IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v33y2009i3p257-280.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Statistical Perspective on the Design of Drug-Court Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth L. C. Merrall

    (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom, Elizabeth.merrall@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk)

  • Sheila M. Bird

    (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, United kingdom Strathclyde University, Glasgow, United Kingdom)

Abstract

Recent meta-analyses of drug-court studies recognized the poor methodological quality of the evaluations, with only a few being randomized. This article critiques the design of the randomized studies from a statistical perspective. Learning points are identified for future drug-court studies and are applicable to evaluations both of other specialist courts and of court-based interventions more generally. The specific issues covered are randomization, describing the intervention, and baseline characteristics; study outcomes, and sample size calculations; in-program and postprogram behavior, analysis plan, and presentation of results.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth L. C. Merrall & Sheila M. Bird, 2009. "A Statistical Perspective on the Design of Drug-Court Studies," Evaluation Review, , vol. 33(3), pages 257-280, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:33:y:2009:i:3:p:257-280
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X08330819
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X08330819
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X08330819?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. Bronwyn Lind & Don Weatherburn & Shuling Chen & Marian Shanahan & Emily Lancsar & Marion Haas, 2002. "New South Wales drug court evaluation: Cost-effectiveness, CHERE Project Report 17a," Research Reports 17a, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    2. Marian Shanahan & Emily Lancsar & Marion Haas & Bronwyn Lind & Don Weatherburn & Shuling Chen, 2004. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the New South Wales Adult Drug Court Program," Evaluation Review, , vol. 28(1), pages 3-27, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jeff Borland & Yi-Ping Tseng & Roger Wilkins, 2013. "Does Coordination of Welfare Services Delivery Make a Difference for Extremely Disadvantaged Jobseekers? Evidence from the ‘YP-super-4’ Trial," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 89(287), pages 469-489, December.
    2. Ojmarrh Mitchell & David B. Wilson & Amy Eggers & Doris L. MacKenzie, 2012. "Drug Courts' Effects on Criminal Offending for Juveniles and Adults," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages -87.
    3. Amanda E. Perry & Rebecca Woodhouse & Matthew Neilson & Marrissa Martyn St James & Julie Glanville & Catherine Hewitt & Dominic Trépel, 2016. "Are Non-Pharmacological Interventions Effective in Reducing Drug Use and Criminality? A Systematic and Meta-Analytical Review with an Economic Appraisal of These Interventions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Marian Shanahan & Emily Lancsar & Marion Haas & Bronwyn Lind & Don Weatherburn & Shuling Chen, 2004. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the New South Wales Adult Drug Court Program," Evaluation Review, , vol. 28(1), pages 3-27, February.
    5. Andrew Leigh, 2003. "Randomised Policy Trials," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 10(4), pages 341-354.

    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:33:y:2009:i:3:p:257-280. 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.