55 for school enrollment outcomes. The average graduation rate for the young women in comparison groups was 26%. The corresponding graduation rate for young mothers in the intervention programs was 39%. For school enrollment outcomes, the average enrollment rate for the comparison mothers was 33%. The mean odds ratio of 1.55 for these studies translates into an enrollment rate of about 43%. Moderator analyses for the general programs indicated that studies with similar program and comparison groups at baseline and those that provided posttest data adjusted for baseline non‐equivalence produced smaller effect sizes. For teen parent programs, moderator analyses found that random and matched designs produced smaller effect sizes than non‐random or non‐matched designs. Effect sizes were therefore adjusted for methodological characteristics to examine the effects of different program types net of the influence of method. The effects were generally consistent across different types of programs and for different types of participant samples. However, higher levels of implementation quality tended to be associated with larger effects. Analyses provided no strong indication of the presence of publication or small study bias. AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS Overall, results indicated that most school‐ and community‐based programs were effective in decreasing school dropout. Given the minimal variation in effects across program types, the main conclusion from this review is that dropout prevention and intervention programs, regardless of type, will likely be effective if they are implemented well and are appropriate for the local environment. We recommend that policy makers and practitioners choosing dropout prevention programs consider the cost‐effectiveness of programs, and choose those that fit best with local needs as well as implementer abilities and resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandra Jo Wilson & Emily E. Tanner‐Smith & Mark W. Lipsey & Katarzyna Steinka‐Fry & Jan Morrison, 2011. "Dropout Prevention and Intervention Programs: Effects on School Completion and Dropout among School‐aged Children and Youth," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 1-61.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:7:y:2011:i:1:p:1-61
    DOI: 10.4073/csr.2011.8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2011.8
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4073/csr.2011.8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger M. Harbord & Ross J. Harris & Jonathan A. C. Sterne, 2009. "Updated tests for small-study effects in meta-analyses," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 9(2), pages 197-210, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ashrita Saran & Howard White & Kerry Albright & Jill Adona, 2020. "Mega‐map of systematic reviews and evidence and gap maps on the interventions to improve child well‐being in low‐ and middle‐income countries," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), December.
    2. Pronk, S. & Mulder, E.A. & van den Berg, G. & Stams, G.J.J.M. & Popma, A. & Kuiper, C., 2020. "Differences between adolescents who do and do not successfully complete their program within a non-residential alternative education facility," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. Sesha Kethineni & Susan Frazier‐Kouassi & Yuki Shigemoto & Wesley Jennings & Stephanie M. Cardwell & Alex R. Piquero & Kimberly Gay & Dayanand Sundaravadivelu, 2021. "PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of parent‐engagement programs to reduce truancy and juvenile delinquency: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), September.
    4. Denis Fougere & Arthur Heim, 2019. "L'évaluation socioéconomique de l'investissement social: Comment mettre en oeuvre des analyses coûts-bénéfices pour les politiques d'emploi, de santé et d'éducation," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/5lge9h8e809, Sciences Po.
    5. Pronk, S. & van den Berg, G. & Mulder, E.A. & Kuiper, C. & Stams, G.J.J.M. & Popma, A., 2023. "The development of adolescents in a non-residential alternative educational facility, including the prevention of secure residential placement," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    6. Denis Fougère & Arthur Heim, 2019. "L'évaluation socioéconomique de l'investissement social," Working Papers hal-03456048, HAL.
    7. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5lge9h8e809258uvvpjn34ekm4 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Jens Dietrichson & Trine Filges & Rasmus H. Klokker & Bjørn C. A. Viinholt & Martin Bøg & Ulla H. Jensen, 2020. "Targeted school‐based interventions for improving reading and mathematics for students with, or at risk of, academic difficulties in Grades 7–12: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nick Freemantle, 2008. "Biostatistical aspects for the use of evidence based medicine in health technology assessment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(1), pages 31-43, November.
    2. Catarina Gonçalves & Armando Raimundo & Ana Abreu & Jorge Bravo, 2021. "Exercise Intensity in Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-19, March.
    3. Meng-Bo Hu & Sheng-Hua Liu & Hao-Wen Jiang & Pei-De Bai & Qiang Ding, 2014. "Obesity Affects the Biopsy-Mediated Detection of Prostate Cancer, Particularly High-Grade Prostate Cancer: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of 29,464 Patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-10, September.
    4. Allison Milner & Andrew Page & Anthony D LaMontagne, 2013. "Long-Term Unemployment and Suicide: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-6, January.
    5. Sevigny, Eric L. & Fuleihan, Brian K. & Ferdik, Frank V., 2013. "Do drug courts reduce the use of incarceration?: A meta-analysis," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 416-425.
    6. Shan Liu & Qing Li & Ying Zhang & Qiushuang Li & Baodong Ye & Dijiong Wu & Li Wu & Hanti Lu & Conghua Ji, 2016. "Association of Human Leukocyte Antigen DRB1*15 and DRB1*15:01 Polymorphisms with Response to Immunosuppressive Therapy in Patients with Aplastic Anemia: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, September.
    7. Yuan Yuan Hu & Hua Yuan & Guang Bing Jiang & Ning Chen & Li Wen & Wei Dong Leng & Xian Tao Zeng & Yu Ming Niu, 2012. "Associations between XPD Asp312Asn Polymorphism and Risk of Head and Neck Cancer: A Meta-Analysis Based on 7,122 Subjects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(4), pages 1-6, April.
    8. Sanghyun Hong & W. Robert Reed, 2020. "Using Monte Carlo Experiments to Select Meta-Analytic Estimators," Working Papers in Economics 20/10, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    9. Tseday Jemaneh Mekasha & Finn Tarp, 2013. "Aid and Growth: What Meta-Analysis Reveals," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(4), pages 564-583, April.
    10. Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, 2010. "Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 36(i03).
    11. Ngamaba, Kayonda Hubert & Armitage, Christopher & Panagioti, Maria & Hodkinson, Alexander, 2020. "How closely related are financial satisfaction and subjective well-being? Systematic review and meta-analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    12. Jonathan Stokes & Maria Panagioti & Rahul Alam & Kath Checkland & Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi & Peter Bower, 2015. "Effectiveness of Case Management for 'At Risk' Patients in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-42, July.
    13. Tseday Jemaneh Mekasha & Finn Tarp, 2013. "Aid and Growth: What Meta-Analysis Reveals," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(4), pages 564-583, April.
    14. Maamar Sebri, 2014. "A meta-analysis of residential water demand studies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 499-520, June.
    15. Marta Liliana Musskopf & Amanda Finger Stadler & Ulf ME Wikesjö & Cristiano Susin, 2022. "The minipig intraoral dental implant model: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-17, February.
    16. Mohammad O Dahl, 2020. "Brucellosis in food-producing animals in Mosul, Iraq: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-16, July.
    17. Qurat-ul-Ann, Abre-Rehmat & Mirza, Faisal Mehmood, 2020. "Meta-analysis of empirical evidence on energy poverty: The case of developing economies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    18. Lin Zhao & Aihua Gu & Guixiang Ji & Peng Zou & Peng Zhao & Ailin Lu, 2012. "The Association between ATM IVS 22-77 T>C and Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-7, January.
    19. Yi Gong & Leida Zhang & Ping Bie & Huaizhi Wang, 2013. "Roles of ApoB-100 Gene Polymorphisms and the Risks of Gallstones and Gallbladder Cancer: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-9, April.
    20. Qiaoning Yue & Yue Ma & Yirong Teng & Yun Zhu & Hao Liu & Shuanglan Xu & Jie Liu & Jianping Liu & Xiguang Zhang & Zhaowei Teng, 2020. "An updated analysis of opioids increasing the risk of fractures," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-12, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:7:y:2011:i:1:p:1-61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.