The use of client surveys to gouge the threat of contamination in welfare reform experiments
The use of client surveys to gouge the threat of contamination in welfare reform experiments
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/pam.10114
复制
发表时间：
2003-03-01
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Killingsworth, M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Camasso, MJ;Jagannathan, R;Killingsworth, M
本文考察了政策分析家用来确定福利改革实验中污染的存在和程度的证据类型。彼得·罗西对新泽西家庭发展计划评估的批评激发了下面的讨论。在这篇评论中，罗西和其他人认为，病人对实验对照组分配的不理解导致了污染，否定了报告的治疗效果。通过应用鲁宾因果模型（RCM）的框架，以隔离“纯”和“不纯”的实验和对照病例，实际组分配，而不是自我报告的成员被证明是一个更准确的衡量治疗水平和效果。分析表明，Rossi检测到的污染形式导致低估了处理效果，而不是它们的蒸发。虽然污染在任何研究设计中都是一种合理的威胁，但其识别必须基于经验措施。(C)2003年，公共政策分析与管理协会。
This paper examines the type of evidence policy analysts have used to identify the presence and magnitude of contamination in welfare reform experiments. Peter Rossi's critique of the New Jersey Family Development Program evaluation motivates the following discussion. In this critique Rossi and others contend that client inisperception about experimental control-group assignment resulted in contamination that negates reported treatment effectiveness. By applying the framework of the Rubin Causal Model (RCM) to isolate "Pure" and "impure" experimental and control cases, the actual group assignment and not self-reported membership is shown to be a more accurate gauge of treatment level and effect. The analysis reveals that the form of contamination Rossi detected leads to underestimates of treatment effects, not their evaporation. While contamination is a legitimate threat in any research design its identification must be based on empirical measures. (C) 2003 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.