The Internal Validity of the School-Level Comparative Interrupted Time Series Design: Evidence From Four New Within-Study Comparisons

IF 1.7 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness Pub Date : 2022-04-15 DOI:10.1080/19345747.2022.2051652
Sam Sims, Jake Anders, Laura Zieger
{"title":"The Internal Validity of the School-Level Comparative Interrupted Time Series Design: Evidence From Four New Within-Study Comparisons","authors":"Sam Sims, Jake Anders, Laura Zieger","doi":"10.1080/19345747.2022.2051652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Comparative interrupted time series (CITS) designs evaluate impact by modeling the relative deviation from trends among a treatment and comparison group after an intervention. The broad applicability of the design means it is widely used in education research. Like all non-experimental evaluation methods however, the internal validity of a given CITS evaluation depends on assumptions that cannot be directly verified. We provide an empirical test of the internal validity of CITS by conducting four within-study comparisons of school-level interventions previously evaluated using randomized controlled trials. Our estimate of bias across these four studies is 0.03 school-level (or 0.01 pupil-level) standard deviations. The results suggest well-conducted CITS evaluations of similar school-level education interventions are likely to display limited bias.","PeriodicalId":47260,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness","volume":"15 1","pages":"876 - 897"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2022.2051652","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Abstract Comparative interrupted time series (CITS) designs evaluate impact by modeling the relative deviation from trends among a treatment and comparison group after an intervention. The broad applicability of the design means it is widely used in education research. Like all non-experimental evaluation methods however, the internal validity of a given CITS evaluation depends on assumptions that cannot be directly verified. We provide an empirical test of the internal validity of CITS by conducting four within-study comparisons of school-level interventions previously evaluated using randomized controlled trials. Our estimate of bias across these four studies is 0.03 school-level (or 0.01 pupil-level) standard deviations. The results suggest well-conducted CITS evaluations of similar school-level education interventions are likely to display limited bias.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学校层次比较中断时间序列设计的内部有效性——来自四个新的研究内比较的证据
摘要比较中断时间序列(CITS)设计通过建模干预后治疗组和对照组与趋势的相对偏差来评估影响。该设计的广泛适用性意味着它在教育研究中得到了广泛应用。然而,与所有非实验评估方法一样,给定CITS评估的内部有效性取决于无法直接验证的假设。我们通过对先前使用随机对照试验评估的学校层面干预措施进行四次研究内比较,对CITS的内部有效性进行了实证检验。我们对这四项研究的偏差估计为0.03学校水平(或0.01学生水平)的标准差。研究结果表明,CITS对类似学校层面的教育干预措施进行的良好评估可能显示出有限的偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness
Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
11.10%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: As the flagship publication for the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, the Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness (JREE) publishes original articles from the multidisciplinary community of researchers who are committed to applying principles of scientific inquiry to the study of educational problems. Articles published in JREE should advance our knowledge of factors important for educational success and/or improve our ability to conduct further disciplined studies of pressing educational problems. JREE welcomes manuscripts that fit into one of the following categories: (1) intervention, evaluation, and policy studies; (2) theory, contexts, and mechanisms; and (3) methodological studies. The first category includes studies that focus on process and implementation and seek to demonstrate causal claims in educational research. The second category includes meta-analyses and syntheses, descriptive studies that illuminate educational conditions and contexts, and studies that rigorously investigate education processes and mechanism. The third category includes studies that advance our understanding of theoretical and technical features of measurement and research design and describe advances in data analysis and data modeling. To establish a stronger connection between scientific evidence and educational practice, studies submitted to JREE should focus on pressing problems found in classrooms and schools. Studies that help advance our understanding and demonstrate effectiveness related to challenges in reading, mathematics education, and science education are especially welcome as are studies related to cognitive functions, social processes, organizational factors, and cultural features that mediate and/or moderate critical educational outcomes. On occasion, invited responses to JREE articles and rejoinders to those responses will be included in an issue.
期刊最新文献
Does Teacher Professional Development Improve Student Learning? Evidence from Leading Educators’ Fellowship Model Addressing Missing Data Due to COVID-19: Two Early Childhood Case Studies The Impact of Community Eligibility Provision on Multilingual Learner Outcomes Oceania in the Desert: A QuantCrit Analysis of the (Under)Counting of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Students at an AANAPISI-HSI Growth on 2019 State Achievement Tests: Empirical Benchmarks and the Role of Scale Choice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1