|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Assessing the Validity of Randomized Field Experiments
An Example from Drug Abuse Treatment Research
Michael L. Dennis
Center for Social Research and Policy Analysis Research Triangle Institute
Randomized field experiments are often logistical failures. They are particularly difficult to implement when the intervention involves a large number of components or service providers. Although surmountable, potential methodological problems with using randomized experiments to evaluate intervention programs under field (i.e., real world) conditions must be anticipated and resolved for the experiment to succeed. This article examines six potential major problems: treatment dilution, treatment contamination or confounding, inaccurate caseflow and power estimates, violations of the random assignment process, changes in the environmental context, and changes in the treatment regimens. It describes the general problem, several methodological developments related to them, and how the authors are attempting to deal with these problems in an experiment at the Research Triangle Institute. Developing designs and implementation strategies to deal with these six problems is crucial to extending the usefulness of randomized field experiments to evaluate social policies and experiments.
Evaluation Review, Vol. 14, No. 4,
347-373 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9001400402

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. Weisburd
Randomized Experiments in Criminal Justice Policy: Prospects and Problems
Crime Delinquency,
April 1, 2000;
46(2):
181 - 193.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
G. L. Staines, K. Mckendrick, T. Perlis, S. Sacks, and G. De Leon
Sequential Assignment and Treatment-As-Usual: Alternatives to Standard Experimental Designs in Field Studies of Treatment Efficacy
Eval Rev,
February 1, 1999;
23(1):
47 - 76.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
L. S. Aiken, S. G. West, D. E. Schwalm, J. L. Carroll, and S. Hsiung
Comparison of a Randomized and Two Quasi-Experimental Designs in a Single Outcome Evaluation: Efficacy of a University-Level Remedial Writing Program
Eval Rev,
April 1, 1998;
22(2):
207 - 244.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Hennessy, K. M. MacQueen, and B. Seals
Using Factorial Surveys for Designing Intervention Programs
Eval Rev,
June 1, 1995;
19(3):
294 - 312.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. P. Moberg, D. L. Piper, Jiyuan Wu, and R. C. Serlin
When Total Randomization Is Impossible: Nested Randomized Assignment
Eval Rev,
June 1, 1993;
17(3):
271 - 291.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|
|