CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 151Higher Education Research StudiesEducational Outcomes and InfluencesEducation and Military Integration

College Programs for High-risk and Disadvantaged Students: A Meta-analysis of Findings

Kulik, Chen-Lin C., Kulik, James A., Shwalb, Barbara J.·1983·Review of Educational Research
DOI 10.3102/00346543053003397
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This meta-analytic synthesis of findings from 60 evaluation studies showed that special college programs for high-risk students have had basically positive effects on students. High-risk students who enrolled in such programs stayed in college somewhat longer than control students did, and they received somewhat better grades in regular college work. Although such program effects were statistically reliable, they were fairly small in size in the typical study. Size of effect varied, however, as a function of the type and the age of the program being evaluated. Size of effect was also a function of document type; effects reported in clearing-house documents were smaller than those in published articles and dissertations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/00346543053003397

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Kulik et al. found in their meta-analysis of college programs for high-risk students that only 60 (less than 12%) of the 504 articles identified met their inclusion criteria, with a substantial portion failing to provide results for control groups or lacking appropriate control groups.

    “Kulik et al. (1983), who found in their meta-analysis of college programs for high-risk students that only 60 (less than 12%) of the 504 articles the authors identified met their inclusion criteria, with a substantial portion failing to provide results for control groups or lacking appropriate control groups.”

    From A Meta-analysis of University STEM Summer Bridge Program Effectiveness (2021) · cites this paper as Kulik et al. (1983)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Shwalb, B. J.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
Review of Educational Research
Publisher
American Educational Research Association (AERA)
Published
1983-09
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
397-414
ISSN
  • 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-1046
DOI
10.3102/00346543053003397
OpenAlex
W2138371884
Cited by
151
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
14.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Outcomes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Military Integration
Keywords
at-risk students, disadvantaged students, higher education programs, college retention, academic performance, program effectiveness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review