通过随机对照试验评估社会干预:一个清单工具

Dr. Ron Bose
{"title":"通过随机对照试验评估社会干预:一个清单工具","authors":"Dr. Ron Bose","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3527133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evaluation designs using randomized assignment to assess the impact of social interventions constitute only a small portion of policy evaluations, especially in developing countries. To this end this short note provides a laundrylist style inventory of critical elements to get ”right” when considering an RCT study design to evaluate social interventions.It is hoped that using the checklist as a minimum standard in the future will make quality of findings generated through evaluations using RCT less variable,and thereby better positioned to inform policy and practice in developing countries.","PeriodicalId":341058,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Primary Taxonomy (Topic)","volume":"172 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Social Interventions Through RCTs: A Checklist Tool\",\"authors\":\"Dr. Ron Bose\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3527133\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Evaluation designs using randomized assignment to assess the impact of social interventions constitute only a small portion of policy evaluations, especially in developing countries. To this end this short note provides a laundrylist style inventory of critical elements to get ”right” when considering an RCT study design to evaluate social interventions.It is hoped that using the checklist as a minimum standard in the future will make quality of findings generated through evaluations using RCT less variable,and thereby better positioned to inform policy and practice in developing countries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":341058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Primary Taxonomy (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"172 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Primary Taxonomy (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3527133\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Primary Taxonomy (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3527133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

使用随机分配来评估社会干预影响的评价设计只占政策评价的一小部分,特别是在发展中国家。为此,本文提供了一份清单式的关键要素清单,以便在考虑RCT研究设计以评估社会干预措施时“正确”。希望将来使用清单作为最低标准将使使用随机对照试验的评价所产生的结果的质量变化较小,从而更好地为发展中国家的政策和实践提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Social Interventions Through RCTs: A Checklist Tool
Evaluation designs using randomized assignment to assess the impact of social interventions constitute only a small portion of policy evaluations, especially in developing countries. To this end this short note provides a laundrylist style inventory of critical elements to get ”right” when considering an RCT study design to evaluate social interventions.It is hoped that using the checklist as a minimum standard in the future will make quality of findings generated through evaluations using RCT less variable,and thereby better positioned to inform policy and practice in developing countries.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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