The Case for Preregistering Quasi-Experimental Program and Policy Evaluations

Thomas Dee

Evaluation Review, 2025, vol. 49, issue 5, 931-945

Abstract: The recognition that researcher discretion coupled with unconscious biases and motivated reasoning sometimes leads to false findings (“p-hacking†) led to the broad embrace of study preregistration and other open-science practices in experimental research. Paradoxically, the preregistration of quasi-experimental studies remains uncommon although such studies involve far more discretionary decisions and are the most prevalent approach to making causal claims in the social sciences. I discuss several forms of recent empirical evidence indicating that questionable research practices contribute to the comparative unreliability of quasi-experimental research and advocate for adopting the preregistration of such studies. The implementation of this recommendation would benefit from further consideration of key design details (e.g., how to balance data cleaning with credible preregistration) and a shift in research norms to allow for appropriately nuanced sensemaking across prespecified, confirmatory results and other exploratory findings.

Keywords: design and evaluation of programs and policies; quasi-experimental design (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X251326738 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:evarev:v:49:y:2025:i:5:p:931-945

DOI: 10.1177/0193841X251326738

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Evaluation Review
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().