Evaluation Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boruch, R. F.
Right arrow Articles by Soderstrom, E. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Boruch, R. F.
Right arrow Articles by Soderstrom, E. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation Review, Vol. 2, No. 4, 655-695 (1978)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X7800200411

Randomized Field Experiments for Program Planning, Development, and Evaluation

An Illustrative Bibliography

Robert F. Boruch

Northwestern University

A. John McSweeny

University of West Virginia

E. Jon Soderstrom

Northwestern University

This bibliography lists references to cover 300 randomized field experiments undertaken in schools, hospitals, prisons, and other social settings. The list is divided into 10 major categories corresponding to the type of program under examination. They include: criminal and civil justice programs, mental health, training and education, mass media, information collection, utilization, commerce and industry, welfare, health, and family planning. The main purpose of the bibliography is to provide evidence on feasibility and scope of randomized field tests, since despite their advantages, it is not always clearfrom managerial, political, and other constraints on research that they can be mounted.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?