Dealing with Design Failures in Randomized Field Experiments: Analytic Issues Regarding the Evaluation of Treatment Effects
- 1 November 1995
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
- Vol. 32 (4) , 425-445
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427895032004003
Abstract
With an increasing number of criminal justice scholars conducting randomized field experiments, there are several analytic issues related to such studies that our discipline must begin to address more systematically. For example, treatment dilution and treatment migration are common forms of randomization implementation failure in field experiments, and a review of the criminological literature on experiments reveals a lack of consensus as to how these problems should be handled when evaluating treatment effects. In addition, issues related to statistical power and desired sample size remain unresolved. Given the relatively longer history of dealing with these issues in medicine, literature from that field is reviewed, providing additional insights regarding the dilemmas created by various design failures in randomized field experiments.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- THE ROLE OF ARREST IN DOMESTIC ASSAULT: THE OMAHA POLICE EXPERIMENT *Criminology, 1990
- Implementing Randomized ExperimentsEvaluation Review, 1989
- Current problems and future challenges in randomized clinical trials.Circulation, 1984
- The randomized clinical trial: bias in analysis.Circulation, 1981
- Controlled clinical trials: Today's challenges for statisticians and designersControlled Clinical Trials, 1981
- A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trialControlled Clinical Trials, 1981
- Beyond Random AssignmentEvaluation Review, 1981
- The Analysis of Data from Clinical TrialsJournal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 1979
- Selecting a Control GroupEvaluation Quarterly, 1977
- Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and designBritish Journal of Cancer, 1976