Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Center for Applied Research. (2017). Midlands Technical College TAACCCT Better Occupational Outcomes with Simulation Training: Program evaluation final report. Charlotte, NC: Center for Applied Research.
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Better Occupational Outcomes with Simulation Training (BOOST) program on education outcomes.
- The authors used a nonexperimental design to compare the outcomes of students participating in BOOST to a matched comparison group using data from the colleges’ student information systems and the National Student Clearinghouse.
- The study found a significant relationship between BOOST participation and increased semester enrollment, increased certificate program completion, lower transfer rates, and faster rates of school completion.
- The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not use sufficient controls in their analysis. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the BOOST program; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Better Occupational Outcomes with Simulation Training (BOOST) Program
Features of the Intervention
The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) program provided $1.9 billion in grants to community colleges to improve skills and support employment in high-demand industries, notably manufacturing, health care, information technology, energy, and transportation. Through four rounds of funding, DOL awarded 256 TAACCCT grants to approximately 800 educational institutions across the United States and its territories. In 2013, a six-college consortium was awarded a TAACCCT grant entitled Better Occupational Outcomes with Simulation Training (BOOST). The goal of the BOOST program was to prepare workers for jobs in stable, high-demand health care fields in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Alabama. BOOST focused on students who wanted to work in health care but were not qualified for highly competitive programs due to low grade-point averages. The grantees implemented short-term stackable certificates in health care that utilized human simulation and 3D technology. The BOOST program was developed with extensive input from local employers in each college’s region and included general education and healthcare courses that targeted identified skills gaps.
Features of the Study
The authors used a nonexperimental design to compare the outcomes of students who were in the BOOST program to students who were not in the BOOST program. The author matched BOOST participants to similar nonparticipants using propensity scores developed from baseline demographic information. Study participants included 876 students in the treatment group and 869 in the comparison group. Using data from the colleges’ student information systems and the National Student Clearinghouse, the authors conducted statistical models to examine differences in education outcomes. Outcomes included total credits completed, number of semesters enrolled, earning a credential, transfer rates, graduation rates, and time to completion.
Study Sites
- Central Carolina Technical College (South Carolina) Florence-
- Darlington Technical College (South Carolina) Midlands Technical
- College (South Carolina) Robeson Community College (North Carolina)
- Wallace Community College in Selma (Alabama)
- Wallace State Community College in Hanceville (Alabama)
Findings
Education and skills gain
- The study found that BOOST participation was significantly related to a .23 increase in the number of semesters enrolled at the college.
- The study found a significant positive relationship between program participation and earning a certificate or diploma, with a higher percentage of BOOST students obtaining certificates or diplomas (33%), compared to comparison students (5%).
- However, the study found a significant negative relationship between program participation and earning a degree, with a lower percentage of BOOST students (4%) earning an Associate’s degree or higher compared to comparison students (10%).
- The study also found a significant negative relationship between program participation and transfer rates with BOOST students transferring at lower rates than comparison students overall (11% versus 19%), to two-year institutions (6% versus 11%), and to four-year institutions (6% versus 9%).
- The study found a significant relationship between program participation and time to graduation with BOOST students graduating more quickly than comparison students. The study found no significant relationship between program participation and total number of credits earned.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
Although the authors accounted for baseline characteristics and outcomes, they did not control for the states in which the colleges were located. Because participating colleges were located in three states, it is important to control for state to account for differences in state-level educational policies, among other factors, that could influence education outcomes. Therefore, the study is not eligible for a moderate causal evidence rating, the highest rating available for nonexperimental designs.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not use sufficient controls in their analysis. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the BOOST program; other factors are likely to have contributed.