Introduction to the Special Issue.

IF 3 4区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Andrew P Jaciw
{"title":"Introduction to the Special Issue.","authors":"Andrew P Jaciw","doi":"10.1177/0193841X221144802","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Multi-armed trials are randomized experiments in which subjects are randomly assigned to more than two conditions. In contrast to standard twoarmed experiments that usually involve randomization to two conditions (usually treatment and control), multi-armed trials involve three or more arms (usually control and two or more active treatment conditions). This special issue of Evaluation Review includes five articles on multiarmed trials. The first three are retrospective works by pioneers of the method and its use in their respective fields. The last two articles describe contemporary applications. In this introduction, I describe an important recurrent theme, and then briefly comment on each article. Multi-armed experiments have benefits but also pose challenges. Consider first the benefits. Multiple treatment arms allow an evaluation of more causal contrasts compared to a standard two-armed study. One treatment may be compared to another, and each treatment may be compared to a control. Multiarmed trials expand the opportunity to test multiple hypotheses concerning which treatment works best under specific conditions, and for certain subgroups of interest. The additional information yielded through multi-armed experiments is valuable: in complex decision-making situations, it offers flexibility of solutions and helps to establish the external validity of causal inferences. However, we must temper our enthusiasm over these benefits with the reality that multi-armed trials engender complexities that are either irrelevant to, or more-simplified with, two-armed trials. They include the logistics of","PeriodicalId":47533,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Review","volume":"47 1","pages":"3-10"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X221144802","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Multi-armed trials are randomized experiments in which subjects are randomly assigned to more than two conditions. In contrast to standard twoarmed experiments that usually involve randomization to two conditions (usually treatment and control), multi-armed trials involve three or more arms (usually control and two or more active treatment conditions). This special issue of Evaluation Review includes five articles on multiarmed trials. The first three are retrospective works by pioneers of the method and its use in their respective fields. The last two articles describe contemporary applications. In this introduction, I describe an important recurrent theme, and then briefly comment on each article. Multi-armed experiments have benefits but also pose challenges. Consider first the benefits. Multiple treatment arms allow an evaluation of more causal contrasts compared to a standard two-armed study. One treatment may be compared to another, and each treatment may be compared to a control. Multiarmed trials expand the opportunity to test multiple hypotheses concerning which treatment works best under specific conditions, and for certain subgroups of interest. The additional information yielded through multi-armed experiments is valuable: in complex decision-making situations, it offers flexibility of solutions and helps to establish the external validity of causal inferences. However, we must temper our enthusiasm over these benefits with the reality that multi-armed trials engender complexities that are either irrelevant to, or more-simplified with, two-armed trials. They include the logistics of
特刊简介。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evaluation Review
Evaluation Review SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Evaluation Review is the forum for researchers, planners, and policy makers engaged in the development, implementation, and utilization of studies aimed at the betterment of the human condition. The Editors invite submission of papers reporting the findings of evaluation studies in such fields as child development, health, education, income security, manpower, mental health, criminal justice, and the physical and social environments. In addition, Evaluation Review will contain articles on methodological developments, discussions of the state of the art, and commentaries on issues related to the application of research results. Special features will include periodic review essays, "research briefs", and "craft reports".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信