Importance of Randomized Field Trials

• NCJ Number: 181873
• Journal: Crime and Delinquency Volume: 46 Issue: 2 Dated: April 2000 Pages: 156-180
• Author(s): Robert Boruch; Brooke Snyder; Dorothy DeMoya
• Date Published: April 2000
• Length: 25 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation; National Institute of Mental Health; Gang Intelligence Strategy Committee
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Instructional Material
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Material from this article has been presented at the University of Tokyo, the University of Durham, the University of Bremen, and the Bielefeld Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Bielefeld, the Center for Evaluation of Social Services in Stockholm, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and Harvard University.

Annotation

This article presents five standards for judging the importance of randomized field trials (RFTs) in estimating the relative effects of new programs and new variations of existing programs.

Abstract

It addresses the issue of how scholars and other stakeholders might judge the importance of RFTs for evaluating programs designed to achieve certain objectives, suggesting that a judgment can be made relative to five reference systems. First, consider evaluation policy, which asks four basic questions about societal problems and their purported solutions; they concern the severity of problems, the implementation of proposed solutions, the program's effectiveness, and the cost-effectiveness ratios. Second, the pedigree and contemporary history of RFTs can be regarded as an indicator of their importance in the social and behavioral sciences, education, and elsewhere. Third, the import of RFTs must be considered relative to ethical standards. The counsel offered by the U.S. Supreme Court's Federal Judicial Center is useful in helping to decide when RFTs ought to be considered seriously or when they should be rejected on ethical grounds as a method for evaluating interventions. Fourth, a normative standard could be used to judge import. In particular, it is sensible to ask how often RFTs are used relative to alternatives in various social and behavioral sciences and educational research, including studies of crime prevention. The fifth frame of reference involves examining how well alternative, to RFTs work, using the results of RFTs as a standard. 3 tables and 57 references