RESUMEN
Multi-site randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide unbiased estimates of the average impact in the study sample. However, their ability to accurately predict the impact for individual sites outside the study sample, to inform local policy decisions, is largely unknown. To extend prior research on this question, we analyzed six multi-site RCTs and tested modern prediction methods-lasso regression and Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART)-using a wide range of moderator variables. The main study findings are that: (1) all of the methods yielded accurate impact predictions when the variation in impacts across sites was close to zero (as expected); (2) none of the methods yielded accurate impact predictions when the variation in impacts across sites was substantial; and (3) BART typically produced "less inaccurate" predictions than lasso regression or than the Sample Average Treatment Effect. These results raise concerns that when the impact of an intervention varies considerably across sites, statistical modelling using the data commonly collected by multi-site RCTs will be insufficient to explain the variation in impacts across sites and accurately predict impacts for individual sites.
RESUMEN
Given increasing interest in evidence-based policy, there is growing attention to how well the results from rigorous program evaluations may inform policy decisions. However, little attention has been paid to documenting the characteristics of schools or districts that participate in rigorous educational evaluations, and how they compare to potential target populations for the interventions that were evaluated. Utilizing a list of the actual districts that participated in 11 large-scale rigorous educational evaluations, we compare those districts to several different target populations of districts that could potentially be affected by policy decisions regarding the interventions under study. We find that school districts that participated in the 11 rigorous educational evaluations differ from the interventions' target populations in several ways, including size, student performance on state assessments, and location (urban/rural). These findings raise questions about whether, as currently implemented, the results from rigorous impact studies in education are likely to generalize to the larger set of school districts-and thus schools and students-of potential interest to policymakers, and how we can improve our study designs to retain strong internal validity while also enhancing external validity.
RESUMEN
Evaluations of the impact of social programs are often carried out in multiple "sites," such as school districts, housing authorities, local TANF offices, or One-Stop Career Centers. Most evaluations select sites purposively following a process that is nonrandom. Unfortunately, purposive site selection can produce a sample of sites that is not representative of the population of interest for the program. In this paper, we propose a conceptual model of purposive site selection. We begin with the proposition that a purposive sample of sites can usefully be conceptualized as a random sample of sites from some well-defined population, for which the sampling probabilities are unknown and vary across sites. This proposition allows us to derive a formal, yet intuitive, mathematical expression for the bias in the pooled impact estimate when sites are selected purposively. This formula helps us to better understand the consequences of selecting sites purposively, and the factors that contribute to the bias. Additional research is needed to obtain evidence on how large the bias tends to be in actual studies that select sites purposively, and to develop methods to increase the external validity of these studies.