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 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 Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Howell, W. G. Articles by Peterson, P. E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Uses of Theory in Randomized Field Trials

Lessons from School Voucher Research on Disaggregation, Missing Data, and the Generalization of Findings

Paul E. Peterson

Harvard University

By design, randomized field trials (RFTs) avoid many of the problems that plague observational studies, foremost among them being the introduction of selection biases. In practice, however, RFTs regularly confront other difficulties, such as chance differences between treatment and control groups and attrition from the study. To address these issues, baseline data on the variable of primary interest are essential. Theory also aids the analytic process, identifying ways in which data should be disaggregated and determining the generalizability of the findings uncovered. Theory and testing are not neatly divided enterprises. Theory informs the initial design whereas empirical findings from RFTs motivate analysts to update and occasionally abandon their theoretical priors.

Key Words: randomized field trials • school vouchers • sample attrition

American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 47, No. 5, 634-657 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764203260153


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Jin and D. B. Rubin Public Schools Versus Private Schools: Causal Inference With Partial Compliance Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, March 1, 2009; 34(1): 24 - 45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Lubienski Marketing Schools: Consumer Goods and Competitive Incentives for Consumer Information Education and Urban Society, November 1, 2007; 40(1): 118 - 141. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. T. Lubienski and C. Lubienski School Sector and Academic Achievement: A Multilevel Analysis of NAEP Mathematics Data American Educational Research Journal, January 1, 2006; 43(4): 651 - 698. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. W. Pearson Book Review: The Uneasy Partnership between Social Science and Public Policy The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 1, 2005; 600(1): 157 - 173. [PDF]

				P. E. Peterson and W. G. Howell Efficiency, Bias, and Classification Schemes: A Response to Alan B. Krueger and Pei Zhu American Behavioral Scientist, January 1, 2004; 47(5): 699 - 717. [Abstract] [PDF]