IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v22y1998i2p207-244.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of a Randomized and Two Quasi-Experimental Designs in a Single Outcome Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Leona S. Aiken

    (Arizona State University)

  • Stephen G. West

    (Arizona State University)

  • David E. Schwalm

    (Arizona State University)

  • James L. Carroll

    (VIA, Incorporated)

  • Shenghwa Hsiung

    (Arizona State University)

Abstract

The authors assessed the impact of three designs (randomized experiment, nonequivalent control group design, regression discontinuity design) on estimates of effect size of a university-level freshman remedial writing program. Designs were implemented within the same context, same time frame, and with the same population. The 375 freshman participants were either randomly assigned or self-selected into specific evaluation groups, according to design protocols. The three designs led to highly similar effect size estimates of the impact of a semester of remedial writing on writing outcomes following standard freshman composition. Specific design features contributed to the convergence of effect size estimates across designs.

Suggested Citation

  • Leona S. Aiken & Stephen G. West & David E. Schwalm & James L. Carroll & Shenghwa Hsiung, 1998. "Comparison of a Randomized and Two Quasi-Experimental Designs in a Single Outcome Evaluation," Evaluation Review, , vol. 22(2), pages 207-244, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:22:y:1998:i:2:p:207-244
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9802200203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X9802200203
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X9802200203?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. LaLonde, Robert J, 1986. "Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 604-620, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katherine Baicker & Theodore Svoronos, 2019. "Testing the Validity of the Single Interrupted Time Series Design," CID Working Papers 364, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    2. Katherine Baicker & Theodore Svoronos, 2019. "Testing the Validity of the Single Interrupted Time Series Design," NBER Working Papers 26080, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James J. Heckman, 1991. "Randomization and Social Policy Evaluation Revisited," NBER Technical Working Papers 0107, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Zhao, Jun, 2020. "Doubly robust difference-in-differences estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 101-122.
    3. Michael Gerfin & Michael Lechner, 2002. "A Microeconometric Evaluation of the Active Labour Market Policy in Switzerland," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(482), pages 854-893, October.
    4. Sergio Afcha & Jose García-Quevedo, 2016. "The impact of R&D subsidies on R&D employment composition," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(6), pages 955-975.
    5. Monica Beuran & Gaël Raballand & Julio Revilla, 2011. "Improving Aid Effectiveness in Aid-Dependent Countries: Lessons from Zambia," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 11040, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    6. Iacus, Stefano M. & Porro, Giuseppe, 2007. "Missing data imputation, matching and other applications of random recursive partitioning," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 773-789, October.
    7. Sascha O. Becker & Marco Caliendo, 2007. "Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(1), pages 71-83, February.
    8. Augurzky, Boris & Kluve, Jochen, 2004. "Assessing the performance of matching algorithms when selection into treatment is strong," RWI Discussion Papers 21, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    9. Tymon Słoczyński, 2015. "The Oaxaca–Blinder Unexplained Component as a Treatment Effects Estimator," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 77(4), pages 588-604, August.
    10. Hämäläinen, Kari & Ollikainen, Virve, 2004. "Differential Effects of Active Labour Market Programmes in the Early Stages of Young People's Unemployment," Research Reports 115, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    11. David Card & Philip K. Robins & Winston Lin, 1998. "Would Financial Incentives for Leaving Welfare Lead Some People to Stay on Welfare Longer? An Experimental Evaluation of 'Entry Effects' in the SSP," NBER Working Papers 6449, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Eric Rasmusen, 1995. "Observed Choice, Estimation, and Optimism About Policy Changes," Econometrics 9506004, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 16 Jun 1995.
    13. Jayanta Bhattacharya & Frank Neuhauser & Robert T. Reville & Seth A. Seabury, 2010. "Evaluating Permanent Disability Ratings Using Empirical Data on Earnings Losses," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 77(1), pages 231-260, March.
    14. Josh Angrist & David Autor & Sally Hudson & Amanda Pallais, 2015. "Evaluating Econometric Evaluations of Post-Secondary Aid," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 502-507, May.
    15. Robert W. Fairlie & Dean Karlan & Jonathan Zinman, 2015. "Behind the GATE Experiment: Evidence on Effects of and Rationales for Subsidized Entrepreneurship Training," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 125-161, May.
    16. Richard K. Crump & V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2006. "Moving the Goalposts: Addressing Limited Overlap in the Estimation of Average Treatment Effects by Changing the Estimand," NBER Technical Working Papers 0330, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. David McKenzie & Steven Stillman & John Gibson, 2010. "How Important is Selection? Experimental VS. Non‐Experimental Measures of the Income Gains from Migration," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 913-945, June.
    18. Marisa Coetzee, 2013. "Finding the Benefits: Estimating the Impact of The South African Child Support Grant," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 81(3), pages 427-450, September.
    19. Costas Meghir, 2006. "Dynamic models for policy evaluation," IFS Working Papers W06/08, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    20. Thomas Mayer, 2012. "Ziliak and McCloskey's Criticisms of Significance Tests: An Assessment," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 9(3), pages 256-297, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:22:y:1998:i:2:p:207-244. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.