A school SAT preparation course improved SAT scores at one Texas school (Filizola, 2008; domain average effect size 0.28), driven by the mathematics subtest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2 · i1–i2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 In a quasi-experimental matched comparison of 24 students, intervention students scored statistically significantly higher than matched comparison students on SAT scores (domain average effect size 0.28, improvement index +11), with the mathematics subtest showing the largest effect (effect size 0.67, +18, p .008). → ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs 2016

Evidence¶

ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs 2016¶

ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs. (2016). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/664

q2 · i2 · causal · r1

Quasi-experimental study at a parochial Texas school where 17 students who paid a $350 fee took eight 4-hour SAT preparation sessions and were matched on gender, ethnicity, and GPA to non-participants. The SAT Math row reports intervention 498.16 (SD 96.24) versus comparison 460.17 (SD 56.48), effect size 0.67, +18, p .008; the WWC reports the domain average as effect size 0.28, +11, statistically significant.

"SAT Math High school students 24 498.16 (96.24) 460.17 (56.48) 37.9 9 0.67 +18 .00 8"

ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs 2016 (2)¶

ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs. (2016). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/664

q2 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

In the same study, the SAT Reading row reports effect size 0.25, +10, p .42, and the SAT Writing row reports effect size 0.13, +5, p .55 — neither subtest contrast was statistically significant; only the mathematics subtest reached significance.

"SAT Reading High school students 24 458.95 (75.09) 4 37.71 (83.49) 21.24 0.25 +10 .42"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• ACT/SAT test preparation and coaching programs have positive effects on general academic achievement (high school), based on six studies averaging a +9 improvement index — a broader claim this one bears on
• Two computerized SAT coaching programs showed no statistically significant effect on SAT scores (McClain, 1999) — related
• A 6-week computerized Latin and Greek root-word program improved SAT verbal scores (Holmes & Keffer, 1995; effect size 0.49) — related
• Commercial SAT preparation courses showed no statistically significant effect on SAT scores in a national propensity-score-matched sample (Domingue & Briggs, 2009) — related
• The effect on SAT math scores was positive but not statistically significant, though large enough to be substantively important (effect size at least 0.25) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Self-reported test preparation showed no significant difference in ACT composite scores in a national sample (Scholes & Lain, 1997, Experiment 2) — reports the opposite
• Embedding test-taking strategies and ACT practice items in algebra improved practice ACT mathematics scores (McMann, 1994; effect size 0.34) — related