Challenges and Dilemmas in Implementing Random Assignment in Educational Research
In the contentious debate over the use of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in education research, little attention has been given to how methodological issues arise and/or are resolved in the implementation of random assignment. Following a review of the methodological-theoretical literature on RCT...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of evaluation 2011-03, Vol.32 (1), p.29-49 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 49 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 29 |
container_title | The American journal of evaluation |
container_volume | 32 |
creator | Ong-Dean, Colin Huie Hofstetter, Carolyn Strick, Betsy R. |
description | In the contentious debate over the use of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in education research, little attention has been given to how methodological issues arise and/or are resolved in the implementation of random assignment. Following a review of the methodological-theoretical literature on RCTs and alternative research designs, this article analyzes qualitative and quantitative data on three years of random assignment in a multi-site literacy intervention for adolescents. Practical lessons are drawn about how researcher practices and learning by school staff contributed to random assignment compliance. Consideration of challenges encountered in implementing random assignment suggests that 1) researcher communication with program staff improves compliance, but may not overcome the need for learning through experience; 2) in keeping with arguments in favor of random assignment-based research, random assignment may control for diverse selection processes that would undermine valid treatment-control comparisons in some non-RCT research designs; and 3) in keeping with arguments against random assignment-based research, random assignment may lead to samples dissimilar to target populations. In concluding, the broader limitations of research that focus on a priori causes and quantifiable effects are noted. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/1098214010376532 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>eric_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_1098214010376532</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ950645</ericid><sage_id>10.1177_1098214010376532</sage_id><sourcerecordid>EJ950645</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c302t-8ecce98b91558fca1ca93560dcd11639671a4895292da9398be172528789d8f53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kD1PwzAQhi0EEqWwMzD4DwTunDq2x6qUUlQJUcEcGcdJXSVOZacD_x5HRQxITPfxvPfq7gi5RbhHFOIBQUmGM0DIRcFzdkYmyLnIQAp5nvKEs5FfkqsY9wDAlYAJeVvsdNta39hIta_oo2tt1-lInafr7pAK6wfnG7pNtO_oPEbX-LE5KpbV0ejB9V63dGuj1cHsrslFrdtob37ilHw8Ld8Xz9nmdbVezDeZyYENmbTGWCU_VdpS1kaj0SrnBVSmQixyVQjUM6k4U6xKJCktCsZZOkdVsub5lMDJ14Q-xmDr8hBcp8NXiVCOLyn_viSN3J1GbHDmV758URyK2eiYnXDUjS33_TGku-L_dt8ZEWlH</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Challenges and Dilemmas in Implementing Random Assignment in Educational Research</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Ong-Dean, Colin ; Huie Hofstetter, Carolyn ; Strick, Betsy R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Ong-Dean, Colin ; Huie Hofstetter, Carolyn ; Strick, Betsy R.</creatorcontrib><description>In the contentious debate over the use of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in education research, little attention has been given to how methodological issues arise and/or are resolved in the implementation of random assignment. Following a review of the methodological-theoretical literature on RCTs and alternative research designs, this article analyzes qualitative and quantitative data on three years of random assignment in a multi-site literacy intervention for adolescents. Practical lessons are drawn about how researcher practices and learning by school staff contributed to random assignment compliance. Consideration of challenges encountered in implementing random assignment suggests that 1) researcher communication with program staff improves compliance, but may not overcome the need for learning through experience; 2) in keeping with arguments in favor of random assignment-based research, random assignment may control for diverse selection processes that would undermine valid treatment-control comparisons in some non-RCT research designs; and 3) in keeping with arguments against random assignment-based research, random assignment may lead to samples dissimilar to target populations. In concluding, the broader limitations of research that focus on a priori causes and quantifiable effects are noted.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1098-2140</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1557-0878</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1098214010376532</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Assignments ; Compliance (Psychology) ; Data Analysis ; Educational Research ; Intervention ; Literacy ; Longitudinal Studies ; Participation ; Qualitative Research ; Research Design ; Research Methodology ; Researchers</subject><ispartof>The American journal of evaluation, 2011-03, Vol.32 (1), p.29-49</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c302t-8ecce98b91558fca1ca93560dcd11639671a4895292da9398be172528789d8f53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c302t-8ecce98b91558fca1ca93560dcd11639671a4895292da9398be172528789d8f53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1098214010376532$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1098214010376532$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,21800,27905,27906,43602,43603</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ950645$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ong-Dean, Colin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huie Hofstetter, Carolyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strick, Betsy R.</creatorcontrib><title>Challenges and Dilemmas in Implementing Random Assignment in Educational Research</title><title>The American journal of evaluation</title><description>In the contentious debate over the use of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in education research, little attention has been given to how methodological issues arise and/or are resolved in the implementation of random assignment. Following a review of the methodological-theoretical literature on RCTs and alternative research designs, this article analyzes qualitative and quantitative data on three years of random assignment in a multi-site literacy intervention for adolescents. Practical lessons are drawn about how researcher practices and learning by school staff contributed to random assignment compliance. Consideration of challenges encountered in implementing random assignment suggests that 1) researcher communication with program staff improves compliance, but may not overcome the need for learning through experience; 2) in keeping with arguments in favor of random assignment-based research, random assignment may control for diverse selection processes that would undermine valid treatment-control comparisons in some non-RCT research designs; and 3) in keeping with arguments against random assignment-based research, random assignment may lead to samples dissimilar to target populations. In concluding, the broader limitations of research that focus on a priori causes and quantifiable effects are noted.</description><subject>Assignments</subject><subject>Compliance (Psychology)</subject><subject>Data Analysis</subject><subject>Educational Research</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Literacy</subject><subject>Longitudinal Studies</subject><subject>Participation</subject><subject>Qualitative Research</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Research Methodology</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><issn>1098-2140</issn><issn>1557-0878</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kD1PwzAQhi0EEqWwMzD4DwTunDq2x6qUUlQJUcEcGcdJXSVOZacD_x5HRQxITPfxvPfq7gi5RbhHFOIBQUmGM0DIRcFzdkYmyLnIQAp5nvKEs5FfkqsY9wDAlYAJeVvsdNta39hIta_oo2tt1-lInafr7pAK6wfnG7pNtO_oPEbX-LE5KpbV0ejB9V63dGuj1cHsrslFrdtob37ilHw8Ld8Xz9nmdbVezDeZyYENmbTGWCU_VdpS1kaj0SrnBVSmQixyVQjUM6k4U6xKJCktCsZZOkdVsub5lMDJ14Q-xmDr8hBcp8NXiVCOLyn_viSN3J1GbHDmV758URyK2eiYnXDUjS33_TGku-L_dt8ZEWlH</recordid><startdate>201103</startdate><enddate>201103</enddate><creator>Ong-Dean, Colin</creator><creator>Huie Hofstetter, Carolyn</creator><creator>Strick, Betsy R.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201103</creationdate><title>Challenges and Dilemmas in Implementing Random Assignment in Educational Research</title><author>Ong-Dean, Colin ; Huie Hofstetter, Carolyn ; Strick, Betsy R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c302t-8ecce98b91558fca1ca93560dcd11639671a4895292da9398be172528789d8f53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Assignments</topic><topic>Compliance (Psychology)</topic><topic>Data Analysis</topic><topic>Educational Research</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Literacy</topic><topic>Longitudinal Studies</topic><topic>Participation</topic><topic>Qualitative Research</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Research Methodology</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ong-Dean, Colin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huie Hofstetter, Carolyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strick, Betsy R.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>The American journal of evaluation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ong-Dean, Colin</au><au>Huie Hofstetter, Carolyn</au><au>Strick, Betsy R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ950645</ericid><atitle>Challenges and Dilemmas in Implementing Random Assignment in Educational Research</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of evaluation</jtitle><date>2011-03</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>29</spage><epage>49</epage><pages>29-49</pages><issn>1098-2140</issn><eissn>1557-0878</eissn><abstract>In the contentious debate over the use of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in education research, little attention has been given to how methodological issues arise and/or are resolved in the implementation of random assignment. Following a review of the methodological-theoretical literature on RCTs and alternative research designs, this article analyzes qualitative and quantitative data on three years of random assignment in a multi-site literacy intervention for adolescents. Practical lessons are drawn about how researcher practices and learning by school staff contributed to random assignment compliance. Consideration of challenges encountered in implementing random assignment suggests that 1) researcher communication with program staff improves compliance, but may not overcome the need for learning through experience; 2) in keeping with arguments in favor of random assignment-based research, random assignment may control for diverse selection processes that would undermine valid treatment-control comparisons in some non-RCT research designs; and 3) in keeping with arguments against random assignment-based research, random assignment may lead to samples dissimilar to target populations. In concluding, the broader limitations of research that focus on a priori causes and quantifiable effects are noted.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/1098214010376532</doi><tpages>21</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1098-2140 |
ispartof | The American journal of evaluation, 2011-03, Vol.32 (1), p.29-49 |
issn | 1098-2140 1557-0878 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_1098214010376532 |
source | SAGE Complete A-Z List; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Assignments Compliance (Psychology) Data Analysis Educational Research Intervention Literacy Longitudinal Studies Participation Qualitative Research Research Design Research Methodology Researchers |
title | Challenges and Dilemmas in Implementing Random Assignment in Educational Research |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T11%3A47%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-eric_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Challenges%20and%20Dilemmas%20in%20Implementing%20Random%20Assignment%20in%20Educational%20Research&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20evaluation&rft.au=Ong-Dean,%20Colin&rft.date=2011-03&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=29&rft.epage=49&rft.pages=29-49&rft.issn=1098-2140&rft.eissn=1557-0878&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1098214010376532&rft_dat=%3Ceric_cross%3EEJ950645%3C/eric_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ950645&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1098214010376532&rfr_iscdi=true |