IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v48y2024i4p579-609.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Randomized Controlled Trial Aversion among Public Sector Leadership: A Survey Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Emily Cardon
  • Leonard Lopoo

Abstract

Background: While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are typically considered the gold standard of program evaluation, they are infrequently chosen by public sector leaders, defined as government and nonprofit decision-makers, when an impact evaluation is required. Objectives : This study provides descriptive evidence on RCT aversion among public sector leaders and attempts to understand what factors affect their likelihood of choosing RCTs for impact evaluations. Research Design : The authors ask if public sector leaders follow similar preference patterns found among non-public sector leaders when choosing either an RCT or a quasi-experimental design and use a survey experiment to determine which factors affect the RCT choice. Subjects : The study sample includes 2050 public sector leaders and a comparison group of 2060 respondents who do not lead public sector organizations. Measures: The primary outcome measure is selecting an RCT as the preferred evaluation option. Results : When asked to make a decision about an impact evaluation, the majority of people do not choose an RCT. While also averse to RCTs, public sector leaders are about 13% more likely to prefer a RCT to a quasi-experimental evaluation compared to the general population. Public sector leaders are less likely to use RCTs for evaluations of more intense interventions, potentially because they are perceived to be superior to the options available for the control group. Conclusion : Funders should be aware that when given a choice, public sector leaders prefer other options to RCTs. Greater awareness of the benefits of RCTs could increase their use in the public sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily Cardon & Leonard Lopoo, 2024. "Randomized Controlled Trial Aversion among Public Sector Leadership: A Survey Experiment," Evaluation Review, , vol. 48(4), pages 579-609, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:48:y:2024:i:4:p:579-609
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X231193483
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X231193483
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X231193483?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
    ---><---

    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:48:y:2024:i:4:p:579-609. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.