The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using case studies to explore the external validity of ‘complex’ development interventions
Abstract
Rising standards for accurately inferring the impact of development projects has not been matched by equivalently rigorous procedures for guiding decisions about whether and how similar results might be expected elsewhere. These ‘external validity’ concerns are especially pressing for ‘complex’ development interventions, in which the explicit purpose is often to adapt projects to local contextual realities and where high quality implementation is paramount to success. A basic analytical framework is provided for assessing the external validity of complex development interventions. It argues for deploying case studies to better identify the conditions under which diverse outcomes are observed, focusing in particular on the salience of contextual idiosyncrasies, implementation capabilities and trajectories of change. Upholding the canonical methodological principle that questions should guide methods, not vice versa, is required if a truly rigorous basis for generalizing claims about likely impact across time, groups, contexts and scales of operation is to be discerned for different kinds of development interventions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The weirdest people in the world?
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0999152x · Cited by 12,641
External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”
Rothwell, P. M. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17670-8 · Cited by 2,544
Pawson, R. (2006) · doi:10.4135/9781849209120 · Cited by 1,791
Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation
Lamont, M. (2012) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120022 · Cited by 1,492
Remedying Education: Evidence from Two Randomized Experiments in India
Banerjee, A. V., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2007) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1235 · Cited by 1,398
A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences
Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012) · Princeton University Press · doi:10.23943/princeton/9780691149707.001.0001 · Cited by 833
Broadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluations
Stern, E., Stame, N., Mayne, J., Forss, K., Davies, R., & Befani, B. (2012) · doi:10.22163/fteval.2012.100 · Cited by 369
Baird, S., Ferreira, F. H. G., Özler, B., & Woolcock, M. (2013) · Campbell Systematic Reviews: Better Evidence for a Better World · doi:10.4073/csr.2013.8 · Cited by 359
Self-citation
Cited by
Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say?
Fox, J. A. (2015) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.011 · Cited by 803
Developing a Conceptual Framework for Comparing Social Value Creation
Kroeger, A., & Weber, C. (2014) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0344 · Cited by 371
Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework
Reed, M. S., Ferré, M., Martin-Ortega, J., Blanche, R., Lawford-Rolfe, R., Dallimer, M., & Holden, J. (2021) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2020.104147 · Cited by 319
Case study research for better evaluations of complex interventions: rationale and challenges
Paparini, S., Green, J., Papoutsi, C., Murdoch, J., Petticrew, M., Greenhalgh, T., Hanckel, B., & Shaw, S. (2020) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-020-01777-6 · Cited by 175
Haque, S. S., & Freeman, M. C. (2021) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp7762 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Woolcock, M.
- Venue
- Evaluation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 229-248
- ISSN
- 1356-3890 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7153
- OpenAlex
- W2162839664
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 15.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using case studies to explore the external validity of ‘complex’ development interventions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1356389013495210
- The paper
- Woolcock, M. (2013). Using case studies to explore the external validity of ‘complex’ development interventions. Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013495210
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
