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 Dennis, M. L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Dennis, M. L. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Assessing the Validity of Randomized Field Experiments

An Example from Drug Abuse Treatment Research

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]