Methodologically Based Discrepancies in Compensatory Education Evaluations

William M.K. Trochim
Additional contact information
William M.K. Trochim: Cornell University

Evaluation Review, 1982, vol. 6, issue 4, 443-480

Abstract: Meta-analysis of several hundred evaluations of Title I compensatory education programs shows that two distinct research designs consistently yield different results. The norm- referenced model portrays programs as positively effective while the regression-disconti nuity design shows them to be ineffective or even slightly harmful. Three potential biasing factors are discussed for each design—residual regression artifacts; attrition and time-of- testing problems in the norm-referenced design; and assignment, measurement, and data preparation problems in the regression-discontinuity design. In lieu of more definitive research the tentative conclusion is that in practice the norm-referenced design over estimates the program effect while the regression-discontinuity design underestimates it.

Date: 1982
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X8200600401 (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:6:y:1982:i:4:p:443-480

DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8200600401

Access Statistics for this article

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