Please fill out this short user survey of only 3 questions in order to help us improve the site. We appreciate your feedback!
Guidance and Information for Improved Decisions in Education (GUIIDE)
Last registered on January 29, 2016


Trial Information
General Information
Guidance and Information for Improved Decisions in Education (GUIIDE)
Initial registration date
January 29, 2016
Last updated
January 29, 2016 3:03 PM EST
Primary Investigator
Boston University
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
University of Houston
PI Affiliation
University of Delaware
Additional Trial Information
On going
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
This study will identify the impact of information on students' decision making and demand for education. We will provide students in 600 randomly selected Ghanaian junior high schools with information about senior high school application strategies, selectivity, and exit exam performance. We will then examine changes in their beliefs, subsequent senior high school application and enrollment decisions, and educational attainment, identifying how access to information impacts student welfare. We will also evaluate the cost-effectiveness of providing information directly to parents relative to targeting only students and teachers.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Ajayi, Kehinde, Willa Friedman and Adrienne Lucas. 2016. "Guidance and Information for Improved Decisions in Education (GUIIDE)." AEA RCT Registry. January 29. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.1017-1.0.
Former Citation
Ajayi, Kehinde et al. 2016. "Guidance and Information for Improved Decisions in Education (GUIIDE)." AEA RCT Registry. January 29. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/1017/history/6664.
Experimental Details
The GUIIDE intervention randomly selected 600 junior high schools to receive:
1) Booklets containing information on senior high school application strategies and the selectivity and exam performance of local options
2) A video-screening and question and answer session with additional guidance and information.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Beliefs, application behavior, admission outcomes, educational attainment, student welfare.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Primary Outcomes: Short-term
- Improved accuracy of beliefs about senior high school (SHS) quality (performance on the secondary school certification exam, SSCE)
- Improved accuracy of beliefs about SHS admission standards
- Increased use of admissions criteria in choosing SHS application set
- Increased quality of the SHSs to which students apply, conditional on admissions standards
- Increased likelihood that students revise their SHS application set between baseline and midline
- Decreased likelihood of application errors (e.g., ranking less-selective SHS higher than more selective SHS)
- Improved SSCE performance of assigned school

Primary Outcomes: Long-term
- Increased likelihood of attending SHS
- Decreased likelihood of attending an SHS other than the one assigned through the computerized school selection and placement system (CSSPS)
- Increased likelihood of completing SHS
- Increased likelihood of completing SHS on time
- Improved SSCE performance and cognitive skills

Secondary Outcomes: Short-term
- Increased likelihood that students have seen information booklet or video
- Increased parental information about SHS and application process
- Improved scores on the junior high school exit exam (Basic Education Certification Exam, BECE)

Secondary Outcomes: Long-term
- Improved educational and career aspirations
- Delayed age at first sex, childbearing, and marriage
- Improved mental health and socio-emotional skills
- Decreased drug abuse and delinquency
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
We randomly assigned 900 junior high schools in the Ashanti Region of Ghana into one of three groups: T1) control, T2) information to students and teachers, T3) information to students, teachers, and parents. Students in T1 schools received no information. We provided students and teachers in T2 and T3 schools with information booklets and conducted a workshop during school hours. In addition, in T3 we conducted parent workshops, providing information directly to parents.

We overlay this randomization with a secondary experiment in which half of each group participated in a baseline survey and half did not. This baseline survey may have prompted students to think more about the application process and encouraged them to seek out more information. By administering this survey in a random subset of schools (T1a, T2a, and T3a), we can measure how this increase in the salience of the applications, independent of the provision of additional information, changes students' knowledge and subsequent decisions.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
Was the treatment clustered?
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
900 schools
Sample size: planned number of observations
36,000 student administrative records; 18,000 student surveys; 9,000 parent surveys; 450 school surveys
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Main randomization: 300 schools control; 300 schools information to students and teachers; 300 schools information to students, teachers, and parents.

Cross randomization: 450 schools no surveys; 450 schools baseline and follow-up surveys.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB Name
Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA) IRB
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
IRB Name
Boston University CRC IRB
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
IRB Name
University of Delaware IRB
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Is the intervention completed?
Is data collection complete?
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
Program Files
Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials
Relevant Paper(s)