Claims

The role model letter lowered the DEW (fail/withdraw) rate for women in introductory psychology (OR = .38)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Women in the intervention condition had lower odds of receiving a grade of D, E, or W in introductory psychology than controls (odds ratio .38, a 62% reduction). → Herrmann et al. 2016

Evidence

Herrmann et al. 2016

Sarah D. Herrmann, Robert Mark Adelman, Jessica E. Bodford, Oliver Graudejus, Morris A. Okun, and Virginia S. Y. Kwan (2016). The Effects of a Female Role Model on Academic Performance and Persistence of Women in STEM Courses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38(5), 258-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1209757

q3 · i? · causal · r2

DEW outcome in the same randomized psychology-course study (n à 240 with consent), coded 0 for A/B/C and 1 for D/E/W. The article reports "The odds ratio of .38", with 23 DEWs in control versus 10 in intervention; no standardized effect size was printed.

"The odds of receiving a DEW were .24 to 1 in the control group (23 participants had a DEW and 96 did not) and .09 to 1 in the intervention group (10 participants had a DEW and 111 did not). The odds ratio of .38 indicates that the odds of receiving a DEW in the intervention condition were 62% less than in the control condition."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.