This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chatterji, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Grades of Evidence

Variability in Quality of Findings in Effectiveness Studies of Complex Field Interventions

Teachers College, Columbia University, mb1434{at}columbia.edu

This article argues with a literature review that a simplistic distinction between strong and weak evidence hinged on the use of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the federal "gold standard" for generating rigorous evidence on social programs and policies, is not tenable with evaluative studies of complex, field interventions such as those found in education. It introduces instead the concept of grades of evidence, illustrating how the choice of research designs coupled with the rigor with which they can be executed under field conditions, affects evidence quality progressively. It argues that evidence from effectiveness research should be graded on different design dimensions, accounting for conceptualization and execution aspects of a study. Well-implemented, phased designs using multiple research methods carry the highest potential to yield the best grade of evidence on effects of complex, field interventions.

Key Words: evidence standards • evidence-based practices • mixed-method designs • randomized experiments

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Chatterji Comments on Slavin: Synthesizing Evidence From Impact Evaluations in Education to Inform Action Educational Researcher, January 1, 2008; 37(1): 23 - 26. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]