Evaluation Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Varnell, S. P.
Right arrow Articles by Baker, W. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Varnell, S. P.
Right arrow Articles by Baker, W. L.
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. 25, No. 4, 440-453 (2001)

An Evaluation of Analysis Options for the One-Group-Per-Condition Design: Can Any of the Alternatives Overcome the Problems Inherent in This Design?

Sherri P. Varnell

University of Memphis

David M. Murray

University of Memphis

William L. Baker

University of Memphis

This article addresses the analytic problems associated with a design in which one identifiable group is allocated to each treatment condition and members of those groups are measured to assess the intervention. Such designs are often called quasi-experiments if the groups are not randomized to conditions and group-randomized trials if the groups are randomized. They present special problems, and previous reports have argued against their use in efficacy or effectiveness trials. Even so, this design still appears with surprising frequency. This article presents the results from a new simulation study that underscores the analytic problems associated with this design.

Key Words: group-randomized trial • research design • correlation


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?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
S. L. Pals, D. M. Murray, C. M. Alfano, W. R. Shadish, P. J. Hannan, and W. L. Baker
Individually Randomized Group Treatment Trials: A Critical Appraisal of Frequently Used Design and Analytic Approaches
Am J Public Health, August 1, 2008; 98(8): 1418 - 1424.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
D. M. Murray, S. L. Pals, J. L. Blitstein, C. M. Alfano, and J. Lehman
Design and Analysis of Group-Randomized Trials in Cancer: A Review of Current Practices
J Natl Cancer Inst, April 2, 2008; 100(7): 483 - 491.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eval RevHome page
J. L. Blitstein, P. J. Hannan, D. M. Murray, and W. R. Shadish
Increasing the Degrees of Freedom in Existing Group Randomized Trials: The df* Approach
Eval Rev, June 1, 2005; 29(3): 241 - 267.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
D. M. Murray, S. P. Varnell, and J. L. Blitstein
Design and Analysis of Group-Randomized Trials: A Review of Recent Methodological Developments
Am J Public Health, March 1, 2004; 94(3): 423 - 432.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eval RevHome page
D. M. Murray and J. L. Blitstein
Methods To Reduce The Impact Of Intraclass Correlation In Group-Randomized Trials
Eval Rev, February 1, 2003; 27(1): 79 - 103.
[Abstract] [PDF]