Random encouragement designs evaluate treatments that aim to increase participation in a program or activity. These randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can also assess the mediated effects of participation itself on longer term outcomes using a complier average causal effect (CACE) estimation framework. This article considers power analysis…

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are commonly used to evaluate the causal effects of educational interventions, where the entire clusters (e.g., schools) are randomly assigned to treatment or control conditions. This study introduces statistical methods for designing and analyzing two-level (e.g., students nested within schools) and three-level…

Random encouragement designs are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that test interventions aimed at increasing participation in a program or activity whose take up is not universal. In these RCTs, instead of randomizing individuals or clusters directly into treatment and control groups to participate in a program or activity, the randomization…

Cluster randomized control trials often incorporate a longitudinal component where, for example, students are followed over time and student outcomes are measured repeatedly. Besides examining how intervention effects induce changes in outcomes, researchers are sometimes also interested in exploring whether intervention effects on outcomes are…

Purpose: Individual-randomized trials are the gold standard for testing the efficacy and effectiveness of drugs, devices, and behavioral interventions. Health care delivery, educational, and programmatic interventions are often complex, involving multiple levels of change and measurement precluding individual randomization for testing.…

Evaluators of education interventions are increasingly designing studies to detect impacts much smaller than the 0.20 standard deviations that Cohen characterized as "small." While the need to detect smaller impacts is based on compelling arguments that such impacts are substantively meaningful, the drive to detect smaller impacts may…

Evaluators of education interventions increasingly need to design studies to detect impacts much smaller than the 0.20 standard deviations that Cohen (1988) characterized as "small." For example, an evaluation of Response to Intervention from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) detected impacts ranging from 0.13 to 0.17 standard…

Data from cluster randomized trials do not always have a pure hierarchical structure. For instance, students are nested within schools that may be crossed by neighborhoods, and soldiers are nested within army units that may be crossed by mental health-care professionals. It is important that the random cross-classification is taken into account…

Underlying all What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) products are WWC Study Review Guides, which are intended for use by WWC certified reviewers to assess studies against the WWC evidence standards. As part of an ongoing effort to increase transparency, promote collaboration, and encourage widespread use of the WWC standards, the Institute of Education…

The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) is an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which was established under the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. It is an important part of IES's strategy to use rigorous and relevant research, evaluation, and statistics to improve the nation's education system.…

Background: The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) is an independent charity that was established in 2011 with the explicit aim of breaking the link between family income and educational achievement in England. Over the seven years since its inception, EEF has contributed to the existing evidence base by funding over one hundred randomised…

This document provides step-by-step instructions on how to complete the Study Review Guide (SRG, Version S3, V2) for single-case designs (SCDs). Reviewers will complete an SRG for every What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) review. A completed SRG should be a reviewer's independent assessment of the study, relative to the criteria specified in the review…

Most evaluators have embraced the goal of evidence-based practice (EBP). Yet, many have criticized EBP review systems that prioritize randomized control trials and use various criteria to limit the studies examined. They suggest this could produce policy recommendations based on small, unrepresentative segments of the literature and recommend a…

The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) systematic review process is the basis of many of its products, enabling the WWC to use consistent, objective, and transparent standards and procedures in its reviews, while also ensuring comprehensive coverage of the relevant literature. The WWC systematic review process consists of five steps: (1) Developing…

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are rarely used to evaluate social and behavioral interventions designed for releasing prisoners. Objective: We use a pilot RCT of a social support intervention (Support Matters) as a case example to discuss obstacles and strategies for conducting RCT intervention evaluations that span prison and community…