{"title":"Designing Field Experiments to Integrate Research on Costs","authors":"A. B. Bowden","doi":"10.1177/23328584231171536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although experimental evaluations have been labeled the “gold standard” of evidence for policy (U.S. Department of Education, 2003), evaluations without an analysis of costs are not sufficient for policymaking (Monk, 1995; Ross et al., 2007). Funding organizations now require cost-effectiveness data in most evaluations of effects. Yet, there is little guidance on how to integrate research on costs into efficacy or effectiveness evaluations. As a result, research proposals and papers are disjointed in the treatment of costs, implementation, and effects, and studies often miss opportunities to integrate what is learned from the cost component into what is learned about effectiveness. To address this issue, this paper uses common evaluation frameworks to provide guidance for integrating research on costs into the design of field experiments building on the ingredients method (Levin et al., 2018). The goal is to improve study design, resulting in more cohesive, efficient, and higher-quality evaluations.","PeriodicalId":31132,"journal":{"name":"Aera Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aera Open","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584231171536","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Although experimental evaluations have been labeled the “gold standard” of evidence for policy (U.S. Department of Education, 2003), evaluations without an analysis of costs are not sufficient for policymaking (Monk, 1995; Ross et al., 2007). Funding organizations now require cost-effectiveness data in most evaluations of effects. Yet, there is little guidance on how to integrate research on costs into efficacy or effectiveness evaluations. As a result, research proposals and papers are disjointed in the treatment of costs, implementation, and effects, and studies often miss opportunities to integrate what is learned from the cost component into what is learned about effectiveness. To address this issue, this paper uses common evaluation frameworks to provide guidance for integrating research on costs into the design of field experiments building on the ingredients method (Levin et al., 2018). The goal is to improve study design, resulting in more cohesive, efficient, and higher-quality evaluations.
虽然实验评估被认为是政策证据的“黄金标准”(美国教育部,2003),但没有成本分析的评估对政策制定是不够的(Monk, 1995;Ross et al., 2007)。资助组织现在在大多数效果评估中需要成本效益数据。然而,关于如何将成本研究纳入功效或有效性评价的指导很少。因此,研究建议和论文在处理成本、实施和效果方面是脱节的,研究经常错过将从成本部分学到的知识整合到对有效性的了解中的机会。为了解决这一问题,本文使用通用评估框架为将成本研究整合到基于成分法的现场实验设计中提供指导(Levin et al., 2018)。目标是改进研究设计,从而产生更有凝聚力、更有效和更高质量的评估。