This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Reichardt, C. S. Articles by Gollob, H. F. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Reichardt, C. S. Articles by Gollob, H. F. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Ruling Out Threats To Validity

University of Denver

Harry F. Gollob

University of Denver

The estimate-and-subtract methodfor eliminating threats to validity is described. Yeaton and Sechrest (1986, 1987b) argue that "no-difference"findings are fundamental to the process of eliminating threats to validity. The estimate-and-subtract method, however, eliminates a threat to validity without reliance on no-difference findings. This article argues that eliminating a threat to validity using the estimate-and-subtract method often is preferable to eliminating a threat to validity using no-difference findings. The article also shows how to improve the use of no-difference findings in those instances where their use is appropriate.

Evaluation Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, 3-17 (1989)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8901300101


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Rodgers and J. E. Hunter The Methodological War of the "Hardheads" versus the "Softheads" Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, June 1, 1996; 32(2): 189 - 208. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. L. Dennis Assessing the Validity of Randomized Field Experiments: An Example from Drug Abuse Treatment Research Eval Rev, August 1, 1990; 14(4): 347 - 373. [Abstract] [PDF]