Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 257

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Experiments in Educational Policy Research: A Critical Examination of the Reasons the Educational Evaluation Community has Offered for not Doing Them

Cook, Thomas D.·2002·Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
DOI 10.3102/01623737024003175
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article notes the paucity with which reform efforts in education have been evaluated experimentally, despite well-nigh universal acknowledgement that experiments provide the best justification for causal conclusions. And of the few experiments that have been completed, most were done by groups outside of the community of educational evaluators working in schools and colleges of education. The reasons educational evaluators cite for not doing experiments are critically appraised. Some are shown to be wrong or over-generalized; and others point to the need for future experiments that depend more heavily on program theory and the assessment of implementation and other intervening processes. The alternatives to experiments that educational evaluators prefer are briefly appraised and found wanting whenever a high standard is needed for justifying causal conclusions.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/01623737024003175

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 9 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Cook, T. D.
Venue
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
Publisher
American Educational Research Association (AERA)
Published
2002-09
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
175-199
ISSN
  • 0162-3737 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-1062
DOI
10.3102/01623737024003175
OpenAlex
W2045982250
Cited by
257
References
9
FWCI
15.16
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

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.