From noise to knowledge: Improving evidentiary standards for program efficacy to better inform public policy and management decisions

Author:

Newcomer Kathryn E.1,Hall Jeremy L.2,Pandey Sanjay K.1,Reginal Travis1,White Ben1

Affiliation:

1. Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration The George Washington University Washington DC USA

2. DPAC 448R, School of Public Administration University of Central Florida Orlando Florida USA

Abstract

AbstractCurrent approaches employed by U.S.‐based clearinghouses to rate the efficacy of interventions to address social problems typically do not result in sufficient information to help practitioners. Current standards of evidence employed across the United States apply a positivist notion of validity with quantitative research criteria that discourage answering important how and why questions, explicitly privilege quantitative/RCT evidence, offer few contextual insights, and rarely discuss disparities in outcomes across participants differing by race, gender, and ethnicity. We offer a set of standards of evidence to assess qualitative and mixed methods studies, as well as RCTs and quasi‐experimental designs, and probe the extent to which the studies address context and equity. We applied our proposed new standards of evidence to all intervention studies rated as the highest quality by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education from 2017 to 2021 to demonstrate the usefulness of our standards.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Marketing,Public Administration,Sociology and Political Science

Reference77 articles.

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Changing Tides and Changing Winds: A Time to Change Gears;Public Works Management & Policy;2024-05-30

2. Information use in public administration and policy decision‐making: A research synthesis;Public Administration Review;2023-10-24

3. An editor's commencement: Heritage, legacy, and destiny;Public Administration Review;2023-10-19

4. We didn't start the fire…but it sure is getting warm;Public Administration Review;2023-08-30

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3