| 来源类型 | Publication |
| Comparing Impact Findings from Design-Based and Model-Based Methods: An Empirical Investigation | |
| Tim Kautz; Peter Z. Schochet; and Charles Tilley | |
| 发表日期 | 2017-07-31 |
| 出版者 | Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Analytic Technical Assistance and Development |
| 出版年 | 2017 |
| 语种 | 英语 |
| 概述 | This study investigates how much of a practical difference it makes to use design-based methods versus more conventional model-based methods. ", |
| 摘要 | This study investigates how much of a practical difference it makes to use design-based methods versus more conventional model-based methods. The study re-analyzes data from nine past education RCTs covering a wide range of evaluation designs. Impacts are estimated using design-based, HLM, and robust standard error methods. The study finds that the design- and model-based methods yield very similar impact estimates and levels of statistical significance, especially when the underlying analytic assumptions (such as the weights used to aggregate clusters and blocks) are aligned. Furthermore, the differences between the design- and model-based methods are no greater than the differences between the two considered model-based methods. |
| URL | https://www.mathematica.org/our-publications-and-findings/publications/comparing-impact-findings-from-design-based-and-model-based-methods-an-empirical-investigation |
| 来源智库 | Mathematica Policy Research (United States) |
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/488951 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Tim Kautz,Peter Z. Schochet,and Charles Tilley. Comparing Impact Findings from Design-Based and Model-Based Methods: An Empirical Investigation. 2017. |
| 条目包含的文件 | ||||||
| 文件名称/大小 | 资源类型 | 版本类型 | 开放类型 | 使用许可 | ||
| Design Model Based M（3032KB） | 智库出版物 | 限制开放 | CC BY-NC-SA | 浏览 | ||
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
