------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
                      [Policy and Program Studies Service]{.smallcaps}

  ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------

**Single-Sex Versus Coeducational Schooling:**

**A Systematic Review**

**2005**

+---------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+
|                           |                           | ![           |
|                           |                           | ](media/imag |
|                           |                           | e1.wmf){widt |
|                           |                           | h="1.5173611 |
|                           |                           | 111111112in" |
|                           |                           | height       |
|                           |                           | ="1.51736111 |
|                           |                           | 11111112in"} |
+---------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+
| **[U.S. Department of     | [Office of Planning,      |              |
| Education]{.smallcaps}**  | Evaluation and Policy     |              |
|                           | Development]{.smallcaps}  |              |
| [Doc \#                   |                           |              |
| 2005-01]{.smallcaps}      |                           |              |
+---------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+

**Single-Sex Versus Coeducational Schooling:**

**A Systematic Review**

*Fred Mael*

*Alex Alonso*

*Doug Gibson*

*Kelly Rogers*

*Mark Smith*

American Institutes for Research

Washington, D.C.

*(As subcontractors to RMC Research Corporation)*

**Prepared for:**

**U.S. Department of Education**

**Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development**

**Policy and Program Studies Service**

**2005**

This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No.
ED-01-CO-0055/0010 with RMC Research Corporation. Dena Gross served as
the contracting officer's technical representative. The views expressed
herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the
Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department
of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned
in this publication is intended or should be inferred.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Margaret Spellings

*Secretary*

**Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development**

Tom Luce

*Assistant Secretary*

**Policy and Program Studies Service**

Alan L. Ginsburg

*Director*

**Program and Analytic Studies Division**

David Goodwin

*Director*

September 2005

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy
and Program Studies Service, *Single-Sex Versus Secondary Schooling: A
Systematic Review*, Washington, D.C., 2005.

This report is available on the Department's Web site at:
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/reports.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as
Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at
(202) 205-8113.

Contents

[List of Tables v](#__RefHeading___Toc114387105)

[Acknowledgments vii](#acknowledgments)

[Executive Summary ix](#executive-summary)

[The Systematic Review Process x](#the-systematic-review-process)

[The Quantitative Review xi](#the-quantitative-review)

[Implications of Review xv](#implications-of-review)

[Introduction 1](#introduction)

[Review Methodology 3](#review-methodology)

[Search Strategy 3](#search-strategy)

[Phases of Review 4](#phases-of-review)

[Phase I 4](#phase-i)

[Phase II 5](#phase-ii)

[Phase III 5](#phase-iii)

[Validation of Evaluations 7](#validation-of-evaluations)

[The Qualitative Review 7](#the-qualitative-review)

[Validation of Evaluations 9](#validation-of-evaluations-1)

[Results 11](#results)

[The Quantitative Review 11](#the-quantitative-review-1)

[Concurrent, Quantifiable Indicators of Academic Accomplishment
12](#concurrent-quantifiable-indicators-of-academic-accomplishment)

[Long-Term, Quantifiable Academic Accomplishment
33](#long-term-quantifiable-academic-accomplishment-1)

[Concurrent, Quantifiable Indicators of Individual Student Adaptation
and Socioemotional Development
36](#concurrent-quantifiable-indicators-of-individual-student-adaptation-and-socioemotional-development-1)

[Long-Term, Quantifiable Indicators of Individual Student Adaptation and
Socioemotional Development
63](#long-term-quantifiable-indicators-of-individual-student-adaptation-and-socioemotional-development-1)

[Indicators of Process and Outcome Measures of Gender Inequity
70](#indicators-of-process-and-outcome-measures-of-gender-inequity)

[Perceptual Measures of the School Climate or Culture That May Impact
Performance
71](#perceptual-measures-of-the-school-climate-or-culture-that-may-impact-performance-1)

[Subjective Satisfaction with the School Experience by Students,
Parents, and Teachers
74](#subjective-satisfaction-with-the-school-experience-by-students-parents-and-teachers)

[Expected Outcomes Not Seen in the Review
79](#expected-outcomes-not-seen-in-the-review-1)

[Qualitative Review 79](#qualitative-review)

[Implications of Review 83](#implications-of-review-1)

[Specific Implications 83](#specific-implications)

[General Trends 86](#general-trends-1)

[The Difficulties in Doing Single-Sex Research
88](#the-difficulties-in-doing-single-sex-research)

[Moderators and Individual Differences
88](#moderators-and-individual-differences)

[The Limits of a Systematic Review on This Topic
89](#the-limits-of-a-systematic-review-on-this-topic)

[References 91](#references)

[References in Text 91](#references-in-text)

[Quantitative Phase III-Coded References
94](#quantitative-phase-iii-coded-references)

[Quantitative Phase III-Excluded References
97](#quantitative-phase-iii-excluded-references)

[Qualitative Phase III-Coded References
101](#qualitative-phase-iii-coded-references)

[Qualitative Phase III-Excluded References
101](#qualitative-phase-iii-excluded-references)

[Appendix 1: Quantitative Study Coding Guide
103](#appendix-1-quantitative-study-coding-guide)

[Appendix 2: Qualitative Study Coding Guide
109](#appendix-2-qualitative-study-coding-guide)

[Appendix 3: List of Quantitative Studies Excluded During Phase III
113](#appendix-3-list-of-quantitative-studies-excluded-during-phase-iii)

[Appendix 4: Quantitative Coding Guide for All Studies
117](#appendix-4-quantitative-coding-guide-for-all-studies)

[Appendix 5: Table of Study Outcomes for Boys
125](#appendix-5-table-of-study-outcomes-for-boys)

[Appendix 6: Table of Study Outcomes for Girls
127](#appendix-6-table-of-study-outcomes-for-girls)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc114387105 .anchor}Tables

[Table 1---Summary of Findings xiii](#table-1summary-of-findings)

[Table 2---All-Subject Achievement Test Scores
13](#table-2all-subject-achievement-test-scores)

[Table 3---Mathematics Achievement Test Scores
18](#table-3mathematics-achievement-test-scores)

[Table 4---Science Achievement Test Scores
24](#table-4science-achievement-test-scores)

[Table 5---Verbal and English Achievement
27](#table-5verbal-and-english-achievement)

[Table 6---Grades 32](#table-6grades)

[Table 7---Social Studies Achievement Test Scores
33](#table-7social-studies-achievement-test-scores)

[Table 8---Postsecondary Test Scores
34](#table-8postsecondary-test-scores)

[Table 9---College Graduation 35](#table-9college-graduation)

[Table 10---Graduate School Attendance
35](#table-10graduate-school-attendance)

[Table 11---Self-Concept 37](#table-11self-concept)

[Table 12---Self-Esteem 40](#table-12self-esteem)

[Table 13---Locus of Control 42](#table-13locus-of-control)

[Table 14---School Track/Subject Preferences
44](#table-14school-tracksubject-preferences)

[Table 15---Educational Aspirations
53](#table-15educational-aspirations)

[Table 16---Career Aspirations 55](#table-16career-aspirations)

[Table 17---Delinquency 56](#table-17delinquency)

[Table 18---Attitudes Toward School
59](#table-18attitudes-toward-school)

[Table 19---Time Spent per Week on Homework
62](#table-19time-spent-per-week-on-homework)

[Table 20---Attitudes Toward Working Women
63](#table-20attitudes-toward-working-women)

[Table 21---School Completion 64](#table-21school-completion)

[Table 22---Postsecondary Success 65](#table-22postsecondary-success)

[Table 23---Unemployment 66](#table-23unemployment)

[Table 24---Eating Disorders 67](#table-24eating-disorders)

[Table 25---Choice of College Major
68](#table-25choice-of-college-major)

[Table 26---Sex-Role Stereotyping (Work-Related)
69](#table-26sex-role-stereotyping-work-related)

[Table 27---Political Involvement (Activism)
70](#table-27political-involvement-activism)

[Table 28---Percent Married to First Spouse
70](#table-28percent-married-to-first-spouse)

[Table 29---Climate for Learning 72](#table-29climate-for-learning)

[Table 30---Opportunities for Leadership Roles
73](#table-30opportunities-for-leadership-roles)

[Table 31---School Environment 74](#table-31school-environment)

[Table 32---Satisfaction with School Environment
75](#table-32satisfaction-with-school-environment)

[Table 33---College Satisfaction (Academic)
76](#table-33college-satisfaction-academic)

[Table 34---Summary of Findings 77](#table-34summary-of-findings)

[Table 35---Qualitative Studies 80](#table-35qualitative-studies)

#   {#section .Chapter-Title .unnumbered}

#  {#section-1 .Chapter-Title .unnumbered}

# Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .Chapter-Title}

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the authors of
the 44 studies, almost all of whom graciously reviewed our evaluations
of their studies. The authors also thank (in alphabetical order) Holly
Baker, Eric Camburn, Amanda Datnow, Dena Gross, Neil Riordan, Patricia
Schmuck, and Jeffrey Valentine for their comments on earlier versions of
this manuscript.

# Executive Summary {#executive-summary .Chapter-Title}

Single-sex education refers most generally to education at the
elementary, secondary, or postsecondary level in which males or females
attend school exclusively with members of their own sex. This report
deals primarily with single-sex education at the elementary and
secondary levels. Research in the United States on the question of
whether public single-sex education might be beneficial to males,
females or a subset of either group (particularly disadvantaged youths)
has been limited. However, because there has been a resurgence of
single-sex schools in the public sector, it was deemed appropriate to
conduct a systematic review of single-sex education research.

A number of theoretical advantages to both coeducational (CE) and
single-sex (SS) schools have been advanced by their advocates, a subset
of whom have focused specifically on the potential benefits of SS
schooling for disadvantaged males who have poor success rates in the
educational system. The interpretation of results of previous studies in
the private sector or the public sectors of other countries has been
hotly debated, resulting in varying policy recommendations based on the
same evidence. However, no reviews on this topic have been conducted
using a systematic approach similar to that of the Campbell
Collaboration (CC) or the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). Thus, the
objective of this review is to document the outcome evidence for or
against the efficacy of single-sex education as an alternative form of
school organization using an unbiased, transparent, and objective
selection process adapted from the standards of the CC and WWC to review
quantitative studies.

Concurrently with this review of the quantitative literature, we
conducted a review of the qualitative literature on the subject of
single-sex schooling using parallel coding techniques. Unlike
quantitative studies, qualitative studies are not viewed by WWC as
appropriate methodology when determining causal relationships. Rather,
they contribute to theory building and provide direction for hypothesis
testing. Few qualitative studies satisfied the criteria for inclusion.
Therefore, the primary focus of this paper is the systematic review of
quantitative research.

The following are the major research questions addressed by the
systematic quantitative review:

1\. Are single-sex schools more or less effective than coeducational
schools in terms of concurrent, quantifiable academic accomplishments?

2\. Are single-sex schools more or less effective than coeducational
schools in terms of long-term, quantifiable academic accomplishment?

3\. Are single-sex schools more or less effective than coeducational
schools in terms of concurrent, quantifiable indicators of individual
student adaptation and socioemotional development?

4\. Are single-sex schools more or less effective than coeducational
schools in terms of long-term, quantifiable indicators of individual
student adaptation and socioemotional development?

5\. Are single-sex schools more or less effective than coeducational
schools in terms of addressing issues of procedural (e.g., classroom
treatment) and outcome measures of gender inequity?

6\. Are single-sex schools more or less effective than coeducational
schools in terms of perceptual measures of the school climate or culture
that may have an impact on performance?

As in previous reviews, the results are equivocal. There is some support
for the premise that single-sex schooling can be helpful, especially for
certain outcomes related to academic achievement and more positive
academic aspirations. For many outcomes, there is no evidence of either
benefit or harm. There is limited support for the view that single-sex
schooling may be harmful or that coeducational schooling is more
beneficial for students.

# The Systematic Review Process

The systematic review of the literature consisted of the following
steps:

1.  An exhaustive search of electronic databases for citations,
    supplemented by other sources. This search strategy yielded 2,221
    studies.

2.  An initial Phase I exclusion of sources whose subject matter falls
    outside the defined scope of the study. Criteria used for exclusion
    in Phase I included:

> *Population*---To be included, the students had to be enrolled in a
> full-time school. They had to be in elementary, middle, or high school
> as opposed to college and beyond. Finally, the schools being studied
> had to be in English-speaking or Westernized countries somewhat
> comparable to American public-sector schools.
>
> *Intervention---*The single-sex school had to be one in which students
> were either completely segregated by sex or were completely segregated
> for all classes, even if co-located in the same building (i.e., dual
> academies). Studies of single-sex classes in a coeducational school
> were excluded from review.
>
> This initial screening yielded 379 publications that fit the initial
> inclusion criteria.

3.  A Phase II exclusion based on obvious methodological considerations
    (e.g., nonstudy, weak study). On the basis of titles and abstracts,
    citations that appeared to be essays, reviews, opinion pieces, and
    similar items were excluded, and only qualitative and quantitative
    studies that were likely to be codable in Phase III were retained.
    During Phase II, 114 citations were culled from the 379 items and
    coded as appropriate for review as quantitative (88) or
    qualitative (26) studies. Of the 26 qualitative studies, 4 met the
    criteria for final inclusion and were reviewed separately.

4.  A Phase III evaluation and coding of the remaining quantitative
    articles. According to the guidelines of the WWC, all studies other
    than randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs (QED)
    with matching, or regression discontinuity designs would be excluded
    prior to Phase III. Under the WWC criteria for inclusion, virtually
    all single-sex studies would have been eliminated from the review
    process because of the lack of experimental research on this topic.
    Therefore, for this review, a conscious decision was made to relax
    these standards and include all correlational studies that employed
    statistical controls. By relaxing the WWC standards, the number of
    candidate studies to be screened in Phase III was greatly increased.
    A more streamlined and efficient checklist was developed requiring
    dichotomous responses rather than descriptive responses in order to
    facilitate rater decision making. To be included in the quantitative
    review, a study had to use appropriate measurement and statistical
    principles. A primary criticism of previous single-sex literature
    has been the confounding of single-sex effects with the effects of
    religious values, financial privilege, selective admissions, or
    other advantages associated with the single-sex school being
    studied. Therefore, in particular a study had to include statistical
    controls to account for individual differences (e.g., socioeconomic
    status \[SES\], individual ability, and age) as well as school and
    class differences that might account for the differences between
    single-sex and coeducational schools. Even so, many studies that
    included at least one covariate lacked other important covariates
    such as ethnic or racial minority status, socioeconomic status, and
    grade level or age. Also, it is important to note that the inclusion
    of covariates cannot control for important unobservable differences
    between the groups, such as motivation. Because correlational
    studies cannot adequately address the issue of differences in
    unobservables (or selection bias), the studies in this review may
    over or understate the true effects of SS schooling.

# The Quantitative Review

Two reviewers coded each study independently, using a quantitative
coding guide. A quantitative study was coded for its treatment of the
following broad issues: sample characteristics, psychometric properties,
internal validity, effect, and bias. Each of these categories had
several criteria by which they were coded. To be retained, a study did
not have to meet all criteria.

Of the 88 quantitative studies, 48 were eliminated after further review
using the coding guide, and 40 studies met the inclusion criteria and
were retained. The reasons for the exclusion of these articles were 1)
failure to operationalize the intervention properly; 2) failure to apply
statistical controls during the analyses; 3) work that was actually
qualitative in nature rather than quantitative; 4) work performed in a
non-Westernized country and therefore not comparable; 5) work written in
a foreign language and therefore not codable by the researchers; 6)
failure to draw comparisons between SS and CE schools; and 7)
participants not of high school, middle, or elementary school age. In
all, 40 studies met the inclusion criteria and were retained in the
quantitative review. The following table shows results of each study
according to the seven broad questions listed above and is broken into
specific criteria within each larger category. Because some studies
addressed multiple criteria, the total number of findings is greater
than 40. Specifically, there are 112 findings considered in the 40
quantitative studies.

A table summarizing the findings is below. In each row, one of the 32
outcome categories is listed, as well as the total number of studies
related to that outcome category and the raw number and percent of
findings that either support SS schooling, support CE schooling, are
null, or mixed (supporting both CE and SS schooling). While eight of the
outcome categories have four or more studies, others have as few as one
or two studies. For any outcome category, the percentage of studies
falling in any of the dispositions (supporting SS, supporting CE, null,
or mixed) and the confidence with which one can use the findings will
increase with the number of studies. Therefore, the percentages in the
summary table should be treated with caution when only one or two
studies appear for that outcome category.

As shown in the Summary Table, every study falls into one of four
categories: Pro-SS, Pro-CE, Null, or Mixed. If a study's findings all
supported SS schooling for a given outcome variable, it was coded as
"Pro-SS". If the study's findings all supported CE for a given outcome
variable, it would be coded "Pro-CE". A study was coded "Null" if for
all findings regarding that outcome variable, there were no differences
between the SS and CE schools. A study was coded "Mixed" if the study
had significant findings in opposite directions for different subgroups
on the same variable. For example, a study would be coded "Mixed" if on
a specific outcome, support was found for single-sex schooling in the
case of boys and support was found for coeducation in the case of girls.
Another example would be a finding favoring single-sex in a 10th-grade
sample and coeducation in a 12th-grade sample for the same outcome
variable within a single study. If a study had findings that were both
pro-SS and null, it was coded a pro-SS; if the study had findings that
were both pro-CE and null, it was coded as pro-CE. Only studies with
findings favoring both single-sex and coeducation were coded as mixed.
It should also be kept in mind that some researchers evaluated multiple
outcome variables in their research; therefore, it is possible that a
single published study would yield information that appears in multiple
rows of the Summary Table.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 33%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><h6 id="table-1summary-of-findings"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 1—Summary of Findings</h6></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2"><em>Outcome</em></td>
<td rowspan="2"><em>Total Number of Studies</em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em>Pro-SS</em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em>Pro-CE</em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em>Null</em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em>Mixed</em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Number of Studies</td>
<td>Percent</td>
<td>Number of Studies</td>
<td>Percent</td>
<td>Number of Studies</td>
<td>Percent</td>
<td>Number of Studies</td>
<td>Percent</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Concurrent Academic Accomplishment</td>
<td><em><strong> </strong></em></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><em><strong> </strong></em></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><em><strong> </strong></em></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><em><strong> </strong></em></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><em><strong> </strong></em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) All-Subject Achievement Test Scores</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>67%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>11%</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>22%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2) Mathematics Achievement Test Scores</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>22%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>56%</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>22%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>3) Science Achievement Test Scores</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>25%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>62%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>13%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>4) Verbal/English Achievement Test Scores</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>30%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>70%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5) Grades</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>6) Social Studies Achievement Test Scores</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Subtotal</td>
<td><strong>43</strong></td>
<td><strong>15</strong></td>
<td><strong>35%</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>2%</strong></td>
<td><strong>23</strong></td>
<td><strong>53%</strong></td>
<td><strong>4</strong></td>
<td><strong>10%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Long-Term Academic Accomplishment</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>7) Postsecondary Test Scores</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>8) College Graduation</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>9) Graduate School Attendance</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Subtotal</td>
<td><strong>4</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>25%</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0%</strong></td>
<td><strong>3</strong></td>
<td><strong>75%</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Concurrent Adaptation and Socioemotional Development</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>10) Self-concept</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>57%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>43%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>11) Self-esteem</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>17%</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>33%</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>12) Locus of Control</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>60%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>40%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>13) School Track/Subject Preference</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>36%</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>14%</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>43%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>14) Educational Aspirations</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>67%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>33%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="3"><p>15) Career Aspirations</p>
<p>16) Delinquency</p>
<p>17) Attitudes Toward School</p></td>
<td>2</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>4</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>20%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>20%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>20%</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>40%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>18) Time Spent per Week on Homework</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>19) Attitudes Toward Working Women</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Subtotal</strong></td>
<td><strong>49</strong></td>
<td><strong>22</strong></td>
<td><strong>45%</strong></td>
<td><strong>5</strong></td>
<td><strong>10%</strong></td>
<td><strong>19</strong></td>
<td><strong>39%</strong></td>
<td><strong>3</strong></td>
<td><strong>6%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><h6 id="table-1summary-of-findings-contd"
class="Tables-NO-TOC">Table 1—Summary of Findings (cont’d)</h6></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2"><em>Outcome</em></td>
<td rowspan="2"><em>Total Number of Studies</em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em>Pro-SS</em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em>Pro-CE</em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em>Null</em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em>Mixed</em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Number of Studies</td>
<td>Percent</td>
<td>Number of Studies</td>
<td>Percent</td>
<td>Number of Studies</td>
<td>Percent</td>
<td>Number of Studies</td>
<td>Percent</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Long-term Adaptation and Socioemotional Development</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>20) School Completion</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>21) Postsecondary Success</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>22) Postsecondary Unemployment</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>23) Eating Disorders</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>24) Choice of College Major</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>25) Sex-Role Stereotyping</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>26) Political Involvement</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>27) Percent Married to First Spouse</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Subtotal</strong></td>
<td><strong>10</strong></td>
<td><strong>5</strong></td>
<td><strong>50%</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>20%</strong></td>
<td><strong>3</strong></td>
<td><strong>30%</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Perceived School Culture</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>28) Climate for Learning</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>29) Opportunities for Leadership Roles</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>30) School Environment</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Subtotal</strong></td>
<td><strong>4</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>50%</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0%</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>50%</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Subjective Satisfaction</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>31) Satisfaction with School Environment</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>32) College Satisfaction</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Subtotal</td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>50%</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>50%</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0%</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>TOTALS</td>
<td><strong>112</strong></td>
<td><strong>46</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>9</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>50</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>7</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

## Implications of Review

### Summary of Findings in Each Domain

#### Concurrent, quantifiable academic accomplishments 

In general, most studies reported positive effects for SS schools on
all-subject achievement tests. Studies examining performance on
mathematics, science, English, and social studies achievement tests
found similar findings with one caveat. Within each of these
subject-specific categories, roughly a third of all studies reported
findings favoring SS schools, with the remainder of the studies split
between null and mixed results. This minimal to medium support for SS
schooling applies to both males and females and in studies pertaining to
both elementary and high schools. The overall picture is split between
positive findings for SS schooling and no differences or null findings,
with little support for CE schooling. The one study that found
advantages for CE schooling found advantages for white females but not
for Asian or black females. Males continue to be underrepresented in
this realm of research.

#### Long-term, quantifiable academic accomplishment 

As opposed to concurrent indicators of academic achievement, any
positive effects of SS schooling on longer-term indicators of academic
achievement are not readily apparent. No differences were found for
postsecondary test scores, college graduation rates, or graduate school
attendance rates. However, all the findings in this domain came from a
pair of studies, indicating the lack of high-quality research on these
important criteria. Although some studies favor single-sex education in
the case of postsecondary test scores, there is a dearth of recent
studies using controls. There has been a similar lack of research on
other potential criteria in this domain, such as college grade point
average, meritorious scholarships or funding attained, postgraduate
licensure test scores, and any career achievement that could ostensibly
be tied to quality of schooling.

#### Concurrent, quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and socioemotional development 

This category includes a range of outcomes that are not easily grouped
together, and the results are mixed. Regarding self-concept and locus of
control, the studies are split between those showing positive effects
for SS schooling and those showing no differences. In the case of
self-esteem, a third of the studies supported CE schooling while half
found no difference. Given a recent extensive review concluding that
self-esteem's relationship to school success, occupational success,
better relationships, leadership, delinquent behavior, and other
desirable outcomes is modest to nonexistent, the implications of
findings regarding self-esteem appear complementary. Furthermore, CE
schooling only had a positive impact on the self-esteem of males.

Findings regarding school track and subject preferences were mixed, with
the overall weight of the findings lying somewhere between pro-SS
findings and no differences. A majority of studies favored SS schools on
the outcome of higher educational aspirations, as evidenced by SS
students showing more interest in and taking more difficult courses. SS
schools fostered higher educational and career aspirations for girls.
More studies emphasized the positive effect of SS schools on career
aspirations than CE schools for boys, but evidence regarding their
educational aspirations was mixed. A category called "attitudes toward
school" showing mixed results was actually a combination of single
studies using somewhat different outcome variables, thus reducing the
meaningfulness of the category. In terms of actual behaviors, a few
studies focused on delinquency, reporting differences in favor of SS
schools that were moderated by individual developmental differences.
What is lacking is a conceptual framework to tie together the myriad
academic-attitude outcome measures used in this realm so that studies
will be more directly comparable.

#### Long-term, quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and socioemotional development

The outcomes in this domain generally do not appear in more than one or
two studies that made it to Phase III review. Therefore, one must be
cautious in generalizing from these results. Having said that, the
results still suggest the potential that SS schooling could be
associated with a number of post--high school, long-term positive
outcomes. These include postsecondary success or participation in
collegiate activities while maintaining full-time enrollment for a
four-year period, reduced unemployment (males and females), reduced
propensity to drop out of high school (males and females), the choice of
a nontraditional college major (for females), and political activism
(for females). The sole exception is eating disorders; one study found
more SS students to have eating disorders than CE students.

#### Procedural (e.g., classroom treatment) and outcome measures of gender inequity 

This question could not be addressed because of a lack of any
quantitative studies that used gender equity as an outcome variable at
the school level. Any studies that compared SS and CE *classrooms*
within a CE school were outside the purview of this study and were not
reviewed.

#### Perceptual measures of the school climate or culture that may impact performance

This category includes a number of disparate, single-study results. One
of the two studies addressing leadership opportunities found more
opportunities for both males and females in SS schools; however, the
statistical significance of this finding depended on what other
variables had been controlled for. The other found that both males and
females in SS schools put more value on grades and leadership and less
on attractiveness and money. However, there remains a dearth of
high-quality empirical studies using this class of outcome variables as
criteria.

A final category of outcomes examined as a subset of culture was the
realm of subjective satisfaction of students, parents, and teachers with
the school environment. The one study in this review that found the
social environment more appealing in CE schools is a good case in point
in that the same study found that SS students are more interested in
grades and leadership and less interested in money and looks. Some
qualitative studies have looked at why certain parents prefer SS
schooling, and studies in other cultures have found mixed results
regarding teacher satisfaction with CE versus SS schooling. However, no
empirical studies comparing current parental satisfaction in equivalent
SS and CE schools were available for review using the stated guidelines.
There remains a lack of research both on this class of criteria and on
the relationship of subjective satisfaction to other more critical
criteria.

### Expected Outcomes Not Seen in the Review

Teenage pregnancy, college performance, differential treatment by
teachers, parental satisfaction, bullying in school, and teacher
satisfaction were among the many outcomes that we expected to see in the
review or that should be addressed but were not found in any included
study.

### General Trends

A few trends are apparent across all outcomes. The preponderance of
studies in areas such as academic accomplishment (both concurrent and
long term) and adaptation or socioemotional development (both concurrent
and long term) yields results lending support to SS schooling. A limited
number of studies throughout the review provide evidence favoring CE
schooling. It is more common to come across studies that report no
differences between SS and CE schooling than to find outcomes with
support for the superiority of CE. In terms of outcomes that may be of
most interest to the primary stakeholders (students and their parents),
such as academic achievement test scores, self-concept, and long-term
indicators of success, there is a degree of support for SS schooling.

The overwhelming majority of studies employ high school students, with a
small minority using elementary school students. The preponderance of SS
research has been conducted in Catholic SS schools in which students are
separated by sex only when entering adolescence. Therefore,
opportunities to study SS elementary or middle schools in either the
public or private sector have been limited.

There is also a pronounced tendency to study girls' schools more than
boys' schools: 76 studies compared SS and CE girls, and 20 of those
focused exclusively on girls. Of those 20, 18 were split evenly between
support for SS schooling and no differences (nine pro-SS and nine no
differences). The other two studies resulted in findings supporting CE
schooling. SS and CE schooling for boys was compared in 55 studies, of
which only three were studies exclusively devoted to boys' schools.

There is a dearth of quality studies (i.e., randomized experiments or
correlational studies with adequate statistical controls) across all
outcomes. Even using the more relaxed criterion of allowing
correlational studies, each outcome has only limited candidate studies.
Too few researchers report descriptive statistics or effect sizes.
Mathematics achievement test scores, English achievement test scores,
and school subject preference were the only outcomes to have 10 or more
qualifying studies. Even within these three categories, the studies
differ in the criteria they use and the statistical controls they use to
compare SS and CE schooling. This somewhat limits the arguments that can
be built and extended from this quantitative review and renders it
nearly impossible to conduct a meta-analysis on any outcome area. Many
of the remaining studies have other conceptual or interpretive flaws.
Many of the studies lacked well-developed hypotheses, and the hypotheses
were often not linked directly to the outcomes being studied.

The list of outcomes of interest needs to be expanded in future research
and defined more clearly. For example, outcomes such as teenage
pregnancy and bullying in school did not appear in a single study of
sufficient quality to be reviewed. Other outcomes that are implicit in
arguments for and against SS schooling need to be addressed explicitly.
These include work-related long-term outcomes such as job performance,
leadership performance, mixed-sex work team performance, performance and
leadership in volunteer associations, job involvement, and
organizational commitment. Few studies address important moderators,
that is, variables that may have differential effects for single-sex
schooling. For example, a number of authors have proposed that SS
schools are particularly effective for students of lower socioeconomic
status and perhaps specifically for those who are members of minority or
disadvantaged communities. Unfortunately, only three studies addressed
this moderator.

This review should not be interpreted as a condemnation of the work of
the dedicated researchers who have chosen to study SS-CE differences, as
they may not have been in a position to conduct a randomized experiment
on this topic. Such a study has yet to be conducted. However, it could
be argued that instead of trying to conduct only all-or-nothing studies
of whether SS schooling is better or worse than CE schooling, more
careful specification of hypotheses and direct linkage of hypotheses to
specific outcomes may show ways to also conduct smaller studies that
prove whether certain aspects of SS or CE schooling are beneficial.

Finally, there are limits to what a systematic review can accomplish
when an intervention is being judged by multiple criteria and all
stakeholders do not share the hierarchy of these criteria. Some issues
cannot be resolved by any type of research, even randomized experiments,
because they involve issues of philosophy and worldview and represent
the relative priorities of dueling stakeholders. There is no way to
resolve whether an outcome that is important to one stakeholder group,
such as parents, students, civil libertarians, and feminists on both
sides of the issue, should be accorded more weight than an outcome
valued by another group. What is possible is to separate out fact in the
form of evidence from fiction by converting as many claims as possible
to testable hypotheses and performing the necessary research. In this
way, the two parallel debates can be separated from each other. "Does SS
schooling benefit or harm the students, and in what ways?" can be
separated from "Is it worth it for society regardless of the benefits or
costs?" with each debated on its own merits.

These general implications of the review provide a stepping-stone for
future research through the continuation of quality research on extant
outcomes, the refinement of methodology, better statistical reporting,
and the expansion of the theoretical domain. If heeded, these
implications can improve the generalizations made about single-sex
schooling and coeducation.

# Introduction {#introduction .Chapter-Title}

Single-sex education refers most generally to schools at the elementary,
secondary, or postsecondary level in which males or females attend
school exclusively with members of their own sex. A related though
different phenomenon is single-sex classes, whereby schools that are
otherwise coeducational provide separate classes for males and females
in selected subjects for one or more years. This report focuses on
single-sex schools at the elementary and secondary levels.

For a number of decades, the question of whether public single-sex
education might be beneficial to males, females, or a subset of either
group (particularly disadvantaged youths) was mainly theoretical. As
described in this review, research on the question of whether public
single-sex education might be beneficial to males, females, or a subset
of either group (particularly disadvantaged youths) has been limited.
However, because in recent years there has been a resurgence of
single-sex schools in the public sector, it seems only fitting than an
unbiased systematic review of single-sex education research that is
interpretable and cognizant of other factors on the relationship between
single-sex schools and educational outcomes be conducted. Today, public
single-sex schools are operating in Albany, Boston, Philadelphia,
Chicago, New York, San Diego, Long Beach, Washington, Milwaukee,
Houston, Cincinnati, Toledo, Seattle, Louisville, East Palo Alto,
Hartford, and Baltimore.

A number of theoretical advantages to both coeducational (CE) and
single-sex schools (SS) have been advanced by their advocates (Dale,
1971, 1974; Fox-Genovese, 1991, 1994; Gilder, 1973; Kenway and Willis,
1986; Riordan, 2002), a subset of whom have focused specifically on the
potential benefits of SS schooling for disadvantaged males who have poor
success rates in the educational system (Hamilton, 1986; Hanson, 1959;
Levine, 1964; Sexton, 1969; Whitehead, 1994). The interpretation of
results of previous studies in the private sector or the public sectors
of other countries has been hotly debated (Kenway and Willis, 1986; Lee
and Bryk, 1986, 1989; Marsh, 1989; Riordan, 1985, 1990; Rowe, 1988;
Marsh and Rowe, 1996). As noted by Caspi (1995), "The extant
evidence―containing many contradictory conclusions―has been used to
support widely differing policy recommendations" (pp. 57--58).

A relatively recent review (Mael, 1998) concluded that there were
indications that SS schooling could be helpful for a range of desired
outcomes. However, he noted that a paucity of research on SS schooling,
especially for males, was an ongoing concern, as was the lack of
public-school studies in the United States. Moreover, no reviews on this
topic have been conducted using a systematic approach similar to that of
the Campbell Collaboration (CC) or the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC).
Thus, a systematic review is currently needed.

The objective of this review is to document the outcome evidence for or
against the efficacy of single-sex education as an alternative form of
school organization. The review summarizes what is known about the
effects of single-sex schooling. Benefits to students, especially those
from disadvantaged circumstances, as well as any evidence that such
schooling is not desirable for students, are reviewed. Critical and
systematic selection of the most valid quantitative studies available,
using an unbiased, transparent, and objective selection process adapted
from the standards of the WWC and the Campbell Collaboration, was chosen
as the review methodology.

Concurrently with this review of the quantitative literature, we
conducted a review of the qualitative literature on the subject of
single-sex schooling. Unlike quantitative studies, qualitative studies
do not contribute to the body of evidence on a subject. Rather, they
contribute to theory building and provide direction for hypothesis
testing. The primary focus of this paper is the systematic review of
quantitative research, and the vast majority of the high-quality
literature was empirical. However, because search activities were
conducted in parallel and diverged only afterward, we describe both
efforts in this paper.

The following are the major research questions addressed by the
systematic quantitative review:

1\. Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in
terms of concurrent, quantifiable academic accomplishments? Conversely,
are any adverse effects associated with single-sex schools in this
realm?

2\. Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in
terms of long-term, quantifiable academic accomplishment? Conversely,
are any adverse effects associated with single-sex schools in this
realm?

3\. Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in
terms of concurrent, quantifiable indicators of individual student
adaptation and socioemotional development? Conversely, are any adverse
effects associated with single-sex schools in this realm?

4\. Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in
terms of long-term, quantifiable indicators of individual student
adaptation and socioemotional development? Conversely, are any adverse
effects associated with single-sex schools in this realm?

5\. Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in
terms of addressing issues of procedural (e.g., classroom treatment) and
outcome measures of gender inequity? Conversely, are any adverse effects
associated with single-sex schools related to gender equity?

6\. Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in
terms of perceptual measures of the school climate or culture that may
have an impact on performance? Conversely, are any adverse effects
associated with single-sex schools in this realm?

# Review Methodology {#review-methodology .Chapter-Title}

A systematic review of literature on a topic consists of the following
steps:

1\. An exhaustive search of electronic databases for citations,
supplemented by other sources

2\. An initial Phase 1 exclusion of sources whose subject matter falls
outside the defined scope of the study

3\. A Phase 2 exclusion based on obvious methodological considerations
(e.g., nonstudy, weak study)

4\. A Phase III evaluation and coding of remaining articles

# Search Strategy

The first step in a systematic review is to conduct an exhaustive search
of the extant literature. Various search strategies were used to
identify relevant studies. First, we conducted an electronic search of
popular academic databases. Next, articles by authors mentioned by a
panel of subject-matter experts were obtained. Finally, we used the
Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) to locate any recent articles that
cited a small number of influential studies on this topic.

The electronic search strategy began by reviewing the following
databases: 1) ERIC, Educational Resources Information Center; 2)
PsycINFO; 3) Campbell Collaboration's C2-SPECTR (Social, Psychological,
Educational, and Criminological Trials Register); and 4) Dissertation
Abstracts International. Each electronic database was searched from 1988
to the present, except for C2-SPECTR because year limitations cannot be
set within that database. The following key words were used: Single Sex,
Single Gender, Same Sex, Same Gender, Separate Sex, Separate Gender,
Coeducation, Coeducational, and Mixed Sex. We selected 1988 as the
starting point because of the seminal pieces by Lee and Bryk (1986) and
Marsh (1989), which fueled the debate throughout the research community.
Still, it is important to note that our search was not limited to
studies published in 1988 or later. Studies from years prior to 1988
were collected from subsequent phases of searching, such as citation
searches in the Social Sciences Citation Index and three core review
publications.

The next phase of searching identified all citations in three core
publications containing relevant reviews of the literature: 1) the book
*Same, Different, Equal: Rethinking Single-Sex* *Schooling* by Rosemary
Salomone (2002); 2) *Gender in Policy and Practice: Perspectives on
Single-Sex and Coeducational Schooling,* a book of edited chapters by
Amanda Datnow and Lea Hubbard (2002); and 3) a review article by Fred
Mael (1998). All single-sex school research references from these
sources provided a baseline of most relevant articles and theoretical
arguments advanced for and against single-sex schooling. Any
supplemental references from these three sources were added to the list
of references compiled through the electronic databases.

The final phase of the search entailed using the SSCI to find all
articles that had cited any one of a few seminal pieces in the topic
area. Publications that cited these influential articles were then added
to, and crosschecked against, the database of references.

This search strategy across all phases yielded 2,221 studies. All
studies were then examined for inclusion in the quantitative review or
the qualitative review. Quantitative studies were included in the review
because of their ability to provide empirical evidence either for or
against single-sex schooling. Qualitative studies were included because
they could provide arguments or observations to be employed in the
theory-building process.

# Phases of Review

The review consisted of three review phases. In Phase I, it was
determined that study abstracts would be reviewed to make sure that the
subject matter of the study matched the topic of interest, the
population in question matched the desired population of interest (e.g.,
elementary, middle, and high school boys and girls in industrialized
countries where English was the recognized official language), and the
intervention (i.e., single-sex schooling and not single-sex classrooms
for certain subjects) was operationalized properly. In Phase II, study
abstracts were again reviewed to ensure that information decided upon in
Phase I was accurate based upon the complete studies in text. In Phase
II, if the abstract made it clear that statistical controls were not
applied, we dropped the study. Further, studies were coded in Phase II
to ensure that researchers controlled for preexisting student or
school-level differences (e.g., ability scores, socioeconomic status
\[SES\], or age). Finally, in Phase III the remaining studies were coded
for all criteria present in the Quantitative Coding Guide. If during the
initial screening of the study *texts* in Phase III, we found that
statistical controls were not applied, we ceased to review that study.
That and other criteria such as the inappropriate operationalization of
single-sex schooling (i.e., the use of single-sex classes in a coed
school) that would have merited exclusion at earlier stages were used at
the outset of Phase III.

## Phase I

In Phase I, an initial relevance screen of the 2,221 references obtained
from the literature search was performed. During this phase, studies
that were clearly not pertinent were coded for exclusion. In cases where
that information was unclear, studies were coded for inclusion rather
than exclusion. This initial screening yielded 379 publications that fit
the initial inclusion criteria.

Three criteria were used for exclusion in Phase I:

1\. *Subject matter*---Numerous papers with the key words in the title
were actually about same-sex marriages or other unrelated topics.

2\. *Population*---Studies that were considered for review were limited
to specific populations. Four criteria were used. The first was that the
students had to be enrolled in a full-time school, as opposed to a
summer camp or camping program. The second was that the students had to
be in elementary, middle, or high school. Studies pertaining to college
or beyond were excluded from further consideration. Third, studies had
to be written in English so as to be codable by the researchers, and
finally, the schools being studied had to be in Westernized countries so
that they were somewhat comparable to American public-sector schools.
Although a number of important studies have been conducted in other
countries, they were in schools deemed sufficiently different from
American schools to be not comparable. Studies that did not meet these
criteria were excluded regardless of their technical merit.

3\. *Intervention---*To be considered for the review, the single-sex
school had to be one in which students were either completely segregated
by sex or were completely segregated for all classes, even if colocated
in the same building (i.e., dual academies). Studies pertaining to
single-sex classes in a coeducational school were not considered for
further review.

## Phase II

In Phase II, the 379 citations that survived the Phase I screening were
reexamined. On the basis of abstracts and if necessary titles, citations
that were essays, reviews, opinion pieces, and similar items were
excluded and only qualitative and quantitative studies that were likely
to be codable in Phase III were retained.

A primary criticism of previous single-sex literature has been the
confounding of single-sex effects with the effects of religious values,
financial privilege, selective admissions, or other advantages
associated with the single-sex school being studied. Therefore, a study
had to include statistical controls to account for individual
differences (e.g., SES, individual ability, and age) as well as school
and class differences that might account for the differences between
single-sex and coeducational schools. Without accounting for these
differences by using statistical controls, a study would not be able to
distinguish between the effects of single-sex education or some other
extraneous influence. Such a study would not be a candidate for
inclusion in Phase III coding. Thus, if it was clear from the abstract
that no statistical controls were applied in a quantitative study
comparing the SS and CE schools, the study was dropped during Phase II.
If the abstract was unclear or intimated that there were appropriate
statistical controls, the study was retained. Where there was doubt
about inclusion, decisions were made in consultation with other research
staff members and the research team coordinator. At the end of Phase II,
102 studies that could be classified as either quantitative with
adequate controls (88) or qualitative (14) were culled from the 379
citations.

## Phase III

At the beginning of Phase III, the full texts of the 102 retained
studies were assembled and read and prepared for formal review using a
coding scheme that departed somewhat from the screening process used by
the WWC. According to the guidelines of the WWC, all studies other than
randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs with matching
(QED), or regression discontinuity designs would be excluded prior to
Phase III. For this review, a conscious decision was made to relax these
standards and include all correlational studies that employed
statistical controls. This was decided because of the lack of
experimental research on this topic. Under the WWC criteria for
inclusion, virtually all single-sex studies would have been eliminated
from the review process. Because we relaxed the WWC standards, we
greatly increased the number of candidates to be screened in Phase III.
We also used a coding scheme that was less time consuming than the WWC
coding scheme because of a shorter timeline. To code the large number of
studies, we developed a checklist requiring dichotomous responses rather
than descriptive responses, to facilitate rater decision-making.
Appendix 1 shows the quantitative checklist.

Other differences are that the checklist items require dichotomous
responses rather than quantitative or descriptive responses and are
written to facilitate rater decision-making. The WWC Design and
Implementation Assessment Device (DIAD) method uses a hierarchical
method, excluding and including studies at each step and culminating in
an accept or reject decision for each article. The WWC method of
selection is sensitive to each decision made at each hierarchical step
in the evaluation. Include or exclude decisions made at one step can
affect the yield significantly. The current checklist method does not
exclude a study on the basis of a single deficiency. The current coding
scheme and checklist that are less time consuming than the WWC coding
scheme were justified by the shorter timeline and the less-developed
body of literature in this study.

### Phase III Coding

A number of studies retained after Phase II based on their abstracts
proved to be unusable once the full text had been obtained. Thus, if it
was clear from the full text that no statistical controls were applied
in a quantitative study comparing the SS and CE schools, the study was
dropped during Phase III. Studies were excluded from further review for
other reasons as well even though the abstracts had seemed promising.
The research staff reviewed the full text of 88 quantitative studies at
the onset of Phase III. Of the 88 quantitative studies coded, 48 were
eliminated after further review. One reason for the exclusion of these
articles were 1) failure to operationalize the intervention properly
(e.g., single-sex classes for part of the day rather than single-sex
schooling). For example, in some cases authors purported to have
measured the impact of single-sex schooling when, in fact, this impact
could not be established given the fact that the school was not a
single-sex school with only one gender in the classroom for the entire
school day. Other reasons for exclusion include: 2) failure to apply
statistical controls during the analyses; 3) work that was actually
qualitative in nature rather than quantitative; 4) work written in a
foreign language; 5) failure to draw comparisons between SS and CE
schools; and 6) participants not of high school, middle, or elementary
school age (Appendix 3). In all, 40 studies met the inclusion criteria
and were retained in the quantitative review.

Two reviewers coded each study independently, using a quantitative
coding guide (Appendix 1). A quantitative study was coded for its
treatment of the following issues: 1) sample characteristics (i.e., Was
the sample randomly assigned to single-sex or coed conditions? Were
subjects from the same area? Were subjects matched by demographics or
other variables?); 2) psychometric properties, or the ability of a test
to accurately and reliably measure what it purports to measure (i.e.,
reliability assessed by means of internal consistency, test-retest, or
inter-rater methods; construct validity); 3) internal validity, or the
ability of a study to accurately answer the question it intended to
answer (i.e., differential statistical regression, proper alignment of
intervention, appropriate unit of measurement, intervention sensitivity,
attrition, or local history events); 4) effect, or the measured impact
of intervention on outcomes (i.e., Were means and standard deviations
reported? Was an effect size reported? Is the direction of the effect
interpretable?); and 5) bias, or a preference or an inclination,
especially one that inhibits impartial judgment (i.e., Was the study
published in a peer-reviewed journal? Were hypotheses properly
operationalized without biases?).

Scores for each checklist item were recorded to establish a consensus
regarding the treatment of key methodological issues. When discrepancies
occurred, they were resolved in team meetings. It is important to note,
however, that cumulative scores were not calculated and were not used to
rank studies or to exclude them from review. Summative scores did not
play a role in the review because there was no theoretical basis for
creating these summative scores as a tool for comparing studies.
Further, it is not useful at this time to compare studies given that all
studies with a score were included in the review. If a study was not
coded, it did not receive a score. In fact, it was considered premature
to assign any significance to a higher summative score on this checklist
and would be misleading without independent validation of the relative
importance of the dimensions. The individual items on the checklist and
their relative importance in determining the quality of the paper have
not been validated against an independent evaluation of study quality.
It would therefore be premature to assign each item equal weight in
evaluating the study. The checklist was used merely to provide a listing
of methodological issues addressed by researchers in the study. The only
methodological criterion that was used to exclude a study from
consideration was lack of statistical controls. Coding averaged one to
three hours per reviewer for each quantitative article (unpublished
quantitative dissertations generally required about four to five hours
per reviewer) and two hours per reviewer for each qualitative article.

## Validation of Evaluations

To confirm that we had accurately captured the intentions of the authors
whose papers we reviewed, we attempted to give these authors an
opportunity to comment on our summaries and evaluations of their work
and correct anything that we may have misinterpreted. We attempted to
contact all authors of the 40 quantitative papers reviewed in Phase III;
we were able to contact all but five authors, whose works on the topic
were primarily doctoral dissertations. To contact the authors of each
reviewed paper, we searched for their contact information in conference
directories of the American Educational Research Association (AERA),
used contact information taken directly from their papers (if
available), and searched for curricula vitae or any other citations on
the Internet. We provided the lead authors with the coding guide of the
papers and the paragraphs that we wrote summarizing the findings. We
gave them at least four weeks, or in some cases longer, to review and
comment (reminders were sent twice via e-mail), and we received comments
on 35 of the 40 studies[^1] that we were able to locate. The comments
and textual emendations received were very useful and have been
incorporated in this review where appropriate.

# The Qualitative Review

The role of qualitative research in determining the effectiveness of an
intervention has been all but eliminated by the WWC. The WWC position,
as noted in the DIAD (Version 1.0) (Valentine and Cooper, 2003), states:

> The fact that the Study DIAD focuses on research pertaining to the
> causal effects of educational interventions does not mean we believe
> that research designs meant to uncover causal relationships are the
> *only* tool that should be used by social scientists. Nor does it mean
> we believe that to be truly "scientific," social science must be
> limited to randomized trials. To the contrary, we believe that (a) no
> single method can be used to address all interesting and important
> questions about educational interventions and (b) even when causal
> relationships are of primary interest qualitative studies and
> quantitative surveys, among other types of research, yield important
> information about when, why, and how interventions work, and for whom.
> However, because of our mission our central focus, and the focus of
> the DIAD, is on research designs―such as experiments,
> quasi-experiments and regression discontinuity designs―that have as
> their primary purpose uncovering causal relationships (Shadish, Cook,
> and Campbell, 2002)."

Some members of the WWC community believe that the only evidence that a
qualitative study can provide is to qualify hypotheses for testing in
empirical studies. Others, as shown in the quotation above, believe that
qualitative studies can contribute other, unspecified forms of evidence.
However, for the current research question about the efficacy of SS
schooling, it appears that qualitative studies would not be able to
provide definitive *evidence,* defined narrowly as compelling evidence
that SS schooling is either helpful or harmful. The reason is that the
primary and most contentious issue among researchers has been whether
the SS and CE schools in a study have been comparable. Critics have
argued when a SS school has been superior, it is because the SS school
had superior characteristics unrelated to its single-sex status. These
could include a religious framework, private school status, a more
educated parent body, and a more select student body. Thus, controlling
statistically between two schools or school systems has been the only
way to establish whether SS schooling is superior on a "level playing
field."

Invariably, qualitative studies that do not collect empirical data about
the schools or the variables that they are studying will not be in a
position to control for possible preexisting differences when evaluating
their results. Even if the authors state that the schools are in the
same geographical area and appear to draw from the same populations, one
cannot guarantee that there are not subtle differences between the
parent bodies, the faculties, or other factors. For this reason,
qualitative studies, no matter how informative, would not be included in
Phase III of this study using the stated criteria. To be certain, papers
we have deemed to be quantitative often contain qualitative data. The
qualitative portions set the background for understanding the data and
put the data in the appropriate context and have value (Lipsey and
Wilson, 2001; Slavin, 1995). In summary, it is the focus of the question
that has mandated the choice of studies rather than a value judgment
about qualitative studies.

When we conducted our initial search, we included qualitative studies
among those citations that were not discarded. They were to be coded and
analyzed separately from the quantitative studies. To ensure that
valuable insights from the qualitative literature were not ignored or
discarded for failing to meet quantitative standards, a checklist
parallel to the one described was developed specifically for qualitative
studies. This qualitative checklist appears in Appendix 2.

The Qualitative Study Coding instrument was constructed by drawing on
the literature describing the characteristics of qualitative research
(Yin, 2002; Cho and Bero, 1994) and on draft qualitative evaluation
instruments from the WWC. The purpose of the instrument was not to
evaluate psychometric rigor. Because qualitative studies are not
statistical in nature, the characteristics of a good qualitative study
rest on the care with which the study is conceptualized and carried out.
The Qualitative Study Coding instrument consists of a series of items
that, if present, suggest that confidence can be placed in the data
obtained. The instrument cannot completely reflect the quality of
studies, since different studies have different circumstances that limit
the degree to which evidence of validity can be acquired, but it was
designed to capture a large part of the variance in quality.

Researchers in the area have developed criteria for conducting effective
qualitative research that are reflected in the checklist instrument.
Three key criteria, for instance, are triangulation, explanation
building, and reflexivity. Triangulation, in this case, is the use of
multiple data collection methods, data sources, investigators, and
theories to corroborate findings. Explanation building is the
explication of a systematic chain of reasoning and supporting evidence
in a study to demonstrate linkage between intervention and outcome.
Reflexivity is the inclusion of checks on theory development by allowing
researchers and participants to reexamine data and theory as they
develop.

A qualitative study was included in our review if it met the following
criteria: 1) it employed triangulation of data or the evidence of the
use of multiple data collection methods, data sources, investigators,
and theories (e.g., surveys, interviews, and observation); 2) the
authors attempted to build theoretical explanations from the
observations made (explanation building); 3) the authors exhibited
reflexivity, the tracking of one's thoughts over the course of the
study, by keeping a field journal of personal reflections; and 4) the
authors used a prolonged field experience to make observations.

One reviewer coded each qualitative study. The qualitative studies that
emerged from Phase II screening included a greater proportion of books
and dissertations than those obtained for quantitative review. Coding
averaged four hours for each qualitative citation. In Phase II, 14
qualitative papers were available for review. Of these, 10 were rejected
during the review process. The reasons for rejection were that 1) they
were review papers and not about specific situations; 2) the methods
used were largely quantitative; 3) they focused on gender equity and
gender consciousness issues, not on efficacy of single-sex schooling
instruction; and 4) they were about single-gender classes, not whole
schools, or they did not compare students in single-sex schools with
coed students. Of the four studies included in the review, two are books
(Shmurak, 1998; Streitmatter, 1999), one is a dissertation
(Svartoien-Conway, 2000) and one is a monograph (Datnow, Hubbard, and
Woody, 2001).

## Validation of Evaluations

To confirm that we had accurately captured the intentions of the authors
whose papers we reviewed, we attempted to give these authors an
opportunity to comment on our summaries and evaluations of their work
and correct anything that we may have misinterpreted. We attempted to
contact all authors of the four qualitative papers reviewed in Phase
III; we were able to contact all four authors. To contact the author(s)
of each reviewed paper, we searched for their contact information in
conference directories of the American Educational Research Association
(AERA), used contact information taken directly from their paper (if
available), and searched for curricula vitae or any other citations on
the Internet. We provided each lead author with the coding guide of the
papers and the paragraphs that we wrote summarizing the findings. We
gave them at least four weeks, or in some cases longer, to review and
comment (reminders were sent twice via e-mail), and we received comments
on one of the four studies that we were able to locate. The comments and
textual recommendations received were useful and have been incorporated
in this review where appropriate.

# Results {#results .Chapter-Title}

# The Quantitative Review

The results of the quantitative review will be framed by outcome. As a
result, a summary of findings regarding three comparisons will be
presented for each outcome: 1) Did the collective works present findings
in favor of single-sex schooling when compared with coeducational
schooling or vice versa?; 2) When considering males and females
separately, did the collective works present findings in favor of
single-sex schooling when compared with coeducational schooling or vice
versa?; and 3) When considering elementary school and high school
children separately, did the collective works present findings in favor
of single-sex schooling when compared with coeducational schooling or
vice versa? To report on the collective findings of researchers, we
emphasized computing the percentage of total studies examining a
specific outcome that found support for single-sex schooling, found
support for coeducational schooling, or did not find significant support
for either single-sex schooling or coeducational schooling (null
results). Ideally, we would have liked to provide an aggregate or
meta-analytic estimate of effect size; however, a host of researchers
did not provide an effect size estimate or the basic elements needed to
compute an effect size. Further, we did not compute effect sizes or
perform meta-analyses because the studies did not meet WWC standards for
evidence of causality. Consequently, the only option left for
summarizing findings on each outcome was to provide an estimate of the
general direction of the effects reported.

The review is organized around salient outcomes that have been used to
evaluate the efficacy of single-sex schools versus coeducational
schools. They can be grouped into seven broad categories:

1\. Concurrent, quantifiable academic accomplishment (e.g., class
grades, concurrent standardized test scores). Common examples are
mathematics and science achievement test scores because of their
tendency to be treated as "male subjects."

2\. Long-term, quantifiable academic accomplishment (e.g., postsecondary
grades, college and graduate school standardized test scores, completion
of postsecondary schooling, graduate school attendance). Other examples
included career success.

3\. Concurrent, quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation
and socioemotional development (e.g., self-esteem, school track and
subject preference). Locus of control, self-esteem, and interests in
subjects were the most common outcomes.

4\. Long-term, quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation
and socioemotional development (e.g., teenage pregnancy, dropping out of
school). Other indicators were eating disorders onset, juvenile
disciplinary actions, and career choice.

5\. Indicators of process (e.g., differential treatment by teachers in
the classroom) and outcome measures of gender inequity.

6\. Perceptual measures of the school climate or culture that may affect
performance (e.g., climate for learning, quality of teacher-student
interactions, opportunities for female leadership roles, perceived
bullying in school).

7\. Subjective satisfaction with the school experience by students,
parents, and teachers. Teacher satisfaction with student behavior in
single-sex schooling and parental satisfaction with schooling were the
major outcomes in this category.

A summary of findings for each outcome follows. To use this summary,
readers should turn to the specific outcome table (e.g., Table X) and
consider all the information provided. For instance, Table 1 (page 12)
provides a summary of findings for studies examining academic
achievement as an outcome. The first column is the citation. The second
column is a description of the study findings. The next columns present
a visual indication of findings for three comparisons: 1) single-sex
versus coeducation; 2) boys in single-sex schools versus boys in coed
schools; and 3) girls in single-sex schools versus coed schools. The
final two columns are an indicator of the age of the subjects used in
each study. A check mark (√) in any column represents a finding in favor
of the specific category in the comparison. A "Null" under any
comparison column refers to a null result or a lack of significant
differences between any two categories reported by the researchers. A
"Mixed" in any comparison column refers to a mixed result such as the
reporting of significant differences favoring both single-sex schooling
and coeducation for varying comparisons. For example, a "Mixed" would be
placed in the single-sex schooling versus coeducation comparison if
support was found for single-sex schooling in the case of boys and
support was found for coeducation in the case of girls. Further, results
can be mixed within any one of the categories of comparisons, such as
favoring single-sex in the 10th-grade sample and coeducation in the
12th-grade sample within a single study. Both single-sex and
coeducational schooling are supported under certain conditions leading
to a mixed result. If a study had findings that were both pro-SS and
null, it was coded a pro-SS; if the study had findings that were both
pro-CE and null, it was coded as pro-CE. Only studies with findings
favoring both single-sex and coeducation were coded as mixed. It is
important to note that "mixed" and "null" results should not be
considered negative results against single-sex or coeducation but rather
indicative of the need for more single-sex research on the given
outcome. Moreover, if a cell is left blank in any particular study, it
means that no reviewed studies tested this comparison. This is best
exemplified in the case of eating disorders, an outcome in which no
studies used male participants and, as such, no comparison between
single-sex males and coed males is reported. The text of the paper that
appears before each outcome table summarizes the preponderance of
evidence. The full references for each reviewed study and for those
studies rejected in Phase III appear in the references. The findings
across all outcomes are summarized in Table 33 and are also found in the
Executive Summary). The percentages in Table 33 should be treated with
caution when only 1-2 studies appear for that outcome

## Concurrent, Quantifiable Indicators of Academic Accomplishment

Proponents and opponents of SS education have proposed a range of
dimensions that might be affected by whether schooling is single-sex or
coed. One outcome of major interest for the purpose of this review is
all-subject achievement test scores, defined by composite scores on
standardized achievement tests in various subjects such as English,
science, social studies, and mathematics. Other outcomes that are
considered indicators of academic accomplishment might include test
scores on individual subject tests like mathematics achievement test
scores and grades. The following tables (Tables 1 to 6) refer to
short-term outcomes related to academic accomplishment.

### 

### All-Subject Achievement Test Scores

Traditionally, all-subject achievement test scores have been defined as
scores indicating the composite mastery of specific skills or scholastic
content areas (i.e., mathematics, verbal, science, etc.) acquired over a
restricted span of time (Murphy and Davidshofer, 2001). Of the nine
studies that examined the relationship between type of school and
overall all-subject achievement test scores, six (67 percent) reported
results supporting SS schooling, two (22 percent) found null results,
and one (11 percent) reported results supporting coeducation. When
comparing SS and CE for girls, five of eight (63 percent) studies
reported results supporting SS schooling, one study (13 percent)
reported null effects, and two studies (25 percent) reported results
supporting CE. When comparing SS and CE for boys, three of four studies
(75 percent) reported evidence in favor of single-sex schooling and one
(25 percent) reported null results. All nine studies examined the impact
of single-sex schooling versus coeducation using high school samples.
Only Garcia (1998) and Riordan (1990) examined the relationship between
ethnicity (African American, Asian, or white) and SS schooling versus
coeducation. Despite finding differences favoring coeducation for all
three groups, the author reports null differences between SS and CE
students when controlling for preexisting differences among African
Americans and Asians. In the case of white students, the differences
remain even after controlling for preexisting differences. Riordan
(1990) did report significant difference among whites, African American,
and Hispanic students in SS schools and those in coed schools.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 39%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-2all-subject-achievement-test-scores"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 2—All-Subject Achievement Test
Scores</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Carpenter and Hayden (1987)</td>
<td>Carpenter and Hayden (1987), in comparing SS Catholic versus CE
public high schools, found significant differences in all-subject
achievement test scores for girls; SS girls’ achievement score (SS mean:
61.879, sd = 10.337) was higher than that of CE girls (CE mean: 51.657,
sd = 11.676). Sex composition of schools predicted (significant)
all-subject achievement test scores of girls in SS schools (beta = .131,
R-square = .053). In the case of all-subject achievement test scores of
girls in CE schools, sex composition of schools did not predict (no)
all-subject achievement test scores (beta = .032, R-square = .032).</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 39%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6
id="table-2all-subject-achievement-test-scores-contd"
class="Tables-NO-TOC">Table 2—All-Subject Achievement Test Scores
(cont’d)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2) Caspi (1995)</td>
<td>Caspi (1995), when comparing SS school girls with CE high school
girls (Catholic and public), found significant differences in test
scores for one of two achievement tests: 1) School Certificate Form and
2) Sixth Form Examination (significant; beta = –.10). The relationship
is a moderated one. Early-maturing CE girls (significant; t = 2.2) and
late-maturing CE girls (significant; t = 2.5) performed less well than
their respective counterparts in SS schools. (n = 976).</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>3) Daly (1996)</td>
<td>Daly (1996) compared 10th-grade students in two cohorts attending SS
and CE schools in Northern Ireland and found no advantage for girls
attending SS schools in overall achievement on examinations in
mathematics and English. Parameters for multilevel modeling are reported
with no effect sizes.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>4) Garcia (1998)</td>
<td>Garcia (1998), when comparing SS versus CE schools (12th-grade
females in two public high schools) on overall SAT scores, found that
girls in CE schools had higher scores (SS mean: 941 vs. CE mean: 1027, p
&lt; .001 for black girls (n = 104); SS mean: 1003 vs. CE mean: 1138, p
&lt; .001 for white girls (n = 86); and SS mean: 939 vs. CE mean: 1120,
p &lt; .001 for Asian girls (n = 47)]. When controlling for initial
ability, SES, and quality of previous education, these differences
became null for Asian and black girls. However, when controls were made
in the analysis of white girls, the CE girls continued to have higher
SAT scores.</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5) Lee and Bryk (1986)</td>
<td>Lee and Bryk (1986), in a study using the High School and Beyond
data, found effects of attending SS high schools on achievement in
sophomore and senior years. Gain scores were overall positive, but
reached significance only in seven out of the 24 comparisons made. No
correction was made for multiple comparisons. Lee and Bryk present
evidence that in this situation, an effect size of .20 represents a full
year of extra learning.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>6) Marsh (1989)<sup>a</sup></td>
<td>Marsh (1989) compared achievement scores for seniors in Catholic SS
and Catholic CE schools. When controls for background variables were
introduced, almost no differences could be attributed to type of school,
and statistically significant differences did not consistently favor one
type of school over another.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>7) Riordan (1994)</td>
<td>Riordan (1994), in considering a large sample of black and Hispanic
Catholic high school students (N = 690), found significant effects
favoring SS schools on a set of cognitive tests (standardized d score =
0.21 and 0.21) when controlling for home background and initial
cognitive ability.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>8) Spielhofer, O’Donnell, Benton, Schagen, and Schagen (2002)</td>
<td>Spielhofer, O’Donnell, Benton, Schagen, and Schagen (2002), in
comparing students in SS versus CE high schools across England, found
mostly nonsignificant differences for males on all-subject achievement
test scores when using multilevel analyses and partialling out the
effects of prior academic attainment and school-level factors (using
16,868 males in boys-only schools and more than 100,000 males in CE
schools). However, they did find some significant performance gains for
students of lower prior all-subject achievement test scores in SS
schools. For females, many of the differences between students in SS and
CE schools on all-subject achievement test scores were significant in
favor of SS schools, using multilevel modeling and controlling for prior
attainment and school factors (including 23,477 females in girls-only
schools and more than 100,000 females in CE schools). The measured
difference was particularly striking for science scores, where females
in SS schools could be expected to score over one-third of a point (on
an eight-point scale) better than comparable students from CE schools.
Also, SS schooling appeared to particularly benefit females with lower
levels of previous academic attainment.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>9) Woodward, Fergusson, and Horwood (1999)</td>
<td>Woodward, Fergusson, and Horwood (1999), in comparing SS versus CE
high schools in New Zealand, found significant differences for males (SS
mean: 4.39 vs. CE mean: 2.37; p &lt; .0001 based on t-test) and
significant differences for females (SS mean: 4.65 vs. CE mean: 2.89; p
&lt; .0001) on School Certificate examinations (n = 657). Findings for
both sexes favored SS schools, and no sex by type of school interaction
was found. When parental background variables, previous school
behaviors, and previously measured cognitive ability were controlled,
students from SS schools still scored significantly higher, albeit to a
smaller degree (mean: 4.00 vs. 3.06; p &lt; .0001).</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

^a^ Marsh (1989) provided a series of statistical controls (e.g.,
school-related factors) that were applied beyond those prescribed in the
quantitative coding guide. It is important to note that many of the
findings reported failed to reach statistical significance after these
controls were employed. Independent reviewers did not report this
failure to reach significance because the controls at this secondary
level went beyond those that are normally employed and needed in SS
research.

### Mathematics Achievement Test Scores

Mathematics achievement test scores have been defined as an indicator of
composite mastery over the scholastic content-area skills required in
mathematics acquired over a restricted span of time. Of the 14 studies
that examined the impact of type of school on mathematics achievement
test scores, eight (56 percent) reported null results, three (22
percent) reported results supporting single-sex schooling, three (22
percent) reported mixed results, and none (0 percent) reported results
supporting coeducation for all students. When comparing single-sex
education and coeducation for girls, eight of 11 (73 percent) studies
reported null results, three (27 percent) studies reported results
supporting single-sex schooling, and no studies reporting results
supporting coeducation. When comparing single-sex and coeducation for
boys, four of nine studies (44 percent) reported null results, three (33
percent) reported finding evidence in favor of single-sex schooling, and
two (23 percent) reported results in favor of coeducation. All 14
studies used high school samples. Only one study also used an elementary
school sample, which yielded null results.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 40%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="13"><h6 id="table-3mathematics-achievement-test-scores"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 3—Mathematics Achievement Test
Scores</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="11">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th colspan="2">CE</th>
<th colspan="2"><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th colspan="2">SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Baker, Riordan, and Shaub (1995)</td>
<td>Mathematics Achievement Test Scores: Baker, Riordan, and Schaub
(1995) in comparing SS versus coed schools (High School: Public and
Private) found significant differences in Mathematics Achievement Test
Scores for males in SS schools versus those in CE schools in three
countries (Belgium, Thailand, and Japan). CE males scored higher on
Mathematics Achievement Test Scores than did SS males in the three
countries (Belgium: d = –0.74, Thailand: d = –3.21, Japan: d = –3.57).
There was no difference between SS males and CE males in terms of
Mathematics Achievement Test Scores in New Zealand. For girls, the
difference between math achievement in SS and CE schools was significant
in Thailand and Japan (d = 2.92 and d = –1.25, respectively). SS girls
performed higher in Thailand, and CE girls did better than their
counterparts in Japan. In the case of New Zealand and Belgium, the
differences were no. (n's = Belgium 2,714, New Zealand 1,152, Thailand
3,651, Japan 7,605). </td>
<td colspan="2">Mixed</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3">√</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2) Conway (1996)</td>
<td>Conway (1996), in comparing female seniors in one SS Catholic high
school versus one CE Catholic high school, found no differences (SS
mean: 471 vs. CE mean: 461; t = 1.07, p &gt; .05) on the SAT
mathematical reasoning section (n = 270). Also, when preexisting math
ability was accounted for (based on the High School Proficiency Test
[HSPT] score from freshman year), the differences between schools were
still not statistically significant. However, this study used just two
Catholic high schools in one local area, so these results should not be
generalized to other SS or CE schools.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 40%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="11"><h6
id="table-3mathematics-achievement-test-scores-contd"
class="Tables-NO-TOC">Table 3—Mathematics Achievement Test Scores
(cont’d)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="9">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="2">SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>3) Daly and Shuttleworth (1997)</td>
<td>Daly and Shuttleworth (1997), in comparing all-boys, all-girls, and
CE high schools in Ireland, found no differences in Mathematics
Achievement Test Scores among all types of schools when controlling for
covariates at the student level and the school level. In fact, the only
potentially significant result is that CE students tend to fare better
than all-boys school students on math achievement; however, the
difference is practically insignificant as pointed out by the
authors.</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td>√</td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>4) Harker (2000)</td>
<td>Harker (2000), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school
students from public and Catholic schools), found significant
differences in Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for students (SS
mean: 31.08 vs. CE mean: 29.24; n = 622 vs. 1209; t = –1.84) where SS
students scored higher on Mathematics Achievement Test Scores than CE
students. Mathematics Achievement Test Scores on a later test differed
significantly in favor of SS students (n = 533; SS mean: 52.57; t =
–3.86), who scored higher than did CE students (n = 1,031; CE mean:
48.71). When adjustments were made for prior achievement, SES, and
ethnic differences, the achievement differences were no longer
significant.</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5) Harker and Nash (1997)</td>
<td>Harker and Nash (1997), in comparing SS versus CE secondary schools,
found significant differences for females on math scores (CE mean: 29.24
vs. SS mean: 31.08, p &lt; .01, based on t-test; n = 1,831). However,
this significant difference disappeared when SES, initial ability, and
ethnic group were considered. Males were not considered in this
analysis.</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>6) Lee and Bryk (1986)</td>
<td>Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond
data, found girls in SS high schools had no significant differences in
Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for sophomores, seniors, or gain
scores between sophomores and senior years, when compared with girls in
CE schools. All effects were calculated including adjustments for
personal and family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic
background and orientation, school social context, and academic
curricular track. This study also showed that boys in SS schools had
significantly higher Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for sophomores
(<em>d</em> = .26) and seniors (<em>d</em> = .18), but not for gain
scores, when compared with boys in CE high schools.</td>
<td colspan="2">√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>7) Lee and Lockheed (1990)</td>
<td>Lee and Lockheed (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools
(ninth-graders in Nigeria), found significant differences on Mathematics
Achievement Test Scores for males (beta = –.11; p &lt; .05; n = 785) and
significant differences on Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for
females (Beta = .12; p &lt; .05; n = 227), when controlling for student
and school characteristics. These results indicate that SS schools
positively affect Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for girls and
negatively affect Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for boys.</td>
<td colspan="3">Mixed</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>8) Lee and Marks (1990)</td>
<td>Lee and Marks (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (SS Catholic
vs. CE public high schools) on differences in Mathematics Achievement
Test Scores, found no differences between SS male students (n = 328) and
CE male students (n = 262); SS males scored higher than CE males (d =
0.08). No differences were found when comparing SS females (n = 335)
with CE females (n = 337); SS females scored lower than CE females (d =
–0.07).</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>9) LePore and Warren (1987)</td>
<td>LePore and Warren (1987), in comparing SS Catholic high schools
versus CE public high schools, found significant differences in
Mathematics Achievement Test Scores in grade 8 for males (n = 159) (SS
mean: = 43.19, sd = 9.92 vs. CE mean: 39.24, sd = 10.86)). They found no
differences in Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for females (n = 140)
in grade 8 (SS mean: 39.72, sd = 11.60 vs. CE mean: 39.85, sd = 9.90).
In grade 10, Mathematics Achievement Test Scores of SS males differed
significantly from that of CE males (SS mean: 53.06, sd = 10.45 vs. CE
mean: 48.81, sd = 10.70) and there was no difference between Mathematics
Achievement Test Scores of SS and CE females (SS mean: 49.11, sd = 13.23
vs. CE mean: 48.91, sd = 11.05). In grade 12, Mathematics Achievement
Test Scores of SS males differed significantly from that of CE males (SS
mean: 58.54, sd = 10.45 vs. CE mean: 54.94, sd = 11.47) and there was no
difference between Mathematics Achievement Test Scores of SS and CE
females (SS mean: 54.28, sd = 14.63 vs. CE mean: 53.95, sd = 11.32). In
terms of gain scores from grade 8 to grade 12, Mathematics Achievement
Test Scores differences between SS males and CE males were no (SS mean:
15.35, sd = 20.37 vs. CE mean: 15.70, sd= 22.32) and there was no
difference between Mathematics Achievement Test Scores of SS and CE
females (SS mean: 14.55, sd = 26.24 vs. CE mean: 14.10, sd = 21.22).
Grade 8 scores served as a control for preexisting achievement
differences.</td>
<td colspan="2">√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>10) Marsh (1991)</td>
<td>Marsh (1991), in comparing CE Catholic high schools versus SS
Catholic high schools while statistically controlling for background
variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in
mathematic achievement in Year 10 between public schools versus Catholic
SS schools (SS Catholic mean: 27.41, sd = 11.56 vs. CE Catholic mean:
26.59, sd = 11.54). In Year 12, when comparing Catholic SS schools
versus Catholic CE schools, the difference was not significant (SS
Catholic mean: 31.94, sd= 12.55 vs. CE Catholic mean: 26.59, sd =
11.54). (N=10,507).</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>11) Marsh, Smith, Marsh, and Owens (1988)</td>
<td>Marsh, Smith, Marsh, and Owens (1988), in comparing two SS high
schools that transitioned to two CE high schools, found no differences
for males and females between pre- and posttransition. The
characteristics of the sample included in this study are unclear. Over
the four-year period of transition, math achievement scores were not
different when accounting for background and growth.</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>12) Riordan (1985)<sup>a</sup></td>
<td>Riordan (1985), in comparing SS versus CE schools (Catholic SS high
schools, Catholic CE high schools, and public CE high schools), found
significant differences in Mathematics Achievement Test Scores, such
that Catholic SS students performed better on math tests than public CE
students (Catholic SS vs. public CE = .26 sds) (n = 22,652). In the case
of males, no differences were found for math achievement such that
Catholic SS students outperformed public CE students on math achievement
tests (Catholic SS vs. public CE = .19). For females, there was a
significant difference in math test scores; Catholic SS students
outperformed public CE students (Catholic SS vs. public CE = .28).</td>
<td>√</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>13) Riordan (1990)</td>
<td>Riordan (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (Catholic high
schools) found significant differences in Mathematics Achievement Test
Scores where at-risk males in SS schools outperformed at-risk males in
CE schools (sd = 1.5) when controlling for initial ability, race, and
home background (n = 200–283). No differences were found for at-risk
females.</td>
<td colspan="3">Mixed</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>14) Young and Fraser (1992)<sup>b</sup></td>
<td>Young and Fraser (1992), in comparing SS versus CE schools (level:
14-year-olds in middle or high school; public, private, and Catholic) on
scores on a national Australian physics test, found no differences for
males (n = 2,353, SS n = 581, CE n = 1,977) and no differences for
females (n = 2,565, SS n = 426, CE n = 1,919). The control variables,
such as SES, were found to be more significant differentiators.</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

> ^a^ This paper does not report statistical significance opting to
> present the results as effects sizes (standard deviation units or
> sdu). At that time (1985), this was a popular way to present school
> effects.

^b^ In Young and Fraser (1992) the authors suggest that the physics test
used for achievement was a science test; however, in reading their
description the independent reviewers came to an agreement that the test
was indeed a test of mathematics skills. The reason for this is that the
test used is described as one that requires students to use physics
formulas provided for them and does not require any application of
theory.

### Science Achievement Test Scores

Science achievement test scores have been defined as an indicator of
composite mastery over the scholastic content-area skills required in
sciences acquired over a restricted span of time. Of the eight studies
that examined the relationship between type of school and science
achievement test scores, five (62 percent) reported null results, two
(25 percent) reported results supporting single-sex schooling, and one
(13 percent) reported mixed findings. When comparing single-sex and
coeducation for girls, three of five (60 percent) studies reported null
results, and two (40 percent) study reported results supporting
single-sex schooling. When comparing single-sex and coeducation for
boys, one study (33 percent) of three reported evidence in favor of
single-sex schooling, and the others (67 percent) reported null
findings. All eight studies used high school samples.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 43%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><h6 id="table-4science-achievement-test-scores"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 4—Science Achievement Test
Scores</h6></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2">Authors</td>
<td rowspan="2">Study Findings</td>
<td colspan="8">Advantage to:</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>SS</td>
<td>CE</td>
<td><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></td>
<td><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></td>
<td>SS females</td>
<td>CE females</td>
<td>Elementary</td>
<td>High School</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1) Daly (1995)</td>
<td>Daly (1995), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school and
elementary; public, private, and Catholic; in Northern Ireland and
Wales) found no differences in science course achievement for students.
(b = -.38, n.s. and b = .61, n.s.) (N = 1,837).</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2) Harker (2000)</td>
<td>Harker (2000), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school
students from public and Catholic schools), found significant
differences in science achievement for students (SS mean: 44.09 vs. CE
mean: 39.85; n = 679 vs. 1,251; t = –4.23) where SS students scored
higher on science achievement tests than CE students. Science
achievement scores on a later test differed significantly in favor of SS
students (n = 550; 55.26; t = -2.73) who scored higher than did CE
students (n = 1,048; 52.53). When adjustments were made for prior
achievement, SES, and ethnic differences, the achievement differences
were no longer significant.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>3) Harker and Nash (1997)</td>
<td>Harker and Nash (1997), in comparing SS versus CE secondary schools,
found significant differences for females on science scores (CE mean:
39.85 vs. SS mean: 44.09, p &lt; .01; n = 1,930). However, this
significant difference disappeared when SES, initial ability, and ethnic
group were considered. Males were not considered in this analysis.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 43%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="13"><h6 id="table-4science-achievement-test-scores-contd"
class="Tables-NO-TOC">Table 4—Science Achievement Test Scores
(cont’d)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="11">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th colspan="2"><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th colspan="2">CE females</th>
<th colspan="2">Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>4) Lee and Bryk (1986)</td>
<td>Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond
data, found girls in SS high schools had no differences in science
achievement scores for sophomores and seniors, but had significantly
better gain scores (<em>d</em> = .20) between sophomore and senior
years, when compared with girls in CE schools. All effects were
calculated including adjustments for personal and family backgrounds,
religious characteristics, academic background and orientation, school
social context, and academic curricular track. For boys in SS schools,
there were no differences in sophomore scores, senior scores and gain
scores, when compared with boys in CE schools.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td>√</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5) LePore and Warren (1987)</td>
<td>LePore and Warren (1987), in comparing SS Catholic versus CE public
high schools, found significant differences in science achievement in
grade 8 for males (n = 159) (SS mean = 21.59, sd = 4.40 vs. CE mean:
19.95, sd = 4.41). They found no differences in science achievement for
females (n = 140) in grade 8 (SS mean: 19.54, sd = 4.78 vs. CE mean:
19.37, sd = 4.01). In grade 10, science achievement of SS males differed
significantly from that of CE males (SS mean: 24.83, sd = 5.36 vs. CE
mean: 22.80, sd = 5.37) and there was no difference between science
achievement of SS and CE females (SS mean: 22.66, sd = 5.63 vs. CE mean:
23.12, sd = 4.92). In grade 12, science achievement of SS males did not
differ significantly from that of CE males (SS mean: 27.15, sd = 5.67
vs. CE mean: 25.93, sd = 5.14) and there was no difference between
science achievement of SS and CE females (SS mean: 24.01, sd = 5.78 vs.
CE mean: 24.85, sd = 4.95). In terms of gain scores from grade 8 to
grade 12, science achievement differences between SS males and CE males
were no (SS mean: 5.57, sd = 10.07 vs. CE mean: 5.98, sd = 9.55) and
there was no difference between science achievement of SS and CE females
(SS mean: 4.48, sd = 10.57 vs. CE mean: 5.48, sd = 8.96) .</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>6) Marsh (1991)</td>
<td>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic
high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such
as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in science
achievement in Year 10 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic
schools (Catholic SS mean: 10.04, sd = 4.06 vs. Catholic CE mean: 10.24,
sd = 3.95). In Year 12, science achievement differences were no when
comparing Catholic SS schools versus Catholic CE schools (Catholic SS
mean: 11.40, sd = 4.01 vs. Catholic CE mean: 11.17, sd = 4.01). (N =
10,507).</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>7) Proach (2000)</td>
<td>Proach (2000) compared females in SS versus CE Catholic schools
(10th grade) and found significant differences on a standardized biology
examination for pretest scores (SS mean: 27.88 vs. CE mean: 34.83) and
posttest scores (SS mean: 35.56 vs. CE mean: 40.17). However, when
pretest scores were accounted for, there was no difference in the
learning of biology between types of schools. Despite these results, it
is important to note that this study used a total of just 48 students
from one SS school and two CE schools; these factors severely limit the
value of the study and any conclusions that can be made from it.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>8) Riordan (1990)</td>
<td>Riordan (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (Catholic high
schools) found significant differences in science achievement, such that
white females in SS schools outperformed white females in CE schools (.9
sds) when controlling for initial ability and home background (n =
477-619). Senior-year test scores were significantly different, such
that SS at-risk girls outperformed CE at-risk girls (1.5 sds) when
controlling for only initial ability, race, and home background.</td>
<td colspan="2">Mixed</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td>√</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

###  

### Verbal and English Achievement Test Scores

Verbal and English achievement test scores has been defined as an
indicator of composite mastery over the scholastic content-area verbal
skills required in English (i.e., reading, phonics, and writing)
acquired over a restricted span of time. Of the ten studies that
examined the relationship between type of school and verbal achievement
test scores, seven (70 percent) reported null results and three (30
percent) reported results supporting single-sex schooling. When
comparing single-sex and coeducation for girls, six of eight (75
percent) studies reported null results, one study (12.5 percent)
reported mixed results, and one study (12.5 percent) reported results
supporting single-sex schooling. When comparing single-sex and
coeducation for boys, three of six (50 percent) studies reported null
results, two of six studies (33 percent) reported finding evidence in
favor of single-sex schooling, and one (17 percent) reported mixed
findings. All ten studies used high school samples.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 42%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><h6 id="table-5verbal-and-english-achievement"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 5—Verbal and English
Achievement</h6></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2">Authors</td>
<td rowspan="2">Study Findings</td>
<td colspan="8">Advantage to:</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>SS</td>
<td>CE</td>
<td><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></td>
<td><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></td>
<td>SS females</td>
<td>CE females</td>
<td>Elementary</td>
<td>High School</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1) Conway (1996)</td>
<td>Conway (1996), in comparing female seniors in one SS Catholic high
school versus one CE Catholic high school, found no differences (SS
mean: 511 vs. CE mean: 499; t = 1.17, p &gt; .05) on the SAT verbal
reasoning section (n = 270). Also, when preexisting verbal ability was
accounted for (based on the High School Proficiency Test (HSPT) score
from freshman year), the differences between schools were still not
statistically significant. However, it is important to note that these
results are based on just two Catholic high schools in one local area,
so these results should not be generalized to other SS or CE
schools.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2) Harker (2000)</td>
<td>Harker (2000), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school
students from public and Catholic schools), found significant
differences in English achievement for students (SS mean: 71.41 vs. CE
mean: 68.19; SS n = 674 vs. CE n = 1251; t = –3.22) where SS students
scored higher on English achievement tests than CE students. English
achievement scores on a later test differed significantly in favor of SS
students (n = 646; SS mean: 57.81; t = –4.09) who scored higher than did
CE students (n = 1271; CE mean: 53.73). When adjustments were made for
prior achievement, SES, and ethnic differences, there were no
differences in achievement.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 41%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="11"><h6 id="table-5verbal-and-english-achievement-contd"
class="Tables-NO-TOC">Table 5—Verbal and English Achievement
(cont’d)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="9">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="2">SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>3) Harker and Nash (1997)</td>
<td>Harker and Nash (1997), in comparing SS versus CE secondary schools,
found significant differences for females on English scores (CE mean:
68.19 vs. SS mean: 71.41, p &lt; .01; n = 1,925). However, this
significant difference disappeared when SES, initial ability, and ethnic
group were considered. Males were not considered in this analysis.</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>4) Lee and Bryk (1986)</td>
<td><p>Lee and Bryk (1986), in a study using the High School and Beyond
data, found girls in SS high schools had no differences in sophomore
reading scores, significantly better senior reading scores (<em>d</em> =
.21) and significant improvement in reading gain scores between
sophomore and senior years (<em>d</em> = .14) when compared with girls
in CE schools. All effects were calculated including adjustments for
personal and family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic
background and orientation, school social context, and academic
curricular track. Boys in SS schools had significantly higher reading
scores than those in CE schools as sophomores (<em>d</em> = .20), but
only higher scores for seniors and for gain scores.</p>
<p>Lee and Bryk (1986), in a study using the High School and Beyond
data, found girls in SS high schools had no differences in writing
achievement for sophomores, seniors and gain scores between sophomore
and senior years when compared with girls in CE schools. All effects
were calculated including adjustments for personal and family
backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and
orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. Boys
in SS high schools had higher writing achievement scores in the
sophomore year (<em>d</em> = .24) when compared with boys in CE schools,
but not for seniors or gain scores.</p></td>
<td>√</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">Mixed</td>
<td colspan="2">Mixed</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5) Lee and Marks (1990)</td>
<td>Lee and Marks (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (Catholic)
for differences in verbal achievement, found no differences between SS
male students and CE male students such that SS males scored slightly
higher than CE males (d = –0.01) (n = 732). No differences were found
when comparing SS females (n = 335) with CE females where SS females
scored slightly lower than CE females (d = –0.06) (n = 801).</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>6) LePore and Warren (1987)</td>
<td>LePore and Warren (1987), in comparing SS Catholic versus CE public
high schools, found no differences in verbal achievement for females (n
= 140) in grade 10 (SS mean: 31.93, sd = 7.67 vs. CE mean: 31.51, sd =
7.82). In grade 10, verbal achievement of SS males differed
significantly from that of CE males (SS mean: 35.57, sd = 8.15 vs. CE
mean: 32.81, sd = 8.78), and there was no difference between verbal
achievement of SS and CE females (SS mean: 35.17, sd = 9.86 vs. CE mean:
35.58, sd = 8.22). In grade 12, verbal achievement of SS males differed
significantly from that of CE males (SS mean: 37.96, sd = 7.93 vs. CE
mean: 35.45, sd = 9.07) and there was no difference between verbal
achievement of SS and that of CE females (SS mean: 38.84, sd = 7.47 vs.
CE mean: 39.03, sd = 8.10). In terms of gain scores from grade 8 to
grade 12, verbal achievement differences between SS males and CE males
were no (SS mean: 6.78, sd = 16.03 vs. CE mean: 6.74, sd = 17.82), and
there was no difference between verbal achievement of SS and CE females
(SS mean: 6.91, sd = 15.13 vs. CE mean: 7.52, sd = 15.92). Grade 8
achievement scores were used to control for preexisting differences.
When using this control variable, only SS boys demonstrated higher
achievement.</td>
<td colspan="2">√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>7) Marsh (1991)</td>
<td><p>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE
Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background
variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in
reading achievement in Year 10 between SS Catholic schools and CE
Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: 9.13, sd = 4.36 vs. Catholic CE
mean: 8.22, sd = 4.52). In Year 12, reading achievement differences were
no when comparing Catholic SS schools versus Catholic CE schools
(Catholic SS mean: 10.83, sd = 4.53 vs. Catholic CE mean: 9.92, sd =
4.71). (N = 10,507).</p>
<p>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic
high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such
as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in writing
achievement in Year 10 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic
schools (Catholic SS mean: 10.89, sd = 4.24 vs. Catholic CE mean: 10.33,
sd = 4.58). In Year 12, writing achievement differences were no when
Catholic SS schools versus Catholic CE schools (Catholic SS mean: 12.77,
sd = 3.82 vs. Catholic CE mean: 12.16, sd = 4.16). (N = 10,507).</p>
<p>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic
high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such
as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in vocabulary
achievement in Year 10 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic
schools (Catholic SS mean: 11.65, sd = 4.76 vs. Catholic CE mean: 8.95,
sd = 5.28). In Year 12, reading achievement differences were no Catholic
SS schools versus Catholic CE schools (Catholic SS mean: 14.28, sd =
4.41 vs. Catholic CE mean: 13.46, sd = 4.74). (N = 10,507).</p></td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>8) Marsh et al. (1988)</td>
<td>Marsh, Smith, Marsh, and Owens (1988), in comparing two SS high
schools that transitioned to two CE high schools, found no significant
differences between males and females (F (1, 367) p&gt; .05) between
pre- and posttransition.</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>9) Riordan (1985)</td>
<td>Riordan (1985), in comparing SS versus CE schools (Catholic SS high
schools and Catholic CE high schools) found significant differences in
vocabulary achievement, such that Catholic SS students perform better on
vocabulary tests than either Catholic CE students or public CE students
(Catholic SS vs. Catholic CE = .22 sds; Catholic SS vs. public CE = .43
sds) (n = 22,652). In the case of males, significant differences were
found for vocabulary achievement such that Catholic SS students
outperformed public CE students on vocabulary achievement tests
(Catholic SS vs. public CE = .32 sds). For females, there was a
significant difference in vocabulary test scores; Catholic SS students
outperformed public CE students (Catholic SS vs. public CE = .50 sds).
Riordan also found significant differences in reading achievement
scores; Catholic SS students performed better on reading tests than
either Catholic CE students or public CE students (Catholic SS vs.
Catholic CE = .14 sds; Catholic SS vs. public CE = .31 sds). In the case
of males, no differences were found for reading achievement. For
females, there was a significant difference in vocabulary test scores
where Catholic SS students outperformed public CE students (Catholic SS
vs. public CE = .48 sds).</td>
<td colspan="2">√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>10) Woodward et al. (1999)</td>
<td>Woodward, Fergusson, and Horwood (1999), in comparing SS versus CE
high schools in New Zealand, found significant differences for males (SS
mean: 100.29 vs. CE mean: 94.33; p &lt; .0001) and significant
differences for females (SS mean: 101.84 vs. CE mean: 96.32; p &lt;
.0001) on the Burt Word Reading Test (n = 657). Findings for both sexes
favored SS schools, and no sex by type of school interaction was found.
However, when parental background variables, previous school behaviors,
and previously measured cognitive ability were controlled, the
difference between schools was virtually nonexistent (SS mean: 97.8 vs.
CE mean: 97.6; p &gt; .05).</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Grades

Grades have long served as a measure of a student's performance across
all types of schooling. One study examined the impact of type of school
on grades and reported null results. This study did not make comparisons
on the basis of sex. The sample consisted of high school students.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-6grades" class="Tables unnumbered">Table
6—Grades</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Marsh (1991)</td>
<td>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic
high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such
as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in grades in Year
10 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS
mean: 5.95, sd = 1.42 vs. Catholic CE mean: 5.88, sd = 1.44). In Year
12, grade differences were no when Catholic SS schools versus Catholic
CE schools (Catholic SS mean: 6.11, sd = 1.32 vs. Catholic CE mean:
6.01, sd = 1.34). (N = 10,507).</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Social Studies Achievement Test Scores

Social studies achievement test scores have been defined as an indicator
of composite mastery over the scholastic content-area verbal skills
required in civics (i.e., social studies, government, civics, and
history) acquired over a restricted span of time. One study examined the
relationship between type of school and social studies achievement test
scores and reported results favoring single-sex schooling. This study
reported results favoring single-sex schooling for girls and null
findings when comparing boys in SS and CE schools. The sample consisted
of high school students.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-7social-studies-achievement-test-scores"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 7—Social Studies Achievement Test
Scores</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Riordan (1990)</td>
<td>Riordan (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (Catholic high
schools), found significant differences in civics achievement, such that
white females in SS schools outperformed white females in CE schools (.6
sds) when controlling for initial ability and home background (n =
477–619). Senior-year test scores were significantly different: SS
at-risk girls outperformed CE at-risk girls (1.9 sds) when controlling
for only initial ability, race, and home background. It should be noted
that this significant difference becomes no when controlling for course
work, preparatory track, homework, and adolescent subculture as
represented by the formal structure of the school. No differences were
found in males.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

## Long-Term, Quantifiable Academic Accomplishment

Long-term, quantifiable indicators of academic accomplishment are
outcomes that provide some indication of the protracted effects of
attending a single-sex high school. Proponents of single-sex schooling
have long argued that postsecondary test scores, college graduation
rates, and graduate school attendance are higher for students in
single-sex schools because the single-sex experience provides an
academic subculture focused on achievement and studying. Presumably,
this would train students to work hard and focus on academic achievement
even after they leave the single-sex school. The following tables
(Tables 7 to 9) represent all findings reviewed for this type of
outcome. It is important to note that all of these findings came from
single studies by Marsh (1989) and Riordan (1990), so this clearly is an
underresearched outcome of single-sex schooling.

### Postsecondary Test Scores

Postsecondary test scores can be operationalized as scores on
standardized tests such as the Graduate Record Examination, the Graduate
Management Admissions Test, the Medical College Admissions Test, and the
Law School Admissions Test, all of which are measured in a collegiate
setting after secondary schooling. This is a long-term outcome as
opposed to all prior outcomes. Two studies examined the relationship
between the type of school and postsecondary test scores. One reported
findings favoring single-sex schooling and the other reported null
results. Only one study made comparisons on the basis of sex with
results favoring single-sex girls and boys. In both studies, the sample
consisted of high school students.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="11"><h6 id="table-8postsecondary-test-scores"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 8—Postsecondary Test Scores</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="9">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="2">SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Marsh (1989)</td>
<td>Marsh (1989) compared postsecondary test scores for seniors in
Catholic SS and Catholic CE schools. When controls for background
variables were introduced, almost no differences could be attributed to
type of school, and statistically significant differences did not
consistently favor one type of school over another.</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2) Riordan (1990)</td>
<td>Riordan (1990) compared postsecondary test scores for seniors in SS
Catholic and CE Catholic high schools. When controlling for SES, initial
ability, and prior education, Riordan found significant differences in
verbal and mathematics test scores between SS and CE girls. When
controlling for SES, initial ability, and prior education, Riordan found
significant differences in mathematics ability between SS and CE
boys.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### College Graduation

College graduation has been used as a long-term measure of success for
students. Further, it has been used as a long-term outcome in the
arguments both for and against single-sex schooling. One study examined
the relationship between type of school and college graduation and
reported null results. This study did not make comparisons based on sex.
The sample consisted of high school students.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-9college-graduation"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 9—College Graduation</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Marsh (1989)</td>
<td>Marsh (1989) compared college graduation for seniors in Catholic SS
and Catholic CE schools. When controls for background variables were
introduced, almost no differences could be attributed to type of school,
and statistically significant differences did not consistently favor one
type of school over another.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Graduate School Attendance

Graduate school attendance has long been used as a long-term measure of
success for students. Further, it is has been used as a long-term
outcome in the arguments both for and against single-sex schooling. One
study examined the relationship between type of school and graduate
school attendance and reported null results. This study did not make
comparisons on the basis of sex. The sample consisted of high school
students.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-10graduate-school-attendance"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 10—Graduate School Attendance</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Marsh (1989)</td>
<td>Marsh (1989) compared graduate school attendance for seniors in
Catholic SS and Catholic CE schools. When controls for background
variables were introduced, almost no differences could be attributed to
type of school, and statistically significant differences did not
consistently favor one type of school over another.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

##  

## Concurrent, Quantifiable Indicators of Individual Student Adaptation and Socioemotional Development

A number of attitudinal and socioemotional outcome measures are of
interest as well. These include school track and subject preference
(e.g., school subject preferences and course enrollment) and higher
academic aspirations, self-reported delinquency, locus of control,
perceived cognitive competence, reduced stereotypical attitudes toward
one's own and opposite sex, and self-esteem. Proponents of single-sex
education have argued that students of single-sex schools develop higher
aspirations for academics and careers while building healthier
self-images about competence, control, and abilities. The following
tables (Tables 10 to 19) represent the summarized findings for these
outcomes.

### Self-Concept

The consensus among researchers is that self-concept can be defined as
"the totality of a complex, organized, and dynamic system of learned
beliefs, attitudes and opinions that each person holds to be true about
his or her personal existence" (Purkey, 1970, pp. 15). Of the seven
studies that examined the relationship of single-sex schooling to
self-concept, four (57 percent) reported results in favor of single-sex
schooling and three (43 percent) reported null results. When comparing
single-sex and coeducation for girls, three of four (75 percent) studies
reported results supporting single-sex schooling and one study reported
null results (25 percent). When comparing single-sex and coeducation for
boys, two of three (67 percent) studies reported null results, and the
other study (33 percent) reported finding evidence in favor of
single-sex schooling. All seven studies examined the relationship of
self-concept to type of school by using high school samples.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 43%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><h6 id="table-11self-concept"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 11—Self-Concept</h6></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2">Authors</td>
<td rowspan="2">Study Findings</td>
<td colspan="8">Advantage to:</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>SS</td>
<td>CE</td>
<td><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></td>
<td><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></td>
<td>SS females</td>
<td>CE females</td>
<td>Elementary</td>
<td>High School</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1) Cipriani-Sklar (1996)</td>
<td><p>Cipriani-Sklar (1996), in comparing SS versus CE schools (9th
grade girls; public vs. Catholic), found no differences in general
self-concept for females (SS mean: 3.6046, sd = .3374 vs. CE mean:
3.6116, sd = .4929); F(1,213) = .0146) (n = 213).</p>
<p>Cipriani-Sklar (1996), in comparing SS versus CE schools (9th grade
girls; public vs. Catholic), found significant differences in
mathematics self-concept for females, such that females in SS schools
had higher academic self-concept than their counterparts in CE schools
(SS mean: 2.8096, sd = .3252 vs. CE mean: 2.3897, sd = .5757; F(1,213) =
42.03) (n = 213).</p>
<p>Cipriani-Sklar (1996), in comparing SS versus CE schools (9th grade
girls; public vs. Catholic), found significant differences in science
self-concept for females, such that females in SS schools had higher
science self-concept than their counterparts in CE schools (SS mean:
3.2402, sd = .3057 vs. CE mean: 2.8578, sd = .5446; F(1,213) = 39.07) (n
= 213).</p></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2) Cuddy (2000)</td>
<td>Cuddy (2000), in comparing SS versus CE schools (public CE high
schools vs. Catholic SS high schools), found significant differences in
“multiple selves,” where SS students exhibited a higher number of
possible selves than CE students (F(1,159) = 6.12).</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>3) Lambert (1998)</td>
<td>Lambert (1997), in comparing girls in SS versus girls in CE schools
(Catholic high school, seniors), found no differences in overall
self-concept (F(6,41) = .76). In the case of self-concept subdimensions,
no differences were found between SS and CE girls for all six
subdimensions (Academic: F(1,46) = .01; Affect: F(1,46) = .01; Family:
F(1,46) = 1.15; Competence: F(1,46) = .06; Physical: F(1,46) = .41; and
Social: F(1,46) = .34). Only SES and SAT scores covaried with the
overall self-concept.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 42%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="11"><h6 id="table-11self-concept-contd"
class="Tables-NO-TOC">Table 11—Self-Concept (cont’d)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="9">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th colspan="2">SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>4) Lee and Bryk (1986)</td>
<td>Lee and Bryk (1986), in a study using the High School and Beyond
data, found girls in SS high schools had higher self-concept scores in
their sophomore year (<em>d</em> = .18), but not in senior year or in
their gain scores between sophomore and senior year, when compared with
girls in CE schools. All effects were calculated including adjustments
for personal and family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic
background and orientation, school social context, and academic
curricular track. For boys in SS high schools, there were no significant
differences in self-concept when compared to boys in CE schools for
sophomore year, senior year and gain scores.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5) Marsh (1991)</td>
<td>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic
high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such
as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in academic
self-concept in Year 10 . (N = 10,507). In the case of academic
self-concept in Year 12, no differences were found.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>6) Marsh et al. (1988)</td>
<td>Marsh, Smith, Marsh, and Owens (1988), in comparing two SS schools
that transitioned to two CE schools (high school, public) found
significant differences for males (F tests) and significant differences
for females (F test) (n = grades, not students) on multiple dimensions
of the SDQ II self-concept measure in favor of the later, posttransition
CE period. Researchers said change was made at parental request and did
not discuss possible Hawthorne and parental suggestion effects on
students. Within-subject changes were not studied because of lack of
identifiers.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>7) Riordan (1990)</td>
<td>Riordan (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school,
Catholic) found no differences in self-concept. However, in the case of
white females, SS students reported higher self-concept than white
females in CE schools when controlling for initial ability and home
background. No differences were found in males or at-risk students of
either gender. (n = 902).</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td>√</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Self-Esteem

The consensus among researchers is that self-esteem can be defined as
pride in one's self; holding a good opinion of one's self; a feeling of
pride in oneself, or the quality of being worthy of esteem (Silber and
Tippett, 1965). Of the six studies that examined the relationship
between SS schooling and self-esteem, one (17 percent) reported results
in favor of SS schooling, three (50 percent) reported null results, and
two (33 percent) studies reported results in favor of coeducation. When
comparing SS and CE for girls, three of three (100 percent) studies
reported null findings. When comparing SS and CE for boys, two of three
(67 percent) studies reported results in favor of coeducation, and the
other (33 percent) reported finding evidence in favor of single-sex
schooling. Of the two studies that used elementary school samples, one
found evidence favoring single-sex schooling and the other study found
evidence favoring coeducation. Of the four studies using high school
samples, one (25 percent) reported results supporting coeducation, and
three (75 percent) reporting null results. Only one study reported
ethnic comparisons with null results for African American, white, and
Asian students.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 42%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="12"><h6 id="table-12self-esteem"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 12—Self-Esteem</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="10">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th colspan="2">CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th colspan="2">SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Brutsaert and Bracke (1994)<sup>a</sup></td>
<td>Brutsaert and Bracke (1994), in comparing SS versus CE schools
(elementary private Catholic) found significant differences in
self-esteem for boys where SS boys reported higher self-esteem than CE
boys (no numbers reported but listed in results) (N = 1,130 boys; 965
girls). Differences were no in the case of girls when comparing
self-esteem for SS girls and CE girls.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">√</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2) Conway (1996)</td>
<td>Conway (1996), in comparing female seniors in one SS high school to
female seniors in one CE high school (Catholic), found no differences on
the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (SS mean: 59.37 vs. CE
mean: 58.83; t = 0.51, p &gt; .05) (n = 293). Also, differences between
groups were considered using preexisting cognitive ability as a
covariate (based on questionable logic), and no significant differences
were shown. Further, it is important to remember that this study used
just two Catholic high schools in one local area.</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>3) Garcia (1998)</td>
<td>Garcia (1998), in comparing SS versus CE schools (12th-grade females
in two public high schools) on self-esteem scores, found that black
females in CE schools had significantly higher scores than black females
in SS schools (SS mean: 34.65 vs. CE mean: 36.50, p &gt; .01) (n = 104).
The differences were not significant for white or Asian girls (SS mean:
31.42 vs. CE mean: 31.21, p &gt; .05 for white girls; n = 86); (SS mean:
30.84 vs. CE mean: 32.07, p &gt; .05 for Asian girls; n = 47). When
controlling for initial ability, SES, and quality of previous education,
the differences were not significant for each group (black, white, and
Asian) of girls.</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 42%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="11"><h6 id="table-12self-esteem-contd"
class="Tables-NO-TOC">Table 12–Self-Esteem (cont’d)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="9">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th colspan="2">SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>4) LePore and Warren (1987)</td>
<td>LePore and Warren (1987), in comparing SS Catholic schools versus CE
public high schools, found no significant differences in self-esteem in
grade 8, grade 10, grade 12, or from grade 8 to 12 for males (n = 159).
They found no differences in self-esteem in grade 8, grade 10, grade 12,
and from grade 8 to 12 for females (n = 140). Grade 8 scores served as a
control for preexisting achievement differences.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5) Riordan (1994)</td>
<td>Riordan (1994), in considering a large sample of black and Hispanic
Catholic high school students (N = 690), found significant effects
favoring CE schools on a measure of self-esteem for males, but no
differences for females (standardized d score = 0.28 and 0.09) when
controlling for home background and initial cognitive ability.</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>6) Sanders (1992)</td>
<td>Sanders (1992), in comparing SS versus CE African American
elementary schools (grades 3, 4, and 5), found no differences for
fourth- and fifth-grade males (p &gt; 0.05; based on F test) and
significant differences for third-grade males (p = 0.001; based on F
test) (total n = 196). Results for third-graders showed that
self-reports of self-esteem were higher for students in the CE school
than students in the SS school when pretest scores on self-esteem and
math ability scores were used as covariates. However, this study was
limited to just two schools with quite different curricula, so no
conclusions should be drawn.</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

^a^ Brutsaert and Bracke (1994) have suggested that in the case of
self-esteem, school commitment, and study commitment for boys, the
differences attributed to SS schooling can be explained largely by the
presence of male faculty in SS schools.

### Locus of Control

Locus of control is a concept describing whether people feel that
control of their lives rests in their own hands (internal locus of
control) or in the hands of others (external locus of control) (Rotter,
1966). In the case of students, it refers to whether the students feel
they have control over their academic life or not. Of the five studies
that examined the relationship between SS schooling and locus of
control, three of five studies (60 percent) reported results in favor of
single-sex schooling and two (40 percent) reported null results. When
comparing SS and CE for girls, three of their (100 percent) studies
reported results supporting SS schooling. When comparing SS and CE for
boys, two of three studies (67 percent) reported results supporting SS
schooling and the other (33 percent) reported null results. All five
studies used high school samples. Finally, two studies reported results
for disadvantaged youths whereby both found results favoring SS
education.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><h6 id="table-13locus-of-control"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 13—Locus of Control</h6></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2">Authors</td>
<td rowspan="2">Study Findings</td>
<td colspan="8">Advantage to:</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>SS</td>
<td>CE</td>
<td><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></td>
<td><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></td>
<td>SS females</td>
<td>CE females</td>
<td>Elementary</td>
<td>High School</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1) Lee and Bryk (1986)</td>
<td>Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond
data, found girls in SS high schools had no differences in scores for
locus of control in their sophomore year, significantly higher scores
for seniors (d = .21) and no differences for gain scores between
sophomore and senior years, when compared with girls in CE schools. All
effects were calculated including adjustments for personal and family
backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and
orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. For
boys, there were no differences in locus of control between students in
SS high schools and those in CE schools (for sophomore year, senior year
and gain scores).</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2) LePore and Warren (1987)</td>
<td>LePore and Warren (1987), in comparing SS Catholic versus CE public
high schools, found no differences in locus of control in grade 8, grade
10, grade 12, or from grade 8 to 12 for males (n = 159). They found no
differences in locus of control in grade 8, grade 10, grade 12, and from
grade 8 to 12 for females (n = 140). Grade 8 scores of locus of control
were used as a control variable for preexisting differences.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-13locus-of-control-contd"
class="Tables-NO-TOC">Table 13—Locus of Control (cont’d)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>3) Marsh (1991)</td>
<td>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic and CE Catholic high schools
and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex,
and initial ability, found no differences in locus of control in Year 10
between SS and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: .19, sd = .59 vs.
Catholic CE mean: .12, sd = .57) (N = 10,507). For Year 12, no
differences were found between SS and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS
mean: .19, sd = .59 vs. Catholic CE mean: .14, sd = .58).</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>4) Riordan (1990)</td>
<td>Riordan (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school,
Catholic), found significant differences in locus of control. White
females in SS schools reported higher self-esteem than white females in
CE schools when controlling for initial ability and home background. SS
at-risk males expressed significantly higher sense of internal locus of
control than did CE at-risk males (30 percent of 1 sd), even when
controlling for initial attitude, initial ability, home background,
preparatory track, homework, and adolescent subculture (n = 902).</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5) Riordan (1994)</td>
<td>Riordan (1994), in considering a large sample of black and Hispanic
Catholic high school students (N = 690), found significant effects
favoring SS schools on a measure of environmental control for both males
and females (standardized d score = 0.25 and 0.22, respectively) when
controlling for home background and initial cognitive ability.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### School Track and Subject Preferences

Course participation, course attitudes, or course enrollment have all
been examined as outcomes relating to school track and subject
preference. Of the 14 studies that examined the impact of single-sex
schooling on school track and subject preferences, five (36 percent)
reported results in favor of single-sex schooling, six (43 percent)
reported null results, one reported mixed results (7 percent), and two
(14 percent) studies reported findings in favor of coeducation. When
comparing single-sex and coeducation for girls, five of eight studies
(63 percent) reported results supporting single-sex schooling; one study
(13 percent) reported results in favor of coeducation and two (25
percent) reported null results. When comparing single-sex and
coeducation for boys, two of seven studies (29 percent) reported results
in favor of single-sex schooling, three studies (43 percent) reported
null results, and two studies (29 percent) reported findings in favor of
coeducation. Of the 13 studies employing a high school sample, six
studies (46 percent) reported results in favor of single-sex schooling,
five (39 percent) reported null results, one reported mixed results (8
percent), and one (8 percent) reported results supporting coeducation.
Of the two studies using elementary school students, both reported
results in favor of coeducation (100 percent).

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 38%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-14school-tracksubject-preferences"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 14—School Track/Subject
Preferences</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Ainley and Daly (2002)</td>
<td>Ainley and Daly (2002) found attendance at SS girls’ high schools
increased the likelihood of participation in physical science courses
(SS score: 8.3 percent vs. CE score: 5.1 percent), but the parameter did
not reach significance (p &lt; .05) after controlling for gender,
language, SES, earlier school achievement, metropolitan location, and
independent versus Catholic school. They found that a large amount of
variance in participation remained after these factors were accounted
for.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 38%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="11"><h6 id="table-14school-tracksubject-preferences-contd"
class="Tables-NO-TOC">Table 14—School Track/Subject Preferences
(cont’d)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="9">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="2">SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2) Bornholt and Möller (2003)</td>
<td>Bornholt and Möller (2003) compared attributions for success or
failure in math and English for Australian boys and girls, ages 11–16,
at one CE high school and two SS high schools. Attributions were
“remarkably similar” for boys and girls at CE and SS schools. Ability
was viewed as a reason for success in English by girls at CE schools but
not SS girls (b = -.19). There were no differences between boys at SS
and CE schools. For math, effort was viewed as a reason for success by
CE girls (b=-.27) but girls in SS schools. There were no differences for
boys at SS and CE schools. Overall, differences suggest that ability and
effort are viewed as equally important reasons for success or failure by
SS boys and CE boys but not by SS girls or CE girls.</td>
<td colspan="2">√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>3) Daly (1995)</td>
<td>Daly (1995), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school and
elementary levels of all three kinds: public, private, and Catholic in
Northern Ireland and Wales), found significant differences in science
course participation favoring CE students (b = –.475 and b = .418) (N =
4,107). However, this was moderated by gender, whereby SS girls
participated less in science courses than did CE girls, but no
difference was found between SS boys and CE boys.</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>√</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td>√</td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>4) Daly and Ainley</td>
<td>Daly and Ainley, in comparing students in SS versus CE Australian
high schools, found no differences for males and no differences for
females in attending advanced math classes as high school seniors (total
n = 2,002). These results were found using multilevel modeling in which
student-level variables (earlier math achievement, parental education,
and ethnic background) and school-level variables (type of school,
school location, and coeducational status) were considered
simultaneously. In general, results showed that the major influences on
advanced mathematics participation are gender and prior Mathematics
Achievement Test Scores, rather than school-level factors.</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5) Daly, Ainley, and Robinson (1996)</td>
<td>Daly, Ainley, and Robinson (1996) examined the effect of SS versus
CE schooling on participation of Australian high school seniors in
science courses, taking into account family background and public versus
private school. They found attendance at a SS school produced no
significant difference for participation in a physics or biology
curriculum.</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>6) Daly and Shuttleworth (1997)</td>
<td>Daly and Shuttleworth (1997), in comparing all-boys’, all-girls’,
and CE high schools in Ireland, found no differences in mathematics test
enrollment among all types of schools when controlling for covariates at
the student level and the school level.</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>7) Lee and Bryk (1986)</td>
<td>Lee and Bryk (1986), in a study using the High School and Beyond
data, found girls attending SS high schools had a significantly higher
interest in math (p &lt; .05, d = 0.23) and English (p &lt; .05, d =
0.26), were more likely to enroll in mathematics (p &lt; .05, d = 0.16),
and had more association with academically oriented friends (p &lt; .05,
d = 0.23) than those in CE schools. Boys in SS high schools were more
likely to enroll in mathematics (p &lt; .05, d = 0.46) and physical
science (p &lt; .05, d = 0.40) and less likely to enroll in vocation
studies (p &lt; .05, d = –0.26) than those in CE schools. All of the
reported effects include adjustments for many personal, family, and
school characteristics.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>8) Lee and Lockheed (1990)</td>
<td>Lee and Lockheed (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools
(ninth-graders in Nigeria), found significant differences for males
(beta = .08; p &lt; .05; n = 785) and significant differences for
females (beta = –.10; p &lt; .05; n = 227), on stereotypic views of
mathematics, when controlling for student and school characteristics.
These results indicate that SS schools decrease stereotypical views for
girls and (increase) stereotypical views for boys.</td>
<td colspan="3">Mixed</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>9) Marsh (1989)</td>
<td>Marsh (1989) compared course selection for seniors in Catholic SS
and Catholic CE schools. When controls for background variables were
introduced, almost no differences could be attributed to type of school,
and statistically significant differences did not consistently favor one
type of school over another.</td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>10) Marsh (1991)</td>
<td><p>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic and CE Catholic high
schools and statistically controlling for background variables such as
SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in mathematics
participation in Year 12 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic
schools (Catholic SS mean: 3.10, sd = .67 vs. Catholic CE mean: 2.96, sd
= .72) (N = 10,507).</p>
<p>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic and CE Catholic high schools
and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex,
and initial ability, found no differences in science participation in
Year 12 between SS and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: 2.79, sd =
.80 vs. Catholic CE mean: 2.68, sd = .80) (N = 10,507).</p>
<p>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic
high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such
as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in vocational
participation in Year 12 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic
schools (Catholic SS mean: 2.18, sd = .76 vs. Catholic CE mean: 2.25, sd
= .73) (N = 10,507).</p>
<p>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic
high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such
as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in academic
credits received by Year 12 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic
schools (Catholic SS mean: 14.89, sd = 3.20 vs. Catholic CE mean: 14.43,
sd = 4.29) (N = 10,507).</p></td>
<td colspan="3">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>10) Marsh (1991) continued</td>
<td><p>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools with CE
Catholic high schools and statistically controlling for background
variables such as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in
participation in academic track by Year 10 between SS Catholic schools
and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: .69, sd = .46 vs. Catholic CE
mean: .57, sd = .50). In the case of academic track participation by
Year 12, no differences were found between SS Catholic schools and CE
Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: .74, sd = .44 vs. Catholic CE mean:
.69, sd = .46).</p>
<p>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic and CE Catholic high schools
and statistically controlling for background variables such as SES, sex,
and initial ability, found no differences in participation in vocational
track by Year 10 between SS and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean:
.05, sd = .22 vs. Catholic CE mean: .06, sd = .24) (N = 10,507). In the
case of vocational track participation by Year 12, no differences were
found between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS
mean: .10, sd = .30 vs. Catholic CE mean: .11, sd = .31).</p>
<p>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic
high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such
as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in participation
in honors courses by Year 12 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic
schools (Catholic SS mean: 1.34, sd = .41 vs. Catholic CE mean: 1.32, sd
= .40) (N = 10,507).</p></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>11) Sanders (1992)</td>
<td>Sanders (1992), in comparing SS versus CE African American
elementary schools (grades 3, 4, and 5), found no differences for
fourth- and fifth-grade males (p &gt; .05; based on F test) and
significant differences for third-grade males (p = .033; based on F
test) (total n = 196). Results for third-graders showed that
self-reports of attitudes toward school were higher for students in the
CE school than students in the SS school when pretest scores regarding
attitudes toward school were used as covariates. However, these findings
were based on just two schools with quite different curricula and many
other differences, so no conclusions should be drawn.</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>12) Spielhofer et al. (2002)</td>
<td><p>Spielhofer, O’Donnell, Benton, Schagen, and Schagen (2002), in
comparing students in SS versus coed CE high schools across England,
(level: high school) found that males in SS schools were significantly
more likely than males in CE schools to be enrolled in higher levels of
mathematics and science classes, when controlling for prior academic
attainment and school factors (using 16,868 males in boys-only schools
and more than 100,000 males in CE schools). More important, girls in SS
schools were also significantly more likely than girls in CE schools to
be entered for higher levels of math and science, when controlling for
prior ability and school factors (including 23,477 females in girls-only
schools and more than 100,000 females in coed CE schools).</p>
<p>Spielhofer, O’Donnell, Benton, Schagen, and Schagen (2002), in
comparing students in SS versus CE high schools across England, (level:
high school) found that girls in SS schools were significantly less
likely to take the courses in traditional foreign languages than girls
in CE schools, when controlling for prior scholastic attainment and
school factors (including 23,477 females in girls-only schools and more
than 100,000 females in CE schools). In addition, girls in SS schools
were less likely to take Food Technology (a traditionally female
subject) and more likely to take Resistant Materials (a traditionally
male subject), when statistical controls were included. Despite the
trends for SS schools to increase the likelihood of taking
non-traditional-gender school subjects for girls, males in boys’ schools
were even less likely to take traditionally female subjects.</p></td>
<td>√</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>13) Stables (1990)</td>
<td>Stables (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (sample included
more than 2,300 third-year high school students from 13 schools in
England), found significant differences for males in attitudes toward
biology (SS mean: 57.8 vs. CE mean: 52.5; p &lt; .001), physics (SS
mean: 44.2 vs. CE mean: 47.8; p &lt; .001), and school in general (SS
mean: 12.6 vs. CE mean: 12.0; p &lt; .05); no differences were found for
science in general (SS mean: 40.3 vs. CE mean: 40.2) and chemistry (SS
mean: 61.9 vs. CE mean: 61.7). For females, Stables found significant
differences for attitudes toward science in general (SS mean: 39.3 vs.
CE mean: 37.9; p &lt; .001), biology (SS mean: 56.7 vs. CE mean: 59.3; p
&lt; .001), physics (SS mean: 41.2 vs. CE mean: 39.1; p &lt; .001),
chemistry (SS mean: 59.5 vs. CE mean: 58.4; p &lt; .05), and school in
general (mean: SS mean: 12.1 vs. CE mean: 13.0; p &lt; .001). These
results indicate that SS education may reduce sex differences in
preferences for different school subjects, especially physics, where sex
differences are particularly large in CE schools.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>14) Steinback and Gwizdala (1995)</td>
<td>Steinback and Gwizdala (1995) compared female students from an
all-female Catholic high school before and after they merged with a
similar all-male school (173 females took part in both years of the
study). They found some apparent differences in female attitudes toward
math, such that their attitudes toward math were lower when the school
was CE; for instance, 87 percent of females reported that they were
comfortable asking questions in math class in Year 1 (SS), but only 79.2
percent reported this in Year 2 (CE). However, these differences were
apparently not analyzed for statistically significant differences
between years, so that analysis was of limited value.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Educational Aspirations

Educational aspiration refers to the educational goals that a student
has set for himself or herself to attain. In the case for single-sex
education, researchers have argued that students of single-sex schools
set loftier goals, such as seeking a college education or an advanced
degree. Of the three studies that examined the impact of single-sex
schooling on educational aspirations, two (67 percent) reported results
in favor of single-sex schooling and the other (33 percent) reported
null findings. Two studies compared single-sex and coeducation for
girls. Both studies (100 percent) reported results supporting single-sex
schooling for girls. In comparing single-sex and coeducation for boys,
both studies (100 percent) reported null results. All three studies used
high school students as participants.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-15educational-aspirations"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 15—Educational Aspirations</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Lee and Bryk (1986)</td>
<td>Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond
data, found girls in SS high schools had significantly higher
educational aspirations in their sophomore years (<em>d</em> = .19),
senior years (<em>d</em> = .23) and gain scores between sophomore and
senior years (<em>d</em> = .15) when compared with girls in CE schools.
All effects were calculated including adjustments for personal and
family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and
orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. Boys
in SS high schools had no differences with boys in CE schools on
educational aspirations in sophomore and senior years, as well as in
their gain scores.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-15educational-aspirations-contd"
class="Tables-NO-TOC">Table 15—Educational Aspirations
(cont’d)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2) Lee and Marks (1990)</td>
<td>Lee and Marks (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (Catholic
high schools) for differences in educational aspirations, found that SS
males scored higher than CE males, but there was no difference (d =
0.06)(SS n = 328; CE n = 262). Significant differences were found when
comparing SS females (n = 335) with CE females (n = 337); SS females
scored higher than CE females (d = 0.21).</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>3) Marsh (1991)</td>
<td>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic
high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such
as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in educational
aspirations in Year 10 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic
schools (Catholic SS mean: .52, sd = .73 vs. Catholic CE mean: .30, sd =
.80). In the case of educational aspirations in Year 12, no differences
were found between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic
SS mean: .58, sd = .73 vs. Catholic CE mean: .42, sd = .77).</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Career Aspirations

Career aspirations refer to the career goals that a student has set for
himself or herself to attain. In the case for single-sex education,
researchers have argued that students of single-sex schools set loftier
goals, such as seeking a graduate education or mounting a career that is
viewed as profitable or successful. Of the two studies that examined the
impact of single-sex schooling on career aspirations, both (100 percent)
reported results in favor of single-sex schooling. When comparing
single-sex and coeducation for girls, both (100 percent) reported
results supporting single-sex schooling. One study compared single-sex
and coeducation for boys, and it (100 percent) reported results favoring
single-sex schooling. Both studies used high school students as
participants.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 36%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-16career-aspirations"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 16—Career Aspirations</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Lee and Marks (1990)</td>
<td>Lee and Marks (1990), in comparing postbaccalaureate academic
interests of students from the High School and Beyond study, found that
students with SS high school education were more likely to consider
applying to graduate school (CE males: 37.9 vs. SS males: 44.8 percent,
p = .05; CE females: 31.3 percent vs. SS females: 41 percent, p = .01).
In particular, they were more likely to consider applying to law school
(SS males: 12.8 vs. CE males: 5.6 percent, p = .01; SS females: 13.0 vs.
CE females: 7.7 percent, p = .01). A significant difference was found
for males but not for females; males from SS schools were more likely to
consider an MBA program (SS males: 26.6 vs. CE males: 19.1 percent, p =
.01). Students from CE high schools were found to be more likely to
consider another graduate degree (CE students: 18.0 vs. SS students:
10.9 percent, p = .05). Canonical Discriminant Function for the impact
of SS schooling on career aspirations yields a coefficient of .387 for
females and .270 for males.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2) Watson, Quatman, and Edler (2002)</td>
<td>Watson, Quatman, and Edler (2002), in comparing the career
aspirations of high school students (10th- and 12th-grade females),
found that females from SS schools (N = 351) had higher ideal (SS mean:
70.6) and realistic (SS mean: 67.5) career aspirations than did females
from CE schools (N = 494) (CE mean: 67.9 and CE mean: 63.8,
respectively). Further, the females in the SS schools did not
demonstrate the drop in ideal (F (1, 435) = 5.40; p &lt; .05) and
realistic (F (1, 415) = 4.06; p &lt; .05) career aspirations that
females in CE schools had demonstrated between the 10th and 12th
grades.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Delinquency

Delinquency refers to an antisocial misdeed in violation of the law or
school policy by a minor. In the case for single-sex education,
researchers have argued that students in single-sex schools perform
fewer acts of delinquency, misbehavior, or norm violation and associate
with fewer delinquent peers. Of the four studies that examined the
relationship between single-sex schooling and delinquency, two (50
percent) reported results in favor of single-sex schooling and two (50
percent) reported null results. Three studies compared single-sex and
coeducation for girls, and two (67 percent) reported results supporting
single-sex schooling while the other (33 percent) reported null
findings. One study (100 percent) reported null findings when compared
single-sex and coeducation for boys. All studies used high school
students as participants.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 38%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-17delinquency"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 17—Delinquency</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Caspi (1995)</td>
<td><p>Caspi (1995), in comparing SS versus CE (public and Catholic)
schools at the high school level, found significant differences in peer
delinquency at age 13 in girls attending SS schools and girls attending
CE schools (t = 2.1; n = 850), where SS girls knew fewer peers who were
delinquent than their CE counterparts did. This relationship was
moderated by menarcheal development: the difference is exhibited only in
the case of girls who reached menarche early. However, in the case of
girls who reached menarche on time or late, there was no significant
difference between SS and CE girls. At age 15, the same relationship
holds true; SS girls who reach menarche early differ significantly from
CE girls (t = 3.0). Similarly, the difference between a girl who reaches
menarche on time or late is not significant. (n = 976).</p>
<p>Caspi (1995), in comparing girls in SS school versus CE high school
girls (Catholic and public), found significant differences in
self-reported delinquency between SS girls and CE girls (t = 2.0).
However, this relationship holds true only for girls who reach menarche
early (n = 976).</p></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 38%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-17delinquency-contd"
class="Tables-NO-TOC">Table 17—Delinquency (cont’d)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2) Caspi, Lynam, Moffitt, and Silva (1993)</td>
<td><p>Caspi, Lynam, Moffitt, and Silva (1993), in comparing girls in SS
versus girls in CE schools (elementary public and private schools),
found significant differences in familiarity with delinquent peers (F(1,
263) = 6.73). This relationship was moderated, however. In comparing
girls in SS with girls in CE schools, there was a significant difference
in familiarity with delinquent peers only for girls who reached menarche
early (t(263) = 2.12). For girls who reach menarche on time or late,
there was no significant difference in familiarity with delinquent
peers.</p>
<p>Caspi, Lynam, Moffitt, and Silva (1993), in comparing girls in SS
versus girls in CE schools (elementary public and private schools),
found no differences for norm violations (F(1, 263) = .92). This
relationship was moderated, however. In comparing girls in SS versus
girls in CE schools, a significant difference was found in norm
violations only for girls who reached menarche early (t(263) = 2.98).
For girls who reach menarche on time or late, there was no significant
difference in norm violations.</p>
<p>Caspi, Lynam, Moffitt, and Silva (1993), in comparing SS versus CE
school girls in elementary public and private schools, found no
differences for self-reported delinquency (F(1, 263) = 1.88). This
relationship was moderated, however. In comparing girls in SS versus CE
schools, there was a significant difference in self-reported delinquency
only for girls who reached menarche early (t(261) = 2.02). For girls who
reach menarche on time or late, there was no significant difference in
self-reported delinquency.</p></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>3) Lee and Bryk (1986)</td>
<td>Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond
data, found girls attending SS high schools had no significant
differences with girls in CE schools on incidents of disciplinary
behavior and unexcused absences. All effects were calculated including
adjustments for personal and family backgrounds, religious
characteristics, academic background and orientation, school social
context, and academic curricular track. For boys, there were also no
significant differences between students in SS and CE high schools on
incidents of disciplinary behavior and unexcused absences.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>4) Marsh (1991)</td>
<td>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic
high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such
as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in disciplinary
troubles over the course of the study between SS Catholic schools and CE
Catholic schools (Catholic SS mean: –.32, sd = .44 vs. Catholic CE mean:
–.28, sd = .28) (N = 10,507).</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Attitudes Toward School

Attitudes toward school refer to any cognition by a student about school
in general regardless of whether it is accompanied by a behavioral
manifestation. Examples of these attitudes might include study
commitment, sense of belonging, or fear of subjects, which might lead to
anxiety. One example of this type of anxiety is science trait and
science state anxiety (Cipriani-Sklar, 1996). This researcher defined
science state anxiety as the anxiety felt at an exact moment that is
associated with science courses. Science trait anxiety was defined as
the anxiety associated with science course that is experienced over the
course of a normal day. Of the five studies that examined the
relationship of single-sex schooling to general attitudes toward school,
one (20 percent) reported results in favor of single-sex schooling, one
(20 percent) study reported findings in favor of CE schooling, one (20
percent) study reported null results, and two (40 percent) reported
mixed results. When comparing single-sex and coeducation for girls, one
of three studies (33 percent) reported results supporting single-sex
schooling, one (33 percent) study reported results supporting CE
schooling, and the other study (33 percent) reported findings in favor
of coeducation. Three studies compared single-sex and coeducation for
boys, and two (67 percent) reported results supporting single-sex
schooling while one reported null results. Four of the five studies used
high school students as participants, with one (25 percent) reporting
null results, one (25 percent) reporting findings in favor of CE
schooling, and two (50 percent) reporting mixed results. The one study
that used an elementary school sample reported results supporting
single-sex schooling.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-18attitudes-toward-school"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 18—Attitudes Toward School</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Brutsaert and Bracke (1994)</td>
<td><p>Brutsaert and Bracke (1994), in comparing SS versus CE schools
(elementary Catholic), found significant differences in sense of
belonging for boys; CE boys reported a higher sense of belonging than SS
boys (N = 1,130 boys; 965 girls). Differences were no in the case of
sense of belonging between SS girls and CE girls.</p>
<p>Brutsaert and Bracke (1994), in comparing SS versus CE schools
(elementary Catholic), found significant differences in school
commitment for boys; SS boys reported higher school commitment than CE
boys (no numbers reported but listed in results) (N = 1,130 boys; 965
girls). Differences were no when comparing school commitment for SS
girls and CE girls.</p>
<p>Brutsaert and Bracke (1994), in comparing SS versus CE schools
(elementary Catholic), found significant differences in study commitment
for boys; SS boys reported higher study commitment than CE (no numbers
reported but listed in results) (N = 1,130 boys; 965 girls). Differences
were not significant when comparing study commitment for SS girls and CE
girls.</p></td>
<td colspan="2">Mixed</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-18attitudes-toward-school-contd"
class="Tables-NO-TOC">Table 18—Attitudes Toward School
(cont’d)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2) Cipriani-Sklar (1996)</td>
<td><p>Cipriani-Sklar (1996), in comparing SS versus CE schools
(ninth-grade girls; public vs. Catholic), found no significant
differences in science state anxiety for females (SS mean: 2.6240, sd =
.2325 vs. CE mean: 2.5877, sd = .1987; F (1,213) = 3.33) (n = 213).</p>
<p>Cipriani-Sklar (1996), in comparing SS versus CE schools (ninth-grade
girls; public vs. Catholic), found significant differences in science
trait anxiety for females, such that females in SS schools have higher
science trait anxiety than their counterparts in CE schools (SS mean:
2.4862, sd = .3453 vs. CE mean: 2.1873, sd = .2206; F(1,213) = 55.71).
(n = 213).</p></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>3) Lee and Bryk (1986)</td>
<td>Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond
data, found girls in SS high schools had more positive attitudes toward
academics than those in CE schools. These students were more likely to
associate with academically oriented peers (<em>d</em> = .23) and to
express interests in both mathematics (<em>d</em> = .23) and English
(<em>d</em> = .26). All effects were calculated including adjustments
for personal and family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic
background and orientation, school social context, and academic
curricular track. There were no significant differences between girls in
SS and CE schools in attitudes toward socially active peers or student
athletes. For boys in SS high schools, there were no differences in
interests in math and English, as well as in their associations with
academically oriented friends, when compared with boys in CE schools.
Boys in SS schools had more positive attitudes toward socially active
peers (<em>d</em> = .26) and athletes (<em>d</em> = .30).</td>
<td colspan="2">Mixed</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>4) Marsh (1989)</td>
<td>Marsh (1989) compared attitudes for seniors in Catholic SS and
Catholic CE schools. When controls for background variables were
introduced, almost no differences could be attributed to type of school,
and statistically significant differences did not consistently favor one
type of school over another.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5) Sanders (1992)</td>
<td>Sanders (1992), in comparing SS versus CE African American
elementary schools (grades 3, 4, and 5), found no differences for third-
and fourth-grade males (p &gt; .05; based on F test), and significant
differences for fifth-grade males (p = .027; based on F test) (total n =
196) when looking at academic achievement responsibility. Results for
fifth-graders showed that self-reports of academic achievement
responsibility were higher for students in SS school than for students
in the CE school when pretest scores on academic achievement
responsibility, as well as vocabulary and math ability scores, were used
as covariates. However, this limited study used just two schools with
quite different curricula, so conclusions should be drawn
cautiously.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Time Spent per Week on Homework

Time spent per week on homework has been used in the past as an
indicator of effort by students, which can be seen as precursor to
success. Two studies examined the relationship of single-sex education
to time spent per week on homework. One study (50 percent) reported null
results while the other reported results favoring SS schooling. Only one
study examined time spent on homework by gender and reported results
favoring single-sex schooling for both boys and girls. Both studies
looked at high school students.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-19time-spent-per-week-on-homework"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 19—Time Spent per Week on
Homework</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Lee and Bryk (1986)</td>
<td>Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond
data, found girls attending SS high schools spent significantly more
time on homework (d = .36) when compared with girls in CE schools,
although there were no differences between amount of television watched.
All effects were calculated including adjustments for personal and
family backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and
orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. Boys
attending SS high schools also spent significantly more time on homework
(d = .23) than those in CE schools, although there was no significant
difference on amount of television watched.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2) Marsh (1991)</td>
<td>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic
high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such
as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in time spent per
week on homework in Year 10 between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic
schools (Catholic SS mean: 5.43, sd = 1.15; Catholic CE mean: 5.05, sd =
1.21).</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Attitudes Toward Working Women

This outcome refers to any cognition by a student toward the notion of
women working rather than staying at home. In the case for SS education,
researchers have argued that girls' SS schools combat negative attitudes
toward working women, whereas boys' SS schools foster negative attitudes
toward working women. One study examined the relationship between SS
schooling and attitudes toward working women, reporting null results in
the case of boys and results favoring SS education in the case of girls.
This study used high school students as participants.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-20attitudes-toward-working-women"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 20—Attitudes Toward Working
Women</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Riordan (1990)</td>
<td>Riordan (1990), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school
public vs. private/Catholic), found significant differences in attitudes
toward working women; white females in SS schools expressed a more
accepting attitude than white females in CE schools (30 percent of 1 sd)
when controlling for initial ability, initial attitude, preparatory
track, homework, adolescent subculture, and home background. This same
significant difference (identical) was found for at-risk females. For
males (white or otherwise), there were no differences in attitudes
toward working women.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

## Long-Term, Quantifiable Indicators of Individual Student Adaptation and Socioemotional Development

Similar to their short-term counterparts, long-term, quantifiable
indicators of individual student adaptation and socioemotional
development include attitudinal outcomes as well as objective outcomes
that reflect a wide range of effects of single-sex schooling on
development and adaptation. In particular, single-sex proponents argue
that students of single-sex schools do not drop out of school as much as
coed students, experience greater success, and have fewer problems
situating themselves after their secondary academic careers. The
following tables (Tables 20 to 27) summarize findings for school
completion, postsecondary success, unemployment, eating disorders,
choice of college major, sex-role stereotyping in the workplace, and
political involvement.

### School Completion

One study examined the impact of single-sex education on dropping out.
The reduction of dropouts has been of interest to all stakeholders
because of the desire to ensure that all students increase their
functionality and employability by graduating from high school. In the
case of this study, results favoring single-sex schooling for both sexes
were reported. This study used high school students.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-21school-completion"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 21—School Completion</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Woodward et al. (1999)</td>
<td>Woodward, Fergusson, and Horwood (1999), in comparing SS versus CE
high schools in New Zealand, found significant differences for males (SS
score: 11.3 percent vs. CE score: 33.0 percent; p &lt; .0001 based on
t-test) and significant differences for females (SS score: 7.5 percent
vs. CE score: 30.0 percent; p &lt; .0001) on percentage of students
leaving school before the age of 17 (n = 657). Findings for both sexes
showed that SS schools had lower dropout rates, and no SES by type of
school interaction was found. When parental background variables,
previous school behaviors, and previously measured cognitive ability
were controlled, SS schools still scored significantly better, albeit to
a smaller degree (SS score: 15.4 percent vs. CE score: 25.1 percent; p
&lt; .05).</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Postsecondary Success

One study examined the relationship between single-sex education and
postsecondary success. Postsecondary success is identified as
participation in collegiate activities including academics, athletics,
and clubs over the course of a four-year period without ever dropping
full-time enrollment at a postsecondary institution. Null results were
reported in this study. This study looked at high school students.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-22postsecondary-success"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 22—Postsecondary Success</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Marsh (1991)</td>
<td>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic
high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such
as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in postsecondary
success between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools (Catholic SS
mean: 5.53, sd = 3.24; Catholic CE mean: 5.23, sd = 3.29) (N =
10,507).</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Postsecondary Unemployment

Postsecondary unemployment refers to the likelihood of a student of a
single-sex or coed high school being unemployed after high school
graduation. Two studies examined the impact of single-sex education on
postsecondary unemployment, and one (50 percent) reported results
supporting single-sex schooling while the other (50 percent) reported
null results. One study reported results favoring single-sex education
for boys and for girls. Both studies used high school students as
participants.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-23unemployment"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 23—Unemployment</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Marsh (1991)</td>
<td>Marsh (1991), in comparing SS Catholic high schools and CE Catholic
high schools and statistically controlling for background variables such
as SES, sex, and initial ability, found no differences in postsecondary
unemployment between SS Catholic schools and CE Catholic schools
(Catholic SS mean: -.32, sd = .44 vs. Catholic CE mean: -.28, sd = .28)
(N = 10,507).</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2) Woodward et al. (1999)</td>
<td>Woodward, Fergusson, and Horwood (1999), in comparing SS versus CE
high schools in New Zealand, found significant differences for males (SS
score: 7.0 percent vs. CE score: 16.7 percent; p &lt; .05) and
significant differences for females (SS score: 5.3 percent vs. CE score:
18.0 percent; p &lt; .001) on percentage of students who had been
unemployed for three months or longer in the past two years (n = 657).
Findings for both sexes showed that students from SS schools had lower
rates of unemployment, and no sex by type of school interaction was
found. When parental background variables, previous school behaviors,
and previously measured cognitive ability were controlled, SS schools
still scored significantly higher (SS score: 7.5 percent vs. CE score:
15.8 percent; p &lt; .05).</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Eating Disorders

Eating disorders can be defined as syndromes where individuals develop
an unhealthy view of their body and low self-esteem. This leads them to
attempt to alter that body image by excessive weight change and through
unhealthy means. One study examined the likelihood of developing an
eating disorder. Eating disorders occur predominantly in females and, as
such, no results are reported for males. This study reported results
favoring coeducation for high school females and measured eating
disorders during high school.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-24eating-disorders"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 24—Eating Disorders</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Mensinger (2001)</td>
<td>Mensinger (2001), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high school,
private, Australian, n = 142), found significant differences for females
on eating disorders as measured by scores on a truncated version of the
Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI), with higher scores for SS students
(F(1,138), =14.623, p= .000). SS students were more likely to develop an
eating disorder than CE students.</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Choice of College Major

One study examined the likelihood of choosing a major that is "gender
mixed" (typical to both males and females) as opposed to choosing a
feminine-oriented major (one traditionally dominated by females). This
study reported results favoring single-sex schooling for high school
females as more likely to lead to choice of a nontraditional major.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-25choice-of-college-major"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 25—Choice of College Major</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Thompson (2003)</td>
<td>Thompson (2003), in comparing SS versus CE secondary schooling
(level: high school, public CE vs. private CE vs. Catholic SS girls),
found significant differences between SS females and CE females when
choosing a college major that is a gender-mixed major, as opposed to a
feminine one (SS females are 1.6998 times more likely to choose a mixed
major over a feminine one than CE females) (n = not listed; High School
and Beyond data). Even when SES, religiosity, sophomore test scores,
sophomore attitudes toward feminism, course work, senior test scores,
and senior attitudes toward feminism were controlled for, the effect of
all-girls schooling never loses statistical significance.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Sex-Role Stereotyping

Sex-role stereotyping refers to the endorsement of traditional attitudes
toward the roles that men and women should take in the workplace. In
general, stereotyping of this nature refers to the notion that women can
take only certain roles in the workplace, whereas men can take broader,
more powerful roles in the workplace. Two studies examined the
likelihood that others will invoke stereotypes based on sex roles. One
study (50 percent) reported results in favor of SS schooling and the
other (50 percent) reported results in favor of coeducation. Both
studies examined SS and CE differences in sex-role stereotyping for
girls with one study (50 percent) finding in favor of coeducation and
the other (50 percent) finding in favor of SS schooling. In the case of
boys, one study examined differences between SS and CE and yielded a
null result. All participants were high school students.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-26sex-role-stereotyping-work-related"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 26—Sex-Role Stereotyping
(Work-Related)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Lee and Bryk (1986)</td>
<td>Lee and Bryk (1986) in a study using the High School and Beyond
data, found girls in SS high schools had significantly less sex role
stereotyping in their senior year (d = -.25) and in gain scores between
sophomore and senior years (d = -.17) when compared with girls in CE
schools, although there was a no difference for sophomores. All effects
were calculated including adjustments for personal and family
backgrounds, religious characteristics, academic background and
orientation, school social context, and academic curricular track. For
boys in SS high schools, there were no significant differences in
students’ views of stereotypical adult sex roles for sophomores, seniors
and gain scores when compared to boys in CE schools.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2) Lee and Marks (1990)</td>
<td>Lee and Marks (1990) found a significant difference for women, in
that those women who attend SS Catholic high schools experienced more
work-related sex-role stereotyping than did women who attended CE
Catholic high schools (d = 0.23).</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Political Involvement

Political involvement (activism) refers to one's involvement in
activities of a political nature. These activities can include attending
debates, campaigning for office, and volunteering for elections, among
others. These activities are viewed as being traditionally male
activities. One study examined the relationship between single-sex
schooling and political involvement among females. This study reported
results in favor of single-sex education for women, meaning that female
students of single-sex schools were more politically involved. All
participants were high school students.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-27political-involvement-activism"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 27—Political Involvement
(Activism)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Lee and Marks (1990)</td>
<td>Lee and Marks (1990) found a significant difference for women, in
that women who attended SS Catholic high schools are more likely to be
involved in political activism than were women who attended CE Catholic
high schools (d = 0.19).</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Percent Married to First Spouse

The percentage of graduates of a school still married to their first
spouse has been offered up as an indicator of long-term socioemotional
development (Riordan, 1990). One study examined the relationship between
single-sex schooling and the percentage of former students still married
to their first spouses. This study reported null results for graduates
of SS and CE high schools. However, it should be noted that results for
this study might be altered by considering what percentage of those not
still married to their first spouse were widows or widowers.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-28percent-married-to-first-spouse"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 28—Percent Married to First
Spouse</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Riordan (1990)</td>
<td>Riordan (1990) found no differences between SS and CE males when
comparing the percentage still married to first spouse. The same was
true for females (n = 75–100).</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

## Indicators of Process and Outcome Measures of Gender Inequity

A fifth type of outcome measure of interest reflects indicators of
process and gender inequity. These outcomes reflect on the interaction
processes taking place in the classroom. For example, differential
treatment of students by teachers represents one indicator of faulty
process. Gender inequity is an example of a situation in which there is
a perceived imbalance between the teacher resources allotted to girls
and those allotted to boys. During the search portion of this study,
efforts were made to acquire as many studies in this topic area as
possible. However, as studies were identified, it became apparent that
there were no studies looking at indicators of process or gender
inequity that might be included in this review. Empirical studies of
gender inequity were not focused on single-sex versus coeducation in the
classroom. Other studies were excluded because of the improper
operationalization of the intervention or the use of subjects not
characteristic of this study. Still others that did examine the
relationship between gender composition of schools and gender equity or
process failed to employ the appropriate statistical controls for
inclusion in the review. As such, we were unable to include any studies
treating this outcome.

## Perceptual Measures of the School Climate or Culture That May Impact Performance

Another type of outcome measure may be organizational culture variables.
These are variables that do not describe any differences in the students
but instead focus on the quality of interactions in the school, such as
parental involvement or amount of bullying in the school. Proponents of
single-sex schooling argue that the environment or culture in a
single-sex school works far more toward fostering pro-academic attitudes
and increased growth opportunities. The following tables (Tables 28 to
30) examine these outcomes.

### Climate for Learning

Climate for learning refers to a collection of attitudes, values, and
beliefs about learning and schooling, shared by administrators,
teachers, students, and parents, that support student learning
(Ellsberry, 1999). Climate for learning is a vital outcome because of
its potential impact on other outcomes such as self-concept and
achievement. One study examined the impact of single-sex schooling on
climate for learning. This study reported results in favor of single-sex
education for high school boys and girls.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-29climate-for-learning"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 29—Climate for Learning</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Schneider and Coutts (1982)</td>
<td>Schneider and Coutts (1982), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high
school, private/Catholic, 10th and 12th grade), found significant
differences for SS males on valuing grades and leadership activities
more. SS males were also found to value athletics, looks, and money less
than CE males. Significant differences for SS females were also found on
valuing grades, leadership activities, and athletics more, and looks and
money less, than CE females. However, scores on the HSCI Environmental
Press Scale did not show SS schools to have a significantly more
favorable academic environment.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Opportunities for Leadership Roles

Opportunities for leadership roles refer to the opportunity for females
to participate in traditional leadership roles in clubs and
extracurricular activities, which have generally been held by males. Two
studies examined the impact of single-sex education on the opportunities
for leadership roles. One (50 percent) study reported results favoring
single-sex schooling; the other (50 percent) reported null findings.
Both studies examined the relationship between single-sex and
coeducation for girls; one (50 percent) reported null results and the
other (50 percent) reported results in favor of single-sex schooling.
One study compared single-sex and coeducation for black and Hispanic
boys, and it (100 percent) reported results favoring single-sex
schooling. Finally, it is also important to note that one study found
that coeducational schools seemed to provide better leadership
opportunities for Asian girls, although it was based on a small sample.
Both studies employed only high school students as participants.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-30opportunities-for-leadership-roles"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 30—Opportunities for Leadership
Roles</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Garcia (1998)</td>
<td>Garcia (1998), in comparing SS versus CE schools (12th-grade females
in two public high schools) on membership and leadership in
extracurricular activities, found little differences between girls in SS
and CE schools, except that Asian girls (total n = 47) in the CE school
had more membership in these activities than Asian girls in the SS
school. When controlling for initial ability, SES, and quality of
previous education, this difference remained consistent, showing that
Asian girls in the CE school participated in more activities than in the
SS school. However, this individual finding is minor when compared with
the overall null findings in the rest of the analysis.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2) Riordan (1994)</td>
<td>Riordan (1994), in considering a large sample of black and Hispanic
Catholic high school students (N = 690), found significant effects
favoring SS schools on opportunities for leadership for both males and
females. When controlling for home background and initial cognitive
ability, males and females in SS schools still had significantly more
leadership opportunities (standardized d score = .24 and .26,
respectively). When other formal and informal school variables were
accounted for, the differences between SS and CE schools were not
statistically significant, although the direction of the differences
still favored SS schools.</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### School Environment

School environment refers to an academic setting comprising a facility
and staff that support the welfare of students and their educational
achievement by fostering safety and protection from outer elements.
School environment is a crucial outcome because of its potential impact
on student safety and functionality. One study examined the impact of
single-sex schooling on school environment. This study reported null
results for high school students.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-31school-environment"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 31—School Environment</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Cuddy (2000)</td>
<td>Cuddy (2000), in comparing public CE schools with Catholic SS
schools, found no differences in the effect of grade or school
environment on false self-attributes.</td>
<td colspan="2">Null</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

## Subjective Satisfaction with the School Experience by Students, Parents, and Teachers

The final type of outcome measure involves satisfaction with either the
academic milieu or the social atmosphere in the school and may be of
lesser interest than the previous three categories. Because these are
not related to individual outcomes and reflect survey-type opinion
questions, it may be hardest to find high-quality studies with these
outcome measures. The outcomes included in this category are
satisfaction with the learning environment and college satisfaction.
Tables 31 and 32 examine the findings regarding these outcomes.

### Satisfaction With School Environment

Satisfaction with the school environment refers to the overall attitude
of pleasure with the academic setting. Satisfaction with school may or
may not be important to learning and in fact could indicate a
nonacademic subculture. One study examined the impact of single-sex
schooling on satisfaction with the school environment. This study
reported results in favor of coeducation for high school students.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-32satisfaction-with-school-environment"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 32—Satisfaction with School
Environment</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Schneider and Coutts (1992)</td>
<td>Schneider and Coutts (1982), in comparing SS versus CE schools (high
school, private/Catholic, 10th and 12th grade), found significant
differences between school environments as perceived by students. CE
schools were seen as more affiliative and pleasure oriented, with less
emphasis on control and discipline.</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### College Satisfaction

Satisfaction with college academics refers to the overall attitude of
acceptance or pleasure with one's collegiate academic career. One study
examined the impact of single-sex schooling on satisfaction with college
academics. When comparing single-sex schooling with coeducation for
girls, the study reported results in favor of single-sex schooling.
Participants attended either a single-sex high school or a coeducational
high school.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-33college-satisfaction-academic"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 33—College Satisfaction
(Academic)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Elementary</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Lee and Marks (1990)</td>
<td>Lee and Marks (1990) found a significant difference for females, in
that females who attended SS Catholic high schools were more likely to
be satisfied with the academic part of their college experience than
were women who attended CE Catholic high schools (d = 0.32). They also
found a significant difference for females, in that females who attended
SS Catholic high schools were more likely to be satisfied with the
non-academic part of the college experience than were women who attended
CE Catholic high schools (d = 0.33).</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

A table summarizing all of these findings is below. In each row, one of
the 32 outcome categories is listed. The total number of studies related
to that outcome category is listed, as well as the raw number and
percent of findings that either support SS schooling, support CE
schooling, are null, or mixed (supporting both CE and SS schooling).
While eight of the outcome categories have four or more findings, others
have as few as one or two findings. For any outcome category, the
percentage of studies falling in any of the dispositions (supporting SS,
supporting CE, null, or mixed) and the confidence with which one can use
the findings will increase with the number of studies. Therefore, the
percentages in Table 33 should be treated with caution when only one or
two studies appear for that outcome as the dearth of studies in a given
outcome category might skew the percentage associated.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 33%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-34summary-of-findings"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 34—Summary of Findings</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2"><em>Outcome</em></th>
<th rowspan="2"><em>Total Number of Studies</em></th>
<th colspan="2"><em>Pro-SS</em></th>
<th colspan="2"><em>Pro-CE</em></th>
<th colspan="2"><em>Null</em></th>
<th colspan="2"><em>Mixed</em></th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>Number of Studies</th>
<th>Percent</th>
<th>Number of Studies</th>
<th>Percent</th>
<th>Number of Studies</th>
<th>Percent</th>
<th>Number of Studies</th>
<th>Percent</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Concurrent Academic Accomplishment</td>
<td><em><strong> </strong></em></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><em><strong> </strong></em></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><em><strong> </strong></em></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><em><strong> </strong></em></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><em><strong> </strong></em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1) All-Subject Achievement Test Scores</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>67%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>11%</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>22%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2) Mathematics Achievement Test Scores</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>22%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>56%</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>22%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>3) Science Achievement Test Scores</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>25%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>62%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>13%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>4) Verbal/English Achievement Test Scores</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>30%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>70%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5) Grades</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>6) Social Studies Achievement Test Scores</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Subtotal</td>
<td><strong>43</strong></td>
<td><strong>15</strong></td>
<td><strong>35%</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>2%</strong></td>
<td><strong>23</strong></td>
<td><strong>53%</strong></td>
<td><strong>4</strong></td>
<td><strong>10%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Long-Term Academic Accomplishment</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>7) Postsecondary Test Scores</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>8) College Graduation</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>9) Graduate School Attendance</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Subtotal</td>
<td><strong>4</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>25%</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0%</strong></td>
<td><strong>3</strong></td>
<td><strong>75%</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Concurrent Adaptation and Socioemotional Development</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>10) Self-Concept</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>57%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>43%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>11) Self-Esteem</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>17%</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>33%</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>12) Locus of Control</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>60%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>40%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>13) School Track and Subject Preference</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>36%</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>14%</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>43%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>14) Educational Aspirations</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>67%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>33%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="3"><p>15) Career Aspirations</p>
<p>16) Delinquency</p>
<p>17) Attitudes Toward School</p></td>
<td>2</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>4</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>20%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>20%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>20%</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>40%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>18) Time Spent per Week on Homework</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>19) Attitudes Toward Working Women</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Subtota</strong>l</td>
<td><strong>49</strong></td>
<td><strong>22</strong></td>
<td><strong>45%</strong></td>
<td><strong>5</strong></td>
<td><strong>10%</strong></td>
<td><strong>19</strong></td>
<td><strong>39%</strong></td>
<td><strong>3</strong></td>
<td><strong>6%</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 33%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-34summary-of-findings-contd"
class="Tables-NO-TOC">Table 34—Summary of Findings (cont’d)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2"><em>Outcome</em></th>
<th rowspan="2"><em>Total Number of Studies</em></th>
<th colspan="2"><em>Pro-SS</em></th>
<th colspan="2"><em>Pro-CE</em></th>
<th colspan="2"><em>Null</em></th>
<th colspan="2"><em>Mixed</em></th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>Number of Studies</th>
<th>Percent</th>
<th>Number of Studies</th>
<th>Percent</th>
<th>Number of Studies</th>
<th>Percent</th>
<th>Number of Studies</th>
<th>Percent</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Long-term Adaptation and Socioemotional Development</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>20) School Completion</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>21) Postsecondary Success</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>22) Postsecondary Unemployment</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>23) Eating Disorders</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>24) Choice of College Major</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>25) Sex-Role Stereotyping</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>26) Political Involvement</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>27) Percent Married to First Spouse</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Subtotal</td>
<td><strong>10</strong></td>
<td><strong>5</strong></td>
<td><strong>50%</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>20%</strong></td>
<td><strong>3</strong></td>
<td><strong>30%</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Perceived School Culture</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>28) Climate for Learning</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>29) Opportunities for Leadership Roles</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>30) School Environment</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Subtotal</td>
<td><strong>4</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>50%</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0%</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>50%</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Subjective Satisfaction</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>31) Satisfaction with School Environment</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>32) College Satisfaction</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Subtotal</td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>50%</strong></td>
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td><strong>50%</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0%</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>TOTALS</td>
<td><strong>112</strong></td>
<td><strong>46</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>9</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>50</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>7</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

## **Expected Outcomes Not Seen in the Review**

Teenage pregnancy, college performance, differential treatment by
teachers, parental satisfaction, bullying in school, and teacher
satisfaction were among the many outcomes that we expected to see in the
review. However, no studies examining these outcomes met the criteria
for inclusion in this review.

# Qualitative Review

The qualitative review of literature yielded four quality studies that
present observations about single-sex schooling and its impact on
various outcomes. These authors also provide explanations built on
phenomena observed throughout single-sex schools. Their work is
summarized briefly below.

Datnow, Hubbard, and Woody's (2001) three-year, longitudinal case study
of SS middle and high schools in California was concerned less with the
effects of single-sex education on individual students and more with the
problems encountered in implementing SS education in the public sector.
The monograph describing their research describes six pairs of
single-sex academies. Insights are offered on parental choice,
educational ideology, and moral guidance. The authors conclude that
situational concerns of state funding, additional available resources,
low achievement, poverty, violence, and geographic isolation played more
of a role in decision making than did attitudes about the value of
single-sex education.

Svartoien-Conway's dissertation (2000) was a retrospective study of 20
college seniors that tried to determine the impact that their attendance
at all-girl high schools had on their subsequent leadership involvement.
The scope of the study was smaller than any of the other studies and
somewhat peripheral to school achievement. The attempt to gain a broader
understanding of the ultimate impact of single sex education, however,
is a useful addition to a literature dominated by shorter-term outcomes.

Shmurak (1998) followed girls at four schools (two SS, two CE)
throughout her five-year longitudinal case study. She used a literary
device whereby one girl from each school was made part of a quartet
described by typological descriptors such as Scholastic Superstars,
Students of Color, Athletes, Scientists, Artists and Actresses, and
Different Drummers. This approach allowed her to appreciate the
complexity of the circumstances and personal factors that influenced
individual decisions. However, it also obscured general trends that
might have led to hypotheses. Shmurak's typological approach produced
little direction for causal hypotheses but provided a healthy corrective
to the broad generalizations of quantitative studies.

The bulk of Streitmatter's (1999) book is anecdotal, but it also
contains sections on the history and literature of the single-sex debate
and a section on the implications for Title IX. It was reviewed because
it included a case study of a single-sex high school in addition to case
studies of all-girl classes in otherwise coeducational schools. The book
documents student attitudes toward and beliefs about single-sex
education. Its contribution is largely in providing compelling
illustrations of girls' experiences.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 33%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-35qualitative-studies"
class="Tables unnumbered">Table 35—Qualitative Studies</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Middle School</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1) Datnow, Hubbard, and Woody (2001)</td>
<td>Datnow, Hubbard, and Woody (2001) report on a three-year,
longitudinal case study of twelve (six boys; six girls) public SS middle
and high schools in California. Researchers found that, in some
cases, situational concerns of state funding, additional available
resources, low achievement, poverty, violence, and geographic isolation
overwhelmed SS/CE distinctions. SS choice did not increase diversity of
offerings in all cases and student distractions were not necessarily
reduced. In several schools, curriculum and instruction were tailored to
different needs of sexes, whereas in other schools, efforts were made to
keep curriculum and instruction consistent for both sexes. Soon after
the study five of the six school districts studied closed their SS
schools and impending closure may have affected results.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2) Shmurak (1998)</td>
<td>Shmurak (1998) reported on a five-year longitudinal case study of SS
and CE girls in four high schools. There were no differences between
groups on a gender attitude measure. There were no significant
differences in SAT scores, but SS girls had significantly higher
Advanced Placement (AP) test scores, whereas CE girls took more science
and got into significantly higher rated colleges. Girls in CE schools
were more interested in sports, and girls in SS schools were more
interested in art. Career aspirations for SS and CE were not
different.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td>√</td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 33%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><h6 id="table-35qualitative-studies-contd"
class="Tables-NO-TOC">Table 35—Qualitative Studies (cont’d)</h6></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2">Authors</th>
<th rowspan="2">Study Findings</th>
<th colspan="8">Advantage to:</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>SS</th>
<th>CE</th>
<th><p>SS</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th><p>CE</p>
<p>males</p></th>
<th>SS females</th>
<th>CE females</th>
<th>Middle School</th>
<th>High School</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>3) Streitmatter (1999)</td>
<td>Streitmatter’s (1999) case study studied a private day school for
girls in preschool through high school. Two students and one teacher
interviewed supported SS education, but other comments were
idiosyncratic to the person interviewed. The study was limited in scope
and generalizability.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>4) Svartoien-Conway (2000)</td>
<td>Svartoien-Conway (2000) conducted one-hour interviews with 20 female
college seniors in 1999 who had attended SS high schools to determine
its effect on leadership involvement in college. Results suggested that
women from SS high schools may have self-confidence impeded in CE
colleges.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>√</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

#  {#section-5 .Chapter-Title .unnumbered}

# Implications of Review {#implications-of-review-1 .Chapter-Title}

## Specific Implications

We begin our synopsis of this review by summarizing the findings within
each broad domain of outcome measure, using the structure of the
original research questions:

Are single-sex (SS) schools more effective than coeducational (CE)
schools in terms of concurrent, quantifiable academic accomplishments?
Conversely, are any adverse effects associated with single-sex schools
in this realm?

In general, more studies reporting the positive effects of SS schools on
all-subject achievement test scores were found than studies reporting
the positive effect of CE schools on the same outcomes. Studies
examining the mathematics, science, English, and civics achievement
outcomes for SS schools reported findings similar to those of overall
academic achievement with one caveat. In each case, roughly a third of
all studies reported findings favoring SS schools, with the remainder of
the studies split between null and mixed results. In the one study
(Garcia, 1998) favoring CE schooling, the advantages accrued only to
white females, but not to Asian or black females. Given this small to
medium support for SS schooling, it is important to note that this
finding applies to both males and females and in studies pertaining to
both elementary and high schools. This is consistent with Mael's (1998)
finding that "the assertion that SS schooling has positive benefits for
the academic achievement of both sexes is supported by the predominance
of research, though effects appear more pronounced and less ambiguous
for females than for males" (p. 117). Males continue to be
underrepresented in this realm of research.

Are SS schools more effective than CE schools in terms of long-term,
quantifiable academic accomplishment? Conversely, are any adverse
effects associated with single-sex schools in this realm?

As opposed to concurrent indicators of academic achievement, any
positive effects of SS schooling on longer-term indicators of academic
achievement are not readily apparent. No differences were found for
postsecondary test scores, college graduation rates, or graduate school
attendance rates. However, all the findings in this domain came from
only two studies (Marsh, 1989; Riordan, 1990), indicating the lack of
research on these important criteria. Although some evidence favors
single-sex education in the case of postsecondary test scores, there is
a dearth of recent studies using controls. There has been a similar lack
of research on other potential criteria in this domain, such as college
grade point average, meritorious scholarships or funding attained,
postgraduate licensure test scores, and any career achievement that
could ostensibly be tied to quality of schooling. This severely limits
the ability to come to any conclusions about the efficacy of SS
schooling in this domain. A series of studies by Tidball and colleagues,
as well as additional studies supporting and refuting her findings
(Oates and Williamson, 1978; Rice and Hemmings, 1988; Tidball, 1973;
Tidball and Kistiakowsky, 1976), deal with the postschool
accomplishments of graduates of women's colleges and are not directly
relevant.

Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in
terms of concurrent, quantifiable indicators of individual student
adaptation and socioemotional development? Conversely, are any adverse
effects associated with single-sex schools in this realm?

This category includes a range of outcomes that are not easily grouped
together, and the results are mixed. More studies reporting positive
effects of SS schools on self-concept and locus of control were found
than those reporting positive effects of CE schools. However, results
regarding self-esteem were indicative of the opposite as the majority of
studies were pro-CE---at least for males---or reported no differences
between SS and CE schools. For males, the single high school study
favored CE schools, whereas for elementary school males, one study each
favored either CE or SS schooling. Thus, it is difficult to draw any
conclusions about this variable. It is also noteworthy that in a
wide-ranging review of the self-esteem literature, Baumeister et al.
(2003) concluded that self-esteem's relationship to school success,
occupational success, better relationships, leadership, delinquent
behavior, and other desirable outcomes is modest to nonexistent, and in
each case the direction of causality is unclear. Although self-reported
self-esteem is correlated with happiness, they found no evidence that
efforts to boost self-esteem were successful. Thus, even if more studies
were to show SS schooling to be associated with high or low self-esteem,
the implications of that finding might be minimal, given that
self-esteem is a relatively poor indicator of a type of school's
efficacy.

A majority of studies supported the position that SS schooling resulted
in higher academic aspirations, as evidenced by students showing more
interest in and taking more difficult courses. The findings of a recent
unpublished study by Spielhofer et al. (2002) with a large sample and
excellent statistical controls were especially impressive. SS schools
also resulted in higher educational and career aspirations for girls. A
category called "attitudes toward school" showing mixed results was
actually a combination of single studies using different outcome
variables, thus reducing the meaningfulness of the category. In terms of
actual behaviors, a few studies looked at delinquency. Although none
found advantages for CE schools, any differences in favor of SS schools
were moderated by individual developmental differences. This is one of a
number of socioemotional outcome variables that can be measured by
objective criteria and would benefit from additional studies. A single
study showed SS females to have more positive attitudes toward working
women (Riordan, 1990); however, the study was published 15 years ago and
participation in the workplace for all women has increased so much that
the data and the SS-CE differences may be dated. Generally, across this
category, the preponderance of new studies and previous ones that Mael
(1998) did not properly highlight support the view that SS schooling is
associated with more positive attitudes toward and aspirations about
education and careers.

What is lacking is a conceptual framework to tie together the myriad
academic-attitude outcome measures used in this realm so that studies
will be more directly comparable. The same can be said for the studies
using the relatively amorphous "self-concept" as an outcome variable. In
particular, the research is sketchy about how malleable self-concept and
self-esteem are as a function of type of school, holding all other life
influences constant.

Are SS schools more effective than CE schools in terms of long-term,
quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and
socioemotional development? Conversely, are any adverse effects
associated with single-sex schools in this realm?

The outcomes in this domain generally do not appear in more than one or
two studies that made it to Phase III review. Therefore, we must be
cautious in generalizing from these results. Having said that, the
results still suggest the potential that SS schooling could be
associated with a number of post--high school, long-term positive
outcomes. These include postsecondary success or participation in
collegiate activities while maintaining full-time enrollment for a
four-year period, reduced unemployment (males and females), reduced
propensity to drop out of high school (males and females), the choice of
a nontraditional college major (for females), and political activism
(for females). The sole exception is eating disorders, in which one
study found negative effects for SS schooling on eating disorders.
However, Mensinger's relatively small Australian sample highlights the
need for additional research.

Are single-sex schools more effective than coeducational schools in
terms of addressing issues of procedural (e.g., classroom treatment) and
outcome measures of gender inequity? Conversely, are any adverse effects
associated with single-sex schools related to gender equity?

This question could not be addressed because we did not come across any
quantitative studies that used gender equity as an outcome variable at
the school level. Any studies that compared SS and CE classrooms within
a CE school were outside the purview of this study and were not
reviewed.

Are SS schools more effective than CE schools in terms of perceptual
measures of the school climate or culture that may have an impact on
performance? Conversely, are any adverse effects associated with
single-sex schools in this realm?

School culture or climate refers to the informal rules, norms, and "ways
things work" that create expectations for students and socialize
students into certain modes of behavior. Culture and climate have the
potential to increase aspiration levels and open new opportunities for
students or, conversely, to teach students to stay within certain
culturally mandated constraints deemed appropriate for persons like
themselves (e.g., females, Hispanics). Advocates of SS schooling have
argued that the cultures in SS schools foster greater academic
aspirations and make it acceptable to be interested in academics more
than in socializing. In addition, it has been argued that all-female
schools allow women to pursue non-stereotypical courses and majors and
hold leadership roles and that all-male schools for disadvantaged youths
allow their students to pursue academic interests without peer censure.
Evidence supporting claims that better culture leads to better
organizational outcomes has been mixed, as is much research attempting
to tie organizational culture to performance (Wilderom, Glunk, and
Maslowski, 2000). This category includes a number of disparate,
single-study results. The only study addressing leadership opportunities
found more opportunities for both males and females in SS schools
(Riordan, 1990); however, and the statistical significance of this
finding depended on what other variables had been controlled for.
Another study found that SS schools put more value on grades and
leadership and less on attractiveness and money for both males and
females (Schneider and Coutts, 1982). However, there remains a dearth of
high-quality empirical studies using this class of outcome variables as
criteria.

A final category of outcomes examined as a subset of culture was the
realm of subjective satisfaction of students, parents, and teachers with
the school environment. Extensive research in the late 1960s and 1970s
found that CE schools had friendlier and more relaxed atmospheres, with
more opportunities for pleasure-centered social contact (Dale, 1971,
1974; Hyde, 1971). Although not formally part of the K-12 sample of this
study, it is useful to note that at the college level, Astin (1977) and
Smith (1990) also found that CE colleges were rated as having more
enjoyable campus social life by males and females, respectively. Whether
enjoyment of campus life should take priority over other academic and
socioemotional criteria is debatable. The one study (Schneider and
Coutts, 1982) in this review that found the social environment more
appealing in CE schools is a good case in point because the same study
found that SS students are more interested in grades and leadership and
less interested in money and looks. Although some qualitative studies
have looked at why certain parents prefer SS schooling, we did not
review any empirical studies comparing current parental satisfaction in
equivalent SS and CE schools. Studies in other cultures have found mixed
results regarding teacher satisfaction with CE versus SS schooling
(Marsh, Owens, Myers, and Smith, 1989; Payne and Newton, 1990). There
remains a lack of research both on this class of criteria and on the
relationship of subjective satisfaction to other more critical criteria.

## General Trends

A few trends are apparent across all outcomes. The preponderance of
studies in areas such as academic accomplishment (both concurrent and
long term) and adaptation or socioemotional development (both concurrent
and long term) yields results ranging from supporting SS schooling to no
differences between SS and CE schooling. A limited number of studies
throughout the review provide evidence favoring CE schooling. It is more
common to come across studies that report no differences between SS and
CE schooling than to find outcomes with support for the superiority of
CE schooling. In terms of outcomes that may be of most interest to the
primary stakeholders (students and their parents), such as academic
achievement, self-concept, and long-term indicators of success, there is
a degree of support for SS schooling. The one outcome variable that
might be of most concern to parents of high school females is eating
disorders; however, the single study suggesting greater problems in SS
schools must be replicated in the United States with a larger, more
diverse population of subjects. Special attention must be given to
individual differences in this regard because conversely, Caspi's work
suggests that for some girls, delinquency is a greater concern in CE
schools.

The overwhelming majority of studies employed high school students, with
a small minority using elementary school students. Not a single study in
the quantitative review reported findings from a sample of middle school
students. One possible explanation for this is that the preponderance of
single-sex schooling research has been conducted in Catholic schools. In
Catholic schools, students are separated by gender only when entering
adolescence, which coincides with the beginning of high school. Prior to
high school, most Catholic students attend CE schools. Therefore,
opportunities to study the phenomenon of SS schooling in either public
or private schools have been limited. It is evident that studies
comparing students from elementary and middle public schools are needed.
This one-sidedness is also exhibited when considering studies that
focused on one sex or another exclusively. The twenty findings drawn
exclusively on girls were split evenly between support for SS schooling
and no differences. Only two of these girls' findings resulted in
pro-CE. No generalizations could be made for exclusive boys' studies as
there were only three in the entire review.

There is a dearth of quality studies (i.e., randomized experiments or
correlational studies with adequate statistical controls) across all
outcomes. From the perspective of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC),
which requires randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs
with matching (QED), or regression discontinuity designs to build an
evidence base, virtually no studies would inform this topic. Even using
the more relaxed criterion of allowing correlational studies, each
outcome has only limited candidate studies. Too few researchers report
descriptive statistics or effect sizes. Providing such information would
allow the aggregation of such effects and the correction of statistical
artifacts. Of all the outcomes of interest, only mathematics achievement
test scores and school track and subject preferences had more than 10
studies appropriate for our review.

Even within these categories, the studies differ in the criteria they
use, the criterion measures they use, and the statistical controls they
use to compare SS and CE schooling. This somewhat limits the arguments
that can be built and extended from this quantitative review and render
it nearly impossible to conduct meta-analysis on any outcome area. In
fact, Hunter and Schmidt (1990), who have written extensively on
meta-analysis and validity generalization, have advised against
generalizing from any findings taken from meta-analyses using fewer than
15 studies, even with a homogeneous set of criteria and criterion
measures. According to their rule of thumb, not one of the outcomes of
interest would yield generalizable findings from a meta-analysis. Many
of the remaining studies have other conceptual or interpretive flaws.
These studies lacked well-developed hypotheses, and the hypotheses were
often not linked directly to the outcomes being studied. Often, the
availability of data was the driving force in using a specific outcome
measure. Finally, the list of outcomes of interest needs to be expanded
in future research and defined more clearly. Outcomes such as teenage
pregnancy and bullying in school did not appear in a single study of
sufficient quality to be reviewed. Other outcomes implicit in arguments
for and against SS schooling need to be addressed explicitly. These
include work-related long-term outcomes such as job performance,
leadership performance, performance in mixed-sex work teams, performance
and leadership in volunteer associations, job involvement, and
organizational commitment. Expansion of this domain could prove useful
in extending theory and changing practice.

These general implications of the review provide a stepping-stone for
future research through the continuation of quality research on extant
outcomes, the refinement of methodology, better statistical reporting,
and the expansion of the theoretical domain. If heeded, these
implications can improve the generalizations made about single-sex
schooling and coeducation.

## The Difficulties in Doing Single-Sex Research

This review should not be interpreted as a condemnation of the work of
the dedicated researchers who have chosen to study SS-CE differences.
Unlike other interventions that can be studied in a controlled
environment, such as educational techniques, a randomized experiment for
this topic would take significant effort to design and implement.
Randomized assignment to groups presumes that subjects (students) can be
assigned to either treatment or control groups without their knowledge
or permission. In actuality, for legal and other reasons, it is unlikely
that students would be assigned to single-sex schools, other than
voluntarily. As soon as parental preference is allowed to determine
assignment to group, the possibility that the two parent bodies (and
hence the students) will differ significantly is real. In principle, the
administrations and staffs would have to be assigned randomly to each
school, although in fact at least some of those working in SS schools do
so because they believe in the concept. Moreover, the staff may embrace
a particular view of women's education or the need for Afrocentric
education that goes beyond the value associated with simply absenting
the other sex. This would move the schools being compared even further
from being randomized, matched groups. If the SS school is new or
relatively new compared with the comparison CE school, one must question
whether the relative immaturity of the SS school's culture and
socialization processes is a cause for SS-CE disparities in outcomes.
Moreover, if a previously CE school is split into a CE and SS school, or
vice versa, the possibility of a Hawthorne effect, which can be
manifested as an increase in student performance produced by the
psychological stimulus of being singled out and made to feel important,
in the new school cannot be discounted.

Thus, although, assuming that a randomized experiment could be performed
practically, ethically, and consistent with the laws prohibiting sex
discrimination, it could surely be worthwhile to conduct a randomized
experiment, it would be unfair to criticize previous researchers who may
not have had the resources to conduct a study requiring significant
social engineering. Rather, we argue that instead of trying to conduct
only all-or-nothing studies of whether SS schooling is better or worse,
more careful specification of hypotheses and direct linkage of
hypotheses to specific outcomes may show ways to conduct smaller studies
that prove whether certain aspects of SS or CE schooling are beneficial.

## Moderators and Individual Differences

In his 1998 review, Mael noted that with few exceptions (described
below), the possibility that either SS or CE schooling might be more
beneficial for some students and harmful to others has not been
considered. Moderator variables (Baron and Kenny, 1986) may change or
limit the relationship between type of school and one or more outcomes
in important ways. Using moderator variables may show that SS schools
are effective or are especially effective only in some situations or for
some groups of students. The most obvious moderator is the sex of the
student. In a number of studies in this review, SS schools are
associated with different outcomes for girls and boys. This is
understandable, considering that some proposed reasons for valuing SS
schooling are unique to either males or females. Another common
moderator is the age of the student, reflected in differentiating
between effects at elementary and high school levels. This is also
understandable, given that some explanations for the value of SS schools
are relevant only at the elementary or high school level.

A number of authors have also proposed that SS schools are particularly
effective for students of lower socioeconomic status and perhaps
specifically for those who are members of minority or disadvantaged
communities (Riordan, 1994, 2002; Salomone, 2002). This is another
important moderator variable to consider. Unfortunately, an insufficient
number of studies in this review focused on race or ethnicity as a
moderator. Only three studies addressed this moderator.

Another type of moderator does not deal with group characteristics, but
rather with specific personality or developmental characteristics of
boys and girls that might moderate the effects of SS schooling. An
example is Caspi's finding that SS schooling has differential effects on
girls depending on the onset of menarche (Caspi, 1995). Although this
and myriad other observations are of interest, their implications for
policy are more limited. Additional research on individual differences
and other moderators may help parents make more informed decisions.

## The Limits of a Systematic Review on This Topic

The purpose of a systematic review in the model of the Campbell
Collaboration and the What Works Clearinghouse is to demonstrate whether
evidence exists for the efficacy of an intervention. When the desired
intervention has a single, unambiguous criterion of success (e.g.,
retention of learned material or scores on tests), evidence of efficacy
can also be relatively unambiguous. However, when an intervention is
being judged by multiple criteria, and all stakeholders do not share the
hierarchy of these criteria, then the real limits of resolving debate
through systematic review are evident.

# References {#references .Chapter-Title}

## References in Text

Astin, A. W. (1977). On the failure of educational policy. *Change,* 9,
40--45.

Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. *Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology*, 51, 1173--1182.

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., and Vohs, K. D.
(2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal
success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? *Psychological Science in
the Public Interest*, 4, 1--45.

Caspi, A. (1995). Puberty and the gender organization of schools: How
biology and social context shape the adolescent experience. In L. J.
Crockett and A. C. Crouter (eds.), *Pathways through adolescence:
Individual development in relation to social contexts* (pp. 57--74).
Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Cho, M. K., and Bero, L. A. (1994). Instruments for assessing the
quality of drug studies published in the medical literature. *Journal of
the American Medical Association*, 272, 101--104.

Dale, R. R. (1971). *Mixed or single-sex school? Volume II: Some social
aspects.* London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Dale, R. R. (1974). *Mixed or single-sex school? Volume III:
Attainments, attitudes, and overview*. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Datnow, A. and Hubbard, L. (2002). *Gender in policy and practice:
Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling.* New York:
Routledge and Falmer.

Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., and Woody, E. (2001). *Is single gender
schooling viable in the public sector? Lessons from California's pilot
program.* Toronto, Ont.: Institute for Studies in Education.

Ellsberry, J. (1999). Auditing a school's climate for learning and
working. *Education Digest*, 65, 11--17.

Fox-Genovese, E. (1991). *Feminism without illusions: A critique of
individualism*. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Fox-Genovese, E. (Aug. 1, 1994). Save the males? *National Review*,
49--52.

Garcia, D. M. (1998). Single-sex vs. Coeducational public schooling for
girls: A high school comparison study. *Dissertation Abstracts
International,* 59(07), 2434A. (UMI No. 9839064)

Gilder, G. E. (1973). *Sexual suicide.* New York: Quadrangle.

Hamilton, S. F. (1986). Raising standards and reducing dropout rates. In
G. Natriello (ed.), *School dropouts: Patterns and policies* (pp.
148--167). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hanson, E. H. (1959). Do boys get a square deal in school? *Education,*
79, 597--598.

Hunter, J. E., and Schmidt, F. L. (1990). *Methods of meta-analysis:
Correcting error and bias in research findings.* Thousand Oaks, Calif:
Sage.

Hyde, S. (1971). The case for coeducation. *Independent School
Bulletin,* 31, 20--24.

Kenway, J., and Willis, S. (1986). Feminist single-sex educational
strategies: Some theoretical flaws and practical fallacies. *Discourse*,
7, 1--30.

Lee, V. E., and Bryk, A. S. (1986). Effects of single-sex secondary
schools on student achievement and attitudes. *Journal of Educational
Psychology*, 78, 381--395.

Lee, V. E., and Bryk, A. S. (1989). Effects of single-sex schools:
Response to Marsh. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 81, 647--650.

Levine, D. (1964). Coeducation---a contributing factor in miseducation
of the disadvantaged. *Phi Delta Kappan*, 46, 126--128.

Lipsey, M. W., and Wilson, D. B. (2001). *Practical meta-analysis*.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Mael, F. A. (1998). Single-sex and coeducational schooling:
Relationships to socioemotional and academic development. *Review of
Educational Research,* 68, 101--129.

Marsh, H. W. (1989). Effects of attending single-sex and coeducational
high schools on achievement, attitudes, behaviors, and sex differences.
*Journal of Educational Psychology*, 81, 70--85.

Marsh, H. W., and Rowe, K. J. (1996). The effects of single-sex and
mixed-sex mathematics classes within a coeducational school: A
reanalysis and comment. *Australian Journal of Education,* 40(2),
147--162.

Marsh, H. W., Owens, L., Myers, M. R., and Smith, I. D. (1989). The
transition from single-sex to coeducational high schools: Teacher
perceptions, academic achievement, and self-concept. *British Journal of
Educational Psychology*, 59, 155--173.

Mensinger, J. (2001). Conflicting gender role prescriptions and
disordered eating in single-sex and coeducational school environments.
*Gender and Education,* 13(4), 417--429.

Murphy, K. R., and Davidshofer, C. O. (2001). *Psychological testing:
Principles and applications* (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.

Oates, M. J., and Williamson, S. (1978). Women's colleges and women
achievers. *Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society*, 3,
795--806.

Payne, M. A., and Newton, E. H. (1990). Teachers' and students'
perceptions of the major advantages and disadvantages of coeducational
secondary schooling. *Australian Journal of Education*, 34, 67--86.

Purkey, W. W. (1970). Self-concept and school achievement. Oxford,
England: Prentice-Hall.

Rice, J. K., and Hemmings, A. (1988). Women's colleges and women\'s
achievers: An update. *Journal of Women in Culture and Society*, 13,
546--559.

Riordan, C. (1985). Public and Catholic schooling: The effects of gender
context policy. *American Journal of Education*, 93, 518--540.

Riordan, C. (1990). *Girls and boys in school: Together or separate?*
New York: Teachers College Press.

Riordan, C. (1994). Single-gender schools: Outcomes for African and
Hispanic Americans. *Research in Sociology of Education and
Socialization,* 10, 177--205.

Riordan, C. (2002). What do we know about the effects of single-sex
schools in the private sector? Implications for public schools. In A.
Datnow and L. Hubbard (eds.), *Gender in policy and practice:
Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling* (pp. 10--30).
New York: Routledge and Falmer.

Rowe, K. J. (1988). Single-sex and mixed-sex classes: The effects of
class type on student achievement, confidence, and participation in
mathematics. *Australian Journal of Education*, 32, 180--202.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus
external control of reinforcement. *Psychological Monographs: General
and Applied*, 80, 1--28.

Salomone, R. C. (2002). *Same, different, equal: Rethinking single-sex
schooling.* New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Schneider, F. W., and Coutts, L. M. (1982). The high school environment:
A comparison of coeducational and single-sex schools. *Journal of
Educational Psychology,* 74, 898--906.

Sexton, P. C. (1969). *The feminized male: Classrooms, white collars,
and the decline of manliness*. New York: Random House.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (2002). *Experimental
and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference.*
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Shmurak, C. B. (1998). *Voices of hope: Adolescent girls at single-sex
and coeducational schools.* New York: Peter Lang.

Silber, E. and Tippett, J. S. (1965) Self-esteem: Clinical assessment
and measurement validation*. Psychological Reports*, 16, 1017--1071.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Best-evidence synthesis: An intelligent
alternative to meta-analysis. *Journal of Clinical Epidemiology*, 48,
9--18.

Smith , D. G. (1990). Women's colleges and coed colleges: Is there a
difference for women? *Journal of Higher Education*, 61, 181--197.

Spielhofer, T., O'Donnell, L., Benton, T., Schagen, S., and Schagen, I.
(2002). *The impact of school size and single-sex education on
performance* (Local Government Association Report 33). Berkshire, U.K.:
National Foundation for Educational Research.

Streitmatter, J. L. (1999). *For girls only: Making a case for
single-sex schooling.* Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press.

Svartoien-Conway, J. (2000). In search of connection: How graduates from
all-girls high schools describe their leadership involvement at a
coeducational university. *Dissertation Abstracts International,*
61(05), 1704A. (UMI No. 9973604)

Tidball, M. E. (Spring 1973). Perspective on academic women and
affirmative action. *Educational Record*, 130--135.

Tidball, M. E., and Kistiakowsky, V. (1976). Baccalaureate origins of
American scientists and scholars. *Science*, 193, 646--652.

Valentine, J. C., and Cooper, H. (2003). *What Works Clearinghouse Study
Design and Implementation Assessment Device (Version 1.0).* Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Whitaker, C. (March 1991). Do black males need special schools? *Ebony,*
46(5), 17.

Whitehead, B. D. (October 1994). The failure of sex education. *The
Atlantic Monthly*, 55--80.

Wilderom, C. P. M., Glunk, U., and Maslowski, R. (2000). Organizational
culture as a predictor of organizational performance. In N. M.
Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, and M. F. Peterson (eds.), *Handbook of
organizational culture and climate* (pp. 193--210). Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage.

Yin, R. Y. (2002). *Applications of case study research.* Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage.

## Quantitative Phase III-Coded References

Ainley, J., and Daly, P. (2002). Participation in science courses in the
final year of high school in Australia: The influences of single-sex and
coeducational schools. In A. Datnow and L. Hubbard (eds.), *Gender in
policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational
schooling* (pp. 243--263). New York: Routledge and Falmer.

Baker, D. B., Riordan, C., and Schaub, M. (1995). The effects of
sex-grouped schooling on achievement: The role of national context.
*Comparative Education Review,* 39(4), 468--482.

Bornholt, L., and Moeller, J. (2003). Attributions about achievement and
about further study in social context. *Social Psychology of Education,*
6(3), 217--231.

Brutsaert, H., and Bracke, P. (1994). Gender context in elementary
school. *Educational Studies,* 20(1), 3--10.

Carpenter, P., and Hayden, M. (1987). Girls\' academic achievements:
Single-sex versus coeducational schools in Australia. *Sociology of
Education,* 60, 156--167.

Caspi, A. (1995). Puberty and the gender organization of schools: How
biology and social context shape the adolescent experience. In L. J.
Crockett and A. C. Crouter (eds.), *Pathways through adolescence:
Individual development in relation to social contexts* (pp. 57--74).
Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Caspi, A., Lynam, D., Moffitt, T. E., and Silva, P. A. (1993).
Unraveling girls' delinquency: Biological, dispositional, and contextual
contributions to adolescent behavior. *Developmental Psychology,* 29(1),
19--30.

Cipriani-Sklar, R. (1996). A quantitative and qualitative examination of
the influence of the normative and perceived school environments of a
coeducational public school vs. a single-sex Catholic school on
ninth-grade girls' science self-concept and anxiety in the area of
science education. *Dissertation Abstracts International,* 57*(*10),
4312A. (UMI No. 9706808)

Conway, K. E. (1996). Differential effects of single-sex versus coed
education on the mathematical reasoning ability, verbal reasoning
ability, and self-concept of high school girls. *Dissertation Abstracts
International,* 57(12), 5047A. (UMI No. 9717537)

Cuddy, A. R. (2000). The development of self-concept in adolescent girls
attending single-sex and coeducational schools: Exploring the influence
of cognitive and social factors. *Dissertation Abstracts International,*
63(10), 4941B. (UMI No. 3067808)

Daly, P. (1995). Science course participation and science achievement in
single sex and co-educational schools. *Evaluation and Research in
Education,* 9, 91--98.

Daly, P. (1996). The effects of single-sex and coeducational secondary
schooling on girls' achievement. *Research Papers in Education,* 11(3),
289--306.

Daly, P., and Ainley, J. (n.d.) Student participation in mathematics
courses in Australian secondary schools.

Daly, P., Ainley, J., and Robinson, L. (1996). *The influence of
single-sex secondary schooling on choice of science courses.* Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, N.Y.

Daly, P., and Shuttleworth, I. (1996). Determinants of public
examination entry and attainment in mathematics: Evidence on gender and
gender-type of school from the 1980s and 1990s in Northern Ireland.
*Evaluation and Research in Education,* 10*,* 1--11.

Garcia, D. M. (1998). Single-sex vs. Coeducational public schooling for
girls: A high school comparison study. *Dissertation Abstracts
International,* 59(07), 2434A. (UMI No. 9839064)

Harker, R. (2000). Achievement, gender, and the single-sex/coed debate.
*British Journal of Sociology of Education,* 21(2), 203--218.

Harker, R., and Nash, R. (March, 1997). *School type and the education
of girls: Co-ed or girls only?* Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Ill. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED410633)

Lambert, J. (1998). An investigation of the difference in
multidimensional self-concept between adolescent girls in single-sex and
coeducational school settings. *Dissertation Abstracts International,*
59(02), 876B. (UMI No. 9824795)

Lee, V. E., and Bryk, A. S. (1986). Effects of single-sex secondary
schools on student achievement and attitudes. *Journal of Educational
Psychology,* 78, 381--395.

Lee, V. E., and Lockheed, M. E. (1990). The effect of single-sex
schooling on achievement and attitudes in Nigeria. *Comparative
Education Review,* 34(2), 209--231.

Lee, V. E., and Marks, H. M. (1990). Sustained effects of the single-sex
secondary school experience on attitudes, behaviors, and values in
college. *Journal of Educational Psychology,* 82(3), 578--592.

LePore, P. C., and Warren, J. R. (1997). A comparison of single-sex and
coeducational Catholic secondary schooling: Evidence from the National
Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. *American Educational Research
Journal,* 34(3), 485--511.

Marsh, H. W. (1989). Effects of attending single-sex and coeducational
high schools on achievement, attitudes, behaviors, and sex differences.
*Journal of Educational Psychology,* 81(1), 70--85.

Marsh, H. W. (1991). Public, Catholic single-sex and Catholic
coeducational high schools: Their effect on achievement, affect, and
behaviors. *American Journal of Education,* 99(3), 320--356.

Marsh, H. W., Smith, I. D., Marsh, M., and Owens, L. (1988). The
transition from single-sex to coeducational high schools: Effects on
multiple dimensions of self-concept and on academic achievement.
*American Educational Research Journal,* 25(2), 237--269.

Mensinger, J. (2001). Conflicting gender role prescriptions and
disordered eating in single-sex and coeducational school environments.
*Gender and Education,* 13(4), 417--429.

Proach, J. A. (2000). A study of the attitudes and academic achievement
in biology of females in a single-sex school vs. a coeducational school
in the Philadelphia Archdiocesan secondary schools. *Dissertation
Abstracts International,* 61(03), 937A. (UMI No. 9966004)

Riordan, C. (1985). Public and Catholic schooling: The effects of gender
context policy. *American Journal of Education,* 93, 518--540.

Riordan, C. (1990). Short-term outcomes of mixed- and single-sex
schooling. In *Girls and boys in school: Together or separate?* (pp.
82--113). New York: Teachers College Press.

Riordan, C. (1994). Single-gender schools: Outcomes for African and
Hispanic Americans. *Research in Sociology of Education and
Socialization,* 10, 177--205.

Sanders, E. (November 1992). *Black inner-city males and the Milwaukee
Public Schools Immersion Program: A progress report.* Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational
Administration, Minneapolis, Minn. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED397212)

Spielhofer, T., O'Donnell, L., Benton, T., Schagen, S., and Schagen, I.
(2002). *The impact of school size and single-sex education on
performance* (Local Government Association Report 33). Berkshire, U.K.:
National Foundation for Educational Research.

Schneider, F. W., and Coutts, L. M. (1982). The high school environment:
A comparison of coeducational and single-sex schools. *Journal of
Educational Psychology,* 74, 898--906.

Stables, A. (1990). Differences between pupils from mixed and single-sex
schools in their enjoyment of school subjects and attitudes to science
and to school. *Educational Review,* 42, 221--230.

Steinback, M., and Gwizdala, J. (1995). Gender differences in
mathematics attitudes of secondary students. *School Science and
Mathematics,* 95, 36--41.

Thompson, J. S. (2003). The effect of single-sex secondary schooling on
women\'s choice of college major. *Sociological Perspectives,* 46,
257--278.

Watson C. M., Quatman, T., and Edler, E. (2002). Career aspirations of
adolescent girls: Effects of achievement level, grade, and single-sex
school environment. *Sex Roles,* 46, 323--335.

Woodward, L. J., Fergusson, D. M., and Horwood, L. J. (1999). Effects of
single-sex and coeducational secondary schooling on children\'s academic
achievement. *Australian Journal of Education,* 43, 142--156.

Young D. J., and Fraser, B. J. (April 1992). *Sex differences in science
achievement: A multilevel analysis.* Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Research Association, San Francisco, Calif.

## Quantitative Phase III-Excluded References

Armstrong, J., and Price, R. (1982). Correlates and predictors of
women's mathematics participation. *Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education,* 13, 99--109.

Bastick, T. (2000, April). *Mediation of anti-social adolescent behavior
by single-sex and co-educational schooling.* Revision of paper presented
at the Western Psychological Association convention, Portland, Oreg.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED463042)

Bornholt, L. J. (1988*). Perceptions of achievement: The effects of
gender, school type, and grade.* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED305989)

Bornholt, L. J. (2001). Self-concepts, usefulness and behavioural
intentions in the social context of schooling. *Educational Psychology,*
21, 67--78.

Brody, C., Fuller, K., Gosetti, P. P., Moscato, S., Nagel, N., Pace, G.,
and Schmuck P. (April 1998). *Gender and the culture of schools.* Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, Calif. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED421575)

Broyles, J. (1992). An examination of self-concept and academic
achievement in a newly coeducational environment. *Dissertation
Abstracts International,* 53(10), 3475A. (UMI No. 9238139)

Dorman, J. P., and Queensland (March 1997). Classroom environment in
Australian Catholic schools: A study utilising quantitative and
qualitative methods. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Ill. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED412647)

Fennema, E., and Sherman, J. (1978). Sex-related differences in
mathematics achievement and related factors: A further study. *Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education,* 9, 189--203.

Flanders, J. A. (1992). An investigative study of the relationship
between single-sex/coeducational school transition and sex role identity
and achievement motivational factors. *Dissertation Abstracts
International,* 53(08), 2758A. (UMI No. 9238174)

Fox, M. L. (1993). A comparison of female student leaders in single
gender and coeducational high schools. *Dissertation Abstracts
International,* 54(06), 2110A. (UMI No. 9332759)

Fritz, R. A. (1996). An inferential study comparing science achievement
in single-sex and mixed-sex schools: Testing for interactions between
gender and instructional environment. *Dissertation Abstracts
International,* 57(03), 1082A. (UMI No. 9625081)

Gilroy, M. K. (1990). Single-sex schooling and its effect on
achievement, attitudes and behaviors. *Dissertation Abstracts
International,* 51(07), 3611B. (UMI No. 9034425)

Gilson, J. E. (1999). *Single-gender education versus coeducation for
girls: A study of mathematics achievement and attitudes toward
mathematics of middle-school students.* Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal,
Quebec.

Holz-Ebeling, F., Gratz-Tummers, J., and Schwarz, C. (2000). Are boys
profiting from coeducation? An empirical study of the significance of
coeducation to boys. *Zeitschrift fur Entwicklungspsychologie und
Padagogische Psychologie,* 32, 94--107.

Holz-Ebeling, F., and Hansel, S. (1993). Are there differences between
girls in single-sex and mixed schools---A contribution to the
coeducation debate. *Psychologie in Erzeihung und Unterricht,* 40,
21--33.

Hyde, J. S., and Linn, M. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability:
A meta-analysis. *Psychological Bulletin,* 104, 53--69.

Jacklin, C. N., and Maccoby, E. E. (1978). Social behavior at
thirty-three months in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads. *Child
Development,* 49, 557--569.

James, A. N. (2001). Educating boys: A comparison of educational
attitudes of male graduates of single-sex and coed schools.
*Dissertation Abstracts International,* 62(01), 77A. (UMI No. 3000181)

Katsurada, E., and Sugihara, Y. (2002). Gender-role identity, attitudes
toward marriage, and gender-segregated school backgrounds. *Sex Roles,*
47, 249--258.

Kleinfeld, J. (1999). Student performance: Males versus females. *Public
Interest,* 134, 3--20.

Kysor, D. (April 1993). *Transitioning from single-sex to coeducational
high school: A study exploring the effects on self-concept using the
Self Description Questionnaire II.* Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Washington,
D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED364795)

Lawrie, L., and Brown, R. (1992). Sex stereotypes, school subject
preferences, and career aspirations as a function of single/mixed-sex
schooling and presence/absence of an opposite sibling. *British Journal
of Educational Psychology,* 62, 132--138.

Lepore, P.C., and Warren, J. R. (1996). *The advantages of single-sex
Catholic secondary schooling: Selection effects, school effects, or
'much ado about nothing'?* Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York, N.Y.

Lockheed, M. E. (1985). Sex and social influence: A meta-analysis guided
by theory. In J. Berger and M. Zelditch Jr. (eds.), *Status, rewards,
and influence* (pp. 406--427). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Marsh, H. W. (April 1992). *What makes a difference during the last two
years of high school: An overview of studies based on High School and
Beyond data.* Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, Calif. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED349314)

McDonald, M. C. (1996). The importance of single-gender education for
females as reported by parents, teachers and administrators associated
with independent schools. *Dissertation Abstracts International,*
57(09), 3767A. (UMI No. 9705700)

Mensinger, J. L. (2003). Disordered eating, adherence to the superwoman
ideal, and gender socialization in coeducational and single-sex school
environments. *Dissertation Abstracts International,* 64(03), 1552B.
(UMI No. 3085692)

Moore, M., Piper, V., and Schaefer, E. (1993). Single-sex schooling and
educational effectiveness: A research overview. In D. K. Hollinger
(ed.), *Single-sex schooling: Perspectives from practice and research*
(pp. 7--68). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Norfleet, J. A., and Richards, H. C. (2003). Escaping stereotypes:
Educational attitudes of male alumni of single-sex and coed schools.
*Psychology of Men and Masculinity,* 4(2), 136--148.

Richardson, A. G. (1990). Classroom learning environment: Some
differences among school types. *Perceptual and Motor Skills,* 71, 518.

Riordan, C. (Nov. 17, 1999). The silent gender gap: Reading, writing,
and other problems for boys. *Education Week,* 19(12), 46--48.

Riordan, C. (2000). *Student experiences in home and school: Gender gap
comparisons among 1990 sophomores in the National Educational
Longitudinal Study.* Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C.

Robinson, P., and Smithers, A. (1999). Should the sexes be separated for
secondary education---Comparisons of single-sex and coeducational
schools? *Research Papers in Education,* 14, 23--49.

Rost, D. H., and Pruisken, C. (2000). Together weak? Separated strong?
Girls and coeducation. *Zeitschrift fur Padagogische Psycholgie,* 14,
177--193.

Schlosberg, K. J. (1998). A comparison of girls' attitudes toward
mathematics in single-sex and coeducational independent schools.
*Dissertation Abstracts International,* 59(09), 3384A. (UMI No. 9905526)

Schneider, F. W., Coutts, L. M., and Starr, M. W. (1988). In favour of
coeducation: The educational attitudes of students from coeducational
and single-sex high schools. *Canadian Journal of Education,* 13,
479--496.

Shapka, J. D., and Keating, D. P. (2003). Effects of a girls-only
curriculum during adolescence: Performance, persistence, and engagement
in mathematics and science. *American Educational Research Journal,* 40,
929--960.

Shields, N. (1991). The effects of single-sex schooling on female
attitudes toward mathematics, achievement in mathematics, and college
and career aspirations. *Dissertation Abstracts International,* 51(10),
3380A. (UMI No. 9033972)

Shmurak, C. B. (April 1993). *Career patterns of women graduates of
independent schools: A comparison of coeducational and all-girls high
schools.* Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Ga. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED359913)

Steinbrecher, M. J. (1991). A comparison between female graduates of
single-sex and coeducational Catholic high schools and the attainment of
career leadership positions. *Dissertation Abstracts International,*
52(04), 1169A. (UMI No. 9128427)

Tartre, L., and Fennema, E. (1995). Mathematics achievement and gender:
A longitudinal study of selected cognitive and affective variables
\[Grades 6--12\]. *Educational Studies in Mathematics,* 28, 199--217.

Taylor, L. (2002). A comparison of academic and non-academic
self-concepts of 11th-graders within and between single gender and
coeducational schools. *Dissertation Abstracts International,* 63(09),
3079A. (UMI No. 3063654)

Tiggermann, M. (2001). Effect of gender composition of school on body
concerns in adolescent women. *International Journal of Eating
Disorders,* 29, 239--243.

Trickett, E. J., Trickett, P. K., Castro, J. J., and Schaffiler, P.
(1982). The independent school experience: Aspects of the normative
environments of single-sex and coed secondary schools. *Journal of
Educational Psychology,* 74, 374--381.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. (1993). *Single-sex schooling: Perspectives from practice
and research* (Vol. 1.). Hollinger, D. K., and Adamson, R. J. (eds.).
Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. (1993). *Single-sex schooling: Proponents speak* (Vol. 2).
Hollinger, D. K., and Adamson, R. J. (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Author.

Valentine, J. C., and Cooper, H. (2003). *What Works Clearinghouse study
design and implementation assessment device* (Version 1.0). Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Walter, H. M. (1997). *An investigation into the affective profiles of
girls from single-sex and co-educational schools, as they relate to the
learning of mathematics* (Master's thesis, University of Exeter). (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED439015)

Yin, Z., and Ryska, T. A. (1999). Perceived competence, social anxiety
about physique, and enjoyment in testing situations among groups of
mixed sex and girls only. *Psychological Reports,* 84, 381--385.

## Qualitative Phase III-Coded References

Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., and Woody, E. (2001). *Is single gender
schooling viable in the public sector? Lessons from California's pilot
program.* Toronto, Ont.: Institute for Studies in Education.

Shmurak, C. B. (1998). *Voices of hope: Adolescent girls at single-sex
and coeducational schools.* New York: Peter Lang.

Streitmatter, J. L. (1999). *For girls only: Making a case for
single-sex schooling.* Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press.

Svartoien-Conway, J. (2000). In search of connection: How graduates from
all-girls high schools describe their leadership involvement at a
coeducational university. *Dissertation Abstracts International,*
61(05), 1704A. (UMI No. 9973604)

## Qualitative Phase III-Excluded References

Gilson, J. (2002). Single-gender or coeducation for middle-school girls:
Does it make a difference in math? In A. Datnow and L. Hubbard (eds.),
*Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and
coeducational schooling* (pp. 227--242). New York: Routledge and Falmer.

Hendrickson, P. K. (2002). Audience experience and response within the
single-sex secondary military boarding school: A dramaturgical analysis.
*Dissertation Abstracts International,* 64(02), 655A. (UMI No. 3080525)

Kirwin, P. (1992). Sex role perceptions of adolescent males and females:
The effects of a transition from a single sex to coeducational school
environment. *Dissertation Abstracts International,* 53(08), 2691A. (UMI
No.9238206)

Madigan, J. (2002). The Latina voice in special education: Classroom
behaviors, school attitudes, and gender identity of female students in
single-gender secondary-level special education classrooms.
*Dissertation Abstracts International,* 63(02), 558A. (UMI No. 3045027)

Monaco, N. M., and Gaier, E. L. (Fall 1992). Single-sex versus
coeducational environment and achievement in adolescent females.
*Adolescence,* 27(107), 579--594.

Parker, R. L. (1998). Boys' education and the arts: A case study of
boys' attitudes about art and music education in an independent school
for boys. *Dissertation Abstracts International,* 59(09), 3337A. (UMI
No.9908882)

Rizza, M. G. (1997). Exploring successful learning with talented female
adolescents. *Dissertation Abstracts International,* 58(08), 3003A. (UMI
No. 9806187)

Sanford, K., and Blair, H. (2002). Engendering public education:
Single-sex schooling in Western Canada. In A. Datnow and L. Hubbard,
*Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and
coeducational schooling* (pp. 90--108). New York: Routledge and Falmer.

Schmuck, P., Nagel, N., and Brody, C. (2002). Studying gender
consciousness in single-sex and coeducation high schools. In A. Datnow
and L. Hubbard (eds.), *Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on
single-sex and coeducational schooling* (pp. 196--211). New York:
Routledge and Falmer.

Signorella, M. L., Frieze, I. H., and Hershey S. W. (1996). Single-sex
versus mixed-sex classes and gender schemata in children and
adolescents. *Psychology of Women Quarterly,* 20(4), 599--607.

#  {#section-6 .Appendices}

# Appendix 1: Quantitative Study Coding Guide {#appendix-1-quantitative-study-coding-guide .Appendices}

##### Background

What is the Study ID number? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

On what date was data extraction completed? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Primary reviewer:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Secondary reviewer:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##### Sample Characteristics

  ----- ----------------------------------------------------- --------------
  1\.   Were subjects individually randomly assigned?         Yes \_\_\_ No
                                                              \_\_\_

  2\.   Were subjects drawn from the same local area (such as Yes \_\_\_ No
        school district, high school pyramid, town or named   \_\_\_
        area in city)?                                        

  3\.   Were subjects matched by demographics or other stated Yes \_\_\_ No
        similarity?                                           \_\_\_
  ----- ----------------------------------------------------- --------------

##### Psychometric Properties

  ----- ----------------------------------------------------- --------------
        For 4 through 7: Acceptable psychometric properties   Yes \_\_\_ No
        will be assumed to exist for studies employing large  \_\_\_
        national NCES data sets such as NLS, HSB, and NELS or 
        for those using data gathered using published tests,  
        even if not described in the paper. Student           
        achievement data is acceptable as is. Survey data is  
        not assumed to be valid unless individual evidences   
        are reported.                                         

  4\.   Were temporal stability/test-retest reliability       Yes \_\_\_ No
        statistics or an outside source such as a             \_\_\_
        standardization study reported, or was reliability    
        stated to be acceptable? (Temporal stability or       
        test-retest reliability statistics can be reported as 
        a correlation (r) between test scores at time 1 and   
        test scores on the same test at time 2. Acceptable    
        levels are correlations greater than .40.)            

  5\.   Was inter-rater reliability assessed and considered   Yes \_\_\_ No
        to be acceptable? (Inter-rater reliability is often   \_\_\_
        reported as a correlation amongst raters but can also 
        be reported as an intraclass correlation (ICC) or     
        within-group r (rwg). A good example of inter-rater   
        reliability would be if the authors mention a measure 
        of agreement (r, ICC, or rwg) between two teachers    
        who rate students on their academic orientation.)     

  6\.   Was internal consistency assessed and considered to   Yes \_\_\_ No
        be acceptable? (Internal consistency estimates        \_\_\_
        include Cronbach's alpha, coefficient alpha,          
        item-total correlations, inter-item correlations, or  
        the KR-20. Acceptable internal consistency estimates  
        are greater than .70.)                                

  7\.   Was evidence presented that the operationalized       Yes \_\_\_ No
        measure reflects the construct of interest? (This can \_\_\_
        be evidence it predicts future measures,              
        distinguishes groups otherwise identified or yields   
        outcomes similar to those of other instruments.)      
  ----- ----------------------------------------------------- --------------

##### Controlling Variables

  ------ ----------------------------------------------------- --------------
         For 8 through 12: Evidence for this will include      
         authors indicating that they have controlled for      
         preexisting differences between students by           
         accounting for the variance in the outcomes that can  
         be attributed to these extraneous variables.          
         Accounting for variance in the outcomes attributable  
         to preexisting differences can be accomplished by     
         treating these variables as covariates (e.g., dummy   
         or binary coded vectors) in statistical procedures    
         such as regression, structural equation modeling      
         and/or ANOVA. These variables can include the four    
         listed below or any variables that are uncommon but   
         extraneous. If there is no evidence of having         
         controlled for preexisting differences, the study     
         should not be coded. The coder should note in the     
         notes section of the coding form (bottom of last      
         page) that study was not coded because authors did    
         not control for preexisting variables.                

  8\.    Language                                              Yes \_\_\_ No
                                                               \_\_\_

  9\.    Ethnic/racial minority status                         Yes \_\_\_ No
                                                               \_\_\_

  10\.   Socioeconomic status                                  Yes \_\_\_ No
                                                               \_\_\_

  11\.   Grade level or age. \[Here all subjects must be of    Yes \_\_\_ No
         same age or grade level. "Fifth and Sixth Graders,"   \_\_\_
         for instance, is not acceptable.\]                    

  12\.   Did the authors equate the subjects on or control for Yes \_\_\_ No
         other variables such as preexisting academic ability, \_\_\_
         curriculum, parental aspirations, etc? \[Here, the    
         goal is to ensure that researchers who have applied   
         statistical control or accounted for preexisting      
         differences other than the common ones receive credit 
         for doing so.\]                                       
  ------ ----------------------------------------------------- --------------

##### Issues of Internal Validity

  ------ ----------------------------------------------------- --------------
  13\.   Was the study free of evidence that the equating      Yes \_\_\_ No
         procedure produced differential statistical           \_\_\_
         regression? (Note: For example, you would answer "no" 
         to this question if students in the SS group were     
         chosen from poorly-performing students within a       
         high-achieving school and comparison students were    
         chosen from high-achieving students within a          
         poorly-performing school.)                            

  14\.   Was the outcome measure adequately aligned to the     Yes \_\_\_ No
         intervention? (Note: An example of under-alignment    \_\_\_
         would be when students are taught math but tested on  
         reading. An example of over-alignment would be when,  
         in a study of reading comprehension, the intervention 
         students were exposed to reading passages during the  
         intervention that were on the posttest, but           
         comparison students did not receive this exposure.)   

  15\.   Was the unit of assignment or selection the same as   Yes \_\_\_ No
         the unit of statistical analysis? (Note: For example, \_\_\_
         if each student was individually selected,            
         statistical analyses should be conducted using the    
         student as the unit of analysis. If entire classrooms 
         were selected for the SS or CE condition, statistical 
         analyses should be conducted using the classroom as   
         the unit of analysis.)                                

  16\.   Was SS or CE assignment implemented as defined? (An   Yes \_\_\_ No
         example of a "no" response would be inclusion of some \_\_\_
         of opposite sex in some single-sex classes or other   
         non-uniform assignment of students.)                  

  17\.   Was the study free from evidence that one group might Yes \_\_\_ No
         also have experienced a changed expectancy, novelty   \_\_\_
         and/or disruption effect that was not also            
         experienced by the other group?                       

  18\.   Was the study free from attrition or change in        Yes \_\_\_ No
         composition effects?                                  \_\_\_

  19\.   Was the study free from local history events? (A      Yes \_\_\_ No
         local history event is an event that (a) occurred     \_\_\_
         during the study period (b) affected one of two       
         comparison groups, but not both, and (c) could have   
         produced the observed outcome in the absence of the   
         intervention.)                                        
  ------ ----------------------------------------------------- --------------

##### Effect

  ------ ----------------------------------------------------- --------------
  20\.   Was a mean and standard deviation or variance         Yes \_\_\_ No
         available for both comparison groups?                 \_\_\_

  21\.   For this study, could effect sizes be generated?      Yes \_\_\_ No
                                                               \_\_\_

  22\.   Could the direction of the effect be identified for   Yes \_\_\_ No
         this outcome measure? (The direction of the effect    \_\_\_
         can be determined by using r, t, z, or d. Any         
         directionality in these indicators can be viewed as   
         indicating the direction of the effect.)              
  ------ ----------------------------------------------------- --------------

##### Issues of Bias

  ------ ----------------------------------------------------- --------------
  23\.   Was the study published in a peer-refereed journal?   Yes \_\_\_ No
         (For example, you would answer yes if the paper is    \_\_\_
         published in a journal reviewed by peers but no if    
         the study is a conference paper.)                     

  24\.   Did the authors test properly operationalized         Yes \_\_\_ No
         hypotheses? (For example, if the authors of the study \_\_\_
         test hypotheses or a model that clearly depicts the   
         relationship amongst clearly defined variables, you   
         would answer "Yes." On the other hand, if they claim  
         the goal was to examine certain relationships because 
         of trends or controversy over the existence of        
         single-sex schooling, you would answer \"no\" because 
         no clear hypotheses are provided.)                    
  ------ ----------------------------------------------------- --------------

Total \_\_\_\_

##### Describe the Result of Study

###### a. Concurrent, quantifiable academic accomplishment

a1. Academic Achievement: (Name of Study) in comparing ss versus coed
schools (level: HS, Elementary; Public/Private/Catholic) found
(significant/non-significant) differences for males (score: mean, sd, t,
or F) and (significant/non-significant) differences for females (score:
mean, sd, t or F). (n = XXX). \[Then, any moderators. An example of a
moderator would be finding that single-sex schooling has an impact on
academic achievement only for girls who reach menarche early, but not
for those who reach menarche on time or late. Time of menarcheal
development serves as a moderator.\]

a2. Mathematics Achievement Test Scores:

a3. Science Achievement Test Scores:

a4. Verbal/English Achievement Test Scores:

a5. Other outcome in this category:

###### b. Long-term, quantifiable academic accomplishment

b1. Postsecondary test scores:

b2. College Graduation:

b3. Graduate School Attendance:

b4. Other outcome in this category:

###### c. Concurrent, quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and socioemotional development

c1. Self-concept:

c2. Self-esteem:

c3. Locus of control:

c4. School Track/Subject Preference:

c5. Career Aspirations:

c6. Peer Delinquency:

c7. Self-Reported Delinquency:

c8. Other outcome in this category:

###### d. Long-term, quantifiable indicators of individual student adaptation and socioemotional development

d1. Teenage pregnancy:

d2. Dropouts:

d3. Delinquency:

d4. Eating disorders:

d5. Other outcome in this category:

###### e. Indicators of process and outcome measures of gender inequity

e1. Gender inequity:

e2. Differential treatment by teachers:

d3. Other outcome in this category:

###### f. Perceptual measures of the school climate or culture that may impact performance

f1. Climate for learning:

f2. Quality of teacher-student interactions:

f3. Opportunities for leadership roles:

f4. Perceived bullying in school

f5. Other outcome in this category:

###### g. Subjective satisfaction with the school experience by students, parents, and/or teachers

g1. Satisfaction with learning environment:

g2. Other outcome in this category:

# Appendix 2: Qualitative Study Coding Guide {#appendix-2-qualitative-study-coding-guide .Appendices}

##### Background

What is the Study ID number? \_\_\_\_\_

What was the first author\'s last name and year of publication of the
article? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

On what date was data extraction completed? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What is the name of the primary reviewer?

Primary reviewer
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What studies are linked to this one?
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##### Literature Review

  ----- --------------------------------------------------- ---------------
  1\.   The study question was sufficiently described.      Yes \_\_\_ No
        (\"Thick, rich description\")                       \_\_\_

  2\.   The investigators have no documented                Yes \_\_\_ No
        predispositions. (\"Clarifying researcher bias\")   \_\_\_

  3\.   Subject characteristics were adequately reported.   Yes \_\_\_ No
        (Adequately means that a reader could identify a    \_\_\_
        similar set of subjects for comparison with little  
        ambiguity. "Thick, rich description," "Dense        
        description of participants")                       
  ----- --------------------------------------------------- ---------------

##### Methods

  ------ --------------------------------------------------- ---------------
  5\.    Sample was compared to demographic data. ("Dense    Yes \_\_\_ No
         description of participants")                       \_\_\_

  6\.    Circumstances under which evidence was collected    Yes \_\_\_ No
         are indicated (times, places, etc.; "Chain of       \_\_\_
         evidence," "Audit trail")                           

  7\.    Initial study questions and the methods of data     Yes \_\_\_ No
         collection are linked conceptually.                 \_\_\_

  8\.    Methods were reported in a way that was transparent Yes \_\_\_ No
         to the reader. ("Thick, rich description")          \_\_\_

  9\.    Validity evidence for measures is presented (Such   Yes \_\_\_ No
         as, that the operationalized measure predicts       \_\_\_
         future measures, distinguishes groups otherwise     
         identified or yields outcomes similar to those of   
         other instruments).                                 

  10\.   An outside control group was used to which the      Yes \_\_\_ No
         study population was compared.                      \_\_\_

  11\.   Comparisons were made between groups within the     Yes \_\_\_ No
         study population.                                   \_\_\_

  12\.   Was the study free of evidence that the study       Yes \_\_\_ No
         population (or part of the study population)        \_\_\_
         experienced a change during the study period that   
         could have affected interpretation of the data?     

  13\.   Use of a database was stated. ("Audit Trail")       Yes \_\_\_ No
                                                             \_\_\_

  14\.   Use of a field journal was reported.                Yes \_\_\_ No
         ("Reflexivity")                                     \_\_\_

  15\.   The investigator field experience is documented.    Yes \_\_\_ No
         ("Prolonged field experience")                      \_\_\_
  ------ --------------------------------------------------- ---------------

##### Analyses

  ------ --------------------------------------------------- ---------------
  16\.   A peer review was performed. (Here is a sample      Yes \_\_\_ No
         statement indicating peer review was conducted:     \_\_\_
         "Draft copies of this report were shared with study 
         participants and we wish to thank them for their    
         feedback." "Peer examination.")                     

  17\.   A code-recode procedure was used. (Data was coded,  Yes \_\_\_ No
         then recoded after an interval of time;             \_\_\_
         "Code-recode")                                      

  18\.   Analysis was conducted at the subgroup level (below Yes \_\_\_ No
         assignment to male-female contingents).             \_\_\_

  19\.   A protocol for the study was described.             Yes \_\_\_ No
                                                             \_\_\_

  20\.   Specific documents, interviews, observations, etc.  Yes \_\_\_ No
         were consistently cited. ("Chain of evidence.")     \_\_\_
  ------ --------------------------------------------------- ---------------

##### Findings and Conclusions

  ------ --------------------------------------------------- ---------------
  21\.   Conclusions are supported by more than one piece of Yes \_\_\_ No
         evidence. (Evidence must be specifically stated     \_\_\_
         with conclusion; there must be two or more pieces   
         of evidence; "Triangulation")                       

  22\.   Evidence cited was collected in ways consistent     Yes \_\_\_ No
         with the method described in the protocol. ("Chain  \_\_\_
         of evidence")                                       

  23\.   Key informants reviewed the draft report. (If no    Yes \_\_\_ No
         review documented, mark "no." "Member checking")    \_\_\_

  24\.   Data gathered matches previous findings ("Pattern   Yes \_\_\_ No
         matching").                                         \_\_\_

  25\.   Plausible post hoc explanation for observation is   Yes \_\_\_ No
         advanced. ("Explanation building")                  \_\_\_

  26\.   No alternative explanation is plausible.            Yes \_\_\_ No
         ("Explanation building")                            \_\_\_

  27\.   Data gathered is consistent with theoretical        Yes \_\_\_ No
         expectations. (Survey papers with no cited          \_\_\_
         expectations receive a "Yes," "Explanation          
         building")                                          

  28\.   There is evidence for generalizability to other     Yes \_\_\_ No
         populations. ("Rich, thick description")            \_\_\_

  29\.   Literature review is linked to the study question.  Yes \_\_\_ No
                                                             \_\_\_
  ------ --------------------------------------------------- ---------------

Total \_\_\_\_

# Appendix 3: List of Quantitative Studies Excluded During Phase III {#appendix-3-list-of-quantitative-studies-excluded-during-phase-iii .Appendices}

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##### Excluded Studies            |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ####### Study Authors             | ####### Reason for Exclusion      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 1\) Armstrong and Price (1982)    | Did not use elementary or high    |
|                                   | school students                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 2\) Bastick (2000)                | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 3\) Bornholt (2001)               | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 4\) Bornholt (1988)               | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 5\) Brody, Fuller, Gosetti,       | No statistical controls           |
| Moscato, Nagel, Pace, and Schmuck |                                   |
| (1998)                            |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 6\) Broyles (1992)                | Not a proper operationalization   |
|                                   | of single-sex schools             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 7\) Doorman and Queensland (1997) | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 8\) Fennema and Sherman (1978)    | Did not use elementary or high    |
|                                   | school students                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 9\) Flanders (1992)               | Not a proper operationalization   |
|                                   | of single-sex schools             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 10\) Fox (1993)                   | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 11\) Fritz (1996)                 | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 12\) Gilroy (1990)                | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 13\) Gilson (1999)                | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 14\) Hyde and Linn (1988)         | Did not compare single-sex and    |
|                                   | coeducational schools             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 15\) Holz-Ebeling, Gratz-Tummers, | Written in German (not codable by |
| and Schwarz (2000)                | researchers)                      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 16\) Holz-Ebeling and Hansel      | Written in German (not codable by |
| (1993)                            | researchers)                      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 17\) Jacklin and Maccoby (1978)   | Did not compare single-sex and    |
|                                   | coeducational schools but rather  |
|                                   | dyads                             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 18\) James (2001)                 | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 19\) Katsurada and Sugihara       | No statistical controls           |
| (2002)                            |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 20\) Kleinfeld (1999)             | Review article                    |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 21\) Kysor (1993)                 | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 22\) Lawrie and Brown (1992)      | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 23\) LePore and Warren (1996)     | Original manuscript of            |
|                                   | subsequently published paper      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 24\) Lockheed (1985)              | Review article                    |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 25\) Marsh (1992)                 | Review of other research; same    |
|                                   | data explored                     |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 26\) McDonald (1996)              | Did not compare single-sex and    |
|                                   | coeducational schools             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 27\) Mensinger (2003)             | Did not compare single-sex and    |
|                                   | coeducational schools             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 28\) Moore, Piper, and Schaefer   | Review of other research          |
| (1993)                            |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 29\) Norfleet and Richards (?)    | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 30\) Richardson (1990)            | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 31\) Riordan (1999)               | Not a quantitative study; article |
|                                   | published in weekly periodical    |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 32\) Riordan (2000)               | Did not compare single-sex and    |
|                                   | coeducational schools             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 33\) Rost and Pruisken (2000)     | Written in German (not codable by |
|                                   | researchers)                      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 34\) Robinson and Smithers (1999) | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 35\) Schlosberg (1998)            | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 36\) Schneider, Coutts, and Starr | No statistical controls           |
| (1988)                            |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 37\) Shapka and Keating (2003)    | Did not compare single-sex and    |
|                                   | coeducational schools             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 38\) Shields (1991)               | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 39\) Shmurak (1993)               | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 40\) Steinbrecher (1991)          | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 41\) Tartre and Fennema (1995)    | Did not compare single-sex and    |
|                                   | coeducational schools             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 42\) Taylor (2002)                | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 43\) Tiggermann (2001)            | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 44\) Trickett, Trickett, Castro,  | No statistical controls           |
| and Schaffiler (1982)             |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 45\) U.S. Department of Education | Not a quantitative study          |
| (1993)                            |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 46\) U.S. Department of Education | Not a quantitative study          |
| (1993)                            |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 47\) Walter (1997)                | No statistical controls           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 48\) Yin and Ryska (1999)         | Study about single-sex classes,   |
|                                   | not schools                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

# Appendix 4: Quantitative Coding Guide for All Studies {#appendix-4-quantitative-coding-guide-for-all-studies .Appendices}

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ***Study***                **Ainley   **Baker,   **Bornholt   **Brutsaert   **Carpenter   **Caspi    **Caspi,   **Cipriani-Sklar   **Conway     **Cuddy    **Daly     **Daly     **Daly and
                             and Daly   Riordan,   and Moeller  and Bracke    and Hayden    (1995)**   Lynam,     (1996)**           (1996)**     (2000)**   (1995)**   (1996)**   Ainley
                             (2002)**   and Schaub (2003)**     (1994)**      (1987)**                 Moffitt,                                                                    (Unknown
                                        (1995)**                                                       and Silva                                                                   Date)**
                                                                                                       (1993)**                                                                    
  -------------------------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------- ------------- ---------- ---------- ------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  ***Criterion***                                                                                                                                                                  

  Sample Characteristics                                                                                                                                                            

  1\) Were subjects          N          N          N            N             N             N          N          N                  N            N          N          N          N
  individually randomly                                                                                                                                                            
  assigned?                                                                                                                                                                        

  2\) Were subjects drawn    N          N          Y            N             N             N          N          Y                  Y            N          N          N          N
  from the same local area?                                                                                                                                                        

  3\) Were subjects matched  N          Y          Y            N             N             N          Y          Y                  Y            Y          N          N          N
  by demographics or other                                                                                                                                                         
  stated similarity?                                                                                                                                                               

  Psychometric Properties    ** **      ** **      ** **        ** **         ** **         ** **      ** **      ** **              ** **        ** **      ** **      ** **      ** **

  4\) Were temporal          Y          Y          N            N             N             Y          Y          Y                  N            N          N          Y          N
  stability/test-retest                                                                                                                                                            
  reliability statistics or                                                                                                                                                        
  an outside source such as                                                                                                                                                        
  a standardization study                                                                                                                                                          
  reported, or was                                                                                                                                                                 
  reliability stated to be                                                                                                                                                         
  acceptable?                                                                                                                                                                      

  5\) Was inter-rater        Y          N          Y            N             N             N          Y          N                  N            Y          N          Y          N
  reliability assessed and                                                                                                                                                         
  considered to be                                                                                                                                                                 
  acceptable?                                                                                                                                                                      

  6\) Was internal           Y          Y          Y            Y             N             Y          N          Y                  Y            Y          N          N          N
  consistency assessed and                                                                                                                                                         
  considered to be                                                                                                                                                                 
  acceptable?                                                                                                                                                                      

  7\) Was evidence presented Y          Y          N            Y             Y             Y          N          Y                  Y            Y          Y          Y          N
  that the operationalized                                                                                                                                                         
  measure reflects the                                                                                                                                                             
  construct of interest?                                                                                                                                                           

  Controlling Variables                                                                                                                                                             

  8\) Did the author(s)      Y          N          Y            N             N             N          N          N                  N            N          N          Y          Y
  control for Language?                                                                                                                                                            

  9\) Did the author(s)      N          N          N            N             N             N          Y          Y                  N            Y          Y          Y          N
  control for Ethnic/racial                                                                                                                                                        
  minority status?                                                                                                                                                                 

  10\) Did the author(s)     Y          Y          Y            Y             Y             Y          Y          Y                  N            Y          N          Y          Y
  control for Socioeconomic                                                                                                                                                        
  status?                                                                                                                                                                          

  11\) Did the author(s)     Y          Y          N            N             Y             Y          N          Y                  Y            Y          N          Y          Y
  control for Grade level or                                                                                                                                                       
  age?                                                                                                                                                                             

  12\) Did the authors       Y          Y          Y            N             N             N          N          Y                  Y            Y          Y          N          Y
  equate the subjects on or                                                                                                                                                        
  control for other                                                                                                                                                                
  variables such as                                                                                                                                                                
  preexisting academic                                                                                                                                                             
  ability, curriculum,                                                                                                                                                             
  parental aspirations, etc?                                                                                                                                                       

  Threats to Internal                                                                                                                                                               
  Validity                                                                                                                                                                         

  13\) Was the study free of Y          Y          Y            Y             Y             Y          Y          Y                  Y            N          N          Y          Y
  evidence that the equating                                                                                                                                                       
  procedure produced                                                                                                                                                               
  differential statistical                                                                                                                                                         
  regression?                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                     *Continued                                    
                                                                                                                                     on next                                       
                                                                                                                                     page*                                         
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="14"><p id="quantitative-coding-guide-for-all-studies-contd"
class="heading">Quantitative Coding Guide for All Studies
(cont’d)</p></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th><em><strong>Study</strong></em></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Ainley and Daly (2002)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Baker, Riordan, and Schaub (1995)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Bornholt and Moeller (2003)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Brutsaert and Bracke (1994)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Carpenter and Hayden (1987)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Caspi (1995)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Caspi, Lynam, Moffitt, and Silva
(1993)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Cipriani-Sklar (1996)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Conway (1996)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Cuddy (2000)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Daly (1995)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Daly (1996)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Daly and Ainley (Unknown Date)</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th><em><strong>Criterion</strong></em></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>14) Was the outcome measure adequately aligned to the
intervention?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>15) Was the unit of assignment or selection the same as the unit of
statistical analysis?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>16) Was SS or CE assignment implemented as defined?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>17) Was the study free from evidence that one group might also have
experienced a changed expectancy, novelty and/or disruption effect that
was not also experienced by the other group?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>18) Was the study free from attrition or change in composition
effects?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>19) Was the study free from local history events?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Effect Size</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>20) Was a mean and standard deviation or variance available for both
comparison groups?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>21) For this study, could effect sizes be generated?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>22) Could the direction of the effect be identified for this outcome
measure?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Issues of Bias</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>23) Was the study published in a peer-refereed journal?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>24) Did the authors test properly operationalized hypotheses?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Totals</strong></td>
<td>16</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Percent of Criteria Met in Study</strong></td>
<td>67%</td>
<td>75%</td>
<td>79%</td>
<td>63%</td>
<td>63%</td>
<td>54%</td>
<td>63%</td>
<td>83%</td>
<td>63%</td>
<td>63%</td>
<td>63%</td>
<td>67%</td>
<td>54%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Percent of Criteria NOT Met in Study</strong></td>
<td>33%</td>
<td>25%</td>
<td>21%</td>
<td>38%</td>
<td>38%</td>
<td>46%</td>
<td>38%</td>
<td>17%</td>
<td>38%</td>
<td>38%</td>
<td>38%</td>
<td>33%</td>
<td>46%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"><em>Continued on next page</em></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 35%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="14"><p
id="quantitative-coding-guide-for-all-studies-contd-1"
class="heading">Quantitative Coding Guide for All Studies
(cont’d)</p></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th><em><strong>Study</strong></em></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Daly, Ainley, and Robinson (1996)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Daly and Shuttleworth (1996)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Garcia (1998)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Harker and Nash (1987)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Harker (2000)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Lambert (1998)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Lee and Bryk (1986)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Lee and Lockheed (1990)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Lee and Marks (1990)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>LePore and Warren (1997)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Marsh (1989)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Marsh (1991)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Marsh et al. (1988)</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th><em><strong>Criterion</strong></em></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Sample Characteristics</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1) Were subjects individually matched (randomly assigned)?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2) Were subjects drawn from the same local area?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>3) Were subjects matched by demographics or other stated
similarity?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Psychometric Properties</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>4) Were temporal stability/test-retest reliability statistics or an
outside source such as a standardization study reported, or was
reliability stated to be acceptable?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5) Was inter-rater reliability assessed and considered to be
acceptable?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>6) Was internal consistency assessed and considered to be
acceptable?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>7) Was evidence presented that the operationalized measure reflects
the construct of interest?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Controlling Variables</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>8) Did the author(s) control for Language?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>9) Did the author(s) control for Ethnic/racial minority status?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>10) Did the author(s) control for Socioeconomic status?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>11) Did the author(s) control for Grade level or age?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>12) Did the authors equate the subjects on or control for other
variables such as preexisting academic ability, curriculum, parental
aspirations, etc?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="4"><em>Continued on next page</em></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

  ------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------------ ----- ----- -----
  Threats to Internal                                                                                       
  Validity                                                                                                 

  13\) Was the study free   Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     N     Y     Y     Y     Y            Y     Y     Y
  of evidence that the                                                                                     
  equating procedure                                                                                       
  produced differential                                                                                    
  statistical regression?                                                                                  

  14\) Was the outcome      Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y            Y     Y     Y
  measure adequately                                                                                       
  aligned to the                                                                                           
  intervention?                                                                                            

  15\) Was the unit of      Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     N     Y     Y            Y     Y     Y
  assignment or selection                                                                                  
  the same as the unit of                                                                                  
  statistical analysis?                                                                                    

  16\) Was SS or CE         Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y            Y     Y     Y
  assignment implemented as                                                                                
  defined?                                                                                                 

  17\) Was the study free   Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     N     Y     Y     Y     Y            Y     Y     N
  from evidence that one                                                                                   
  group might also have                                                                                    
  experienced a changed                                                                                    
  expectancy, novelty                                                                                      
  and/or disruption effect                                                                                 
  that was not also                                                                                        
  experienced by the other                                                                                 
  group?                                                                                                   

  18\) Was the study free   N     Y     Y     N     Y     N     Y     Y     Y     Y            Y     Y     N
  from attrition or change                                                                                 
  in composition effects?                                                                                  

  19\) Was the study free   Y     Y     N     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y            N     Y     N
  from local history                                                                                       
  events?                                                                                                  

  Effect Size                                                                                               

  20\) Was a mean and       N     Y     Y     N     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y            Y     Y     Y
  standard deviation or                                                                                    
  variance available for                                                                                   
  both comparison groups?                                                                                  

  21\) For this study,      N     Y     Y     N     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y            Y     Y     Y
  could effect sizes be                                                                                    
  generated?                                                                                               

  22\) Could the direction  N     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y     Y            Y     Y     Y
  of the effect be                                                                                         
  identified for this                                                                                      
  outcome measure?                                                                                         

  Issues of Bias                                                                                            

  23\) Was the study        N     Y     N     N     Y     N     Y     Y     Y     Y            Y     Y     Y
  published in a                                                                                           
  peer-refereed journal?                                                                                   

  24\) Did the authors test Y     Y     N     Y     N     N     Y     N     N     Y            Y     Y     Y
  properly operationalized                                                                                 
  hypotheses?                                                                                              

  Totals                    15    16    16    12    15    14    20    15    20    21           20    20    16

  Percent of Criteria Met   63%   67%   67%   50%   63%   58%   83%   63%   83%   88%          83%   83%   67%
  in Study                                                                                                 

  Percent of Criteria NOT   38%   33%   33%   50%   38%   42%   17%   38%   17%   13%          17%   17%   33%
  Met in Study                                                                                             

                                                                                  *Continued               
                                                                                  on next                  
                                                                                  page*                    
  ------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------------ ----- ----- -----

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 28%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="15"><p
id="quantitative-coding-guide-for-all-studies-contd-2"
class="heading">Quantitative Coding Guide for All Studies
(cont’d)</p></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th><em><strong>Study</strong></em></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Mensinger (2001)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Proach (2000)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Riordan (1985)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Riordan (1990)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Riordan (1994)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Sanders (1992)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Schneider and Coutts (1982)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Speilhofer et al. (2002)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Stables (1990)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Steinback and Gwizdala (1995)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Thompson (2003)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Watson, Quatman, and Edler (2002)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Woodward et al. (1999)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Young, Fraser, and Western (1992)</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th><em><strong>Criterion</strong></em></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Sample Characteristics</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1) Were subjects individually matched?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2) Were subjects drawn from the same local area?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>3) Were subjects matched by demographics or other stated
similarity?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Psychometric Properties</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>4) Were temporal stability/test-retest reliability statistics or an
outside source such as a standardization study reported, or was
reliability stated to be acceptable?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5) Was inter-rater reliability assessed and considered to be
acceptable?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>6) Was internal consistency assessed and considered to be
acceptable?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>7) Was evidence presented that the operationalized measure reflects
the construct of interest?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Controlling Variables</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>8) Did the author(s) control for Language?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>9) Did the author(s) control for Ethnic/racial minority status?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>10) Did the author(s) control for Socioeconomic status?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>11) Did the author(s) control for Grade level or age?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>12) Did the authors equate the subjects on or control for other
variables?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Threats to Internal Validity</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>13) Was the study free of evidence that the equating procedure
produced differential statistical regression?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>14) Was the outcome measure adequately aligned to the
intervention?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>15) Was the unit of assignment or selection the same as the unit of
statistical analysis?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>16) Was SS or CE assignment implemented as defined?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>17) Was the study free from evidence that one group might also have
experienced a changed expectancy, novelty and/or disruption effect that
was not also experienced by the other group?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>18) Was the study free from attrition or change in composition
effects?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>19) Was the study free from local history events?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Effect Size</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>20) Was a mean and sd or variance available for both comparison
groups?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>21) Could effect sizes be generated?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>22) Could the direction of the effect be identified for this outcome
measure?</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Issues of Bias</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>23) Was the study published in a peer-refereed journal?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>24) Did the authors test properly operationalized hypotheses?</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Totals</td>
<td>14%</td>
<td>15%</td>
<td>19%</td>
<td>12%</td>
<td>20%</td>
<td>15%</td>
<td>13%</td>
<td>14%</td>
<td>13%</td>
<td>12%</td>
<td>19%</td>
<td>15%</td>
<td>15%</td>
<td>16%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Percent of Criteria Met in Study</td>
<td>58%</td>
<td>63%</td>
<td>79%</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>83%</td>
<td>63%</td>
<td>54%</td>
<td>58%</td>
<td>54%</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>79%</td>
<td>63%</td>
<td>63%</td>
<td>67%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Percent of Criteria NOT Met in Study</td>
<td>42%</td>
<td>38%</td>
<td>21%</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>17%</td>
<td>38%</td>
<td>46%</td>
<td>42%</td>
<td>46%</td>
<td>50%</td>
<td>21%</td>
<td>38%</td>
<td>38%</td>
<td>33%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| ######## Quantitative Coding Guide for All Studies ( |   |    |     |
| Percentage of Studies Meeting/Not Meeting Criterion) |   |    |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
|                                                      | * | ** | **  |
|                                                      | * | *M | *Do |
|                                                      | * | ee | esn |
|                                                      | T | ts | \'t |
|                                                      | o | Cr | M   |
|                                                      | t | it | eet |
|                                                      | a | er | Cri |
|                                                      | l | io | ter |
|                                                      | * | n* | ion |
|                                                      | * | ** | *** |
|                                                      | * |    |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| ***Criterion***                                      |   |    |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| **Sample Characteristics**                           |   |    |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 1\) Were subjects individually randomly assigned?    | 0 | 0% | 1   |
|                                                      |   |    | 00% |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 2\) Were subjects drawn from the same local area     | 1 | 2  | 73% |
| (such as school district, high school pyramid, town  | 1 | 8% |     |
| or named area in city)?                              |   |    |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 3\) Were subjects matched by demographics or other   | 1 | 3  | 63% |
| stated similarity?                                   | 5 | 8% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| **Psychometric Properties**                          |   |    |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 4\) Were temporal stability/test-retest reliability  | 1 | 4  | 55% |
| statistics or an outside source such as a            | 8 | 5% |     |
| standardization study reported, or was reliability   |   |    |     |
| stated to be acceptable?                             |   |    |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 5\) Was inter-rater reliability assessed and         | 1 | 3  | 65% |
| considered to be acceptable?                         | 4 | 5% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 6\) Was internal consistency assessed and considered | 2 | 6  | 33% |
| to be acceptable?                                    | 7 | 8% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 7\) Was evidence presented that the operationalized  | 3 | 8  | 18% |
| measure reflects the construct of interest?          | 3 | 3% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| **Controlling Variables**                            |   |    |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 8\) Did the author(s) control for Language to ensure | 7 | 1  | 83% |
| that the language of instruction was English?        |   | 8% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 9\) Did the author(s) control for Ethnic/racial      | 2 | 5  | 50% |
| minority status?                                     | 0 | 0% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 10\) Did the author(s) control for Socioeconomic     | 3 | 8  | 13% |
| status?                                              | 5 | 8% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 11\) Did the author(s) control for Grade level or    | 3 | 7  | 25% |
| age?                                                 | 0 | 5% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 12\) Did the authors equate the subjects on or       | 3 | 8  | 18% |
| control for other variables such as preexisting      | 3 | 3% |     |
| academic ability, curriculum, parental aspirations,  |   |    |     |
| etc?                                                 |   |    |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| **Threats to Internal Validity**                     |   |    |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 13\) Was the study free of evidence that the         | 3 | 9  | 10% |
| equating procedure produced differential statistical | 6 | 0% |     |
| regression?                                          |   |    |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 14\) Was the outcome measure adequately aligned to   | 4 | 10 | 0%  |
| the intervention?                                    | 0 | 0% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 15\) Was the unit of assignment or selection the     | 3 | 9  | 10% |
| same as the unit of statistical analysis?            | 6 | 0% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 16\) Was SS or CE assignment implemented as defined? | 3 | 9  | 3%  |
|                                                      | 9 | 8% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 17\) Was the study free from evidence that one group | 3 | 8  | 13% |
| might also have experienced a changed expectancy,    | 5 | 8% |     |
| novelty and/or disruption effect that was not also   |   |    |     |
| experienced by the other group?                      |   |    |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 18\) Was the study free from attrition or change in  | 3 | 7  | 23% |
| composition effects?                                 | 1 | 8% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 19\) Was the study free from local history events?   | 3 | 8  | 13% |
|                                                      | 5 | 8% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| **Effect Size**                                      |   |    |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 20\) Was a mean and standard deviation or variance   | 2 | 5  | 43% |
| available for both comparison groups?                | 3 | 8% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 21\) For this study, could effect sizes be           | 2 | 7  | 28% |
| generated?                                           | 9 | 3% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 22\) Could the direction of the effect be identified | 3 | 9  | 10% |
| for this outcome measure?                            | 6 | 0% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| **Issues of Bias**                                   |   |    |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 23\) Was the study published in a peer-refereed      | 2 | 6  | 38% |
| journal?                                             | 5 | 3% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+
| 24\) Did the authors test properly operationalized   | 2 | 6  | 38% |
| hypotheses?                                          | 5 | 3% |     |
+------------------------------------------------------+---+----+-----+

# Appendix 5: Table of Study Outcomes for Boys {#appendix-5-table-of-study-outcomes-for-boys .Appendices}

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  *Outcome*                  *Total*   *Pro-SS*             *Pro-CE*             *Null*             *Mixed*   
  -------------------------- --------- ---------- --------- ---------- --------- -------- --------- --------- ---------
                                       N          Percent   N          Percent   N        Percent   N         Percent

  Concurrent Academic        ** **     ** **      ** **     ** **      ** **     ** **    ** **     ** **     ** **
  Accomplishment                                                                                              

  1\) All-Subject            4         3          75%       0          0%        1        25%       0         0%
  Achievement Test Scores                                                                                     

  2\) Mathematics            9         3          33%       2          23%       4        44%       0         0%
  Achievement Test Scores                                                                                     

  3\) Science Achievement    3         1          33%       0          0%        2        67%       0         0%
  Test Scores                                                                                                 

  4\) Verbal/English         6         2          33%       0          0%        3        50%       1         17%
  Achievement Test Scores                                                                                     

  5\) Grades                 0         0          0%        0          0%        0        0%        0         0%

  6\) Social Studies         1         0          0%        0          0%        1        100%      0         0%
  Achievement Test Scores                                                                                     

  Long-Term Academic                                                                                           
  Accomplishment                                                                                              

  7\) Postsecondary Test     1         1          100%      0          0%        0        0%        0         0%
  Scores                                                                                                      

  8\) College Graduation     0         0          0%        0          0%        0        0%        0         0%

  9\) Graduate School        0         0          0%        0          0%        0        0%        0         0%
  Attendance                                                                                                  

  Concurrent Adaptation and                                                                                    
  Socioemotional Development                                                                                  

  10\) Self-Concept          3         1          33%       0          0%        2        67%       0         0%

  11\) Self-Esteem           3         1          33%       2          67%       0        0%        0         0%

  12\) Locus of Control      3         2          67%       0          0%        1        33%       0         0%

  13\) School Track and      7         2          29%       2          29%       3        43%       0         0%
  Subject Preference                                                                                          

  14\) Educational           2         0          0%        0          0%        2        100%      0         0%
  Aspirations                                                                                                 

  15\) Career Aspirations    1         1          100%      0          0%        0        0%        0         0%

  16\) Delinquency           1         0          0%        0          0%        1        100%      0         0%

  17\) Attitudes Toward      3         2          67%       0          0%        1        33%       0         0%
  School                                                                                                      

  18\) Time Spent per Week   1         1          100%      0          0%        0        0%        0         0%
  on Homework                                                                                                 

  19\) Attitudes Toward      1         0          0%        0          0%        1        100%      0         0%
  Working Women                                                                                               

  Long-Term Adaptation and                                                                                     
  Socioemotional Development                                                                                  

  20\) School Completion     1         1          100%      0          0%        0        0%        0         0%

  21\) Postsecondary Success 0         0          0%        0          0%        0        0%        0         0%

  22\) Postsecondary         1         1          100%      0          0%        0        0%        0         0%
  Unemployment                                                                                                

  23\) Eating Disorders      0         0          0%        0          0%        0        0%        0         0%
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 37%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><p id="table-of-study-outcomes-for-boys-contd"
class="heading">Table of Study Outcomes for Boys (cont’d)</p></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2"><em>Outcome</em></th>
<th rowspan="2"><em>Total</em></th>
<th colspan="2"><em>Pro-SS</em></th>
<th colspan="2"><em>Pro-CE</em></th>
<th colspan="2"><em>Null</em></th>
<th colspan="2"><em>Mixed</em></th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th>N</th>
<th>Percent</th>
<th>N</th>
<th>Percent</th>
<th>N</th>
<th>Percent</th>
<th>N</th>
<th>Percent</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>24) Choice of College Major</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>25) Sex-Role Stereotyping</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>26) Political Involvement</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>27) Percent Married to First Spouse</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Perceived School Culture</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>28) Climate for Learning</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>29) Opportunities for Leadership Roles</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>30) School Environment</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Subjective Satisfaction</strong></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>31) Satisfaction with School Environment</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>32) College Satisfaction</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

# Appendix 6: Table of Study Outcomes for Girls {#appendix-6-table-of-study-outcomes-for-girls .Appendices}

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  *Outcomes*               *Total*   *Pro-SS*             *Pro-CE*             *Null*             *Mixed*   
  ------------------------ --------- ---------- --------- ---------- --------- -------- --------- --------- ---------
                                     N          Precent   N          Precent   N        Precent   N         Precent

  Concurrent Academic      ** **     ** **      ** **     ** **      ** **     ** **    ** **     ** **     ** **
  Accomplishment                                                                                            

  1\) All-Subject          8         5          63%       2          25%       1        13%       0         0%
  Achievement Test Scores                                                                                   

  2\) Mathematics          11        3          27%       0          0%        8        73%       0         0%
  Achievement Test Scores                                                                                   

  3\) Science Achievement  5         2          40%       0          0%        3        60%       0         0%
  Test Scores                                                                                               

  4\) Verbal/English       8         1          12.5%     0          0%        6        75%       1         12.5%
  Achievement Test Scores                                                                                   

  5\) Grades               0         0          0%        0          0%        0        0%        0         0%

  6\) Social Studies       1         1          100%      0          0%        0        0%        0         0%
  Achievement Test Scores                                                                                   

  Long-Term Academic                                                                                         
  Accomplishment                                                                                            

  7\) Postsecondary Test   1         1          100%      0          0%        0        0%        0         0%
  Scores                                                                                                    

  8\) College Graduation   0         0          0%        0          0%        0        0%        0         0%

  9\) Graduate School      0         0          0%        0          0%        0        0%        0         0%
  Attendance                                                                                                

  Concurrent Adaptation                                                                                      
  and Socioemotional                                                                                        
  Development                                                                                               

  10\) Self-Concept        4         3          75%       0          0%        1        25%       0         0%

  11\) Self-Esteem         3         0          0%        0          0%        3        100%      0         0%

  12\) Locus of Control    3         3          100%      0          0%        0        0%        0         0%

  13\) School Track and    8         5          63%       1          13%       2        25%       0         0%
  Subject Preference                                                                                        

  14\) Educational         2         2          100%      0          0%        0        0%        0         0%
  Aspirations                                                                                               

  15\) Career Aspirations  2         2          100%      0          0%        0        0%        0         0%

  16\) Delinquency         3         2          67%       0          0%        1        33%       0         0%

  17\) Attitudes Toward    3         2          67%       1          33%       0        0%        0         0%
  School                                                                                                    

  18\) Time Spent per Week 1         1          100%      0          0%        0        0%        0         0%
  on Homework                                                                                               

  19\) Attitudes Toward    1         1          100%      0          0%        0        0%        0         0%
  Working Women                                                                                             

  Long-Term Adaptation and                                                                                   
  Socioemotional                                                                                            
  Development                                                                                               

  20\) School Completion   1         1          100%      0          0%        0        0%        0         0%

  21\) Postsecondary       0         0          0%        0          0%        0        0%        0         0%
  Success                                                                                                   

  22\) Postsecondary       1         1          100%      0          0%        0        0%        0         0%
  Unemployment                                                                                              

  23\) Eating Disorders    1         0          0%        1          100%      0        0%        0         0%
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 34%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="19"><p id="table-of-study-outcomes-for-girls-contd"
class="heading">Table of Study Outcomes for Girls (cont’d)</p></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th colspan="2" rowspan="2"><em>Outcome</em></th>
<th colspan="2" rowspan="2"><em>Total</em></th>
<th colspan="4"><em>Pro-SS</em></th>
<th colspan="4"><em>Pro-CE</em></th>
<th colspan="4"><em>Null</em></th>
<th colspan="3"><em>Mixed</em></th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="2">N</th>
<th colspan="2">Percent</th>
<th colspan="2">N</th>
<th colspan="2">Percent</th>
<th colspan="2">N</th>
<th colspan="2">Percent</th>
<th colspan="2">N</th>
<th>Percent</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>24) Choice of College Major</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td colspan="2">100%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>25) Sex-Role Stereotyping</td>
<td colspan="2">2</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td colspan="2">50%</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td colspan="2">50%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>26) Political Involvement</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td colspan="2">100%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>27) Percent Married to First Spouse</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td colspan="2">100%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Perceived School Culture</td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>28) Climate for Learning</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td colspan="2">100%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>29) Opportunities for Leadership Roles</td>
<td colspan="2">2</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td colspan="2">50%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td colspan="2">50%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>30) School Environment</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Subjective Satisfaction</td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>31) Satisfaction with School Environment</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>32) College Satisfaction</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td colspan="2">100%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

[^1]: Four study authors chose not to participate in the verification of
    our summary. These authors declined when their review of our
    findings summary was requested.