Designing and Analyzing Studies That Randomize Schools to Estimate Intervention Effects on Student Academic Outcomes Without Classroom-Level Information

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 45-68

  Zhu, Pei ^a   Jacob, Robin ^b   Bloom, Howard ^a   Xu, Zeyu ^c  

^a MDRC ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

evaluation research; group randomized experiment; multi level model

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863152603     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: 19351062     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0162373711423786     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Evaluation of the School Breakfast Program Pilot Project: Final report. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation; 2005:.
2. Bloom H.S.Randomizing groups to evaluate place-based programs. Learning more from social experiments: Evolving analytic approaches. Bloom H.S., ed. New York: Russell Sage; 2005:115-172.
3. Bloom H. S.,Richburg-Hayes L.,Black A.Using covariates to improve precision for studies that randomize schools to evaluate educational interventions.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2007;29:30-59.
4. Cheong Y. F.,Fotiu R. P.,Raudenbush S. W.Efficiency and robustness of alternative estimators for two and three-level models: The case of NAEP.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 2001;26 (4): 411-429.
5. Gamse B. C.,Bloom H. S.,Kemple J. J.,Jacob R. T.Reading First Impact Study: Interim report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2008:.
6. Hedges L. V.,Hedberg E. C.Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2007;29 (1): 60-87.
7. Moerbeek M.The consequence of ignoring a level of nesting in multilevel analysis.Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2004;39:129-149.
8. Opdenakker M. C.,Van Damme J.The importance of identifying levels in multilevel analysis: An illustration of the effects of ignoring the top or intermediate levels in school effectiveness research.School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2000;11:103-130.
9. Tranmer M.,Steele D. G.Ignoring a level in a multilevel model: Evidence from UK census data.Environment and Planning A. 2001;33 (5): 941-948.
10. Van Landeghem G.,De Fraine B.,Van Damme J.The consequence of ignoring a level of nesting in multilevel analysis: A comment.Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2005;40:423-434.
11. Van den Noortgate W.,Opdenakker M. C.,Onghena P.The effects of ignoring a level in multilevel analysis.School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2005;16:281-303.
12. Wooldridge J. M.Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2002:.