Part B: Supporting 

Statement for 

Paperwork Reduction 

Act Submission

Study of Enhanced College 

Advising in Upward Bound

Prepared for:

Marsha Silverberg

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Ave, NW

Room 502I

Washington, DC 20208-5500

Submitted by:

Abt Associates Inc.

55 Wheeler Street

Cambridge, MA 02138
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Table of Contents ▌pg. i

Part B: Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission

Table of Contents

B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods.................................................B-1

Introduction..............................................................................................................................B-1

Overview of the Upward Bound Program.....................................................................B-1

Overview of the Evaluation...........................................................................................B-3

B.1 Respondent Universe and Sampling Methods...............................................................B-6

B.1.1 Respondent Universe.......................................................................................B-6

B.1.2 Sampling Methods...........................................................................................B-6

B.1.3 Expected Response Rates................................................................................B-6

B.2 Statistical Methods for Sample Selection and Degree of Accuracy Needed.................B-6

B.2.1 Sample Selection .............................................................................................B-6

B.2.2 Estimation Procedures.....................................................................................B-7

B.2.3 Degree of Accuracy Needed..........................................................................B-10

B.2.4 Unusual Problems Requiring Specialized Sampling Procedures ..................B-13

B.2.5 Use of Periodic Data Collection Cycles to Reduce Burden...........................B-13

B.3 Methods to Maximize Response Rates and Deal with Nonresponse...........................B-14

B.4 Test of Procedures and Methods to be Undertaken.....................................................B-16

B.5 Individuals Consulted on Statistical Aspects of the Design ........................................B-16

References..............................................................................................................................B-17
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-1

B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) will fulfill a congressional mandate to assess the effectiveness 

of a promising practice in its long-standing Upward Bound (UB) program by conducting a research 

demonstration to enhance college advising in UB. This first Information Collection Request (ICR) for 

the study presents an overview of its design, including the plan to randomly assign UB projects in the 

demonstration into treatment and control conditions, and seeks clearance to collect initial student data. A 

later ICR will request approval for the remaining data collection activities.

The study is being sponsored by ED’s Institute of Education Sciences, in collaboration with the Office of 

Postsecondary Education, and implemented by Abt Associates Inc. and its partners, Decision 

Information Resources (DIR), Survey Research Management (SRM), and American Institutes for 

Research (AIR). 

Overview of the Upward Bound Program

The UB program is designed to improve college access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. 

Coming out of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 as part of the War on Poverty, the UB program is 

the oldest and largest, in terms of spending, of the federal TRIO programs. In 2012-2013, approximately 

$269 million was spent to fund 826 UB projects and serve over 62,500 high school participants. 1

Each version of the Higher Education Act, including the most recent 2008 Higher Education 

Opportunities Act (HEOA) (20 USC 1070A-18), has prescribed major details of the UB program. UB 

project grantees may include two- or four-year colleges (the vast majority), but also other organizations 

such as local education agencies, nonprofit organizations, other community organizations, and state

education agencies, may also host UB projects. Eligible UB students must come from families with 

household income below 150 percent of the poverty line or in which neither parent holds a bachelor’s 

degree, and two-thirds of any project’s participants must satisfy both criteria. Individual UB projects 

must provide an array of services to participants, who typically enter the program early in high school. 

UB projects are required to provide students with: 

 academic tutoring to prepare students to complete secondary or postsecondary courses; 

 guidance on course selection; assistance in preparing for college entrance examinations and 

completing college admission applications; 

 information on all Federal student financial aid programs, and benefits and resources for locating 

public and private scholarships; 

 assistance completing financial aid applications; 

 education or counseling services to improve the financial literacy and economic literacy of 

students or their parents, including financial planning for postsecondary education; and

 

1 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Upward Bound Program Awards FY2012, 

available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/ubgrantees2012.xls
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-2

 assistance for high school dropouts with secondary school reentry, entry into alternative 

education programs, and entry into general educational development (GED) programs or 

postsecondary education programs (20 USC 1070A-13b).

According to grantee-provided data, more than 80 percent of Upward Bound participants attend college 

within two years of graduating high school,

2 with older data suggesting that three-quarters of those 

students (60 percent overall) enroll in a four-year college or university.3 However, like many low-income 

students, UB participants may miss opportunities to enroll in more selective colleges and universities 

that better match their academic capabilities. A previous study of UB found that only 11 percent of UB

participants enroll in four-year institutions classified by the Barron’s guide as “most competitive”, 

“highly competitive”, or ”very competitive” (Seftor, Mamun and Schirm, 2009). Further, more than a 

third of participants overall attend their host institution (45 percent for those participating in UB 

programs hosted at a two-year institution), but whether that reflects the best outcome for those students 

or a lost opportunity is uncertain. While all UB projects provide college advising and application help, 

there is variation in the emphasis and intensity of these activities and room to improve the “match” or 

“fit” between UB student qualifications, financial circumstances, and interests and the college in which 

they enroll.

Overview of the Enhanced College Advising Demonstration

The demonstration will build on advising activities grantees already conduct, but take into account 

information and approaches emerging from recent rigorous research (Avery, 2013; Hoxby and Turner, 

2013; Roderick, Nagaoka, Coca, and Moeller, 2009; Sherwin, 2012; Carrell and Sacerdote, 2013). The 

intervention is a professional development program for UB staff and a set of tools and resources for them 

to use in working with students in the spring of their junior year through early senior year. Both the staff 

training and student tools and resources will focus on the benefits of attending higher quality 

institutions, the concepts of net costs and completion rates in comparing colleges of interest, the 

availability of financial aid, other factors to consider in finding a “fit,” and the importance of applying to 

at least 4 colleges (Smith, 2011) with fee waivers to ensure that household income is not a constraint on 

the number of applications. 

The professional development will include review of emerging research and best practices; introduce key 

concepts in enhanced college advising; simulate enhanced advising activities with materials, tools, 

resources; and support staff to develop a plan for implementing enhanced advising strategies. The 

professional development will be offered in a series of webinars. The intervention builds on lessons 

learned from recent Hoxby-Turner (2013) research, by providing students with: (1) an illustrative 

example of colleges customized to their PSAT/SAT and/or ACT/PLAN score and their location, and (2) 

a list of scholarships and grants available in their state.

4

 In contrast to the Hoxby-Turner study, where 

packets were mailed directly to very high-achieving, low-income students, the UB demonstration will 

address students with a wider range of academic backgrounds and encourage staff support to help 

students understand and act on these materials.

 

2

See http://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/ubgranteelevel-exp0910.pdf

3

See http://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/ubprofile-00-01.pdf

4 The UB host institution will be one of five examples provided, so that students (and potentially their parents) 

can compare the net costs and performance of the host institution to other postsecondary institutions.
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-3

Overview of the Evaluation

The 2008 Higher Education Opportunities Act (HEOA) (20 USC 1070A-18), requires ED to conduct a 

rigorous study of a promising practice that has the potential to improve key outcomes for UB

participants. At the same time, the law prohibits any evaluation of a TRIO program that would require 

grantees to “recruit additional students beyond those the program or project would normally recruit” or 

that would result “in the denial of services for an eligible student under the program or project.” The 

proposed research demonstration fulfills HEOA’s mandate to examine a promising practice and is 

consistent with the prohibition against denying students UB services as part of the evaluation. Under the 

demonstration design, both the treatment and control group projects would continue providing regular 

UB services. In addition, ED has committed to providing the professional development program to both 

groups, with the control group projects receiving training after the experimental period is over.

The professional development program will be evaluated using a delayed treatment randomized control 

trial (RCT) design. This design will ensure that all UB projects that volunteer have access to the college 

advising intervention at some point. Approximately 200 Upward Bound projects (awarded grants in 

2012) will be recruited to volunteer for the demonstration. These projects will be randomly assigned so 

that those assigned to Wave 1 (treatment) will receive the professional development program beginning 

in spring 2015.5 Wave 2 (control) projects will receive the professional development program beginning 

in fall 2016. 

Students in both groups who were high school juniors in 2014-15 will be tracked over time to collect 

administrative and survey data on key outcomes, including college application behavior, college

acceptance and matriculation, and receipt of financial aid. ED expects to execute an option to the current 

contract to also enable collection of longer-term data on college persistence, which is the most important 

measure of match or fit.

The study will use the data to assess not only whether the intervention is effective, but how well it was 

implemented and whether its effectiveness depends on key components of the UB program or features of 

the college advising intervention as it was designed and implemented. In particular, the evaluation is 

designed to answer three main research questions: 

1. To what extent do the professional development package and tools have an effect— above and 

beyond the services Upward Bound grantees already provide—on important student outcomes?

2. How fully was the intervention implemented (e.g., in terms of staff participation in training and 

staff implementation of the intervention model)? And to what extent did the intervention 

produce a difference in the Upward Bound college advising provided to treatment and control 

group students?

3. Is there variation in the impacts of the enhanced college advising intervention on student 

outcomes and to what extent is the variation associated with other project features or 

characteristics of participating students? For example, do impacts vary between projects hosted 

by two-year institutions and projects hosted by four-year institutions? Are differences in the 

implementation of the enhanced college advising associated with differences in impacts? 

 

5 We will to conduct blocked random assignment of projects, using region and one or more other blocking 

factors that are associated with the key student outcomes in this study. 
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-4

To answer these questions we will conduct both impact and descriptive analyses. The first report, 

which will address each research question, will be available in 2017, and the second report will be 

published in 2018. ED expects to issue a later report on persistence impacts in 2020. To minimize costs, 

the evaluation will rely to the extent possible on easily available administrative data for many of the 

outcome measures.

Exhibit B-1 presents the research questions along with the data sources for each question, the analytic 

approach and outcomes of interest. 
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-5

Exhibit B-1. Evaluation Questions, Data Sources, Analytic Approach, and Outcomes of Interest

Research Question Data Sources

Analytic 

Approach Outcomes of Interest

1. To what extent do the 

professional development 

package and tools have an 

effect— above and beyond 

the services Upward Bound 

grantees already provide—

on student outcomes?

 Student survey data

 National Student 

Clearinghouse data

 Federal Student 

Aid data

 NCES IPEDS data

 College Board and 

ACT data

 Impact analysis 

 Sample: 4,000 

students in 200 

UB projects

 Number and type of 

college applications 

submitted

 Selectivity of colleges 

applied to

 Knowledge of college 

net costs

 Knowledge of financial 

aid options

 Completion of FASFA 

 Type of college 

enrolled in

 Selectivity of college 

enrolled in

 Persistence in college

2. How fully was the 

intervention implemented 

(e.g., in terms of staff 

participation in training and 

staff implementation of the 

intervention model)? And to 

what extent did the 

intervention produce a 

difference in the Upward 

Bound college advising 

provided to treatment and 

control group students?

 UB Project Director 

survey data

 Student survey data

 Descriptive / 

impact analysis

 Sample: 4,000 

students in

200 UB 

projects and 

200 UB project 

directors

 Enhanced college 

advising experiences

 Receipt and use of 

student advising 

materials

 Staff knowledge and 

awareness

 Staff behaviors and 

practice

3. Is there variation in the 

impacts of the enhanced 

college advising intervention 

on student outcomes and to 

what extent is the variation 

associated with other 

project features or 

characteristics of 

participating students? For 

example, do impacts vary 

between projects hosted by 

two-year institutions and 

projects hosted by four-year 

institutions? Are differences 

in the implementation of the 

enhanced college advising 

associated with differences 

in impacts? 

 Student survey data

 PD survey data

 National Student 

Clearinghouse data

 Federal Student 

Aid data

 NCES IPEDS data

 College Board and 

Act data

 Impact 

analysis / 

moderator 

analysis

 Sample: 4,000 

students in 

200 UB 

projects and 

200 UB project 

directors

 Number and type of 

college applications 

submitted

 Selectivity of colleges 

applied to

 Knowledge of college 

net costs

 Knowledge of financial 

aid options

 Completion of FASFA 

 Type of college 

enrolled in

 Selectivity of college 

enrolled in

As explained in Section A.2, there are two phases to this study. This first ICR requests approval for 

Phase I – Random Assignment and Collection of Student Rosters and Student Baseline Surveys in which 

UB projects will be randomly assigned to treatment and control groups and where UB student 

participants will be identified via student rosters and then surveyed. An addendum ICR will request 
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-6

clearance for Phase II –Collection of Follow-Up Student Survey, Project Director Survey, and 

Administrative Data.

B.1 Respondent Universe and Sampling Methods

B.1.1 Respondent Universe

The respondent universe includes those UB projects that volunteer to participate in the demonstration; 

200 UB projects will be recruited. An open invitation will be issued to the UB community seeking 

projects to volunteer to participate in the demonstration; the first 200 UB projects that respond will be 

included in the demonstration. During Phase I, participating UB projects will be randomly assigned to 

the treatment or control group. UB projects in the treatment group will implement the intervention with 

students who are high school juniors in academic year 2014-1, during Wave 1 and those projects 

assigned to the control group will implement the intervention in Wave 2 with high school juniors 

participating in UB in 2015-2016.

Exhibit B-2 indicates the estimated population sizes for the evaluation. 

Exhibit B-2. Population Size Estimates

Estimated number of participating volunteer UB projects 200 UB projects

Estimated number of UB project directors 1 per project

Estimated average number of UB high school juniors in 2014-2015 20 students per project*

TOTALS PARTICIPANTS

UB Project Directors

UB High School Juniors in 2014-2015

200 Project Directors

4,000 students

*Data from UB historic Annual Performance Reports (APR) suggest that, on average, UB projects serve a cohort of 20 high 

school juniors in a given school year.

B.1.2 Sampling Methods

The Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound will include all 200 project directors and all 

4,000 students from participating UB projects. Therefore, there is no sampling proposed for this study.

B.1.3 Expected Response Rates

For Phase I data collection, we expect to obtain a 100% response on the student rosters from projects. 

Projects maintain a list of participating students, by grade, for the purposes of APR reporting. We 

expect an 80% response rate for the student baseline survey, in part because we will have the support of 

the UB project directors and they will be able to encourage survey completion (see section B.3 for more 

detail).

B.2 Statistical Methods for Sample Selection and Degree of Accuracy Needed

B.2.1 Sample Selection

Given the way in which UB projects offer services to participants in groups, and the potential for 

spillovers across students participating in the same project, random assignment of students within 

projects to treatment and control conditions was considered to be potentially infeasible—and if feasible, 

not advisable. Therefore, random assignment will occur at the UB project level. The number of projects

is bounded by the resources available and the numbers necessary to conduct robust tests of impact.
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-7

During Phase I, in March 2015, the study team will randomly assign one half of the projects that have 

volunteered for the demonstration to the treatment group (Wave 1 implementers) and one half to the 

control group (Wave 2 delayed implementers). To the extent possible, the team will stratify the random 

assignment by project type (e.g. 2-year or 4-year host college) and region to ensure reasonable 

representation across these important policy factors and to mitigate the possibility of having imbalance 

between the treatment and controls on these factors simply by chance.

B.2.2 Estimation Procedures

This section presents the study’s estimation approach for addressing the research questions. All 

estimation will occur during Phase II of the study. Impact and descriptive analyses will be conducted to 

answer the study research questions, as described here. 

1. To what extent do the professional development package and tools have an effect— above and 

beyond the services Upward Bound grantees already provide—on student outcomes?

To examine the impacts of the intervention (Question 1), the study will exploit the experimental design 

to estimate Intent-to-Treat (ITT) effects of the intervention relative to the control condition. These 

impact effects will be estimated for each of the outcomes (i.e., the number and types of colleges students 

apply to; the selectivity of the college in which students enroll; financial aid obtained; college costs 

borne by students and their families; and overall enrollment in postsecondary education). We will test 

whether each of the impacts is statistically significant to determine if there is convincing scientific 

evidence that the intervention caused improvements in student outcomes. 

In conducting the analysis, the study team will estimate two-level regression models, with students 

(level-1) nested within Upward Bound projects (level-2), to account for clustering.6 The student level 

will control for student demographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, English language learner status) 

as well as aspects of students’ educational plans collected from the baseline student survey (e.g., whether 

the student’s first planned postsecondary degree is a two- or four-year degree), and whether or not the 

student is the first in the family to attend college. The project level will include the treatment indicator, 

to distinguish between treatment and control projects, indicators for any stratifying variables used in 

random assignment, and we will control for baseline characteristics of the high schools attended by 

students in the project, including, for example, the percentage of seniors applying for federal financial 

aid, average school achievement and the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. 

Hierarchical Linear Model

The following hierarchical linear model will be used to estimate program impacts on continuous 

outcome variables.

The Level-1 (student level) model is:

(1)  =  +  −  + ∑ 



  () −

   + ∑ 





(() −  )+ 

 

6

Since each Upward Bound project serves several target schools, it is reasonable to ask whether it might be more 

appropriate to estimate a three-level model of schools nested with projects and students nested 

within schools. However, Schochet (2008) shows that in this context, it is only necessary to capture variation 

across schools if the study selects a sample of target schools from each project. Because the study sample will 

include all target schools for each randomized project, adding a school-level to the model is unnecessary.
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-8

for i=(1,2,...n) students per project and j=(1,2,..,P) UB projects.

Where,  is the value of the outcome (e.g., number of college applications submitted) for the i

th student 

in the j

th UB project;  −  is 1 if the ith student in the jth UB project student is 

the first in the family to attend college and 0 otherwise centered at the grand mean; 

 () −    are E covariates representing 

educational plans for i

th student in the jth UB project (e.g. whether the student’s first planned 

postsecondary degree is a two- or four-year degree) centered at the grand mean;  are K 

additional covariates representing demographic characteristics of the i

th student in the jth UB project (e.g., 

race/ethnicity, English language learner status) each centered at the grand mean; is the covariateadjusted mean value of the outcome for control students in the jth UB project;  through  are 

regression coefficients indicating the effects of each student-level covariate on the outcome variable ; 

and  is the random effect representing the difference between student ij’s score and the predicted mean 

score for project j. 

The Level-2 (UB project-level) model is:

(2)  =  +  +∑ (h14_15



 − h 14_

15)+ 

Where,  is the covariate-adjusted mean value of the outcome measure across control UB projects; 

is the treatment effect i.e. the difference between the covariate-adjusted means of the treatment and 

control projects; Treatmentj is the treatment status dummy variable with a value of 1 if the jth project is 

assigned to the treatment group and 0 if assigned to the control group; h14_15is a vector of k

variables measuring the characteristics of the j

th project in school year 2014-2015 prior to random 

assignment (e.g. the percentage of seniors applying for federal financial aid, the percentage of students 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) each centered at the grand mean;  is the deviation of UB 

project j’s mean from the grand mean, conditional on covariates

The parameter  indicates the impact of the demonstration on the outcome. A two-tailed t-test will be 

conducted to test the null hypothesis of no treatment impact using an alpha level criterion of 0.05. A 

positive and statistically significant estimate of  will indicate that there is compelling scientific 

evidence (at the 5 percent level) that the demonstration had an impact on the targeted outcome. The 

parameter  indicates the magnitude of the impact -- such that the enhanced college advising in UB 

projects is estimated to have, on average, a  point effect on the specified outcome.

A standardized effect size will be calculated by dividing the estimated impact () by the standard 

deviation of the outcome variable, , in the control group (). The standardized effect size is 





 . The control group standard deviation will be used, as recommended by Burghardt, Deke, 

Kisker, Puma, and Schochet (2009), rather than the pooled standard deviation, because the intervention 

might affect the standard deviation in the treatment group. 

2. How fully was the intervention implemented (e.g., in terms of staff participation in training 

and staff implementation of the intervention model)? And to what extent did the intervention 

produce a difference in the Upward Bound college advising provided to treatment and control 

group students?
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-9

Descriptive analyses will be used to provide information on implementation and the fidelity of 

implementation (Question 2). Information on the overall level of and variation in implementation fidelity 

will provide important contextual information for interpreting the impact findings. Our proposed 

implementation analysis will cover: (1) the professional development received by UB staff; (2) the 

nature of the college advising that is offered to participants, (3) the extent to which participants receive 

college advising from Upward Bound, (4) the alignment between UB’s college advising and the college 

advising that projects in the treatment group were expected to provide, and (5) the difference between 

the college advising received by students in the treatment group and students in the control group. 

To capture services offered, we will use program director surveys to obtain information on treatment 

projects’ rollout of the intervention compared to control group members’ reports of college advising 

activities provided. To collect data on the services students receive, especially those related to 

college and financial aid planning and applications, we plan to rely on the student follow-up 

survey. However, we recognize the limitations of these data; student self-reports may suffer from recall 

error and potential response biases (e.g., successful students tend to over-attribute their success to 

mentors and tutors and tend to rate the quality of those services more highly than students who are not as 

successful). However we do not believe that the issues of self-reporting will be substantially different 

for students in the treatment versus control group projects and so will consider these unbiased measures 

unless there is reason to consider them otherwise.

To characterize the difference between the college advising received by students in the treatment group 

and students in the control group (i.e., the treatment-control contrast), we will conduct an impact analysis 

using the same methods described earlier in this section. The magnitude of the treatment’ impact on 

college advising services will be used to characterize the treatment-control contrast.

3. Is there variation in the impacts of the enhanced college advising intervention on student 

outcomes and to what extent is the variation associated with other project features or 

characteristics of participating students? For example, do impacts vary between projects 

hosted by two-year institutions and projects hosted by four-year institutions? Are differences 

in the implementation of the enhanced college advising associated with differences in 

impacts? 

An important goal of the study is to identify implementation features or other factors that may influence 

the impacts of the intervention. To address Question 3 (i.e., variation in impacts), we propose to augment 

our analysis model with interaction terms and test whether there are statistically significant relationships 

between the impacts of the intervention and the way in which it was implemented and other site-level 

characteristics. For example, to test for variation between projects hosted by two-year institutions and 

projects hosted by four-year institutions in the program impact, the study team will include an interaction 

between the treatment indicator and an indicator for whether the project is hosted by a four year 

institution in Equation 2, as follows:

(3)  =

 +  + 4 + 4 ∗  +

∑ (h14_15



 −  h 14−15)+ 

Where,  is the covariate-adjusted mean value of the outcome measure (or log-odds of the outcome 

occurring) among control projects hosted by two-year institutions;  is the mean difference in the 

covariate-adjusted outcome between treatment and control projects (i.e., the treatment impact);
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-10

Treatmentj is the treatment status dummy variable with a value of 1 if the jth project is assigned to the 

treatment group and 0 if assigned to the control group;  is the difference between projects hosted by 

four-year institutions and projects hosted by two-year institutions in the covariate-adjusted mean value 

(or log-odds) of the outcome among control projects; 4is a host type indicator variable 

with a value of 1 if the jth project is hosted by a four-year institution and 0 if hosted by a two-year 

institution;  is the difference in the treatment impact between projects hosted by four-year institutions 

and projects hosted by two-year institutions; 4*Trtjis the host type by treatment 

condition interaction term; and h14_15is a vector of k variables measuring the characteristics 

of the jth project in school year 2014-2015 prior to random assignment (e.g. the percentage of seniors 

applying for federal financial aid, the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) 

each centered at the grand mean.

Using a .05 level criterion, the study team will conduct a test of the null hypothesis that the parameter for 

the interaction term is zero, i.e., that there is no statistically significant difference in the program impact 

for the type of host institution. The null hypothesis is expressed as follows:

: 03 = 0

The study team will interpret a statistically significant difference as evidence that the program impact 

varies by type of host institution. If the study team finds a statistically significant difference in program 

impacts, the study team will then test whether the program impact within type of host institution or 

subgroup is statistically significant. Standardized effect sizes will be calculated as described above. We 

recognize that subgroup analyses conducted for different types of Upward Bound projects will be 

underpowered since the study was designed to be adequately powered to detect impacts for the full 

sample of 200 projects

B.2.3 Degree of Accuracy Needed

This section presents the power analyses conducted to estimate the minimum detectable effect sizes 

(MDES) for the treatment/control differences on binary and continuous student outcomes. 

Binary Outcomes

The MDES estimates for binary outcomes, such as whether participants are applying to college; 

enrolling in a 4-year college; and submitting a FASFA, are based on the following assumptions:

(1) the demonstration includes 200 projects

(2) 100 projects are assigned to each group

(3) the full sample includes 20 students per project

(4) the student survey samples includes the full sample of 4,000 students

(5) the intra-class correlation equals 0.05, 0.10. 

(6) the project-level R-square equals 0.32 

(7) for binary outcomes the outcome variable equals 1 for 80 percent of control group members

The assumed ICCs of .05 and .10 bound the estimated ICCs for the outcome of college attendance,

which was estimated using historic UB APR data. The estimated project-level R-square of .32 was also 

estimated from historic UB APR data as the variation in the outcome of college attendance that could be 

explained by variation across UB projects.
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-11

In addition, standard statistical assumptions were used (i.e., two-tailed testing at the 5 percent level and 

80 percent power). 

The formulas in Schochet (2011) were used for binary outcomes to calculate MDES. These power 

calculations for binary outcomes provide conservative MDES estimates. The Schochet (2011) paper 

derives MDE equations and variance estimates that reflect the process of transforming logistic regression 

estimates into percentage point impact estimates. Because the percentage point impact estimates are the 

expected difference in probability between the treatment and the control groups, these impact estimates 

reflect the joint distribution of the outcome and covariates in absence of treatment, in addition to the 

estimated log-odds treatment effect produced by the logistic regression. To make this relationship 

tractable, Schochet (2011) assumes a single binary covariate.

Schochet refers to minimum detectible effect sizes for binary outcomes as minimum detectible impacts 

(MDI) in percentage points:

 =  



(, { = 1}, { = 1}, R, , , )

− 



1 −



2



where: 

: significance level for a two-tailed test,

: statistical power;

(. ) the cumulative density function of the normal distribution;





(. ) the inverse of the cumulative density function of the normal distribution;

: minimum detectible impact in percentage point terms;

(. ): the variance of the estimated impact, which is a function of the MDI and the 

following terms;

{ = 1}: the probability that the outcome occurs for control group members (e.g. the student 

enrolls in college);

{ = 1}: the probability that the covariate is one (e.g. the probability that a student is the first in 

the family to attend college);

R



: proportion of the student-level variance explained by the covariate;

: total number of projects;

: average number of students per project with a valid outcome measure after accounting for attrition 

and non-response; and

: the intra-class correlation for the outcome.

Unlike the standard power analysis equation, the equation above cannot be solved for the MDI 

analytically, as the MDI enters the equation for variance: iterative methods must be used. To find the 
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-12

MDI for a given sample size and power, the study team fixed the number of projects and iterated over 

MDI until we obtained the desired power.

Row 1 in Exhibit B-3 demonstrates that the MDES will be 4 percentage points for outcomes based 

on binary outcomes (e.g., applied to college; enrolled in a 4-year college). If ICCs prove to be larger than 

our assumed ICC of .05, the MDES may be larger. For example, if the ICC is .10, which is consistent 

with some of the estimates reported in Schochet (2011), the MDE would be approximately 5 percentage 

points for binary outcomes (see row 2).

Exhibit B-3. MDES Estimates for Binary Outcomes

Intraclass Correlation

Binary Outcomes

(200 projects, each with 

20 students)*

.05 4 percentage points

.10 5 percentage points

*Estimates assuming an 80 percent survey response rate (16 students/project) 

yield similar MDES estimates.

Continuous Outcomes

Power analyses for continuous outcomes, such as the number of college applications submitted, the 

amount of financial aid received, and the selectivity of college chosen for enrollment, are based on the 

following formula (Schochet, 2008):

 = (, , ) ∗







(1 − )

(1 − )

+





(1 − )

(1 − )



Where

: estimated minimum detectable effect size for the treatment impact;

(, , ): a constant that is a function of the significance level (α), statistical power (β), and 

the number of degrees of freedom (df);





: projects-level variance in the outcome;





: student-level variance in the outcome;





: amount of project-level variance in the outcome explained by covariates; 





: amount of student-level variance in the outcome explained by covariates;

s: number of projects;

p: proportion of projects assigned to the treatment condition; 

n: average number of students in each project; and

σ: standard deviation of the outcome measure for the control group.
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-13

Using the equation above we make the following assumptions:

(1) the demonstration includes 200 projects

(2) 100 projects are assigned to each group

(3) the full sample includes 20 students per project

(4) the student survey samples includes the full sample of 4,000 students

(5) intra-class correlations (ICC) of 0.05 and 0.10 

(6) the project-level R-square equals 0.32 

Exhibit B-4 demonstrates that by our estimates, the MDES will be .12 to .14 standard deviations for

outcomes based on survey data. The MDES will be at the upper end of this range if ICCs are larger 

(e.g., ICC=.15), and the MDES will at the lower end of the range if ICCs are smaller. 

Exhibit B-4. MDES Estimates for Continuous Outcomes from Survey Data

Intraclass Correlation

Survey Data Outcomes

(20 students/project)*

.05 0.12 standard deviations

.10 0.14 standard deviations

*Estimates assuming an 80 percent survey response rate (16 students/project) 

yield similar MDES estimates.

B.2.4 Unusual Problems Requiring Specialized Sampling Procedures

Unusual problems that require specialized sampling procedures are not anticipated.

B.2.5 Use of Periodic Data Collection Cycles to Reduce Burden

The data collection plan reflects sensitivity to issues of efficiency and respondent burden. The data will 

be collected at the fewest intervals allowable to maintaining data accuracy. 

 The student rosters will only be collected once from projects assigned to the treatment group and 

twice for projects assigned to the control group. The second collection of rosters for the control 

group is only to allow the intervention to be delivered to students in those projects and is not 

needed for the evaluation.

 There will be one baseline and one follow up student survey, in order to provide timely results,

minimize burden, and maximize precision in the impact estimates. Administrative records –

rather than surveys – are being collected for longer-term outcomes.

 The project director survey will be fielded once at a time appropriate for collecting data on the 

implementation of the intervention. 
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-14

B.3 Methods to Maximize Response Rates and Deal with Nonresponse

In order to obtain responses from the study sample, the study team has developed strategies to facilitate 

communication with respondents during data collection activities and to maximize response rates. These 

strategies have proven successful in the study team’s extensive experience conducting large-scale 

evaluation studies (e.g., The Reading First Impact Study, Evaluation of the U.S. Department of 

Education’s Student Mentoring Program, Evaluation of the Massachusetts Expanded Learning Time

Initiative; The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study). 

The study team will follow several procedures to maximize response rates and handle nonresponse 

during the Phase I – Random Assignment and Collection of Student Rosters and Student Baseline 

Surveys activities covered under this ICR.

Student Rosters

Prior to the start of the 2014-2015 school year, the study team will send an introductory email to 

each site coordinator explaining the evaluation and the requests that will be made of site 

coordinators (see Appendix A). During the September 2014 meeting of the association of UB grantees 

(the Council on Opportunity in Education, or COE), the study team will provide an evaluation session 

for participating project directors that will clearly explain the importance of the study and the roles and 

responsibilities of project directors, including the process for submitting student rosters in the fall. Next, 

the study team will reach out to each project director via an email in the fall of the 2014-2015 school 

year to request student rosters (see Appendix A). Project directors will be asked to submit student rosters 

through a password protected secure file transfer portal (SFTP). One week after sending out the email 

request, a member of the study team will reach out to each project director via a telephone call during to 

answer any questions about the roster submission. Additionally, the study team will hold a webinar for to 

project directors to learn how to use the SFTP and why this is required method of roster submission. The 

submission of student rosters via a password protected SFTP will allow project directors to submit 

rosters at a time most convenient for them and will assure coordinators that student confidentially is 

protected. 

Baseline Student Surveys

Cooperation with surveys has dropped in the last twenty years, and the study team expects that obtaining 

willing cooperation will be challenging for the student surveys. These respondents may not want to take 

the time necessary to complete the study surveys. Alternatively, they may be willing to participate, but 

only if the study team makes it easy for them to do so, or offers them something in return.

For the baseline survey, the study team will employ three strategies to increase response rates on the 

baseline student survey:

 Encouragement from UB project staff. As a condition of participating in the demonstration, UB 

project directors must agree to encourage their students to complete the baseline survey, and, if 

feasible, will allocate time and space for students to complete the web-based baseline survey. 

 Provide for multiple modes for completion. Respondents will be able to completed the 

survey online, but if requested can complete the survey by phone.

 Make use of reminders. The study team will make use of reminder phone calls as well as 

reminder emails and mailed reminders, as needed.
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-15

During Phase II – Collection of Follow-Up Survey, Project Director Survey, and Administrative Data of 

this study, the study team will face attrition from the study and missing data for some parts of the 

sample. Disadvantaged families and, therefore, high poverty schools tend to have high rates of student 

mobility and dropping out. To track the sample of students over time, the study team will use 

two strategies:

1. Project director involvement. The study team will ask project directors to track the students as 

they move, change schools, or drop out of program, and to provide updated contact information 

for the study sample. Project directors are already required to track students that leave their UB 

projects, so this should not require any additional effort on the part of the project directors. 

Before the follow-up survey, the study team will ask project directors for any updated contact 

information for students who move residences or schools. This will help to ensure high response 

rates for the follow-up survey.

2. Alternate contact information. The baseline student survey will request more detailed contact 

information than the study team would expect to obtain from student rosters. In particular, the

study team will ask for cell phone numbers, email addresses, and/or the telephone number of a 

family member who could help the study team locate the sample member. This more detailed 

information will help to locate sample members for the second round of surveys. 

To obtain willing cooperation from students and project directors to the evaluation’s data collection 

efforts, the study team will use employ similar strategies to those used for the baseline student survey 

collection.

In addition, during Phase II there will be an incentive payment to student survey participants. 7 An 

incentive payment is necessary for the follow-up student survey because this survey will collect key 

outcome data essential for the impact analysis. Incentives are appropriately used in Federal statistical 

surveys with respondents whose failure to participate would jeopardize the quality of the survey data 

(Graham, 2006). Given the importance of obtaining a high response rate to this survey, the study team 

intends to offer a $15.00 gift card as a financial incentive for students who complete the follow-up 

survey.

Second, the study team will use multiple modes to obtain completed surveys. The study team will offer 

students the option of completing surveys by web survey or telephone or paper. 

Third, the study team will leverage contact with sample members to market the evaluation and prepare 

them for upcoming surveys. For example, the Abt study will:

 Introduce the project director survey to project staff at the September 2015 COE meeting;

 Use regular contact with project directors to obtain updated contact information for participating 

students to remind them to complete the upcoming project director survey; and

 Ask project directors to include information about upcoming surveys in materials that they mail 

to students and parents regarding their UB projects.

 

7 We believe we will be able to achieve high rates of response from project directors because they are required 

to participate in data collection for a national evaluation under ED’s Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) and in the demonstration’s data collection as a condition of 

participating in the grant.
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-16

B.4 Test of Procedures and Methods to be Undertaken

We do not believe pretesting is necessary for the collection of student rosters. The study team has 

successfully collected rosters for other studies such as the Evaluation of Citizen Schools: School-Level 

Expanded Learning Time.

During the 60-day comment period, the baseline survey will be pilot tested. The pilot tests will ensure 

that the survey administration procedures are effective, the instructions are understandable, the content is 

comprehensible, and the length is reasonable. UB students from projects not participating in the 

demonstration will be recruited for the pilot testing; no more than nine students will be selected to 

participate in the pilot test. 

B.5 Individuals Consulted on Statistical Aspects of the Design

The following individuals were consulted on the statistical aspects of the study:

Name Title/Affiliation Telephone

Mr. Cristofer Price Principal Scientist, Abt Associates 301-634-1852

Dr. Alina Martinez Principal Scientist, Abt Associates 617-349-2312

Dr. Rob Olsen Principal Scientist, Abt Associates 301-634-1716

Ms. Amanda Parsad Senior Associate, Abt Associates 301-634-1791

The following individuals will be responsible for the Data Collection and Analysis:

Name Title/Affiliation Telephone

Dr. Alina Martinez Principal Scientist, Abt Associates 617-349-2312

Dr. Rob Olsen Principal Scientist, Abt Associates 301-634-1716

Ms. Amanda Parsad Senior Associate, Abt Associates 301-634-1791

Dr. Tamara Linkow Associate, Abt Associates 617-520-2978

Ms. Linda Kuhn President, Survey Research Management 303-247-0140
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. B-17

References

Avery, C. (2013). Evaluation of the College Possible Program: Results from a Randomized Controlled 

Trial. (Working Paper 19562). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research: 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w19562

Burghardt, J., Deke, J., Kisker, E., Puma, M., & Schochet, P. (2009). Regional educational laboratory 

rigorous applied research studies: Frequently asked analysis questions. Institute of Education U.S. 

Department of Education. Princeton, NJ: Mathematics Policy Research.

Carrell, S. E. & Sacerdote, B. (2013). Late Interventions Matter Too: The Case of College Coaching in 

New Hampshire. Working Paper 19031). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research: 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w19031.

Graham, J. D. (2006). Questions and Answers When Designing Surveys for Information Collections. 

Washington, D.C., Office of Management and Budget.

Hoxby, C. & Turner, S. (2013). Expanding College Opportunities for High-Achieving, Low Income 

Students. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 12-014

Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., Coca, V., & Moeller, E. (2009). From High School to the Future: Making 

Hard Work Pay Off. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Schochet, P.Z. (2008). Statistical Power for Random Assignment Evaluations of Education Programs. 

Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33(1), 62-87.

Schochet, P.Z. (2011). Statistical Power for Binary Outcomes for Clustered RCTs of Education 

Interventions. Presented at the Society for Research in Educational Effectiveness Spring Conference, 

March 3-6, 2011.

Seftor, N. S., Mamun, A. & Schirm, A. (2009). “The Impacts of Regular Upward Bound on 

Postsecondary Outcomes 7-9 Years After Scheduled High School Graduation.” Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc. Available at: http://www.mathematicampr.com/publications/pdfs/upwardboundoutcomes.pdf

Sherwin, J. (2012). “Make Me a Match: Helping Low-Income and First-Generation Students Make Good 

College Choices.” MDRC Policy Brief, April 2012. Available at: 

http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/policybrief_24.pdf

Smith, J. (2011). “Can Applying to More Colleges Increase Enrollment Rates?” The College Board. 

Available at: 

http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/11b_4313_College%20App%20Research%20Bri

ef_WEB_111026.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Annual Performance Reports:

Upward Bound Program Awards FY2012, available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/ubgrantees2012.xls