Richard Cabot, pair-matched random allocation, and the attempt to compare like with like in the social sciences and medicine. Part 1: the context of the social sciences

Welsh, Brandon C.; Podolsky, Scott H.; Zane, Steven N.

doi:10.1177/01410768211003771

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of the quantitative studies have been conducted in the context of medicine and public health. While this does not present a serious threat to the generalizability of findings across the fields of study under investigation here, it does call attention to the need for increased social science research (see Welsh et al, 2021), a point we return to below. Second, some may view our sole focus on the RCT as a limitation itself.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Is it Time for the Use of Pair-Matching in All Randomized Controlled Trials of Crime and Violence Prevention? A Review of the Research

Paterson,

Welsh

2023

CrimRxiv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pair-matching in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has received increased attention in criminology, the social sciences more generally, and medicine and public health, with a growing body of research demonstrating the design's benefits over "simple" RCTs. We carry out a review of matched-pair RCTs compared with simple RCTs to address a somewhat provocative yet fair question for evaluation research on crime and violence prevention interventions: Is it time for the use of pair-matching in all RCTs? At the heart of this question is the ability of the design to most efficiently and robustly compare like with like, thereby, improving confidence in observed effects of intervention trials. Several key findings emerge from the review. First, it is inadequate to examine or discuss RCTs as a single, uniform evaluation design. Here, the key organizing construct is the unit of allocation: individuals; groups of individuals (or clusters); and geographical places. Second, the advantages vastly outweigh the disadvantages for the use of matched-pair RCTs compared to simple RCTs, and most of the advantages hold for all three units of allocation. Third, pair-matching can be used with rather small samples (≥ 6 units) in cluster-based trials without compromising statistical power or degrees of freedom; less is known about individual-and place-based trials. Fourth, pair-matching cannot be used with some types of RCTs (e.g., cross-over) and is less amenable in other contexts (e.g., RCTs that enroll and randomize individuals on a rolling basis). Implications for evaluation research and public policy are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Is it Time for the Use of Pair-Matching in All Randomized Controlled Trials of Crime and Violence Prevention? A Review of the Research

Paterson,

Welsh

2023

CrimRxiv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here, units (people or places) are matched by pairs on a wide array of covariates and units of each pair are randomly allocated to the treatment and control conditions. Recent research identifies that this design was used as early as 1926 in medicine, and was first used in 1935 in the social sciences, specifically, criminology (Podolsky et al 2021;Welsh et al 2021). Within medicine, in 1926, James Burns Amberson and colleagues (1931) initiated a trial to investigate the efficacy of sanocrysin as a therapeutic for pulmonary tuberculosis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pair-Matching with Random Allocation in Prospective Controlled Trials: The Evolution of a Novel Design in Criminology and Medicine, 1926-2021

Welsh,

Podolsky,

Zane

2023

CrimRxiv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Pair-matching with random allocation in prospective controlled trials represents a novel and highly rigorous design. First use of the design can be traced to medicine (in 1926) and criminology and the social sciences more generally (in 1935). Beginning with these trials, we examine the subsequent history of matchedpair RCTs (randomized controlled trials), and related attention to stratification prior to randomization, in both criminology and medicine over almost a century to illustrate shared interest in the design's advantages and disadvantages. MethodsWe draw upon a wide range of historical and contemporary sources, including historical archives and writings on the first trials in criminology and medicine, prior reviews of RCTs and matched-pair RCTs, and searches of selected databases. ResultsThe first trials draw attention to key factors that remain central to contemporary use, including concerns about covariate imbalance when randomization is used on its own, potential to improve study power when matching is effective, and the ability to deal with differential attrition in follow-ups. The evolution of the design also shows that the single most important application of matched-pair RCTs is when the units are clusters or places. ConclusionsOver the 20th and 21st centuries, criminology and medicine have continued to wrestle with methodologies to most efficiently and robustly compare like with like. Both, in this setting, have turned to matched-pair randomization, though less often than its advocates would like. It is this and other shared interests between criminology/social sciences and medicine/public health, including a movement toward evidence-based policy and practice, that help us reimagine possibilities for advancing knowledge and improving public policy.

show abstract

Standing on the shoulders of pioneers in experimental criminology: the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study at 85 years (1935–2020) and beyond: the 2021 Joan McCord Award Lecture

Welsh

2021

J Exp Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Richard Cabot, pair-matched random allocation, and the attempt to compare like with like in the social sciences and medicine. Part 1: the context of the social sciences

Cited by 6 publications

References 35 publications

Is it Time for the Use of Pair-Matching in All Randomized Controlled Trials of Crime and Violence Prevention? A Review of the Research

Is it Time for the Use of Pair-Matching in All Randomized Controlled Trials of Crime and Violence Prevention? A Review of the Research

Pair-Matching with Random Allocation in Prospective Controlled Trials: The Evolution of a Novel Design in Criminology and Medicine, 1926-2021

Standing on the shoulders of pioneers in experimental criminology: the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study at 85 years (1935–2020) and beyond: the 2021 Joan McCord Award Lecture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About