没有证据表明测量调节因子会改变治疗效果

IF 5.6 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Geoffrey Sheagley, Scott Clifford
{"title":"没有证据表明测量调节因子会改变治疗效果","authors":"Geoffrey Sheagley,&nbsp;Scott Clifford","doi":"10.1111/ajps.12814","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Social scientists are frequently interested in who is most responsive to a treatment. By necessity, such moderation experiments often rely on observed moderators, such as partisan identity. These designs have led to an ongoing debate about where to measure moderators—immediately prior to the treatment, after the treatment, or in a prior wave of a panel survey. Measuring a moderator prior to the treatment is the most efficient and avoids posttreatment bias, but it raises concerns about priming. We contribute to this debate by systematically studying whether measuring moderators prior to an experiment affects the results. Across six different experiments, each involving a commonly used moderator, we find little evidence of priming effects, even when a moderator is placed immediately before the experiment. Our findings thus help resolve the debate, suggesting that researchers should measure moderators pretreatment. We conclude with advice on designing well-powered moderation experiments.</p>","PeriodicalId":48447,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Political Science","volume":"69 1","pages":"49-63"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajps.12814","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No Evidence that Measuring Moderators Alters Treatment Effects\",\"authors\":\"Geoffrey Sheagley,&nbsp;Scott Clifford\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajps.12814\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Social scientists are frequently interested in who is most responsive to a treatment. By necessity, such moderation experiments often rely on observed moderators, such as partisan identity. These designs have led to an ongoing debate about where to measure moderators—immediately prior to the treatment, after the treatment, or in a prior wave of a panel survey. Measuring a moderator prior to the treatment is the most efficient and avoids posttreatment bias, but it raises concerns about priming. We contribute to this debate by systematically studying whether measuring moderators prior to an experiment affects the results. Across six different experiments, each involving a commonly used moderator, we find little evidence of priming effects, even when a moderator is placed immediately before the experiment. Our findings thus help resolve the debate, suggesting that researchers should measure moderators pretreatment. We conclude with advice on designing well-powered moderation experiments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Political Science\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"49-63\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajps.12814\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12814\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12814","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

社会科学家经常感兴趣的是谁对一种治疗最有反应。这种适度实验必然依赖于观察到的适度者,比如党派身份。这些设计引发了一场关于在哪里测量调节因子的持续争论——在治疗前,治疗后,还是在小组调查的前一波。在治疗前测量调节因子是最有效的,避免了治疗后的偏见,但它引起了对启动的关注。我们通过系统地研究在实验之前测量调节因子是否会影响结果,为这场辩论做出了贡献。在六个不同的实验中,每个实验都涉及一种常用的调节剂,我们发现几乎没有启动效应的证据,即使在实验之前立即放置调节剂。因此,我们的研究结果有助于解决争论,建议研究人员应该测量调节因子预处理。最后,我们提出了设计良好的适度实验的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

No Evidence that Measuring Moderators Alters Treatment Effects

No Evidence that Measuring Moderators Alters Treatment Effects

Social scientists are frequently interested in who is most responsive to a treatment. By necessity, such moderation experiments often rely on observed moderators, such as partisan identity. These designs have led to an ongoing debate about where to measure moderators—immediately prior to the treatment, after the treatment, or in a prior wave of a panel survey. Measuring a moderator prior to the treatment is the most efficient and avoids posttreatment bias, but it raises concerns about priming. We contribute to this debate by systematically studying whether measuring moderators prior to an experiment affects the results. Across six different experiments, each involving a commonly used moderator, we find little evidence of priming effects, even when a moderator is placed immediately before the experiment. Our findings thus help resolve the debate, suggesting that researchers should measure moderators pretreatment. We conclude with advice on designing well-powered moderation experiments.

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
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
2.40%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) publishes research in all major areas of political science including American politics, public policy, international relations, comparative politics, political methodology, and political theory. Founded in 1956, the AJPS publishes articles that make outstanding contributions to scholarly knowledge about notable theoretical concerns, puzzles or controversies in any subfield of political science.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信