Multisite Randomized Trials in Criminology
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Relatively few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in criminology and criminal justice; rarer still are multisite RCTs. Yet, as the field moves toward a more evidence-based perspective, we anticipate increases in the numbers of RCTs. The results of these trials will begin to identify efficacious interventions, and more sophisticated analyses will be required to identify interventions that accomplish the desired impact. Multisite RCTs provide a mechanism for increasing our understanding of what works for whom, and why, and in what environments. Multisite studies are independent randomized experiments undertaken in two or more sites where researchers involved in the study plan and collaborate across these sites (Boruch 1997; Kraemer, 2000; Weisburd and Taxman, 2000). Some of the reasons for conducting multisite studies involve the need to replicate findings from initial single-site studies, to gain a sample size large enough to obtain sufficient power, and to discern moderate to small effect sizes. In addition to outlining further the definitional criteria of a multisite RCT, both of these justifications for conducting a multisite study are discussed in detail.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Maintaining consistent treatment integrity across several sites is a challenge in experimental criminology.
“Maintaining consistent treatment integrity across several sites is a challenge in experimental criminology (see MacKenzie et al. 2013; de Brito 2017; Slothower et al. 2015; Weisburd and Taxman 2000).”
From Paradoxical effects of self-awareness of being observed: testing the effect of police body-worn cameras on assaults and aggression against officers (2018) · cites this paper as MacKenzie et al. 2013
Cites
Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Criminology · doi:10.1007/s11292-005-3541-7 · Cited by 850 · see citing works
Wolf, F. (1986) · doi:10.4135/9781412984980 · Cited by 784 · see citing works
The Effects of Behavioral/Cognitive-Behavioral Programs on Recidivism
Pearson, F. S., Lipton, D. S., Cleland, C. M., & Yee, D. S. (2002) · Crime & Delinquency · doi:10.1177/001112870204800306 · Cited by 314 · see citing works
Randomized experiments in criminology: what have we learned in the last two decades?
Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Criminology · doi:10.1007/s11292-004-6460-0 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., Megicks, S., & Henderson, R. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Criminology · doi:10.1007/s11292-017-9311-5 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
- Authors
- MacKenzie, D. L., Umamaheswar, J., & Lin, L.-C.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Venue
- Experimental Criminology
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2013-09-09
- Pages
- 163-193
- OpenAlex
- W2501739782
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2025: 18 · 2024: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 2.76
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Keywords
- criminology, criminal justice interventions, evidence-based policy, replication, sample size, statistical power, effect size, intervention efficacy, research design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review