2010
DOI: 10.1007/s11292-010-9102-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lessons learned from the implementation of two randomized trials in a criminal court setting

Abstract: Randomized trials represent the most rigorous type of research design to measure the impact of a social policy intervention. However, such designs are difficult to implement and require the consent of multiple parties, including researchers and nonresearchers. Unique challenges arise when seeking to implement such a design in a criminal court setting, due to the need to revise legal procedures, uphold due process for defendants, and obtain the direct, ongoing participation of judges and attorneys, among other … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 22 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Optimal experimental designs, randomly allocating participants to treatment and control groups (RCTs), pose practical and ethical reasons, even being overruled by judges (e.g. Labriola et al, 2010). Examining experimental DV program evaluations, Gondolf (2010) found serious attrition, difficulties obtaining outcome measures, as well as disruptions to random assignment.…”
Section: Problems With Previous Evaluations Of DV Programsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Optimal experimental designs, randomly allocating participants to treatment and control groups (RCTs), pose practical and ethical reasons, even being overruled by judges (e.g. Labriola et al, 2010). Examining experimental DV program evaluations, Gondolf (2010) found serious attrition, difficulties obtaining outcome measures, as well as disruptions to random assignment.…”
Section: Problems With Previous Evaluations Of DV Programsmentioning
confidence: 99%