Year: 2006
Type: editorial
Abstract: The debate about how to rigorously gauge the outcomes of policies, programs, and other initiatives continues to rage around the globe. One camp pushes the notion that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are always the preferred way to go, using scoring schemes such as the “Maryland Scale,” which yields a Scientific Methods Score that places RCTs at the top for rigor (Sherman et al., 1998). The other camp in the debate argues that methods should be matched to the situation.
Author: E. Jane Davidson
Institution: Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand
Language: English
Subfield: Public Administration
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W2586949192