personal/nunosempere.github.io
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update 1-Current-Evidence.md

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Nuño Sempere 2018-10-14 20:23:25 +02:00 committed by GitHub
parent 5e6aea62bf
commit d1d8deccbf
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 4 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

5
ESPR-Evaluation/1-Current-Evidence.md
View File

@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
# On a possile RCT for ESPR. # On an RCT for ESPR.
## Introduction ## Introduction
@ -20,6 +20,9 @@ The first study notes that a control group would be a difficult thing to impleme
But I feel like that is only partially sufficient. The magnitude of the effect found could be wildly overestimated; MIT's Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab provides the following slides [1]: But I feel like that is only partially sufficient. The magnitude of the effect found could be wildly overestimated; MIT's Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab provides the following slides [1]:
![](https://nunosempere.github.io/ESPR-Evaluation/Pre-post-1.jpg)
![](https://nunosempere.github.io/ESPR-Evaluation/Pre-post-2.jpg)
I find them scary; depending on the method used to test your effect, a simple pre-post comparison can get an effect size that is 4-5 times as great, or about as great, in the other direction. The effects the study finds, f.ex. the one most prominently displayed in CFAR's webpage, an increased life satisfaction of 0.17 standard deviations (i.e., going from 50 to 56.75%) are small enough I find them scary; depending on the method used to test your effect, a simple pre-post comparison can get an effect size that is 4-5 times as great, or about as great, in the other direction. The effects the study finds, f.ex. the one most prominently displayed in CFAR's webpage, an increased life satisfaction of 0.17 standard deviations (i.e., going from 50 to 56.75%) are small enough
Thus, I feel that an RCT could be delayed on the strength of the evidence that CFAR currently has, including its logical model (see below), but not indefinitely. In particular, if CFAR had plans for more ambitious expansion, it would be a good idea to run an RCT before. If MIT's JPAL, didn't specialize on poverty interventions, I would suggest teaming up with them, and it seems like a good idea to try anyways. JPAL would provide strategies like the following: we can randomly admit people for either this year or the next, and take as the control the group which has been left waiting. It is not clear to me why this hasn't been done yet. Thus, I feel that an RCT could be delayed on the strength of the evidence that CFAR currently has, including its logical model (see below), but not indefinitely. In particular, if CFAR had plans for more ambitious expansion, it would be a good idea to run an RCT before. If MIT's JPAL, didn't specialize on poverty interventions, I would suggest teaming up with them, and it seems like a good idea to try anyways. JPAL would provide strategies like the following: we can randomly admit people for either this year or the next, and take as the control the group which has been left waiting. It is not clear to me why this hasn't been done yet.