Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
American Behavioral Scientist
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sherman, L. W.
Right arrow Articles by Strang, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Verdicts or Inventions?

Interpreting Results from Randomized Controlled Experiments in Criminology

Lawrence W. Sherman

University of Pennsylvania

Heather Strang

Australian National University

The social benefits of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) would be enhanced by general recognition of three problems of their interpretation and a redefinition of their mission in relation to program development and evaluation. One problem is that of "forest versus trees," or the sampling relationship between each test of a hypothesis and the conclusions drawn from all such tests taken together. A second problem is interpreting RCTs as testing theory or policy when they cannot achieve a high correlation between the treatments assigned and treatments actually applied in each case. The third problem is what works for whom, or whether identical treatments cause different effects, on average, for different kinds of people, groups, situations, or other units of analysis that were different at the point of random assignment. Confronting these three problems suggests that RCTs should not only seek verdicts about what works but also should seek better inventions of crime prevention programs for further testing.

Key Words: randomized controlled trials • experiments • criminology • forest graphs • systematic reviews • Campbell Collaboration

American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 47, No. 5, 575-607 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764203259294
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Criminal JusticeHome page
L. W. Sherman
Evidence and liberty: The promise of experimental criminology
JCriminology and Criminal Justice, February 1, 2009; 9(1): 5 - 28.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social ScienceHome page
L. W. Sherman
The Use and Usefulness of Criminology, 1751-2005: Enlightened Justice and Its Failures
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 1, 2005; 600(1): 115 - 135.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social ScienceHome page
L. W. Sherman and H. Strang
Experimental Ethnography: The Marriage of Qualitative and Quantitative Research
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, September 1, 2004; 595(1): 204 - 222.
[Abstract] [PDF]