Using Multisite Experiments to Study Cross-Site Variation in Treatment Effects: A Hybrid Approach With Fixed Intercepts and a Random Treatment Coefficient
Abstract
The present article considers a fundamental question in evaluation research: “By how much do program effects vary across sites?” The article first presents a theoretical model of cross-site impact variation and a related estimation model with a random treatment coefficient and fixed site-specific intercepts. This approach eliminates several biases that can arise from unbalanced sample designs for multisite randomized trials. The article then describes how the approach operates, explores its assumptions, and applies the approach to data from three large welfare-to-work trials. The article also illustrates how to report cross-site impact findings and presents diagnostics for assessing these findings. To keep the article manageable, it focuses on experimental estimates of effects of program assignment (effects of intent to treat), although the ideas presented can be extended to analyses of multisite quasi-experiments and experimental estimates of effects of program participation (complier average causal effects).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Parametric empirical Bayes inference: theory and applications
Morris, C. N. (1983) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1983.10477920 · Cited by 1,448 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Aversion to such a forced choice might lead a researcher toward a composite estimator that is superior to either the site-specific estimator or the cross-site mean estimator alone, which is what Bayes theorem can provide (Lindley & Smith, 1972; see review by Morris, 1983).”
The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis
Hedges, L. V., & Pigott, T. D. (2001) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.6.3.203 · Cited by 716 · cited 2× · see citing works
“As demonstrated later, it is essential to use a method that distinguishes between these two sources of variation in order to estimate t2B (e.g., see Hedges & Pigott, 2001).”
Empirical bayes meta-analysis.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (1985) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986010002075 · Cited by 299 · see citing works
Self-citationStatistical power for random assignment evaluations of education programs
Schochet, P. Z. (2008) · Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · doi:10.3102/1076998607302714 · Cited by 216 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement
Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., Tipton, E., Schneider, B., Hulleman, C. S., Hinojosa, C. P., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y · Cited by 1,513 · see citing works
Where and with whom does a brief social-belonging intervention promote progress in college?
Walton, G. M., Murphy, M. C., Logel, C., Yeager, D. S., Goyer, J. P., Brady, S. T., Emerson, K. T. U., Paunesku, D., Fotuhi, O., Blodorn, A., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.ade4420 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bloom, H. S., Raudenbush, S. W., Weiss, M. J., & Porter, K.
- Affiliations
- Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (US)
- University of Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bloom, Howard S.
- ORCID
- Weiss, Michael J.
- Venue
- Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-12-29
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 817-842
- ISSN
- 1934-5739 (ISSN-L)
- 1934-5747
- OpenAlex
- W2561603416
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 4.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- workfare, evaluation research
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