Despite the fact that over one-third of all colleges and universities have an advising center staffed by non-faculty, current research does not include systematic investigations of the impact of routine interventions of advising centers. The purpose of this study was to assess such an impact on freshman academic achievement, involvement in the university, and certain developmental outcomes.

From a population of 628 freshman business students, 300 were randomly selected and assigned to three groups. Each group was randomly assigned to one of three treatments: a traditional advising center, an additional three interventions during the first term, or an additional six interventions during the first two terms. Academic persistence, progress and grade point averages were collected for each student. From the 260 students still enrolled at the beginning of the third term, 175 (67.3%) usable responses to the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) and the Advising Survey Form (ASF) were analyzed.

Analysis of variance yielded no significant differences among the three groups in the three areas of academic achievement, involvement in the university, and developmental outcomes. However, the group receiving interventions for one term had the highest scores on five of the six ASF advising outcomes scales. Orthogonal contrasts between the no- intervention group and the two intervention groups yielded one unanticipated significant difference: the no-intervention group was more persistent than the two receiving interventions. Further orthogonal contrasts between just the two intervention groups yielded no significant differences. The number of student-initiated visits to the advisor did not appear to be a contributor to the impact; such visits had significant negative correlations with only academic progress and grade point average.

A loglinear logit model used to compare the responses to the six interventions yielded a significant difference among the interventions on perceived caring from the advisor and effectiveness of the intervention. Although all interventions elicited high levels of perceived caring, the first intervention, an introductory call, elicited less than expected. Also, although all the interventions were largely perceived as effective, the second, a registration meeting, was found even more effective than the others. Perceived caring increased across the two terms, and second-term interventions were more effective than first-term interventions. Analysis of variance indicated that the follow-up calls made to obtain these evaluations did not have a significant effect on the impact on academic achievement, involvement in the university, and certain developmental outcomes.