Is it time for the use of pair-matching in all randomized controlled trials of crime and violence prevention? A review of the research

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Heather Paterson , Brandon C. Welsh
{"title":"Is it time for the use of pair-matching in all randomized controlled trials of crime and violence prevention? A review of the research","authors":"Heather Paterson ,&nbsp;Brandon C. Welsh","doi":"10.1016/j.avb.2023.101889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Pair-matching in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has received increased attention in criminology, the social sciences more generally, and medicine and public health, with a growing body of research demonstrating the design's benefits over “simple” RCTs. We carry out a review of matched-pair RCTs compared with simple RCTs to address a somewhat provocative yet fair question for evaluation research on crime and violence prevention interventions: Is it time for the use of pair-matching in all RCTs? At the heart of this question is the ability of the design to most efficiently and robustly compare like with like, thereby, improving confidence in observed effects of intervention trials. Several key findings emerge from the review. First, it is inadequate to examine or discuss RCTs as a single, uniform evaluation design. Here, the key organizing construct is the unit of allocation: individuals; groups of individuals (or clusters); and geographical places. Second, the advantages vastly outweigh the disadvantages for the use of matched-pair RCTs compared to simple RCTs, and most of the advantages hold for all three units of allocation. Third, pair-matching can be used with rather small samples (≥6 units) in cluster-based trials without compromising statistical power or degrees of freedom; less is known about individual- and place-based trials. Fourth, pair-matching cannot be used with some types of RCTs (e.g., cross-over) and is less amenable in other contexts (e.g., RCTs that enroll and randomize individuals on a rolling basis). Implications for evaluation research and public policy are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51360,"journal":{"name":"Aggression and Violent Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aggression and Violent Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178923000769","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pair-matching in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has received increased attention in criminology, the social sciences more generally, and medicine and public health, with a growing body of research demonstrating the design's benefits over “simple” RCTs. We carry out a review of matched-pair RCTs compared with simple RCTs to address a somewhat provocative yet fair question for evaluation research on crime and violence prevention interventions: Is it time for the use of pair-matching in all RCTs? At the heart of this question is the ability of the design to most efficiently and robustly compare like with like, thereby, improving confidence in observed effects of intervention trials. Several key findings emerge from the review. First, it is inadequate to examine or discuss RCTs as a single, uniform evaluation design. Here, the key organizing construct is the unit of allocation: individuals; groups of individuals (or clusters); and geographical places. Second, the advantages vastly outweigh the disadvantages for the use of matched-pair RCTs compared to simple RCTs, and most of the advantages hold for all three units of allocation. Third, pair-matching can be used with rather small samples (≥6 units) in cluster-based trials without compromising statistical power or degrees of freedom; less is known about individual- and place-based trials. Fourth, pair-matching cannot be used with some types of RCTs (e.g., cross-over) and is less amenable in other contexts (e.g., RCTs that enroll and randomize individuals on a rolling basis). Implications for evaluation research and public policy are discussed.

现在是在所有预防犯罪和暴力的随机对照试验中使用配对的时候了吗?研究综述
随机对照试验中的配对在犯罪学、社会科学以及医学和公共卫生领域越来越受到关注,越来越多的研究表明,该设计比“简单”随机对照试验更具优势。我们对配对随机对照试验与简单随机对照试验进行了比较,以解决犯罪和暴力预防干预评估研究中一个有点挑衅性但公平的问题:现在是在所有随机对照试验中使用配对的时候了吗?这个问题的核心是设计是否能够最有效、最有力地进行同类比较,从而提高对干预试验观察效果的信心。审查得出了几个关键结论。首先,将随机对照试验作为单一、统一的评估设计进行审查或讨论是不够的。在这里,关键的组织结构是分配单位:个人;个体群体(或集群);以及地理位置。其次,与简单的随机对照试验相比,使用配对随机对照试验的优点远远大于缺点,并且大多数优点适用于所有三个分配单元。第三,配对匹配可以用于相当小的样本(≥6 单位),而不损害统计能力或自由度;对基于个人和地点的试验知之甚少。第四,配对匹配不能用于某些类型的随机对照试验(例如,交叉),并且在其他情况下不太适用(例如,在滚动的基础上登记和随机化个体的随机对照实验)。讨论了对评价研究和公共政策的影响。
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
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: Aggression and Violent Behavior, A Review Journal is a multidisciplinary journal that publishes substantive and integrative reviews, as well as summary reports of innovative ongoing clinical research programs on a wide range of topics germane to the field of aggression and violent behavior. Papers encompass a large variety of issues, populations, and domains, including homicide (serial, spree, and mass murder: sexual homicide), sexual deviance and assault (rape, serial rape, child molestation, paraphilias), child and youth violence (firesetting, gang violence, juvenile sexual offending), family violence (child physical and sexual abuse, child neglect, incest, spouse and elder abuse), genetic predispositions, and the physiological basis of aggression.
×
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