Literature DB >> 25152557

External Validity in Policy Evaluations that Choose Sites Purposively.

Robert B Olsen1, Larry L Orr2, Stephen H Bell1, Elizabeth A Stuart3.   

Abstract

Evaluations of the impact of social programs are often carried out in multiple "sites," such as school districts, housing authorities, local TANF offices, or One-Stop Career Centers. Most evaluations select sites purposively following a process that is nonrandom. Unfortunately, purposive site selection can produce a sample of sites that is not representative of the population of interest for the program. In this paper, we propose a conceptual model of purposive site selection. We begin with the proposition that a purposive sample of sites can usefully be conceptualized as a random sample of sites from some well-defined population, for which the sampling probabilities are unknown and vary across sites. This proposition allows us to derive a formal, yet intuitive, mathematical expression for the bias in the pooled impact estimate when sites are selected purposively. This formula helps us to better understand the consequences of selecting sites purposively, and the factors that contribute to the bias. Additional research is needed to obtain evidence on how large the bias tends to be in actual studies that select sites purposively, and to develop methods to increase the external validity of these studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Evaluation; convenience sampling; external validity; generalizability; impacts; purposive sampling; random assignment

Year:  2013        PMID: 25152557      PMCID: PMC4138511          DOI: 10.1002/pam.21660

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Policy Anal Manage        ISSN: 0276-8739


  7 in total

Review 1.  Explaining variation in the effects of welfare-to-work programs.

Authors:  David Greenberg; Robert Meyer; Charles Michalopoulos; Michael Wiseman
Journal:  Eval Rev       Date:  2003-08

2.  Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Stat Sci       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 2.901

3.  Selection criteria and generalizability within the counterfactual framework: explaining the paradox of antidepressant-induced suicidality?

Authors:  Herbert I Weisberg; Vanessa C Hayden; Victor P Pontes
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  The use of propensity scores to assess the generalizability of results from randomized trials.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Stephen R Cole; Catherine P Bradshaw; Philip J Leaf
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc       Date:  2001-04-01       Impact factor: 2.483

5.  Generalizing evidence from randomized clinical trials to target populations: The ACTG 320 trial.

Authors:  Stephen R Cole; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-06-14       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Adjustment for selection bias in observational studies with application to the analysis of autopsy data.

Authors:  S Haneuse; J Schildcrout; P Crane; J Sonnen; J Breitner; E Larson
Journal:  Neuroepidemiology       Date:  2009-01-29       Impact factor: 3.282

7.  Evaluating bias correction in weighted proportional hazards regression.

Authors:  Qing Pan; Douglas E Schaubel
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2008-10-29       Impact factor: 1.588

  7 in total
  10 in total

1.  Target Validity and the Hierarchy of Study Designs.

Authors:  Daniel Westreich; Jessie K Edwards; Catherine R Lesko; Stephen R Cole; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Characteristics of School Districts That Participate in Rigorous National Educational Evaluations.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Stephen H Bell; Cyrus Ebnesajjad; Robert B Olsen; Larry L Orr
Journal:  J Res Educ Eff       Date:  2016-10-03

3.  Generalizing Treatment Effect Estimates From Sample to Population: A Case Study in the Difficulties of Finding Sufficient Data.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Anna Rhodes
Journal:  Eval Rev       Date:  2016-08-04

Review 4.  Reading and interpreting reviews for health professionals: a practical review.

Authors:  Michele Antonelli; Fabio Firenzuoli; Carlo Salvarani; Gian Franco Gensini; Davide Donelli
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2020-04-12       Impact factor: 3.397

5.  Comparison of Methods to Generalize Randomized Clinical Trial Results Without Individual-Level Data for the Target Population.

Authors:  Jin-Liern Hong; Michael Webster-Clark; Michele Jonsson Funk; Til Stürmer; Sara E Dempster; Stephen R Cole; Iksha Herr; Robert LoCasale
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Assessing methods for generalizing experimental impact estimates to target populations.

Authors:  Holger L Kern; Elizabeth A Stuart; Jennifer Hill; Donald P Green
Journal:  J Res Educ Eff       Date:  2016-01-14

7.  Assessing the generalizability of randomized trial results to target populations.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Catherine P Bradshaw; Philip J Leaf
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2015-04

8.  Target validity: Bringing treatment of external validity in line with internal validity.

Authors:  Catherine R Lesko; Benjamin Ackerman; Michael Webster-Clark; Jessie K Edwards
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2020-06-30

9.  Generalizing randomized trial findings to a target population using complex survey population data.

Authors:  Benjamin Ackerman; Catherine R Lesko; Juned Siddique; Ryoko Susukida; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Cluster Sampling Bias in Government-Sponsored Evaluations: A Correlational Study of Employment and Welfare Pilots in England.

Authors:  Arnaud Vaganay
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.