The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weisburd, D.
Right arrow Articles by Yang, S.-M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 587, No. 1, 31-48 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0002716202250782

When Can We Conclude That Treatments or Programs "Don’t Work"?

David Weisburd, ,

Cynthia M. Lum, ,

Sue-Ming Yang, ,

In this article, the authors examine common practices of reporting statistically nonsignificant findings in criminal justice evaluation studies. They find that criminal justice evaluators often make formal errors in the reporting of statistically nonsignificant results. Instead of simply concluding that the results were not statistically significant, or that there is not enough evidence to support an effect of treatment, they often mistakenly accept the null hypothesis and state that the intervention had no impact or did not work. The authors propose that researchers define a second null hypothesis that sets a minimal threshold for program effectiveness. In an illustration of this approach, they find that more than half of the studies that had no statistically significant finding for a traditional, no difference null hypothesis evidenced a statistically significant result in the case of a minimal worthwhile treatment effect null hypothesis.

Key Words: what works • null hypothesis significance testing • effect sizes • statistical significance • statistical power


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 American Behavioral ScientistHome page
L. W. Sherman and H. Strang
Verdicts or Inventions?: Interpreting Results from Randomized Controlled Experiments in Criminology
American Behavioral Scientist, January 1, 2004; 47(5): 575 - 607.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social ScienceHome page
F. Losel and A. Beelmann
Effects of Child Skills Training in Preventing Antisocial Behavior: A Systematic Review of Randomized Evaluations
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1, 2003; 587(1): 84 - 109.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social ScienceHome page
A. Petrosino
Standards for Evidence and Evidence for Standards: The Case of School-Based Drug Prevention
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1, 2003; 587(1): 180 - 207.
[Abstract] [PDF]